The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 21, 1861

GREAT FIRE IN THE CITY.

On Friday night, a fire broke out in a part of the city
densely crowded with warehouses, which in a few hours
destroyed property and merchandise variously estimated in
the whole at from £lOO,OOO to £150,000. The property of
one firm alone which has been consumed was insured at
nearly £40,000, and that is said to be hardly equal to the
loss they have sustained. Others have suffered to a greater
or less extent. The fire occurred in a block of buildings
used exclusively for warehousing purposes, and situated be-
tween Wood-street and Milk-street in one direction, and
between Clement's-court and Feathers-alley in another.
The locality abuts upon what used to be the site of the old
City Compter, and some of the property which perished in
the conflagration is said to have been once used as a resi-
dence by Judge Jeffreys. It was chiefly occupied by Messrs.
Grant, umbrella and parasol manufacturers, Messrs. J. and
&Morley, as a shirt factory, Mr. A. S. Henry and Co.,
Mr. William Gibson, and Mr. J. F. Bunting, warehouse-
men. The various places were mostly divided by thin
party walls, which in modern times had been run up for
purposes of business or convenience, and which would not
be tolerated under the stringent building regulations of the
present day. Brick walls of great thickness, which appear
to have most withstood the rage of the fire and prevented
its spreading, are left standing, and some of them are said
to have survived the Fire of London. On the ground floor
Mr. Bunting had a small office, or warehouse, and there the
fire originated according to the prevailing opinion. His
warehouse, and the far more extensive one of Messrs. Mor-
ley, which was also on the ground floor, were divided by a
slender partition wall, which the fire soon destroyed and
then spread in other directions, The upper part of the
premises over those of Messrs. Morley were occupied by
Messrs. Grant; and had an entrance from Clement's -court,
which was also common to the warehouses of Mr. Bunt-
ing, Messrs, Henry, and Mr. Gibson. The first symp•
toms of the fire were discovered by Peter Grant, a young
man in the service of Messrs. Grant, but no relation to them.
He and two women servants were left in charge of the pre-
mises of Messrs. Grant at night, and at about half-past 10 on
the evening of Friday he came down atairs,as was his cus-
tom, to fasten the street door. On the way he felt a strong
smell of fire, and on reaching the passage on the basement,
finding it filled with smoke, he called in a policeman. A
message brought Inspector Foulger forthwith from the Bow-
lane police-station and a fireman from the headquarters of
the London Fire Brigade in Watling-street. Smoke was
then seen oozing from crevices in the door of Mr. Bunting,
and the fireman jocosely said if he had a bucket of water he
would put out the fire wherever it was. The door was broken
in, and, though the place was full of smoke, the inspector
and the fireman at first searched it in vain for fire. While
they were so engaged the heated smoke seemed to break
into flame spontaneously, and the whole place was speedily
in a blaze. The fire spread first into the warehouses of
Messrs. Morley, and then into the premises above. By the
aid of the telegraph 13 engines, six of which were steam
fire-engines, including that of Mr. Hodges, "were brought
to the spot. There was an abundant supply of water, and
they played upon the burn ng mass both from Milk-street
and Wood-street. The current of air in Clement's-court and
Feathers-alley served to fan the flame, but by about 2 o'clock
the engines had obtained the mastery over the fire, though
it was not wholly quenched until some hours afterwards.
One after another the floors and parts of the burning roof
fell with a noise resembling a discharge of artillery, and
alarmed the whole neighbourhood. A great orowd col
lected about the spot and a strong body of police was pre-
sent to keep order. Fortunately, no lives were lost, though
the two women servants of Messrs. Grant had a narrow
escape. In the erection of this party wall between the office
of Mr. Bunting and the warehouse of Messrs. Morley, had
the mode of construction,been adopted which is now in-
sisted upon under the compulsion of an Act of Parliament,
the fire in all probability would have been confined to the
small room in which it originated, considering that there
was plenty of water readily available, that the lad Grant
had early discovered the existence of the fire by the smoke
before any mischief had been done, and that the premises
which were afterwards destroyed were detached from ad-
jacent property by Clement's-court. As it is, two out of
four of Messrs. Grant's warehouses, the shirt factory of
Messrs, Morley, and the warehouses of Messrs. Henry, Mr.
Gibson, and Mr, Bunting have been completely destroyed,
with all that they contained, and several of the adjacent
buildings scorched or otherwise injured. The principal
sufferers appear to bo the Messrs, Grant and Messrs. Morley,
the former of whom, directly and indirectly, gave constant
employment to a large number of people, who will now for
some time to come be thrown out of work.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT----NoitroLK, Dec. .18,
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)

