Hide Articles List

3 articles on this Page

ALLEGED RIVER POLLUTION AIMjIANRWST.…

News
Cite
Share

ALLEGED RIVER POLLU- TION AIMjIANRWST. CASE IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION. ISGOED JONES v. TJKBAN (From Cur London Correspondent). Consid.eixible local interest bas been evinecd in the Vale of Conway in the action brought by Mr Isgoed Jones aganiet the Llanrvst Urban District Council. The i-earing- of the case in the Chancery Division beiore Mr Justice Parker, has extended otoe several the proceedings commencing on Thure- day, November 3rd, and continuing the next day, when there was un adjournment uiitil tile foLoiving Wednesday. H.nce then me heading ot tiie action has gone on oon-tinuoxifi- 1, 'Lbq first t)iix.c days' proceedings in the Chancery Division v,.cie ful.y reported in the. Ism, issue of lii-j West Coast i'lon-eer." p.aintiii, aa oi property on the riv-er Conway, sought to restrain tlh" defend- ants committing an alkgcd nuisance by dis- charging crude sewage into the river. ->1. Aiark Homer, and Mr Hewitt ap- pealed for the plaint-ill', and Mr Macmorraa, ii.C' and Mr 'lomlin lor the defendants. ir Justice Parker, in the Chancery Divi- sion, continued to-day week the hearing oi tins action. Router said that the plaintiffs had now amended their statement oi and it was now a ooinblaation of the statement of claim aiul the aeply. 'ihe first para-graph stated that the p-aintiff was the owner of Peny- gudair, and described the property as it was originally described, with the exception that it stated clearly that the part adjoining the fiver was in the occupation of a yearlv tenant. Tiiey omitted any -claim to bind successors, and th-e c..a im was for dedarat ion that the defendants were not entitled to discharge eewage into the River Conway in such a manner as to cause a nuisance; and, further, that they net entitled to discharge sew- age into the river in such a manner as to cause a trespass on the plaintiff's property. Macmorran said that I as the plaintiff 3iad amend-ed his statement of claim, it "would be necessary for him to amend his de- fence, and he should have to ask for his lord- ship's consideration. Justice Parker said that the case could not finish that day, a<nd suggested that oy the next day (Friday the defendants might be able to effect the n-ecessary amendment. ji-r Temlin said he shou.d "desire to con- sider the position, which had been entirely altered by this amendment. The defendants iad be on token by surprise, and this was a aerious point. -■ir Romer admitted that it was a serious point, but he did not see how the defendants coiild have been taken by surprise. This joint about part of the land being in the occupation of a tenant was a point lor which they were prepared, and the plaintiff was cer- tainly not JB.i-5 Lard-li.p said that they would at aJl events finish the plaintiff's case, and they could then consider whether any adjournment you-d be meeessarv. M Malek, further examined, said that on one occasion he was there the acoumu- Jation of lilth u.ier Hewer No. 2 was 2 feet 6 inches deep. II > measured it with a stick on ■wvi oh he had a fork. To do it he had stepped from the edge ol the bank and in that way me was able to Vhrust the stick into the heap. It went in easily—like driving it into mud. He took sajnples which he gave to Mr Thompson, who would give ev.denec. Gulls came up the to this spot and picked things out of the water. The posts ne used for measuring the tide he put in at the time of high water at Con- way and kept them there for at least 50 oi 60 nanutes afterwards. The indications on the beard which he had nient.aned were noted 50 or tO m r.-utes after high water at Conway. Mr Romor: It ha.s been suggested that if you had waned a little ionger you might have seen a rise. Where you in a posit.on to Soeø whether there was or not ? Witness said that he came back to the boards after lie had noted the and found that there was indication of its increas.n^ On on-e occa- sion witn a 20-icofc rise at Conway tnere was a rise of 1 rncih at his boards. The r se re- mauled for about 7 minutes and then began to fall, He had satisfied htms"it that the rise ho had noted on each occasion was the maximum Z. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. M K Oivt.\ ISGOEi) JONES, the plauialt, ck, x-.1 in support of his sa.d tiiat ho U'a.s a native of Linrwst and iiad lived there all his lite. He was a chemist for 65 years mere and retired a lew years ago. He hau held a nu.nibe of public cfiiees .u the ne.gh bourfiood. 