The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-01-26 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

its unhealthy effects, instead of on the testimony of medical and
satisfactory witnesses. Most of his witnesses had lived many
years in the neighbourhood and were strong and healthy Men,
and did not complain of their health being injured by it, and
their appearance bespoke them in robust health. If the -jury
gave a verdict against Mr. Lutwyche, they not only put an end
to his manufactory but to all the manufactories in tlieeteigh-
bourhood. Let. hem compare the consequences of this to-ttre'
damage done to the scissors of the very learned chemist, or the,
injury to the row of pins of another witness. There were ten
thousand men employed by these various establishments. Were
they prepared, by their verdict, to say that all these establish-
ments wereqb be carried from their neighbourhood—that their
export trade was to be materially injured by the additional ex-
pense in the carriage of goods, if the manufactories were to be
removed to a distance, and that consequently all rents and pro-
perty in the neighbourhood must be depreciated, besides throw-
ing out of employment many thousands of workmen. He trusted
the jury would free their minds of. all prejudice. It had been
laid down by a very competent authority that unless theseArades
were destructive to health the operations of commerce were not
to be meddled with ; and it was a very good and sound doctrine. !
He should call before them a number of witnesses—men Is ho
had been for years in this employment, who breathed these
noxious vapours every day. He should produce the testimony
of able witnesses to prove that so far from being injurious to
health they were beeefitted by these trades, and they would '
show them, by their personal appearance, how false the state-
ments had been as to a question of health. He would show '
them, by the testimony of a person whose evidence could not be
doubted, that so far from these establishments being injurious,
.that when the cholera was raging not a single case occurred in
the neighbourhood of these manufactories. He hoped the jury
would look at the case in an extended view—at the consequences
which must result if the verdict were against his client. If he
should prove to them that these manufactories were: beneficial
to the community in providiug employment for the poor, and at •
the same time that they did not impair the health of the,inha-
bitants, he should look for their verdict for leis client. Ile called, I
MieePatten, a soap-boiler, in St. Thomas's-buildings.—They I
ensplFyed 50 or 60 men. They manufactured their own alkali, I
and the health of his men was very good. When the cholera t'
raged there was not a single case in his establishment. •
Cross-examined.—The chimneys were 30 or 40 yards high,
and the smoke went over them. -
John Unsworth was a soap manufacturer: There was a great
increase in the manufacture of soap since the use of alkali.
They formerly gave £lO a ton for alkali containing 14 or 15 per
cent. They now gave £l3 a ton for alkali containing 50 ei (.30
per cent. In consequence they could do without, impurti4.
The soap manufacture was nearly double to what it was. ...
Cross-examined.—The smell was more annoying than offen-
sive. It certainly was an inconvenience to a person ; it made
hiM cough. There was acid in the smell.
John Stoekdale is a soap manufacturer. The manufactories
had increased the value of property in that neighbourhood. The
business was healthy.
Cross-examined.—lt had been of benefit to himself:
John Dale, shopkeeper, could not exactly say that he had
been unwell from, these vapours.
Cross-examined.—Would give up his shop if he was not (te-
pendant on it, because of this smoke. It sometimes stopped his
breath. (Laughter.)
Patrick Hare had lived in Scotland-place, and never felt
anything from the vapour to injure his health. In his opinion
these works had been of very great benefit to the place. A few
years dgo all that neighbourhood had been green fields..
Cross-examined.—These alkali works caused a great many
labourer's. cottages to be built. Some of those cottages were his.
lie did not think the smell was as sweet as a nosegay. (Laugh-
ter.)
i'eter Ward was in the employment of Messrs. Holmes and
Co., soap manufacturers. He was inthe liabit of breathing this
vapour every day; it did him good ; it removed the carbon im-
bibed from the foul air of the town from the lungs. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined.—Never took his degrees as doctor. He
took -a little alkali to do away with the carbon. (Laughter.)
Mr. Western lives at Bevington Bush. The works were be-
neficial to him, they brought trade to his shop He had felt
little inconvenience from the vapour, but he had put up with it
for the sake of his trade.
Cross-examined.—He certainly should not like to les his
custom.
John Williams lived in the neighbourhood. The vapour
created him an appetite.
Cross-examined.—lt might be a little bit acid : it made him
cough now and then.
a Mr. Robert Nicholson, tanner, lives in the neighbourhood.
It had not affected his health. In consequence of these works
land was three times the value of what it'had been.
Cross-examined.—Never was surprised with any peculiar
' smells. Smells his own tanyard. 1 here was not much of a
smell ; it did him no harm.
Mr. James Irvin, of Everton, deposed to the manufactory in-
creasing the value of his land. He had not been inconveni-
enced b the vapour.
Mr. m. Duckworth, bricklayer.—The value of land in that
neighbourhood had been doubled. The smell affected his lungs
a little ; it made him cough. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined.--It had not injured
.his health.
Mr. Mansfield lived in Cauning-street. The value of land
had much increased there.
Cross-examined.—Had occasionally perceived a little smell.
times. It was likefrost air. (Laughter.) Frost uir made himcough.
It was not very pleasant. Made bins cough a little bit come-
cough.
John Sinnet was a labourer in Mr. Stockdale's employ. His
health was not injured by it.
Cross-exam iued.—lt made him cough, nothing to do him any
harm.
James Sinnit was a labourer in these works. It had never
injured his health.
Cross-examined.—lt was good for him; when he had a cold
it cleared his lungs when it made him cough. (Laughter.)
Edward 'Lewis worked at Mr. Stuckdale's. It had not in-
jured his health.
Cross-examined.—The vapour was always agreeable to him.
