The Sun.
London, England, 1862-09-03 00:00:00

ASSIZE IN7ELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, Sept. 2.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes and a Special Jury.)
BRUCE V. JONES.
Mr. Brett, Q.C., and Mr. Quain appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Milward (Mr. E. James, Q.C., with
him), for the defendant.
The plaintiff, William Wallace Bruce, was the
owner of the ship Hero, which foundered at sea,
and the defendant, William Henry Jones, was a
member of the firm of Messrs. W. H. Jones and
Co., insurance agents, of London. The action was
brought to recover £2,400 on the policy of insu-
rance. The defendant pleaded a denial of the loss
of the vessel ; that the voyage was abandoned ; and
also that there was delay, concealment, and misre-
presentation on the part of the plaintiff; that the
ship was unseaworthy; and that a number of other
insurances were effected with other underwriters,
and. that under those policies the plaintiff had re-
ceived the full value of the vessel.
Mr. Brett, in opening the case, said that it raised
the question as to what was the proper mode of in-
suring ships. The jury would also have to consider
whether the mode of insuring the Hero, both as to
amount and disclosure, was fair; whether there
was an inexcusable delay in starting the ship from
Cardiff ; and lastly, what was the proper mode of
valuing ships for the purpose of insurance. The
Hero was classed red A 1 in 1857, and he should
show that she was an extraordinary ship, having
been lengthened. It was contended that this had
weakened her. She had been used in the China
trade, and Mr. Bruce bought her for £2,000 in
1859 to continue in that trade. He then expended
nearly £BOO on her ; and, in order to get her to
China, entered, in June, 1860, into a charter party
to take out a cargo of coal from Cardiff to Manilla.
On the 11th of June he insured her with the
Bristol underwriters for £5OO, valuing the ship
at £3,000. When loading at Cardiff she was over-
looked, and as some bolts had started and other
defects were observed, she was again put into a
graving dock and strengthened at an expense of£4oo.
She was then surveyed and reported seaworthy,
and in July, 1860, she sailed with 500 tons of coal.
Before the last repairs Mr. Bruce had insured her
at Aberdeen for £725, valuing her at £3,000. On
the 2d of August he insured the ship for the voyage
for £2,400. The moment she left Cardiff, however,
her misfortunes began. She was about as unlucky
a ship as ever sailed. She encountered bad weather,
which continued for some time, and was obliged to
put into Cadiz in distress. Mr. Bruce went to
Cadiz, and, rather than incur the ruinous expense
of repairing the ship there, was advised by Mr.
Brackenbury one of Lloyd's agents, to send her to
Gibraltar, to sell the coals there, and then send
her back with ballast to England and have her
again repaired. The plaintiff sent a telegram to
Mr. Jones apprizing him of what was going to be
done, and an answer was returned to the effect that
Messrs. Jones and Palmer sanctioned the proposal.
The coals were, therefore, sold according to this
alleged agreement, and also with the consent of an
agent of the charterer, who was at Gibraltar at the
time. The ship was again overlooked, and then
sent to Cardiff with ballast. There the crew, all but
the captain, was discharged, and the vessel was sur-
veyed by Mr. Edwards and other gentlemen, who
said that before she could proceed to sea she must
be stripped and be re-sheathed; and it was esti-
mated that the expense of repairing her would be
£2,470. The plaintiff subsequently told Mr. Jones
that the charter-party to Manilla would be finally
cancelled. On receiving the estimate for the last
repairs, the plaintiff told the defendant that, as the
repairing was likely to be a long job, they had bet-
ter adjust the matter on the basis of the estimate.
Mr. Jones did not object to that at once, and said he
would take time to consider. After a time, how-
ever, Mr. Jones said he was not liable for the losses
on the ground that she was unseaworthy when she
left Cardiff. Finally the plaintiff brought an action
for losses. Knowing, however, that the ship was
ultimately going to Manilla, and in order to make
himself perfectly right with regard to the future,
he went to the defendant and got him to endorse
on the policy the following agreement:—" It is
hereby agreed that the return of the ship Hero,
hereby insured from Cadiz to Cardiff, via Gibraltar,
shall not be considered as a deviation from
