Star.
London, England, 1821-10-23 00:00:00

WESMINSTER SESSIONS.
IMPORTANT TO MANUFACTURERS.

This was an appeal against a conviction of Mr.
Minshull's, the Magistrate of Bow-street, upon an
information preferred against Messrs. Combe, Dela-
field, and Co. the extensive brewers, by the dust con-
tractor for the Parish of St. Martin, to recover seve-
ral penalties against them for the removal from one
part of their premises, which is in St. Martin's, to
another which is in St. George's, .Bloomsbury, of a
quantity of cinders, within the meaning of the clause
in Mi. M. A. Taylor's Act, which vests the property
in such cases, upon their removal, in the parochial
contractor. All the facts of the case were admitted,
and the question arose upon the legal construction
of the Act.

Mr. ALLIY, in support of the information, read
the clause, which prohibited all persons from carry-
ing away, or going about to carry away, or remove
dust, ashes, cinders, &c. from one parish to another,
except by order or consent of the parish contractor
for the same. It was here admitted that Messrs.
Combe, De'afield, and Co. the extensive brewers, who
consumed a great deal of coal, had removed a large
quantity of their ashes from one part of their pre-
mises to another, situated in a different parish, and
where they again used it for some purposes connected
with their business. Now, whatever might be the
policy of the Act, and its occasional hardship, it was
quite clear that, by the clause in this Act, whenever
any coals were once consumed in a fire or furnace,
they, upon removal, became the property of the parish
contractor, who paid a large sum for his contract—
in this case £lOO a-year.
Mr. AnoLPuus.—Wei on the other side, beg the
Court to bear in mind that it is our own servant car
rying away our own coal from one part of our manu-
factory to another, and for our own purposes in the
process of our trade.
Mr. ALLEY admitted that fact, but still contended,
upon the authority of the Carlton House and Sir
Joseph Banks' cases, that the removal -was contrary
to Act of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN.-But here they are using it for
their own purposes in the process of trade—do you
admit that ?

Mr. ALLEY.—We say that the moment the coal is
used, the original owner has no right to carry it away;
that is our view of the Act.
Mr. CunwooD said, he had to oppose his Learned
Friend (Mr. Alley%) view of the Act, upon the con-
struction of which he must, however, make a few
preliminary observations. They all knew that that
Act had been framed by Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor
—indeed, since the time of Henry Vlll. the Taylor 'S
appeared to preside, like a tutelary genius,. over this

