The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-27 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 27, 1853.

TFTF4 HARBINGER, for PORT PHILIP and
SYDNEY.

The Directors of the General Screw Steam Shipping Company
hereby give notice, to passengers and shippers by the HARBINGER,
that she will SAIL from Southampton, for Port Philip and Sydney,
onl WEDNESDAY, the sth of October next. -Cargo must be for-
warded to Southampton not later than the Ist of the month; specie
and parcels will be received up to the 4th.
For freight and passage apply at the Company's Offices, 1, Ade-
laide-place, London-bridge.

—The Harbinger, on her last voyage, reached Port Philip In
691c1a) s from England.

NEW ZEALAND.—FREDK. YOUNG and
LINE.—To follow the NORTHFLEET, and Sail the 10th
October, embarking passengers at Gravesend, for OCTAGO, WEL-
LivGTON, and NELSON, the fine, well-known, A 1 passenger-
ship DUKE Or PORTLAND, 533 tolls register, 800 tons burden,
d. Alexander, Commander The superior qualities and commodious
accommodation of this ship have rendered her a favourite in the
Ndw Zealand trade. Will load in the East India Docks. For freight,
paksage, or further information, apply to Fredk. Young and Co., at
their New Zealand Colonist Rooms, 9, Adelphi-terrace, Strand, or
74; Cornhill. . •

impoRTANT TO HOUSEWIVES.
NO MORE DRESSES, &C., DESTROYED IN THE WASHING.
OREWS'S RINSING LIQUID Restores
Ili.] them to their Original Freshness, Fixing the Colours in all
kinds of Fabrics—simple In its applicationand very inexpensive
TWENTY DROPS sufficient for ONE GALLON of n ater.

Sold by all Chemists and Oilmen, at 9d. per bottle,
tents—Drew, Heyward, mid Barron, Bush-lane, Cannon-street.
Manufactured at Commercial Wharf, Mlle-end, London.

NICOLL'S AUTUMNAL PATTERNS are
NOW READY.

EXCELLENCE and ECONONIY combined, as illustrated by the
w 11. known Patent PALETOT, at Two Guineas.
n England, France, or Germany, the best talent, workmanship,
arid materials are secured by H. J. and D. NICOLL, 114, 116, 118,
120, llegent-street, and 22, Cornbill, London.

CANCER CURED.—Cancer, white swelling,
enlarced stiff and contracted joints, rheumatism, tic dolou-
reimx, lumbago, fistula, piles, corns, spin,tl complaints, and neuralgic
pains, are CURED by It AJOWS SIN OVITIC LOTION, as modified
by Dr. BATCHELOUIt, M.R.C.S.E., M.L.A.C. Dr. Batchelour
may be consulted at 12, Finsbury. place, South, City, daily, till 3;
add at Mr. Watt's, druggists, 17, Strand, every Tuesday and Friday,
from halt-past 3 ti,l 5. The lotion is sold in bottles, at lls. and 225.
each, at 12, Finsbury-place, south, and 17, Strand.

THE GENERAL LIFE AND FIRE
ASSURANCE COMPANY.

Established 1837.
Empowered by Special Acts of Parliament
62, King William•street, London.
Capital,One Million.

DIRECTORS.
The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, M.P.
George Bousfleid, Esq. I Thomas Piper, Esq.
Jacob Geo. Cope, Esq. Thomas Piper, jun., Esq.
John Dixon, Esq. Thomas R. Simpson, Esq.
Chas. Hindley, Esq., M.P. The Might Hon. Chas. P. Villiers,
John T Fletcher, Esq. M.P.
illiam Hunter, Esq., Alderman. John Wilke, Esq.
James Pilkington. ESQ., M.P. Edward Wilson, Esq.
' The MICHAELMAS Fire Renewal Receipts are now ready, and
nay be bad on application at the Head-offices of the Company, or
of any of its agents throughout the country.
In the LIFE DEPARTMENT FOUR-FIFTHS of the PROFITS
divisible by the Company's Deed of Settlement, allowed to Assurers;
and the Company transacts ell business relating to Life Assurances,
Deferred Annuities, and Family _Endowments. on the most liberal
terms consistent with sound principles and public security.
No charge for Stamps is made on Life Policies issued by the Com-
pany.

