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. DEFENDANT'S EXPERT EVIDENCE. Tho liearing of tho action was continued boforo Mr Justice Parker in the Chancery Divi- sion on Monday. M.r Sidney Richard, M.I.ClE., in answer to Mr Mae.moriun, said that in September last he vieitied Laiirwst. Ho went on the plaintiff's property and! above, the bridge. He walked and inspected the bunks and the river. Ihe water in the river was at that .time very low. He went down on purijose at the oriel of a dry eeuson. His visit was in the evening oi the 19th of September. He made a more de- tailed inspection the next niornirg. Hq was ac- companied by the insjwetor d nULi>ü.1I.Ce.s and Mr LguHl Jones. Mr was not there the whole time. lie ulaited from the old bridge. Along the Anoaster side of the river for a con- siderable distance the water was shadow-, a-iet ran ever on to the town side. The water was thrown frc-m the wail by the Church on to. the Ancaster side, and thero the greatest flow of the river was at the Ancestor side. Below that antdber pool began. In fact tho river was a succession of pCO8 and shallow. Just bedw the wall the water was thrown over on to the plain- tiff's side. A little Lower down it was again thrown into .the A.rioaste.r side. lie went by the path by the river over the sewer. All the way dlown that path one could see the bed of the river. The river vvas -perfeeiMy clear, and the bottom was gravelly. I.n the river could be seen in the bottom, here and there, pieces cf paper, old boots, tin cans, and the like. When one got to the sheJow below the Church there was a loot of spent tan. There was a heap 30ft. leng by 12ft. wide, and 3ft. high on the shallow itself. At- certain times tho wholo of <tl:e shingle would be covered. He head the manhole near the s'xit ojiened, arid found sewage was flowing down. Below a kind of delta formed by a litte stream, wiith the result that the river was covered with paper, tin cans, eld boot, and the like. There was a, mill just above, and very little water was coining down the stream, as the mill gates were, no doubt, rhut down. He could not say how far up the mill was. He saw the stream while the mil! was at work, and with the increased flow he caw the stream was bringing down rubbish of ail sorts. He made [.no calculation as to the flow of the stieam, bu>i from a rough gru-es? he should say when the mill war* not working it was flowing (down, at the rate of 100,000 gallons a day, and whi'e the nidi was working it wou'd be »bout six times a-, much. lie saw nothing on the banks that indi- cated the presence of sewage. There was foliage weeds, grasses, and rushej growing along the bank. There was weed floating on the surface of the river. It was a. kind of water that de. composed quickly, but it was one of the finest indications one could have that the water was pure. Tie looked car-efu■ Iy the whole way down 1110 river for signs of sewage pollution, and could find none at the pipes; the bed of the river sloped, but was heaped up to the pipes, Water was running under the whole length of one line of pi.pes. The bed to the north of the pipes was perfectly clean. There were one o» two pieces of paper about as big as a. hah" crown. He stirred up the bank aj well, as lie could, and FOUND NOTHING OBJEOlTONAL. I It c-i-d not at all. While he was there he saw one piece of paper come down the sewer. The discharge from the sewer could bo traced about 8 or 9 yard} down the stream, and it tlis- coloured the stream for about 3ft. at the widest. So far as he could see from the disoolouration it went straigb: down the river. So far witness eald thaii he had been dealing with sewer