The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-22 00:00:00

DREADFUL DEATH OF A FEMALE

FROM STARVATION.

On Monday a lengthened inquiry was proceeded with
before Mr. T. Wakley, M.P., Coroner for the Western
Division of Middlesex, and a respectable Jury, in the
Board-room of Chelsea Workhouse, Arthur-street, King's-
road, Chelsea, into the circumstances attendant upon the
death of Maria Mansfield, aged 32 years, who died in the
above Workhouse on Thursday last.
Mary Ann M'Keen deposed that she was one of the
.nurses in Chelsea Workhouse. On Wednesday, the 15th
inst., the deceased was brought into that Workhouse, and
was delivered into witness's charge from the Casualty
ward. Witness gave the deceased, whom she had never
seen before, by order of the doctor, some wine and arrow-
root every half hour, and sat up with her during the
night. Deceased was in a most miserable and weak
state, and one of her legs had a bad sore. Deceased
when carried to witness's room was hardly able to
speak, but after she was washed, and clean clothes
put on her, she exclaimed, " Oh, how nice." Mrs. Fox,
another nurse in the house, on seeing the deceased,
asked her if she had not slept there about a week ago, to
which the deceased replied in the affirmative ; when
Mrs. Fox asked her why she had not before applied for
an order for admission into the workhouse, to which
she replied that she had done so, but had been refused
by Mr. Newsom, the relieving officer. Deceased did not
say why Mr. Newsom had refused her, nor did she say
when or where he had so done. Deceased's feet were as
cold as ice all night, and witness applied hot water to
them, but could get no warmth in them. Deceased in
the course of the night said she should not trouble any
one long, and died about half-past one o'clock on Thurs-
day afternoon. The doctor on Wednesday night de-
sired witness to watch deceased during the night, as he
did not believe she would live till morning. Deceased
made no complaint to witness against any one, neither
did she complain of having suffered from want of food.
The Rev. Wm. Jay, curate of Upper Chelsea, deposed
that on Wednesday last, between twelve and one o'clock,
while visiting in the neighbourhood, he first saw the
deceased sitting on a chair in a yard in the Royal Hos-
pital-row, Chelsea, with several poor persons round her,
who stated that she was dying from cold and want.
Witness immediately inquired if she had had anything
given her, and found she had had some brandy. He
instantly got the first conveyance he could procure, and
had her brought to that workhouse, where she was
immediately admitted. The persons around her ap-
peared to be strangers to her, but when witness said he
would send her to the workhouse, they said it would be
of no use, as she had been there before and been refused
admission. Deceased appeared too ill to speak.
Robert Hall Adcock, porter at the workhouse, proved
that the deceased had two or three time been admitted
for a night's lodging, but he never knew her to apply
for an order of admission and be refused. Deceased
had told him she belonged to Newington parish.
Mr. Newsom, the relieving-officer; John Slade, a pau-
per, who attends the applicants for relief ; and the mas-
ter of the workhouse, swore most positively that the
deceased never applied for admission into the work-
house nor had been refused either directly or indirectly.
John Webb, a miserable. looking man, residing in
Lawrance-yard, Jews'-row, Chelsea, deposed that the
deceased had for three months slept on the stairs of the
house where he resided, where she had nightly pulled
off her bonnet and sat down. She had nothing to sub-
sist on but half-a-pint of beer and a bit of bread, which
persons sometimes gave her. Deceased told the per-
sons of .the house that she belonged to Newington pa-
rish, and that she had applied for. relief at Chelsea, but
had been refused, and having a bad leg could not walk so
far as Newington. He had tried to persuade her to go
into the workhouse, and when he offered to go with her
she refused the offer. He had never seen her in liquor,
and he had no doubt that she had died from the want of
proper food.
The Jury, after consulting together, then returned a
verdict, " That the deceased died from want of food and
the coMmon neeessarieatof life, and without default on
the part of the parochial authorities of Chelsea."

