Page 3

Thomas Codrington says:
I am a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers and one of the Engineering Inspectors of the Local Government Board.
In the year 1887 I received the instructions of the Local Government Board through Sir Robert Rawlinson to report on the different methods in use for destroying Town Refuse and during the year 1887 I accordingly visited all the Towns in Great Britain where Works for this purpose have been established.
Town Refuse consisting of the Contents of Ashpits and Dust Bins, Market and Trade Refuse and the Sweepings of Paved Streets includes Materials which when sorted out and separated may yield a small return or can be utilized in some way but this part of the Refuse has from various causes lost much of whatever value it formerly had and sanitary objections to the handling of an offensive material for the sake of a small gain are now more generally recognized.
It is also becoming more and more difficult to get rid of that part of the Refuse which is absolutely worthless.
The practice of filling up pits, quarries and hollows with materials containing offensive and putrescible matters sometimes afterwards to be built on is now properly condemned on Sanitary Grounds and Town Authorities when places for deposit within their own boundaries are no longer available, find neighbouring authorities more and more averse to allow refuse to be accumulated within their District. The disposal of Town refuse has thus become almost everywhere a troublesome question.
In Towns in which Water closets ar(e) general the house refuse consists of Cinders and Ashes mixed with vegetable and Animal Waste, broken glass and Crockery and the rubbish of all sorts that finds its way into the Dust bin or Ash pit including often trade refuse and garden refuse in greater or less proportions.
Where the privy and Ashpit System or Pail System is in use as in Blackburn the finer ashes are mixed with the excreta, either in the Closet or subsequently, to make a portable manure and the contents of the ashpits are generally more or less fouled with excrementitious matter.
I have visited the Destructor in Blackburn. It is one of Messrs Manlove, Alliott and Fryer’s 4 Cell Destructors and forms part of the night soil and Scavenging Depot belonging to the Corporation at Audley.
The Chimney is 105 feet high and the amount of Refuse destroyed averages about 27 per cell per week—the material being ordinary Ashpit refuse.
The Destructor consists of a group of 4 furnaces or cells each internally about 9 feet long and 5 feet wide covered by a brick Arch 3 feet 6 ins high—The furnace has an inclination of 1 in 3 from back to front and the bottom consists of a Fire brick hearth for the upper 4 feet and a fire grate for the lower 5 feet—On one side of the furnace the upper end of the hearth is prolonged with a steeper slope under an opening for the admission of the refuse from above, and on the other side is a passage whereby the products of combustion pass downwards to the main flue, a wall in the Middle line of the furnace dividing the feedhole from the flue opening.
The Main flue is under the hearth and in the later Destructors is made of large size to form a dust chamber. The Cells are preferably placed back to back with the feed holes adjoining there being only one opening above for the two cells. A somewhat larger opening fitted with a cover is provided over the middle of one or more of the furnaces through which infected bedding, condemned meat as can be consigned to the hottest part of the fire.
The furnaces and flues are lined throughout with firebrick and corner pieces stays and the rods hold the brick work together—A furnace or cell with the enclosing brickwork forms a rectangular mass about 12 feet long, 7 feet wide and 12 feet high a group of 4 cells back to back measuring 14 feet by 24 feet and a group of 6 cells about 21 feet by 24 feet—A road is made by which the Refuse is carted to a Platform 2 feet 6 inches or 3 feet above the Destructor and another leading to the Ashpit floor for the removal of the unburned portion of the refuse.
The feed openings at the top of the Destructor are kept filled with refuse which slides forward on the sloping hearth and is partially dried by the heat given out by the burning material and reflected from the reverberating Arch.
It is helped forward by raking till it reaches the fire grate when every-thing combustible is burned to a hard clinker which is withdrawn from time to time through the furnace doors.
The Clinker is removed about every 2 hours. It is lifted from the fire bars and raised above the burning cinders with suitable tools, and raked out of the furnace with any other thoroughly burned refuse.
The fire is then spread evenly over the grate, and dry refuse is raked forward from the back sufficient to cover the fire evenly with a thickness of about 4 inches – When the refuse is wet a less thickness is enough—If too much refuse be drawn down at one time the fire will become dead and black—At intervals of about 20 Minutes, another thin layer of refuse may be raked forward and spread over the fire but it is best to leave the fire undisturbed for half an hour before clinkering.
The fire bars must always be kept covered but the fire should not be too thick 7 to 9 inches is quite enough to insure a clean bright fire.
There should be enough refuse over the feed hopper to prevent Air entering, but not so much as to prevent the proper charging of the Cell, and there should be always sufficient refuse on the drying hearth ready to be raked forward for burning.
Although experience has shown that Town refuse can be effectually burned in Destructors and other furnaces without causing nuisance or offence at or about the works themselves, there are two points about which complaints have arisen—One is of a fine dust, and sometimes of charred paper proceeding from the Chimney and falling at some little distance off.
