The Sun.
London, England, 1862-09-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESD A Y EVENIN(J, SEPTEMBER, 10, 1862.

said that he was not aware of his brother having a
pistol about him, and that if he had been aware of
it he should have taken it from him. I afterwards
went to the prisoner George's house, and in a box
in the front room upstairs I found a canister of
powder, a quantity of shot, and some percussion
caps. I found different sorts of shot, some of it is
dust shot, and bullets.
Mr. Ingham—Does any of them fit the pistol ?
Witness—Yes, sir.
A small band-pistol was held up, and the officer
tried it with a bullet, but it was too large.
Mr. Ingham looked at the shot and said there
were buck and snipe shot.

The officer tried-the buck shot with the pistol,
and found it could be charged with that description
of shot.

The officer next produced the wounded man's
waistcoat and held it up, and one side appeared to
be completely riddled with shot.
Mr. Ingham—How many holes are there in it ?
Witness—Ten, sir.
Mr. Ingham—And on the inside of the holes
there is a quantity of blood ?
Witness—Yes, sir.
Mr. Ingham—He must have been wounded with
buck shot, as the dust shot would have made in-
visible holes in the waistcoat.

The constable, in answer to further questions,
said he believed the female was the wife of the
prisoner Ed ward.
Mr. W. H. Kempster, surgeon, of Bri3ge-road,
Battersea, said—About half-past ten o'clock I was
sent for to go to Cook's house. I went and found
him lying or, a bed. There was a quantity of
blood over the right side. On lifting up his shirt
I found a spot about the s7ze of the palm of my
hand on the base of the right lung. There were ten
wounds about an inch and an inch and a half apart
from each other produced by some large kind of
shot fired at a distance "f between three and four
yards.
Mr. Ingham—Look at the buck shot ; would it
cause such wounds ?

Mr. Kempster—They could be produced by shot
of this kind. I examined the wounds, and could
not find any shot in the bottom of them. I could
not find any shot in the clothes, and it was evi-
dent that they were internally. The man is not
yet dead, but it is impossible to say what the con-
sequences may be. He is still in a very precarious
state.

This was all the evidence the police had to offer
that day, and Mr. Ingham inquired whether there
was any evidence at present of the motive, and he
was answered in the negative.
The prisoner George was asked if he wished to
make any statement, upon which he shook his
head, and said he had nothing to say.
The prisoner Edward then made a statement
to the effect that on Monday evening his brother's
two sons came to his house and stated their father
wished to see him as he was very poorly. He
and his wife went to his brother's house, and
when his brother saw him he caught hold of him,
and appeared quite delirious. He said that he
wanted him to accompany him to see Cook. He
accused Cook with having been intimate with his
wife on several occasions, and that his wife had left
him. He was going round to see Cook about his
wife, and he wanted him (the prisoner Edward) to go
with him to see fair play. He (the prisoner) advised
him not to go, but he would ; and he and his wife
went to the Prince of Wales. They went into the
bar-parlour, and had some ale, and his brother
took out two pictures, apparently likenesses, and
gave them to Mrs. Austin, the landlady. He
then confirmed the statement of the witnesses about
their waiting outside.
Mr. Ingham discharged the female, and said he
would have two securities in £5O elch for the ap-
pearance of the prisoner Edward. He remanded
the other prisoner for a week.

The prisoner EdWard was visibly affected, and
was removed with his brother.

COMMITTAL OF AN OFFICER OF THE

84TH FOR FORGERY.

