The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-26 00:00:00

9 0 0
4 0 0

LAW 1-NTELLIGENCE.
VICE,CHAN,CERY COURT, July 25.
(Before ,Sir J. WIGRAM.)

BRCGDEN V. TUE SOUTH'-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
The Solicitor-General, •Mr. Wood, and Mr. A. J.
Lewis, were further heard. ,on the part of the plaintiff, in
opposition to the motion foie committing him for breach
c•f an undertaking, as mentioned in our report of yes-
terday. They went at gre at length into the details of
the evidence, for the purpose of showing that the un-
dertaking bad been complied with. They contended
that the motion for commitment was informal; that
the default whs really the t of the company; and that
they were bound to prove their case with the greatest
strictness.

Mr. J. BAILEY addressed the Court in reply.
His HONOUR said be should not decide upon the mo-
tion until he had seen. the certificate of one of the
Government inspectors as to the state of the works.
A doubt was mentioned by the registrars as to the
effect of the order or undertaking, it being suggested
whether, where parties undertook with each other
and the Court did not snake any order founded upon
such undertaking, the motion being ordered to stand
over, the Court bad power to enforce that as an
order. Again, it was clear that this was a conditional
undertaking, and, until an order was obtained, it was
doubtful how far the Court could, upon such a proceed-
ing, proceed by commitment. He should certainly not
make an order adversely to the plaintiff, except upon
payment of the 5,0001. to himl for expedition money,
because if the line really was fit for public traffic on the
day mentioned in the undertaking, it would be a strong
measure to enforce the contract in favour of the com-
pany without having the money paid. If the Govern-
ment inspector reported that the line was not even now
finished, the case would stand in a very different
situation.

[Pending the argument, the company offered to pay
the plaintiff 5,0001., and to pay or give security for the
payment of what might be due to him for his profit on
the repairs during two years, but the point on which the
parties could not agree was as to the absolute delivering
of the line into the hands of the company, free from any
interference by the contractor. It seems probable that
the case may be settled by arrangement, without calling
for the decision of the Court upon the question involved
in the motion.]

ADMIRALTY COURT. July 25.
(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)
THE SOPHIA—SALVAGE.
This was a suit promoted by the owner and crew of
the lugger Nelson, of Margate, against the schooner
Sophia, a vessel bound from Spain to London with a
cargo of nuts, valued at 1,1001. It was stated by the
salvors that on the 19th of December, about twelve
o'clock at night, the wind was blowing from the east
with a heavy sea when they saw a light off the Long
Nose Rock. They manned their boat and went out to
the assistance of the vessel which had made a signal, and
which proved to be the Sophia. She had lost her rudder,
and was beating very heavily on the rocks when they
went on board; but the sea continuing to beat heavily,
they left the schooner, and, with their boat, took
shelter under the rocks, where they remained until five
o'clock the next morning, when they obtained more
hands, and again went on board of the schooner, set
the pumps to work, got her off the rocks, and took her
into Margate harbour, where she was anchored with
safety, and for which service they now claimed salvage.
On the other side, it was stated that when the schooner
was on its voyage to London, about two miles and a
half east of Margate, rounding the North Foreland, she
got upon the rocks. Her crew then hoisted a light for
assistance, and a boat came alongside with three hands
on board. They returned to the shore for more hands,
and then again came on board, but refused to remain by
the schooner. The next day, the wind having abated,
they again came on board and assisted the master of the
schooner to get his vessel off the rocks and into Mar-
gate harbour, all of which was done under the directions
of the master, and for the service rendered by the lugger
1001. had been tendered, but refused. Upon the arrival
of the vessel in Margate harbour the cargo was sold
under the advice of Lloyd's agent.
Dr. Robinson and Dr. Phillimore appeared for the
salvors; and Drs. Addams and Twiss were heard on the
part of the schooner.
The Learned JUDGE, in giving his decision, referred
to the mode of proceeding in this case on the part of the
proctors engaged in the cause, in which he acquitted the
parties of any evil intention or malpractice, but alleged
over-zeal on their part. If there had been any mal-
practice, this Court would know how to meet the parties
offending. In this case, as in many other cases of the
same kind, the statements were full of contradictions.
There was no doubt that the weather was very boiste-
rous when the vessel was driven on the Long Nose Rock,
and she hoisted a signal for assistance. There was not
a question that the salvors were on board their lugger,
looking out for vessels in distress ; it was not probable
that they would go out on such a night in a skiff. The
services were of an arduous and trying nature, and the
master of the schooner felt that his vessel was in great
danger, or he would not have gone ashore. He (the
Learned Judge) felt the tender of 1001. was not suffi-
cient on these grounds—the extreme danger, the skill
of the men, and the great severity of the weather, with
the sufferings they must have undergone. He would
award the sum of 1501., the costs to be paid part by the
owners and part by the salvers. The case of the Fre-
derick had been referred to, but the Court could not lock
upon the case as similar ; it should not, therefore, con-
demn the proctors in the costs, as there was no fault to
be found with them, the error proceeded from an over-
zeal on their part.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A man, named Horatio Nelson Spinks, was brought
before Alderman Carden, upo❑ the charge of having
violated his own child, Elizabeth Spinks, aged sixteen
years.
From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner, who
resided i❑ the neighbourhood of St. Mary-at-Hill, corn-
mitted the offence under circumstances which marked
the case with peculiar atrocity. His wife, the mother
of the girl, had died of cholera, and on the day of her
burial, which took place the day after her death, and in
the presence of his two other female children, the ac-
cused actually perpetrated the crime.
The prisoner, upon being asked by the Alderman
whether he wished to say anything in answer to the
charge, and being told that what he might say would be
taken down by the clerk and might be used in evidence
against him, stated that the girl had not only consented
to but invited the intimacy upon several occasions. It
is unnecessary to observe that the defence excited the
utmost abhorrence and disgust in the justice•room.
Alderman CARDEN, in committing the prisoner to
Newgate for trial, said there were no cords in the lan-
guage capable of adequately describing the deep atrocity
of the offence with which he was charged, and the per-
petration of which his own acknowledgment confirmed
in the most revolting manner.
Mr. Smith, the medical gentleman who was examined
upon the occasion of the charge, stated, in answer to
questions from the Alderman, that he was sure the
prisoner's wife had died of cholera, and that his son
had died of the same fatal disease but a short time
previously.