The quality of dust produced from the burning refuse appears to vary a good deal in different places and the amount of it which is carried into the flue and up the chimney depends to a considerable extent upon the care with which the excessive draught in the High Chimney is regulated by draught.
At one Destructor about 2 cubic yards per cell per week was said to be removed from the dust chamber but a more usual quantity is ¼ to ½ cubic yard—A sample of flue dust from the Armley Road (Leeds) Destructor was found on incineration by Mr F.U. Sutton to consist of 93.6 per cent of mineral matter and 6.2 of organic matter, the rest being moisture imbibed in transit.  The Mineral matter under the Microscope appeared to be Ash and Glassy Slag with many fragments of what seem to be filaments of glass, probably melted in the furnaces and drawn out by the draught—It is not likely that in all fine dust the organic matter is so completely burned as in this sample.
In the Destructor more recently erected the Main flue has been enlarged beneath the cells to form a chamber in which the velocity being checked, the dust may fall—Instead of a flue 4 feet wide as in the earlier Destructors there is now a Chamber 10 feet wide and 8 feet high and with good effect—Sunk channels have been formed on each side of the bottom of the chamber to collect the dust, and low cross walls for the same purpose have been tried.
The latter must be built of dry bricks in the middle to be pulled down when the flue requires cleaning or preferably, there may be, as at Salford, a removable Iron Plate to close an opening wide enough for a wheelbarrow.
Frequent Removal of the dust is very necessary to prevent its being carried up the Chimney. The larger particles such as charred paper have been arrested by wirework screens or grids—At Derby charred paper was stopped by two baffles or bridges in the flue a short distance apart one at the bottom and the other at the top—The best preventatives, however, appear to be large dust chambers, proper regulation of the draught, and frequent removal of the dust.
The other ground of Complaint is an offensive smell from the Chimney—In some instances it is true that the smells complained of did not proceed from the furnaces at all—but it cannot be denied that the smoke and vapour from furnaces burning Town Refuse have often an offensive smell which under certain conditions of the Atmosphere can be recognised at some distance on the leeward side of the Chimney.
Dr. Odling in a report to the Bradford Corporation rightly, I think attributes it to empyreumatic vapours given off when the refuse begins to burn before it reaches the hot fire and is undergoing destructive distillation or frizzling. When as in the Manchester and Birmingham furnaces the fresh charge of damp refuse is thrown directly into the hot fire, this action must go on and the Arrangement in Fryer’s Destructor for feeding from the back of the furnace while partially drying the refuse, affords a dried passage into the flue for vapours arising in the cooler part of the furnace.
The products of Combustion must of course vary with the nature of material burned but a good deal more depends upon the rate at which it is burned and the care and regularity with which the furnaces are fed and clinkered—Smoke and imperfect combustion, follow any attempt to overload the furnaces, and this is especially the case when the reuse is unusually wet—Where there are many cells or furnaces by careful and systematic firing and clinkering the gases from the recently charged  and cooler fires may be made to mingle in the dust chamber or flue with those from the hotter fires, and a temperature may be obtained high enough to destroy offensive vapours that escape from the furnaces.
To effect the combustion of offensive vapours it has been suggested that the gases from the furnaces should be passed through or over another fire.
The escape of dust and smell from the Chimney must be regarded as defects to be amended especially when the Air is not already polluted by factory chimneys.
Much in the way of prevention may be effected by careful and systematic firing and feeding combined with large flues or dust chambers, frequent removal of dust, and proper regulation of the draught.
When these precautions do not suffice, passing the products of combustion through or over a second fire appears to be the most promising means of destroying smoke or smell and preventing the escape of dust – In other respects the burning of town refuse by furnaces already in use appears to be successfully carried out—There’s no accumulation of an offensive material at the works and very little smell which I do not consider is at all prejudicial to health—Everything Combustible is burned within a few hours of collection without nuisance, and at a cost which compares favourably with the old system of carting the refuse to tips which I consider is most dangerous and prejudicial to health. A valuable means is at the same time provided for effectually disposing of infected bedding and clothing condemned meat and provisions and the carcases of Diseased  Animals.
Further improvements may be expected, but the results already attained show that the destruction of the refuse of Towns by fire is not only practicable, but is the best and often the only way of dealing with it in a manner to satisfy Sanitary requirements.
I am informed that Complaints have been made by inhabitants in the vicinity of the Destructor of the Defendant Corporation caused by offensive smells arising from the Destructor.
I have also been informed that the Deft Corporation propose to construct a new chimney to the Destructor 100 yards in height with 4 more cells and a flue Cremator. When these works are carried out I am of opinion that they will prevent the smell and nuisance complained of.
Call Thomas Codrington

