The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-17 00:00:00

COURT OF SEWERS.

A Court of Sewers for the City and Liberty of West-
minster and part of Middlesex was yesterday held in the
Sewers Court, Greek-street, Soho-square ; J. L. Donald-
son, Esq., in the chair.
The orders of Court on the 2d and 9th of August
were read.

The Court then heard memorials and petitions.
An application was made by the watermen of Temple-
stairs, for leave to be allowed to maintain a floating-pier
at Essex-street outlet. The applicants had received
notice to remove a barge which was stationed there, and
Mr. Dovvley, the surveyor to the Commissioners, in-
formed the Court that the order had been unattended to.

A. solicitor appeared for the watermen, and stated
among other reasons for non-compliance with the order,
that riots might ensue between the rival claimants to the
landing, and life be endangered in consequence. He
also added that the Navigation Committee had granted
the necessary powers required by the applicants, but
that the forms had not yet been filled up, and the sig-
nature of the Lord Mayor was wanted.
After a short discussion, in which the Chairman,
Captain Bague, R.N., Mr. Willoughby, Mr. Gunter,
and Mr. Leslie, took part, it was finally agreed that the
barge should be allowed to remain until the 6th of Sep-
tember, when they (the watermen) would be again re-
quired to appear before the Court with the perfected
deeds then wanting.
The cases of parties summoned to appear to answer
to charges of irregular drainage and improper construc-
tion of sewers, were then disposed of.
The CHAIRMAN then rose to call the attention of the
Court to certain imputations which had been made
against him, on Friday, the 2d of that month, by a
Commissioner. If it had been a matter purely personal
he should have acted as on previous occasions—namely,
by passing it over without any consideration. He might
not have the ability that he ought to possess, in order to
fill his situation as Chairman of that Court, but it was
in the power of any man to be honest, and where his
personal character was called in question he felt bound
to require an explanation. He had read a report in The
Sun of the 3d of August, where it was stated that when
the question arose of paying the contractor, Mr. Ben
nett, a cheque of 1,0001., the Commissioner had cautioned
the Court against signing that cheque without due con-
sideration. The Hon. Member proceeded to say that a
gross fraud had been committed—that he was in a posi-
tion to prove all he alleged, and that he would not hesi-
tate to do so. It might appear irregular to call their
attention to any statement appearing in a newspaper,
but they had two records of this assertion, that
of the newspaper alluded to, and the other offi-
cial one, the minutes of the Court. The Com-
missioner said that Bennett had obtained a con-
tract to which he was not entitled, and he questioned
the propriety of signing the cheque without further in-
quiry into the mode by which he had got his contract.
He (the Commissioner) goes on to state, that a fraud
had been committed, and that the Bennetts, father and
son, were relieved from that fraud ; and after some
discussion, of no consequence to 'this inquiry, he said,
that the three persons he should refer to in his remarks
were, Mr. Donaldson, Mr. Dowley, and Mr. Doull.
He regretted that the first was not in Court, but he
would be corrected by the surveyors if he stated what
was incorrect in reference to these transactions. He
(the Chairman) found by a reference to the official
record, that this was in substance, a correct report
of what took place. (The Chairman then read from
the minutes of the August 2.) He (the Chairman) was
extremely sorry that the Hon. Commissioner should
have thought proper to bring forward the matter in the
manner he did ; and he was sorry for this reason, that a
charge of fraud ought to have been brought forward
only after due notice, and then it might have been pro-
' perly inquired into. They were bound by the terms of
their contract to pay Mr. Bennett his 1,0001., and there-
fore it was quite unnecessary, on the part of the Hon.
Commissioner, to have brought forward this matter
when he did. The matter might as well have been
brought forward on another day. He thought that the
Hon. Commissionor did not well understand the mean-

