The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-06 00:00:00

was created, nor any gas evolved, which was in any
wee. injurious or prejudicial to health. The place
wherej the factory was situated was thinly popula'ed,
and the nearest l:ouse was sixty yards from the boil-
ing-house, and it was proved that the people in the
immediate neighbourhood were all healthy. The
mode of conducting the business was, that bones were
bought of the various butchers in the neighbouring
towns, collected together, broken up, and then boiled
in the large boilers. The fat was then skimmed off,
after which the liquor left was run into a tank for
liquid manure, and the bones were taken out and
afterwards ground for bone manure. The process of
boiling was represented not to cause any noisome or
even unpleasant smell, and the witnesses represented
it as " like the smell of a gentleman's kitchen ;"
" not offensive at all ;" "caused no injury to health,
but was really beneficial." One witness " liked the
smell—it was healthy." Another, " like boiled beef."
Mr. Wood, a chemist in London, was called, who
gave it as his opinion that the small portions of hy-
dro-sulphuric acid and ammonia which were evolved
from the bones in the process, were not injurious to
the health of the neighbourhood. He, had examined
the premises when the boiling was in operation, and
said "he had smelt worse smells at a public dinner."
A surgeon was celled, who stated that the smell
cau,ed by the process of manufacture was not pleasant,
but was not calculated to injure life.
For the defendants, it was contended that they had
only acted as they were bound to do at a time when
the cholera was raging close to the spot in question,
and that they were perfectly justified in all they had
done, as they were only parochial officers acting un-
der the order of the justices in removing what had
been adjudged by the order to be offal, filth, and re
fuse accumulated on the premises, so as to be inju-
rious to life. It was also contended that the justices
were right in their decision ; and numerous witnesses
were called, who described that at the time in
question the stench proceeding from the boiling-
house was awful, and frequently made passers-
by sick ; that the bones were brought to the
boiling-house in a dreadful state of decom-
position, covered with maggots ; the stench from the
cask in which the liquor was found was also de-
scribed to be very bad. Several medical men were
called, who proved that the gasses evolved by de-
composing animal matter were highly offensive to
the smell and injurious to human life, wherever it
extended, and that cholera was likely to be extremely
mortal where such exhalations existed ; and that after
having heard the evidence they should not, have hesi-
tated in having ordered the removal of the boiling-
house.
Mr. Justice ELME, in summing up the ease to the
jury, left three questions to them—first, Whether in
fact the contents of the copper, which was removed
by the defendants on the 12th of September, were
identically the same as that contained in it on the 4;h
of September, when the complaint to the justices was
made. Secondly, Was the cause of complaint arising
from the bone-boiling on the 12th substantially the
same in character and degree as that on the 4th.
Thirdly, Were the contents of the copper, offal, filth,
and refuse so kept as to be a nuisance, injurious to
the health of persons living in the neighbourhood.
On the first question it had been contended, that to
justify the removal of the bones, &c., under the order
of the justices, the matter removed must be shown
to be the identical matter which was the matter of
complaint on the 4th of September. The Learned
Judge stated, that he should leave the question
to them, to prevent the case from coming down
again ; but that he should hold that it was
not necessary to the justification, that it
should be the identical matter if it were
of the same character, and he likened the case to one
of a nuisance produced by accumulations of sewage,
brought daily, and removed the next day. If this
were not so, the order of the justices must in all
cases be a nullity, and there would be no way of
abating the continuing nuisances of that kind. As
to the fact, of course there was really no question, as
the contents of the boiler were changed daily. Teen,
as to the second question, he expressed his opinion
that the matters authorised to be removed must be
such as were of the same character and effect, kind,
and degree, as those in the boiling copper on the 4'h
of September, when the magistrates adjudged it to
be fikth, offal, and refuse, within the Act. If so, be
held that the nuisance was of a continuing nature,
and the defendants were justified, as parochial offi-
cers, acting under the order of the justices. As to
the third question, the Learned Judge stated that in
his opinion it was an immaterial matter to the case ;
but as the issue caused on the pleadings was in some
degree ambiguous, he thought it best to put it to the
jury ; and if it were material, he thought they ought
not to find it in the affirmative, unless they thought
that the boiling in question was in the usual course of
the business a substantial detriment to the health of
the neighbourhood. It was not necessary to show an
actual injury to health, if the effluvia was of such a
character as that in the natural course of events it
would be injurious to health.
The jury, after an absence of some time, returned
and an;wered all the three questions in the negative.