His lordship arrived here yesterday afternoon from Cam-
bridge, and after attending Divine service at the Cathedral,
opened the commission for the county of Norfolk and for
the city of Norwich.
The calendar for the county, which is apparently urineu-
ally heavy for the time of year, contains the names of 22
prisoners, who are charged as follows :—One with shooting
with intent to kill, one with malicious shooting, one with
stabbing,six with burglary, one with rape, one with bigamy,
three with arson, four with robbing from the person with
violence, two with concealment of birth, one with receiving
stolen goods, and one with an unnatural offence. The city
calendar contains the names of two prisoners, charged with
forgery end robbery.
The learned Judge, in He charge to the grand jury for
the county, in remarking upon the numerous cases of arson
he had had to try upon what may now be called this
circuit, during the past fortnight, said,—l had occasion at
Cambridge to regret that I had acted upon a scale of
punishment with respect to the crime of arson ; had I known
the extent to which this crime exists in these counties I
most certainly should have inflicted much more severe sen-
tences. The class of cases I have met with is this :—Persons
who suppose they have some ground of complaint against
the relieving officer, or because their wages are not so high
as what they think they should be, or because they have
received some offence of a trifling kind, proceed to set fire
to stacks of grain without in the least considering who the
owner is, whether he has given them any offence, or
whether any one at all has injured them. It certainly
seems to me that if that offence continues there must be
severe examples made. In many counties in England,
especially in the eastern counties, the quantity of grain
which is stacked in the fields is enormous, and if persons
are allowed to set this grain on fire, really without cause,
but apparently from a feeling of general hatred to all raan-
kind, it is an offence which must be pnt down with severe
punishment. According to my experience, severe punish-
mimeo do put down crime. The Judges are in the habit of
sentencing persons to very severe punishments, but it'
offences of this kind are persevered in, severe punishments
must be resorted to, and, as I have said, in my experience
they are effectual for that purpose.
George Bone, aged 22, described in the calendar as a
groom, was charged with stealing from the parson of John
Fox a silver watch and key and Bs., at Stanfield, on the 26th
of October, 1861, with violence, and from the statement of
Mr. Drake, who was the counsel engaged for the prose-
cution, as well as from the evidence of one of the wit-
nesses named Parke, who was present at the transac-
tion and saw all that went on, it appeared that on the
day in question Fox, the prosecutor, a respectable look-
ing sort of tradesman, had been at a neighbouring village
called Brialey, staying in a publichouse in that place from
2 p.m. till 10 p.m., and while there the witness Parke (who
was a cripple, supported on a crutch) and the prisoner came
in, and after some little time spent in drinking and talking
they all three left together and took the road to Fox's home,
calling at two or three publichouses en the way. On
arriving at a spot where four cross-roads meet, it being
then about 11 at night, the moon shining brightly at the
time, the prisoner, without any provocation or warning,
suddenly struck the prosecutor so violent a blow with his
fist as to knock him down, and then proceeded to beat and
kick him, the prosecutor begging for mercy. Parke, who
stood a little distance off, and whether from unwillingness
or from inability or fear, owing to his weakness and lame-
ness, not attempting to help, heard the prisoner say, " Give
me some money and I will let you go," upon which the
prosecutor gave him what money he had, when the prisoner
allowed him to rise, and went away. The beaten man
shortly afterwards felt for his watch, and then discovered
that besides his money he was minus his silver watch,
which he had pulled out at the inn in the prisoner's pre-
sence, and which though like other watches, "made to go,"
was not meant by him to bo parted with at that time and
place, nor was anything more seen of it till some few days
afterwards, when the prisoner brought it to a publican in
the neighbourhood and offered it for sale. In the mean-
while Mr. Fox, the prosecutor, having told his story to a
policeman, a search was made at the Swan Inn, in Bris-
ley, where prisoner and Parke occupied beds in the same
room, and on one of the beds, which had been very recently
slept in, wes found a watch seal, identified by Fox, as one
that was attached to the watch on the day of the attack,
and shortly afterwards the watch and the prisoner were
toned. The prisoner, who was undefended by counsel, en-
deavoured to show, first, that the attack was provoked by
Fox challenging him to fight, is consequence of wkieh,
seeing that Fox was the bigger man, he thought it
wiser to kacck him down at once and then to kick him,
probably to prevent his getting up again ; secondly, that
if the watch were stolen somebody else did it, for he had
nothing to do with that pert of the matter ;
thirdly, that Mr. Fox was so drunk and knew so little what
lie was about that he gave him the money; arid, fourthly,
the 18th
t no reliance could be placed on anything Parke said.
anehheajeu''Y' however, came to a very different conclusion,
months, found him guilty, he was sentenced to 13
shooting at
Southacre,
Zi'lesisrnaprisonment with hard labour.
vTtal!oei aged 18, a labourer, was charged with
peas Eares, gamekeeper to Mr. Fountain at
of October, with intent to murder
Lim.

