the application of Mr. Lewis the certificate of the Government analyst at Somerset House was produced. From the certificate it appeared that the quantity of copper found in a similar sample of peas from the same tin was returned at 0.23. Mr. Lewis pointed out that in the case of Barron the Government analysis had found much less copper than Dr. Piesse had declared to be present. And in the present case there was a great disparity between the result of the analyses of the Government analyst and that of Mr. Piesse. The summons against another of the defendants, William Lingner, was taken. Mr. Philbrick said the proceedings were taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, in respect of a tin of preserved peas sold by the defendants to the inspector appointed by the Board of Works, Strand Union, and which on being analysed were found to contain copper to the extent of 088, of metallic copper, equal to 24 grains of sulphate of copper. The amount of copper might be small, but it was sufficient to be dangerous. Mr. F. Taylor, inspector to the Strand District Union, and Mr. Piesse, analyst to the Strand District Board of Works, gave evidence in support of the summons. Dr. Conway Evans, M.D., medical officer of health, said he had been in practice for upwards of twenty years, during which time he had held several important appointments. He considered that the larger quantity of salt of copper spoken of in a 1 lb. tin of peas, if eaten daily or repeatedly, would be injurious to health and would produce chronic poisoning, but many persons might eat a quantity of these peas several times without apparently suffering any injurious effects, the period varying in accordance with difference of vigour, age, health, etc. Two or three doses might affect some persons and not others. From 14 to 15 grains of copper was sometimes given as an emetic, and sometimes in ague or chronic diarrhoea to 3 grains were given as a tonic. It was a well-known medical fact that in respect of some poisons-such, for instance, as mercurycertain persons were peculiarly susceptible to their influence, and it was possible that these peas containing copper, if swallowed by persons ignorant of their own susceptibilities, might, even in a single dose or a few doses, lead to injurious consequences. He believed copper was more fatal in a smaller dose than salt of lead. The heightening the colours of preserves with copper was once a common practice. Cases of poisoning by copper were formerly very common, but copper utensils in cooking had given place to tin and iron saucepans. Such cases were of rare occurrence. Pure metallic copper he believed to be harmless, but it was dangerous when in contact with other substances and when dissolved. In France 2014 of deaths were caused by copper poisoning. Mr. Philbrick here read the symptoms of chronic poisoning by copper; they were very slow and insidious, as described by Tardieu. Dr. William Guy, M.B., F.R.C. P., and VicePresident of the Royal Society, said that cases of poisoning by copper had occurred in which the quantity swallowed must have been small. He had studied the question of poisons particularly. The fact of a trace of copper in the human body would not prove its existence in a poisonous form. He had made inquiries for Government into the effects of poisoning in certain trades. Palsy followed

from poisoning by copper. Two cases had come under his knowledge of poisoning by green paper in a room. The poisoning, in his opinion, came from the copper, not the arsenic. Salts of copper he considered more poisonous than lead. The small quantity of copper contained in the peas in question from France might prove injurious, and slowly undermine health. On a nervous person copper was more likely to produce dangerous symptoms than on any one else. With regard to the presence of 36 of copper, if taken one-third at a time, it would not affect a healthy person, and if repeated in small doses it would, in his opinion, be ultimately injurious to health. He considered that any article containing the amount of copper spoken to by Mr. Piesse, should not be allowed to be sold for one moment. Sulphate of copper in its virulence ranked fourth in the class of poisons. Dr. Charles Tidy, M.D., Professor

