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

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. Re
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. Re 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 Duke 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 Mt. 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.

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
verdict altered.

Another Juryman—There is no difference of opinion
amangst 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 Profwasor Holloway's establishment,
244, Strand, London.