NOTES ON BOOKS.

Johnston's Registered Clerk of Work' Sheets. Morison Bros. 99 Buchanan Street, Glasgow.

THIS sheet is an elaboration of the form which is usually employed upon buildings of importance, or upon which a clerk of works is employed. It is often highly necessary to ascertain the cost of labour expended upon a work either during progress or at completion, and it is only by careful analysis of this description that such a result can be arrived at, either to settle disputes, arrange prices, or furnish statistics which are so often required. The value of material can always be more or less accurately determined by measurement, but time expended upon building works must be recorded, otherwise it is impossible to arrive even at an approximate estimate of labour undergone. First among the many influences at work to impede operations is the weather, which will often make or mar the profit upon a building transaction; accordingly we find the usual space for work and time stopped under unfavourable conditions. The lines allotted to the numbers and dates of drawings, letters, &c., received from the architect are insufficient, as two or three clumsilywritten figures would fill these spaces, and the same remark would apply to Drawings required.' There is plenty of room, however, for Remarks,' and that boon to the builder and bane to the architect, Extras.' In the interests of the great unemployed it is much to be hoped that the 'busy' portions of these generally useful and compact sheets will be largely filled, not only in the north, but in all four quarters of the kingdom.

Rules to be observed by Nurses in Charge of Infectious Diseases in Hospitals and Private Houses. By Rev. J. H. TIMINS, M.A., F.G.S. West Malling: W. G. Chamberlain.

ISOLATION, fresh air, and perfect cleanliness are the three great requisities in the nursing of cases of infectious disease. The author of this little pamphlet apparently places most reliance on the use of certain disinfectants,' for the use of which he gives minute instructions. In our opinion these are calculated to do harm indirectly by withdrawing

the attention of the nurse and other attendants from the

vitally important points we mentioned above, and also by imparting a false sense of security, provided certain almost superstitious rites are complied with.

Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte und Leistungen auf dem Gebiete der Hygiene, im Jahre 1883. Von Professor Dr. UFFELMANN in Rostock. Braunschweil: 1884. THIS year-book, which appears as a supplement to and uniform with the Vierteljahrsschrift für öffentliche Gesundheitspflege, will be found an indispensable companion to the student of hygiene. It contains notices of every work, pamphlet, and article of any importance that has appeared in the English, French, German, and Italian languages during the year, the precise references being given as footnotes. Military hygiene alone is excluded, as having in Germany an organ of its own. The contents are arranged under twenty principal heads or sections, and full indexes of subjects and of authorities are appended.

The compiler has evidently read each production with some care, for it is remarkable how clearly he gives the gist of each, and picks out anything really new or of special value. It is, therefore, not a mere index, but an epitome and a review, and as such will save the student much labour and time, frequently indeed rendering actual reference superfluous. The statistics given under infectious diseases, for example, are as complete as any one could wish. It is impossible for us to give anything like an abstract of a work containing in 240 pages references to the literary contributions of about 600 different writers.

CORRESPONDENCE.

Audi alteram partem.

[All communications must bear the signature of the writer, not necessarily for publication.]

VENTILATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS.

Mr. C. Bond has asked two or three very pertinent questions upon sewer ventilation. I will answer them to the best of my ability, and in a practical way, and from experience sadly injurious to myself, of which I will give an account. I am of opinion, and ever have been, that the only correct way to ventilate sewers is by means of up-cast shafts from the crown of the sewer, from given points, carried up above the eaves of the houses, which are in close proximity, but not into a shaft connected to any chimney. For one reason above all others, if there is a danger, keep as far from it as you can. Not that I think there is the danger that many imagine of the sewergas blowing down the chimney. My reason for saying so is in consequence of tests I have made, which I will now endeavour to describe, and, after that, give some reasons for the result. First, I had a gas stove on which I placed an iron vessel filled with cold water; the lid was hermetically sealed. From the top of the lid 1 fixed over an aperture of 2 inches diameter a tube, 2 feet 6 inches long, with a turned down nose, through which I got steam at a high pressure when the water was boiling. I then placed a glass cylinder, 6 inches diameter, on a box, 10 inches square, with an aperture in one side, 4 inches diameter, to admit air into the box. I placed the turn-down nose directly into the top of the glass cylinder, through which I could distinctly see the action of the steam, and, as I anticipated, I could not get the steam down the cylinder more than 2 inches before it took a direct and rapid up-cast. I then closed the aperture in the box, and cut off the air, and the result was the steam travelled about 2 inches lower down the cylinder, and the up-cast was considerably less rapid, but in no instance could I get it down into the box. Be it understood the experiments were made in a room first, and secondly in the outer air, so I had internal and external air to give me the results alternately. From this I came to the conclusion that there is not the danger apprehended by many of sewer-gas blowing down a chimney, and for a reason obvious to me, as it is certain if sewer-gas will blow down a chimney, the room having a chimney that would admit of that would always smoke, as it is evident that there would be a down-cast and no up smoky ones is very small. cast. Taking the average of chimneys the percentage of Not only so, it does not follow because a chimney smokes that sewer-gas will blow down. For instance, when sewer-gas leaves the up-cast shaft it has to be carried by the air or wind to the neighbour hood of the chimney, and if it carry it there why not past the chimney? I dare not think any scientific man will say there is a sufficient down-cast in a chimney to act as a sucker, and unless it so acts it is a thousand chances to one against the gas blowing down, and it is utterly impos sible for it to do so if a fire is burning and the smoke escapes. That being so, anyone can satisfy himself as to smoke versus sewer-gas. If a sewer be properly ventilated by the means of up-cast shafts the pent-up gas would soon be exhausted, and the generation from day to day would be reduced to a minimum. Street gratings to sewers are a mistake, as it is clear that all the escape from them has a tendency to travel upwards, and the chances are a person will inhale it in its course. True, it may become diluted; still the deleterious effects are as sure, if less rapid, if the gas escape at an altitude of 35 or 40 feet, a height where the air is never stationary. Supposing it should descend, it would become more distributed and diluted, consequently less injurious. I know of a fashionable town where some three years ago the Corporation were induced

