View report page

159
especially in the early morning hours, the smells being almost
invariably alleged to be due to escape of sewer gas. But the
smells, sometimes described as sulphurous and suffocating, were
caused in my opinion by the burning of bricks in localities, for the
most part, beyond the limits of the parish. One gentleman who
had formed the same opinion as to the origin of the smells, was
very emphatic in asserting his "claims as a ratepayer" upon your
Vestry to "take up the case, and combining with other Vestries,
nearer the brickfield, compel a speedy abatement of a hardly
endurable nuisance," believing as he did that "it can hardly be
that there is no power to put an end to it, or that a nuisance like
this cannot be prevented." The reality of the nuisance is beyond
question, and it is satisfactory to add that it has recently been
proved that the law is strong enough to put a stop to it.
The parishioners of Hampstead have suffered for some years
from this form of nuisance, and the Vestry were moved in the
summer of 1884 to take action against a firm of brickmakers whose
premises adjoin the Fleet Road in that parish. The Vestry in the
first instance proceeded by injunction, in the Chancery Division, to
restrain the parties from carrying on their business so as create a
nuisance ; the plea being that the defendants, by creating noxious
and putrid emanations on their brickfields, caused great discomfort
to the neighbourhood, and that the fields, in fact, were a nuisance.
The fiat of the Attorney General was obtained to restrain the
defendants. Affidavits were filed on both sides, and the Vestry's
officials were cross-examined in chambers on their affidavits. The
case came on for hearing at the end of the legal term, when there
was great pressure on the Court, and Vice-Chancellor Bacon
dismissed the application for an injunction, by referring the case
to the Vacation Judge, on the ground that the business had been
going on for four years. As many of the witnesses were leaving
town for the holidays, the action fell through. The case was
subsequently put down for trial at common law. The nuisance, it
may be mentioned, does not arise from burning clay per se, but is
due to the combustion of refuse matter obtained from dustbins, and
used in the manufacture of the bricks and as fuel for the baking of