Alfred James Losbe says:
I am the Inspector of Nuisances for the Borough of Blackburn and have held that office for about 5 ½ years. Prior to that I was Sub Inspector for a period of 6 ½ years
I know the Audley Depot and Destructor the subject matter of complaint in this Action
It is my duty to visit and inspect every district in the Town and I am almost daily about the neighbourhood in which the Destructor is placed
As regards the Depot I say that I have never had any complaint, nor have I myself ever found any smell to arise from the excreta and Refuse dealt with at the Depot (apart from the Destructor) outside the walls of the Depot. That is to say, I am satisfied that no nuisance exists in respect of the storage of excreta in the Tank and the placing of Ashpit Refuse and Street Sweepings in the Shed and the Shipping of Manure from the Wharf outside the Walls of the Depot itself any offensive odour that may arise being completely Localised by the roof & Walls of the Shed & the Depot.
As regards the Destructor I have received very few complaints from residents in the neighbourhood although I am aware that recently an agitation has been got up in the District for the Removal of the Destructor but I believe this Agitation was very largely owing to the fears of the Residents respecting the Small Pox Hospital which is situate close to the Destructor – I have myself noticed occasionally but very rarely a faint odour from the fumes proceeding from the Destructor Chimney but I am of opinion that any smell that may have occasionally been given off is not in any way injurious to health.
In December 1886 a fume Cremator was added to the destructor but in consequence of the diminution of the draught and destructive Capacity caused by the fume cremator it was taken out pending the construction of a large and improved Chimney which would cure such defects. During the period when the Cremator was in use which was over 3 months I did not detect the slightest smell or odour from the Destructor & during that period no complaint whatever was made to me.
The few occasions upon which I have experienced an odour from the Destructor Chimney have been at times when the atmosphere has been very damp and heavy and when possibly—although I do not know as a fact—the attendant has been carelessly firing.
About 108 Tons per week of the Refuse of the Town which is not capable of being used for manure as having no Manurial value is destroyed in the Destructor and the remainder is deposited on 4 tips there is no other way disposing of this Refuse.
With regard to tips I am satisfied from a long experience that they are most dangerous and prejudicial to health.
The rubbish tipped must often necessarily contain considerable quantities of decomposing matter sufficient to breed disease if built upon and moreover suitable tips in Towns are now most difficult to find.
I am satisfied that from a Sanitary and Public Health point of view no more effectual or efficient method of disposing of Refuse could be found than by burning, and if this is effectually done no smell or nuisance can arise.
I am satisfied that the collection and disposition of the Pails and their contents and the emptying and disposition of the contents of the Ashpits and Dry Ashes is conducted by the Scavenging Department of the Corporation in the best possible manner and with the least nuisance possible.
The Corporation have by resolution determined to gradually convert the Pail Closets to Water Closets and they have actively for some years past been converting the Ashpit Closets to Water Closets.
When these conversions are complete the Scavenging Department will be relieved of the worst and most offensive part of the Refuse with which they have to deal.
There are at present 11,000 houses with Pail Closets and 11,000 houses with Ashpit closets in use in Blackburn.
With regard to the Small Pox Hospital at Audley I am satisfied that it is as well placed as a Hospital could possibly be, if it is to be in the Town at all. It stands to reason that the more isolated a Hospital of this character is the better.
During the present year the Town has unfortunately been afflicted with a large number of Small Pox cases.
The Hospital Complained of is constructed to hold 30 beds and when nearly full it was incumbent upon the Defendants as the Sanitary Authority to consider whether they should add to the Hospital Complained of or construct another Hospital in some other position and they finally determined to convert certain buildings which they possessed outside the Borough at a place called Finnington into a Hospital. This conversion was rapidly carried out and up to the present time 16 patients from the Borough of Blackburn have been treated in this new Hospital in addition to 9 patients in a convalescent stage removed into it from the Audley Hospital.
The New Hospital is more commodious and more isolated than the Hospital complained of and it is the intention of the Corporation to use as far as practicable the New Hospital in place of the Hospital complained of.
I was present at a Meeting of the Health Committee when a decision to the above effect was come to. With regard to the way in which the Hospital complained of has been conducted I am satisfied that it could not have been conducted better than it has been.
The conduct of it, and the removal of patients to it has been under my Superintendence.
The Corporation have provided a special Ambulance for the use of Small Pox Patients only, which is kept constantly disinfected.
No persons are allowed to leave the Hospital until fully convalescent and then only after their clothes have been thoroughly disinfected by heat, and every person whether a convalescent, nurse, or other person in the Hospital is required before leaving the Hospital to pass through a proper disinfecting box.
No friends of patients are at any time permitted to enter the Hospital.
It has been my duty to examine carefully into the origin of every case of Small Pox reported and in no instance have I been able to trace Small Pox as having spread from the Hospital, nor have the Majority of cases arisen in the immediate proximity of the Hospital.
When the Hospital was occupied in 1883 to 1885 inclusive no cases of Small Pox occurred in the Audley District. Of the 28 cases which were treated in the Hospital in 1886 only one patient resided within a ¼ of a mile radius of the Hospital – In the year 1887 of the 42 cases of Small Pox treated in the Hospital only 2 patients resided within a ¼ of a mile of the Hospital.
In the year 1886 the Hospital was open for 7 months and 1887 for 6 months only.
At the beginning of this year (1888) early in January several cases of Small Pox broke out in the Workhouse
On the 6th March 2 cases were removed from Haslingden Road a distance of about 400 yards from the Hospital.
The infection in these cases was traced as for as it was capable of being traced to the Town of Haslingden. The disease spread to this locality and 26 patients were removed from their homes to the Hospital- During the whole period from 1888(?) to the present time only 4 cases of Small Pox have occurred in the portion of the Borough situate to the East of the Hospital—Travelling over East of the Hospital via Bennington and Pringle Streets.
In all the cases of Small Pox that have occurred in Blackburn previous to this year with a few exceptions all the cases originated in other districts of the Borough and in 1886 particularly the seat of the Epidemic was chiefly in St Pauls Ward which is situate on the other side of the Borough.
Call Alfred James Losbe