The county magistrates have been engaged dm.- 1
ing the last few days at Hythe, Kent, in investi-
gating a charge of forgery brought against Ensign
Aldridge, of the 84th Regiment, stationed at Shorn-
cliffe Camp; and yesterday the prisoner was com-
mitted for trial at the next county assizes.
Ensign Aldridge belongs to a family resident at
Horsham, in Sussex (said to be highly connected),
and his arrest on the present charge has occasioned
much astonishment in the camp from the good cha-
racter he has hitherto borne and the knowledge
that his relatives have abundant means of main-
taining their station. Mr. Aldridge's father and a
great number of officers have been present during
the investigation; and Mr. Metcalfe (barrister) and
Mr. Walker (attorney) were brought from London
for the defence. The following is the evidence :
John Stanford—l am cashier of the National and
Provincial Bank at Folkestone. The e11eq.,,. m...,
preaueerl (for £l5. drawn Iv T. R. Mondani on Cox
and Co., payable to Mr. Thorpe) I saw on the sth
of Aug. last at the National and Provincial Bank,
Folkestone. ' I think it was in the morning. It
was presented by the prisoner at the bank to
me. I have no doubt but that the prisoner is
the person who presented it. He requested
cash for it, and I asked him if his name
was Thorpe. He said it was. I requested him to
put his name on the back of the cheque ; he did so,
and I gave him cash for it. The endorsement on
the back is that made by the prisoner. He came
in a fly—l think an open one, with a hood to it,
which was down. We forwarded the cheque on to
London, and several days afterwards it was re-
turned unpaid by Messrs. Cox, on whom it was
drawn, with a note referring to Mr, cgregors, agents
for the 78th Regiment, and by them it was re.
ferred to Downes and Son, the agents of Ensign
Meiklam. From information I received I believed
it was a forgery, and I then placed it in the hands
of the police. The first time I saw the prisoner
after he presented the cheque was at the Dover
races, about five days afterwards. I afterwards saw
him at the Folkestone station. On Thursday, the
28th ult., at the request of the superintendent of
police, I went on the next day (Friday) to the camp
at Shcrncliffe. I saw the prisoner there with
others, and I identified him as the person who pre-
sented the cheque on the 15th. He was in plain
ciothes when he presented the cheque, and when I
saw him at the came he was in pi: in clothes. I
have no recollection of seeing the prisoner previous
to his presenting the cheque.
Cross-examined—We had information that the
cheque was dishonoured on Tuesday, the 18th. be-
fore I saw the prisoner at I).)ver. I felt sure then
the prisoner was the person. I did not follow him
then because I did not know the facts. I know he
came from Shorneliffe Camp, and could be found
there. I pointed him out at the Dover station to
the manager of the bank.
Re-examined—At the time I met the prisoner at
Dover I did not know the cheque was a forgery.
I only knew it was dishonoured. I think it was
the 22d of August that I first ascertained it
was a forgery. The prisoner was about three
or four minutes in the bank when he cashed the
cheque, quite long enough for me to observe him.
No other customer was in the bank at the time the
prisoner was there. I noticed the prisoner's fea-
tures quite well while he was writing his name on
the cheque.
Frederick Philpott—l am a cab-driver at Sand-
gate. I know the prisoner perfectly well by sight.
He did not employ me on the 15th of August. I
did drive a gentleman to the bank at Folkestone on
that day, but this is not the gentleman. I drove
him to the station at Folkestone to meet the 11.35
up train. I did nottell the superintendent or Ser-
geant Smith that I drove Mr. Aldridge. All I said
was, " I should know the person I drove if I saw
him." I was asked by one of the constables if the
gentleman's name was Aldridge, and I said I did
not know. Mr. Day, the superintendent, and Ser-
geant Smith are the only persons who spoke to me
about this. I spoke to nobody in the camp about
the matter.
By Mr. Metcalfe--I drove straight to the bank
on the morning of the 15th. It was an open fly,
with a hood to it.
Re examined—l took up the gentleman I drove
at the cabstand, Sandgate. I should know the
Iddoiwdntaoknestuonwtdhhaeybank if I saw him. I have
seen him since.
whether it was more than
i hI theihaven l sia)emic.
ioerriseve.
crtmhv
ne:amtle once. The servant who
o
e ,ra
, ni
engaged.
,t 1
the
me t aib l
times
ee
7. inquiriesl meknion
o thev . Iwlsat
knew
n. notew
cannot say how long have known Mr. Aldridge.
mhiosynhaamvec. drivenl
aboutl iwii
it.
him.rn to theb3' bunksight.a'
did
dIo not
tt
I.lc n know
man
1
The person I drove to thew
bankanytillintgook to be an officer by his
appearance.
any
drawn
person
to m, ,
je; ,v
la and ir havet;Tll.
John Robert Meikharn—l am an ensign in the
78 t h Regle The signature on the cheque produced,
itt;i affair
n:I cannot
sap when I saw him,
or
e j- R. Meiklatn, 78th Ilii.;hiandcrs," is not my
accountltli‘i at COM'S. I saw the
ago. The superinten•
agents are
egrvgar and Co. ere the
days
Ic,.l,.,lialvderiegodna'
n%rn'
or
first
I:askinjtgetarhpboi
ot.rlai
IN Ittf'atset to
nu o;
..
iment. My
dent of police
Downes and Co., the agents of the 98th Regiment,
in which regiment I forn;erlz woe.
William Thorpe,
agents for thell.:1181t1-11 Reg
ensign in the 78th Regiment,
denied that the signature at the back of the cheque
George English—l am euperintendent in the
was in his handwriting or by
Kent Saturday, the 30th
county constabulary. On
ult., his authority.
of C •
I proceeded to the camp. At the sutegetion
and brought Mr. Stanford with me to the camp,

