Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

5 erthygl ar y dudalen hon



TALYBONT. PETTY SESSIONS—THURSDAY. A TEST CASE. Owen Morris, farmer, Tvnllechwedd, Llanfi- hangel, was summoned by Mr. Thos. Lewis, Custom j House Officer, Aberystwyth, for taking a quantity of shingle or ballast from the shores of the sea" after an order had been made prohibiting the remov- ing of the same at Borth Point, on May 9th last. Mr. Hugh Hughes (for Mr. A. J. Hughes), ap- peared for the prosecution, and Mr. Evan Evans for I the defence. j Mr. Hughes informed the Magistrates that the J prosecution did not ask for a vindictive penalty, J the proceedings being taken in order to deter I others from committing the same offence. The I defendant admitted sending a servant for the I shingle. | Mr. Evans submitted that a nominal fine would I be sufficient. The Chairman said people had been in the habit I of removing sand from the spot in question for the last twenty years. j A fine of Is was imposed. j I ASSAULT ON A MASTER MARINER. J. Davies, Fisherman, Borth, was summoned for assaulting John Hughes, master mariner, Lome Villa. Defendant did not appear. Prosecutor stated that about half past eight on the previous Saturday evening he came out of his sister's house at Borth and was walking up the road when lie met the defendant who was coming from the opposite direction. Defendant stopped and asked him when he hadany fish last. Witness re- plied that he never had any fish since John Williams, Aberdovey, was there. Defendant said What business has lie to bring up fish into this place and what business have you to go and sell fish ? but you'll get it from my brother Dick when he sees you.' Witness said, What has Dick got to do with me ? whereupon the defendant struck him in the nose with his fist, cutting the skin and causing it to bleed very much. P.C. Davies came up, and although he did not witness the assault he saw the state of witness's face. Witness added that he was in danger of his life—he could not I walk en the road without being in danger of his life.—The Magistrates Clerk In what way ?— Witness Through jealousy. He has been fighting and I've never fought in all my life. This is the first time I was ever before a magistrate and I am 64 years of age-The Clerk Has he made use of any threatening language?—Witness: No, but it is dangerous for me to go on the sand any time. —P.C. Lewis Navies proved seeing the prosecutor's nose bleeding immediately after the assault. He also saw the defendant who did not say anything in his presence. The officer added that the defendant was fined Zl four years ago for assault- ing the police, a similar amount for assaulting a railway porter, and he had also been convicted for drunkenness. A fine of 20s. and costs was im- posed. THOMAS' DAY OUT. Thos. Butterworth. is a leather dresser and lives in that charming seaside place, Borth. His abode is in Kentish Place. On August 2nd, Thomas, after inbibing a little ozone in the morning, proceeded to inbibe beer with more vigour than discretion, so that by 10 o'clock in the evening he WAS seen to pursue a zig-zaggish course along the thorough- fares, and to sway like a giant oak tree when blown by gusts of wind. Not content with these physical vagaries, the genial leather dresser also amused himself and annoyed others by shouting with great lustiness, cursing with great heartiness, and swearing with great gusto. P,C. Lewis Davies saw him home and decided to issue a summons against him. He is now the poorer by 10s and costs," so that it doesn't pay to get drunk. VERY WISE. Jane Jenkins, Talysarn, had taken out a sum- mons against Evan Morgan, Gwernddu, but neither put in an appearance, and the case was struck out. UNLICENSED CARRIAGES. Mr. William Robert Gregson, Machynys, Ynyslas, j gentleman, was sued by Mr. Thomas Cruikshank, ] supervisor of inland revenue, Aberystwyth, for keeping two carriages without a license, and was fined 40s. and costs. A NEGLECTFUL FARMER. David Jones, Llangronen farm, Dingesten. Mon- mouthshire, was summoned for neglecting to carry outeertain repairs atGwarfelin, Llancynfelin, as re- j quired by the sanitary inspect <>•■. | John Rowlands, Inspector "f Nuisance for the Aberystwyth Union, proved served notice jj on defendant in respect to his house, Gwarfelin, in the occupation of David i .vcn, to carry out I certain repairs in October, He had visited | the premises several times si.. and on the last occasion—about a month ago., was refused ad- J mittance. The notice had en complied with. ) An order was made to e(.i. with the notice before the 28th inst. | nOUTH SANITARY CASE. Miss S. C. Lewis. 