The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-30 00:00:00

HURRICANE IN THE BAUAMA

ISLANDS.

(From the Royal Gazette, Sept. 22.)
NASSAU, SEPT. 22.—We are sorry to announce that
the accounts which have reached us of the disastrous effects
of the late gale on some of our other out islands are not
more favourable than what we were necessitated to record
regarding Exuma in our last impression.
Rum Key especially seems to have been visited by the
storm with unusual severity. By the arrival of an open
boat from that island, we are given to understand that al-
most every house is levelled with the ground ; that some
lives have been lost, and several persons injured by the
falling in of buildings ; that the outstanding crops have
been for the most part destroyed, and the salt that had
been ready for disposal, and cheering as to the quantity
raked this season, had been washed away, or so thoroughly
damaged as to be unsaleable.
We regret to say that our respected townsman Mr.
Robert Butler is among the list of the sufferers.
The residence of himself and brothers was almost totally
destroyed, and his own arm severely sprained or dislocated
during the gale.
The dwelling-house of Mr. Thomas Tynes was also com-
pletely demolished, and everything that was in it ruined.
Indeed, as in the case of Exuma, everything on the island
seems to be one scene of general devastation.
Soon after the commencement of the gale the sloop Swift,
Seymour master, of this port, the property of Mr. W. R. B.
Sands, on the eve of taking in her cargo, was drifted from
ber moorings and blown out to sea, since which time no
tidings have been heard of her. The master and crew hav-
ing secured her as fast as possible, had deemed it prudent to
quit the vessel, as the violence of the storm increased.
(From the Observer of Saturday, Sept. 22.)
The reports which are daily received from the out
islands continue to be of a distressing and melancholy
nature. At Rum Key the gale was equally if not more
severe than it was at Exuma, and we are sorry to add that
at the former place it has been attended by loss of life.
Our accounts state that three women and a man were
killed by the falling of a house. There is not a dwelling
on the island but what has received more or less injury, the
greater part of the houses being laid in ruins. The crops
have also been completely destroyed, and we are informed
that the salt ponds have shared the same rate as those at
Exuma.

A vessel has also arrived from St. Salvador, and the
accounts from that island are likewise distressing. They
have not, it is true, lost their buildings, but thecr
crops are destroyed, and everything looks dreary
and desolate. A vessel, bottom upwards, has,
we understand, been driven on the reef on the
north side, but they have not yet been able to discover
who and what she is. Several figure-heads, booby-hatches,
timbers, and other parts of vessels have been found on the
beach, and on the south side a small sloop, supposed to be
belong to a man named Hardy Munnings, has drifted ashore
without a soul on board.

A vessel has lately arrived from Key West, bringing ac-
counts of a number of shipwrecks on that coast with loss
of lives, and also that the crew of an American vessel has
been inhumanly massacred by the Indians.

THE HAGUE, Nov. 26.—The Minister of the
Colonies, at the request of the Governor-General of the
Indies, has published in the Stoats Courant an invitation
to the young officers of the Waterstaat who are unmarried,
and, if possible, not above twenty-six years of age, to be
employed in our colonial possessions, whither they will be
sent, and in the first three years with salaries of .200 to
300 florins per month, exclusive of other emoluments. Mr.
May, Consul-General of the Netherlands in England, who
has been here for a few days, has left this place to return
to London. The Minister of Finance, conformable to Art.
13 of the Law of December 29, 1835, informs all those
whom it may concern that, according to the statements
made by the Commissioners of the Prices of the Regulating
Markets, the average prices of corn grown in the country
during tile month from October 20 to November 19 in-
clusive were for the whole kingdom, as follow :—Wheat,
ner mud., 10f.87e. ; Rye, 7f. 84c.; Barley, 4f.50c.; Oats,
2f. 61c. ; Buckwheat, sf. 30c, Wherefore, according to
Art, 1 of the said law, the import and export duties during
the ensuing month of Decemberi2psoca.T
Wheat...... EXPORT
Rye ..................... IMPORT
... 15e.
Barley .................. 50e.
Oats
Buckwheat soc.
MR. MR. HARVEY'S BADGES.
---111 the course of an
Police
-office
found their
yesterday, it was
sintaqtueidrythaatt
the Worship-streetc a b.di cab-drivers
badges
way to the pawnbrokers. The sum lent upon them is about
BRUTAL MURDER AT PRESTON.--
Oneig,hrtHeeEu
last the inquest on the body of the mur-
dered Wednesday
LATEpen e pence each.
the Jury
murder 'ag •
returned a verdict of—"
Lacky,
James
man, Michael Donohue, was resumed • and J
names are unknown,
divers other persons whose
Lacky, Patrick Lacky, Michael Lacky,_ Juliaa and

,LA \V INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S C'OURT, Aor. z 1).
NEDBY V. NEDBY.