No. 1. He went down to sewer No. 2. On tho hanki there and on the ehcal he found rubbish, pieces of crockery, a.nd similar article?. The pipe of No. 2 was a. 12-inch, pipe, sticking out through the river bank. Some sewage was coming down when he was there. There was no badk-watsh in. the river. and none of the sewage was going up. It was going slowly down. The effect of the sewage coming out of sewer No. 2 was to make the water cloudy for the space of about 2ft. 9iJl. He found nothing co tlie banks to indicate eewage. He looked care- fully on the shallows and in the pools. In one of the peoii down. by the baulk there was some- thing that might have been sewage, and had evidently been washed down by the flood. He could detect nothing in tne nature of sewage smell or sewage fungus at any point lie liacl ga-iiged the How of the town sewers, aped, the- result for 24 hours was shown on a chart ho had prepared. That showed that the maximum flow was reached at about half pact in tli?o -div. It t-h-o I-c6udt o?ft h?e v,%i-?ou? -,vmhiiip,,s up fox tba day; an increase at about half past nine representing the breakfast washings up; 1.110 p.m. dinner; a.nd 5.30 p.m. tea. He was there at a very dry season, and it was quite evident from what he saw on tho bushes that the river had been at least ten feet higher. From what he saw ho should say there could be no nuisance at all, but he would rather eav what ho actually saw, and what had been from what lie saw than what w-cuj likely to be. He did not t.!ii,-ik t?be Tiv,?,,r 1)?,ck up the e,ewIn t-lie way tliat had 1>ccci !)Y 1)?liintiff's -w,*t-,ie-qrc-s. (-?' -LIrSe, _t Co if t,i'l-3 TiVer very sud,(len?y some f&w4af, m-i,-ht qa ,I ?t left in the I)aiig, but he did n,?;t thing it could fall suddenly ten fed. He made no investigation of the river with re- ference to the tides. Cross-examined by M,r Romer, he said that when the river W,;d higher the sewage was not held back to any appreciable extcat. Un- less tlie water fell ten or fourteen feet it could not prevent the sewage getting out. The tendency of tho floating matter would be to be held up to the level of the water outside, but there was very little floating mattf-ii'. That he did not 'think would be tho tendency of matter in suspension. It would all go down inieii tho water. He advised the. authorities with r&fctrence to their sewage works. Mr Romer if 37cu were advising' the Llanrwst Council in the construction of their sewers, for the- first tune, would you advise t-lils system that they now had?—Yes. lJa\c you ever advised thd discharge- of crude sewage into ai si roam ? -No. "NO EXTENSIVE POLLVTIOX" You say thcra is no pollution at all ?—Oi course theird was some pollution of the water. Do you say Professor Boys' figures are wrong ? —No. Then t.nf>r.e mnt be extensive pollution ?-- );0. Then Professor Boys' ainalysM is wiong ? Witness would not say that.. The Professor's analysis- was no doubt right, but there was no fx>T ours pollution of the P.\cr. The sewage was all broken up as it came down the fCW0rs. He hadl seen t'he things leifc on the bank by the water when it was lÚg11, or rather in the trees On the bank. Examining a sample taken from the river bank, witness said he should say it was decayed vegetable matter acid not sewage. He !1W eight inches of water above sewer No. 1 when ho was there. Below that part there was ,)P of i,I'I'licre -%va.s .1, d -1_,?h,t or fall o-f between one icot six inelei between sower No. 1 and, sewer No. 2, but he did not actually measure it. He did not test the flow of water from sewer No. 2 by means of corks. He --n ad no test as tlia4,?. T-I,,c di-c-ol,ur?ctiDn, w. 