or vitiate this policy, such return having been
made with the consent of the underwriters." It was,
therefore, clear to Mr. Jones that the ship was to
sail to Manilla, but with a new charter-party. This
was the state of things in February, but in April a
most important conversation took place between the
Plaintiff and the defendant. The effect of it was
that Mr. Jones asked the plaintiff if the ship was
going to Manilla. Mr. Bruce said not until the pre-
vious dispute between them was settled. He told
Mr. Jones that if he had any objection to continue
the risk he could reinsure or cancel the policy if he
(Mr. Jones) would pay the extra premium. Mr.
Jones said there was not likely to be any extra pre-
mium on account of the largeness of the repairs. Mr.
Jones then asked if the ship was going to Manilla.
Mr. Bruce replied "If she was going elsewhere, how
would you treat this policy ?" Mr. Jones then asked
Mr. Bruce if he would reinsure, and he said he
would inquire of the brokers. He did inquire, but
could get no quotation. That was communicated to
Mr. Jones, and Mr. Jones was asked if he would
cancel the policy and return the premium, and he
said, " No •, I consider her a better risk than she was
before." It was therefore clear that Mr. Jones un-
derstood that the risk was on. On the sth of June,
1861, a Mr. Bailey made an award, but awarded a
very small sum for the losses that had happened to
the ship. On the refusal to cancel the policy Mr.
Bruce purchased a cargo of coals, and the ship sailed
from Cardiff on the 3d of July for Manilla. What
Mr. Bruce had now spent upon the ship had im-
mensely increased her expenses, and he therefore
effected an insurance in London on the voyage for
£3,000, valuing the ship at £5,000. Now, that ship
had cost him more than £5,000. The ship had no
sooner left Cardiff than she again encountered bad
[ weather, and she was obliged to put into Milford in
distress. She again went on to Manilla, but again
met with hard weather, and on the 26th of August
she foundered at sea and went to the bottom. In
October the plaintiff made a claim on the defendant
for the total loss of the ship, and a correspondence
took place, in the course of which the defendant
requested information of the total amount insured
on the freight and cargo. He also said that the
mate had come to the defendant, stating
captain had "scuttled" the ship, but
would not say anything about it if he (the
was paid £ll4 for some boots which he had
thatthat he would
mate)
taken out as a part of the cargo. The defendant
said he must consult the underwriters in London as
to the course
to be pursued. The defence now
made was, net that the ship was scuttled, but that
-
did not disclose, when he ade the
policy, that he had i
Mr. Bruce d already nsured the ship over
her value, and that
the plaintiff had been paid the
full value by the linderwriters. He (the learned
counsel) understood that the defence would be that
the ship ought to have been insured at the market
value of shipping of
her tonnage and class at the
made, and which in this
time the insurance was
instance would have been about £2,800. That
principle, however, he contended,
depended on
cause the market value of shipping h
was absurd, be-
ad recovered
the demand.S •
ff
the whole of th
Supposing the plaint'
Would then have
lost by the ay of consideration what
he ins.urance, he .
, leaving out
he would havedestination. gained had she arrived
The facts stated b then deposed
to by the
of
y Mr. Brett were safely at her
captain of the hero,
Mr. by Captain Young,
Mr. Milward contended, that the
questions for the jury Nye , for the defence, there
was any misstatement orre—firstly, whether
0_
the part of the plaintiff bmaterial concealment u
induced the defendant to eny: the late
h.ich he might have
proceederamto this risk. The
learned counsel then
was. The next question
the voyage
was, „m t) show that there
for which the ship was insured weatshZandoned, the
returned
liability of the underwriters ending
with such
abandonment.
The defendant was then called, and Mr. Milward
and Mr. Brett having replied,
His Lordship summed up, and the jury
a verdictlor the plaintiff for £3 16s.
Mr. Justice Mellor and a special jury have been
engaged the entire day in the hearing of Denton
v. Milligan and Others," which was tried at the
w
Spring Assizes last year, when a verdict was given
for the plaintiff. A new trial was subsequently
ordered by the Queen's Bench. There is no pros-
pect of its being brought to a close to-day.

