The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-05-01 00:00:00

SEA MESSENGERS.

The Standard has published the following letter
was with I.lr. Ashbury in the Cambria in
July, 1870, when he threw the Sea Messenger over-
board, and I watched for news of it. In the Standard
of Monday, November 21, 1870, I came upon what I
believe was information concerning the Messenger,
and I wrote the following concerning it in the Field :

"Mr. Ashbury started a Sea Messenger overboard
on the afternoon of July 16, 1870, when the Cambria
was nearing Newfoundland, in lat. 49deg. 42m. N,
long. 49deg. 38m. W. It seems likely that the 'cask
buoy' mentioned in the shipping news of the Standard
of Monday last was this identical Messenger.
"The Report says, 'The Durham, from Calcutta,
reports having passed on October 29, in lat. 40 N,
long. 40 W, a cask buoy, painted, apparently iron,
with a staff or. rope through it, and white letters on
the end next Me vessel, but that it was too far off to
make them out.'

"The Messenger was thrown into the Labrador cur-
rent, and must have been carried by it as low as 42 N
across the E N E set of the Gulf Streain, inasmuch as
between 45 and 55 Win the lat. of 42 the Polar current
intercepts, and partly passes into the warm Gulf cur-
rent. The Messenger must then have been taken in
charge by the.E S E arm of the Gulf Stream and car-
ried thereby to the spot where it was sighted by the
Durham, having drifted about 450 miles. Its probable
course now will be past the Azores in 38 IC, 32 W,
skirting Fayal and St. Maria. If it does not get
ashore here it may drift on with the current round past
the West Indies, and again, at some future day, be in
the position it was when sighted by the Durham.
There seenis to be little prospect of its being picked
up."

On March 16, 1874, Mr. T. Brassey put a Mes-
senger overboard from the Eothen in lat. 58deg. 54m.
N, long. 7deg. 27m. W. This Messenger was picked
up March 30 in lat. 50deg. 41m. N, long. sdeg. 6m.
W. This Messenger was thus thrown overlvard and
picked up in the entrance to the English Channel,
and it would have been extraordinary if, in such a
crowded track, some one had not taken the trouble to
pick it up. Obviously if it is made law that every ship
must carry a Sea Messenger,. there must also be an
enactment that ships sighting one must, under penalty
for omission, pick it up.-1 am, Sir, your obedient
servant, DIXON KEMP,
Kensington, Apia 25.

In reference to the above, the Pall Moll Ga.ylte re-
marks :—" The Anxiety felt about the Atalanta has
given rise to a suggestion that every sea-going.yessel
should be compelled to carry at least one of the so-
called sea messengers.' The sea-messenger is a cask
made in various sizes of copper, in compartments ;.
and, according to its size, letters, despatches, ships'
logs, jewellery, and other valuables can be inserted in
it. The cask can be quickly hermetically sealed so
that no water can get in, and may then be thrown
overboard with the Assurance that it will remain afloat
for a very long time. That it would be desirable for
every vessel to be provided with such a messenger
can hardly be doubted ; and as Mr. Ashbury
states that if during the term of the - new Parlia-
ment any modification of the Shipping Act
becomes necessary it is his intention to ask one of his
friends to propose a clause snaking the provision
compulsory, the subject will probably come to be,
fully discussed. The advisability, however, of adopt-
ing a second suggestion, made by a correspondent of
the Standard, that 'if it is made law that every ship
must carry a sea-messenger, there must also be an
enactment that ships sighting one must, under penalty
for omission, pick it up,' is open to question. A handy
steamer or well-found yacht might be able without
much trouble to pick up a small cask; but it would
often. very difficult, if not impossible, for an ordi-
nary merchant vessel to do so. Moreover, it is diffi-
cult to see how such an enactment could be enforced.
A capfain, unwilling to delay his voyage to pick up a
messenger, could always frame, a plausible excuse for
not doing so. At the same time, curiosity, if no
better motive' could generally be depended upon to
ensure that it would be dene if possible.

VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.

At the Winchester Assizes, John Crow, aged 48, was in-
dicted for, and also charged on the coroger's inquisition
with, the wilful murder of Eliza Crow, his wife, on the 17th
of February last.
-- • - -

The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Tianll ant' Mr.
Grq.enwood ; the prisoner was defended by Mr. C W.
Mathews and Mr. Rawlinson.—We take the following report
of the case from The Times :

