The Cambrian News and Merionethshire Standard

Witness said it was right that s is attention was called to it, but wrong to say that no notice was taken of his It tter. He added that he thought of feeing Mr Carpenter, but could no". He immediately sent Francis Goodwin to the t-laughter- house to do what was requirtd there. Aft- r Mr Price had given up contract, the Council invited tenders for the removal of the otf-il, but none were received. The Council advertised for tenders, because they weie mcst anxious to meet Mr Carpenter. Dr Edward Jones, medical officer of the Urban Council, medical officer of the Rural District Council, and medical officer of the Union, said he visited the Workhouse almost every other day throughout the year, passing the slaughter-house on his way. It was part of his duty to visit the slaughter-house and report. He had had no cause for complaint except in 1896, when he made some recommendations as to the drainage, which were carried out. In June, 1897, he saw Mr Carpenter and had a conversation with him. Mr Carpenter referred to the slaughter-house and slid there was a nui-ance there, and he recommended him to write to the ClerK to the Council so that the mat- ter might be brought officially before the Council. A day or two afterwards. Mr Carpenter sent for him and he thereupon called at the slaughter-house when he found it satisfactory. He (witness) had frequently visited the slaughter-house and had al- ways fouhd it to his satisfaction. As tar as the sanitary condition of the brewery was concerned, during a visit in June, 1897, he (witness) observed that there was some manure on Mr Carpenter's preinisfs. He did not take much notice of it and' did not think it objectionable. On August 11th, be received a letter from the Council J requesting him to inspect the slaughter-house and the brewery. He found mthing to complain of in the slaughter-house or the brewery, but when he went to plaint fTs stable he found there a heap of hops and grain and manure. Rf quested plaintiff to remove a portion of the surface of the manure heap arid he did so. The stench proceeding from it was very bad. Told Mr Carpenter distinctly that he thought the nuisance was on his premises, not on the slaughter-house and pointed out to him that the smell from the decomposed heap would injuri- ously affect the yeast in his brewery. There were about four or five loads there. In November, he (witness) again visited the brewery and found the manure heap in the same condition and he thought i'; was his duty to report it to the Council. The effect of the manure heap would bs injurious to the health of persons on the brewery premises.—Crass- examined Admitted that no complaint had been made about the brewery premises and no proceed- ings were taken. He reported the matter to the Council and there his duty ended. Did not re- member Mr Carpenter making a complaint to him about the slaughter-house and saying that in the meantime he might be stricken down with fever. —Re-examined The business done at the slaughter- house was very small. In bis opinion offal should be removed from the slaughter-house dailyandfrom the receptacle in forty-eight or seventy-two hours. Francis Goodwin, scavenger in the employ of the Council, said he had charge of the cleaning of the slaughter-house and another scavenger, Thomas Roberts, helped him with it. Since 1895 offal was removed once every week. There was very little slaughtering done there. Had never seen the offal in a putrid condition and when it was removed it was mixed with ashes and disinfectants used. Since June of last year there had been no accumula- tion allowed in the shed. It was removed away altogether every day. He washed down the slaughttr-hou-e four times every week.—Recalled later on, witness said in cross-examination that about Whitsuntide last year he went to the slaughter-houee at the request of the Inspector. The offal appeared to have been disturbed because the ashes that he had placed there on the previous Friday and Saturday had been displaced. Told John Price that afternoon to remove it and he came next morning at seven o'clock and carried it away. Thomas Roberts, scavenger, employed by the Council, spoke to having cleaned the slaughter-house on one occasion and said the offal was removed once a week, William Richards, butcher, Dolgelley, said he had used the slaughter-house and had always found it clean. During the last few years it had been kept cleaner than formerly. He had known no one to have complained of its condition.