The Salut Public has the fella-% ing :—" M.
Mires has just purchased some ground at Douai, and intends
building a house there.'

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Sept. 2.

(Before 11r. Sergeant Gaselee.)

THE ROBBERY OF BOOKS FROM THE BRITISH
MUSEUM.—Eugene Plumber Macarthy, 44, a man
of gentlemanly exterior, described in the calendar
as " formerly a soldier," with a superior education,
was indicated for stealing six printed books, the
property of the Trustees of the British Museum.
Mr. Sergeant Parry (specially retained) and Mr.
Poland (instructed by Messrs. Bray and Co., of
Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury) appeared for the•
prosecution ; Mr. Ribton (instructed by Mr. Morris,
of Beaufort-buildings, Strand) defended the prisoner.
This was a case of a somewhat extraordinary cha-
racter; and the facts, as detailed by the learned
counsel who conducted the prosecution, appeared to
be as follow :—A short time ago the prisoner was
tried at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of
bigamy, there being two indictments against him.
He pleaded guilty to one of them, and there was no
evidence offered in support of the other, and only a
short term of imprisonment was passed upon him. 1
At the termination of his sentence he was appre-
hended on the present charge, taken before a ma-
gistrate, and committed for trial. The charge
against the prisoner was for stealing six books from
the British Museum about five. years ago, he then
having the privilege of admission as a reader to the
reading-room, but in consequence of the books being
so numerous and valuable, and so many persons ad-
mitted to read them, there was great difficulty in
preventing theft, even with all the care that was
used. It seemed the prisoner obtained tickets of
admission to the building upon the recommendation
of Mr. W. H. Gordon, of Princes-street, Cavendish-
square, on the 22d of July, 1857, upon which day
he attended and signed the book required to be
signed by readers on their first admission. In the
letter of recommendation he was stated to be a
member of the Irish bar, and that he was desirous
of prosecuting some researches into Irish history,
connected with his name and family, having for
some years ceased to practise at the bar, and that
in the interval he had been residing at Toulouse,
with Vicomte de Macarthy, his father, and that his
stay in England would not be protracted. He came
frequently to the reading-room and had the use of
a great number of books and MSS., and it would
seem that on the very day after his first ad-
mission, a book which he had entitled " Chris-

tian Instruction," was missing from the library.
On the 2d of June, 1858, he was expelled from
the library for writing on a manuscript, but
on his representing to Mr. Panizzi that he
merely corrected an error, and believed that
he was rendering a service to:future readers, he was
readmitted to the reading-room in the following
month of July. The prisoner represented that he
was collecting materials for biographies of his coun-
trymen engaged in foreign services, and that some
of them had appeared in the Dublin University
Magazine, and it was imp3rtant to a certain degree,
as five or six of the books which the prisoner was
charged with stealing bore upon Irish history and
titles of honour. Three of the books were kept on
shelves in the reading-room, from which readers
were allowed to help themselves, and they were
missed in 1858. The other three required a ticket
to be filled up with the title and reference to the
Museum Catalogue, but it was suppoaed some fraud
had been perpetrated in respect of the tickets for
these books, so that they should not be produced
against him. Since the prisoner was committed by
the magistrate access had been obtained to his
papers, and amongst them had been found a ticket
upon which he obtained one of the books ; but two
other tickets were not forthcoming. At the August
sessions of the Central Criminal Court the prisoner
was indicted for bigamy, in having married Miss
O'Bryen in 1844, his former wife being then alive.
There was also a second indictment for marrying a
third wife, the other two being alive, and while he
was on bail on these charges he wrote to Mr. Miller,
the solicitor who was acting for Miss O'Bryen, a
letter, requesting that some books which were in
Miss O'Bryen's possession and belonged to him
might be returned to him. When Miss O'Bryen
discovered that she was not his lawful wife, she
ceased to Live with him, and the books and papers
were kept in a bag ready to be delivered to the pri-
soner whenever he should apply for them. Upon
the receipt of this letter an examination of the books
and papers was made by Mr. O'Bryen, the brother
of Miss O'Bryen. On August 19 Dr. O'Bryen, her
brother, being at the house in Westbourne-place,
observed on the table two books, the subject of these
proceedings, which he immediately supposed to be-
long to some public library, and on a little further
examination he was led to think that they belonged
to the British Museum. On the same day he took
these books to the British Museum, and having
shown them to Mr. Rye, the assistant keeper of
the printed books, he at once identified them as be-
longing to the Museum Library. Mr. Rye, on the
same day, went to Westbourne-place and made a
further examination, when other books belonging
to the British Museum were found and identified.
No doubt being entertained that the prisoner had
become unlawfully possessed of the books in ques-
tion, it was determined to institute a prosecution
against him on behalf of the Trustees of the British
Museum, and he was arrested and charged with the
theft, and after being remanded, Mr. Henry com-
mitted him for trial.