The prisoner had been in her Majesty's service, but
was a pensioner, and of late had carried on business
as an insurance agent. He had been marriecioto the
deceased woman for some 13 years during which
period they had apparently lived happily togethgr.
At the time of the death of the woman they were
living in a house in Kingston-road, Portsmouth, with
their son, a boy about twelve years old, and a
woman named Hannah Hitchcock, who acted as
general servant and nurse. The deceased woman had,
some time before her death, had a severe attack of
rheumatic fever, and for the last six weeks of her life
had indulged in most intemperate habits. The
prisoner, had, for the three weeks preceding, been
also given to drink, and during that period it
appeared that both the prisoner and the deceased
woman ha. 4 been nearly always drunk and spent most
of their time in bed. On Sunday afternoon, the 15th
of February, tire deceased woman and the prisoner
were in bed in their room and the woman Hitchcock
was in the kitchen, when she heard the deceased call
out, "Nurse ! nurse I" several times, and noticed
that her voice got fainter and fainter She ran into
the bedroom and found the deceased lying on her back
on the bed with the corner of one pillow stuffed into
her mouth, and another across her face, upon which
the prisoner was kneeling. She pulled him off
and told him he was a scoundrel and had
tried to smother his wife, to which he replied
that 'she was a worry, and would not keep quiet."
They were both intoxicated at the time. She
carried the deceased into the kitchen, where she
remained for some time, but ultimately returned to
bed. Nothing of importance occurred again until the
day of her death. The deceased and the prisoner
spent the time in drinking or sleeping, but no attack
was made on his wife by him. On Tuesday morning,
however, they were again both drunk and in bed
about half-past eleven. Hitchcock and the boy Dudley
Crow, the son of the prisoner, were in the kitchen to-
gether, when they heard the deceased calling, "Dud-
ley! Dudley !" The boy went into the bedroom,
found his father again kneeling on a pillow which was
laid on his wife's face. He pulled him off, and Hitch-
cock carried the woman into the kitchen. About
ten minutes to one the deceased woman was again
put into bed with the prisoner, who was then
asleep. This was the last time she was seen alive.
Later in the day, at about a quarter to two, while
Hitchcock and the boy Dudley were eating their
dinner, they again heard the deceased call, "Nurse
nurse ; " but the woman did not at once go into the
bed-room. The boy, however, went out in the back
yard to feed some fowls, and while there looked in at
the window of his parents' bedroom. He then saw
his father again • in the same position, kneeling on a
pillow which was placed on his wife's face. The boy
told the nurse what he had seen, and she went to the
door of the bedroom and there met -the prisoner appa-
rently going out. She said to him, "You scouneel !
what have you been doing?" to which he replied,
"What have I been doing? Go and see." Se accused
him of having smothered his wife, and detained him
until she had called a policeman, into whose custody
she gave him. While in the custody of the policeman,
he asked him why he detained him. The policeman
replied to the effect that he did so because of what
the woman had told him, and that he believed what
she had said was true, to which the prisoner replied,
"Yes, I know it is—too true for me."

Medical evidence was given to the effect that the ap-
pearance of the body soon after death and the results of a
post-mortent investigation were consistent with, if not
suggestive of, the theory that the deceased had died from
suffocation. The theory raised by the defence was that
the woman's death was the result of natural causes, arising
from her state of health and her mode of life. The appear-
ances, both external and internal, were consistent with
this suggestion. The external appearances were such
as might have been caused by a fall from her bed,
while-from the internal appearances it was clear that
she was a woman predisposed to die—there were
traces of so many diseases. The heart was fatty and
enlarged, and the bloodvessels diseased, and a woman
in her condition might have died of apoplexy. It was
elicited from the medical witnesses that allithe appear-
ances, while consistent with the theory of death by
suffocation, were also consistent with death having
been the result of apoplexy. .In these circumstances
it was suggested that the evidence of the boy Dudley
was not reliable, and that stripped of his evidence the
case against theprisoner was of the weakest, and not
such as to justify a verdict of murder.
His Lordship, in his summing up, which he did at
considerable length, commented with minuteness
upon the evidence, telling the jury that it was for
them to say whether they thought that of the woman
Hitchcock and the boy Dudley Crow was credible or
not. With regard to the medical evidence it amounted
to this—that the doctors had found many appearances
which might have accounted for sudden death, but
nothing which pointed decidedly to the fact that the
death had resulted from natural causes; and, on the
whole, their opinion was that death had resulted from
suffocation. Of course, if the jury thought their
opinion and the reasons they gave for it unsatisfactory
they must discard it. The questions, however, for
them were, first,—Did the deceased die from suffo-
cation! Secondly—Was that suffocation the result
of an act of the prisoner? Thirdly—lf it was did he,
do that act wilfully—i.e., with the intent to destroy'
life or to do her grievous bodily harm? If they answer
all these questions in the affirmative they must convict
the prisoner of murder. If, however ' they thought
that, although the death was the result' of the act of
the prisoner, such act was not wilful, but had been
done by him when irritated and provoked, and though
roughly and cruelly and recklessly, yet without any
intention of doing her any real mischief or to cause her
death, then they might return a verdict against him,
not of murder, but of manslaughter.
The jury retired for an hour and a quarter, at the
end of which time they returned into court with a
verdict of "Manslaughter."

Later in the day the learned Judge sentenced the pri-
soner to eight years penal servitu-de.