NUISANCE FROM DRAINS.

AT St. Austell, Messrs. Crowder and Sartoris, proprie. tors of the Charlestown Estate, were summoned by the Rural Sanitary Authority for not abating a nuisance alleged to arise from an open drain at the back of a house at Mount Charles. The magistrates held that as it did not appear on the proceedings that the defendants were summoned as owners on account of some structural defect in the drain, the summons must be dismissed.

NOVEL MILK CASE AT BRIGHTON.

S. BROOKS was summoned for selling milk, not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded. Inspector King said that on the 1st inst. he saw defendant in the Western Road, and asked him for a pint of new milk. He went to his cart and supplied him with what he required, witness telling him that he wanted the milk for the analyst. Defendant served him willingly, saying he supplied Mr. Moore, the analyst. Mr. Moore handed in a certificate, which showed that the milk had been creamed or mixed with skim milk no less than 25 per cent. If the milk was in a can from six till eight o'clock without being subjected to stirring, so that the cream should be equally divided, and several customers served between those hours, at the latter hour the milk would be greatly depreciated, and the amount of cream taken off would be equal to that of the sample, viz., 25 per cent. The sample was not the normal secretion from a cow, and was not of the nature and substance of the article required. Mr. Woolley contended it made no matter how it was the milk lost its richness; the inspector asked for milk in the ordinary acceptance of the word, and he did not get it. Defendant said that the cow was milked at 6 o'clock in the morning. Before he saw Mr. King he had supplied twelve customers. The Bench dismissed the case, Mr. Woolley giving notice of appeal.

IMPORTANT DECISION UNDER THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.

"AT the Teignmouth Petty Sessions, E. Rook, grocer, Teignmouth, was summoned for having sold adulterated tea. Superintendent Moore said that on February 12 he went into the shop of the defendant and bought a quarter of a pound of tea, at 2s. 6d. a pound, and had it divided into three equal parts, after which he told defendant that his object was to have the tea analysed, and he wished her to accept one of the three equal portions which had been tied up, and defendant did accept it. He sent one portion to the county analyst, Dr. Blyth, and received a certificate of the analysis. Examined by Mr. Daw: Could not swear that the signature to the certificate was that of Dr. Blyth. Mr. Daw submitted to the Bench two points. First, that the tea had not been sealed up in packets by the prosecutor as the Act required, and, as that was a criminal matter, the Bench were bound to see that the Act was fully carried out. Secondly, he pointed out that the signature of Dr. Blyth could not be proved, as was required by Act of Parliament, consequently the case should not be gone into any further. The certificate stated that the tea submitted was a poor tea slightly adulterated with iron, which might be detected with a magnet. But, said Mr. Daw, the iron was nothing more than that which was found in the natural earth in which the tea grew. The tea was also stated by the analyst to be mixed with leaves other than those of the teaplant. This was quite possible. Indeed, it was a difficult matter to obtain tea perfectly free from the leaves of plants which grew with it. The Chairman thought that for the protection of tradesmen the packets of tea should be sealed. That was the first case of the kind which had come before the Bench, and in order that there might be no mistake in future he would state that the packets must be sealed. The first objection raised by Mr. Daw was a fatal one, though in order to get over the second the case might have been adjourned. Summons dismissed.

POISONOUS SWEETS.

Two confectioners were summoned at the Manchester City Police Court, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for selling sweets in the colouring of which an ingredient had been used that was injurious to health. The sweets in question, known as 'Kiss-me-loves,' contained chromate of lead, a poison. These being the first prosecutions in Manchester, Mr. Headlam, while informing the defendants that they were liable to a penalty of 50/., only inflicted a fine of 51. and costs.

A LIGHT AND AIR CASE.