The prisoner was sent fo7 by the colonel. He came
into the colonel's quarter, and Mr. Stanford again
identified him. At the suggestion of the colonel
the prisoner wrote his (wn name, and afterwards
" W. Thorpe, Ensign, 'itth Regiment," on the piece
of paper now produced.
Mr. Metcalfe objected to the production of the
paper, but his objectionwas overruled.
Lieut.-Colonel Ligheoot, C. 8.—1 am colonel
commanding the 84th legiment. The prisoner is
in my regiment. On tie 15th of 4.ugust the pri-
soner was on the camp at Shornclifte at morning
parade. Parade was dsmissed at half-past eleven.
At nearly twelve o'cleci I saw prisoner descending
the hill in plain clothen He asked for leave to go
to Canterbury. I said o Certainly."
By Mr. Metcalfe—?.lost of the officers get into
plain clothes almost imnediately after parade. The
prisoner has been in th 3 regiment about 14 months.
During the time he has been under my command
he has borne a most unexceptionable character. I
must say that I never saw a more promising young
officer join the reginent. I do not know at
all of his being in debt in any way. I have
made inquiry, and I do not find that there is the
smallest debt. His flther is a man of property,
and he has most influential friends. In the regi-
ment he has connections quite able and willing to
assist him in every way that may be desirable. I
am aware that there is one gentleman in the regi-
inent—a first cousin, I think—who, when the pri-
soner first came into the regiment, told him if he
wished for money to apply to him immediately.
Mr. Aldridge's cousin is an officer remarkably well
off, and he may have said, "If you are bard up for
money at any time I will let you have it." It is
frequently done by officers to relatives. Ido not
think I have heard Mr. Montague say the prisoner
had ever taken advantage of his offer. (Several in-
quiries were then put to Co!. Lightfoot, as to the
paper signed by Ensign Aldridge in his presence,
with a view to elicit the order of the signatures,
and explanations respecting ink smudges and obli-
terations. This paper evidently strongly impressed
the minds of the magistrates.) Mr. Aldridge was
not an pfficer of expensive habits in any way what-
ever.

This being the case for the prosecution, Mr. Met-
calfe was called on to address the magistrates, but
declined, saying the identification by the cashier
being so positive the case must go to the jury, until
which time he would reserve the defence, only now
stating that they would be able to show that the
prisoner was the victim of a mistake.
The prisoner was then committed for trial at the
assizes, his father and Mr. C. S. Grace Dickens, a
Sussex county magistrate, becoming bail in £5OO
each.

of the defendant his client might have thought it
not worth taking notice of. He should prove to
their worships that the defendant admitted having
written the letter, but disclaimed its authorship,
and admitted the untruth of its contents, having
written it at the instigation of a female named
Murray. With regard to the law of the case, he
thought this was clearly shown in "Regina v.
Smith" (p. 882 Carrington and Kirwin's Reports),
where what was the menace sufficient so as to sup-
port an indictment was laid down by Chief Justice
Wilde to be as " whether, in the event of themoney
being refused, mischief would ensue." The threat
here was to communicate the false statements to
the prosecutor's mother and to his wife; and the
consequences of their being so communicated to his
wife might be distressing, and was in this case
most distressing. The defendant could not be exa-
mined, and Murray was not there; he would, there-
fore, be obliged to put the case hypothetically. If
their worships would suppose that after that letter
had been written the communication threatened
was actually made to prosecutor's wife, and she not
being very strong minded, was weak enough to go
to a common brothel for the purpose of being con-
vinced of the facts, and there, upon inquiring for
Phoebe Churchward, a voice answered inside, " Oh !
Phccebe Churchward! she had been gone this six
months; she is living with Captain Fox, at Lud-
low;" then Mrs. Fox to act upon such information
as this, to get rid of her husband's property, take
away his children, and institute a suit for the pur-
pose of obtaining a divorce. Ho thought that
would be a case of mischief ensuing on the threat,
and he would state that such were the actual facts
that had occurred. All that he had hypothetically
put had taken place. His client's wife was gone
from him; she was living away from him, and she
had intimated her resolution to take proceedings
against him in the Divorce Court.
Mr. Brian inquired if Mr. Kelly could prove
that these results had followed.

