APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



273 



SOlbs. of powder in a place liat>le 

 to explosion, they had accumula- 

 ted lfi,000lt)s. which might all ex- 

 plode in an instant, and spread 

 ruin and destruction around. The 

 charge against the defendants now 

 was, for having this accumula- 

 tion of powder stowed in impro- 

 per places. The 16,5761hs. had 

 been taken away, and he had now 

 to contend was forfeited . Besides 

 this quantity, the seizing officer 

 left behind him ISOOlbs. of finish- 

 ed powder, which he ought also 

 to have taken, as well as a quan- 

 tity in process in every part of the 

 works, amounting to several cwt. ; 

 all of which, he submitted, was, 

 strictly speaking, forfeited, had 

 they taken any account of it. The 

 quantity seized and brought away, 

 he should be able to shew, by 

 contradictory evidence, was an 

 excess above that allowed by act 

 of Parliament. He now had to 

 ask of the Bench the forfeiture of 

 it, and the penalty of ?s. per lb. 

 upon it. He should prove, that 

 excessive quantities of finished 

 powder, which should have been 

 deposited no where but in a ma- 

 gazine, were found in places the 

 most dangerous and exposed, in 

 the midst of machinery in the 

 coming-house, dusting-house, 

 (irying-house, and even in a build- 

 ing within a few feet of the stove- 

 places, where none but the small 

 quantity immediately in process 

 should be deposited. 



After tlie examination of wit- 

 nesses, and hearing the pleadings 

 on both sides, the Court retired 

 for about ten minutes, when they 

 returned, and Lord Middleton 

 declared their opinion to be, that 

 ?,6IGlbs. of the powder were for- 

 feited; and upon which quantity 



Vol. LVHI. 



the defendants were also liable to a 

 penalty, amounting to a further 

 sum of 7601. 12s. The 7,6i6lbs, 

 they were to select from the finf 

 ished powder, and the remainder 

 seized was to be returned. 



Lancaster Assizes, Sapt. 5.-^ 

 Thompson v. Harris. — This was ai> 

 action to abate a nuisance. 



Mr. Scarlet stated the case. 

 The plaJiitifF is a cheesemonger, 

 and the defendant a farrier, in the 

 town of Preston. A new street 

 was lately built in that town, call- 

 ed Lune-street, composed of re- 

 spectable houses, and inhabited 

 by respectable people. Ao^oig 

 these were a clergyman, an attor- 

 ney, the plaintiff, and several other 

 individuals of wealth and consider^ 

 ation in the place. The defendant 

 likewise purchased a portion of th^ 

 ground in the vicinity of this 

 street, and built upon it, as he 

 had a right to do. He built first 

 a small house for keeping a cow, 

 about 8 yards from the back court 

 of the plaintiff. To this erection 

 the plaintiff could have no possi- 

 ble objection, and he made none j 

 but he was rather surprised when 

 in April last he saw a chimriey 

 rising over this cow-house, and 

 still more surprised and annoyed 

 when smoke began to issue froni 

 it, and hammers to play within it j 

 in short, when he saw the cow- 

 house converted into a smithy, 

 involving his premises in smoke 

 and stunning his family with 

 noise. Nothing could be conceivr 

 ed a greater annoyance than the 

 incessant din of tliis forge, or the 

 volumes of smoke that issue fron^ 

 it, blackening everything around 

 it, and forcing the plaintiflF to have 

 the linen exposed to dry in his 



T )rar4 