to open all the town gratings, and in less than forty-eight hours the whole town was impregnated with sewer-gas. After this experience the gratings were closed. These facts prove that the gas will escape at any opening. I have for years advocated the closing of the ground line gratings and the substitution of up-cast shafts, and I believe this will have to be done before a perfect system of sewer ventilation is accomplished. The sewer-gas from street gratings is just as dangerous if inhaled as though it was inhaled in a house, the only difference is that with the gas in the open air more oxygen is inhaled with it and it is more diluted, but, in proportion to the amount inhaled, so is the effect. I feel sure there is not one person out of every thousand knows the dreadful effects of sewer-gas upon the human system. Where it is detected it is usually treated as an unpleasant smell, and is so passed by; and, further, it is often attributed to something else, such as greens-water put down the sink by a thoughtless servant, when in fact it is one of the most deadly enemies with which man comes in contact, and which under the present system of drain ventilation he cannot avoid. To my own cost and sorrow I have of late had this fact so forcibly impressed upon me, that in whatever form sewer-gas approaches me, or however disguised, it will be difficult to deceive me.

I will now give a short account of my experience of sewer-gas and the dreadful ravages it makes. In March of last year I with my family occupied a certain house in the suburbs. Within a space of five days from taking possession the whole six in family and the servant had continual bad headaches. We then began to detect a bad smell at times. In fourteen days my eldest daughter had a very severe attack of persistent diarrhoea. The stench increased each day as the drains became more used. Within two months the whole of us (except the youngest boy of thirteen years, the reason for whose immunity I will explain further on) became so debilitated that we were unable to keep about for more than a few hours at a time. My own case was that of wasting of the flesh, so that in eight weeks I lost in weight 16 lbs. My wife, eldest son, and youngest daughter were in the first stage of diphtheria. At that period small blood blisters began to show themselves on the back of my hands. We were under medical treatment over two months before our medical attendant could pronounce us safe. This gentleman pronounced the illness of myself and family to be blood poisoning, brought on by bad sanitary arrangements, and ordered us to leave the house immediately. This we did, and within eight or nine weeks we no longer needed medical attention. During the time we occupied the house I made many complaints to the landlord, but all the satisfaction I got was he thought I was very particular. Such cases as these should surely not be left wholly to the mercy of a landlord, but part of the evil should be remedied at the fountain head-the sewer. It is now nine months since we left the house, but we still feel the injurious effects caused by bad sanitation. As I previously mentioned, the youngest boy escaped, on account of being in the house only at night. I hope I have given some idea of the dangers of sewer-gas, and a remedy against the dangers.

I shall be prepared at any given time to go through the experiments I have before named, on any number of scientific gentlemen giving me notice of their desire to see them. EDGAR ALDous. Ventilating and Sanitary Engineer.

2 Elmhurst, Upton Lane, Forest Gate, E.

A NEW DEPARTURE IN HOUSE DRAINAGE.

Allow me to express the satisfaction I felt upon observing that Mr. W. P. Buchan had found time, whilst rearranging the awards of the Health Exhibition, to notice a humble contribution of mine to your pages.

Sanitary engineers have for years steadily worked at the problem of house drainage with, I hope, some success;

but now they need trouble themselves no more upon the subject, as Mr. Buchan, in his usual diffident manner, has finally informed us as to which arrangement it is that may claim the title of 'first-class style." As to that other arrangement of mine, alas, it appears that it must be content to regard itself as 'second rate,' whatever that may be.