Mr. Kelly—Oh, no, I am obliged to put them as
hypothetical ; but still they are the facts.
Mr. Brian thought it was rather a sly way of
introducing them.
Mr. Kelly continued to say that this letter
having been written, such a case of mischief fol-
lowed. The prosecution to refute the statements
had taken this course. The defendant stated that
she only wrote the letter; it was dictated to her
by another person, the woman Murray, but they
had no other course to take than that which was
now taken. Captain Fox having been threatened
with steps for proceedings in the Divorce Court, in
which Murray was to be a witness, any attempt to
take anything like proceedings against her at pre-
sent might be construed into an attempt at intimi-
dating the AN itnesses, although what course he
might ultimately take would be quite another
matter. He proposed to call Julian, the policeman,
who went to the defendant's house, when she at
once admitted that she wrote the letter, and in
Hobart-street ; but stated that it was done by the
dictation of another party ; then to call Captain
Fox.

Mr. Brian said that if it would facilitate the pro-
ceedings his client would admit that the whole of
the letter was in her handwriting.
Mr. Kelly thought he would rather have it
proved in evidence. He then called
John Julian, who said—l am a detective officer
of the police of the borough of Plymouth, and re-
ceived this letter from Detective Inspector Thomas,
Which I now produce. I received the envelope and
these contents, the letter and another envelope in-
side it. The envelope inside is addressed " Miss B.
Churchward, 15, Hobart-place." I received, this
about a fortnight since. I went to 14 Hobart place,
Stonehouse, the same day, knocked at the door, and
asked if Mercy Churchward was in. I there found
Mercy Churchward, the defendant. I showed her
the letter. There was another person there in her
company, a girl of the name of Gun. I asked the
defendant if she knew anything about the letter and
envelope. She said " Yes, I wrote it in this room, on
the day it is dated. Mrs Murray was here and gave
me a quantity of gin, made me quite drunk, and
then told me what to write, and. that I was to have
£l5. She had given me half a sovereign. Mrs.
Murray directed the envelope and enclosed it." I
then left her and the girl Gun in the room. The
house is a brothel. I returned the letter to Inspector
Thomas. I know this one produced to be the same.

Cross-examined by Mr. Brian—l cannot recollect
if she said when she had the half sovereign. I think
there was something said about Devonport. I
remember something being said about Devonport,
and about being in a public-house, but I cannot say
whether she said that another letter then written
would have been sent, but she was too drunk. She
said Mrs. Murray directed the envelope that applied
to the enclosed one. On examining the envelupes,
I think the two were written by the same person.
She did not tell me that when she had written the
letter Murray took it away, nor did she sly that
she did not send the letter, nor anything about a
Mrs. Smith having posted the leiter.
Re-examined—She said she wrote the letter, and
Mrs. Murray the envelope.
Capt. Fox was then examined. He said—l am a
captain in the Royal Marine Light Infantry. In
August last, up to the 16th, I was residing at Lud-
low, in Shropshire. I was living there for about
eight months. I was recruiting there for her
Majesty'a service. My wife was residing at Mrs.
Smith's lodgings, 19, Durnford-street, Stonehouse.
I left my wife at Stonehouse. She went to reside
in Durnford-street from 51, Emma-place. I had a
house there of my own, which was given up at
Christmas. I received this letter by the postman
at Ludlow, and the envelope enclosed, on the 11th
of August. I did not reply to the letter. I left
Ludlow on the morning of the 16th of August, and
arrived at Stonehouse on the evening of the same
day. I did not find my wife at her lodgings in
Darnford-street. I went to the Marine Barracks
and slept there. Before I returned I had heard
from my wife's lawyer that she had gone away.
The statements in this letter I maintain are infa-
mous lies, not a particle of truth in them. The
whole are false.

Mr. Kelly inquired of the bench if he might be
allowed to ask Capt. Fox if he had an intimation of
a divorce suit.

