The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-05-03 00:00:00

NUISANCE

Mr. Superintendent Tyrrell and Inspector Fresh appeared
to substantiate an information which they had laid against
Paul Prenton. for a nuisance which he had created by the
deposition of night-soil on an uninclosed piece of ground
contiguous to Vauxhall-road, upon the Canal-bank, and
within the borough.
Mr. Tyrrell said, in consequence of numerous complaints
which he had heard of the nuisance created by the deposition
of night-soil and other highly-offensive matter, on a piece
of uninclosed ground, occupied by Mr. Prenton, he had
caused informations to be laid against him. Mr. Prenton
had continued to deposit the offensive matter, though he had
been cautioned. On Wednesday, the 17th April, he (Mr.
Tyrrell) had seen him laying down a quantity of night-soil
on the land in question.
Mr. Harding, who stated that he resided, and carried on
business in the vicinity of the piece of land in question,
proved that Mr. Prenton had been in the habit of depositing
most offensive matter there in the day-time.
Mr. Middlehurst stated that he also lived near the land in
question. He stated that the smell was most nauseous, and
that he had been compelled to remove his wife from the vici-
nity, as Dr. O'Donnell told him that the smell affected her
health. He could bear it, but it was with great difficulty.
Mr. Prenton gave similar testimony.
A gentleman, who stated that he was in the habit of pass-
ing the spot every day, described the effluvia from the
several deposits as very bad. This gentleman said the loads
of waste which were shot on the ground were worse than the
night-soil.
Mr. Middlehurst stated, that the defendant had put them
all at defiance, declaring that he had the authority of the
Earl of Derby and Mr. Statter, for what he did. The con-
duct of the defendant, according to the testimony of the
witnesses, had been most overbearing, he having, on one
occasion, attempted to block up the sewer.
Mr. Hall recommended the witnesses to ascertain whether
the defendant really had the permission of the Earl of Derby
for what he had done. If so he was sure his lordship would
put a stop to the nuisance on a proper representation. The
complaint was dismissed.
CIGAR SMOKING.

A gentleman named Say, appeared before Mr. Hall, on
Tuesday, to answer an information laid against him by one
of the officers of police, for smojcing a cigar on the quay of
the King's Dock, near to a quantity of casks, which, he
stated, contained materials of a combustible nature. This
act was a violation of one of the by-laws of the corporation,
and subjected the person convicted of it to a penalty of 10s.
and costs. The`officer proved the commission of the offence
by Mr. Say—the casks near which he was smoking, contained
brandy and tallow. Mr. Say admitted the charge, but de-
nied that he was within the boundary between the docks and
the street—and that any danger was to be apprehended from
his smoking a cigar in the centre of the casks, even if they
were of the combustible nature stated,—which, if the case
was postponed, he would be able to show was not the fact.
Mr. Hall would not consent to have the time of gie court so
wasted—gentlemen should come prepared with whatever de-
fence they have to make, and not expect time to frame it, to
meet the evidence that may be brought against them. He
then ordered the by-law upon which the information was
founded to be produced. Mr. Quick, the clerk of the Town-
clerk, was then called—he stated, that at a quarterly meet-
ing of the Town Council, held on the 9th of November,
1837, the Finance Committee, consisting of fifteen members,
was appointed, and empowered to make by-laws. He proved
that the committee, of which Mr. W. Currie, was the chair-
man, passed the by-law in question, and that it was published
in one of the Liverpool journals. It enacts—that if any
person shall smoke any tobacco, or other thing in any ware-
house or building in the borough of Liverpool, used for the
deposit or custody of goods, wares and merchandize, or in
any room or department connected therewith, or at or near
the entrance or entrances thereto, or upon any of the dock
quays, or on board any vessel, he shall be liable for the first
offence, to the penalty of 10s., fo'r the second offence 205.,
and for every subsequent offence' 40s. and costs. Mr. Hall
said, that it was not requisite to show that Mr. Say was
within the limits of the docks—if it was proved he was near
the goods, it was sufficient to warrant the information. He
therefore fined that gentleman in the sum of ten shillings
and costs.