LOANS granted on personal security, and the deposit of a Life
P,,licy to be effected by the borrower.
To all Agents, Solicitors, Auctioneers, and Surveyors, a liberal
liowance is made.

By order of the Directors
THOMAS PRICE, Secretary.

UNITED KINGDOM LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY,

Established by Act of Parliament in 1834.
No. 8, Waterloo Place, Pall Mall, London. '
The distinctive Matures of the Company embrace, amongst
9thers :
Tables of Premiums formed on the lowest scale compatible with
security, and constructed to meet the various wants of assurers,
'end every risk to which protection by assurance can be extended.
One-half the Life Premium for the first Five years may remain on
credit.

Loans granted on approved Personal Security.
I Assured not restricted in their limits of travel, as in most other
Companies, but may proceed :rom one part of Europe to another in
decked vessels, without License, and to British North America, and
many parts of the. United Stases, without extra premium, by merely
giving the ordinary notice to the Office in London of the intended
visit.

' Whole-world Policies granted at slightly increased rates of
Premium, thus rendering a Policy in money transactions a real
security. . .

Prospectuses, and every information, may be obtained upon appli-
cation to the Resident Director.

TEE LATE .FATAL ACCIDENT IN THE
ST ie A ND.-ADJOURNED INQUEST.

The following additional evidence was given yesterday
after we went to press.

Continuation of Mr. Abraham's evidence :

To a juror—When he told Thompson he considered
the parlour was dangerous, there were two persons pre-
sent. Rowe had orders from witness to ascertain the
strata, and they then agreed that a depth-- of 10 feet
should be excavated over the general surface of the site.
Of course that would not be proceeded with if Rowe
found he was going too low. The workmen excavated
to that depth, though at some distance away they went
below the 10 feet. When he left, the 10 feet had been
arrived at. They could not have proceeded any further
with safety for want of bricks. Rowe asked him, before
he left, to allow him to go on with the underpinning
immediately, using the old bricks which were exceedingly
hard and sound, perhaps as good and sound as any new
bricks that could be got. Witness examined the bricks
,with Rowe, and pointed out however good they might
be, they were of different sizes, and as the specification
=interdicted old materials they could not be used. It was
not to effect any saving Rowe made the proposition, but
,to enable him to go on at once. Saw no danger, and
if the accident bad occurred later he would have been
under it superintending the underpinning. So confident
was poor Rowe of the safety of this part of the wall that
he built his counting-house against it, where he was to
'have been. Witness would not have slept in the par-
lour. The distance from the top of the shoring to the
top of the house, or the top of the coping was 16 feet 6
inches. It would be dangerous to have the shoring
higher. They were sufficiently high above the centre of
gravity to make everything perfectly safe.
To a juror—The house No. 4, Arundel-street was
about 22 feet from the nearest part of Thompson's house,
but from the back wall of Thompson's house the distance
was 42 feet. The excavation was about two feet or two
feet six inches below the footings of the house in Arun-
del-street. There was a difference of about two feet in
the street at the back of Thompson's house, and they
had intended to carry the house towards Arundel-street
about two feet lower down. When men were Occupied
they did not wish to stop, especially when they were in
a vein that would pay them. Could not say they had
studied to keep a level flooring, but they certainly did
not do it. They went two feet below the specification,
but that was with his sanction, and was caused by get-
ting through the rubbish. Saw no excavation below
the footing of the wall when he left. In some instances
the footings were something below the ten feet. They
were not diggings below the footings. The footings
were only seen at one place, and at each end they were
not seen, but Rowe felt with a shovel for them.
To another juror—lf he had covered the whole build-
ing with raking shores alone, it would not have kept it
up. Needles could not have been used there. If he had
said " below the footings," he said what he did not
mean to say ; he spoke of "the level of the footings."
To the Coroner—His impressions were formed from
the first, and had not changed, but should be sorry to
lead the jury to believe they were true and correct. He
believed the excavators had undermined, but he had not
seen them do so. Could assign no other cause but that.
One circumstance should be mentioned, it was a fact he
had seen. This house was a very narrow house, the
bearings were very short ; they were only about twelve
feet six inches clear of the wall, and the ceilings were
flush. Originally, as it appeared, there had been girders
running from the partition across the house to the cen-
tre pier, and in order to make a flush ceiling some time
or other the persons occupying the house had cut holes
along the party wall at one end which was not seen, to
erect joists separating the boards of the wall, and leaving
the wall very unequally supported at those points. This
had been done inside the house, and covered up, and no
human eye could detect it. There was nothing exter-
nally to show such an incision had been made. Did
not say that was the cause. There must have been a
proximate cause, and to state the proximate cause he
must have something further before him to enable him
to do so. The wall was riddled with chases, which
weakened it.
To a juror—Saw no trench along the main wall of the
the house when he left the ground at a quarter before
four o'clock on the day before the accident.
To Mr. Bodkin—The workmen were to obey his di-
rections, and he could dismiss them according to the
contract. The interest of Messrs. Lucas was to do, as
they.wba
taelvwearyesx
tdriad ,w
oervke ryt
btehyi rg
had
din t
tot hdeo
wouldmost
be p liberal wa
y.
Whatever dfoa
ry.
;
if they
beeyhean paidoddonef more oit.re than was provided for they would
have
To Mr. Hawkins—Was employed by Messrs Smith.
Acted as clerk of the works. It was his duty to see that
the work was properly and safely done, but had received
no appointment to the office, nor emolument from it if
he did not fill it. Did not think it would be necessary
at that period to have a clerk of the works. There must
be some person to see the work was properly done, and
Rowe was there for the purpose. If the builder's fore-
man was not doing his duty witness should write to his
master. Had no authority to order Mr. Lucas's work-
men ; they could only take their orders from Rowe.
Could not say positively that he had seen the Messrs.
Lucas on the premises during the work. Could not say
he had seen them on the premises before the accident.
Particularly noticed the state of the ground on the day
before the accident. At one part could see eight or
nine feet of the footings ; at the north corner of the wall
the footings were exposed, but could not say they were
exposed at the south end. There was a place in the
middle where he could see them. They had not dug be-
low, but at the level of the footings, when he saw it some
time before. Could not speak when he last saw it with
accuracy, but thought the levels had not been altered.
When he last saw the works there were no excavators
at work. Never deemed the wall was unsafe, but told
Thompson he would not guarantee it because there was
always a risk in repairing an old party wall. Therefore
ihe thought it safer that Thompson should leave- the
house and have a new wall erected, for which the Messrs.
Smith would pay. Mr. Bush was named as Thomp-

