View report page

44
The case was argued at great length before Mr.
D'Eyncourt, and resulted in a conviction against
the Company. Upon Counsel giving notice of
appeal to a higher court, the magistrate reconsidered
his decision, and, after a few days, the Vestry
Solicitor received a communication from Mr.
D'Eyncourt to the effect that he could not sustain
the order to convict the Company under the
Nuisances Removal Act, inasmuch as he believed
that Act did not contemplate dealing with a canal
company, and that in future the Vestry should
proceed by way of indictment whenever any actual
nuisance arose. Dr. Hardwicke reported that in
1874 the water was not changed at "Whitsuntide, an
it usually is; and that the Company had, during
the winter, removed by dredging a considerable
quantity of mud.
In his last annual report (1874-75) Dr. Hardwicke
remarks that during the whole period of bis
official career, as well as during that of his predecessor,
Dr. Sanderson, every attempt to improve the
condition of the Canal Basin had failed, that the
Company whilst expressing itself willing to take
any steps that might be suggested contented itself
with occasionally changing the water and partially
removing the mud, but had never adopted any
effectual method of regulating the noxious trades
prosecuted on its banks. Dr. Hardwicke concludes