James Braddon McCallum of Blackburn, says:
I am a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and also the Borough and Water Engineer and Borough Surveyor of Blackburn which latter post I have held since July 1882 when I was appointed being a period of upwards of 6 years.
I am fully acquainted with the Sanitary Depot and Destructor at Audley the subject of complaint of this Action.
The land belonging to the Corporation upon which the Sanitary Depot and Destructor are placed contains 3 or 4 acres and is bounded on the Northerly side by the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, on the Easterly side by Bennington Street and on the Westerly and Southerly side by vacant land.
The nearest dwelling to the Destructor is about 112 yards distant. I am able to depose to this part having measured the distances.
I consider the land is most suitably situated for a Sanitary Depot for the following   reasons, viz:
(1) It is on the side of the Leeds & Liverpool Canal which offers facilities for the conveyance of excreta and refuse to Agricultural parts
(2) It is on the outskirts of the Town and in a district comparatively sparsely populated –
From the Books and plans in my Custody as Boro’ (sic) Engineer I find that in the year 1878 the number of inhabited Houses within a ¼ of a mile radius of the Depot was 1056
At the present time the number of Houses within a ¼ mile radius is 1449 showing that the existence of the Depot and Destructor has not prevented the development of building in the neighbourhood and as a matter of act, the population has come to the immediate vicinity of the Destructor.
The Town is served by Water closets, Pail closets and Ashpit closets in the following proportions:

No of Houses on           Water closet system              2850
No of Houses on           Pail closet system                11,000
No of Houses on           Ashpit closet system            11,000

The Pails attached to the Pail Closets are emptied by the Scavenging Department of the Corporation weekly and about 1/3 of the Pails collected are brought to the Sanitary Depot at Audley for removal by boat to farmers at different parts of the County.
The Contents of the Ashpit Closets are emptied as occasion requires.
The Water Closets are connected with the Sewers which gravitate to precipitation tanks at the low end of the Town and from thence the effluent is conveyed by Aqueduct a distance of 5 or 6 miles to the Sewage farms belonging to the Corporation which are about 500 acres in extent.
The Pail and Ashpit Closets are only emptied at night time and I am satisfied from close observation of the practice in Blackburn and in other Towns that the work of Collection and disposal of the Refuse under the Pail and Ashpit Closet system is performed in the best possible manner and I say that outside the walls of the Depot there is no smell & therefore does not cause any nuisance whatever to the neighbourhood.
During last year a special Sub Committee was deputed to examine into the Scavenging System in vogue in other Towns and in Blackburn and they presented a Report which was adopted by the Town Council advocating the gradual conversion of the Pail and Ashpit Closets into Water Closets the addition of two Destructors and subsequently the Town Council resolved to construct a large Chimney to the Destructor at Audley.
I was present when the resolution was passed.
The above resolutions of the Town Council with reference to the adoption of the Water Closet system and the construction of the large Chimney at Audley are now being carried out under my Supervision and I say that when the work of converting the Pail and Ashpit Closets to Water Closets is complete the Defendant Corporation will be relieved of the most offensive and difficult part of the refuse with which they have to deal, but until this work of conversion can be completed  I am satisfied that the Corporation are dealing with the refuse and excrementitious matter in the best possible manner. All the new Houses in the Borough are now completed to adopt the Water Closet system.
The contract for the construction of a new Chimney to the Destructor at Audley 100 yards high was let by tender on the 4th of April last to Mr Woof Cronshaw. I was present when the tender was accepted by the Town Council. In my opinion the works could not be completed before October 1890.
Recently an Agitation has arisen in the district surrounding the Destructor for its removal on the ground of nuisance but prior to this Agitation Complaints of nuisance were few and far between.
The quantity of refuse which the Destructor deals with is about 27 tons per cell per week.
This refuse is a portion of the contents of the Ashpit closets and dry Ashes Tubs of no manurial value—The remainder of this class of refuse which the Destructor is not able to deal with is disposed of in its tips—These tips however are rapidly becoming exhausted and in populous Towns like Blackburn are very difficult to find.
Moreover, speaking from my own experience as a Sanitary Engineer I am satisfied that the destruction of this class of refuse, by fire is by far the best and most scientific method of disposal and is not in any way injurious to health but the method of disposing of it by placing it on tips I consider most injurious to Public Health.
The Destructor as it stands and with its present chimney if properly and carefully worked and the furnaces fed carefully and with discretion ought not to cause nuisance – Some odour may occasionally be experienced from the fumes passing out of the Chimney in murky weather or when the Atmosphere is heavy. In my opinion I do not consider any odour if any that may arise are injurious to public health.
The Destructor is constructed with 4 cells and erected by Messrs. Manlove, Alliott & Fryer of Nottingham the makers and Patentees.
I am of opinion that with the tall chimney already ordered and of the addition of a fume Cremator any nuisance which may possibly have occasionally been created by the Destructor in the past will be done away with as the fumes will be spread over a much larger area at a greater height. In addition, the draught of the furnaces will be greatly increased and consequently combustion will be more complete.
In the year 1883 the Defendant Corporation at my instigation considered a plan submitted by the Makers for Machinery for washing the fumes before passing up the Chimney, but the Corporation were of the opinion that the plan was not likely to be successful so the proposal was not adopted.
In the year 1886 I on behalf of the Defendant Corporation entered into Negotiations with the makers for the addition to the Destructor of a Fume Cremator. This was put in and was worked from December 1886 to the end of March 1887  It was found that the Fume Cremator had the effect of destroying any noxious gases passing up the chimney but having regard to the height of the existing chimney it was further found that the destroying power of the Destructor was reduced by 1/3rd  and the draught by 1/5th. As a Consequence the Corporation were of the opinion that the Fume Cremator was not successful, and it was accordingly taken out pending the construction of a larger  Chimney - While the Cremator was in use I was not able to detect any offensive Smell or odour from the works.
(Two lines of words deleted here.)
On the question of damages, I find that the Plaintiff has erected 54 houses upon the land taken by him from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
I find further that of these 54 Houses 52 are now let and at the following rents
The table here is identical with the one in Joseph Pollard and John Ashworth’s statements earlier
I have compared the rents of these Houses with the Rents obtained for a similar Class of houses in similar parts of the Town, and I can say that the rents obtained for the Plaintiff’s houses are fully equal to rents obtained for similar houses elsewhere.
It is the fact that some of the land taken by the Plaintiff from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners abutting on Pringle and Bennington Streets is or has been at a considerably lower level than the surfaces of those streets averaging in both streets twelve feet
This fact is material to note as adding largely to the cost of building and therefore materially increasing the difficulty which the Plaintiff would have in raising sufficient money on Mortgage to enable him to build –
From my knowledge as Borough Surveyor I say that Cottage property generally throughout the Borough during the last 3or 4 years has been erected in excess of the needs of the population and as     a consequence there has been a considerable amount of empty property, and property has depreciated in consequence in value and has been difficult to sell –
The numbers of empty houses during the past 5 years are as follows:
1883, 1884, 185, 1886; Average 2,000.
1887; 1,500.
I am enabled to depose to these facts from a perusal of documents and books in the possession of the Rate Collector.
Call James Braddon McCallum