son's surveyor, but was never placed in communication
with witness -respecting the safety of the wall.
A paper was forwarded at this stage of the proceed-
ings from a juror to counsel, and the attention of the
coroner having been called to the circumstance by coun-
sel returning the paper unopened,
The Coroner requested that such a proceeding should
not be repeated. The jury ;were assembled there as
judges to inquire into the cause of the death of those
unfortunate people, and they /should not act as the par-
tisans of any parties that were interested.
Cross-examination resume4--Had already said it

would be irrational to needle the wall. Internal shores
in this case would have been worse than useless.
Thought it better to stop any further excavations until
the underpinning had commenced. Thought it would
be unwise, for when an order was given to them they
did not know where they would stop. Had no con-
versation on the Wednesday with Thompson respecting
thp party wall. Poor Thompson would not believe that
anything was unsafe:

To M. Ballautiue—Had been about thirty years in
very active practice, and had some of the most onerous
works in the metropolis under his direction. Was re-
sponsible for all the shoring in Victoria-street, West-
minster. In his opinion tLe shores were of the proper
height. Considering the nature of the wall, it would
have been hazardous to put them higher. Though the
five long shores were amply sufficient. Do not know,
if he had done the shoring himself, that he would have
put more than
.four. The jack shores were thoroughly
secured, and quite enough them ; although the foot-
ing was seen at two places there Was no undermining.
The wall was not perilled by that exposure. Was
speaking of the state of the place when he; -left
at a quarter to four o'clock au Wednesday. It was
understood by Rowe that :no 4excavatian should take
place until witness again saw the buildings. Was
not deterred by Messrs. Lucas from giving any
further orders, and thought Rowe a most judi-
cious person. He was a person that might be left
to himself with confidence, being capable of forming a
sound judgment and carrying out witness's views.
Very seldom an architect attended a building more than
once a week ; but there being no clerk of the works
witness thought it to be his duty to attend there fre-
quently. On the Wednesday before he left he directed
the ground to be plumbed down. Left Shrimplin
plumbing it, and it was perfectly secure. Was informed
that it was an inch out of the perpendicular. Three
inches would have excited alarm.