'i 'he--i 1-?4a was t'h.?r<?, (4-'?,L ]I.ct ?iav-- a se-.ni-circal-ar watc?r ?,clow t!,?-o lieap w'a!s practi,ally t3tagnzL-iit. it cfeponded upon the significance .given to the word Bteg'nant. It was not stagnant. There vvas, however, no heap when he went there: at al1 events he failed to see one. Tho photograph sho wed, ihe water above the sewage was slightly bigheir than it was below. The water- coming round would have ato flow towards where the water was at a lower level;, and so create a swirl. He had never heard of Mr R. H, Williams cr Dr. Fraser. IV"cxan111e;:];: The water being higher one side cif the pipe than the other would not have the tendency to make ihe water flow in towards the bank's. There would bo a slight swirl there, but nothing else. He saw nothing like a. heap of sewago at this spot- He did not measure the levels there because it did not occur to him that it was aof importance. It might J, and he thought it wes very likely that measured over the surface of the wafer tie fall mlghti be .one inch in 400 yards, but the rapid flow was at the place where he said it -was eight or nine inches. His LQ¡<J,;Fp suggested that It might be necessary to send the samples produced to wit- ref« for analysis*. Mr MacMorran pointed out that 'they were -onlv portions of larg'er samples. His Lorcbhip said they were said to have been taken from a. particular spot, but Mr Macmor- ran disputed that. Mr Mccniorran said he did not, but. tliey were taken from one spot- in tho bed of this r.ver. Mr Romer: Prom the of the river, which your witness says "$ perfectly His Lordship said if necessary the sample- should be analysed, and Mr Macmorran &aid he had no objection. "IDEAL SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS." Mr John Dunlan Watson, M.I.C.E., in answer to Mr Hewitt, srld he had had 3.0 ne 20 years' cxpericnce of water and. sewage works, and. had constructed some of the largest sewage works .in the v.orld. He paid a. visit to Llanrwst and inspected tho defendants' sewage works on May 2nd last. Having regard to the. fact that the amount-of sewage was so small <iaid the volume of water coming down, the river was so largei, he was of opinion that the method atlopted. by tlie defendants was the. Very best way of dec.,hug witii this sewage. Having regard to the quantity to be lealt with ho was sure that it was better than a plai-,t 'li-o-, i if, g-1 which there was sure to be a smell. He exa- mined the river. On the day he was there there was about six inches -of water flowing over the pipe. The water below the outlet of No. 2 ?!eai-, t?nd be (i??(i not t!i;iik -*It iiccessary to rLy obgei,*vations as to the vt!locity of tl-i- i ctfeani. It was very He lia(l measured tli?, veloe'tv of tl)e ri,or ar?d the Sewage Coming froiii tlio p"p- The of so-,vagn c,inin! from both sewers was at the rate of 47,000 gal- lons a day. There was a largo working class population in the neighbourhood, arid they had an excellent water supply. The water arrange- ments for the lavatories were the best he knew of, and there was a singular absence of the very worst kind of sewage-vi-a,-to from sculleries. He _.w nothing on the banks of the bed of the river to indicate tho presence of sewage pollution. Ho [ aw nothing offensive at all, and no indication ■ of pollution by human nature. In all water you at,?ic,r .