Mr. Metcalfe andaNeflern.
Zed no 91°
defended the
appripseoanreerd. for the prosecu-
e
tion
w bcta seen
aab thatQxt
7a so:col:a:1d:
man
Lnitterest in court, and from the
of the story,e°.nar" as told by the learned
jetrnvioilll:i;ghe;inev:ecoldaro.s.
feSteluhx,lheewoouutuldi:::
and brutal an assault
committed as can well be
ccuuoel for prosecution Wu,

the morning of the 18th Eares, who was under-keeper.to
Mr. Fountain, saw a man in a field, not belonging to his mas-
ter, pick up a brace of partridges whiah he had just shot•
On going up to him to take away the birds he asked hi

his name, when he gave him a name which turned out to be
a false one. He refused, however, to give up his gun, upon
which the prosecutor Eares turned his back to the prisoner,
who struck him instantly on the shoulder, causing him to
drop his gun (a double •barrelled one), and, after striking
him while on the ground several times, the prisoner caught
up the keeper's gun, put it to his shoulder, and tired it at
him, with such results as are best told by the prosecutor's
own words.

Thomas Eares, after detailing the accounts of his finding
tha prisoner running after a brace of partridges which he
had shot with a single-barrelled gun in his possession, and
getting from him the birds and a statement that he was one
of George Burton's sons, went on to tell the facts just
narrated, and said that when the prisoner put his gun to
his shoulder he took aim at him, being then about five
yards off, fired, and hit hint in the head. (The pro-
secutor, who was still suffering from the effects of the
wounds, appeared in Court with his head bound up in
a handkerchief.) It was light enough for the prosecutor to
see the person distinctly, so as to identify him, and leave no
doubt in his mind that prisoner was the man. After firing
the gun the prisoner took it away with him. So severe wore
the hurts that the prosecutor had great difficulty in walking
towards home, and as he was Making his way home he was
met by a man named Curtis, who tied up his head, put him
into his cart, and drove him to Mr. Fountain's head keeper.
Eares admitted on cross-examination that his gun might
have been cocked when it was knocked from his hands.
Two witnessed were then called,who deposed to having seen
the prisoner that morning, about 7 o'clock, running away
from the place where the attack was made, to one of whom
he said with a flurried manner, "Don't you say a word,"
and by this witness he was seen to be running and looking
back. A Mrs. Greenwood, who lived nearly opposite the
prisoner, spoke to hie having gone past her window about
the time in question, coming from the direction of the pace
above referred to, dressed in a dark slop and dark trousers,
and wearing a cap. Another witness, who had gone into a
public house in the neighbourhood about a quarter to 1 in
the afternoon of the day of the event—Sunday the 18th of
October, said he saw the prisoner there at that time. who
asked him whether he had beard the "rout out" that morn-
ing, and on his replying " No," the prisoner said he had
heard a keeper had been knocked about, and likewise a gun
taken from him, and if he (the witness) would go with him
he would show him where it was, for if they went and got it
they might sell it. A young man named Lake proved the dis-
covery of the gun, hid in a fence, bounding a piece of grass,
and near Westacre-road, which is close to the field where
the partridges were killed ; while the superintendent of po-
lice, Mr. Larnbey, who took the prisoner to the prosecutor's
house, by whom he was identified, having just previously
taken another man named Burton, under the supposition
that he was the criminal, but who was not identified by
Eares, was called to speak to a statement of the prisoner's,
in which he said that he went to bed between 11 and 12
on Saturday night, and did not get up till between seven
and 8 the next morning, when he went w ith his father and
brother up the Lynn-road. The surgeon's evidence was to
the effect that there was a wound on Eare's head about three
inches long and two wide, the scalp being torn off the bone,
which was laid bare; that the bone was fractured, and
marked by the passage of two or three shots, and that there
were wounds on the left shoulder as well. But of ail the
evidence the most remarkable was that of a man named
Crisp, who professed to have been actuated simply by the
wish to have justice done, and who, therefore, had told his
story to the policeman since the hearing by the magistrates.