Mr. Brian thought that question could not be
asked, and suggested that his cross• examination
would elicit several points in the evidence that
would assist Mr. Kelly.
. -The bench considered Mr. Kelly could not esk the
question he had suggested.
Capt. Fox was then cross-examined by Mr. Brian
dou'abelieve I ever exchanged a word with the
defendant. I know nothing whatever of her. I
don't remember ever speaking to her, and I am
quite positive I never did. (Mr. Brian said he was
instructed that his client never had spoken to Capt.
Fox.) I have not spoken to the defendant at any
time, never to my recollection, and I will swear that
I know nothing of any child by her sister. This
letter is an infamous and senseless fabrication. , It
is a most infamous lie to say that I had a sister of
hers living with me at Ludlow. I don't know a
Mrs. Murray keeping a lodging-house in Stone-
house. Mrs. Taylor, is my sister, and the wife of
the Rev. Mr. Taylor. r down
here the letter
here myself, and went to Mr. Kelly about it.
Mr. Brian said he-understood that was the case
on: Mr. Kelly's part. For himself, it would be
almost superfluous for him to say that the case
brought before their worships' notice was one of a
very important character. Although he might be
considered in a great measure to be in the dark,
and neither knew nor cared to know the whole of
the painful circumstances, yet in the present phase
of matters as submitted the inquiry was exceedingly
painful, and all present must feel a great deal of
commiseration and sympathy fur the Jarosecutor.
As far, however, as he could understand the case,
there were parties far more to be blamed than the
party summoned there that morning. The learned
gentleman on the other side was perfectly cognisant
that she was only victim of cat's-paw used in the
affair. The act accomplished, he must admit, was
of a most depraved and daring character. The com-
plainant had been seriously injured, measures had
been resorted to to stigmatise him to his family of
the most infamous and dangerous character, and
under •such circumstances no man would be safe,
and any household might be upset. As far, however,
as he could he would put before them the facts of
the case. The defendant was the daughter of a
person named Church ward, formerly an upholsterer
and broker. Unhappily for her she had become the
denizen of a brothel. A Mrs. Murray and a Mrs.
Smith chose to go to this unfortunate. They first
met her at Devonport. There they began, gave her
a half-sovereign to write a letter, which he held in
his hand, that was intended to be sent to Captain
Fox, but was afterwards not used, as they con-
sidered her in drink at the time. Then they
go to her again upon the day in question, Ply
her freely with gin, and offer her £l5, make her
sit down, and tell her it is a divorce case, dictate
to her all that infamous concoction, take it from
her, leave her in a state of drunkenness, and post
it. As to the £l5, she had not had any part of it.
The defendant was very sorry that she should have
been led into such an act, veryhad thus hurt, and
sorry for the gen-
tlenian whose feelings she
brought misery into his household. She instructed
him to say
that the whole of the statements in the
' letter from beginning to end, was a fabrication.
She knew nothing *of the prosecutor, beyond
his being an officer belonging to the Marines.
The whole of the letter was untrue, and she was
merely a tool in the hands of Mrs. Murray. Their
worships would thus see who were the guilty party
in the matter was—viz., Mrs. Murray ; and .now
that Mr. Kelly had obtained his real object in
bringing Captain Fox there, he hoped he would be
lenient tothedefendant. She was most willing to

sign any statutory declaration that he might draw
up in the way of acknowledging the falsehood of
the letter. With regp.rd to the case of Ite;Ona a.
Smith, hc really hoped that atter this exposition
there would be no mischief incurred.

Mr. Kelly considered it would not do for him to
make any bargain. The statements that had been
brought out to-day contained points which the pro-
secution really had not expected. There appeared
to be evidence of conspiracy. While very willing to
believe that the girl did write at the dictation of an-
other, he did not think anything like a compromise
could be named; but if the bench thought fit
the case might be adjourned, both himself and Capt.
Fox not wishing to press the case against defendant
for the present.
The Bench, after a short consideration, consented
to the case being adjourned, the defendant being
bound over in her own sureties for .£5O to appear
when called upon.

711 E FIRE AND LOSS OF LIFE A 7

LIVERPOOL.

