The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-11 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Mr. Peter Tinaall, jun., of Graceehnreh•s'rett, ship-
owner, was summoned before the Lord Mayor, under the
44th section of the Passengers Act (1852), at the instance
of Frederick Harvey, a passenger in the ship Sir Fowell
Buxton, bound from the port of London to Port Phillip, fur
the purpose of recovering back the amount paid by him for
his passage, and aleo the sum of 101. for compensation, un-
der the circumstances detailed in the evidence.
Mr. Ballantine appeared for the complainant, and Mr.
Parry (instructed by Mr. Pelham) attended for the defend-
ant. the cases of other passengers depended upon the de-
cision. The City Solicitor attended as the adviser of the
Lord Mayor.
Frederick Harvey. said—l entered into an engagement
to go to Melbourne in the Sir Fowell Buxton, of 446 tons,
Captain Woodcock, from London, on the 14th of October,
18.52, and paid 201. as an intermediate passenger. On the
16th of December, at half-past 10 at night, the vessel was
wrecked on the South American coast, in fine weather, and
while a fresh !netse was blowing. All the crew and the
passengers were saved. Some passengers lost a great deal
of their goods—some half, and others the whole of their
property. I remained at Paraiba five months, and quitted
it on the 4th of May. A brig called the Richardson, of 270
tons, in which I was offered a passage, started from Paraiba
to Port Philip. I and others went on board, and stayed a
day and a night. The vessel was very much crowded. The
married people, and children, and tingle women, were all
in an open berth, and I do not think there was a possibility
of their dressing or undressing without being seen. There
was a partition between that berth and the berths of the
single men. I think there were 190 people on board. I
and others left the vessel because there was not room. I

never was paid any recompense for any loss or passage-
money.
Cross-examined by Mr. Parry—There are nine of us here
to-day out of the 240 who went out. We were fed and
clothed by the consul at Paraiba, with as good as he er Id
get for us, and oar passage home wu paid by him. None
of the married men came back. We were very com-
fortable on board the Sir Fowell Buxton, and had all that
we could expect in her.
Edward Bannister—l was also a passenger on board the
Sir Fowell Buxton, am a ship-carpenter, and been master of
my own vessel. I lost all my clothes, but saved about 401.
worth of tools, which are gone in the other vessel. There
tease 46 single men on board the Richardson. There was
MI mmtaamodatim for them for a three months voyage.
That was the reason I would not go in her. Not more than
hell the number could go down below.
Thomas Clark—l was a passenger in the Sir Fowell Bux-
ton, and was the first that reported the land. I was told
dist all the hands of the starboard watch were drunk, ex-
sot two men and also two boys. The second mate asked me
hs lencLa hand, for not one of the men was able to do any
thing. I saw the land 10 minutes before the ship struck.
If the helm had been put round in a proper manner, no
doubt she would have been saved. I left the second vessel
bemuse she wu not fit to go in.
Captain Woodcock, who was then sworn, said—l was
neuter of the Sir Fowell Buxton. I have been 28 yearn at
sea, and I defy any man to say that I was ever in my life
drunk. Upon my oath, there is not the slightest foundation
for such an insinuation. The vessel was fitted up well for
the accommodation of passenger, ; and I attribute the

wreck to an accident to my -hrosometer. I could not
find some of the starboard watch just before the vessel
struck. It was impossible to hove her. I did all I could ;
we were out of our course between 70 and 76 miles. I saw
the brig Richardson, which was brought from Pernambuco.
She was as good a vessel as the consul could get under the
circumstances. The passengers were closer confined in her
than in the former vessel. I should not have objected to
go in her.
The Lord Mayor (after consulting the City Solicitor) said—
It Is quite evident that the 44th section of the Act has no
reference whatever to this case; and 1 am, thereMre, bound
to dismiss the summons.

BOW-STREET.
Two reepectahly-dressed boys, under 16 years of age,
named Henry Elliott and Thomas Evans, were charged
with poisoning the fish in the ornamentel water of St.
James's Park.

Two of the park-keepers and a foreigner, who happened
to be on the spot, deposed to having seen the boys sitting
together on one of the benches of the park, mixing up •
species of berry with wet crumbs of bread, and rolling the
preparation into balls. They then separated and threw the
balls into the water, the result being that the fish taking
the bait, rose almost immediately to the surface of the
water in a state of insensibility, from the effects of the
poisonous ingredients. When the boys were taken into
custody, four roaches, which had been poisoned and cap-
tured in the above manner, were found in their pockets,
together with a quantity of the coculus indieus, and some
bread, the materials of which the balls consisted.
Mr. Henry expressed his astonishment at the cruelty and
depravity evinced by the boys, who, besides poisoning the
fish and water-fowl, might have caused the death of any
person eating the fish afterwards. It was an indictable
offence, but, in compliance with the entreaty of their
parents, and in the hope that a light punishment would he
effectual, he would let them off with • fine of 21. each, or
three weeks' imprisonment.
The father of Evans paid his fine, but the other was
sent to prison.
Amy Howard was charged with obtaining money by
false pretences.
It was proved by. a lady and other witnesses that the
prisoner had been in the habit of posting hefted( at the
ladies' cloak room of the British Museum, and demanding
a payment of one penny from each person availing herself
of the accommodation. She represented herself as the
attendant duly authorised to wait upon the female visitors.
As the trustees of the British Museum did not attend to

prosecute, the prisoner was let off with a reprimand.
John Cook, an assistant is the shop of Mr. Taylor, the
keeper of a receiving-house in Charles-street, Middlesex
Hospital, was charged with stealing a letter containing
cash. The money was privately marked, and placed in
a " trap letter," with the view of testing the honesty of
the servants employed in the district, whore there had
been constant complaints of the loss of letters containing
money. The prisoner made up the parcel of letters, sad
the one in question being missed from the bag, he was
searched, upon which the marked coins were found in his
possession.
The prisoner, who said it was his lint offence, was com-
mitted for trial.