To a juror—lf he could conscientiously have told Mr.
Thompson the house was in danger, he would have
done so ; but could not conscientiously say so to answer
his own views. Thought that Rowe had acted judi-
ciously in altering the shores witness had put up when
other shores were erected.

John Livett, 27, Arundel-street, clerk to a coal mer-
chant, examined—Recollected the house, 184, Strand.
Passed frequently during the operations there. Knew
Rowe ; had occasion to see him on the morning of the
aocident about landing some bricks, and went up there
about half-past seven o'clock. Saw several . men at
Work. One man was engaged in cleaning bricks, and
sitting down ; another was engaged with a shovel re-
moving sand into a barrow. The third, he believed,
Was working with a pickaxe, near the Strand, close to
the wall. He appeared to be piercing into the sand.
Witness said to a person who was present that the stuff
they were moving was so soft they might bring the
house down. They were lower than the footing of the
wall about two feet. Went to breakfast, and in about
two minutes afterwards heard the house had tumbled
down. The first time he was there that morning Rowe
Was not on the ground. Did not make any remark to
to Rowe. Rowe was within ten feet of the men at
work. The sand appeared almost as loose as if it were
on the river side. Made the observation to a man
named Brown, who was sometimes employed on the
works. None of the men at work could hear him, they
were too far from him. Did not observe on the day
before that the excavation was below the footing of the
wall. The excavation below the footing was five or six
feet in width.

To Mr. Bodkin—Was applied to on Saturday to come
there as a witness, by Mr. Macey. His examination
was taken down in writing on Saturday night at his
Douse by the clerk of Mr. Abraham's solicitor. Went
it half-past six o'clock in the morning, but did not see
Rowe, though he inquired for him. 'Again went up at
half-past seven o'clock to see Rowe, though he could not
4ay it was expressly for that purpose. Saw that Rowe
Was engaged. Was close to the hoarding, and stood
there about five minutes. Had said he was passing acci-
dentally and turned in there. His business with Rowe
could have done at any time of the day, and being there
at that particular time was accidental. Had seen Mr.
Abraham, since the occurrence, and since the jury was
sitting, but had no conversation about it with him.
James Browne, coal porter, examined—Was at the
works on the day of the occurrence, and was standing
there with the gentleman who had just gone out. They
were standing on the opposite side of the way. Saw
four men at the foot of the building, underneath the wall.
One was cleaning bricks, and the other removing rub-
bish or something from the corner. Did not see any
brie digging. Did not see any one using a pick-axe.
Spoke with the last witness about the state of the build-
ing. Walked away about fifty yards, and it fell down.
name back to see it.

I To a Juror—Did not see the man using the pick-axe.
They were removing brick rubbish. Did not see any
removed that day. Did not see any gravel carted away
that day. Saw it the day before. About a couple of
cartloads.

To Mr. Bodkin—Worked sometimes for Mr. Livett.
They were standing together, and walked away together.
To a Juror—Their meeting was perfetly accidental.
To Mr. Hawkins—Could see the footings of the house.
They were about two feet down from the level of the
house to the new foundation. Could see two feet below
the foundation of the old house, and in length it was
nearly the width of that room (about thirty-five feet).
To a Juror—Saw the footing the day before the
morning of the accident, and no alteration took place as
far as he could observe. Believed there were four
shores, but did not observe anything about the fouting
of them.