THE Master of the Rolls has had before him the case of Collinson v. Ravencourt. Mr. Ince, Q.C., moved for the commitment of the defendant for the breach of an undertaking given upon a motion to restrain him by injunction, until the hearing of the cause, from obstructing the access of light and air to the plaintiff's premises. Counsel stated that the defendant, in defiance of his undertaking, had not only carried his walls higher, but had covered in his new premises with a roof, on the top of which he had built a ventilator, standing at such an angle as materially to interfere with plaintiff's premises. Mr. Chitty, Q.C., for the defendant, contended that the defendant had not done anything in breach of his undertaking, or if he had broken the letter of his undertaking, yet what he had done had merely been done for the protection of his property. He denied that the walls had been carried to any greater height than they were when the matter was last before the court. It was true that the roof had been put on since, but that was for the protection of the property. He relied on the figures marked on the model in court, showing the angles at which light was obtained by the plaintiff through his windows, as demonstratively proving that the defendant's erection did not materially interfere with the plaintiff's light. He had the affidavit of an eminent architect, who pledged his experience that the erection of the roof had not in any sensible degree interfered with the plaintiff's rights, or in any way injured him. The Master of the Rolls pointed out that the defendant had violated the letter of his undertaking, and the motion now before the court was to commit him for this breach. Mr. Chitty, Q.C., admitted that that was so, and said that the defendant would remove the roof and ventilator within three weeks. Mr. Ince, Q.C., would not object to that, the motion standing over for that time, and if the roof, etc., were removed within that period to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, then the order on this motion would be simply an order for the payment of costs. The Master of the Rolls said it was not his practice to take an undertaking on such an understanding. The object of the motion was to com

pel the defendant to do what was right, and if he did not now do that, the power to compel him which the court possessed must be exercised.

PRESERVED MEAT.

AT the recent Lancashire Assizes the case of Wilson v. Silleto was tried, one of great interest to importers of American meat. It was an action brought to recover damages in consequence of illness caused to the plaintiff's wife, children, and servants, through eating some of 'Wilson, Packing, and Co.'s celebrated compressed corned Chicago beef.' The plaintiff was a keeper of an inn at 33, Russell Street, Liverpool. On October 21, last, he went to the defendant's shop and bought two tins of preserved meat. Some of the meat was used for dinner on the 24th, and it was proved that all who partook of the dish were about two hours after seized with violent vomiting, which continued for several hours. The youngest daughter was ill for several weeks after, and, in fact, had never been the same since. No doctor was called in for some days, but on Dr. Smith seeing Mrs. Wilson, he thought her symptoms consistent with lead poisoning at some anterior date, but he could not positively swear that the symptoms were caused by poisoning. At the close of

the plaintiff's case, Mr. Russell submitted that the plaintiff had made out no case, on the ground that if a person sells a patent article, he does not warrant the quality of the article he sells, and that this meat was protected by the patent law of the United States. Mr. Gully submitted that this was an article sold for the purposes of food, which the plaintiff had no opportunity of inspecting, and that he bought the meat not relying on it being Wilson, Packing, and Co.'s beef, but having faith in the shop at which it was purchased. For the defendant, Mr. Pelling, the agent in Liverpool for the meat, was called, and he stated that they were selling upwards of 100 tons per week of this beef, and that no complaints before had been made, he always used the beef himself for his own family, and produced a carte de visite roll of his family, all of them displaying a healthy and robust physique. An analysis of the meat showed that it was in no way unfit for human food, nor did it contain any poisonous substance. The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

SANITARY PROSECUTIONS IN BRADFORD.

AT the Bradford police court, H. Thirkell, builder, was summoned for permitting to be occupied certain dwelling-houses and new buildings situate at Rydal Street, before such buildings had, after examination, been certified by the medical officer of health as fit for human habitation, contrary to the 27th section of the Bradford Act, 1875.— Dr. Butterfield, medical officer of health, proved the facts of the case. In reply to Mr. Terry, for the defence, witness said he did not know whether Thirkell was aware that the tenants had removed their goods into the houses or that they were cleaning them. Mr. Terry said that Thirkell was a builder, and knew that he should have a certificate. He had recently had a lot of houses certified, and they were occupied. The houses in question were built and completed in the same way as those which had been certified. The people who were anxious to get into them were told they would not be allowed to do so until they were certified. They, however, begged to be allowed to clean out, and they did so, and probably got some of their furniture in. They were cleaning when the doctor went up, and he told them they could not live in the houses until they were certified. After that caution he (Mr. Terry) thought that people should take the consequences upon themselves. There was not the slightest intention on the part of Thirkell to set the law at defiance. In reply to the bench, the medical officer stated that the houses were not in a fit state to live in when he saw them, but probably they were all right now. A fine of IOS. was inflicted in each case, and costs 8s., or in default 14 days imprisonment.