Mr. Buchan is the maker of a trap designed to be fixed at the foot of a soil-pipe-an excellent trap of its kind, no doubt. But as the adoption of my proposal would tend to abolish the use of such traps, I am not altogether astonished that he does not regard it with favour.

As to my proposal being new, I carefully guarded myself on the subject in the article in question. Several persons have been good enough to tell me of cases in which they supposed that the system I described had been used. But upon inquiry in each case I found they were very different, though they bore, may be, some resemblance to my work in this or that detail.

One detail which is found in several arrangements that I have inquired into, is a double soil-pipe with trap at foot, which would provide for the ventilating the soil-pipe in the natural way, i.c. in the direction of the flow of water, and it is simply the adoption to a soil-pipe only, of the principle which I suggest should be completely adopted throughout waste-pipes, soil-pipes, and drains; using the least possible number of traps, and relying upon one effective ventilation pipe for the entire system. Feb. 20, 1885.

D. J. EBBETTS.

AWARDS AT THE HEALTH EXHIBITION. By request of Jury No. 9 of the late Health Exhibition, we forwarded, at the commencement of last August, several filters, which the circular stated were to be tested.' They have just now been returned to us, and, to our astonishment, we find that they have not been tested, not a drop of water having ever been passed through them. You will understand that the nature of spongy iron renders it easy to affirm this with certainty. It appears almost unnecessary to point out that the only known way to test filters as to their sanitary merits consists in a chemical and microscopic comparison of water before and after filtration through them. Such testing can, indeed, have been the only reasonable object in retaining filters for almost seven months, extending far beyond the close of the Exhibition.

Surely nothing could show more clearly the hollowness of at least some of the awards made by the jury. Will the committee or the jury allow this stigma to rest on them as a body, or will they name the individual who is responsible for the blunder? It is perhaps expecting too much that that party will have sufficient courage to come forward himself and explain by what means he arrived at his conclusions, which were opposed to all scientific and practical evidence on the subject.

THE SPONGY IRON FILTER COMPANY.
T. G. MILLER, Manager,

[We are requested to publish the following correspondence, which may probably be taken as typical of much past, present, and to come.-ED.] E. C. Owen, Esq., Secretary,

Inventions Exhibition, South Kensington.

Sir, I am in receipt of your printed notice refusing my application for space at the above Exhibition. As that application referred to several patents which have not been shown at any Exhibition, I shall feel obliged by your informing me on what ground my application has been refused, and the more so as I happen to be aware that you are at the present time promising space to people who have not as yet sent in any formal application, much less as I did within the stipulated dates. I would call your attention to the fact that I was an exhibitor of three of my patents at the International Fisheries Exhibition,

and in addition to which I ventilated the offices of the executive, the lecture theatre, the fish dining-room, and south wing gratuitously. My exhibits were amongst the most attractive features of the Exhibition, and drew crowds of people to inspect them. Nevertheless, although the jurors recommended an award, the Executive Council overruled their decision on the ground of my exhibits being foreign to the object of the Exhibition. This objection was quite unfounded, as ship ventilators and working models of ventilated holds of steam trawlers were amongst my exhibits, and were specially examined by the jurors. In the Health Exhibition I again applied for space, including not only my former patents, but several new ones. I was offered about as much as was equivalent to the superficial area of a single compartment of a first-class railway carriage, although at the same time literally acres of space were being allotted to jams, pickles, and sugar-plums. In the present Exhibition, although I have again added to my list of novelties, my application is wholly refused, the cry having gone up for

any special sanitary appliance (which can, of course, be costly or the reverse) the better for the public health, the public purse, and the cause of sanitary science as well. SHARP & Co.

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. COURT OF APPEAL.

Ballard v. Tomlinson.

THIS appeal raised an interesting and important point as to the right of one or two owners of wells having a common source of supply from underground water to restrain the neighbouring owner from so dealing with his well as to cause the water which the other owner pumped out of his well to be polluted. It appeared that since 1849 the plaintiff, a brewer at Brentford, drew the water for brewing from a well sunk to a depth of 222 ft. into the London clay and bricked round. From the bottom of the well a pipe was carried through the Thanet sand into the chalk, to a depth of about 300 ft. from the surface. From the