great metropolis. Sir Robert Taylor, the father, tool:
under his special guardianship, the buildings of the
metropolis; the son, Michael Angelo Taylor, took to
himself the whole of the pavement of the metro-
polis. The father's Act was obscure enough, the son's
still more improved upon the obscurity of his prede-
cessor ' • and it must remain until the seniority of a
future Taylor, to see whether it will be possible, in
the same family, to frame an Act exceeding in obscu-
rity that upon which the present information was
founded. Here the question was simply this—could
the contractor, within the evident meaning and in-
tention of the Legislature, step in and take the arti-
cle of the manufacturer, while in process of use in
his business, and upon his own premises? Messrs.
Combe, Delafield, and Co. were, as was stated, exten-
sive brewers; their premises happened to be situated
within the precincts of two parishes. In one part of
their premises they used large quantities of coal in
their process of brewing—in another they used the
small coal and unconsumed fuel, which fell through
the furnaces of their large coppers, which it was ne-
cessary to rake and stir, for the purpose of preserving
a file of a certain heat, for the purpose of boiling
water to cleanse their casks. The fuel so used was
not properly ashes or dust, for it contained a great
deal of coal, which fell, unreduced, through the
gratings of the larger furnaces. How was it possi-
ble, then, to construe this Act so as to prevent their
applying their coal in the one case as they did in the.
other, without at once creating a principle and prece-
dent which violated all the rights of private property,
in a manner which no Act of Parliament could have
ever contemplated? The case only requiled to be
stated to shew the absurdity of such an attempt.
Mr. ALLEY.—We know that bricks may be made
of the refuse dust of coals ; now could the refuse be
taken away for such a purpose without the Act in
question being violated ?
The CHAIRMAN.—Yes, I think it could, if a man
were so using it upon his own premises.
Mr. CURWOOD.—The plain facts here were, that
the cooperage happened to be in St. Georges, Blooms-
bury, and the actual brewery in St. Martin's; in one
part of the establishment coals were used in one pro-
cess, and, in the other, in a different way, but still
for a part of the same business ; but in came the sca-
venger of St. Martin's, and said, “ True, you can
burn your coals in my parish for your own brewery,
but you shall not in St. George's ; for the moment
you attempt to remove them across the street, they
become mine." As well might he claim the coke
which was removing from the gas manufactories. It
was true that, by Mr. Taylor's Act, no man could
remove his dust from his premises to another, to be
applied to a different purpose from that in which he
used his fuel; but here there was an obvious distinc-
tion in the cases. In criminal cases, an Act of Par-
liament must be construed literally ; that was neces-
sary for the full defence and security of the lives of
his Majesty's subjects; but in civil cases the Court I
were bound to take the meaning of the law from the
whole scope of the Act, as it evidently interpreted
the motive of the Legislature in enacting it. The
Legislature evidently intended to keep the streets free
from nuisance; but they never contemplated, where
they gave a surveyor a remedy against another for
removing his ashes, that be should also have a re-'
medy against the real owner, who was creating no
nuisance, removing no dust, but carrying it from
one part of his premises to another, for a purpose ne-
cessary for the process of his own trade.
Mr. AnoLenos followed on the same side, and
said, that there was an evident distinction between
this and the Carlton-house case; for in the latter, the
Court would recollect, that there was a disputed
claim of property, the refuse fuel being claimed by
some of the household, under a warrant of office, as
their perquisite. The Legislature, he contended,
could never mean to authorise the intrusion of a sca-
venger into any man's premises to carry away his
unconsumed fuel ; if that were to be the construction
of the law, then the contractor might enter a gold-
smith's workshop, and carry off his ashes, if thegold-
smith presumed to move it from one part of his pre-
mises to another, to carry it through the process of
washing, for the purpose of separating the gold dust
from the ashes to which it attached in the process of
the manufactuver's trade. He also observed, that a great
part of the coal was not used at all before removal—
many smaller parts of the coal fell through entire.
Mr. ALLEY, in reply, insisted that the clause in the
Act was imperative. As to the statement that parti•
Iles of smaller coal might fall through and mix up
with the ashes, that was nothing. They all knew
that a cook, in hurrying on her dinner, often raked
out good coal ; but was that a reason why when the
dustman came she should insist upon his not re-
moving the dust from the dust-hole, until he sepa-
rated the particles of coal from the dust of the ashes?
He admitted that many hardships were imposed upon
private individuals by the local Acts ; for instance,
the removal of steps where they had been standing
for years; and the consequent alteration and limita-
tion of halls and porticoes—still while those Acts sub-
sisted they must be observed.
The CHAIRMAN, in pronouncing the opinion of
the Court, said that he could never put the construe
tion upon this Act, which was contended for in sup-
port of the present information. It was true that the
case was one of particular importance to the parochial
contractor, and also to the Public at large. It must
equally be admitted that the Act trenched very much
upon what were previously considered the rights of
private individuals. He was old enough to remem-
ber the time-when dustmen were obliged to be paid
large sums for removing ashes and dust; but of-late
years its value and uses becoming better known,
large sums were given for it, and the expenses of re-
moving additionally incurred by the parties dealing
in the commodity. It had been truly said that the
case of Carlton House dust was different from this;
so also was that of the late Sir Joseph Banks; in
the former it was a disputed claim of property, and in
the latter the case was this:—Sir Joseph consumed
in his house, in Soho-square, a large quantity of
coal, and was in the habit of removing the ashes,
after they had passed through their full stage for do-
mestic use, to his place at Hounslow, where, in his
botanical pursuits, he wished to apply them for his
manure uses. Now that was the exact purpose for
which the Legislature meant to preserve them for
the dust contractor, and was clearly what the law
intended to prevent. The law did riot tolerate a
claim for coke, nor for goldsmiths' ashes, in this
Act; and when there were such distinctions, it be-