lie felt no difference between it and fresh air; not a bit.
(Laughter.)
John Bogging, Owen Casey, John Curran, Daniel M'Gen-
nis, John Iticcard, Edward Corloe, and Patrick Reitman, la-
bourers in the above works, each gave similar testimony.
Mr.COTTI'NGHssi then rose in reply.—llis learned friend had
certainly called witnesses to confirm the statement he had made .
to the jury some six hours before: for he would appeal to the'
understandings of every one of them, whether every witness his
learned friend had called had not rather confirmed the case
which he bad laid before them. He would confess, that if causes
were to be decided by the number of witnesses, that he was out
of court. He would, in the first place, -call their atteption to,
the sort of witnesses called by his friend. The bulk of them
were workmen in the employ of the very men carrying- on. the
manufactories which were the nuisances of which they com-
plained. Could they place any dependence on the evidence of
the men who had been called? Did they not contradict them-
selves ? One half swore that the vapour was not offensive, and
the other half that it was offensiee. Which could they believe?
Could they believe either? .And if neither, where was the case
of his learned friend? He would give the law on the case as
laid down by Lord Mansfield, and confirmed by Lord Tenter-
den—"it was not necessary in proving a nuisance to prove
that it was injurious to the health of the parties; it was quite
merelye
ctd by it. negative
enough if it were injurious to the senses, and Made the (heels
been
lings of the parties uncomfortable." It was evident if it was
offensive to the senses, that it did render them uncomfortable.
And what was the evidence opposed to the 'hoot's of this
evidence,which
h a that their brought
Could they rely on this negative testimony in opposition to
had
what he had laid before them? His witnesses had proved that
he a
Iftohr w ?
not M r hy,
afi
this vapour was injurious to their health But there was a
count in his indictment in which the nuisance was not stated
at all to be injurious to the health of the parties; and if, there-
fore, they entertained any doubt on that point, in the other
count it was brought that it was injurious to the seises of the
senses of the parties, and they must on that count of the indict-
ment find the defendant guilty. He had heard a great deal of
these manufactories being beneficial to the town of Liverpool;
that had nothing whatever to do with that action. The learned
recorder had, perhaps, the case of the King y. Russell before
him, which he himself had beard. That was a question which
affected the commerce of the country ; it was an action brought .
to do away with a number of coal staiths, erected on the Tyne, and
which formed an obstruction in the river ,• and the good in that
case was found to counterbalance the evil. But the same law
in this case could not apply where the health was affected.
They had heard a great deal about the increased value of this
property; but how? By the erection of this very nuisance.
But if the doctrine of his learned friend was to be laid dowel as
law, the question would.come to this, whether the whole popu-
lation of Liverpool were to he driven from the town in order
that these alkali works might flourish. Were .these alkali-works
to determine where the population should live, and make the
whole town of Liverpool a nuisance? ' With the exception of
the tanner, who admitted the vapour made him cough, he had
not seen one respectable witness called.
Mr. RUSIITON.—Mr. Hare, behind you.
Mr. COTTINGHAT4I.=-liiS learned friend seemed to think he
had a short meinory ; he perfectly well recollected that Mr.
Hare had houses in the neighbourhood, anti that he said he was
henefitted by the works. He would give hinethe benefit of the
remark. One witness, a baker, who had been called, had said
the works were of benefit to him; how ? Why, because they
sold him his bread. Amid what were all the rest composed of,
with one exception ? Why, of the very men who manufac-
tured the alkali, and their servants. He "had been taunted by
his friend for indulging iu matters of facts, for not having
called a medical witness to prove the insalubrity of this atmos-
phere—that they would soon put aside all his evidence by their
scientific testimony. Had his learned friend called one scien-
tific- man ?—had he called one single doctor? He who
wished to blame me' far not calling these witnesses, him.
self, dared not put one in the box. Mr. Cottingham then
recapitulated the various evidence which had been given
by his witnesses to prove the nuisance. If the jury were
satisfied that the case came within the law as laid down
by Lord Mansfield, " that it was not necessary that the
smell should be unwholesome, but that it was enough if
it rendered the lives of the plaintiffs uncomfortable," -they
would find defendant guilty. If there was any particle of doubt
that this was not proved, it would then be for the jury to say
Whether they would discharge the defendant.
The REconnea, in summing up, said it was laid down in law,
that where any building's of ancient date, though nuisances,
existed, they could not be indicted by the inhabitants of build-
ings around of a snore modern date, because those buildings had
been built in the full knowledge of the existing nuisance. In
such case, therefore; such nuisance was lawful. In the present
instance, however, the reverse was the fact, the 'manufactory
being of modern date, and a nuisance to older buildings around.
One of the great principles in law was, "every man may use his
own right as he thinks fit; but he most take care that, in so
doing, he does not injure the rights of others." The question
for them was, whether the defendants, in carryicg on their busi-
ness, in exercising their right, had injured the rights of others.
They had heard the great mass of evidence of various injuries
produced by this vapour. They must also take into their con-
sideration the character of the witnesses for the defence as ser-
vants of interested parties. If they found that these works were
unpleasant, it would be their duty to find a verdict for the
plaintiffs; if. on the contrary, they thought it was a fancy only;
their verdict then ought to be the other way.
'lle jury turned round for a short time, and then gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiffs. Judgement suspended by consent till
next sessions, with the understanding that the nuisance shall be
abated. •
The case occupied the•whole of the day.