2, Cambrian Terrace. Borth, was summoned at the instance of Mr. J. Rowlands, Sanitary Inspector of the Aberystwyth Rural Dis- trict Council, for neglecting within 14 days from service of notice to abatea nuisance at 2, Cambrian Terrace. Summonses bad been issued for a similar offence against the whole of the residents in Cambrian Terrace, Yiz., Thomas IVatkins, postman, vVm. It Roberts, confectioner, James E. Murphv, dentist, Rev. Evan Jones, James Jones, retired farmer, Samuel Prosser, schoolmaster. Miss Eleanor Morgan, John Morris, foundryman, W m. Morris and Lewis Morris, mariners, Mrs. Frances M. Sproston, Llewelyn Rees, shopkeeper. and Miss Catherine Owen. Mr. Hugh Hughes, appeared on behalf of the Aberystwyth Rural District Council, and Mr. Evan Evans, defended, Mr. W. K. Minshall (Oswestry) watched the case on behalf of the Cambrian Rail- way Company. MIt. Hughes said he appeared on behalf of the Aberystwyth Rurul District Council to support the application made by their Inspector, that the per- sons named should abate a nuisance arising in consequence of the connection of an overflow pipe from cesspools used by them in connection with their houses which emptied into a wooden trough at the back of the Cambrian Hotel. Mr. Hughes put in a plan of the locas in quo," and said the trough was laid down in 1856 for the purpose of carrying off surface drainage water from Ynys- fyrgyn. The trough was extended at the expense of the landowner further towards the sea, and he it was who kept it in repair. Since then the hotel and railway people had been repairing it from time to time. I he point which the magistrates had to decide was whether this trough was a sewer within the meaning of the Act, and'such a sewer as the Rural District Council were required to keep in repair at the expense of the parish. There was a nuisance existing, and he claimed they were entitled to an order to compel the owner to abate that nuisance, which was caused in consequence of the overflow from the various cesspools being con- ducted through those pipes into the trough, which emptied into the sea. They asked that the defen- dants should cut off the connection. He con- tended that this was not a sewer belonging to the Council which they were required to keep in repair, and he said it was not vested, and if it was not vested on the District Council, then they were en- titled to call upon the owners of these houses to abate the nuisance. If it were a sewer he con- tended that it was only a sewer for the purpose of carrying away the drainage water from the igyjrsh lands at the back, and not for the pur- pose of carrying off sewage matter from houses, having- regard to its origin. Even assuming that it was a sewer for certain purposes all the defendants would admit that it has always been a source of nuisance to Borth that this trough only went down three-quarters of the way below tide mark and discharged sewage matter on the shore at low tide, and what he contended was that no amount of repairing would abate thd nuisance. They could not call upon the Council to repair it because they would be calling upon them to perpetuate a nuisance, and further- more the foreshore was not vested in the District Council, and no one would require them to commit a trespass in order to repair a sewer. He would askthe Bench, therefore, to grant an order against the defendants making them to abate the nuisance by disconnecting these pipes and thereby present- J ing anything but the water from the marsh land | at the back passing through this trough into the J sea. 1 John Rowlands, inspector of nuisances under the J Aberystwyth Rural District Council, then gave I evidence. John Rowlands said there was a | nuisance in consequence of the outlet in the I wooden trough. He proved having served notice j on the owners and occupiers. He explained the I position of the cesspools, and he asked that the I defendants should disconnect the outlet pipes from 1 the cesspools. The proprietor of the hotel was not j summoned because he was anxious to fall in with J any reasonable arrangement. I The Chairman You don't suggest any alterna- I tive ? Mr. Hughes That is in the hands of the defen- dants. Mr. Evans I am going to contend that it is your duty to provide a sewer. Witness, proceeding, said the outlet was out of repair, and he had visited the spot for many years; at low tide the nuisance was awful, and he had received many complaints. The trough did not extend to low water; it would be 30 or 40 yards from the water's edge at high spring tides. He did not consider that it was possible to make it a servicable pipe by repairing it. That was not the right position to place it. He would not construct a wooden trough for the purpose Qf carrying sewage, but iron pipes, and he would extend it 50 yards, so as to carry it below low water' mark. Cross-examined by Mr. Evans: About 14 houses drained altogether into the trough, together with the Railway Station and the Cambrian Hotel. There was an 18 inch drain from the railway station down to the edge of the water; he could not say what it was made of. He could not say that an 18 inch drain was sufficient to carry the water from Ynisfergi land, and to drain all the houses named and the station. He should think it would be enough. If he were an Inspector at the time lie would not have allowed a wooden trough to be made. He had repaired the trough on two different occasions, and the District Council paid the cost. No one interfered with him whilst repairing it. It was possible to replace it, at considerable cost, by iron pipes, and extend it below water mark. If that was done the nuisance would be removed to a certain extent, but there would always be a nuisance there. It had no business to be there at all; he wouVl put it up in the river somewhere. Mr. Evans: There is no public sewer made by the District Council at Borth, and one is very badly wanted there !—Witness Yes, badly. Supposing they carried out your notice and dis- connected, and did nothing else, what would be the result ? What would become of the overflow— they would create a greater nuisance wouldn't they? They ought to have a remedy themselves. It's not my business to have drains for them (laughter). As long as you can get rid of the nuisance you don't care what other nuisance is created?