-ricl puri'fyirig or.ailie niatt(,r Ina ttc ,OL oi,g %-a,3 a]Nvay. object;onal. He fo-jrd nothing i-,i thi.? Y;V(,I. iviiat I;e found in ai-iy ordi- nary water course. Cross-examined He was only thera-en 2nd and 3rd of May. At that time there had been no sppreciable rainfall. His work was partly un- expected. You suggested the defendants' system is tho test beenuse vou have to tak,? the cl?ci(?c of two (",v I I, ? -,a'd ivlicn !T,) one I, ii.;tli s??"a alwav, l?a.1Io deal %v't!i more or le, an evil. lriricit you tiiitik tlk-s is the best -vay? Yes. An ideal way? Yes, nature's way. Continuing, witness said that speaking gene- rally ho agreed that as a rule it was not a good thing to turn crude sewage into a river. Ho thought, however, it was the best way here. His reasons were based partly on (here being a tide at the spot. His chief reason, however, was that here one had th s huge volume of water into which the sewage was discharged. Ifwere suspended solids some of them would be deposited in the pool ? You could not get rid of sewage otherwise. Sewer No. 1 fell into that was more or less a stagnant pool, and there might be some sewage matter deposited at the bottom. Out in clear water lie could not see there would be any objection to it. Then you see no objection to turning this pool into a settling tank? Witness said that it was all a question of size. He knew of no settling tank that was not made large enough to hold one day's sewage. In this case they dealt with a great wide river and a deep pool. Mr Romer: Don't say "great wide river:" it is only 146 feet wide. Witness said that at sewer No. 2 it was only til o. 2 it was on -le "diii:tt(?,-] tliit 1,1)cre w?,is 80 or 93 tet v,, d e.I more flow on the Ancaster side, but did not admit that it remained stagnant on the plaintiff's side right up to sewer No. 1. If the solids were going on increasing he admitted that they might become objectionable, but here they were not allowed to be Why? Because of the nature of the river. A flood came down from time to time, and washed them away. If sewTage did remain there in any quantity for any time it would be a serious matter? Witness said that it could not remain there for any time. Pressed to answer the question, 'tn(,ss '(1 tlidt the L)?e--t an??wer lie could i-?i- c N v' -t' ,k to it was "No." In his opinion it was not a serious matter. If you turned this pool into a settling tank it would not be a serious matter? Wafrnejs sa.id that he had not approached tha question from that point of view at all. He approa.ched it from the point of view that that would bo an iiiil-ocabilitv. Wit- ness said his opinion was not based oil the hypot?i:i,g-c, t?hat s4;;d -nat',c-r d,.d not 1,ct do- posited on the. banks and bed of the river. -H; ?"i vias that s,ds ;n were deposited, but they did not lie for any length of time, and moreover purification was going on all the time. He did not admit that if left there for any time it would form black and putrid mud. 01 Streams were the natural drains of the country. In moving water the stuff bcca.me oxydiiscel, b7at it a.!Fo oxvd; in fta?,r ? 14 ?, a.t wat,2r. it was not as if it was tcmclosed in a box. Floods would largely remove the deposits. He did not admit that in an ordinary summer solids it.d in ih. pool. o '?'d s g, 0:,1 wottd rems.in, but not to any objectional j extent, and even if they remained there until there was a. flood they would become oxydised, and would not be a nuisance. When lie was there he saw evidence of floating matters having been left on the bank by the stream. He did r.ot, how'ever, admit that because of that, sewiage would be deposited on the banks. So far as he could remember lie saw no paper of any kind on the banks. Very little solid matter came out of sewer No. 2. He estimated it at two galloro of solid matter per day. With regard to sewer No. 1 he, basing his calculations on the same data, put the quantity of solid matter discharged at ten gallons a day. Re-examined, Witness eaid that