Denbighshire Free Press

blocked up with concrete so that coald back up from that drain if? the cellar, and presumably that seemed J We had really no effect. Apparently because His Honour would re- Yember that last year we experienced a dry summer, and no surface water got into the cellar. fof Artemus Jones Can you give the jjwhen the concrete wa9 put in ? ^7** Smith eaid it was between the 8th the 15th of June, That was the first Dieting. Then in October, 1906, com- were made, and Mr Lee Jones jPparently communicated with a con- dor. The position at that time was kjf* The plaintiff was complaining ^lytoMr Lee Jones of mess on his i. ^1863, and Mr Lee Jones took it upon ptoelf to write the following letter to r John Morris, of Trefnant Sanitary Inspector's Office, Denbigh, oaiuMft j 22ad 0ctober) 190G- \?ohn Morris, builder, ifec Trefnant. .^ear Mr R D Kughes, chemist, has re- j?% had'water perflating into his cellar, and opinion that it is caused by some detect in the ^ruction of the chamber you put in for him j he asks me to icake an appointment with when you are in town to go into the matter ether. I should, therefore, be pleased if you ? °11d meet me at his premises at your earliest j^enience, WiH •70U kindly write time and Faithfully yours, H LEE JOXES. tQ 011 the 27th of October plaiatiff wrote the Inspector County Medical Hall, Denbigh, n 27th October, 1906. sir,—1 sbE.ll be glad to see you and Mr j £ is, Trefr.act, at your earliest convenience, matter is getting serious. Yours faithfully, R. D. HUGHES. tble tua of November Mr Lee Jones ote to Mr Morris as follows Sanitarvlnspector's Office, Denbigh, 2nd November, U06. Morris, Builder. &c., Trefnant. 4 sir,—Mr R D Hughes is getting very 4tious iboct the water in his cellar, and desires > to again' write to you for an appointment, {j*shall be at his premises to-morrow (10-30), Q^rday morning. Should be pleased if you manage to meet me there. Yours faithfully, H. LEE JONES. next letter w»s as follows :— Sanitary-Inapector's Office, Denbigh, W 10th November, 1906. ^rJT Morris, builder &c., Trefnant. .Beer Sir,—! have recommended Mr E D 5«ghes, chemist, Denbigh, to have a new drain Instructed, as the only remedy to prevent water r°m percolating inte his cellar, the drain being je°i £ t>ined one in conjunction with W Price Trefnant. I have written this ^lesian on the subject, and asked for an PpoiotR^t. :I TviM then write to you again, U,. Perhaps you could manage to see us on the o^isesr together. tyj^u'd you see Mr Price Jones, perhaps you. *indly inform him how matters stand. Hughes' opinion being that the new frteetipfl. chamber is the cause of the mischief.; j 4c ehcw him how impossible this Yours faithfully, H. LEE JOXES. the 4th of Becember Mr Lee Jones further entries in bis book, in which suggestion was made that the in—, chamber was made by tho plain* j » but the entry showed also that the! It 2pector himself ordered it to be made. it L,*as difficult to- say, in view of what taken place,-what the position of the Rector really was. Unless he was the 0 c.i*l of the Corporation, it was extra- ( „?ary that he should have made these rie8 in the official books of the Corpora- te 5th of December the In- ^^rvwrote thus to Mr John Morris :— Stnitary Inspector's Office, Deivbigli, 5th December, I$QG. Morris, builder,. 4l;c., Trefnant. -ear 3k,—Being ioformed that you have }>e^ved instructions to lay a new drain, from Mv Rushes'■ and Mr Price Jones' premises,1 to request you to commence this work tQe lout father delay, es Mr Hughes informed ?er iSt P'fht that the sewage water, which is C'i0C? into his cellar, is becoming danger to health. YOOH: faithfully, H. LEE JONES. -^obodj, continued -counsel, knew better Mr iLee Joaet: «bout the Katter, ^auae he had g,>eia, instructions himself a new drain Instructions were gwar by Mr E D Hughes. He x no interest in tfae*Eiatter and he gave ^°°rders 4s-Mr Morrie* On the IStii of C^r. an spite of the work having ^ehdone<ac the I2tb, water flooded into 'Cellar. The. Corporation sail thej not responsible in ?pite of the aotion, by their own <3$&?ial. When the was 'finished one «nd of the dr&iu ^as up at the mxan-hole end by « Lee J ones' orders. When he ced this, Mr Hughes was very auoqyed, 6it meant the blooH0? UP feeoh c^s of the drein, and