The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-07 00:00:00

HER MAJESTY'S SHIP BAROSSA.

Cove of Cork, her Majesty's ship Barossa, Dec. 1.
You will no doubt, my dearest father, be much surprised
at again receiving a letter from me, dated Cove, after hav-
ing so lately received one saying we had sailed ; but, thank
God, we are once more here, after having undergone a
week's most dreadful weather at sea. As I told you in my
List, we sailed from here, with a fair wind, and for the first
three or four days it continued so, but on Tuesday evening
the wind changed to the S. W., and since that time you can-
not imagine what we have gone through. As the night
came on the gale increased, and we lay to all that night.
We3nesday morning came, and things appeared no better.
In the evening the wind was frightful, and the sea running
awfully. At twelve the mate of the watch was ordered
up to the foretop-sail to reef. He was a very good-na-
tured lad, about 18 years old, and he came and saw me
just before he went, and told me how bad the weather was
looking, when he went up with some others to reef. They
were fiv'e hours at work reefing one sail, and at four o'clock
in the morning Mr. Mackay (the mate) and two other sea-
men were blown into the sea, and perished directly. From
this time till six the next day we were in the greatest dan-
ger. No one would go up the rigging except our captain,
who beiiaved most nobly throughout the whole, and our
sails were blown to shivers. At ten o'clock on Thursday
morning a tremendous sea struck the vessel on the stern,
carrying away the windows and the back part of the
poop, filling Major -'s cabin, Captain --'s, and
our messroom with water, and the sea rushing down the
hatchway. The cry was immediately raised for the ship's
.carpenter, and all was given over for lost. At this mo-
ment the rudder chains broke, and we met the sailors
leaving the helm, saying all was useless, we must go down
in ten minutes. The ship was lying on her side at the
mercy of the waves, the sea washing over her every instant.
I was upon deck, and witnessed a scene that I cannot de-
scribe. Officers and men were clinging to ropes or anything
they could lay their hands on, and it was curious to see
the way the knowledge of danger showed itself on the va-
rious countenances. Some were perfectly calm, others were
kneeling with the tears streaming from their eyes ; the
cries of the soldiers and their wives who were battened
down below, were dreadful. They actually wrapped their
great coats round their heads to prevent seeing themselves
go down. At the same time it was the most magnificent
sight ever witnessed. Those who have never seen a hurri-
cane at sea can have no conception of the sight it is.
The sea looked like an immense mountain running
away from you ; the foam spurting about in all di-
rections, the ship heaving and cracking, and men stand-
ing ready to cut the masts away. In the meantime
Providence befriended us, and the gale subsided for a
few minutes. The carpenters were hard at work, and
contrived to stop up the stern windows, and we were
comparatively safe. The wind having subsided a little, we
drifted, without any man at the helm, for twelve hours, and
the next day set sail for Cork, where we arrived this
morning, and are now at anchor. I cannot tell you what
is to be done with the ship ; some say she will be con-
demned. lam anything but well, having had my berth
literally under water, my bed-clothes being saturated with
water from leaks in the side of the vessel (all of us the
same). We have been ordered to send in an account of
our losses, which are to be forwarded to the Secretary of
War ; but I do not suppose they will do anything for us.
Is it not shameful that Government should send troops
out in such convicted vessels ? You will, no doubt, see an
.account of it in the papers.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dix. 6.

ADAMS V. LAMBERT.

This was an appeal from the Master of the Rolls. The
question was, whether a purchaser of one of several lots of
land was specifically bound to fulfil his contract without
knowing the covenants in the original lease held by the
vendor from the ground landlord.
Mr. WIGRAM and Mr. GIRDLESTONE contended that
the original lease might contain covenants, the non-fulfil-
ment of which by some of the purchasers of the lots would
lead to a forfeiture of the whole.
Mr. LLOYD, on the other side, argued that the title
produced by the vendor was sufficient without a production
of the original lease.
The LoRD CHANCELLOR saw no reason to impute any
fraudulent intention to the vendor, who had undoubtedly
given a good title, as far as it went. Still he had not gone
far enough, for the purchaser had a right to know what the
covenants were contained in the lease from the ground land-
lord ; under such circumstances he could not be compelled
to complete his purchase.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 6.

GREENHALGH V. MANCHESTER AND BIRMINGHAM RAIL•

WAY COMPANY.

