240 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Market Harborough, or Leicester, certainly would be less liable to 
objection in the open fields. Not a single human being resident in 
the town of Market Harborough had brought a complaint; but the 
people who objected occupied Mr. Paget’s land, and no human being 
had complained but those resident on his property. The operation at the 
mill had been carried on during the years 185/ and 1858, and it was 
not till May and June, 1859, that complaints were made. They had been 
three seasons finding the matter out. One of the witnesses said he was 
told of the smell, when he looked for it and found it. Mr. Iliffe, Mr. 
Underwood, and Mr. Kirby, who were not resident upon Mr. Paget’s 
land, but occupied land nearer to the mill, and had an interest in pro¬ 
tecting their cattle—why did not they complain ? It was the most extra¬ 
ordinary case he had met with in his life. There were not less than 
two thousand head of cattle grazing near the mill, and yet their owners 
were not called. His opponents knew perfectly well, and he said so 
most decidedly, that the complaint was all a fudge. There were occu¬ 
piers of land in all directions, and the wind did not always blow from 
the north-east. If his learned friend had failed in making out that the 
trade was a noxious trade, carried on in an improper place, he (Mr. 
Mellor) was entitled to their verdict. It was the average sensibility 
of men they were to consider in a case of nuisance, and not the effect 
upon particular human beings. 
The first witness called for the defence was— 
Robert Hubbard, who said he was the defendant in this action, and 
carried on business as a druggist at Market Harborough. In the year 
1856 he commenced the business of making bone manure, for which 
there was a considerable demand at different distances from his neigh¬ 
bourhood. The chief purposes for which it was used was for manuring 
turnips, and for dressing corn in spring time. It had got into prac¬ 
tical use extensively over the country. He purchased the site and 
erected the mill in 1856, and commenced to work it in 1857. He 
selected the piece of land because he thought it was as far from 
dwellings as he should be able to get any. Brick-making had been 
carried on for some time before on the site. There were no houses 
for a considerable distance. It was two miles from Lubbenham and a 
mile and a half from Market Harborough. Before commencing the 
manufacture he appealed to an agricultural chemist, and obtained from 
him instructions, upon paper, which he had followed. The chemist’s 
name was Mr. Nisbett, of London. When the mixture in the trough 
was stirred then the vapour arose, which was disagreeable. The smell 
remained a longer or shorter time, according to the state of the atmo¬ 
sphere. If the atmosphere was favorable it was pretty soon dispersed. 
In the first year, 1857, he made 125 tons, beginning about March and 
leaving oft' about June. In 1858, 150 tons of manure were made, 
beginning in January and finishing in June. The quantity made last 
year was only 130 tons. The process of mixing lasted about eight 
minutes; and when they were busy they had about eight mixings a-day. 
No other part of the process gave rise to a disagreeable vapour. The 
mixture consisted of hoiled bones, vitriol, coprolites, and salt. Some¬ 
times he used water, and sometimes the liquid from the boiler 
in which the bones had been boiled, to dilute the acid. The practice 
was to skim the fat from the liquor, and put it into a cistern. When 
they had not this liquor they used pure water. That had been the 
course they had adopted from beginning to end. In 1857 and 1858 they 
had no complaint from any one of the vapour. About the end of May, 
last year, the plaintiff complained to him. It was then getting towards 