S. Taylor, brewer, Lumb-lane, was summoned for allowing liquid water from an uncovered ashpit, to percolate through the wall into Southfield Square. Mr. Burgan, sanitary inspector, said he had been to the premises, and found that the ashpit had not yet been covered over. There was a quantity of stagnant water still in, and he was not aware that anything had been done to abate the nuisance. Mr. Terry showed that Taylor had been in the habit of employing a man to do these things for him for some time. The officer said nothing had been done. Defendant was ordered to pay 12s. costs, and to abate the nuisance in a week.

COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES.

W. CHICHESTER, of Hyde Farm, Streatham, appeared to an adjourned summons for allowing cattle to graze upon the common. The defendant contended that he had a right to graze which had been enjoyed by Emmanuel College, from whom he leased the farm and some three roods of land adjacent, for many years. For the complainants, it was urged that the authorities of the College had not made any claim to such right, whilst the cases of others who had were to be tried in a superior court. Mr. Ellison said that according to the defendant's own admission, it

was clear his right only extended to the soil and herbage of the three roods. That was very different to a right of pasturage over the whole common. The defendant said he claimed his right independent of his holding of the three roods of land. Mr. Ellison thought he had better submit to a small penalty. He must tell him candidly that he was satisfied he had not a leg to stand on. The defendant said he should prefer an adjournment; but Mr. Ellison ultimately ordered him to pay a fine of 3d. (id. for each summons), and 6s. costs.

WHAT CONSTITUTES NEW MILK.

Ar the Liverpool Borough Sessions, before Mr. J. B. Aspinall, Q.C., an important appeal case was heard. A man named Simpson had been fined by the borough magistrates, for selling milk from which the cream had been abstracted. It was moved that the conviction be set aside, inasmuch as the milk sold was unskimmed, and, therefore, new milk; and that its poorness of quality was attributable to the fact that the sample tasted by the borough analyst was purchased later in the day after the majority of the customers were supplied, that the latter got the best milk containing the cream, which in the ordinary way rose to the surface, and that as far as he (the dealer) was concerned, there was no fraud. The Recorder held a different view, and said that if the milk had deteriorated, the defendant was liable, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier customers had profited at the expense of the latter ones.

BRIEF NOTES OF CASES.
OBSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY.

1875. Walker v. Horner. Free passage of a bridleway obstructed by reason of landowner allowing trees to grow over it. Such an obstruction held not to be wilful,' so as to be within section 72 of Highway Act. (L.R., I Q.B.D., 4; 33 L.T., 601.)

INJUNCTION.

1876. Attorney-General v. General Sewage Company. Sewage works leased from a local board by a company.— Default in performance of covenants to remove sewage. (Times, July 28, 1876.)

REPAIR OF ROADS.

1875. Reg. v. Rollett. Hamlet within a township which had never in the memory of man been liable to highway rates, etc.-No public roads in the hamlet.Held that these circumstances were not sufficient to establish a custom exempting the occupiers of the hamlet limits but within the township. from contributing to the repairs of highways outside its (L.R., 10 Q.B., 469; [Rollett v. Corringham] 32 L. T., 769.)

LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENTS.

1876. Holland v. Northwich Highway Board. Highway Act, 1835, section 109.-Neglect to repair a handrail. -Injury to traveller.-An act of omission held to be something done under the statute and notice of action necessary. (34 L.T., 137; 40 J.P., 317.)