COURT OF PASSAGE.
SATURDA y.—(Before HuNRy ROSCOE, Esql, Assessor.)

HAYHURST V. BRADSHAW.

This was an action brought by Mrs. Hayhurst, the keeper of
a lodging-house in Rose-street, against Captain Bradshaw of
the watch, for an assault, and breaking open her house. It ap-
peared from the witnesses for the complainant; that her lodgers
came home late on the night in question, and knocked at the
door for adMission. They had been in the house about an hour
and a half when Captain Bradshaw and some watchmen came
to the door and knocked violently, demanding tg be admitted,
and immediately broke the door in and went u stairs to the
bed-rooms of the lodgers. One of the lodgers, Fleeney, asked
Bradshaw what he wonted, and he said " he would show bin
what he wanted," and threatened to take him into custody. He
resisted, and he was dragged by them to Bridewell. The ser-

vant and the mistress, whd had bun called up by the noise, all
having been, in bed, attempted to prevent his being taken
into custody. Captain Bradshaw then struck Mrs. Hayhurst;
and knocked her down. Next day Heeney was charged before
the magistrates with having been disorderly. lie had nut been
disorderly, and had been in the house an hour and a half.
Several watchmen were called, who depOsed to there having
-been a riot in the street, and Heeney having been very disor-
derly, they Mowed him to the house of Mrs. Hayhurst, which he
broke in, and was followed by Goodhall, and they then entered,
finding the door of the house already broken open, and, in con-
sequence of the resistance they met with from; Heency, they
twit: him to Bridewell. They entered to see what was going on
in the house. •