He said, "I am a drover, and live about the country. On
the 18th October I saw the prisoner, who came to me about
a quarter. past nine, and put his arm round my neck, saying
I have got into a mess.' What sort of a mess,' said I. ' I
have been shooting some birds,' said he. Have got them r
I said. 'No, I gave them to the keeper, who asked me for
my gun, which I refused to part with, when I hit him
with it and broke it into pieces, and then took the keeper's
gun and shot him with it.' He then went on to say, '
have bid the gun, but I have it, and I think it will fetch us
two pounds.' Oh, lad, lad 1' said I, you won't have the
opportunity; you'll be took before the day is out; I won't
have anything to do with it for 20 sovereigns.' " It is
needless to say that this witness was seve:ely handled in
cross-examination by Mr. Bulwer, and that that cross-ex-
amination did not tend to raise him in the estimation of the
audience,

Mr. Bulwer, in his address to the jury, pressed two
points upon their attention--the first, which was not so im-
portant as the other, being whether the prisoner was the
man who committed the assault ; the second being that, it
this were so, was the gun fired with the intention of taking
life ? The first point, he said, was a question of identity,
resting on the testimony of Bares, the prosecutor, and
as to this the learned counsel urged that under the circum-
stances of the transaction and at the time specified it might
be fairly presumed that he would not take a very accurate
notice of the person attacking him. He reminded the jury
that them was a variance in the description given by the
witnesses of the prisoner's dress, and that though the pro-
secutor said the prisoner had gone away with the gune, none
of the witnesses saw him with one. As to the intention,
said Mr. Bulwer, all the facts show that the inference is
that the shot was entirely accidental, a view borne out by
the prosecutor's evidence. He begged the jut.), not to pay
the slightest attention to such a fellow as the man Crisp,
whose evidence was an afterthought, and given, not to the
magistrates, but privately to a policeman, and reminded
them of the terrible consequence to the prisoner of a verdict
of guilty of wounding with intent to murder.
His Lordehip began his summing up with explaining to
the jury the meening of the two counts on which the pri-
soner was indicted, end then, after remarking that though
the prisoner's counsel had properly enough said that Eares's
evidence, under the circumstances, was not such as to be
entirely relied on, yet it was evidence that they, the jury,
were to judge of, reminding them that he had said he was in
such an attitude that he could not see who the man was.
Hie lordship then went through the whole of the evidence
in detail, treating with scorn the testimony of Crisp, whose
conduct he desc-ibed as so ineffably base that it would be
better to try this case without it if possible; and that as it
was not given before the justices and taken down in the pri-
soner's presence (a mode of proceeding obviously valuable,
for otherwise prisoners cannot know who they are going to
meet, and what they may have to oppose), but privately to
a policeman, it had better be excluded. His lordship then
noticede on or two slightivariances of time and dress, reading
and commenting on that part of the evidence, drew particu-
lar attention to the account given by the prisoner to the
superintendent of police of how he had spent his time the
night before the affair, and with reference to the wounding
said—As to'this, there cannot be any doubt that a wound
was inflicted : the question then is, with what intent was it
done ? Now, if a man uses his own gun, which he knows to
be loaded, and deliberately aims and fires it, there is no doubt
about the intention; but if he picks up another man's gun,
not knowing whether it be loaded or not, and pulls the
trigger, it is for the jury to say how far they think there
was an intention to kill. To convict on the first count.
you must be satisfied that:the shot was fired with the intent
to murder—if not, you must then consider whether it was
done with the intent to do grievous bcdily harm—but if you
think the prisoner was the man, but that he did not intend
to murder or to do grievous bodily harm, then you must
convict him of unlawfully wounding.
After a few minutes' deliberation the jury found the pri-
soner guilty of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily
harm.