 
George AINSWORTH, Mill Overlooker; never detected any unpleasant odours. Did not consider Small Pox-Hospital a nuisance (lived nearby).

John HAYES Clerk; never detected any bad smells, lived nearby.

Edward HAWORTH, Assistant Brewer; detected no smells (until agitation took place), lived nearby.

George HALLIWELL, Weaver; no complaints of smells, lived within 350 yds of Def. works.

Joseph Edward WADDINGTON; no complaints of smells.

Joseph POLLARD, House Owner; member of Town Council, never detected any smells.

Jeremiah AINSWORTH, House Agent; no complaints of smells, lived nearby.

Ann CROSTON, Widow, House Owner; received no complaints of smells from any tenants.

James PEARSON, Weavers’ Collector; no complaints of smells, worked a garden regularly nearby.

Benjamin BROOKS, Joiner and Builder; no complaints from tenants.

Grimshaw MARSDEN, Weaver; many complaints re local tip, but not Destructor.

William ALMOND; again, many complaints about local tip but not Destructor.

Arthur JACOB, Sanitary Engineer; Technical information on Destructor.

Edward BILLINGTON, Chairman of Health Committee; details of Scavenging Dept and Small Hospital.

William WHALLEY, Superintendent of Scavenging Department; great detail on Scavenging.

William Henry STEPEHENSON, Medical Officer for Blackburn Corporation; great detail on Small Pox Hospital.

Thomas HIGSON, Property owner; not impressed by quality of property built by Plaintiff, land at Bennington Street unsuitable for building.

Edward SERGEANT, Medical Officer of Health; detail of working of Destructor.

James KENYON, Vice-Chairman of Scavenging Dept; very detailed statement of Scavenging Department.

AINSWORTH, Jeremiah, 11 Oldham Street, Blackburn Broker and Estate Agent.

ALLIOTT, James B., ‘Manufacturer of Destructors’.

ALMOND, William, 84 Haslingden Road, Blackburn, Property owner.                                                         

ASHWORTH, John, 90 Chester Street, Blackburn, Coal Merchant.

BILLINGTON, Edward, 126 Whalley New Road, Blackburn, Town Councillor, hospital details.

BROOKS, Benjamin, 47 Ingham Street, Audley, Blackburn, Joiner and Builder, House Agent.