in doiDg what wM t,,ti k L of the Inspector adopted^ ugk ead ready method. On 13tu. e<5eactb«t, Mr iLee Jones wrote as follows San'tapy-lBcpector's Office, Denbigh, j T l'dih. Bboember, 190fr>. Mortk, builds, &o., Trefnaat. wear Sit,—Mr E D Hughes -is again having ajer it to his cellar, and ho informs me ijj it ig jntenton to re-instc.te a surface' ^lu (wiifch.he ordered to be removed from tke in Mar last) to drain -the place. He; °ldteIore me to give instructions to have the *^rain -opened In 'the cham&ex, which was s "^ted ^p l^' your tean. ■,YCVJTS faithftiuy, <wporete was done under Mr t^onegVowa instrcetions. Apart from d-rain was perfectly clear, ^idenee would be -sailed to shew that tQ ^ad been jjet throngh it frooa one end c the other «nd an^' stoppage had been it8 by the Sanitary Authority through l ,offi«al, eotireiy. What they com- r^'led of was,—and he would eall Mr c^wood to Bpe&k as to t^is point,—that Qian-Jaole was BE.ade OIE. an absolutely J°og principle altogebher- Instead of r^ing a useful purpose, it had been the ii^ans of an aceamulatioD of dirt and dlth v 1it •could not get away -from the cellar. J the work had been carried out on any- « ^g like a reasonable aeale of drainage, i ete would have been no difficulty at all {j.tlie matter. On the 21st December, 4oriour would find that there was a vt r froRt Mr R Humphreys Roberts, JK- Was okairman of the Sanitary Corn- afi(j ytho, Counsel believed, had ^'&ived a complaint from Mr Hughes. his letter Mr Humphreje Roberts that he .only received the plaintiS'a late the previous evening after %rit]S Coviacil Chamber he could ij^^it jthat the Council was responsible at it was plaintiff'i c^a man that did what had been done. Their Inspector had advised what in his opinion should be done, and had pressed for urgency in carrying out the work. Mr Lee Jones/ the writer continued, was always readv to reader any assistance in his power, but this did not make him respon- sible for carrying out the work. If the view that Counsel put before His Honour was a correct one of the law, that letter afforded no real answer. The Act of 1875 had thrown upon the local sanitary authority the duty of seeing that these drains were properly done and became a part of the sewage system invested the local sanitary authority. This was perfectly clear under the section of the Act. The responibility lay entirely upon the authority, who under section 19 of the Act of 1890 could recover the expenses of work done for private owners; but they were not relieved from their duty seeing 0 that the work was done. It was a sufficient answer to the question to say that the work was done under the supervision of the inspector, 4ho could only be there as inspector and not in any other capacity. Otherwise it was difficult to see why the entries should be made in the official book at all. As regards the cellar, after the work was done, plaintiff would tell them that the water was as bad as ever; things got from bad to worse, and the bottom of I the cellar turnei out to be an accumula- tion of filth and sewage that became a serioas danger and menace to health. On the 28th of February Messrs Gold Edwards and Co. wrote the following letter Denbigh, 28th February, 1907. Dear sir,—Wf, have been consulted by Mr R D Hughes, High- street, with reference to the dam- age done to his premises by the fooding of his cellar in consepuence of certain drainage work done at his prei-lises under the pressure and to meet the requirements of your Council, and under the superintendence of the Inspector of Nuisance. We understand that in consequence of the new sev erage system, the Council required an inspection chamber to be p..It upon a joint drain, which took the house drainage from our client and Mr Pryce Jones' prerrises to the main sewer, and that this was done at the joint ex- pen-e of out client and Mr Pryce Jones. This work'was so carried out, according to the directions and under the superintendence of the Council's officer, that the cellar drains which should not have been disturbed, were interfered with, with the result that wbeKever there is any considerable quantity of raic, the cellar of our client's premises become flooded and have to be ^"our has suffered considerable damage, for which he holds the Council responsible. Our