Several witnesses having been called to substan-
tiate these facts,
Mr. Ribton rose to address the jury for the pri-
soner, and said the first thing which would be for
their consideration was, did the books in question
belong to the British Museum, and if so were they
removed by the prisoner ? If they were satisfied of
that, the next and most important question they
would have to consider was, were they taken away
by him with an intention of stealing them ? That
was a very important question to consider, for in
point of law the mere taking of an article away
was not stealing, unless at the time of taking it
there was an intention of stealing it, and to deprive
the owner of it altogether. The mere act of ap-
plying the article to his own use was not sufficient,
and unless they were satisfied that there was an
animus furundi they could not find the prisoner
guilty of stealing. Having paid attention to the
facts of the case, he would ask the jury whether
they could safely and conscientiously say, suppos-
ing Mr_ Macarthy took these books from the British
Museum, that he intended to steal them, by per-
manently depriving the trustees of the British Mu-
seum of them, and appropriating them to his own
use. There was every presumption that the prisoner
intended to return the books, for he attended the Bri-
tish Museum for a legitimate and honourable pur-
pose, for he had written an article called the
" O'Byrnes of 'Wicklow," inserted in the Dublin Uni-
versity Magazine, and sometimes wrote for newspa-
pers and periodicals. He had no intention of felony,
for when he took them he did so that he might care-
fully peruse them, and though it might be a breach of
the regulations of the Museum to take books away,
that was a very different thing from stealing them.
Having censured the conduct of the O'Bryens in
importing matters which had nothing to do with
the case, he said if the jury had a doubt in the case,
the prisoner was entitl3d to an acquittal at their
hands, and he trusted the benefit would be cheer-
fully accorded to him.

Mr. Sergeant Gaselee very carefully summed up
the evidence.

The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, re-
turned a verdict of guilty of stealing.
Mr. Sergeant Gaselee said it was painful to see
a person in the position in life of the prisoner
charged with such an offence, as from his education
he ought to have set an example, and was not ex-
posed to the same temptations as those they were
in the habit of punishing every dny. He could
well understand that the prisoner felt his position,
painfully. bat the Court had a public duty to per-
form, and to show that the administration of the
law was equal to high and low, rich and poor, and
as the position in society of the prisoner made his
offance the more heinous, it would be his duty to
pass a severe sentence.

Prisoner—Ob, my lord, I pray you to temper
justice with mercy.
Mr. Sergeant Gaselee said that was the feeling
of the whole bench, but having given the case the
fullest consideration they had come to a conclusion
upon it, and the sentence of the Court was that he
be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for 18
months.
Prisoner—l did not expect so severe a sentence
as that.

The prisoner was then removed to the cell.
,l 3
ae f orreep
oMi
ari.
v 1:
-al yoonhe
i.
o) g
woman, was
indicted Morgan(
to
deprivea child of ten years
indicted for feloniouslyyaandGoff,unlawfully leading and
the guardians
was placed
intent thereby thereby
, a
dat she lived at
ot taking kaignag,
with away
of such a child of its possession.
The child, an intelliigent little girl,
on a seat in the court, and she said that she
p ner came to her and ask d
long
on Saturday
would()
4wse,eDk Drury-lane,
Earl-street,
Leicester-her to make her some papers for flowers. She e
made
her some, and then said that as she had been so square, when the riso
she shoald catch it. She told her she
and that if she went with her she would give not,h
her
some nice silk frocks, and she was induced to
with her. She went to beer-shops to sell go
lavender,
and
• they slept at night at lodging-houses. She
picked u
containing £2 and a
ings 1,0 p a purse contai lot of shil-
spend, IP) which the prisoner gave Ler a shilling to
and as she at dinner time sue asked for the change,
and on ;o'p...had not got it she beat her. She cried,
them thaa_People getting round them, she told
man Was sent for woman was not her mother. A police-
. Robert for and the woman went with him.
finding the Doughty, police-con t ble 87 if, proved
at
childs a
a beer-shop in Luke-street,