Mr. JACOB moved that the future dividends on a fund in
Court should be paid to the plaintiff, Mrs. Nedby, upon
her sole receipt, until further order.

There was no feature of public interest in the cause,
His Honour delivered his dinision, and made the order.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 29.
BARTRAM V. CADDY.
_ .

This was an action by the indorsee against the indorser
of a promissory note for 2001., payable on demand. The
defendant pleaded two pleas, the first of which set forth in
substance that two persons named Hatherley and Hamlyn
made the note, and that the defendant endorsed it as a se-
curity for a debt due from Hatherley and Hamlyn to the
plaintiff ; that that debt was paid, and that the note was
re-delivered to them ; and then that one of these two par-
ties, namely, Hamlyn, took the note, and again placed it in
the plaintiff's hands as a security for a debt due from him
alone. The second plea was that Hamlyn had in this man-
ner acted in fraud of the defendant, and that the plaintiff
had acted with negligence in taking the note under these
circumstances. There was a demurrer to these pleas, and the
parties intended to raise for the consideration of the Court
the question whether, when a debt for which a note was
given for security was paid, the note must not be considered
as paid ; whether the pleadings here sufficiently set forth the
facts for the Court to give judgment for the defendant on
the ground that the note was paid ; whether the allegation
of negligence, and the circumstances on which that allega-
tion was founded, afforded a complete answer to the action ;
and whether the second indorsement of the note was not
illegal, as being contrary to the provisions of the 15th
George 111., c. 184.

The COURT decided on the last point only, giving judo•
ment for the defendant.

GOMPERTZ V. LEVI.

This was a demurrer to a replication in an action for
libel. The declaration alleged that the defendant had pub-
lished of and concerning the plaintiff a certain false, defa-
matory, and malicious libel, to wit, that the plaintiff was
living at a certain house therein described, within the rules
of the Queen's Bench prison, and that any one who would
give information as to his property should receive a com-
mission of five per cent. upon the amount. The inuendo
was, that the defendant had thereby imputed that the plain-
tiff was fraudulently living upon the property which of right
belonged to his creditors.
The COURT would not say that the matter here com-
plained of was not libellous, but the statement here was
defective. The inference put forth in the innuendo was
not warranted by any preceding statement. It was in
itself no imputation upon a man's character to say that he
was in confinement ; that might have arisen from misinfor-
mation or accident.—Judgment for the defendant.

EXCHEQUER COURT, Nov. 29.
WILLIAMS V. KNIGHT.
This was an action brought to recover compensation
for an assault alleged to have been committed upon the
wife of the plaintiff.
It appeared that the plaintiff in December last became
tenant to the defendant of four rooms and two billiard-
tables, at a rate of 10/. per month. The defendant, being
unable to get his rent as he wished, gave the plaintiff
notice to quit on the Ist of May, but he refused to go ;
and the defendant, on the 12th of June, finding the door..
of the plaintiff's room open, and all the persons belonging
to him away, put padlocks upon all the doors, and kept
Mr. Williams out. On the morning of the 14th of June
the plaintiff obtained access to the house, which is No.
2G, Charing-cross, and took off all the padlocks by force.
He then put a man in possession for him, and his wife also
went in about twelve o'clock. The defendant and his at-
torney ordered both of them out, and, as they would not
go, they were put out. This was the assault complained of.
Mr. Kelly, Mr. Humfrey, and Mr. Chambers, were
Counsel for the plaintiff,:and Mr. Platt and Mr. Petersdorff
for the defendant
The jury found for the defendant.
TEMPLE V. COLE.
Mr. JERVIS (with whom was Mr. Mansell) stated the
case for the plaintiff. It was an action upon a bill of ex-
change for 30/., dated March 12, at three months, and made
payable at No. 38, Leicester-square.
The hand-writing of the defendant, as acceptor, was
proved.
Mr. HUMFREY appeared for the defendant, and said that
the bill which was before the jury was not that which had
been accepted by the defendant. He would prove that
after the bill had been accepted the date had been altered
from the Ist of March to the 12th, and that the words
" payable at 38, Leicester-square," had been added. The
Learned Counsel then called
Mr. Stewart, of Strafford-street, Lisson-grove, who de-
posed that the defendant accepted the bill for his (wit-
ness's) accommodation, and that he had made the altera-
tion in the date, and the addition, for which he had no
authority from Cole.
In answer to the Lord Chief Baron, the witness said
that he had had some conversation with the defendant as
to the possibility of his not being at home when the bill be-
came due. The defendant was anxious that the witness
should be ready to retire the bill when it arrived at ma-
turity, as he did not wish that it should he presented at his
house. It was after that conversation that he made the
bill payable at Leicester-square. It was to meet the
wishes of the defendant that he had done so, but the latter
had not been aware of it.
The plaintiff proved that when the defendant had notice
of the dishonour of the bill he had called upon the plaintiff,
had begged for time, and had offered a cognovit for the
amount.
The Jury found for the plaintiff, with damages 301., and
13s. 9d. for interest.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(YESTERDAY.)