1 [ > ri'riicrrit>ered a of sewerage being introduced t;1ere about 16.4 or 1815. Previous to that there was no eysrem of drainage vvnaiever. Witness described tne pos.tion of the original sewer and the outfall. &Wt JSO. 2 was lad down, he said, about 1882. It wus intercepted by sewer No. 1 so that both went into the outfaai lIe ha.d described at file northern end. That state of things was akered ju lo9i. bewer .No. 1 \v«as d.sc<>nn?cNxl ajijd pia-eod diagonally in the river where it now is. teewer No. 2 was carried directly to the river it now In Io98 he beca,mo tenant of tiio whole or what was now his ixspertv. Con- cui ivniy he sublet all the port.on by the river .retaining »n his own possession only the houuea'id garden, 'i'iiat by the river was sublet for graz- ing purposes. It was so sublet duiing the whole m ins tenancy. During bs tenancy, pr.or to the. purchase, 1:0 was in oeoapat^on of the no-use He had to complain of these Mwers to Mr Mclntyre, the consulting engineer to the Coun- cil. iie coinp'ained seve-ral times. -.1r Aiacaiori-an took oojection to bho quas- con, oe-j^iu -o no was mfurmd that Mr Mclntvre •was not an ofiicer of the Council at all. -i no question was not pressed Witno.^ continuing, said that while in occu- paaon, when he had occasion to go along the river, ho \\ent aiong the side hu property was. Prior to Jiat he hau gone aiorag the other side wtiore tine re was a pu^ic foe-tpath. He bought tne property in January, 190y. Since he pur- enased tne property ho had had occasion to suong tne river more frequently than he had cetore. He found hc con<tition of the river was lIuch as .had been dex-ribtd by the previous Y.tn0SSe. The lilth that was jittered about too cank caused an oftensive smoU, esneciaily on hoc dayi. hen the wind was in tho South it was earned right up to his residence. He could see sewer No. 1 from his windows. So far as he had been able to cb-f-erve the nuixaace was one that grew worse. The existence of true nuicanoe mosit docidediy interfered with lis developing the land as a building estate. The land adjoining the river was let to AJr Gec-ae Jones on a yoarly tenancy from ho 30iih ISovember. llistenant kept cows on the land ine cows eou tt get down to the r ver. Sf i:,c «indeiK hr»d been tipped upon tne land, but at a fiubstant al distance from the river. There was, however, a cuiver; ruc-am-g from the tip to the liver, but only dry matter waj put in the tip. No cattle would graze there, so permission was fiven to t.;p on condition that the tip should be ooveied over with earth. There was no founda- tion for the suggestion that the tip wa3 ever any nuisance to him. His tenant had the job ol making the tip, but witness had rcoentiy stopped him. The strip of land adjoining the river had 'been in his, or his tenant's, occupa- tion ever since he had had the property. He bad p:iid tho Lithes in res;x:ct of it. J Cross-examined: He a lump sum for and no particular sum for the strip of iand by the river. He knew that sewer ]1;0. 1 was laid under an agreement. Sewer No. 2 wm connected with sewer No. 1. Mr Macmorran: I suggest to you it never was connected. Witness said it was connected originally. lie was a member of the local authority in 1890, -:nd he saw the sewers as they then were. He under- stood from the beginning that these sewers were constructed to empty their contents into the river. Counsel read minutes of the Council meetings^ from which it appeared that the plain tiff kxJ supported the sewers being carried directly into the river. Witness said he did not think even after rea l- ing^ these extracts that he had anything to do with the construction of tho sewers or the selec- tion of their position. From 1891 onwards the sewers had continued to discharge at the spot where they were now discharging. He never sent any complaint to the Rural District Sanitary Authority with reference to this sewage. He in- struct d his solicitors and they wrot on July 26th, 19C9, with rdernecc to alleged arrears due for the easement in respect of the sewer. On August 16, 1919, his solicitor wrote that proceedings would be taken unless the arrears were paid with- in 14 days. Counsel pointed out that in the whole of .hit correspondence there was no reference whatever to any nuisance. After reading further corre- spondence he asked whether he might not take it that in November. 