—In cross- examination he said he bad seen plaintiff there once or twice. Hugh Humphreys, butcher, John Evans, John Davies, Griffith Roberts, and Evan Edwards spoke to slaughter-house being kept clean. Richard Newell, butcher, carrying on business at Barmouth and Portmadoc, said he had visited the slaughter-house and had exanined the arrange- ments. Generally speaking, they were satisfactory, there also being an excellent supply of water. He had seen the place spoken of as the receptacle for offal and he believed that, having regard to the busi- ness done, it would be reasonable to remove it once a week. Mr Fox did not cross-examine these witnesses. This was the case for the defence, and Mr Lloyd submitted that the plaintiff had not made out a oase for an injunction. Having regard to the evid- ence of the practical men he hid called who were at the slaughter-house daily, he asked his Lordship to say a case had not been made out. Mr Fox said the defence had tendered no evid- ence that it was necessary to keep animals at the slaughter-house all night. His Lordship said he did not think much of that complaint. Mr Fox pointed out that one instance was dis- tinctly proved and not contradicted, but he would not press the point if his friend undertook there would be no repetition. He applied for an injunc- tion as asked, believing that a case had been made out, and he asked that no limitation should be attached to it. His Lordship said he was much obliged to the counsel for the concise way in which they had placed the case before him. It had come there before him rather unexpectedly, after the Assizes had been fixed, and it might have caused some in- convenience. The plaintiff had proved the exist- ence, prior to the commencement of the action, of such a nuisance as regarded the offensive smell as entitled him to an injunction. Whether it could be shown that by reason of structural alterations to the premises the conditions which had existed prior to the action had been prevented to recur, or even if that had been done after the action, an injunction would not have been granted. Whether the matter depended not upon structural precautions being taken to pre- vent a recurrence, but merely upon the mode in which the business was, in fact, carried on from time to time, it seemed to him that there was down to the time of the' commencsment of action such a state of things which called for an action being brought and even if that had been remedied since action the plaintiff was still entitled to have that kind of injunction for his protection and to prevent the premises being so used as to cause a nuisance. In reference to the point about the nuisance caused by smell, the case seemed to stand thus It was admitted that prior to some date in 1895 the pre mises were so conducted as to give reasonable I grounds for complaint to anyone who occupied premises in the neighbourhood. Subsequently to 1895 the premises were not so conducted. The slaughter-house was situated outside the town and at that time had no premises immediately con- tiguous to it. In 1895, Mr Carpenter came to re- side near »nd-it was clear that during the early part of the case he gave strong evidence—that there was a decided nuisance. What the Council did was to see that the offal was removed once a week. He did not think that was often enough and Dr Edward Jones agreed with the Medical Officer called by the prosecution on the point. The evidence called by the defence was that every three weeks out of four there was no nuisance, but the real point was that there existed a nuisance on specific occasions, particularly so when Mr Car- penter complained. About June, 1897. the Council made a new arrangement so that the offal might be removed daily. If they had communicated that distinctly to the plaintiff and if he had brought the action afterwards and there was evidence showing there was no nuisance after, he would not have had an injunction. Letters were written by plaintiff making a complaint of the existence of putrid offal and the time it was allowed to remain. The answer by Mr William Jones was that Mr Carpenter was wrong in saying no notice was taken of the com- plaints for he had sent a scavenger there to do what was wanted. Francis Gocdwin went there, but did not appear to have cleared it away. He came back and told Mr Jones there was nothing much requiring attention there. Mr Carpenter wrote back that the heap was still there and had been since the previous Saturday and that having failed to obtain satisfaction he placed the matter in the hands of his solicitor. On the evidence, plain- tiff was entitled to an injunction. He did not think there was any serious cauae of complaint at the present time, but the injunction would be a security to the plaintiff. Some one had smelted a manure heap belonging to Mr Carp nter and the Council thought that would be a sufficient answer, and did not settle the matter. As regarded the noise, be did not think from the evidence it was serious, nor regarding the complaint that the animals were kept without water. At the same time the defendants must not be encouraged by that to create a nuisance. Under the circumstances, he would grant plaintiff an injunction as applied for, but striking out the word noise." Nominal damages fixed at 40s were a.ho. granted plaintiff, together with cos's. On the application of Mr Xloyd, Mr Fox under- took that he would not charge any expense in con- nection with evidence on the damage to the yeast,