Mr. Justice ER LE then directed the verdict-to be
entered fir the plaintiff on all the issues, damages 151.
This cafe, which created the greatest interest, corn-
menced yesterday morning at ten o'clock, and was
not concluded until two o'clock to-day, although
Mr. Justice Erle sat until half-past twelve last
night.
olio WN COURT.—( Before Mr. Justice TALFOURD).
. - .

Edward Charles PAilps was indicted for the man-
slaughter of Richard Thomas Ewell, on the 15th of
September, at Ryde, in the Isle of Wight-.
Mr. Poulden and Mr. Cooke appeared for the
prosecution ; and the prisoner was defended by Mr.
\Vise.

The principal evidence consisted of the deposition
and dying declarations of the deceased, from which
it appeared that about half-past eleven in the evening
of September 15, on his way home, he saw the wife
of the prisoner outside a public house called the
Thatched House, and, upon her asking him to give
her some gin, he complied with her request, and sent
her into the public-house with his son, who paid for
it. When she came out she asked Farrell to go up
the street with her, as she was afraid the police would
fall in with her. The deceased agreed, and they went
on towards a house called St. Peter's, where it ap-
peared Mrs. Philps's mother then lived, to take care
of it. Instead of going to the front door, they went
through an underground passage into an area. Just
as they were leaving the passage the prisoner rushed
out upon them. Farrell -said, " Ned, there's no-
thiag amiss between me and your wife." The psi
souer then struck Farrell a most violent blow, which
rendered him insensible. About half-past two the
mother of the prisoner's wife called up Saunders,
a chairman, living near St. Peter's-house, and
brought him to the house with his chair. He
then found Farrell in a knife-house in the area,
lying down and in a dreadful state. A great
deal of blood was seen in the area, but in a posi-
tion that a person falling from the arch above which
led to the front door might have lain in. The
prisoner was with Farrell, and he was moved into
the chair. He was then taken home by the prisoner
and Saunders, and Dr. Barrow was Sent for. Oa ex-
amination, there was a severe wound found on the
back of the head, and the whole of the body from the
chin downwards was paralysed. Dr. Barrow said
the deceased had evidently been drinking. Ile lin-
gered until September 2.5, when he died ; and upon a
post mortem examination, it was found that there was
a displacement of the fourth and fifth bones of the
neck, and a pressure upon the spinal cord, which had
caused the death. Dr. Barrow stated that although
both the wound and the injury might have been
caused by a fall from the height, such as the arch
before mentioned, in his opinion the wound was in-
flicted by a blow or kick. The deceased and the
prisoner had always been on intimate terms, and
on several occasions the prisoner had stated that
the deceased had fallen down, and adhered to his
statement.

Mr. Wise addressed the jury for the prisoner, and
urged that the injury was the result of accident, and
that the deceased had fallen from the arch into the
area. He contended that the deceased, having re-
ceived so severe an injury when he had been drinking
a good deal, could not give an account which could
be relied on. He further powerfully urged, even if
the statement was to be believed, that it showed the
prisoner bad committed the
violence under the
strongest provocation from jealousy ; for the deceased
being with his wife at such a time and place must
have appeared to him uanca.tcicnoguunpta.bnlet,heaxt cheapitie7,phoenhoande
been unable taonrdesthtraatin his natural and just anger.
Mr. Justice TALFOURD summed up the case with
great care, and the jury having retired for art hour
and a half; returned a verdict of Guilty, but recom-
mended the prisoner to mercy. Ills Lordship said he
entirely agreed with the verdict and the erecommenda-
don, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.