1909, what the plaintiff was asking for was something in the nature of pay- ment for an easement and aJso an increase of ,-ent payable for tho casement under the atrrecment of 1882. Witness said that it must be understood that that was a matter of business. TLe question of nuisance was much more important. He did not suggest that any complaint of the nuisancc vas made to the Council. He knew that the popu- lation of Llanrwst had been increasing, but did not think there had been any considerable 'n- crcase. There had, he reminded counsel, been B0 cci.ius since 1891. Mr J ustice Parker asked whether he might take it that the Council had refused to pay in jespecfc of the 1879 server? Mr Macmoiran said that there was a euriojs point abput that. The sc-wer had been aban- doned in 1891, and apparently both parties had treaty the qjd agreement for an jeasenieijt -is beiG<j at an c^d. All'he rea4 the Ic titers fort was i ■ f I i 1 i s i i 1 I tiff was making a claim in respect of an casement to show that up to quite a recent date the plain- but was saving nothing about any nuisance. Further cross-examined, Witness that he did not know that the Earl of Ancaster J claimed the whole of the bed of the river. He knew that in some parts of the river the Earl claimed rights on both sides, and that he issued permits to fish. Witness, however, would not allow anyone to fish from his pro- perty without his permission. Is it not a fact that people, with Lord Ar- eas t-er's permits, have fished from your pro- perty ? "Witness Not without my permission. Con- tinuing, he said that counsel might take it that he adopted the description of the con- dition of the river as giv n by the previous witness. There was a htrg-e deposit of sewage under tllp water. The last time he saw it the 22nd of September. There was a sewage deposit all over the shingle, beside the water. It was deposited by the water, and naturally it could only be deposited there when the water wa-5 over the stones. He last saw the heap under No. 2 sewer in October. He had made numerous entries in his diary with re- ference to the river, but could not find any that related definitely to that heap. He was down at the river on Sunday last, but there was a heavy flood there, and both sewers were cove red. lie had sold some of his land in p-üts. It was the land on the main road to Conway, lying between his own and the main road. In every case the purchasers had a right to by drains into the sewer. The tip' that had been referred to had been in use for some years. The tenant appioaehcd him very soon after he took the land for permission to make this tip. AN ALLEGED "TIP" NUISANCE. Counsel read minutes of a Council meeting, at which a nuisance from a tip was referred to, and it wao resolved that the plaintiff's attention should be ca-L-ed to it. "Witness said he remembered hearing oJ that meeting. His Lordsaip asked what any nuisance aris- ing from the tip had to do with the present ca.&? Mr Macmorran sajd the tip was very near to the p.aivit.fi"s house, and any small nuisance lou-nd there was more likely to arise from the tip than from the river bank. He would not, however, press the matter further. Vvitn was referred to plans for the pur- pose oi showing exactly tne land adjoining tne river that was in the occupation of his tenant. His Lordship asked what was the import- ance of dehning it ? Did it not run aid a.ong ? Mr Macmorran said: No. The importance was that it included the part where this al- leged trespass was said to take place. No doubt the payment oi tithe was evidence of owmership, but the p.amt.'tt' had stated that he only paid one tithe in respect of the whole property. He never complained to the Dis- trict Council until UJlO. Reexamined, witness eaid that settling tanks were now need by Council on the ground of expense. Ho did not complain to the Council oi the before February this year, be- cause he did nob d«js.re to gi\e publicty to the neusar.ee. He thought that publicity would ser.ou.-ly injure tho distr.ct. lie had given persons licence to tisa lie had purchas-xl the property. He had given licences to lish from the bank in the occupation of his tenant qu.te re- iy. The tenant had never complained. in answer to hjs Lordship, witness said tha £ he had seen persons fishing on his land The \weua v,.f lino river at tae point in quetion w0'uld be about 25 yards from bank to bank. In answer to further quest.otns from Counsel, witness said t\iat in 1891, when t'hc new sewer was constructed, he remembered a question be- in raised by the Board oi Trade as to wnethcr tne rLVcr at this point was navigable. He was then, of op.n.on that it was not navigable and was not tidal and he was of that opinion still. That was the opinion of the Board