there was a clear distinction -between matters that were floating and matters in suspension. There was no analogy whatever between a pool and a fe-ttling tank. Even, therefore, if solids did get deposited in this pool it was in no sense a settling bank. With pure water running down the process d oxydisation wou'd be going on all the time. • SATISFACTORY RIVER WATER. Mr Clarke, F.I.C., said that in August last ho oolkcted the samples of the water from the river Conway, and from the sewer outfalls. The total solids in sewage samples averaged 31.8, with minerals at 11.4. With regard to th-e samples taken from the river the suspended matter was practically nil. They showed little or no pollution, though there was some slight trace of solids. lie took the samples himself on August lltli. river at the time wa.s low, but he noticed that there wes some current downward. He saw no collection or heap in the neighbour- heed of the outfalls, lie could say that at all events there was no considerable heap, and hei was sure that there was ro heap three or four feet high. He looked for sewage fungus, but saw none. The water below tne sewage outfall as river water was satisfac- tory. Iu all rivers there was a certain amount of pollution, but, considered as raw river water it was satisfactory. Of course, the conditions were differ'it from those affecting the Thames, but he should say the conditions of this were Jittle less satis- t factory than those of the Thames. Cross-examined, "Witness said he understood that no OIN) was allowed to discharge crude sewage into the Thames at any point. Of couise, the condition o2 the Thames varied just as the condition of tho Conway varied. lie did not say that the water of the Conway at tho sewage out-fall was as good a.s the Thames water, but that it was nearly as good. In the samples he took there was no solid sewage floating. Bie saw no solid sewage floating. He saw solid matter suspended, but not with the naked eye. n.) did not know how long lie was at the outfall before he took the sample, but thought about half an hour. He did net personally t-alce the sample from sower No. 2. He did not toll the man who did when to take it; he merely to'd him to go and take it. He did not know that anybody fixed the time for taking it. There was a considerable difference between the chemical an-a.ysis of the water taken above and that be-low sewor No. 1. li he had not known anything about the river he did not know that he should say, looking at the two -an- elyiiis, that eewage had been discharged be- tween the two points. lie should deduce that something had been discharged. Something of an organic nature ? W itiic-s said that was so. Thero were indi cations 01 s,wage of an animal nature in the water, lie found the bed of the river in an ui.'ucsuaj y satisfactory condition. That was (:0;;1- pariiig it wioh the beds of other riv.r,-s he had known. Ho knew o-f no river into which such sewage was deposited. There \Ya:; some deposit on the toitom of the irver, but nothing which ho describe as s.udge. He looked at the b-xteai cf the river, but eaw nothing like that winch was m the bottle prcdueod. He had no. been told that there was any heap below eewer No. 2, and was therefore not looking for one. lie had no instructions to locals for fun gun, lie looked for it on his own initiative. SLIME NO INDICATION OF SEWAGE. A r-riiny deposit on the bed of a river was, not neeeo.aniy an Mid.cation cf the presence of sew- age. He tnade no expenmeiitJ; at sewer No. 1 corks or coloured iiuid-5 to see the course of the .cream. Thero was a little current at fewer No. 2. lie noticed it tec-au..o lIe thought it was of some importance rn ascertaining the general condition of the sewage, ile wanted to ice whether the stream was carrying away tlie sewage. If ic was net, it might be a serious matter, but not neeesrariiy. Re-exa,mined by Mr Macmorran, witness said that hewa", satisfied that I;e kl"tt DCe the sewage going down the oirearh. A s.imy deposit d-d not neoescaiiiy indicate sewage, and paper might ,'ÜiI\J fro.m. <lll'YWDoCl. 