rr, OLD COURT.
HE ST. CATHERINE'S DOCK ROBBERY.--The ex-
amination of witnesses, it will be recollected, was proceed-
ing yesterday when our report closed. The whole of the
evidence at length having been gone through,
The Learned JUDGE su,nmed up, and left it to the Jury
to say whether the prisoners were guilty of forging the
order in question, and whether they uttered it knowing it
to he forged.
The JURY retired to consider their verdict. After some
time they returned, finding that " Samuel Fletcher, the
elder, was guilty of obtaining the truss of goods in question
by means of a forged order, well knowing it to be forged,,,
and acquitting the other prisoners.
The RECORDER, in the absence of the Judge, said it was
for the jury to say if the order was " forged by the prisoner
and uttered by him," for that was the charge.
Mr. Justice PARKE shortly afterwards came into Court,
and concurred with the Learned Recorder that the jury
must, in order to convict the prisoner, say that he " Ut-
tered" the order.
The jury, after consulting for a moment or two, stated
that they could not say that the prisoner did " utter" the
order, and therefore they must find him Not Guilty.
Fletcher, sen., seemed agreeably surprised at this result,
and with his companions the other Fletchers and Barker,
also left the dock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

HA 2'TON-GARDEN.

Yesterday Samuel Glazier, who was on Wednesday last
brought before Mr. BENETT, in the custody of Hall, the
officer of this establishment, on a warrant charging him with
having feloniously forged and uttered a bill of exchange for
401., with intent to defraud John Collins, of Hastings, in
the county of Sussex, was again brought from the station-
house and placed at the bar.

The warrant, it will be recollected, was granted to Col-
lins in the year 1835 by Mr. Rogers, since that period the
prisoner had been confined in Whitecross-street Prison for
debt. The warrant was lodged in the hands of the Go-
vernor of the gaol, and the term of his imprisonment hav-
ing expired on Wednesday last, Hall attended, and made
his capture when the prisoner was discharged, and brought
him to this office. Collins, however, was not in attend-
asce to prosecute, but a clerk from his solicitor attended
and stated that when the warrant was granted in 1835
Collins resided at Hastings ; he subsequently took a pub-
lic-house somewhere in the county of Sussex, but he did
not know where.
Mr. BENETT, however, said he would not discharge the
prisoner on so heavy a charge until the solicitor for Col-
lins attended to explain the matter, as, under the authority
of the warrant he was justified in his detention.
A number of bills of a similar description had been
uttered at Hastings, and Collins was selected to be a pro-
secutor.
Mr. BENETT said that the warrant had been granted by
Mr. Rogers, and he, Mr. Benett, would not take upon
himself to discharge the prisoner upon so heavy a charge
whilst the warrant was in existence. Means ought to be
used to ascertain whether the prosecutor would or would
not come forward.
The solicitor could give no further information, and said
he had merely attended at the request of the Bench.
Mr. BENETT, in the difficulty that presented itself, ulti-
mately decided on ordering the prisoner to put in his own
recognizance ; on which,
Mr. MALLETT bound him over to appear at the Mid-
dlesex Sessions, to answer any complaint that might. be
brought forward against him, and to keep the peace in the
meantime towards all her Majesty's subjects ; and he left
the office, being excused the usual fee (2s. 6d.) for such
recognizance.