The Sun.
London, England, 1852-08-09 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON,

IMES FOR 1852.
rUBT.
I Radcliffe 23

Taunton
Barnsley
Barnet 23
Westbury

Egham - 24
Derby
Tiverton 26
Canterbury 26

805t0n....

t.itourbridge
Eccles

Lincoln
lIBBR.
Doncaster 14
- 000000 •••
Redditch 2O
Tenby OO
Eglinton C1ub_,......... 21
Bedford ..................22
Leicester ............... 22
Liverpool H.ploylake) 22
Manchester Autumn 23
Newmarket F. 0. ...... 28
Chesterfield ...••••.••..29
30
Western Meeting ......

oBEIt.
Perth............
H 14
olywell Hunt
Richmond ..
Lanark
I
Newmarket Houghton.. 25

[DER.
Cov/bridge Hunt lO

applied to Mr. Edgcombe, a ship-agent there, and
received from him the assistance of a boat and two
hands, in which three of the crew, namely, the mate
and two seamen, returned to the ship, and this ap-
pearer, Archibald Dewar (the mate), further states
that he, and Samuel Hatch and William M'Lazen, sea-
men, together with the two boatmen provided by Mr.
Edgcombe, returned to the schooner, and reached her
between seven and eight A.BL; that on boarding the
schooner they found a coast-guard boat, with four men
and an officer. The officer asked appearer by what nu-
thority they came on board the vessel ? The mate re-
plied, he had returned from Sheerness, where he had
been for assistance ; and the master, who remained
there on other duties, had delivered to him the cer-
tificate of registry of the schooner, which document
he produced to the chief officer of the coast-guard; on
the production of which he said he was satisfied, and
loinyeodrdleortOs
unreevesve t
ht the
stores running
in
left the vessel in charge of the appearer, Archibald De-
war; that appearer then gave directions to the crew and
mtheens earls!gearas perfecta an d
unbend
state
as the case would admit of, knowing that a barest had
been engaged by Mr. Edgcombe, and which was then
coming down to receive them. She then succeeded in
saving six sails. That between nine and ten o'clock,
A.M., from ten to twelve vessels and boats came
alongside, end the crews of which came and took
possession of both masts and rigging, and immediately
commenced cutting away, using sharp hatchets for the
purpose. That appearer, the mate, told them not to
i touch anything, as he had engaged assistance, but they
still continued cutting away, and in order to avoid injury
from the falling rigging and materials cut away by those
persons over their heads, they were obliged to go aft for
safety on the taffrail. Attempts were also made by some
persons to crush or smash appearer's boat alongside,
which had in it their stores. That appearer, Archibald
Dewar, finding himself overpowered, sent the boat with
the stores into Sheerness, and remained on board. That
at about ten Ain , appearer, William Kinnear, and Mr.
Edgcombe came on board, and the boatmen were
cautioned that they were acting illegally—that their ser-
vices were not required, as preparations were made, and
sufficient assistance engaged to save the property without
their aid; that they replied, 'We do not care what you
say, we shall do as we like ; we are at work for the
underwriters;' that finding all remonstrance was useless,
appearer, the master, and Mr. Edgcombe, applied to the
adsoiral's ship for assistance; and an arrangement was
made for a man-of-war steamer being sent out to pro-
tect the property, and take charge of the stores and
cargo which had been plundered from the ship; that on
the approach of the man-of-war steamer, at between two
and three E.M. of the 25th, the vessels which had plun-
dered the schooner got under weigh, and sailed towards
Southend.
" They were chased by the man-of-war's steamer's
boats, overtaken, and two marines placed in charge of
each vessel—five in number. An application was then
made to the inspecting commander of the coast-
guard at Southend; end the vessels were delivered over
to his charge by Lieutenant Bullock, R.N.' in order
that the stores might be properly secured and accounted
for hereafter; that on the following day part of the
boats from Southend returned again to the schooner,
and the crews of them cut away the masts and bowsprit,
loaded their vessels with stores and cargo belonging
to the schooner; and upon further application being
made to the Admiral's ship, the Wildfire (steamer) was
sent off to remain permanently by the schooner to pre-
vent further depredations being committed on her. Two
vessels, with divers and apparatus on board. were em-
ployed for the purpose of lightening the vessel, by the
discharge of the cargo; preparatory to her being raised.
d
" And these appeasers do prot.:st, and I, the i
notary, at their request, do hereby legally
hand
solemnly protest against the said bad weather, i-
dents, and occurrences, and also against the said
boatmen frops Southend for their illegal and
pirg.tical con:lnc!, in taking possession of the said
schooner, and for all other loss or damage occa-
sioned thereby, the same being owing to the facts. and
circumstances bef6rPmentioned, and not by any nelect,
misconduct, or default of the said master or any of the
crew of the said rehooner; the whole to be allowed ned
recovered from Inch person or persons, in time and place
convenient, as occasion shall be or require.
" WILLIAM KINNEAR, master of the
schooner. Renown, of AUoa.
" AREBIBALD DEWAR, mate.
" SAMUEL HATCH, seaman."