—No, no, no, I don't say that I would not serve them with another notice, very quick too (laughter.) By Mr. Hughes He would expect them to clear out the cesspools after they got filled up. If the covered drain was only a 10 inch one, it would not be sufficient to carry effectually, the drainage from the land and the houses. If he laid down drain pipes he would have the outlet to the North. Mr. Evans It has been sufficient for 30 years ?— Witness: Yes, but it's blocked up. Mr. Evans Your suggestion is that the river Lerry should be polluted in order to carry this away ?—Witness "polluted"—What do you mean ? (laughter.) There are no houses down at Bontddu. Richard James, son of the late Enoch James, occupier of Brynllys farm, explained the origin of the trough in 1856. When the drains were brought to the other side of the railway, it was taken in a wooden trough laid underground to the foreshore. This was constructed for carrying the surface water of Ynisfergi, and it was laid down at the expense of the trustees of the Gogerddan Estate, It was never intended to carry sewage matter. Mr. Hughes: Would you consider this perishable trough an effectual sewer ? Mr. Evans: I object to the question, I would accept Mr. James' opinion on any question of farming but not on this. Witness spoke as to the nuisance caused at the outlet. Cross-Examined: Since 1863 the houses had always drained through this trough into the sea. The District Council spent 9,2 in repairing the trough last summer. By Mr. Hughes Notice was given to the owners to repair it, but they refused. Thomas Roberts, labourer, who had been engaged in laying down the covered trough, said its size was 8 x n. Mr. Hughes said that was his case. Mr. Evans then addressed the Bench. He said the great question at issue between them was whether the trough was a sewer within the mean- ing of the Act. That depended upon the definition of the word in the Public Health Act of 1895. Drain meant any drain used for the drainage of one building only. Everything that was not a drain was a sewer. Whatever drained two houses was a sewer. These pipes drained the whole and the moment at which the drains of these different houses meet together from there on it became a sewer. The word sewer, according to a high authority, should receive the largest possible in- terpretation, and as it was clear that all these buildings drained into this trough, it must be a sewer within the meaning of the section. If this was a sewer, as lie contended it was, then they had nothing whatever to do with it. It was in exist- ence before the Act of 1875 was passed and under section 13 of that Act all existing and future sewers within the district of the local authority shall vest in and be under the control of such local authority." This drain, whatever it was intended for originally, drained the whole of these houses before the passing of the Act of 1875, and the moment the Act was passed it vested in the local authority, and every local authority should keep in repair all sewers belonging to them. His friend, Mr. Hughes, would try to explain away that definition by saying that a part of this sewer was on private property, the foreshore; but he could quote a case, Travis v. Duttley, in which it was decided that although the drain went over private property that it was still a sewer, inasmuch as it was used for three houses. Mr. Evans quoted other cases to support his contentions, and said, assuming this was a private drain, it was the duty of the local authority to make a drain serve the purposes of these houses. They had not (lone so, therefore they could not go against these de- fendants, and asked them to abate the nuisance because the nuisance was caused by the local authority not carrying out their duty. The District Council was called into existence to serve the public, and it was their duty to provide a sewer. Mr. Hughes contended that this was not a sewer repairable by the District Council. He quoted the case of the Queen v. West Cowes, where it was held that the portion of a sewage which went through private property could not be taken into account. That showed, he said, that the Magistrates had no authority to impose upon the Council the obligation of repairing a sewer which passed through private property, for the reason that the moment they attempted to do so the Crown might come upon them and say they were trespassing. Besides any repair they might make to the trough would not be effectual to prevent a nuisance. Mr. Hughes proceeded to quote cases to bear out his contentions in his opening statement, and said the defendants deserved no assistance or favour from the Magistrates because they had not adopted the course laid down by law, that was to apply to the Local Government Board to decide as to how the houses were to be effectually drained. If the cesspools were not effectual drainage let them appeal to the Local Government Board, and what the Local Government Board said the District Council were bound to execute. The Magistrates deliberated for some time in private, and the Chairman afterwards announced that they had decided to make an order that each of the defendants should comply with the notice to abate the nuisance within 14 days. They granted costs against the defendants.

Welsh Industries EXHIBITION,…


At the Welsh Industries Exhibition.