Mr. Thomas Bayliss, residing at 273, Strand, said
though not summoned he was ready to give evidence,
but had been present during the previous examination.
The Coroner—What are you ? Mr. Bayliss—An iron-
monger.
The Coroner—Are you a surveyor ? Mr. Bayliss—
No, sir, I merely mean to speak common sense—
(laughter)—and what has not been touched on, or at
least slightly touched upon.
Having been sworn, Mr. Bayliss stated that the wall
of the house had been cut away the whole depth of the
house from back to front. It was cut away from one
end to the other nearly. Saw two shores distinctly,
and there might have been three, but was not sure.
The plan produced there, from which it appeared there
were many short shores, was quite incorrect. Could
say more ; but was not to say anything he heard, he
supposed.
To a Juror—Thought their motive was to get the
new wall up to the old one. They cut it with a chisel
and hammer. Could not. identify the parties who were
doing it. Would not say he had seen Mr. Abraham
on the premises. He might or might not have been
there.

To. Mr. Ballantine—lt was likely he might have said
that he would attend and tender his evidence. Might
have talked about it to some of his neighbours. Did
not know that he had mentioned it to any one present.
Mr. Ballantine—Give us a "common sense" answer.
(Laughter.)
Cross-examination resumed—Would swear that the
shores on the map were falsely represented.
Counsel—Never having been on the premises, will
you say this is a false representation of the number of
shores ? Witness—Yes, of the short shores.

Counsel—Will you say this is a false representation of
the number of shores 9—Witness—l have not seen that
(examined the plan) ; there were not so many shores as
are marked on that plan.
Counsel—Do you mean to swear that is a false plan ?
Witness—There were not so many shores as are marked
there; there were two or three. Saw two' with his own
eyes distinctly, but would not say whether there were
two or three ; to the best of his judgment there were
only three. Would not swear there were four. Would
swear there were not five.
Mr. Ballantine proposed to examine Mr. Abraham as
to the exact number of shores.
A Juror—We have it already in evidence.
Mr. Abraham was re-examined, and stated that the
plan contained an accurate representation of the number
of shores.
To Mr. Hawkins—Thought there were about eleven
or twelve short shores. They are not all shown on the
drawing.
Mr. Hawkins—How many shores were there to sup-
port the party wall and the wall of the parlour?—Wit-
ness—Eight or nine.
The Coroner then read the following report of the sur-
veyors by whom the premises were examined.
"To Samuel F. Langham, Esq:, eputy-Coroner for the

City and Liberty of Westminster.
" Sir,—Agreeably to the instructions contained in
your letter of the 10th instant, with reference to the
accident arising from the fall of the house, No. 184,
Strand, we, in the first instance, appointed an efficient
_person, with assistants, to carefully remove the rubbish
to a sufficient extent, to enable us to form a correct
judgment upon the points at issue, and subsequently
attended on various occasions to give them instructions.
The points referred to being, whether there has been
any want of due care and circumspection in shoring
up the premises, and whether any means might have
been resorted to which would have the effect of prevent-
ing the falling of the house •in question. First, as to
the materials used for shoring, we are of opinion that
they were ample in dimensions, and of the best quality ;
that those which were fixed were of proper construction,
and in all respects fit for the purpose ; but we are further
of opinion that, assuming the evidence of William
Shrimplin to be correct as to the length of the shores,
and their distance from the party wall at the foot, by
which the whole weight of the basement and ground
floor was unsustained, that additional shores should
have been placed underneath, more especially as the
whole area on the east side had been excavated to a ca.-
siderable depth below the kitchen flour of No. 184, and
also was stated in some places to be below the footings