of Chemistry and Medical Jurisprudence, and Medical Officer of Health for Islington, gave similar evidence. He had studied poisons, had experimented on fresh peas and pods, and found not even a trace of copper. If copperthat is, sulphate of copper-were constantly taken to the extent of the amount of copper found in the French peas, it would be injurious to health. Dr. Auguste Dupré, Ph. D., F.R.S., Lecturing Chemist at the Westminster Hospital, and President of the Society of Analysts of Great Britain, stated that copper was present in traces only in animal and vegetable tissues. The quantity of copper found by Mr. Piesse was far beyond that quantity normally in any vegetable. Dr. Guy said he considered the sale of an article containing such a quantity of copper as that found in the French peas ought not to be tolerated. Small doses of copper were more dangerous than large ones, as the latter would cause vomiting. The defendant said the peas were sent to him as quite natural peas. Mr. Jenkins said the defendant had been convicted of a similar offence. Mr. Knox said that, having been informed that the defendant had been before convicted for selling peas injurious to the public health, he saw nothing to cause him to mitigate the fine, which, he believed, went up to 50!. He did not want to be oppressive, but the heads of the chemical and analytical kingdom had said there was not only a traceable quantity of copper in the peas, but a dangerous quantity. Mr. Philbrick said the prosecution was instituted for the public benefit, and not with the view of punishment. The defendant said he did not sell three dozen tins in a year, and would discontinue the sale. Mr. Knox, after cautioning the defendant and expressing a wish that publicity might be given to the fact that persons would not be permitted to bring to this country goods deleterious to the health of the inhabitants, and that in future real and substantial fines would be inflicted, fined the defendant the nominal fine of 1s. and 57. 5s. costs. Mr. Detmar having wished his case dealt with, he was similarly fined, and the other cases were adjourned.

BRIEF NOTES OF CASES.
STREET.

1876. Montreal, Mayor, v. Drummond.- Canadian Law. The permanent closing of one end of a street, whereby access to houses was rendered inconvenient, held no such interference with the rights of the owners as to entitle them to compensation. (L.R., 1 App. Cas., 384.)

RIGHTS AS to Water.

1875. Lyon v. Fishmongers' Co.-A riparian owner river and foreshore than the public. Not the same rights on a navigable tidal river has no larger rights over the as an owner on an inland river. (44 L.J., Ch., 747; L. R., 10 Ch. App., 679; 33 L.J., 146.)

AGGRIEVED PARTY.

1875,' § 253.-Action for penalty without consent of the 1876. Rochfort v. Atherley.-'Public Health Act, A.G. Special circumstances. Held that the plaintiff, the late clerk of a board, was not an aggrieved party. (L.R., 1 Ex. D., 511.)

POLLUTION OF WATER BY SEWAGE.

1876. A.G. v. Basingstoke, Mayor.-Pollution of disused canal by Corporation sewage. Injunction granted, though Corporation demurred. No advantage from the practice which caused the nuisance. (45 L.J., Ch., 728.)

BY-LAWS; BUILDINGS.

1876. Scott v. Legg.-Enactment that no building should comprise more than 216,000 cubic feet without a party wall, but this not to apply to old buildings. Held that adding a wing to an old building, whereby the joint content of the whole would be greater than 216,000 feet, was within the prohibition. (L.R., 2 Ex. D., 39; 35 L.T., 487; 41 J.P., 40.)

SMOKE NUISANCE.

1876. Harris v. James.-A landlord who lets premises for a purpose that may be expected to be a nuisance is liable for the nuisance jointly with his tenant. (35 L.T., 240.)

LANDS CLAUSES ACT, 1845.

1874. Great Western Railway Co. v. May.-'Lands Clauses Act, 1845,' § 127.- Lands acquired . . . but not required for the purposes' for which they were acquired. Required' means 'necessary,' and when the land ceases to be necessary it becomes superfluous land.' (43 L.J., Q.B., 233; L.R., 7 H.L., 292; 31 L.T., 137.)

LANDS CLAUSES ACT.

1875. Bedford (Duke of) v. Dawson.—Local Act.Interference with an easement held not to be restrainable by an injunction. Remedy-compensation under § 68 of 'Land Clauses Act.' (44 L.J., Ch., 549; L.R., 20 Eq., 353; 33 L.T., 156.)

Legal Notes and Queries.

HOUSE UNFIT FOR HABITATION. SIR, The rural sanitary authority of the B. union have obtained under the 97th section of the Public Health Act, 1875, a magistrate's order against the owner of a cottage in their district, the said cottage having been proved to be in such a state as to render it unfit for human habita. tion. Now the owner of the cottage is very anxious to get the occupier out, and for the purpose of complying with the order, to take down the cottage, but unfortunately, under the Landlord and Tenants Act, he cannot compel the occupiers to leave until March, 1878. Under these circumstances, could the sanitary authority, under section 98 of the Public Health Act, enter the premises to which the order refers, and eject the occupiers, and so close the cottage? If so, what would be the manner of procedure? Should we have to give the occupier any further notice? Could you refer us to a case bearing upon the point? An answer in your next will oblige. INSPECTOR.

