View report page

10
appeared at the Committee, and reiterated his belief, that his
sufferings arose from some old and possibly disused and forgotten
drain at No. 13, and claimed the protection of the
Local Authority, and that an examination of his neighbours
back-yard should be made, in the spot where he believed this
old drain to exist. The occupier of No. 13, Grafton Street,
naturally enough refused such an examination as was necessary
to do the thing thoroughly. The Committee, under the
circumstances, had no alternative, but to avail themselves of
the power of appealing to a Magistrate, which is given by the
Nuisances Removal Act; and desired the Magistrate's decision
as to whether such examination should be made, and
as to the course to be pursued in case the complainant's allegations
proved correct. Accordingly, notice was served on
the occupier of No. 13, Grafton Street, that an application
wonld be made to the Magistrate on Monday, 28th May; on
which day the several parties interested appeared before
Mr. Beadon. He having heard both sides, did not make a
formal order, but recommended the owner of No. 13, Grafton
Street, to allow the excavation to be made, on condition that
the complainant paid all expense, in case the excavation did
not discover the drain supposed to exist. This was assented
to.
On the 1st of June, therefore, Mr. Grant entered with
workmen, and began digging at the spot pointed out in
the back yard of No. 13, and just outside Mr. Hodgkinson's
cellar wall. After getting through 5 feet of dry brick rubbish,
he came to a bed of sand, 2 inches thick, and running
into pure water; under that, he went through 3 feet of clay,
but found no drain nor cesspool.
Hence, it seemed evident that the wetness arose from
a natural spring; and Mr. Beadon, before whom the parties
appeared again on the 4th, dismissed the case.