View report page

53
Removal Act. The case was heard on the 31st July.
The existence of a nuisance was amply proved, but
it was admitted on behalf of the Company (who had
already consulted Dr. Tidy on the subject) that the
best practicable means of abating the nuisance had
not been adopted; and they stated that they were
ready and anxious to carry out any structural or
other change that seemed likely to abate any nuisance
that might arise from their premises. The case was
consequently adjourned; and then, under the
directions of Dr. Tidy, several very important
improvements were effected. The case was finally
disposed of on the 23rd October, at which time
(although a nuisance still existed) I was compelled
to admit that, according to the best of my belief, the
best practicable meats had been adopted to prevent
the manufacture from being a nuisance, and that I
had nothing additional to recommend, short of the
suppression of the business. The summons was
therefore dismissed.
Complaints was also made, during the summer,
of a nuisance caused by the Fish Manure Works in
the Rotherhithe New Road. These works are
carried on in and around three small sheds in an
open field on the Canal bank, far away from dwelling-