client has addressed a letter to the chair- man of the Highway Committee, but having -obtained ne redress, he has placed the matter in our hands. We shall be glad to hear from you what action the Council propose to take its. the matter. Yours faithfully, GOM) EDWARDS AND Co. J. Parry vones, Esq., Town Clerk, Denbigh. To that the Town Clerk replied as follows on the same date Town Clefrk's Office, Denbigh, j 28th February, 1907. Dear girs,-I am in receipt of your letter of ■even daee with reference to tiie flooding of Mr R D Hughes' cellar. I have not heard anything of the matter previously, but I will make enquiries, and if necessary, take the instructions of the Town CounciL thereon, and write you further. Yours faithfully, PABRY JONES, Town Clerk. Messrs & Oe., Solicitors. s On the 22nd of March the Town Cterk hfd apparently taken instructions, and replied in the following terms Town Clerk's Office, Denbigh, i'2nd March, 1907. re,%T-F-"rs, -I have submitted your letter of tke i I'Hta ultimo with reference to the flooding of Mil" li D Hughes' cellar to the Town Council, and having enquired into the matter, I am instructed to repudiate all responsibility in connective :therewith. -Yours. faithfully, J. EJSJRRY JONES, Town Clerk, Messrs Geld Edwards and Ce. Of course, remarked Counsel, that letter put the parties at arms length, and entitled the plaintiff to ask for a declara- tion hei-claimed that .day, because at that time there was no attempt to put in foree the provisions of section 19 of the Act of 1-690. On the 29th of May this year there was another letter to the following effect :— Denbigh, 9th May, 1907. Drainage at Mr R D HU:ftes' premises. Dear Sir,—Since our previous correspondence ht rein, Mr-Hughes has taken expert advice, and we are in a position to state that Mr Hughes' csntention that the supervisioE of the sanitary inspector was inadequate is fully confirmed, and has resulted in flooding the cellar, and in an insanitary manhole. Further, that in the carrying out f f the work a sewc r was cut, and stopped with concrete, under your sanitary inspector's advice, and that this has caused the flooding.. We are therefore instructed to require your Council, as the sanitary authority, to make good the said sewer &nd manhole on ths same. Yours faithfully, GOLD EBTAEDS & Co. J Parry Jones; Esq, Town Clerk. ;Town Clerk's Offioe, Denbigh, 30th May. 1907. I MrM D Hughes' claiir. DEW: SIES,—in receipt of YJUR lettsr of yesteruay s idate jhereon, and will ll2.y the same before'the Town Council at the first opportunity. Yours faithfully, J PAKBC JONES, „. „ „ Town Clerk, Uessrs Gold Edvr&rds & Co., Solicitors. The Judge: What is the position of the! Council in this matter, Mr Jones ? —Mr Artemus Jcnes said the position was a simple one. The sanitary daspector carried <sn his duties m accordance with the provisions o? the Local Government Board's regulations, and the Corporation eoffitended all along that the drain in question was a proper drain, patfectly It was argued on the other a they did not exercise their power «n er section 19 of the Aefc of 1890, but 'before that could be gone into it should be proved a nalaance dangerous to public health. The Judges^ Do yen say that thie M.a danger to pufelie health? Mr Jones: We say that the drain -is a proper drain, and the -idea that it was a sewer never originated nntil the matter got into the hands of the lawyers. Replying to further questions by the -Judge, Mr Jone* said that the facts as ke would pat them forward were complete at variance with those of his friend. On al- I most every material point he had made, j there would be a fat contradiction. Of ] course, the point of law could be argued j later. I Mr Smith then read the following letter:— Town Clerk's Office, Denbigh 21st J:une, 1907. Dear Sir3f jjr R D Hughes' Drainage. Adverting to your letter of the 29th ultimo, hereon I have now had an oppertunity of taking the instructions of the Town Council, and am directed to state that the Council still repudiate all liability and responsibility in the matter. At the same time, it is suggested tha.t if your client would restate the gully ia hi* csilfti.an.d re-connect it with the drain which he sealed up, the remedy for the flooding he complains of would be in his own hands, and