of Trade .n 1891 as sliown by their minutes, but it was only a quest.on of paying the lioard oi Trade half a crown and tho Council paid. ANALYSIS OF THE WATER. Mr Thompson, coneoiiting analytical chemist, that he inspected the river Conway on Juue 22nd and August 2,3rd this year. On the liret ceoasiou he found is in a filthy condition. There was a very unpleasant smeil. On tilie eeeond occasion tno water was considerably higher, and lie did net notice the filthy deposit on tho bed that ho had seen on tho first occasion. The water being higher the banks were covered. On ,that occasion saw the sewage como (Jut of sewer No. 2, and colour the water for some distance. The samp es he took below the sew- ers were a dirty milky white. Witncs* gave tho chemical analysis of the various examples til ait he took. The samples of tho water, he said, indicated tboat the bed of tho river wa" in a foul condition. He took no samples from the p amit.ff's land itself. Crosis-exaniined, ho said that on the first occasion ho went on the bank it waii covered with a slimy deposit-, which indicated the pre- sence of fie wage. He had samples of that dc- The samples, he produced were taken from between the stones. He had not ex- amined it under a microscope, but ho could sa.y L.at it was sewage. Sewage fungus was a dLrty grey colour. He saw sewage fungus in itiie river floating about. In the sample he produced he should say there was nothing to indicate the piceenco of sewage fungus un- less he had known its origin. The sample wit- ness produced he did not 'take with his own hands, but it was taken for him in hi; pre- scnce. It was dug up from below water. On oro side the river was very rapid. He did not know whether die- samples of tho water he had taken would eatisfy t.he Thames Conservancy, but it. was not drinking water. Counsel said ho was not sugge-fcing that the water was lit for drinking purposes, but that by the standard of the witness' analysis the pollution was i¡¡üni..tc3ima!. Witness did not admit that. But the water above sewer No. 1 is not fit for drinking? Witness: That is so. Then, with regard to the water below the pollution wae Miunite-dmaly Witness: That would depend upon the stand- ard you take. His Lcrdstinp: Is it fit for washing? Witness said he did not think that it was, though it was difficult to cay. On the occasion of his second vi-siit the sample of the water he took below was as good as the sample taken above. sewage was swept down by the flow cf the water. Asked how far it was swept down, he said that it was swept inwards towards the niaiiitifre land. Counsel suggested that on that day it was swept down by the flow of the water clean out of sight, and did not come back. Witness said that he a. sure them that that was not so. On that occasion the sample he took was not really something out of the pipe. Tho pipe was discharging. He did not take the sample himself, but some of it. The consents of the sewer wai discolouring the stream. The sample did look as if it was taken from the sewer itself. Counsel suggested that it must have been. Witness said that it was not. Counsel: I suggest that it was taken where the sewage was falling into the water and discolour- ing the water? Witness said that was so. Counsel: Then naturally it is sewage? Witness said there was no doubt it was largely sewage. He did not know that the Commissioners had condemned that method of taking samples. He did not examine the bottom of the river be- tween tho sewers himself, but he was told that there was a bank there fed long by three feet wide. The velocity of the river at No. 1 was considerable, and anything that went into the river there was swept away at once, but the velocity was only on the ono side of the river. On the other was a stagnant part, and anything in the river was brought back by the backwash into the stagnant pool. The second time lie visited the place was a dull colour, he did not know that that was the best kind of clay for some things. Re-examined, witness said that with regard to the two samples taken from the bottom of the river by Mr Malek, the first was taken from right under sewer No. 1. Mr Malek was standing in the water about up to his knees. Tho second sample, so far as ho knew, was taken from '.he heap which was about four inches under J!O water and the bank, besic > fungus. He did I,at think that all the sewage that came out of No. 1 sewer went down to the place when he took his samples of the water. A good deal of it turned in towards the plaintiff's land. THE DISCHARGE OF THE SEWAGE. Mr