[It seems to us that section 306 of the Public Health Act, 1875, is available for such a case as this.]

Review.

In

A Handbook of Hygiene and Sanitary Science. By GEORGE WILSON, M.D. and C.M. (Edin.), F.C.S., Medical Officer of Health for the Mid-Warwickshire Sanitary District. Third Edition. Churchill. 1877. Pp. 490. THE rapidity with which the two previous editions of this work have disappeared sufficiently indicates the appreciation of it entertained not only by those who are professionally interested in sanitary matters, but by the general public, by whom, as we have good reason to know, it is largely consulted. To this well-deserved reputation the present edition will very considerably add. point of mere bulk the book is very materially enlarged, many parts have been entirely rewritten, portions of the former editions which have ceased to have the importance they then had have been cut out and replaced by new matter, and the whole work is now a concise, but at the same time sufficiently full, epitome of sanitary science for all practical requirements. The effect of the enlarged experience as a medical officer of health which the author has had since the work was first written is to be seen in almost every page of it, and not least in the admirable suggestions which he offers to his professional brethren as to the discharge of their duties and their conduct to those with whom they are brought into official relations. It is this thoroughly practical character which the work exhibits which gives it a value above all other

sanitary manuals with which we are acquainted. Sanitary work is so largely experimental in its nature at present, and the conditions of success in carrying it on are so varied in different districts, and are as yet in some cases so imperfectly ascertained, that it is of the highest importance that anyone who undertakes to offer advice or instruction in regard to it should have had not only actual experience as a medical officer of health, but the opportunity of dealing with the varied requirements of urban and rural populations which only a large combined district, such as that which Dr. Wilson supervises, can give. Hence the work, unlike some others which we could mention, will be found equally useful to medical officers of health and others who may have to deal either with exclusively urban or with exclusively rural districts, each of whom will find in it an abundance of information of an essentially practical kind.

It is obviously impossible for us to give here anything like an adequate idea of the various subjects upon which Dr. Wilson in this handbook treats, and there is the less necessity for doing so as most of our readers have probably had an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with its general scope in the previous editions. But it may not be out of place if we briefly indicate some of the more important features in which the present edition exhibits marked advance, in comparison with those which have preceded it. One of the most striking of these is the section which deals with water in its relation to public health. The whole of this subject is most carefully discussed. Much additional information has been introduced into the chapter on water analysis, which, without claiming to describe all the niceties of analytic detail with which a professed chemist should be acquainted, contains all that a thoroughly competent health officer need know. In the chapter which treats of the effects of impure water on the public health, Dr. Wilson has incorporated all the most recent and striking cases of epidemics which have been traced to water contamination, in doing which he has naturally drawn largely from that mine of information on this subject, the Reports of Mr. Simon to the Local Government Board. There is one point in connection with the supply of water from wells, upon which we are glad to see that Dr. Wilson insists strongly, because our own experience quite coincides with his as to its importance and as to the frequency with which it is neglected, and that is the necessity of periodically cleaning out wells, even when there is no obvious source of contamination, such as a drain or cesspool, in their neighbourhood. Numerous cases have come under our observation of wells, the waters of which have exhibited evidences of serious contamination, without any assignable source of proximate contaminating agency to account for it, but which have been found on examination to contain a filthy accumulation of sediment at the bottom, due to gradual infiltration into them of organic matters in minute quantities, and probably from long distances, which, when removed, has left the water perfectly free from all reasonable objection. The experienced medical officer of health will have no difficulty in recognising the special features by which contamination from this source is indicated, and in at once intimating to the proprietor of the well the facility with which it may be removed.

We observe that Dr. Wilson coincides with the opinion in regard to the origin of enteric fever being not necessarily specific, which is fast becoming general, in opposition to the views which have so ably been maintained by Dr. Budd, of Clifton, and others, but which are, in our opinion, founded upon insufficient evidence. Every medical officer of health who has had much experience of rural districts must be able to confirm Dr. Wilson's assertion that in such districts 'there occur many scattered cases of enteric fever, which, although they have a water origin, cannot be traced to specifically polluted water.'