the difficulty would be overcome. I am also direct to point outjthat the inspection chamber, which you refer to as an "insanitary manhole," was constructed by your client's own contractor, and not in any was under the super- vision, or by the order of the Corporation Ofiicials- Yours faithfully, J PARRY JONES, Town Clerk. Messrs Gold Edwards & Co., Solicitors, Denbigh, 22nd June, 1907. Mr R D Hughes' Drainage. Dear Sir, We have shown your letter of the 21st inst. to our client, who, as you are aware, feels very strongly on this matter, and he has instructed us to ask you to accept service of proceedings. Yours faithfully, GOLD EDWARDS & Co., J Parry Jones, Esq., Town Clerk, Town Clerk's Office, Denbigh. 22nd June, 1907. Mr R D Hughes' Drainage. Dear Sir, I am in receipt of your letter of to-day's date, and while regretting your client's decision to commence proceedings, I have no alternative but to accept service. Yours faithfully, J PAHBY JONES, Town Clerk. Messrs Gold Edwards & Co., Town Clerk's Office, Denbigh. 2nd September, 1907. Dear Sirs Corporation a.t.s. Hughes. Following up the verbal request made to your Mr Evans this morning, I write to ask for per- mission to go upon your client's premises, for the purpose of making an inspection of the drain and the cellar, &c. Yours faithfully, j J PARRY JONES, Town Clerk. Messrs Gold Edw&rds & Co., Solicitors. Denbigh, 2nd September, 1907. Dear Sir, Mr R D Hughes and the Corporation. In answer to your letter of to-day's date, Mr Hughes is williag that you should have an op- portunity of inspecting the drain and cellar, but we must ask yen to make a definite appointment, so that Mr Hughes can make arrangements. If you will tell us when you like to go over the porperty, we will try to arrange with Mr Hughes. We should add that at the present moment the manhole which was erected upon Mr Lee Jones' advice, and under his supervision, is in a most insanitary state, end as this is the case, we must request you net to have it cleared out be- fore the hearing of the case on the 19th inst. It is possible that the Judge may wish to inspect the locus in quo himself, and we should like him to see it in its present state. Yours faithfully, GOLD EDWARDS & Co. J Parry lanes, Esq., Town Clerk. I Mr Smith said it bad been suggested that the Judge should visit the locus in quo. The Judge: Pity the Judge then J (laughter). The following lettters were then read:- Towc. Clerk's Office, Denbigh, 3rd September, 1907. Dear Sirs, Corporation ,ats R D Hughes. I thank you for your letter of yesterday's date, and I will make a definite appointment for the inspectien of your client's premises as soon as I j un in a position to do so. I note what you-say as to the present condition of the inspection chamber, though I must repudi- ate your statement that it was constructed under the supervision of the Sanitary Inspector. When inspecting the premises our experts will require >4o see the chamber, but they will not, of course, interfere with it in any way. '1 ,Yours faithfully, J PARRY JONES, Town Clerk. Messrs (Sold Edwards.& Co. Town Clerk's Office, Denbigh, 4th September, 1907-. Dear Sire, Corporation a.t.s. R D Hughes. WitLrefenence to your letter of the 2nd inst., in which you state, that at the present moment the manhole on Mr Hughes' premises is in a most insanitary state, it would seem that there must be-some temporary blockage in the syphon ,pipe. and if this is removed the chamber would clear:itself, but if it is not removed immediately. !the chamber will, of course, fill up and overflow, With reference to your request that the Cor- poration will .not Have it cleared out before the hearing of the case on.the 19th inst." in -orde-. that the Judge, if necessary, may see it, I beg to point out that the Council must earry out the duties impeded upon it by Act of Parliament. The cleaning .of the chamber is such a simple matter that it appears quite unnecessary to allow a nuisance to ke created cs continued. If it is considered desirable to show the ^udge an, chamber, f ull,of sewage, the syphon could again be blocked/Up before the;courb day. You must, on reflection, admit that it is im- possible for the Corporation to ignore the .pro- visions of the Act of 1875, solely for the purpose of suiting your client's case, particularly as the object of your request can le quite as well served In the matter suggested. Since you say thatihe manhole is in a most insanitary state, I must request you, .as representing Mr Hughes, to have the nuisance abated immediately. Failing any -such action on his part, the usual notice will be served in the ordinary course.