Home Industry and Commerce Council & Government Polluted Stream – Farmer’s Claim against Thurnscoe Council.

Polluted Stream – Farmer’s Claim against Thurnscoe Council.

May 1911

Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Friday 19 May 1911

Polluted Stream.

Farmer’s Claim against Thurnscoe Council.

At Barnsley yesterday, Judge Dodd. K. C., heard an action against the Thurnscoe Urban District Council for injunction to prohibit the pollution of stream by the effluent from the defendants’ sewage works.

The plaintiff was Arthur Hague, farmer, who was represented by Mr. G. G. Alexander. Mr. Waddy was for the’ defendants.

It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff was not justified in asking that the injunction, which had been suspended from time to time, should be enforced, as they were ordered to stop the pollution in so far that the water should not be injurious to cattle drinking the water.

His Honour said it was not stated how the injunction should be enforced.

Mr. Alexander argued that the order should be enforced immediately, the defendants having undertaken to take reasonable steps to stop the nuisance. The original injunction was granted in 1908, and had been suspended so recently as February last, but it was not satisfactory.

Evidence was given by plaintiff that took samples of the water below the outfall. He admitted that stirred up the water so as to get the effect caused by cattle in the water when drinking.

Cross-examined, plaintiff said he had obtained £165 damages from the defendants since October, 1908, but out of one amount of £60 he only drew £8 5s. 2d., having to pay his witnesses in addition to losing his cattle.

On behalf the defendants, evidence was given Mr. Hawksworth, clerk, who said £2,330 had been expended on the sewage works during the past year.

Mr. Dibden, engineer for the new scheme, said he considered sufficient time had not been given for the proper results obtained. He thought in three months time the effect would be noticeable.

A number samples of the effluent were produced, and his Honour said it was obvious they were unsatisfactory. He should suspend the injunction for a further three months from June 1st.The plaintiff had estimated his damages during the last three months at £60, and was awarded half this amount