The chapter on hospital accommodation contains a number of details as to the best modes of arrangement, and cost drawn from the most recent sources. The chapters on the modes of dealing with sewage, and on th

effects of improved drainage and sewerage on the public health, have also been enriched with the results of the accumulated experience of the last few years. In these and in all other respects the author has availed himself of all the resources at his disposal, and has laboured to make his work a perfect reflex of the present state of sanitary knowledge. Although written primarily for the use of medical officers of health, it will be a most useful addition to the library of every medical practitioner, nor will it be less valuable as a work of occasional reference to sanitary inspectors and others, who are engaged upon or interested in sanitary work. To all such we can most cordially recommend it.

Correspondence.

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

HOUSE DRAINAGE.

(To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) SIR, The ideas expressed by Mr. Spear in his article on the above subject at page 81 are similar to those which I have been advocating for years back, especially as regards the house drains, although I think we differ a little about the ventilation of the sewers. In regard to the report of

report or idea was made public. In the 'illustration showing mode of forming, trapping, and ventilating watercloset pipes' the size '4 in.' recommended by Dr. Buchanan for the soil-pipe is too small, in many cases 4 in. would be more correct, while the soil-pipe is not properly ventilated in said 'illustration,' the branch soil-pipes being unventilated! W. P. BUCHAN. 23 Renfrew Street, Glasgow,

February 10, 1877.

P.S.-If you choose to publish the enclosed sketch, illustrating one of my modes of ventilating house drains when they pass through the houses, the ventilating pipe for sewer marked thereon will show wherein I differ from Mr. Spear regarding the ventilating of the sewer. I do not approve of drains passing through the house, but when they are so put in we have to do the best we can for them. W. P. B.

'BANNER'S SYSTEM OF SANITATION.'

(To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) SIR,-Permit me once more to trouble you on the above subject, my object being to point out how and when this system originated here.

During my first year's operations in this city (1870) many instances were brought under my observation of members of families struck down with violent fevers, which were distinctly traceable to the many defects in our sanitary appliances, particularly the situation, workmanship, and ma

Dr. Buchanan respecting the outbreak of typhoid fever at | Croydon, I should much like to know the exact date of the said report, as the illustrations which appear in your supplement are in several points similar to those on the large sheet of drawings belonging to my patent of date April 23, 1875. Further, the somewhat abrupt dip in the pipe, immediately in front of the trapping bend,' which Dr. Buchanan considers of so much importance, happens to be one of the special points in my patent; it is, therefore, of importance to know the precise date when Dr. Buchanan's

SEWER

terial, the latter being in many instances of such a light character that the sewage gas by its action soon rendered them like a sieve, through which the gases found a ready way of access to the houses.

Such a state of matters naturally led me to contrive some method whereby such a condition of things could be remedied in a simple yet effective form, and the conclusion arrived at was, that to do this effectively there should not be a single pipe having a connection with a drain or sewer within an occupied building, and that all conveniences

should be provided for in a tower or wing detached from the main building, and that a current of air be provided for at the foot of the soil-pipes assisted by the action of a suction cowl.

This idea was quickly transmitted to paper in the form of a plan of the whole system, in the latter part of 1870, or beginning of 1871, and submitted to Mr. Kenneth Macleod, chief sanitary inspector, for his opinion, which he gave with an order to have the plan finished and hung up in his chambers for the public benefit, and there it has for the past six years been exhibited for that purpose, free to all.

To illustrate this system clearly, and to show the similarity that it bears to that of Mr. Banner, as shown by a sectional drawing in his pamphlet, I herewith forward you a copy of my original, and also one of a more recent date.

The cowl is, as you will perceive, of that form that when the air currents strike it they are propelled downwards, with a velocity at least four times greater than that of themselves, and rushing through the drains and soilpipe, effectually purge them of all impure gases; thus the necessity of suction cowls is dispensed with.

It is perfectly clear that the former of these systems (devised and designed by an institution organised for the express purpose of conferring a benefit upon the community amongst whom it labours, and on others, in many parts of the kingdom, who have enquired through it for information), is a fac-simile of that claimed by Mr. Banner, and thus, I believe I have satisfactorily proved that the system' was made public long prior to the date on which Mr. Banner received his Letters Patent.' I Montrose Street, Glasgow, JAMES DOBSON, February 7, 1877. District Sanitary Inspector.