ing of the word fraud. A fraud included this,
that there was a party injured, and a party benefited,
and that an injury had been inflicted and a benefit done,
with the collusion of a third party, and by some act, one
party being intentionally injured and another benefited.
There was no imputation upon Mr. Bennett's father,
and as Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Dowley had referred to
it, it appeared that they were the three great conspirators
who had committed the fraud upon the public. From
the period that he had first the honour of sitting in that
Court he had endeavoured, withoutfavour or partiality, to
discharge his public duties. He did not want to enlist the
prejudices of the Court in his favour. He wanted only the
justice due to every honest man. In 1836, the year after
he had the honour of being called to the chair, the new
contracts were entered. into. At that time the surveyor
had been dismissed, and Mr. Doull and a new clerk had
been elected. To these officers was entrusted the task
of filling up the quantities to be tendered for in the new
contracts. The contracts were sent in, and the officers
had to make out the total in the adjoining room. The
matter was then deferred for the consideration of a spe-
cial Court—the bills were sent in, and the Court ac-
cepted that of Bennett. At that time there was an error
in the amount of bricks and in the digging, for it ap-
peared that the quantities for the latter were too small
and the former too large. When the numbers came to
be submitted to the Court, he certainly suggested that
odd numbers should be made even, for the purpose of
expediting the contracts. So far the contracts went, and
it appeared certain that in the way they were made out
the quantity of bricks inserted was enormous. He did
hold, however, that they were not to be held responsible
for the minute details which the officers of the Court

were called on to discharge, and if they changed 150
into 110, it was for them to be called into account for it.

The contract was taken on those quantities. In 1841 a
new contract was ordered to be entered into, and it ap-
peared that the same quantities were taken as on the
former occasion. Some gentlemen suggested that as it
would take two days to cast up the accounts, it would be
desirable to give the same quantifies as at the former
period to the contractors, and so test them. He had
never taken a serious step without submitting it to the
opinion of the Court, and he found that the papers given
out to parties who proposed tendering were given out
after an intermediate meeting of the Court, at which he
had no doubt the subject had received due consideration.
He again admitted the great quantity of bricks and the
small quantity of digging, but was he to be held region.
sible for what in truth was the business of the officers ?
As well might he be held responsible, if he had hap•
pened to be in a street where a sewer was in progress of
formation, and something going wrong at the time, it
should be afterward said, " Oh, it was done under the
inspection of the Chairman." And now as he was con-
nected with the " fraud." He could not conceive how
it could attach to him at all, because he must in that case
have made up the numbers, which the officers were to do,
and he must give a chance to one party, when in fact the
same forms were given to all ; and therefore he said
again,_ that he could not conceive how this charge could
attach to him at all. Any assertion of his own was un-
necessary, because the mere facts as stated could not
carry conviction. The Hon. Commissioner had sai •
d that
he was dissatisfied with that Court; he (the Chairman)
would only say, that if the Hon. Commissioner wished
to have the matter heard in any other Court, ho would
give him the opportunity of investigating the
matter
attielt.
most thoroughly. He (the Chairman) imagined that
the Hon. Commissioner was acting under a misappre-
hension of the word " fraud," and under a mistaken 'con-
ception of the facts of the case.
Mr. LESLIE thought that the Chairman had made a
most temperate and proper statement, and if every word
of it were taken down, it would prove his (Mr. Leslie's)
case. The Hon. Gentleman fully bore him out that a
fraud had been committed on the public, and he (Mr.
Leslie) had only said, and he again stated, that the three
parties he found connected with the transaction were the
chairman and the two surveyors. He had never imputed
fraud to Mr. Bennett,
He because he had nothing at all to
do with the contract.was very sorry to find that
the Chairman was connected
with the
d 3fr.
e coanntractoflBr3eu
6
because the evidence of Mr. Dowling
said that he had had nothing to do with
it. His. Do
charge
was against every commissioner in that Court, for how
came it that Bennett was receiving from the public
141. 6s. per cent. more in digging than any other man.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY rose to order. He could not allow
the time of the Court to be wasted by inquiring whether
any other person had committed a fraud. The question
was, did he (Mr. Leslie) impute fraud to the Chairman?
Did he persevere in that accusation ? The question
was brought forward by the Chairman, and he had 'a
sight to be answered,