-Youri faithfully, J P"ry JONES, Town Clash, Messrs Gold Edwaois & Co. .Denfcigh, 5th .Ceptember, ld07. £ )ear Sir, iHaghes v. Corporation cf Denbigh. J We haverto acknowledge yccr letter of jester- ,i!tty'.s date. There can be no dcubt that its manhole is in im most insanitary state, and,has been es for months past. It is, however, net caused, as you suggested, by any temporary blockage in tihe syphon pipe, but by the faulty design and esn- steuction ofiShe manhole, and the connection sA the new sewer, laid lznder your Sanitary In- ;| specter's supervision, with the manhole. Ocr client has repeatedly made the Sanitary Authority aware of this, and if yor. will refer to our letter to ycu dated 20th May last, we theE J informed you and complained that the manhole vras lie sanitary, and your letter ini-reply, dated 21st June, stated "adverting to :our letter of j the 29th ultimo, have rncv had an opportunity of ^taking the jcstruction £ <of the Tosrn Council, and am directed to state tfc&t the Council still re- pudiate all liabijity and .responsibility in the matter. The Corporation have for.all these ffwnths al- lowed the existing.-of affairs to remain, and you now say in your letter of yesterday tiiat the Council must carry out the dirties impeeed upon it by Act-of Parliament," and that we zlist, on reflection, admit that it is impossible for the Corporation to ignore the provisions of the Act of 1870, solely for ,the purpose of suiting your client's ease." We da not admit this at all and we cannot agree, nor can we .think that now on the eve of tbe trial of the action, you and vour Corporation will take steps to abate the nuisance of which you have had notice so long. We again repeat that it is most essential that the Judge should have an opportunity, eitould he so desire, of seeing the manhole as it is at present, and we object to it being touched. We enclose herewith further particulars. Yours faithfully, GQLD EDWARDS & Co. 12 Parry Jones, Esq., Town Clerk, Denbigh. Having read all the correspondence, Mr Smith went on to state that just when the matter was coming to:.trial :there was an extraordinary excess of zeal on the part of the Corporation, who showed some anxiety to have the matter looked into, but the letters afforded the strongest evidence that the manhole was in an insanitary state. The position he took was this even assuming that the work was done by Mr Hughes, which was not the case, the drain on the premises became a sewer within the meaning of the Act, and it therefore did not matter by whom the work was done. The Corporation had therefore become responsible, for the reason already stated, and also because their official supervised the carrying on of the work. Mr Hughes had been put to much expense and trouble in connection with the matter, although he had not yet paid for the new drain, as Mr Morris had not sent in his bill. It was true thao plaintiff had paid half the cost of another part of the work, Mr Price Jones paying the other half, bat the money had been thrown away, and plaiatiff was therefore entitled to recover it. Something caused the cellar to flood, and if the inspecting chamber had been improperly put in he was entitled to damages on that point. The cellar was still in the same coudition the water was there, and there was no means of getting it out except by bailing. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. Plaintiff then entered the witness box to give evidence on his own behalf. He had, he said, occupied his premises for about 30 years, during which time, until 2 years ago, the cellar in question had been perfectly dry. In the year 1904 a new sewer was made in the Back Row, at the rear of his premises, but previous to this his drain ran into the old sewer. After the new sewer was made his drain was connected with it by Mr Jeremiah, the clerk of the works, who was carrying out the new sewerage system for the town. After this had been done, Mr Jeremiah came to him in a friendly manner and asked if he would test the connection to see how it acted. This plaintiff did with a bucket of chloride of lime, which passed through in no time, and Mr Jeremiah expressed himself as very well pleased with the work. About the beginning of 1905 Mr Lee Jones came to him, without being sent for, and said it was necessary to have an inspection chamber or something of the sort, bnt plaintiff said such was not necessary. The Inspector came to him two or three times—each time with the same story-but plaintiff objected each time. He most certainly never authorised the Inspector or anybody else to put in an inspection chamber, although he believed the Inspector did tell him that the cost would only be trivial, about £ 2 10s or so. Counsel: Did you ever give Mr Lee Jones, Mr Price Jones, or Mr Morris, of Trefnant, any authority to construct this chamber? Plaintif; None whatever. Continuing, he said he believed Mr Lee Jones occasion- ally visited the work whilst it was in progress. PJaintifi did not take much notice of what went on, because he had not ordered the work to be carried out. The first occasion upon which he knew any- thing about the cost or the order was when Mr Price Jones brought him the bill, and plaintiff paid half of it inasmuch that he had always been, and was on good terms with Mr Jones-that account was about 97 13s. Up to the time of putting in the inspection chamber the cellar had never had any water in it, but during the first wet weather following water was found there, some times to the depth of four or five inches, and this had to be baled out. Every possible means were taken to dis- cover the cause of this, and he spoke to the inspector about the matter, telling him there must be something wrong with the job that he had carried out. In reply to this the inspector wanted to make out that there must be a spring of water somewhere. but plaintiff replied that he had never experienced the like before as regards the hooding of the cellar. As regards the blcoking of the drain by concrete, this was done at the order of the sanitary inspector plaintiff had never given any orders that such should be done. On one occasion he met Mr Lee Jones whilst the work was in progress, and the latter said there would not be a drop of water in the celiar after the rjob was completed, and offered to make a bet on it. Counsel: I think it was a dry summer that followed ? .Plaintiff: Yes, it was a dry summer at that time, because he offered to make me a wet bet (laughter). Continuing, he said that -after every storm and wet weather the leallar was covered with water. There had: been thousands upon thoasauds of bucket fulls of water taken out of the cellar al- together, and on many occasions one could, not got in the cellar without getting wet. He had paid over 1:12 for baling water out alone. The water caused the cellar to be insanitary, and smells arose therefrom. I PLAINTIFF CROSS-EXAMINED. Cross-examined by Mir Artemus Jones, witness said that until the inspection cham- ber was put in, water never came to the loellar or anywhere near it. He had employ- ed men to do work on the premises, and amongst them Mr P WiUiacM, plumber, but he did not remember discussing with Mr Williams the possibility of an old well being under; the kitchen. He had never seen such a well, and did-not mention the matter to Mr Williams. The covered passage on the premises was used by Mr Price Jones, and himself. Mr Jones: You knew that the Corpora- tion carried out a drainage system at considerable expense ? I Witness: I ras not very interested in it except as a ratepayer. Yaa take 'try a rather cynical attitude towards the Council, don't you1?—-I don't thinkao. But yon knew that they carried out this drainage systeci ?—Yes, to my sorrow. And do you know that the owners of all .private drains were reqaesied to put in ifnspectLon chambers in their drains f—rI do not. -And jwhen Me Lee Jones came to you about it, you were very reLoetant to oarry out?— was. JEleplyifcg to frrther questions, witness said he cEd not think Mr Lee Jones told him anything atout the advantages of inspeotion chambers. All he said was that it would not cost X2 10s. Alt hoc gh he <ol&ected to the work being done, he paid half the bilL The inspection chamber was put in contrary to tis wishes. He remem- bered Mr Lee Jones saying that the old pe ,was much deeper than Ire thought, but bo never said that this was the cause of his es-timate ot £ ? 