View report page

61
one of the prohibited classes, it is not open to them to raise the
defence that in fact it is conducted in such a manner as not to be
offensive, and that it is not a nuisance. If the business of the
defendant company is that of tallow melters, although it has been
carried on for eight years without interference, and although in
fact no one is injured by it, it must be closed in Deptford, whatever
loss it may involve to the defendants. Substantially, therefore,
the only issue before me is apparently the simple question,
whether the defendants' business is one of tallow melters within the
meaning of the statute. Neither side has cited a dictionary, and I
do not think in this case any assistance is to be received from them.
Mr. Avory contends that tallow is melted fat, sheep and oxen,
with the fibrous tissue removed. Mr. Clarke Hall admits this
description, but contends that this description does not hold good,
and that the melted fat of sheep and oxen is not necessarily
tallow. On the side of the prosecution a number of distinguished
expert witnesses have given evidence, and as many have been
called for the defence. It would be both difficult and invidious
to attempt to determine whether those called on the one side or
the other side are the more eminent. Those for the prosecution
expressed the opinion that the business of the defendant company
is that of tallow melting, and those for the defence are equally
emphatic that it is not. For the prosecution further witnesses
had been called representing two firms of soap makers, Messrs.
John Knight, Ltd., and Messrs. Cooke & Co., Ltd., and it is
suggested for the defence that these witnesses are not entirely
disinterested in these proceedings, inasmuch as the formation of
the defendant company has interfered with their purchase of fat
from the Deptford market at soap makers' prices. That is a
matter with which i am not concerned. For the defence there