Legal Note and Query.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

SIR,-The rural sanitary authority under whom I serve as inspector passed the following resolution and entered the same on their minutes :

'Legal Proceedings.-It was resolved unanimously that Mr. , the inspector of nuisances and surveyor to the authority, be and he is hereby authorised and shall be at liberty to institute and carry on any proceedings which the local authority is authorised to institute and carry on under the Public Health Act, 1875. That all such proceedings be taken under the advice of the clerk.'

Does this empower me to issue a notice on discovery of nuisance, and take proceedings with the approval of the clerk, without waiting for a meeting of the authority? RURAL INSPector.

[Yes, we think such to be the intention, and we do not see that any objection should be raised.-ED.]

Correspondence.

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

[WE have received from the War Office the following gratifying communication, written on behalf of his fellowservants, by one of the gentlemen occupied in the office. Such a recognition is especially agreeable and valuable to us, as affording prompt recognition of the practical effect of our labours in this direction. The career of the SANITARY RECORD has been a short one, and it has not been wholly without its difficulties, which are such as beset all early efforts at creating a new organ of public opinion. We are able, however, to congratulate ourselves upon having succeeded in influencing public opinion in several instances to very good purpose, and we have had the satisfaction of seeing many of the most palpable evils which we have attacked very promptly enquired into, and very speedily put in the way of being reformed. We cannot profess to be wholly satisfied with what has been done as yet at the War Office, nevertheless the extensive repairs and improvements which are now being made will suffice to afford some temporary security for life, and some temporary increase of comfort to the officials at that office, while the able, decisive, and thorough report of the Government Committee give earnest that the present building will not be occupied any longer than is absolutely necessary.—ED.]

THE WAR OFFICE.

(To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) SIR,-On behalf of numerous members of the War Office, and of the Exchequer and audit examiners stationed here, I am desired to tender you most cordial thanks for the steps which you have recently taken to give publicity to the unhealthy condition of these buildings, and which have led to the appointment of a Sanitary Commission to examine them. The report of the Commissioners agrees in all essential particulars with the details furnished by you.

I am also requested to state how deeply sensible these gentlemen are of the fact that the promised reforms, to be undertaken at a cost of 6,000l. or 7,000l., are entirely due to your having taken up the cause.

Under

It is observed with satisfaction that repairs are already being commenced; one room that was especially alluded to in your journal has been rendered habitable. these circumstances we feel that our warmest recognition is due to you and your commissioner, Mr. H. C. Burdett, for the zeal you so opportunely manifested, as well as for the ability and moderation with which you stated the case. War Office, S. W., March 15, 1877.

VENTILATION OF DRAINS.

'SPES.'

(To the Editor of the SANITARY Record.) SIR,-I have been frequently asked why I have not replied publicly to Mr. Banner's statements and claims on the novelty and value of his so-called 'patent system' of sanitation; my reasons for silence have been, first, that I thought no scientific persons, qualified to judge of such matters, would be misled by these statements, and secondly,

because I thought the subject had been ably treated, and the erroneous statements disproved in a way to satisfy all impartial minds by Mr. Buchan in your issue of January 27, and by Mr. Morgan Evans in that of February 3, but as it appears that Mr. Banner's reiterated statements, and his advertisements, serve to mislead many who have not sufficient technical knowledge to enable them to understand clearly the principles of our several inventions, or adaptations of old known principles, I will thank you for space for a few words.

