The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-15 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

C. Watson and J. Bell, jewellers, York—T. Earle and J.
Pearce, contractors, Holley, Surrey—P. Rogers and W. W.
Box, surgeons, East Looe, Cornwall—F. Cross and T. G
Bond, attorneys-at-law, Credlton, Devonshire—S. Hadfield
and J. Helme, jun., file manufacturers, Manchester—G. At-
kinson, J. Hozier, and C. MacGregor, merchants, Kings Con,
Jamaica—Chamberlain and Co., porcelain manufacturers,
Worcester—J. Thompson, sen., and J. Thompson, jun.,
bricklayers, Scarborough, Yorkshire—C. A. Beetenson and
J. G. Wilson, surgeons, Wem, Shropshire--T. Scott and W.
Abson, joiners, Wakefield, Yorkshire—W. Hutchison and J.
Morton, statuaries, Southampton-street, Strand—G. and A.
Smith, flag spinners, Leeds—R. and T. Huskinson, boatmen,
Gunthorpe, Nottinghamshire—F. Lees and J. Porter, lace ma-
nufacturers, Carrington, Nottinghamshire—J. Bettelley and
B. Higgs, ironmongers, Liverpool—J. Preston and W. White-
ley, cotton manufactuaers, Colne, Lancashire—l. Barber and
E. Brookes, cutlers, Sheffield—M. Harrison'
sen., and W. Har-
rison, jun., drapers, Belper, Yorkshire—A. and W. Ryder,
eurriers, Wakefield, Yorkshire—J. and R. Johnson, silk
throwsters, Gutter-lane, Cheapside.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.

JAMES JACKSON, brazier, Glasgow, May 16 and June
4, at eleven, at W. Stimpson's, Globe Inn, Glasgow.

COURT OF SEWERS.

A special meeting of the Court of Sewers for the city
and liberty of Westminster and part of the county of
Middlesex, was held yesterday at the Sewers'-office,
Greek-street, Soho, for the purpose of instituting an
inquiry into the facts connected with the failure of about
820 feet of the new main line of the Ranelagh sewer, in
Gloucester-road, Paddington.
T. L. Donaldson, Esq., took the chair at 12 o'clock.
On a previous Court day the following report had been
presented to the Court by the surveyors :
"We have to report that, upon examination of the
Ranelagh main line of sewer in the Gloucester-ioad,
Bayswater, we found the arch to be fractured in several
portions of its length from Grand Junction-street to be-
yond Conduit-street, a distance altogether of about
820 feet. • •

" We are not at present prepared to give a definite
opinion as to thi,cause oithis failure, but it would ap •
pear to us from the accompanying sections that the
crown of the arch has been loaded to a great extent by
the earth from the adjoining vaults and the material ne-
cessary for raising the roadway to its present level, and
that the natural subsidence of this newly made ground
has had the effect of forcing back the springing walls
from their originally vertical position. By a reference
to the drawing it will be seen that this pressure has been
in every instance outwards. It is also probable that
much of the weakness of the side walls may be attri-
buted to the disturbance of the ground behind them,
consequent upon the building of the collateral sewers at
their intersections near Conduit-street, Brook-street,
and Gloucester Mews.

" At present we are scarcely in a; position to state the
exact extent that it will be necessary to repair the
sewer, but from Conduit-street, southwards, for a length
of about 200 feet, and from Brook-street for about 150
feet south of the church, it would appear to require the
most immediate attention ; we would add that whatever
reparation may be considered necessary will only apply
to the arch and a portion of the abutment walls, and the
expense would be materially reduced if the Court would
sanction the re-using of the present materials, which
appear to be perfectly sound and available.
" On the acompanying drawings are given a longitu-
dinal section of the sower with the present and original
levels of the ground, likewise cross sections showing the
positions of the adjacent vaults, those portions the most
defective, and the extent of deviation from the ori-
ginal form.

" JOHN DOWLEY, Surveyor.
IVILLIAM DOULL, Assistant ditto.
" GEORGE HAWKINS, Ditto.