About

sand and chalk, which were water-bearing strata, the water found its way by natural pressure into the well, from which the plaintiff raised it by pumping. ninety-nine yards from that well, the defendant also had a well of similar construction and going down to about the same depth in the sand and chalk, but the surface of the ground was about 10 ft. higher than at the plaintiff's well. The evidence was to the effect that both wells were sup plied from the subterranean water. The defendant, having ceased to use his well, made a drain by which the sewage was discharged into it. The plaintiff complained that the sewage had polluted the water in his well, and he claimed an injunction to restrain the defendant from so using his well as to pollute the water in, or coming into, the plaintiff's well, and also claimed damages for the injury caused by the pollution. For the plaintiff it was argued that, though there can be no property in underground water flowing in natural undefined channels, and therefore a landowner may so deal with such water as to deprive his neighbour of it entirely, yet he cannot so use his well as to prevent his neighbour drawing pure water. It was also said that the defendant's well and pipe were artificial channels, so that he was responsible for the consequence of allowing sewage to flow into the well. The fact of the pumping, it was said, could make no difference, for in either case nature would fill the vacuum caused by the abstraction of the water. For the defendant it was argued that he had not polluted any water in which the plaintiff had any property, and that if the plaintiff chose to draw the water from the common supply he must take it as he found it; and, further, that the effect would not have been caused but for the plaintiff's act in pumping. Mr. Justice Pearson gave judgment for the defendant (see SANITARY RECORD, March 15, 1884, p. 447), being of opinion that the plaintiff had no greater right to the quality of the water than he had to the quantity, and that it was one of the incidents to the use of the water that the plaintiff should take it subject to everything which had occurred to it by reason of the use of it by other landowners before it could reach his land. From that judgment the plaintiff now appealed.

Their lordships delivered judgment, allowing the appeal. The Master of the Rolls said that it could not be denied that sewage had been collected in an artificial shaft on the defendant's land, and that it had percolated or been drawn through by the plaintiff's act into the water under the plaintiff's land, and that it had fouled that water. It was clear that no one has at any time any property in water percolating below the surface of the soil even while it is under his land. But it was equally clear that every one has a right to appropriate such water

and may prevent it from going on to the land of others. So his neighbour below may cause such water on the land above to come upon his land, and may absolutely deprive his neighbour of it. Therefore no one has any property in percolating water, but every one has a right to appropriate the whole of it. The percolating water is a common reservoir or source, in which no one has any property, but from which any one has a right to appropriate any quantity. Then the question arose whether any one of those who have that unlimited right of appropriation, but of whom each has no greater rights than the others, has a right to contaminate the common reservoir, or whether he is bound not to do anything which would prevent any of those persons obtaining the full value of their right. It was true, as suggested, that the defendant by polluting the common reservoir did not pollute that in which the plaintiff had any property. If all the plaintiff could show was that the common source was contaminated, he could not before he had appropriated any part of it, maintain an action in respect of that contamination. But it did not follow that he could not maintain the action when he had appropriated it, if there was evidence that the water which he had a right to appropriate had been contaminated by that which another person had done to the common source; in other words, although no one has any property in such a source, yet, inasmuch as every one has a right to appropriate it, he has a right to appropriate it in a natural state, and no one has a right to contaminate the common source so as to prevent his neighbour having his right of appropriation. As to the point that the pollution would not have been caused if the plaintiff had not used artificial means, and, therefore, that it must be taken to have been his act, that was not a true proposition. The question of natural, as distinguished from unnatural, user never applies to plaintiffs, but only to defendants. As long as a person does not use any means which are unlawful as against his neighbours, however artificial or extensive those means may be, he has a right to use them, and the right to appropriate the common source is not diminished by such user. The question of natural and unnatural user only goes to this, that although a defendant does contaminate water or anything else which goes on to his neighbour's fand; yet, if that act is only what has been called the natural user' of the land, and although by that act the neighbour is injured, the defendant is not liable, because, otherwise, he could not use his land at all. With regard to the common source the question does not depend upon persons being contiguous neighbours; but if it can be shown that in fact the defendant has contaminated the common source, it signifies not how far the plaintiff may be distant from him, if it can be shown that the plaintiff has been injured by the act of the defendant. Therefore, upon a question which was uncovered by authority, his lordship was unable to agree with the learned judge. The ground on which he disagreed was that no one has any property in percolating water, which, as it comes from a common source, every one has a right to appropriate but no one has a right to injure.

Lord Justice Cotton was of the same opinion. The right to underground water was a natural incident of the ownership of land. The defendant was not exercising that natural right, and was not taking the underground water, but was putting upon his land filth which got down to the underground water which was partly under his land and partly under the land of the plaintiff. As soon as the defendant's act interfered with the plaintiff's natural right of ownership there was a cause of action.

Lord Justice Lindley delivered a written judgment to the same effect.

FISH-VRYING A NUISANCE.

Houldershaw v. Martin.

This case raised a question under the Public Health Act 1875, as to what is a nuisance,' and whether or not it must be injurious to health. An information had been laid against a fishmonger at Liversedge, hear Dewsbury,