TINSLEY'S PATENT INVALID BEDSTEAD.

(To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) DEAR SIR,-In your impression of the 16th inst., 112, I read with no small amount of interest a favour

ings, and from their position do not subject those using the bathroom C to its chilling influence.

A most important factor in this system is that no part of the drain is to be found within the house, and if these be carefully constructed there cannot be the shadow of a chance for any gas finding a way therein. The soil-pipe D you will perceive has at a point immediately above where it intersects with the drain a branch pipe E leading to and up the outer face of wall. My object in carrying it so far up is to guard against stones or other matter being thrown into it. This pipe is that through which a supply of air is obtained to the soil-pipe D which is carried up to and through the roof at apex, and surmounted with a 'suction cowl' which is stationary, this class of cowl is superior to those which revolve, as they are not liable to get out of order.

The most recent plan, and which is at present being applied to a number of dwellings in John Knox Street (about 40 in all), differs in principle from the former, by introducing the air at a high level, above the ridge of the roof, by a cowl E, which is attached to a 3-inch cast iron pipe F, carried down to, and intersecting with the drain at a point on that side of the cesspool (which is outside of the building) nearest to the house.

present I am not aware of the date of Mr. Tinsley's patent, but I may inform you that I made and sold one of these bedsteads in March 1875; and, so far as I know, it is now in use in Leeds. The drawings from which the bedstead and apparatus were made are still in my possession.

I may further state that at the meeting of the Medical Officers of Health Association of the Northern Counties, held in the town-hall in this city on July 1, 1875, I exhibited the drawings of my improved bedstead, and the following comment upon it was made in the Carlisle Patriot of July 2, 1875 - Mr. Robinson, Inspector of Nuisances, had a model closet amply ventilated. The same ingenious official exhibited drawings of an improved apparatus for invalids, the feature of which was that it enabled the patients to raise themselves in bed.'

Of course I have not seen a drawing of Mr. Tinsley's bedstead yet, as all my information is gained from your paper of the 16th inst. There may be a difference in the details of the working parts of Mr. Tinsley's bedstead and the one constructed by myself, but from your description I should take them to very much resemble each other. I might be asked the question why I did not patent my invention after the first one was completed, but I may answer that at that particular time other matters occurred which

in my opinion would be more profitable, and occupied all my time. Having for the last ten years been interested in several other inventions, I have been very dissatisfied with the state of the Patent Laws, and the uncertainty and expense connected with obtaining letters patent. I therefore came to the conclusion that I could not well afford to speculate in obtaining letters patent for what I considered to be the very thing required in all the hospitals and infirmaries in the kingdom. I should be glad to furnish you with a tracing and any further particulars connected with my bedstead; and trust that you will excuse me for encroaching on your valuable space.

JOSEPH ROBINSON, Sanitary Inspector, Carlisle.

DEFECTIVE SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS. (To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) SIR,-Could you inform me if it is in the power of the sanitary inspectors to remedy the defective sanitary arrangements in new buildings? I speak more especially as regards industrial dwellings. I know a building let out in flats, in which the w.c.'s are foolishly placed in a most central position, having no window, but each w.c. is provided with a good-sized shaft carried through the kitchen to outside of the building, with a slight upward curve, evidently for carrying off the impure air, but instead of this, its acts just the reverse, for the outer air comes in through the shaft to supply the place of vitiated air, and so carries the smell into the set of rooms. This is repeated throughout the immense block, in every set of rooms, and there are ten sets to every main staircase, of which there are a good many. Not only this, but the owners refuse to allow anyone on principle' to ventilate their rooms. Now, Sir, have the owners the power to prevent tenants (who are weekly ones) putting in air-bricks at their own expense? AN ARCHITECT.

P.S. The owners talk of repeating these buildings elsewhere; it is to be hoped they will revise their plans and build the w.c.'s off the half spaces of main staircase outside the main building.

HOUSE DRAINAGE.

(To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) SIR,-In Mr. Spear's paper on House Drainage in the SANITARY RECORD for Feb. 9, there is one point which has escaped his observation, and indeed it is one which (so far as I am aware) has no mention in the writings of sanitarians. A reference to the bath waste-pipe in his diagram will show the omission; and an obvious experiment with a simple syphon will demonstrate that to which I allude.