The ASSESSOR, in summing up, said that clearly by law the
watchmen had not the power to enter the house unless a felony
had been committed, or they had a warrant. There did not
appear to be-any such charge against the lodgers. There must
be clearly, a verdict for the plaintiff in point of law. The only
consideration fur them would be to award the amount of
damages. •
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £l5.
. MARSHALL AND ANOTHER V. SULLEN.

Mr. Veuables appeared for the plaintift;3, and Mr. Murray
for the defence.

This was an action brought for £2O, the value of a horse
which had been purchased by the plaintiff on an understanding
that the horse would draw and back well; on trial, however, he
would do neither. •

Robert Scott, who is in the service of the plaintiff, deposed to
having some conversation with Bullen in May last about a horse.
Mr. ilullen said•he had bought a horse iu Cheshire, which,. he
had to sell ' • that he was a country horse, and a strong good hotse.
He looked at the horse for his master, and found -him country
shod. Defendant said he would warrant the horse to be a good
drawer and backer. His master said he supposed he wia deal;
ing with an honest man, and if be would warrant the horse he
would purchase him, and his master gave him £2O for the horse
and a mare, wtth the understanding that he was to be tried and
if not found to answer the warrant to be returned that night.
He tried the horse with 10 cwt. in a furry, and he would nei-
ther back nor draw, and at last be darted and laid down in the
shafts. Afterwards the horse would neither go backwardS nor
forwards, and he had to yoke is horse to him to mill hint home.
He took him back that night to defendant, and saw his wife,
who would not take him back again,ond wanted him to try him
again. He tried him again, and he would not pull-at all. He
afterwards met Mr. Bullen, and he refused to take his back,
saying he would destroy the -horSes character; he had not half
tried him. He tried him -again, and could make nothing of
him, and was told afterwasxis that the horse had been sold
in the. Haymarket for roguery for £l2.
Cross-examined.--Had not seen the horse in action before he
was bought. There was nothing passed' between Mr. Bullets
and his master about its being ante bargaiu.
William Robinson deposed to being alcarter, and that be bad
tried the horge;thut he would not pall au empty cart.
. This was the: case for the plaintiff.
James Mawdesley deposed to having lived as servant with
Mr. Ballets. He remembered a person coining from Mr. Mar-
shall to his.master, and wishing him not to part with the horse.
till he had seen it. Mr. Marshall afterwards brought a mare
which he wanted to swap for the horse, but his master said
,he must "wear the boots." Marshall afterwards offered £lB
and his mare for, the horse „which his master refused ; he would
not take:l6B-s than £`2o,-which 111. r Marshall at length give him.
Before .he bought -the .horse he saw him tried and said he was
perfectly satisfied. Mr. Marshall wanted his master to warrant
the horse; but his master gave Mr. Marshall the £2O back into
his hand, and said he did not make children's bargains, and the
bargain was afterwards struck without the warrant.
Crass-examinedlie never tried the horse whether he would
dray or not. He knew nothing about the..horse.
John Lyons depoSed to being present at an exchange of
horses between Mr". Marshall and Mr. Bullen. He corrobo-
rates the statement of last witness. The swap was a general
swap. Mr. Sullen said he would run no risk. 111 r. Marshall
brought the hot se back the same dity, and offered 1:5 to return
;the horse,asat The bargain. which Mr. Sullen refused, saying he
did notmake child's bat gains.
The Assesser 'in suintrtimg• up said, there was some discre-
pancy between the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant.
£he evidence of the defendant went to prove that there was no
warranty of the horse ; but he saw no reason 'for disbelieving
the plaintiff eevidence. The question ' for the jury would he the
amount of damages to be awarded, IT they should find that stich
Warranty had been given.
The jury found for the plaintiffs. The parties agreed to settle
the amount of damages.