'l::l' \Va:I:.r '.H!.51 rt eenously- po-Luted at alll. The amount cf ammonia was comparatively small, Mr J. H. Johr.otone, Master of Science ar.d member of -the Institute of Chemistry, spoke to dealing with four samples taken from the river Conway on May 17th, 1910. He alfo analysed ,?,anip' ',3 ta k)?i M t- -,Ly t4th. They Nvcrc samples oi water taken after the bottom had b.fw,rl ki-I, tl, 'tt 'o ivatei- contained org^nico matter, but not in excessive quantities. None of tlie sa.mp.es showed any sign of putrifaotion. In both simples the quan- tity of sewage was below the average. The re- sult of the analysis illai very sitniiaT to 'zLi anal- ysis of Thames water as regards organic matter. The water o.f the sainp.es contained lees or- ganic matter tihu.n a, samp, e arppfied by the Metropolitan Water Board. Mr Romer, cross-examining: Then you would not hesitate to recommend anyone to drink it? Witness: No, so far as my analysis goes. That- is all you Yos. Further cro.s-examined, Witneis said that of the second samples sent him, tho water was somewhat dhcolcured, and there was a slight gravel deposit. With regard to both sets cf sample* he had nothing to indicate what tl.-ev w-e-c er fr?-PI NV??, 1. ?r4,3 thi--v liid boe-n siijl)ly ivt,i I-le simply made a chemical analysis. Some of the second batch contained pebbles, but he did not analyse those. One of the ceoond sample was not good. drink- ing water, and he should hcsitc.te to give It to a cow. The label on the bottle F,IiONNc.d, t'i,ot ile iiiu.t iiav-3 knov.-ii t?io fi-.oiii W a-i of t,!ic r'er CoitN%-a- ttII he would not recommend it as drinking water for a cow. Organio matter was not present in an excessive quantity. It must be remembered that the bed of the river had been disturbed be- fore the sample was taken. What he meant was that the organic matter was not excessive for a disturbed river bottom. In one sample he found indications of plant life. The sewage ho found was far below the average in strength. He d.d not mean that he had never sewage ill sucli a, deletuted- strength, but that it was low compared with the general average strength of sewage. UNFIT FOR DRINKING PURPOSES. IDr. Thresher, examined by Mr Macmorran, said that he. had heard the evidence of the pre>- dContinued en next page.)
FRED. ROBERTS & CO. House Furnishers and Removers GET OUR ESTIMATE FOR Y (fur Removal, Renovating Suites, Blinds, &c. Upnaisterifig Cic«ds, ANO Beading nsatle up by us. TERMS :-CASH OR EASY PAYMENTS. PEN -Y BRYN OLD COLWYN. C O M L,. UNEQUALLED FOR QUALITY and PUICE. Rowland l« Co., WYNNSTAY CHAMBERS, COLWYN BAY. TtLErKOXE riY 63071 4 SAMUEL BDJfD & SONS, JsiDei's, Buiiuers and Contraetops, SHOP & OBFICE £ TITERS, and General Repairers ot Property, SREEftfiOUSt MIDDLE! ON VILLA, Belgrave Road. Cchryn Bay. ESTIMATES FREE J.. MR. RN LEY" D.b U.A- at K.am. EYESIGHT & SPECTACLE SPECIALIST,. of Birmingham, Leicester, etc., may he consulted at 17, Penrhyn Road, COLWYN BAY*, j A VI E Fi E 1- n_ DariingMs liandbook-s 11 Kotbiug t-eUcr could be wished for.—Brittsh Weekly. Far superior to ordinary guides,Daily Cmrontcle. V-;Silvrs Id LsssJsn (aid RecsCtrts) should 113& DARLINGTON'S "Very ctnpJ>st;lly lops tbcin a:I.D"ILY Ghawc. "A Lrilh,t b,P, -T.? T,.E5. V4 ra Pa,ticulari? good." L -ACAIEIY. By IE, C. COOK and C?h Ed!L-,jn RovissdL E. T. CWK, -N.A. 6/- 3- T-t,,P? ??.d Plans. E:NVRROIIB. So 71,e I.,cst ll.ndbo-,k t6 London ,or iisu-?d." -LlV".PO!