Lomax, civil engineer practising at Man- chester and Westminster, said he had had largo experience in carrying out sewage schemes, end the pollution of rivers and streams, and it was not his first appearance in the witness-box. He was familiar with the Conway Valley and had visited it especially for the purpose of the re- sent case. He was therefore familiar with Ihe plaintiff's land. Ho knew that the whole, of tha sewage from the Llanrwst district was dis- I charged into the river at the spot in question. From what he had seen, he should say the sewage outfalis were deleterious to the plaintiff's land Sewer No. 2 was discharging crude and m- screened sewage, which seemed to be flowing in a southerly direction. Sewago from sewer No. 1 went in the direction of the plain- ti1"s land, and mingled with the sewage com- ing from No. 2. He found two natural banks in the river, which had been in the process of formation for some considerable time. The result was to deflect the water that was com- ing down. Had the sewer been carefully carried out, in his opinion, the bulk of the sewege would have been carried away in a northerly direction. With the pipe acting aa a groyne, however, the result was that the ecwage was deflected. From his own obser- vation, he could say that about half of the sewage coming from the pipe was "deflected. It might be more, but to be fair he should say about half. There was little of no flow of water along the plaintiff's property on the side of the river. There was no perceptible current oa the plaintiff's side when he saw it M. Monday last. Had the been pro- perty constructed, he would go so far as to say that a good deal of the sewage would have been carried out, but in his opinion, :n any event sewage should be screen-cd fore it was discharged. Screening was a very inexpensive matter, and it meant the removing of floating matter. He had feen these objectionable floating matters Ol the plaintiff's land to a very considerable tX- tenfc. That co-uld largely be remoeed by screening. After a recent storm, he feu-id this sewage had been flung right across the footpath..In tiliics of flood, the sew age vat sealed UpiD the pipes,-and then, if i he suddenly assumed its normal level, the v-hole of this accumulated sewage cam-e cut with a rush. Mr J. M. Porter, estate agent, practising at Colwyn Bay, gave evidence as to the pro- perty, describing it as property sloping down from joeest land to an attractive river. When he visited, he said, he found oewage deposit in the river, and aLl .sorts of rubbish on the banks. In his opinion, this nuisance serious- ly affected the value of the plaintiff's pro- perty as a building estate. The court adjoujiicd. MR J. M. PORTER DESCRIBES THE ALLEGED NUISANCE. Mr Porter further cress -examined by Mr Hew.tt, said that there was no water tlowkig under the sewer No. 1. Counsel suggested that there was a free flow for a considerable parc of the length of tlie sewer. Witness sa.d that there was none on the date of h s iirst visit, but when he- visited the spot on October 2oth, t-nere was a little water spout- ing up frcm under tie fewer. He particularly observed it. With regard; to sewer No. 2, it was discharging al.ghtly when he v sited it. The discharge was dsoolo-uring the water. He could' see the cone 0'1' hea;> unaer the sewer. the dkeo-eiurat-cn ?—Witness sad no, but the- water was fairly dear there. He satis- fied himsieli that the h-ap was there. He C.d not provo it. He was not prepared to dispute that there wes no rock there. He shoulet de- scribe it as rubble sUme. The stones were hr stones ajnua-r to those found round the outla.l. He did not in fact by probing'the heap find LOW far it was stone and how tar it was deposit. On 118 second visit, on October 20th, the heap had been removed. The photograph produced to him. siiowed the bank faced w th stones of a considerable size. It was not, however, a fact that these storeB cae out and lay in heaps at the bottom of the river. There might be one hero and there. Tho water at the heap at tie of his visit was four fec-t deep. Trie sewer was d.seh-argin-g on his second visit. The sewage was falling on tho water and going slowly up stream. It w.as not, however, d'.fhcult to ascer- tain that there was a strong de-pesit on the bed of the river. He was able to. see it by going a few yards up strea«m. Tie did not take any steps to test what was on the bottom on that occasion. It would take a consderable force 10 remove tho heap he saw there on. the 31st of March. Assuming that it was reecoved- by Úle