Amy LAUNDER (1844-1922) - Warren and Ford Family History

Name               Amy B Wells

Age                  14

Birth Year         Abt 1867

Relation           Daughter

Father              George Wells

Mother              Amy Wells

Where Born      Brasted, Kent, England

District              Sevenoaks

Household Members -

George Wells         Age    41   Occupation - Builder employing 12 men  Born, Brasted, Kent

Amy Wells                        35                       Fancy Repository                Born Sevenoaks, Kent

Amy B Wells                    14                         Scholar                                Born, Brasted, Kent

Lillian M Wells                 10                         Scholar                                Born, Brasted, Kent

George S Wells                8                         Scholar                                Born, Brasted, Kent

Richard L Wells                6                         Scholar                                Born, Brasted, Kent

Jessie P Wells                  5                         Scholar                                Born, Brasted, Kent

Agnes L Wells                  3                         Scholar                                Born, Brasted, Kent

Eleanor M. Wells              2                                                                    Born, Brasted, Kent

DEATH - WELLS

On the 26th inst. at his residence at Gleneira Road, Caulfield, George, the dearly beloved husband of Amy\u Wells, aged 48 years, late of Brasted, Sevenoaks, Kent, England

The Argus newspaper, September 28, 1887

FOOTSCRAY CITY COUNCIL

A letter from Henry Wheeler requesting permission to transfer the lease of some land in Exhibition Street to Mrs. Amy Wells was received and the request granted.

Independent newspaper, December 9, 1905

CITY COUNCIL PROSECUTION

Inspector Richard Henry Bullows on behalf of the City Council proceeded against the Austral Manufacturing Company Limited, under section 216, sub-section 7, of the Health Act, for sending forth from their premises smoke in such quantities as to be a nuisance, such premises not being a private home.

..... The Austral Manufacturing Company's premises were situated on the Macaulay Road, North Melbourne and on the 15th May he watched them between 11.15 and 11.45 am.  Smoke was issuing from the chimney and at times it was very dense and black.  The chimney would be about 50 feet high.  One one day in the second week of June, he watched the smoke again and it was worse than on the 15th May.

Arthur William Findlay said he was assistant inspector of nuisances and gave corroborative evidence as to the smoke from defendant's premises on the 15th May.

William Delmuc said he lived in Haines Street, about 140 feet from the Austral chimney and when the wind flew from the west or northwest, his house was always full of smoke.  He had it painted and three months after he saw he might have saved his money.

Mary Delmuc, wife of the last witness, said the smoke was very dense on the 15th May.  It was worse on the 12th of June.

Isabella French said she resided at the corner of Dryburgh and Haines Streets and considered the smoke a nuisance.  It was bad last Friday.

Mr. Jacobs, for the defendant company, said that before he called evidence, he wished to point out that no order to abate and discontinue the alleged nuisance had been served, also that smoke was not a nuisance in the proper sense of the word.  A nuisance- or to speak accurately, "a public nuisance" must be something that caused annoyance and discomfort to the whole community and not merely a matter an isolated individual here or there complained about.  If the latter contention was good in law, any two or three supersensitive and fussy people could get a factory shut down and hundreds of wage earns affected.

Mr. Stewart for the prosecution - A notice has been served on the firm in question and I will call evidence to that effect.

Witness - he served a notice on the manage of the Austral Works to discontinue the nuisance.

Mr. Stewart - When did you service this notice?

Witness - in 1907

Mr. Stewart - this notice is stale - 18 months old.  Did you have any conversation with the manager?

Witness - Yes, I told him there were complaints about the smoke and said I believe there were appliances fordoing away with the same.

Mr. Jacobs said the Austral Works have been in existence for a long time and about 12 years ago they were taken over by the company from a local bank.  As little smoke as possible was sent forth from the chimney and a matter of fact, it was in the firm's interest to keep down the smoke since the more smoke the less heat.  It was a large factory employing 150 hands and if this case went against the company, they would have to leave North Melbourne.

Witness, Robert Gibson, MD of the company -  The company manufactured iron bedsteads.  The factory had been in existence under the present management for 12 years and the chimney was 45 feet high. There was one boiler.  The factory consumed 142 tons, 17 cwt of coal a year, which included that used in connection with banking the fire at night.  Firing took place approximately every 15 minutes.  Every hour 1 cwt of coal was used but the smoke was not sent forth in any great quantities.  He had never seen "a dense volume" of smoke coming from the chimney.  There was no appliance offering in the market that would satisfactorily tend to reduce the amount of smoke.  He told the fireman to be very careful in firing and fire often and thinly.  The best Newcastle coal was used.  We have done our best to keep down smoke and cannot do more.

A consulting engineer was then called as witness - He said he was familiar with the furnace, boiler and smoke stack arrangements at the Austral and all had been done that could be done to minimise the output of smoke.

James McRae said he was a retired blacksmith and that he lived in Shiel Street, 100 yards from the Austral and the smoke was no nuisance.

Mr. Jacobs - Well, you would know all about smoke?

James McRae - Yes - and look at this clean white handkerchief.

Witness then produced a remarkably unsullied handkerchief and said it had been on the line for two days last week and there was not a smut on it.

Annie Paten, Amy Wells, Peter Kennedy, Michael Fitzgerald and several other residents in the immediate locality of the works, all swore the smoke was no nuisance.

The bench retired and consulted, and on resuming, the chairman said the case had been a very hard nut to crack, but after carefully considering the matter, he and his colleague thought the weight of evidence was against the prosecution.

The case would therefore be dismissed, but without costs.