His lordship, in noticing the base and cowardly nature
of this attack, made upon a man who, an far from pzovoking
any violence, was going away from the prisoner, and that
for the mere offence of poaching where there was no vio-
lence the punishment was usually slight, but that it was
high time to put a stop to such acts of violence as this
by awarding heavy punishment. If the jury had found
the prisoner guilty of wounding with intent to murder, the
punishment would have been penal servitude for life ; as it
was, the sentenca would bo 15 years' penal servitude.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LIvEuOOOL, Dec. 19.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams and Special Juries.)
THOMAS V. PIM. _ .

This was an action to recover damages for false imprison-
ment of the plaintiff by giving him into custody upon a
charge of felony, and also for breaking open his boxes and
converting his goods. The pleas were a justification on the
ground that a felony had been committed, and that defen-
dant had reasonable ground to suspect the plaintiff of the
felony, and that the goods were concealed in his boxes.
There was also a demurrer to the pleas.
Mr. Brett, Q.C., and Mr. R. G. Williams were for the
plaintiff; and the Attorney-General, Mr. James, Q.C., and
Mr. Potter were for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was master of the bark Premier, and defen-
dant is ship's husband of the same vessel, and uncle to the
owner. The vessel had just arrived at Plymouth from Ha-
vannah, when defendant came on board and handed plaintiff
a letter from the owner discharging him from his post, al-
leging as reason that he had received money from the con-
signees without authority. Defendant then took possession
of the cabin and everything in it, ordering plaintiff to leave
the ship instantly, and not allowing him to take away his
clothes or any other property belonging him, The following
day plaintiff went on board and obtained his clothes and
other property, but his writing desk and a tin box were de-
tained on the allegation that they contained property be-
longing to the ship. lii the desk were plaintiff's certificate
from the Board of Trade of his competency for a foreign.
going ship, some £2O in money, and other property. The
next morning defendant went to the hot-4 where plaintiff
was staying, taking a policeman with him. lie told plaintiff
that the cabin had been broken open during the night, and
the desk and box containing the ship's papers stolen, and
that ho suspected plaintiff of having done. it. He then in-
sisted on searching his boxes for the missing articles. The
police officer refused to search unless plaintiff were given
in charge,whereupon defendant charged him with the felony.
Nothing was found upon the search, and plaintiff was then
taken to the police-office, where the charge was abandoned
'I he case fur the defendant was that the cabin window
had been broken open in the night and the things taken ;
and, as plaintiff was most interested in the possession of
them, there was reasonable ground for suspecting him. With
respect to the loss of the certificate, it was urged that he

was not thereby deprived of his living, as, under the Mer-
chant Shipping Act, it might if lost be renewed upon ap-
plication to the Board of Trade.
His Lordship commented upon the extraordinary cir-
cumstances of the case and the difficulty there was in sup-
posing a felony had actually been committed, and left it to
the jury to decide in the first place whether defendant had
made out that fact with reasonable certainty.