t of the party wall, and having further reference to the
character of the foundation on which it stood being
• composed of gravel and sand, and some portions of clay.
; With reference to the second question, we beg to state,
that we have carefully examined the premises, and that
the following appeared to be the facts, as nearly as they
could be ascertained :—That the hcmse consisted of six
stories, viz., basement storey, ground floor, first floor,
second floor, third floor, and an attic storey, or rooms
• on the roof. That the east party wall was two bricks
thick in the basement, two bricks thick on the ground
floor, one and a half brick thick on the first floor and
upward. As to the footings no satisfactory information
could be obtained, except as regards a ten feet at the
south end, and which appears to remain in their origi-
nal position as per sketch, and, about six inches high ;
that the bricks were uniformly good, that the mortar
was of a mixed character, some being exceedingly good,
some perished and bad, and as far as observation could
be made, superior on the west or inner side ; that the
joists, as appears fro m the holes in the west wall now stand-
ing, were transversely laid, that is,, resting, on the party
walls on each floor, and, as we are informed, a girder was
fixed longitudinally down the shop. Of the joists and
timber there are no means of forming an opinion except
from the appearance of the joist holes-in the party walls,
and these appear to have been of sufficient scantling.
With reference to the position of the walls of the several
stories when down, the following appeared :—That the
basement wall with its footings had pressed outward
at the bottom and fallen with the western face inwards,
and the upper floors lying diagonally upon it, also- the
western face downward ; those of the ground and two-
pair storey presenting themselves sufficiently to be iden-
tified. With reference therefore to the question whether
any means might have been resorted to which would,
have had the effect of preventing the falling 9f-the house
in question, we are of opinion that proyidea- the floors
of No. 184 had been shored up on the west side
of the party wall to take off the downward pres-
sure, and provided also additional shores had been
placed under those fixed on the east side to secure the
ground and basement walls of the east party walls from
pressing out, and that the wall had been underpinned to
the depth of the footings of the intended new building,
the accident would not have happened. In arriving at
this conclusion we are governed by what we believe to
be the facts, confirmed by the best information to be ob-
tained ; and it is proper to add, that every facility has
been given by all parties concerned in promoting the in-
quiry. The deceased Rowe, in charge of the works,
was stated to be a man of undoubtedly sound prac-
' tical experience and judgment, with every facility at
his command for obtaining and using the means of
rendering everything secure, and that Mr. Abra-
ham, the architect, and himself had paid every at-
tention they had deemed necessary to that end. And,
further, that as such operation as the foregoing
are of extreme difficulty, and so frequently matters
of difference of opinion with the most practical men,
we consider, generally speaking, that there can be no
better judges of what is necessary to be done to ensure
safety than those persons in charge of the works, and in-
terested in their proper execution. Notwithstanding
this, however, we can only form our judgment from the
facts elicited during our investigation, and record our
opinion accordingly.
"We have the honour to remain, your obedient ser-
vants,

" JOHN DENT.
" FREDK. LAWFORD.
"J. HARGRAVE STEVENS."

John Hargrave Stevens, surveyor to the western dis-
trict, city of London, was examined, and stated that he
had attended during the evidence, and had not heard
anything to induce him to alter the opinions in the re-
port, which contained a true representation of the facts.
Supposing the upper part of the wall to have been re-
tained in its place by the raking shores made there, the
weight would have been equal to 16 cwt. to the square
foot. The fall might have been prevented if the wall
were gradually underpinned, and the ground gradually
removed, instead of removing the whole of it at once.
The wall would not have fallen if the shoring outside
were stronger, and the wall had been underpinned. He
should have placed the raking shores precisely in the
position they were put, and put also a lower raking shore
to keep the lower portion of the wall vertical. He then
would have excavated a piece at a time, and would have
built "a leg," or piece of brickwork, to the wall. He
would then have proceeded to another portion of the
wall, and made a new foundation, and put another piece
of brickwork there, and so proceeded until the whole
was securely underpinned. When that was done, he
could have removed the ground for the basement of the
new house to the depth he required.
To Mr. Ballantine—The ground itself showed it could
have been excavated to a greater depth.
John Dent, 11, Southampton-buildings, architect, also
proved that the report was correct, and entirely con-
curred in the evidence given by Mr. Stevens.
Frederick Lawford, 20, John-street, Adelphi, archi-
tect, confirmed the report and evidence of Mr. Stevens.

An adjournment took place at a quarter to 5 o'clock.
At twenty minutes to 6 o'clock the proceedings were re-
sumed.