When such a pipe as this waste-pipe runs full bore-as it will do in emptying a bath—it will work as a syphon; the shorter leg of which extends to the bottom of the water-trap only. As a syphon will empty a vessel of its contents, and its shorter leg, so in this case will the 'bend' be emptied and the 'trap' rendered of no avail.

Or

To obviate this and maintain the trap, a small pipe should be inserted into the top of the long leg of this syphon; of such a length as to reach above the level of the bath-water. This will prevent the syphon action. after the waste water has been run off, a sufficiency of water should be poured into the bend to form the water seal. The first, as being structural, is the safer remedy. J. LLOYD ROberts.

Denbigh, Feb. 14, 1877.

THE VENTILATION OF HOUSE-DRAINS.

(To the Editor of the SANITARY Record.) SIR,-I see many letters concerning the ventilation of house-drains in your paper, and the great majority of your correspondents seem to take it for granted that it is desirable to force as much air as possible through these drains. I have no wish to write dogmatically on the

subject, but I should be very glad if some of your correspondents would tell me whether there is any experimental proof of the advantage to be derived from this system as compared with that of simply putting the house-drain in communication with the external air by one opening. Up to the present time, my own practice and teaching has been that this single communication was sufficient. The two methods have distinct objects in view. When I ventilate by means of a single opening, I only work thereby to prevent any excessive pressure in the drain by which gases may be forced past traps. I know by experimental evidence, as well as by theory, that if I do not take this precaution foul air will frequently pass into the house from the drain. The advocates of two openings secure the advantage given by one opening, but they aim at much more, they wish so to purify the drain by passing air through it, that no foul air can ever be generated; indeed they seem to aim at making the inside of the drain at least, as sweet and wholesome as any room in the house. This at first sight seems very desirable, and it must be remembered that we buy every increase of purity in the drain by a decrease in the purity of the air round our houses. Earth not air seems to me the true purifying agent, earth is benefited by that which ruins air. Certainly our street sewers ought not to be ventilated by having volumes of air passed through them; an open ditch would, on this principle, be the best sewer. Perhaps some engineers might accept this conclusion. All who do not should hesitate before they apply to house drains a treatment which they would not apply to main drains. I am prepared to change my present opinion if it can be shown that in houses which have been well drained with pipes, ventilated on the single opening system, bad smells and illness have prevailed until the second opening was added; or still better, if it can be shown that the death-rate in a district has been altered by the addition of the second opening. A priori reasoning will not convince me. I doubt the possibility of absolutely sweetening any drain. I do not think well constructed drains are very foul even when there is no draft through them; I hesitate at the idea of blowing through a house drain lest I should blow some gas where I do not want to blow it, and I object to the contamination of air resulting from its use as a disinfectant.

In fact, sir, I believe that the sanitary engineer, has no greater enemies than his enthusiastic supporters. Knowdrainage resulting from neglect of the very simplest rules, ing as I know the shocking defects of our present house hygeiopolis with its fantastic precautions against some milI feel a little irritation when reading of schemes for a lionth of a grain of danger. FLEEMING JENKIN,

Professor of Engineering in the University of Edinburgh.

VENTILATION OF SOIL-PIPES.

(To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) SIR,-I have received so many inquiries as to what has been done with respect to the alleged infringement of Mr. Banner's patents, that I will ask you through the medium of your journal to inform those interested in the subject that upon being called upon by Mr. Banner's solicitors on January 10 last to give an undertaking not to use any cowls but his in combination with an inlet for fresh air, I immediately threw down the gauntlet by refusing to do so,

and since that date I have received no further communication. I infer that Mr. Banner has discovered his mistake, and if so, he should in justice to other inventors modify the terms of his advertisements.

Much credit is due to Mr. Banner, as a gentleman having no previous knowledge of the subject, for having devised a plan satisfactory to himself of ventilating his own drains; but those having a more intimate knowledge of the subject can efficiently accomplish this object by other means, at less expense, without injustice to Mr. Banner. ERNEST TURNER, F.R.I.B.A.

44, Bedford Row, W.C., Feb. 17, 1877