flow of the water, the river showed considerable scouring powers. Sewage, however* was not very solid. Ho know that the deposit was sewage. So far aa one couldi judge, the heap was not mode up of large solid1 bodies. Its appearance was net consistent with it being' gravel swept down Irü;!1 the road. He hud had ccmaiderabJe experience of sewage, and was ccai&dicttit that this heap was stuff that had come from the sewer. He made no oaic-ulatlon of the amount of difichargo of the sewer, lie should say the heap that *ie saw on March 31st varied from between two feet and1 five foot. He esti- mated1 the height ef the cone to be about, two feet. He had made no estimate of tho time fhet it would take to deposit a cone that size. It would take same cotnsidcrablo time. There was floor cloth and other such rubbish found along the bank, but he did not think that sug- gested a. rubbish heap rather than, a sewer. Pieces of floor clotlh socrsetiracs found their way into a sewer. He would not say that the whole of the surface of the gravel was covered. It was covered here andi there. He did not see a heap of rubbish there. There was rubbish, but not a heap—cinders and such like. There was -omo tannery refuee there.. He did not follow the stream up. When he was there in October he did not sec a hecp» consisting of tannery re- fuse, o'nders, and the 1 ke, but he agreed tliat the slioro was covered with a con- siderable quantity of that sort of stuff. He took certain levels on the plaintiff's property. He v. as aware that a -considerable pai t u; the plaintiff's property was liable to- flood- ing, but it would have to be a very abnormal flood to cover &o> much as suggested by coun- sel. He did not think that up to within n raids of the highway was liable to flooding. He should he very surprised to hear that 1 he water ever re ached that height. He krew that tho Couway was served \v a very 1-arge watershed, and was liable to serious floods. Shown a photograph showing water standing in Bridge-street, "Witness iaid he was stiill of opinion that the water would never reach the point suggested by counsel. He wa.s aware that there was a rubbish heap just below the house, or rather about the middle of the estate. On his first Visit they were burning rubbish there-, but on his second visit t-lie aspect of the heap had consider- ably changed. He had been to\i that the sewage from the house drained into the neigh- bourhood of tlie ru'bbish heap, but there was nothing to show that it did so. The rubbish heap would not assist in the development of the land, hat it was being got rid of. The value of the land would, of course, depend upon tho number of people who want-eel the land. The population of the neighbourhood might be decreasing, but lie was not pre- pared to eay that it was. lie mad-e- no in- quiries ,as to whether there was a demand for building land in the neighbourhood, but he knew that thero was. He was building there himself. It might be that duTing the last 20 vears there had only been 45 houses built. Mr Chris. T. Allard, a solicitor practising at LI2er.rwst, and clerk to the magistrates, who collect:el t-lne tides, was called to prove the tide charts that had been relied upon by the previous witnesses. MR T. B. FAR 31 NO TO N IN THE BOX. Mr Thomas Booth Farrington, civil en- gineer practising at Llandudno and Man- chester, said that for 20 years lie he'd the appointment of borough engineer of Conway. Conway was the harbour euthority, and con- sequently he had had considerable exjierieiice in the tides there. He had also had consider- able experience in sewage works. He had visited the plaintiff's property three times, and had found on the banks that- which was a legitimate cause of complaint by the plain- tiff. lie found the tide there stagnant, and considerable deposit on the plaintiff's banks. He found all along true. Line to which water had been up to, that which you would natur- ally expect to find dm the neighbourhood of a sewer outfall. It was offensive to him, and he would auot have liked to walk along it. Apart from the condition, of the water he thought that the condition of the banks would have a. deterrent effect upon a probable pur- chaecr. He had seen the heap under sewer No. 2 as described by the. previous witnesses. It was what he should naturally expect to find in the meighbourhood of a eewage out- fall. There anight have been o. boulckr underneath t, but the top was sewage. An averagvo tide at Conway would .be.16 foet. A tide of 21 feet he should caJJ a high spring; he had done numorc-us