[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Lewisham District].
- Lewisham (London, England). Board of Works.
- Date:
- 1857
Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Credit: [Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Lewisham District]. Source: Wellcome Collection.
30/98 page 22
![22 without contract, by labourers in their employ acting under the Surveyor of the Board, in Dartmouth Road, west side, 318 feet 12 inch Pipe Thus the total length of sewers constructed during the year is as follows:— FT. IN. FT. IN. FEET.[/##3] Brick Sewers 3 9 by 2 6 5618 3 4 by 2 3 3237 3 0 by 2 0 850 2 0 by 2 0 568 —10,273 Pipe Sewers 12 inch 2142 9 inch 785 — 2927 Total length 13,200 feet. Before leaving the subject of sewerage it will be well to explain the cause and result of the litigation in which the Board have unfortunately been involved with the representatives of the late Mr. Stainton, of Springfield House, Lewisham, in consequence of the construction of the sewers in Rushey Green. The sewers were commenced in March, and completed in the following month, and in June the solicitors of the late Mr. Stainton intimated to the Board that the water was withdrawn from their clients' ponds and watercourses, as they were informed in consequence of the defective construction of the sewers, and that if the sewers were made water-tight the water would return; they were therefore advised to take proceedings against the Board to compel them to make the sewers water-tight, unless they were willing to effect that object without such proceedings. The Board, however, declined to alter the construction of the sewers, foreseeing the enormous expense involved in complying with the request made, and that water-tight sewers would not answer the purpose desired unless the Board, on their part, compelled every owner (at least at a treble cost) to lay down water-tight drains to communicate with such sewers; and that such water-tight sewers and drains (if practicable) would simply drain the houses with which they were connected, and not the soil itself, which was of so wet a nature as to be very prejudicial to health. A suit was at once instituted against the Board, which was heard in December; the hearing of the case occupied the greater part of four days, and was argued by the Attorney General, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Selwyn (Queen's Counsel), and several junior counsel. It is unnecessary here to enlarge on the facts or arguments adduced, as they are fully given in the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, of which an abstract is appended to this report. The result fully justified the course adopted by the Board, the bill being dismissed, although without costs.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b18245122_0030.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