10s being exceeded. Aman named Evan Pavies was called in* and he put concrete aA the cellar end of the pipe. He esued Davtes in himself, and asked him to do what the inspector had told him to do, and that .WAS to open the end of the drain- While the wock was being done, Mr Lae Jones visited fcfee place. And untul Mr Lee Jones oamel in then, he was aot aware that ycu had a cellar on the premises at aU was he ?—Good gracious me! He had beea down, and had seen the water. Do you a wear that ?—Yeg, over and over again. I put it to you tkat you told Mr Lee Jones "lam concreting up this end of the drain, and I want you to see whether it is done properly ?—Nothing of the kind. IjiWhat was your idea in cabling in the Inspector of Naissuees 7-Who should I call but him? I called him in to help me to abate the nuisance. Did you call him in to see the man conciliating the end of the pipe?—I did not. I called him to see what was the best way of clearing the water out of the eellar. First of all he said it was spring water, and afterwards he got one Joseph Evans to cut open the drain. The new drain WIíI put in witkoat his (witness) permission. 1 Mr Lee Jcnoo simply told the man what to do. Ha (witness) did not suggest that Evans was in the employ of the Corporation at the time. And so far as you could see, when Mr Leet Jones found out that the pipes were defective, he had done his work without any negligenoe,at all ?-Ye9. Did Mr Lee Jones find half a bucketful of bottles and glass in your cellar?-No; he couldn't. He found two old bottles. I knew that was coming (laughter). And you made ready for it ?—Yes (re- newed laughter). l Witness went on to deny the possibility of bottles entering the drain from the oellar, but they might get there through the grid in the yard. Mr Price Jones never discussed with him the cost of putting in a new pipe, and if Mr Jones swore that he gave orders to Mr Morris on witness' behalf, he was wrong. He (witness) had no knowledge that the new pipe was being put in until it was just completed, neither did he know that Mr Lee Jones had found out the cause of the blockage in the drain. Mr John Morris, builder and contractor, Trefnant, next gave evidence. He had, he said, heard the evidence of the plaintiff, which was quite correct so far that he did not give orders to witness direct to pro- ceed with the work. The only recollection he had of orders were those written by Mr Lee Jones for the second work carried out. The work was carried out under the instructions of the inspector, who was their consulting engineer with regard to the new drain and manhole in the yard. Beyond receiving the letters from Mr Lee Jones witness knew nothing further except that men were sent to do the work. His Honour: Have you been paid for this last work ? Witness No, I have not sent the bill in yet (laughter). In cross-examination, witness said he intended to send the bill in, as he had done the first one, jointly to Messrs R D Hughes and Price Jones. As regards the first work of the inspection chamber wit- ness received the order personally from Mr Price Jones the other was carried out on the instructions of the inspector. Joseph Evans, bricklayer, said he re- membered going with a man named Edward Hughes to open a drain in the back yard of Mr Hughes, premises, and was sent there by Mr Lee Jones. He found the main drain fall of sewage-the 9-inch drain-he also found a broken pipe there. Mr Lee Jones ordered him to clear the drain out; Mr R D Hughes gave him no orders, but only showed him where the, drains were. As regards the one end of the drain he received orders from the inspector to concrete it up and did so. He could not say whether it was blocked up with con- crete or not previously. He made the new drain acoording to the order of the inspector. In cross-examination, witness said he was paid for the work by Mr R D Hughes. Mr Lee Jones just looked in now and again to see how things were going on. At the time he was there the inspection chamber was quite clear; this was when the drain- age was through the old drain. Edward Hughes, who was employed with