works cm the river Conway, and for that purpoae had had to study the tides. A 16-foot tide at Conway would have ,no effect on the pool by the elvers.. That- he could say from his own experience. About 100 years ago a bridge amd embankment was put across the mouth of the river Conway, which would to some ex- tent affect tine flow of the tide. There was also a. bridge some six miles up, which pre- sented some obstruction to the tide. He had heard the suggestion, .mede by Mr Lomax as to what should be done with the sewers, -and he thought it a. good one. The work should be carried out in twelve -months or less, and the puiiiication of the river would take abo-ut two yeasrs. Cross-examined: He thought that with a 21 feet rise at Conway there would be a rise in the pool. Counsel suggested that the level of the ordinary spring f.ido^at the mouth of the river Conway was 25 feet. Witness said that he was not prepared to dis- pate that, but he considered the mouth of the river was the estuary which was two miles below Conway itself. He should say that at Conway there never was a 25 'feet rise, and never had been. He hoped there never would be for the sake of the town. He did not suggest that the e.mbankment he had spoken of would prevent the tide from running up to a point to which otherwise it would run up to. It was not a fact that the result of narrowing the entrance was to ■ cause the flow of the tide to reach a higher point though it would cause it to flow with greater velocity. A west wir.d must affect the tide to some extent, but lie thought not to any appreci- able extent. He did not know that along this coast the tide was always lower with an easterly wind". He should have thought that an east wind would have had rather a tendency to increase the tid. The flow of the river Conway was for the most part from north to south, and he failed to see how an east wind blowing across the river would affect the tide. AN INTERESTING POINT. Is it not a fact that along this coast it is the wet wind brings the high tide and the east wind the low tides? Witness said certainly not. He should have thought it would have been exactly the opposite. Is >t not the Railway Company run special trains to Blackpool to sec the high tides brought by the westerly winds? Mr Romer: What on earth has Blackpool got to do with it. Blackpool is a long way off. Witness, further cross-examined, said that on the occasion of one of his visits to the sewers he sawr water flowing over the pipe. He oouid not say that there was no water passing under the pipe, but he dad not see any. On his second visit he found the water at about the same level aa it was on the occasion of his first visit, and on his third visit he found it lower. The river w as very low, and the pipe was above the water. The was lad in a portion of the river only 60 feet wide, whereas the river was 90 feet wide. From the phofogiaph produced to him it would seem that there was a considerable body of water flowing under the pipe and into the pool at one side of åt. It was, however, one of the pool only. The How would reach the outfall of No. 1 sewer, and would no doubt carry the sewage for some diitxnce. Assuming all that there would be no reason why the water should flow back to- wards the pipe. Re-examined, he said Hint the rubbish tip was in the lower and not in the higher meadows. He had 21 years' experience of tides at Conway, and he said that the average height of the tide there was 16 feet. That was to say there was a differ- ence of 16 feet between high water level and low water level. A 19 fect t.de would not make itself felt at the plaintiff's pool, and a 16 feet tide would not reach the pool at all. When he said water was coming uri-ler the pipe he meant that it was trickling under. It would not make itself appreciably felt. The evidence of this wit- ness concluded the plaintiff's ease. Mr Hewitt proceeded to sum up the evidence. Firt) he said as to the point made about the plaintiff's right to sue without joining his tenant. He submitted that ho bad the right in the well recognised right to a reversioner to sue where the nuisance was of a permanent nature. Here they had sewers ihut were a permanent work, and in older to remove them it would be neces- sary to execute wo: k that would also be of a pejmanent nituie. His lordsh p suggested that it would perhaps be better to hear the evidence of the other side before considering that point. On Monday they would have th amended defence, a.nd they would then know what the real issue between the parties was. OPENING