The Coroner, in his charge to the jury, called atten-
tion to the fact that the statements in the report of the
surveyors were, in general, not inconsistent with the
evidence that had been produced before the jury. He
referred to the clause in the Building Act by which the
inspection of buildings was directed to be made, and
said it was quite clear the object in view was the pro-
tection of the public in every shape and way. For that
purpose a district surveyor was appointed, and as great
responsibility was placed upon that officer, the exercise
of great care on his part was necessary. He made these
observations generally, and begged it to be distinctly
understood that he did not make any personal reference
to Mr. Angel. It was said that the builders were not
bound to give notice until two days before bricks were
to be laid, and that might be strictly true according to
the act ; but, it was to be regretted that, although it was
a matter of notoriety in the neighbourhood that the pre-
mises were in danger, there did not seem to be a single
individual who thought it was necessary to resort to
the proper quarter, and give information to the
person by whom the accident 'might be obviated, or
things put in train to have it obviated. The question
arose whether the Messrs. Lucas had employed a pro-
per person to superintend the works. The jury had
evidence respecting the capacity of Rowe to take the
responsibility upon him. They also had evidence that
Mr. Abraham attended at the premises, and that he
likewise represented the Duko of Norfolk, and had
reason for being additionally careful. It was for the
jury to say whether there had been such gross negli-
gence on the part of any of the persons concerned as in
point of law amounted to manslaughter. It was not suf-
ficient there should be mere error of judgment, because
professional men and even learned judges differed in
opinion ; but gross negligence should be established to
justify a verdict of manslaughter (Rex v. St. John
Long.) The jury were to say, if the occurrence had pro-
ceeded from the cause mentioned by the surveyor, and if
so, whether it might have been prevented by the exer-
cise of ordinary care, and was not merely an error of
judgment on the part of the individuals concerned.
The jury retired at twenty-five minutes past 6 o'clock.
At eight o'clock the jury returned into court with the
following verdict :—" We are unanimously of opinion
that Robert Thompson, Sarah Thompson, George Dunn,
and George Rowe, came to their respective deaths by
the falling of the house, 184, Strand, and that the falling
of such house is to be attributed to the gross negligence
of Mr. Abraham, the surveyor employed by the Duke of
Norfolk and Messrs. Smith, in not causing the party
wall to be sufficiently shored up and underpinned before
the excavation for the new building was commenced.
Before we separate we are anxious to express our appro-
bation of the conduct of Messrs. Smith in volunteering
to bear the expense of employing independent surveyors
to ascertain the cause of the accident."

The Coroner—Your verdict amounts to a verdict of
manslaughter against Mr. Abraham. That I under-
stand to be the verdict of you all.
Mr. Berger (a juror)—We did not contemplate that.
We considered it gross negligence, arising from an error
in judgment.
The Foreman—We did not intend to convey a verdict
of manslaughter against Mr. Abraham.
The Coroner—lf it is gross negligence, it would be so.
Another Juror—We want to avoid a verdict of man-
slaughter.
The Coroner—l understand you do not mean to con-
vey that there was criminal negligence, but that there
was a want of due care.

- --
The Foreman--,Just so, but something more than what
amounts to an error of judgment.
Mr. Carr (another juror)—We cannot think Mr.
Abraham deficient in judgment.
The Coroner suggested that the verdict might be al-
tered, by leaving out the words "gross negligence."
The Foreman—We are anxious that our verdict
should not amount to manslaughter.
Mr. Berger—At the same time we do not wish the
♦erdict altered.
Another Juryman—There is no difference of opinion
amongst us as to the cause of the accident ; but out of
kindness to Mr. Abraham, we wish to prevent him hav-
ing to undergo the serious consequences resulting from a
verdict of manslaughter.
The jury then consulted for a few minutes, after which
the foreman said—We cannot retract our verdict, what-
ever the consequences may be, though we did not in-
tend to bring in a verdict of manslaughter.
A verdict of manslaughter against Henry Robert
Abraham was then recorded.

......
The coroner issued his warrant for the apprehension
of Mr. Abraham ; and inspector Dod was bound over to
prosecute, and the witnesses to appear at the next Old
Bailey sessions.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Holloway's Ointment and Pills
are superior remedies for the cure of erysipelas.—Mr.
William Parsons, of St. George's, Pill, near Bristol, was
afflicted for upwards of two years with erysipelas in his
legs, so bad at times as to lay him up for a month toge-
ther ; the medical aid he received, besides a weekly at-
tendance at the Bristol Infirmary, had no good effect
whatever in the disease, consequently he determined on
giving Holloway's Ointment and Pills a trial, and they
have been the means of effecting a radical cure of his
legs in an almost unprecedented short time.--Sold by
all druggists, and at Profosaar Holloway's establishment,
244, Strand, London,