Morning journal and courier., 1893-03-15

engine, driving a pump of 25, 900 gallons daily capacity into a tank at e considerable l elevation, whence it is delivered through e
 special system of distributing pipes, nine
 miles long and three to seven inches diam
 eter; these pipes are of cast iron, coated h.
 side with special preservaive compound.
 The total consumption annually has been 5,000, 900 gallons for street watering at c | cost of 5 cents per 1 1,000 gallons, being
 considerable saving over the expense of the same work when fresh water was used; the statement also Is made that during the
 summer months the dust is kept under by
 the adhesive qualities of the salt in the
 water, and if the surface coating formed by the salt is removed by sweepers at the appearance of the first no disadvantage ous effects can be traced to the use
 of salt water. At Birkenhead it is found
 that one spread of salt water on the sur
 face of street or road proves equal to
 about three spreads of fresh water, as the
 latter evaporates under the heat of the sun.
 whereas the crust on the surface left by
 the salt water keeps down the dust for a
 considerable length of time. In another
 locality the report of the engineer claims that one load of salt water goes as far as three of fresh in that place; and in various other towns, where this system has once been put to the test, it has been adopted as one possessing special advantages.
 A final decision has been reached In the English courts in 6 suit which has con siderable interest for all railroad travellers in that country. The plaintiff was MT. Cobb, and his case, briefly stated, WAS as follows: In the month of May, last year, he was travelling by the Great Western Railroad between Shrewsbury and Bir- mipgham. The train stopped at Yelling ton; and at that station sixteen men en- tered the compartment In which he was sitting, hustled him, and robbed him of the sun of eS9. He got out of the car riage, summoned the station master, and asked that the train should be delayed in order that his sssailsnts might be arrested and searched; the request being the more reasonable because there were policemen on the platform at the tine. The station master fstly refused to accede to this request and started the train on Its journey. When they reached Wolverhsmpton, the thieves dispersed among the crowd and disappeared. Two of them were subsequently spprehended and convicted, but not a penny of the money wac recovered. The plaintiff was convinced that had the station-master given him the opportunity he asked for, the gang could not have escaped with their booty; and he therefore brought an action against the railway company. Both the Divisional court, before whom the action was first brought, and the Court of Appeal held that an action waanot maintainable. A railroad company, they say, makes no contract with its passengers to facilitate their recovery of stolen property. It con- tracts to carry passengers from one place to another, but 1t does not contract to pro- tect their property on the way; and If anybody should be robbed upon their line, 1t is no business of their servants to aid him in seizing the robbers or recovering his goods.