VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
239 
adjoining’. After the bones had been crushed, they were ground, and 
then put into a trough, which was eight feet by three feet. Coprolites, 
vitriol, and some common salt were then mixed with the bone-dust, 
and the mixture ultimately became superphosphate. Water was also 
added ; but the last season they used the liquor in which the bones had 
been boiled, instead of the water. When the mixture in the trough 
was stirred, there arose a great steam, and a strong smell. The steam 
was very thick, and at times the man on the opposite side of the trough 
could not be seen. The stench last year was stronger than it had ever been 
before. There was no difference in the mixture, except the liquor being 
used instead of the water. In June they ceased making the manure. 
By Mr. Mellor .—Did not stir it oftener than others. York and 
Mortin worked at the mill. Cattle did not run away from him (witness). 
Mr. Fisher, land agent at Harborough, deposed that when he arrived 
at the field, he found the cattle at the south-west corner. They seemed 
in an excited and restless stale. They did not run about while he was 
there. Had not seen “gadding” produce similar effects. The cattle 
were very poor—they seemed starved —and not to have derived any 
benefit from the pasture. The grass was trampled down in conse¬ 
quence of the frequent running of the beasts. 
Dr. Albert J. Bernays, Professor of Chemistry at St. Thomas’s Hos¬ 
pital, Fellow of the Chemical Society, &c., said, on the 18th of last 
month he went to the defendant’s mill, and asked leave to view the 
works, but was refused. He saw the person who had charge of the 
works. He had examined the situation of the mill, and its relative 
position to the plaintiff’s land. The fumes from the mill might be 
carried to Mr. Ashton’s land. He had known like odours to be carried 
greater distances. Cattle were very fond of sweet air. The addition 
of salt to the mixture, as described by the witness, would only make 
it more disagreeable. The causticity would arise more in the drying 
process. The odour was not injurious to health. It might produce 
nausea, but nothing more. 
This being the case for the plaintiff’, and there being a considerable 
number of witnesses to be examined for the defendant, the court rose 
at five o’clock. 
Mr. Mellor addressed the jury for the defendant. He said he felt it 
his duty to lay before them a considerable amount of evidence in this 
case, in order to its due consideration. It was not disputed that this 
manure was essential and important to the best interests of agriculture. 
He quite admitted that the manufacturer of things of this description 
must be careful where he placed his manufactory. What might be a 
nuisance in the middle of the town was not a nuisance in the country. 
What might be improper in Grosvenor Square, or Eaton Square, was 
not improper in the outlying districts which surrounded the metropolis. 
According to law there was no ground for action against a reasonable, 
useful, and lawful trade, in a convenient and proper place, though 
some one might suffer inconvenience from its being so carried on. 
He took it that the trade carried on by his client was not an unlawful 
one; but that it was a lawful trade, and the question for them would 
be, was the site of the mill a convenient place where to carry it on? 
The mill was some distance from Lubbenham and Market Harborough, 
and far from all human habitations, amid the fields ; and if the making 
of superphosphate of lime was not to be carried on in such a place, 
where was it to be ? If it was not lawful there, it would not be 
lawful anvwhere. Wherever a manufacture of that sort was carried 
on it must be so near to fields. What would be a nuisance in 