CALVERT, John, 4 St Andrews Place, Blackburn, Town Councillor, Builder/Contractor.                      

CODRINGTON, Thomas, Engineering Inspector.      

COX, John Henry, Civil Engineer, Borough Surveyor.

CROSTON, Ann, Primrose Street, Langho, Widow, owner of 6 houses.               

DIXON, John, Shadsworth Villa, Blackburn, Town Councillor, Chairman of Scavenger Dept.      

DYSON, William, 5 Infirmary Road, Blackburn, Flagger and Slater.

HALLIWELL, George, 163 Higher Audley Street, Blackburn, Weaver. 

HALLIWELL, George, DUPLICATE PAPER.

HARRISON, John, 14 Ainsworth Street, Blackburn, Foreman of Department of Works, i/c of The Destructor.

HAWORTH, Edward, 27 Baines Street, Lower Audley, Blackburn, Assistant Brewer.

HAWORTH, Edward, DUPLICATE PAPER.

HAYES, John, 100 Lower Audley Street, Blackburn, Clerk.

HAYES, John, DUPLICATE PAPER.

HIGSON, Thomas, Property owner, INCOMPLETE.

JACOB, Arthur, Civil Engineer in Salford.

KENYON, James, Preston New Road, Blackburn, Town Councillor.  

LONGWORTH, George, 122 Riley Street, Blackburn, Mill Overlooker.

LONGWORTH, George, DUPLICATE PAPER.

LOSBE, Alfred James, Inspector of Nuisances.

MARSDEN, Grimshaw, 71 Haslingden Road, Blackburn, Weaver.            

McCALLUM, James Braddon, Water Engineer, Borough Surveyor.              

PEARSON, James, 35 Park Road, Blackburn, Weaver’s Collector.

PICKUP, Dennis, 114 Grimshaw Park, Blackburn, Grocer.

POLLARD, Joseph, 33 Victoria Street, Blackburn, Town Councillor, Estate Agent.

SERGEANT, Edward, Medical Officer for Borough of Bolton.

STEPHENSON, William Henry, Medical Officer.

TATHAM, John, Medical Officer of Health for Fever Hospital.

TIDY, Charles Meymott, Medical Officer in Islington.

WADDINGTON, Joseph Edward, 6 Audley Range, Blackburn, Herb Beer Manufacturer.

WHALLEY, Henry, 25 York Street, Blackburn, Grocer.

WHALLEY, William, Superintendent of Scavenging Department.

List of pre-court papers (left in order they appeared in bundle)

1.         George Longworth

2.         John Hayes

3.         Edward Haworth

4.         George Halliwell

5.         Joseph Edward Waddington

6.         Joseph Pollard

7.         Jeremiah Ainsworth

8.         Edward Haworth (duplicate)

9.         Ann Croston

10.       James Pearson

11.       Benjamin Brooks

12.       George Halliwell (duplicate)

13.       Grimshaw Marsden

14.       William Almond

15.       Arthur Jacob

16.       Edward Billington

17.       William Whalley

18.       William Henry Stephenson

19.       Thomas Higson

20.       Edward Sergeant

21.       James Kenyon

22.       John Dixon

23.       John Henry Cox

24.       John Ashworth

25.       John Tatham

26.       Charles Meymott Tidy

27.       John Calvert

28.       Henry Whalley

29.       James B Alliott

30.       William Dyson

31.       Dennis Pickup

32.       John Harrison

33.       John Hayes (duplicate)

34.       George Longworth (duplicate)

35.       Thomas Codrington

36.       Alfred James Losbe

37.       James Braddon McCallum

All men except Ann Croston, widow

List of newspapers to look at Preston Archives

1.         Preston Herald 2 May 1888 (also BxB Police Court Rev Wilson)

2.         Blackburn Standard 5 May 1888

3.         The Lancashire Evening Post 1 May 1888

4.         The Lancashire Evening Post 6 Dec 1888

5.         Hampstead and Highgate Express 26 Nov 1887

6.         The Lancashire Evening Post 1888, letter from Mr Percy Hutchinson

7.         Evening Post 12 April 1888

8.         Preston Herald 17 Jan 1891

9.         Lancashire Evening Post 27 Oct 1886