If any infringement of Patent rights has occurred, we, and not Mr. Banner, are the aggrieved persons. Mr. Banner's patent specification is now lying before me, it is numbered 2,401, and is dated July 2, 1875. Mr. Buchan's patent is numbered 1,499, and is dated April 23, 1875. We had already before these dates secured a patent numbered 272, dated January 23, 1875; three months prior to Mr. Buchan's, and five months prior to Mr. Banner's. In our Specification we claim exactly what Mr. Banner dares us to do, i.e., to let in air at the foot of the soil pipe, and also to carry the sewer gas to the top of the building by an air-shaft. This we claim to do, and have done ever since we took out our patent; we have also had our air-shaft surmounted by a cowl of the ordinary turn-about kind, with an arrow acted on by the wind, and we have fixed our traps at the foot of closet soil pipes, which have been in themselves ventilated by an air pipe to the top of the house, as well as in addition to the air-shaft from our trap, and this we did months before Mr. Banner secured his patent. By means of our trap we do more than all this, we entirely disconnect the house drains from the sewer, and without any valve or mechanical appliance we render it impossible for sewer gas to enter any house or building where our trap is in use. We rarely use cowls on our air-shafts, because we consider them unnecessary, and because we prefer to avoid using any appliance liable to wear out or get out of order; but anyone using our trap can fix a cowl to the air-shaft if he prefers to do so. It is absurd for Mr. Banner to claim the credit of being the first to let in air at the foot of the soil pipe, and remove it to the top of the house by a ventilating shaft; the dates of our several patents form a sufficient answer to all such claims. For many years I have used ventilating cowls to create an up current in air-shafts, and have also admitted air at the bottom of the shaft; in fact, an ordinary smoke flue is an exact case in point; air is admitted at the bottom, and the flue is very frequently surmounted by a cowl, fixed or movable. The soil pipes of water-closets have been ventilated by pipes to the tops of houses for years past, but we were the first who took the bold step of opening the soil pipe at the foot and letting in fresh air, at the same time disconnecting the house drains and soil pipes for a length of space sufficient to entirely prevent sewer gas being forced into, or sucked into the house. I saw a long special supplement to the Architect a few weeks back, devoted to Mr. Banner, and claiming that he had conferred a great boon on his fellow beings by letting air into the closet pipe at the foot, and removing it at the top; it would, I think, be better, and certainly more just, for the writers of such articles in scientific journals to consult the reference library, and take some pains to ascertain what other inventors had done, before committing themselves to such statements. We are now fixing a great number of our traps, and have never yet failed to give entire satisfaction with them; in fact, nothing can be more simple, or more thoroughly effective, as the testimonials we constantly receive, from persons of undoubted authority in sanitary matters, fully prove. We have fixed traps in areas, and in connection with old and new drains, with equal success. I trust that in fairness to us, as the first to contrive an appliance for the safe carrying out of this natural law in a simple and effective manner, you will insert this letter, and I apologise for troubling you at such length.

J. C. POTTS. Handsworth, Birmingham, March 21, 1877.

SANITATION.

(To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) SIR,-As a regular reader of your valuable paper, I have been much interested the correspondence you have published for some months past on house drainage and ventilation of soil pipes. In your last issue, my attention is again directed to the very unpretending advertisement setting forth the claims of Mr. Banner's system, and also to a letter entitled 'Calley's System of Sewers and Sewage.'

The hollowness of Mr. Banner's claims have been pointed out over and over again in the correspondence alluded to, and what I would now draw attention to is, the evil effect such claims may have on the general progress of sanitation. Every month or two we have some one starting up and claiming some particular system of sanitation or some particular system of sewage to which he rivets his name and probably protects by letters patent. In Mr. Calley's letter there is absolutely nothing that has not been known for years, the suggestions offered are all valuable, but entirely devoid of novelty. How then does it happen that they are concreted together and designated as Calley's system?

When the ordinary householder begins to think of improving the sanitary state of his house and takes steps to put in a ventilating trap or other arrangements of an equally simple character, some friend will say that is so and so's system, you are infringing a patent, you will subject yourself to penalties, &c.' The unfortunate man, not knowing how matters really stand, throws up his good intentions, preferring rather to go on in the old unsatisfactory way than risk the trouble and annoyance of being challenged. It is much to be regretted that sanitary science is so hampered with patents, whether of systems, traps, closets, &c., many of which have not even the slightest claims to protection, and which certainly do more to impede the natural progress of sanitation than all other obstacles put together. WM. ALLAN Carter, Edinburgh. Assoc. Inst. C.E.

Notices of Meetings.