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction restraining
the Company from taking the usual measures to get pos-
session of a portion of the plaintiff's land, and which had
been obtained on the ground that the Company were bound
by a contract that had heen entered into before its forma-
tion for the purchase of a larger portion of his land than
they were now willing to take.
His HONOUR concluded his judgment by observing, that
the plaintiff was a kind of hermaphroditical character,
having assented to one of the original bills, and standing
neuter as to the other. The plaintiff had disembarrassed
his case of any difficulty that might have arisen had he
prayed relief in the alternative under the contract, as far as
regarded the quantity of land which the Company did actu-
ally require. He had asked for the largest construction
that could be put upon his agreement. And as he was not.
t ed to that, the motion must be refused ; but, from the
dealings between the parties, he should not give costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S' BENCH, Dzc. 6.
SAMUEL
from
V. DAVIS.
(Continued f
ed
sub-
poena our report of yesterday.)
This, it will be recollecte
d, was anrhacicutiiornedb, ronupgnhnt
a
against
the defendant for not attending, as
e Exchequer, in a suit which
issued from the Court ogf,
,the present plaintiff had been concernedca as
on partnership
defendant was a sheriff's officer, a party. The
with a person named Whittaker, andrraYiwngthadf been issued
to them to levy an execution upon the goodsn one Brown-
ing. A question arose where the goods against3nwhich the
writ was directed were the goods of Browning or
,of another person. The plaintiff being directly in_
tterested in the matter brought an
the then sheriffs, Puke and another, in
which
question of property was to be tried. It was necessary,th°
amongst other proof, to have in Court the writ aver
rant. The plaintiff's attorney went to Davis to del him.a subpoena to attend, and to bring the warrant with him.
Davis told the attorney that he knew nothing of the mat-
ter, as the writ had been executed by his partner. The
:attorney said he did not care which of them attended, pro-
:attorney
one did, and that the writ was in Court. When
the cause was called 90 Whittaker was not in Court, and
Deis was called on his stiillxvnap but did not appear. Mr.
Kelly, who was Counsel for tL' plaintiff, gave a very dis-
tinct opinion that the cause could 1.1.'t proeeed without him.
prevented
To save expense the crier of the C,:."rt "2
from swearing the jury, and the record w:ls wit"rliwiL
'.e caul,e
'Whittaker soon afterwards came into Court. 'l7.
is
was subsequently tried, Whittaker attended, and gave ::
evijence, and the plaintiff recovered. The withdrawing
of the rt?cord in the first instance cost the plaintiff about'
1.)0/., and it was to recover that loss that he brought the
present action.
Sir F. Pou.ock .
submitted that no action would lie in
this case.
Lord DEN3IAN was not at all of that opinion, but
thought that the witness was mound to attend from the
sitting of the Court ; and that if a witness was not present
it was the Counsel's duty to withdraw the record, and the

witness must then take the consequence of his negligence.
Evidence was then given to show the materiality of the
evidence, and to prove other matters in contradiction to
the several special pleas which the defendant had put upon
the record.

Lord DENMAN, at the end of this evidence, said that
in his opinion the plaintiff must have a verdict on all the
special pleas, but that the defendant was entitled to a ver-
dict on the plea of not guilty, because it appeared that
Whittaker was the person who ought to have been sub-
poenaed, and that it was not, as the declaration alleged,
from the absence of Davis that the necessity arose of the
plaintiff withdrawing the record.
The Jury, however, intimated an opinion that Davis had
been to blame.
Sir F. Pommel: then addressed them.

Lord DENMAN again told the Jury that they must be
satisfied, not merely that the evidence was necessary, but
that Davis was the person necessary to give evidence, or
else they must find for the defendant.
The Jury retired for some time, and then returned into
Court, and said there was no chance of their agreeing.
Lord DENMAN remarked that chance ought to have
nothing to do with their agreeing, their decision must be
grounded by reason.
The Jury again retired, and at twenty minutes past seven
again came into Court, and returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.

EXCHEQUER COURT, DEC. 6.
WHITWELL V. ANTHONY.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 481. the
value of goods illegally taken under an execution. From
the form of the pleading the opening of the case was thrown
upon the defendant's Counsel, Mr. PLATT, who, at the outset,
contented himself with showing that a person named Pratt
had taken the house 151, Strand, for the purpose of his busi-
ness as a watchmaker. Last March there was some dispute
with respect to the rent, and the defendant brought an ac-
tion for its recovery. He got judgment, had out execution,
and levied upon the goods in the house of Pratt, 22, Lower-
street, Islington. Pratt's name was over the door, and the
business was carried on in the shop by his brother and his
apprentice. On the same day as the levy was made, the
goods were claimed as the property of the plaintiff.
After the Counsel had addressed the Jury,
Lord ABINGER recalled Pratt, who said that the plaintiff
had lent him 2001. about four years ago, and it bad not
been repaid.
His LORDSHIP then summed up, and the Jury almost
instantly found a verdict for the defendant.
This was the last cause upon the Middlesex list. The
Court will sit in London on Saturday.