An inquest was yesterday opened upon the
bodies of those killed during the disastrous fire at
the Liverpool Workhouse, on Monday morning.
Mr. Driffiekl, the coroner for the county, presided,
in the absence of Mr. Curry, the coroner for the
borough, and before the proceedings were formally
opened read over the list of killed, consisting of
two women and twenty children, from four to seven
years of age.
After the names of the deceased persons had been
read over, the jury proceeded from the coroner's
office in Dale-street to the workhouse on Brownlow-
hill, where they viewed the bodies. The children
generally were fearfully mangled, and in most in-
stances unrecognisable. On the return of the jury
to the coroner's court, Mr. Carr, the governor of the
workhouse, was called in evidence. On Sunday
night he was in the house, and nothing was re-
ported wrong up to a late hour. The inmates of
the' dormitories went to bed at eight o'clock, and no
one was allowed to be out of their dormitories after
half-past seven, unless on special duty. On Sun-
day evening he was in the immediate vicinity of
the place where the fire occurred several times, but
did not observe anything wrong. Was there as
late as a quarter-past eleven, and everything then
appeared safe. About two o'clock the next morn-
ing he was disturbed by the alarm of fire, and upon
rushing down stairs met one og the schoolmistresses;
who said there was a fire in the dormitories. He
proceeded to the dormitories (those of the children
adjoining the church), and saw dense volumes of
smoke proceeding from the building. He then or-
dered ladders to be brought, and for the water-hose
to be set in operation. There was no noise or
screams in the dormitories at this time. He made
an attempt to gain an entrance to the dormitory
through one of the windows, but the volume of
smoke was so great that he was forced back. An
attempt was made to save the children (whose re-
treat was cut off by the burning staircase) by the
hose being brought to bear upon this portion of
the building, but as the jets were increased the
force of the water became weaker, and it was
impossible to check the fire, which was now
rapidly increasing. An engine belonging to
the corporation arrived about three o'clock, and
the volume of water poured from it was neces-
sarily large, though totally insufficient to check
the fire, which had then a thorough hold on the
dormitory and church. The fire might have com-
menced under the stairs leading to the dormitories,
or in the schoolroom under the church. There was
gas on the staircase, andathe light was allowed to
remain on all night. The gas was not within the
reach of the children. He was unable to say posi-
tively how the fire could have arisen.
In cross-examination by the Deputy Town-clerk,
witness explained that the seat of the fire was in
the centre of the children's dormitory, and that
while the people of the southern side of the dormi-
tory had means of escape, those in the northern por-
tion were closed in by the fire. The supply of water
was ample, but the pressure was not sufficient. It
was his opinion that the children were suffocated
before the water was brought into play.
Thos. Clayton, night-soil inspector, in Liverpool,
was next examined—On Monday morning he was
emptying an ash pit in the workhouse, in company
with ten men. About half-past two in the morning,
he saw three little girls in the passage connected
with the dormitory. They were half-dressed, and
were crying, and said the chapel was on fire. He
passed the word of "fire," and then ran up into the
workhouse to the governor and helped him to get
the hose out. The fire was coming through one of
the windows of the chapel.
Wm. Muir, a police-officer, deposed to being on
duty on Sunday night at the workhouse, and to
having visited the children's dormitory and the
church about au hour before the fire broke out. He
again visited the place, and observed smoke issuing
from the windows of the church and the children's
dormitory, and he then turned back and passed the
alarm to the fire station. , After giving the alarm
he returned to the children's dormitory, and to-
gether with one of the night-soil men succeeded
in rescuing four children from their room. The
children were on the floor near to the door.
Witness ,endeavoured to go into the dormitory,
but the volume of smoke wes so great that had
he done so he would have been suffocated, and
he had to turn back. When the hose was screwed
on to the hydrants the water was first directed to
the children's dormitory ; but the pressure on the
water was very slight, and not much good was
effected until the engine came.
Morris Bower, superintendent at the workhouse,
stated that about two o'clock on Monday morning
he was awoke by a knocking, and upon making in-
quiries be found that the church was on fire, and
he proceeded to the governor's house and helped to
get out the hose. He took notice of the supply of
water, which seemed plentiful, and to have a good
pressure upon it when the hydrants were opened
first.
Bridget Goodge, a female pauper, was examined
chiefly as to the identification of her child, one of
the killed.
Mr. Carr, the governor, on being recalled, said
that there was a fireplace in one of the class-rooms
under the chapel, but so far as they could ascertain
the fife did not originate there. it had broken out
several fesat from this, at the foot of the staircase.
The keys the staircase-doers leading from the
chapel schools to the dormitory were kept by the
schoolmistress and by the warders, so as to be
available in case of accident. Originally the stair-
case-door leading to the chapel was left open, but
it had been closed and locket: at night since.
Mr. Curwood, the deputy taevn clerk, said that
the local authorities were most Anxious that the
fullest information as to the water arrangements
and supply should be given, and with this view the
inquiry was adjourned until Tuesday next.