Yesterday the surveyors presented a further report, in
which they pointed out the different parts in the sewer
that had been effected by the occurrences that had taken
place, and recommended their reparation.
Mr. LESLIE said that the last report was at variance
with former ones; he wished to know from Mr. Bell
whether any complaints had been made of the works
during their progress?
Mr. BELL said that he had no recollection of any
statement being made of the badness of the works during
their progress. He had no recollection of the Chairman
stating that they were so badly constructed that they
must be taken down.
Mr. LESLIE said that the time had now arrived when

it became the Court seriously to deliberate what course
they should pursue. This was a matter of most serious
and grave character. 3,4001. had been spent in building
a sewer, with respect to which each Commissioner re-
ceived a communication, stating that, of that sewer,
which was 1,200 feet in length, 820 feet were a total

failure. The course that struck him (Mr. Leslie) as the
best to pursue, and by the adoption of which the public
interests would be best served, would be to follow out
the line of instruction contained in the Act of the 23d of
Henry the Eighth. There was a defect in a great part
of their works, which they were called upon to inquire
into, and in which case the Act provided that a
jury should be summoned, and by their verdict
they were to say by whose default the damage
had. arisen. Now the question branched itself into three
important points: the damage might be involved in the
original design of the sewer, it might be faulty in its
construction, or it might be faulty on account of the
neglect of the officers of the Court. Now in any of those
cases there must be inquiry ; and he (Mr. Leslie)
thought the proper course would be to have a special
Court held on the spot, say at the Crown Tavern, which
was not twenty yards from it, and there to have a
jury summoned to inspect the parts that had failed, and
then to return a verdict as to the cause of the failure,
and upon that verdict the Court could act.
Suppose the damage had been occasioned by
the Court itself, would it at once admit it ?
Certainly not. It might be the fault of the contractors
or the officers of the Court in not properly superintend-
ing the works, and if such was the case, it was but just
to them that an impartial jury, which the Court could
not be, should decide between all parties. Now it had
been stated that these works had commenced in Septem-
ber, 1839, and that 408 feet was finished in January,
1840. Now he Mr. Leslie was prepared to show that
the work was not finished or anything like it at that
time, and that the chairman, in consequence of the
defect in the walls, ordered them to be taken down, and
yet the Court had been kept in the dark on that sub-
ject. Added to this, although the line of sewer was not
measured till 1840, yet the balance of the contractors'
account was sent in and paid in May, 1839.
The CHAIRMAN said, that the great question they had
to consider was, what was the cause of the defects ? He
wished to know what course the Hon. Commissioner in-
tended to pursue ?
Mr. LESLIE observed that they were about to insti-
tute an inquiry into the cause of the failures which had
taken place in this extensive sewer, and he was about
to show that the proper mode of doing so was to sum-
mon a jury, in order to view it, and give their unbiassed
verdict upon it. What he would propose was, that a
Special Court shold be held, say on Monday next, or
any other day to be fixed upon, at the Crown Tavern ;
that a jury should be summoned, who should inspect and
inquire into the subject, and give their verdict upon it ;
and on that verdict the Court might act.
The CHAIRMAN thought the Commissioners them-
selves ought first to go and see it, iu order that it might
be ascertained whether there was any necessity for
entertaining the worthy Commissioner's proposition. At
the present moment the Commissioners could not be
prepared to coma to any conclusion.
Mr. LESLIE said the conclusion he had arrived at was
to get at the truth, and he thought the course he had
pointed out was the best mode.
The CHAIRMAN observed that he did not see the ad-
vantage of a jury at present. He thought they bad
better reserve that till the next Court.

Mr. LESLIE was satisfied the course he pointed out
was a necessary one. He had seen the works ; and
why they should have had such an immense
sewer to carry through a mere puddle of water,
he could not tell. It was his firm belief that
the faults that had . taken place in the sewer
were attributable to its bad design; it was by admit-
ted to be badly constructed, and nothing but ajury could
settle the matter satisfactorily between the public and
the Court. Mr. Leslie concluded by handing in
a notice of motion, to the effect that a Special Court
should be held near the site of the sewer at the Crown
Tavern, and that a jury should be summoned who wete
to inspect the sewer, and give their verdict accordingly.
As the Court appeared determined to go and view the
place themselves, he would merely hand the notice in,
and the Court could determine at what time they would
consider it when they returned. •
The Commissioners then proceeded to Bayswater to
examine the sewer; and, after an absence of two hours,
they returned, and discussed the subject for some time ;
at the conclusion of which a resolution was proposed
by Mr. Hawkas and carried, to the following effect:—
That an examination of the Ranelagh sewer in
Gloucester-place, the parts of the sewer 30 ft. and 60 ft.,.
with respect to which it was stated by the report of the
surveyors it was necessary they should be taken off and
rebuilt, that they be forthwith rebuilt and taken off, and