The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-09-01 00:00:00

CHEMICAL NUISANCE.-JACKSON V. BLAIR

The plaintiff was James Jackson, and the defendant
Harrison Blair. The action was brought to recover da-
mages for au alleged injury done to the property of the
plaintiff by an alkali works carried on by the t'efendant,
at Kearsley, near Bolton. The property in question was
inherited by toe plaintiff from his grandfather. It con-
sisted of a house, outbuildings, and forty acres of land.
The case set up for the pl half was, that before the erec.
tion of defendant's works, the house in question was sur-
rounded with an orchard, a plantation, and tl e fields with
quick set hedges. That the vapour which escaped from
the works shrivelled up the hedges, prevented the Bras=
and vegetable substances from growing, and destroyed the
water of a well which supplied the property for domestic
purposes. That not a fish was now to be found in the
water, although it formerly abounded with them ; and not
a fly or insect of any sort was to be seen on its banks.
That the property had, in fact, been converted Coln a very
pleasant country residence into a perfect desert. The
defence was that injury to the property had been produced
many years since, and that there were other works in the
neighbourhood that were equally deleterious with those of
the defendant. The jury after a few minutes' considera-
tion found fur the plaintiff. Damages, £lO.

BREACH OF CONTRACT

SMITH V. FISHER AND ANOTHER

In this cave Henry Smith was plaintiff, and Henry
Fisher and Nicholas Fearon defendants. The plaintiff is
in the office of Messrs. Rawdon Brothers, and also trades
on his own account as a merchant in this town. The ac-
tion was brought to recover a sum of money, the differ-
ence between the sale and re-sale of 64 tons of euano,
sold b) plaintiff to defendant in the month of March, of
this ye,r. The defendants were dealers in guano, and
bought from Mr. W. W. Smith, the brother of plaintiff
and his broker, the guano in question. The contract, as
entered in the broker's book W 11,4 as follows :—" Liver-
pool, 10th March, 1846. Sold Fisher and Fearon, shout
51) tons of guano, at £6 per ton, payment fourteen days;
21 off; warehouse to be cleared in two mouths." The
guano had not been weighed, but the defendant, it was al-
leged, agreed to take the lot, which, it was supposed,
would not much exceed 50 tons. The defendants having
tailed to take the guano, it was re-sold by auction, and
the action was brought for the loss on the re-sale. The
jury found for the plaintiffs. Damages, £l6l.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY.
ALLEGED TRESPASS BY A RAILWAY COMPANY

JOHN GREY AND WILLIAM GREY V. THE LIVERPOOL

AND BURY RAILWAY COMPANY

This action was brought by an order of the Lord Chan-
cellor, for the purpose of procuring facts upon which to
found a case f.,r the opinion of the Court of Common
Pleas, upon the question in dispute between the parties.
It appeared that in 1844, a plan was originated for the
formation of a line of railway from Liverpool to Bury,
and in the parliarnen'ary plan and hooks of reference, the
line marked out proposed to pass directly across the pre-

mises and certain of the huild.ngs and cottages adjacent
to the mills of the plaintiffs. Messrs. Gray opposed the
proposed line before the committee of the House of
Commons, and a clause was eventually inserted in the
company's act, the construction and meaning of which

Ruse, t

he company were res'

passing, in their line of railway, nearer "to the mills,
lands, and Buildings of which the plaintiffs are the owners
and occupiers, than the south-east end of Lever Bridge,
as delineated upon the plans." They had, however, it
was alleged, infringed upon this clause, by cuffing their
line through a part of the lands of the plaintiffs without
their consent, and upon this point issue was joined. The
defendants, by their counsel, Mr. Martin, urged that the
restriction created by the fl2d clause of the company's act
did not apply to the field in question, which had bee
mat ke,-

out in the parliamentary plat. and books of refer-
ence, and was within the limits of deviation directed by
the 15th section of the general consolidation act. They

also contended that the p'aintillsiwere not the "owners
and.occupiers' " but merely the " lessees and occupies u,"
of the land in dispute, and consrquently, that the clause
refrared to was na intended to apply to this property.—

wits eutered

WATER WORKS COMPANY V. JOHN "WILLIAMS

Mr. Knowles, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Crompton were
counsel for the p!aintiffs, the proprietors of the Liverpool
and Harlington Water Works; and Mr. Watson, Mr.
Atherton, and Mr. Unthank, conducted the case for the
defendant. a banker at Liverpool, and represeoative of
the Hawarden Iron Company. This was an action to re-
cover damages for an alleged breach of covenant in the
construction of an iron cistern. It appeared that in the
course of the year 18-15, the defendant contracted to fur-
nish a cistern to the plrintiffs, capable of containing two
hundred thousand gallons of water, with proper stays,
&c. and to uphold and maintain it in good order for twelve
months afttr its erection. He also covenanted to be an-
swerable for any loss or damage which might happen to
the company of proprietors, or their works, or to any of
the neigLbouring property, during that period, by reason

of any defect in the said cistern. -It was also agreed that
a aunt of £1,250 should be paid for the tank, and the
plaintiffs bound themselves to provide a firm and substan.
tial foundation of stone and brick pillar, nine feet above
the level of the yard, on which the cistern was to be
placed. The plates for the tank were made at the foundry
n Flintshire, and sent to Liverpool to be put together,

okents furnishing their ow

the defender.. ..semen
to complete its erection, under the superintendence of a
man named Wain, who was also in their employ.
the representation rf Wain. as stated by the witnesses for
the plaintiffs, that the cistern was ready to receive the
water and was completed, and it was agreed that it should
at once be filled, and Christmas-day in the last year was
appointed for that purpose. At ten o'clock on the morn-
ing of that day, the work was commenced, and at one
o'clock, when the workmen left the place for refreshment,
the tank was stated to be about two-thirds lull ; at
this time the pressure of the water on the cistern at
the top was about thirty-ono,aud,a.quarter pounds for