OF DEFENCE Mr Evans. an Associate Member of Civil En- gineers, w as then call- d for the defence. He stated that he had prepared a plan of the sowers in question. For the purpose of preparing the plan he ha.d been over and actually examined all the sewers of the defendant Council. From calcu- lations he had made the average height of ordi- nary spring tides at the mouth of the river Con- way—that was to say at Orme's Head—was 25 feet. He had been well acquainted with the river Conway for 25 years. The drainage area of the water shed of the Conway was S3,000 acres. river itseX was f: d by numerous mountain streams, and the average annual rainfall was 19 inches. The average now of river down to llan- rwst would on that basis of 58 inches finding its way into the river, be 335,000,010 gallons a day. The average consumption of water was 20 gallons per dry per head of the population. He esti- a gallon of sewage h 7800 gallons of water. He tnougat one in 103 would render sewage hann- Is: That had been settled at law in America. The discharge here was d bud 78 times beyond that figure. Witness produced p'ans he had made of the p'amtiff's property, and said that there was no hedge or nytlling of the kind along the liver. It was a sloping bank end nothing else. He vis .ted the river on September 9th last with a view to examining the outfalls. On that day thc river was at its normal summer level. The end of p'pe No. 1 was submerged about four inches. The distance from the end of the outlet to the Ancestor bank was about 25 feet. The stream flowed quickly passed the outfall and the bottom d the river was gravely. There was no difference between the bd of the river on the plaintiff's side and that on the Ancaster side. The stream on the plaintiff's side was a little shallower than on the Ancaster side, but it was flowieg w-th considerable velocity on the plain- tiff's He could detect no difference be- tween the two sides except that on the Ancaster side the water was a little deeper. He saw noihing in the nature of a backwash or stagnant pool on the plaintiff's The discharge dis- coloured the water slightly for a yard or two but sufficient to ob;cuio the bottom. The duahargo wae, carried down the river, and he noticed no defect ten whatever. He noticed no current ooir.rjn.gr back between sewer No. 1 and revveU- No. 2. His jaapredion was that the watcc continued t.o flow downwards across the stream. On a visit he paid to the spot on &o;>;emi;er 9th, when the water was about four inches above sewer No. 1, about two inclines a/„ove the fc-uoe oi eewer No. 2, he that the discharge from No. 2- discoloured ■the river for about two yard:. Ihe bed of the rivctr was etcn-es, a.nd the of the. water lour or five feet. He saw no deposit there. Cit^s-examined1 by Mr Roiktt, witness eaid iw did not that the; photographs of the pool produced indicated that the water was practically stagnant. Ail he could say was that uiere appeared to be a. bigger current Kt the end of the pipe tlla-n thero wa; below. He .-hou'eii vxy it showed a good flew of water be- -ow tho pipe on the plaintiff's side of the river, rlo had frequently had to givo evidence with reierenco to wat,;>r works, and sci me limes with reference to eewage. works. He had taken the j vc-'is. of water before. It was net.: his custom .n -ascertaining water levels to take t.he level of fho bed of the stream, bis; he had done 6J. in tho pre.imt instance 'In care he might be asked questions abc-u.t it. Ho knew nothing about t.he eeight, of the tidej himself either at Orme's Head er Con way. He had taken the average for the pr.rj)o,c!o of making hii calculation. lie t-cok the jf-aar 1-903, wn-oh was the only one he could find recorded. Hi) got his figures from a book calBed "British Rainfall." Mr Ju:tiee Parker said that he had to put in some short masters befewe this case on Monday, and proponed for the convenience, of witneees to mark this ca:e not before 11 o'clock. He would, however, say not before 11.30 o'clock if the.i was more convenient to tho defondaaat's witrrsecs. Mr Toml'in suggested eleven, as he bad no doubt be wo-el'd have one or two of his witnesses here by that time. His Lordship eaid he made the suggestion cc- e.-vu:e he resumed as frequently hafyiened1 in these cases, the witnesses would spend the wesli- ,d on the spot- Mr Tcmlin said they had already had cne Sunday there. Mr Romer: And that was enough for them (laughter). Tho further hearing was then, adjourned until Monday.

MONDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Advertising