THE METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY. THE usual monthly meeting of this society was held on Wednesday, the 21st instant, at the Institution of Civil Engineers, Mr. H. S. Eaton, M. A., president, in the chair. Captain Fellowes, R. E., George Jinman, Angus Mackintosh, M.D., Robert W. T. Morris, Rev. Edward Vincent Pigott, David S. Skinner, L.R.C.P., and Henry St. John Wood, were elected Fellows of the society.

The following papers were read :

'Results of Meteorological Observations made at Patras, Greece, during 1874 and 1875,' by the Rev. Herbert A. Boys. This is in continuation of a former paper, read before the society in 1875. The period embraced in the two papers-January, 1873, to June, 1875covers a whole winter, compressed into about thirty days, a very long and showery spring, an excessively hot summer, a dry winter of extreme cold, a summer of most prolonged drought, a remarkably wet and snowy winter, a very late beginning of hot weather, and the coldest day and night and the lowest barometric reading for many years.

'Contributions to the Meteorology of the PacificFiji,' by Robert H. Scott, F.R.S. This paper contains a discussion of all published information as to the climate of Fiji which the author has been able to discover.

'Local Diurnal Range,' by S. H. Miller, F.R.A.S. This was followed by another paper on the same subject, by William Marriott, F.M.S., which discussed the questions of whether the tables of corrections for diurnal range at present used by a large number of observers are trust

worthy, and whether they are applicable to different other places in the United Kingdom. The conclusions arrived at were that the present corrections could not be considered as accurate, that no strictly comparable records exist for instituting a satisfactory inquiry, and that it is very undesirable to apply any corrections whatever to the observations that deduce means from them.

Mr. Negretti exhibited several new instruments. SANITARY INSTITUTE OF GREAT BRITAIN. SEWAGE DISPOSAL.

AT the meeting held at the rooms of the Society of Arts, John Street, Adelphi, on the 14th inst., under the presidency of His Grace the Duke of Northumberland, Mr. C. S. Smith, of Birmingham, announced that at a future meeting, of which due notice would be given, he would read a paper upon The Prevention of Sewage Contamination, and its Sources,' and his novel method would be illustrated on the occasion by working models and diagrams.

APPOINTMENTS OF HEALTH OFFICERS, INSPECTORS OF NUISANCES, ETC.

BECKWITH, Mr. T. R., has been appointed Surveyor and Inspector of Nuisances to the Middlesbrough Rural Sanitary Authority, vice Cook resigned. BIRCH, Mr. W has been reappointed Inspector of Nuisances for the Chesterfield Rural Sanitary District at 2007. for one year. DAVENPORT, Mr. J. A., has been reappointed Surveyor and Inspector of Nuisances to the Nantwich Rural Sanitary Authority at 3051. per annum for three years.

EXELL, Edmund, L.R.C.P. Edin., M.R.C.S. Eng., has been appointed Medical Officer of Health for the Idle Urban Sanitary District, Yorkshire, vice Aston, whose appointment has expired. GILL, Mr. Thomas Alsop, has been appointed Collector of the General District Rate for the Parish of St. Mary, and of the Water Rate for the Borough and Urban Sanitary District of Warwick, vice Holbrook, resigned.

HALLAM, Mr. J. W., has been re-appointed Inspector of Nuisances for the Crickhowell Rural Sanitary District, for three years. HARRISON, Mr. Samuel, has been appointed Surveyor, Manager of Waterworks, and Inspector of Nuisances to the Corporation and Urban Sanitary Authority the City of Ripon.

JONES, Mr. J. Morgan, has beeR dected a member of the Blaenavon Local Board and Urban ary Authority, vice Parker, resigned. SPAIN, Henry George, Esq., ha nemo appointed Treasurer to the Corporation and Urban Sanit Authority of Deal, vice Drew. STUBBS, Mr. William, has been appointed Surveyor to the Pendleton Township, in the Borough Engineer's Department, of the Borough and Urban Sanitary District of Salford, at 2007. per ann. SWINGLER, Mr. Henry, has been elected a Member of the Litchurch Local Board and Urban Sanitary Authority, vice Eastwood, deceased.