>L Daily Post. 6o Ulus. Maps & Pia&s, gy. 100 Illus. Maps & Plans, NORTH gfeLES DEVON and CORNWALL 60 illustrations, 6 M.P., 2/6 NORTH DEVON & NORTH CORNWALL. w a Af,-P-, 2/6 SOUTH DEVON & SOUTH CORNWALL THE HOTELS OF THE WORLD. A Handbook to the Leading lide" thro:1f,hout the World. visitorS to LCi1aburgh, (j¡ago\ JJdghtan, ta11:.t)fjrne, Hast- ings St. Leonards, Worthing, Bournemouth. Exeter, Torquay Paignton, Exmoutb, Sidmcuth, Teignmouth, Dawlish, PlytDOirtb, Dartmouth, Dartmoor, Exrcoor, Falmouth, The Lizard, Penzance, Land's End, Scilly i*lcs, St. hes. Newquay, Tiotagel, Clovelly, IJfracombe, Lynton, M!n"bead, Bldelord, Wye Valley, 'Severn Valley, Bath, Wcston-supcr-Mare, Malvern, Hereford, Worcester, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Llandrindod, BaJa, Brccon, Hoss, Tintcrn, Llangollen, Aberystwitb, Towyn, Barmouth, DoJgelley, Harlcch, Criccte. », Pwllheli, Llandudno, Rbyl, Conway, Colwyn' Bay, Pcnmacnmaw^. Llanfairfechan. Bangor, Carnarvon, Beadgc- lert, Snowdon, Festiniog, Trefrhv, Bettws-y»co<d, Norwich, Yar- mouth, Lowestoft, Norfolk Brc ids, Hie of Wight, and Channel Islands, sflould use JDaplio^ton's Handbooks i/- each;' Post free from Parliugton & Co., Llar.jjollcr.. U-3n|oHas -Dsriiijgton & Co. Lor.dcn Smpkin's. Paris Now York Erenians's. § The Railway Bookstalls and r.ll Bookfclkrs. I PEFIFEC-T Frc'tEE-:01 Nz. For lidigeston, Anxmia. Liver Complaiit, Biliousness, JCIIN'ON'S CII?INESE l'ILLC., per box, a.-e the best'. For Blood Po;s,n, In,?ar,iir,ation, V2r;cc?se Ve;rs, Evysip-?las, Bad Legs, JOH,43ON;s XX OILS, fl?ll. 2 r3, is a ure u?le. Advile e. )C)HNSON ros. Z)I*l a3e!Srecial:.Its.Xy(rin-Hlli,Crc c. EFFICIENT BLLPOSTINa. ,ARTIES d,-sirou.,i of liaviii- Bli'?.s r,,osted p ()!I ALL tlie ?V, OST I-VPOR?-rANT A-dv?el-t;,F,em-eiit HOAr-,DI-NGS in tli,L, D,triet of 'T?thvi, Pr?estat.N-n, Mel,'dcn, Dv-ertli, i?ilu(id- Ian, and St. As.?l)lt, slio-a.d solid tho:?r Oid?ers,. to BEECH BROS., RHYL and DISTRICT BILLPOSTERS, Advertising and Billposting Contractors. Proprietress: MRS F. BEECH. to whom all Communications should be Addressed. Manager W. KELLY. Head Office: 3, KINMEL-ST., RHYL. ■Wi 11 II ■ m I II |»I inn >■—J—<11- I HAVE NOTHING TO SELL. I WAS a Mn.rtyr to Rheumaitism and Gout fc.r years. Having- bc^n positively•• eu.rcd by a pimple a.nd iax;xp.eiiisive remedy, I will be happy to ccmmunrlcc.te par'tic til ars of [.a.me to any sufferer on -receipt of wi ad- drieescd envelope. Apply to J. Dmibney,. Esq., Spring Cottage, Kams-ck-ll, Baling- f;i_.oke. 2B;M3 p PA ANFU LN ESS. An intereetins" and instructive Book can be had FREE, desci i'bin# a. safe, simple, and .sclent if jo .system whkah has been practised for over 20 years "w.iLh unexajnpied sucocss, together with over 1000 u-.stimoriais, giving absolute proof that tho severe t c:i&es of NERVOUS EXHAUS- TION, DECAY OF VITAL FORCE, WAST- ING, WEAKNESS. VARICOOELE. etc.. have been PERMANENTLY CURED without ) Stomach Medicines, Electricity, Change of Diet. Ila;U?.9, loss cf T' 'o ?c Omlipat]011. :lk foxmc-r ffer?-,r "It iiiade life a,gam.. '17 Nvort?h ApT)ly to-d-ay, enc-o:,ill,z tA?o fei, W-ta.ge in p,aiii and itiou- tion this paper. A. J. Leigh, 92 and 93, Gfc, RUSSELL-STREW:. TRONDON. Wfl PFISQP.N "0 -T TO FARMERS AND ESTATE fiGEMTS all. GROUND LlfJSE XNSiLGS For Agricultural Purposes*. For Prices, apply to the Manufacturers, RAYNES & CO., LLYSFAEN QUARRIES AND LIME WORKS, IW 3L<i 3T Im JBI JlL y OR TO THEIR VARIOUS AGENTS. -1 J. ( ,1 f V -.1 .v i ci i