last witness on the work, gave evidence in oorroboration to the effect that all the orders received were given by Mr Lee Jones. Isaac William Jones, assistant to plain- tiff, said the cellar had always been perfectly dry before the inspeotion chamber was put in. Since then, whenever there was any rainy weather, it was always flooded. He remembered the inspection chamber being made, and the men worked under the direction of Mr Lee Jones. His Honour Do you dispute having made the inspeotion chamber, Mr Artemus Jones ? Mr Artemus Jones: Undoubtedly, sir. We never made the inspection chamber at all. Witness, continuing, denied that any empty bottles were kept in the cellar, and •it was impossible for them to get into the drain from this spot. The water had to be 4baled out repeatedly, and this had cost a considerable amount of money. William Jones, an errand boy in the em- ploy of plaintiff, said he had baled as many as fifty buoketfulls of water oat of the -cellar in one day. William Jones, Panton-hall, said for many years he had been employed occasion- ally by plaintiff. Before the construction of the new drainage scheme the cellar had always been dry, but since that had been carried out h, had been employed many times to bale out water from the cellar for plaintiff. EXPERT EVIDENCE. William Lockwood, architect, was the sext witness called, and handed in a report of his inspection of the cellar on the 23rd and 27th of May. The evidence in this report was of a technical character. He was of opinion that the water in the cellar was caused to some extent by the blocking up of the drain pipe, or the 9-inch pipe. The The drain was defective, hence the nuisanoe. I He thought the fall 4of what was described on the plan as the blue drain was too steep, tand it ought to be taken down gradually into the inspection chamber. There was no improvement in the cellar, as the water was ooming there just the same. Witness was cross-examined at length by Mr Artemus Jones, but in the main adhered; to his written report. j In re-examination, witness said there j were three probable causes of the trouble I 1.(1) the blocking up of the 9-iach pipe (21 the presence of a hidden spring, and (3) the backing up of the water either inside or outside of the pipe. This closed the oxoe:for the plaintiff. OPENING THE DEFENCE. in opening the defence, Mr Artemus Jones argued that there was no "rima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the Inepecbor, and that he had nothing to answer. The Judge said he could not stop the case. Mr Jones then farther argued that on the evidence both the works done on the premises were done with the knowledge of Mr E D Hughes, and were paid for by him- that is, the work of concreting up and the constcuotion of the inspection chamber. It was done with his knowledge and by his authority. So much on that point. So far as the Inspector of Nuisance was concerned his duties were regulated by Act of Par- liament, and if Mr Hughes had any com- plaint to make as to the way in which the officer carried on his duties, he had a remedy under sections 303 and 299 of the Act of 1S75. Every one of the duties laid down in che Act had been carried out by Mr Lee Jones, and in order to prove negligence on the part of the Inspector, a breach of duty must be proved; and if Mr Lee Jones was proved to have gone beyond the scope of his employment in voluntarily undertaking what he did at Mr Hughes' premises, then Mr Hughes' remedy was against the Sanitary Innspeotor personally and not against the Sanitary Authority. But as a matter of fact, the plaintiff had not provem any negligence on the part of the officer, and the only thing he had shown was that the water in the cellar was really caused by the insertion of the concrete in the pipe. After farther argument by connsel, the Judge said he must hear the evidence for the defence, This, however, was not taken, and the case was adjourned to the next court, to be held at Denbigh on the 14th of November. After rising, the Judge visited the premises, in company with the two experts, Messrs Lockwood and Wood. Before adjourning, His Honour threw out the suggestion that the parties should agree to the clearing of the concrete from the pipe, and this was favourably received, and possibly will be acted upon.