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.—Guildford, Aug. 7.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Jaavis and a Special
Jury.)
GRIFFITHS V. DE L'ESPINESSE AND ANOTHER.
Before the court finally adjourned on Friday night,
the following additional evidence was given ou behalf
of the defendants.
It should be stated that all the French witnesses were
examined through the medium of an interpreter, but
as he appeared incompetent to perform the duty in a
satisfactory manner, Mr. Munster, a gentleman of
the bar, volunteered his services, and he rendered
aTeat assistance to the court by the very efficient man-
ner in which he interpreted the evidence.
Madame Desirie de Brenille, known in religion as
Sister Sa Theodosie, the second defendant in the
:action, deposed that she succeeded Miss Leith (the
last witness whose name was incorrectly printed as
Smith in the report of the proceedings on Saturday)
in the management of the class to which the plain-
tiff belonged. She remembered the presentation of
the robe to Cardinal Wiseman, but she could not say
whether the girl Henrietta Griffiths worked any part
of it or not. She did not remember ever having
told her to say that she had worked part of it. At
the period the robe was presented the plaintiff was not
under punishment of any kind, and on the day the
Cardinal came she recollected perfectly well she was
wearing a red ribbon across her shoulders as a mark
sent to to
would thetrialnever claosbs. obey Id
oneer offencef
waisstr for her
of reward. It was in November of 1850 that the
plaintiff was o
firsttset
This was the only time that she was
punished in the trial class. She continued to misbe-
have herself, and was sent to work in the kitchen, and
m-.s seT Raying
ha
she came out on the 6th of January, 1851. The mo-
ment it manisc that her eyes were affected,
Dr. Cha was called in, and everything he di-
rected was done for her. Witness would swear posi-
tively that the plaintiff was never locked up in a dark
room with nothing to sit upon. She was merely
placed in a darkened room by the direction of the
doctor, on account of the state of her eyes ; and it was
quite impossible, from the arrangements of the esta-
blishment, that she could have been forgotten for a
day and a night as she had represented. She could
state positively also that the plaintiff was never
punished by being ordered to perform prostration.
It was not the custom for the children to perform
prostration. She had seen the nuns do it, but it was
always done voluntarily. The statement of the plain-
tiff, that when she left the convent witness told her if
she said anything about what happened there she
would go to hell, and that she could not be saved, was
also false, and she declared that she never said any-
thing of the kind to her.
Cross-examined—Witness might have said some-
thing to the child about going to confession. She
remembered that the plaintiff did say to her that when
she went to confession the priest took down in writ-
ing what she said, and she did not like it. She heard
that the plaintiff had told the other children not to
go to confession, because the priest wrote down what
they said. Witness believed it was not true that the
priest had done so. Did not remember that the
plaintiff insisted upon not going to confession on this
account. She was quite sure the plaintiff was never
forced to go to confession. The children always went
to confession of their own free will, and they had to
ask witness's permission eight days before. Some of
the children confessed every week, some every month,
and others only went every two months. If a child
should never go to confession witness would not in-
flict a penance upon her for not going. While the
plaintiff was in the different class-rooms other chil-
dren were allowed to see her, except at the period
when she had the chicken-pox. She was quite sure
that roast meat and porter were supplied to the plain-
tiff by the doctor's direction; but there was a diffi-
culty in getting her to drink beer. They used small
beer and porter in the establishment. The plaintiff
would not drink the small beer and they gave her
porter, and sometimes she left it, and sometimes she
threw it away. Witness punished her by taking
away a good mark from her for throwing away her
porter. She said that she did not like it.
Madame Folinot, one of the nuns, deposed that she
managed the kitchen in November, 1850, and re-
membered the plaintiff being sent there in November,
and her remaining there for some time. She helped
to prepare the things for dinner, but was certainly
never put to do anything beyond her strength, or that
was likely to injure her health in any manner.
Cross-examined—Was quite sure that she never
fainted away in the kitchen while witness superin-
tended there. The plaintiff certainly was not a strong
child, and she frequently complained of being ill.
She was in the kitchenfrom
nine at night.
She had her dinner by herself in the
kitchen, and
was not allowed to speak to any of the
other children,

Madame Armant Dezier, the „cook, deposed that
st
sueahci ha at
h: '
while the plaintiff was under her she did nothing but
washing
at all plates and going into the
vegetables,the hard
cutting and preparing
plaintiff
ahianrcdffwork v
never
rf
complainedt he kitchen
gardentliilgehrat.. vi
°tsorl:lfee
vilerhyertitr,e)dsic
down
r her,aln but she frequenly
wits done by herself.
Cross-examined—The
when
.she did so,
of the work being too hard for
andfrest herself.
When the cbi:dren were in the kitchen
swattleet.i:f usiheel Shea"
v,nt, they were not allowed to go out
past four o'clock in the morning till nine at mot.
Elizabeth Beds2r, a very sharp, inter
Agent girl, ap-
p4r7nt.ly about eighte€,n years old, said she had been
in the orphan:Te class of the establishment at No-13
wood. She first went to the institution in Jail";
1850, and left in March, 1851. She v:ent to iti- '
u
second time in November, 1851, and went away for
good in February, 1g52, vhen sh
end e was apprenticed
to a lace manufacturPr at the west of the tow
While she WB3 in the establishment sh e
e was n.
vr
kindly treated, and had nothing to complain of.y
They had quite as much to ea; on 01 occasions as