DESTRUCTIVE FIRE AT POPLAR.—About
six o'clock on
with considerable loss of
property, ,ht a dtoroekadpfilialcfle rein, t
he attendedspa-
cious
Monday- pier
cveinsatrfactog, belonging to Messrs.
rope and riggip
,11,rhpe, situate in Preston-fields,
James, Wright, and
East India-road, Poplar.
of eapremises, though not
of
wood,range of buildings, two
sub-
stantially built, consisted
sd and upwards of 180
stories high, built chiefly
house, rigging
feet long, consisting of foreman'
hemp-rooms,
the
wAt the time of
shed, pitch and tar stores, wprwkesihliong-
and riggingt hrokup.e,i3lorplee. were
wood-yard, and stables and hay-ipfts. 138'
the commencement of the fire
engaged completing some
cause
busily
vessel
lying in the East India Docks •
of the fire was not precisely known last night,it was
supposed to have occurred by the carelessness
of one
of the boys dropping a lighted candle on a heap of hemp
p
1 in the rope-room, which ignited instantaneously
before the alarm could be given to the workmen in and
before 0
tahe dr
parts of the manufactory, the flames had caught the
roof. In consequence of the combustible character of
the manufactory, the fire spread to the adjacent
depart-
ments with all possible violence, and on arriving at the
pitch and tar stores, amounting, it is said, to 150 bar-
rels, it blazed with terrific force. Large burning flakes
were seen flying in all directions, producing the greatest
alarm amongst the inhabitants, many of whom, fearing
that the roofs of their dwellings would ignite, set about
removing. Owing to the plugs of the water-pipes being
frozen up, by the time the engines were got fully into
play, the whole of the manufactory was on fire. No
portion of the premises were saved. The loss could not
be ascertained ; it was understood to be covered by in-
sursices 1

We regret to announce the death of Lady Eliza-
beth Mathew, of Thomastown Castle, which happened
on last Tuesday night. Her Ladyship, whose benevo-
lence and kindness of heart justly endeared her to her
numerous tenantry and friends, was sister to the late po-
pular Earl of Llandaff and General Montague Mathew.
On the decease of the late Earl the title became dormant,
and the representation of this ancient family devolved
on George Mathew, Esq., the father of the late Member
for Athlone,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 21.
This being the Fourth Seal, the Lord Chancellor took
appeal motions to-day.

YOUNG V. LORD WATERPARR.

This case came before the Court upon motion, the
object of which was to restore the cause to the Vice-
Chancellor of England's paper, it having been tranferred
to.that of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce. The ground
on which the application was made was, that Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce had hitherto been the Counsel
in the cause of Lord Waterpark and Mr. Cavendish.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered the cause to be re-
stored to the paper of the Vice-Chancellor of England.

HALE V. HALE.
This case came before the Court upon an appeal
motion from the decision of the Master of the
Rolls, by which he appointed a receiver over
the brewery business, and also of the stock,
effects, and property belonging to the brewery of
Messrs. Hales, and also directed a reference to the
Master, for the purpose of inquiring into the propriety
of selling the stock, effects, and good-will of the trade.
This short narrative of the case may be thus given :—Mr.
Hale, the plaintiff is a beneficed clergyman, who be-
came entitled, under the will of his father, as the resi-
duary legatee, to a share in the property, and also in
the business of the brewery carried on by his father
in partnership with the defendant. For some time after
the death of the plaintiff's father the business was carried
on by the executors and the defendant ; subsequently,
however, it became matter of contract between the
plaintiff and the defendant, and it was carried on in that
manner for a considerable time. Some time since, dis-
agreements taking place between the parties, the plaintiff
filed his bill for the purpose of putting an end to the bu-
siness, and in that suit the order was made by the Master
of the Rolls, which was now sought to be discharged.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Goodive appeared on behalf of
the appellant; and Mr. Sutton Sharpe and Mr. Romilly
were in support of the order below.
Before Mr. BETHELL had concluded his opening
on behalf of the appellant, an arrangement was come to,
to refer all matters in difference in the cause to Mr.
George Turner, the Queen's Counsel, who was to be at
liberty, if he thought fit, to call in an accountant, and to
have full power to make awards from time to time as he
should thipk fit.

ROLLS COURT, Dec. 21.
CLARKE V. CLARKE.

Mr. TURNER moved to have the bill in this suit, which
had been filed against the defendant as an executor, taken
pro confesso, for want of answer. The defendant was
in custody for contempt of Court.
Mr. DIXON opposed the motion, on the ground that
the requisitions of the Court in such cases had not been
complied with. The order of the Court required that
the defendant should be brought to the bar of the Court,
to clear his contempt, within thirty days after arrest,
if that time should expire in term, and if not, within
four days after the expiration of thirty days. The de-
fendant in this case had been arrested by a Com-
mission of Revenue on the 13th October last, being
in the long vacation, and had been taken to
the private residence of the Master of the Rolls on the
15th October, not, he contended, for the purpose of
clearing his contempt, but merely to be transferred, ad
interim, to the custody of the Fleet, which had been
done. Under these circumstances, he contended that to
have complied with the order of the Court, the defendant
should have been brought to the bar of the Court on or
before the 12th Nov., whereas he had not been brought
to the bar of the Court at all.

The MASTER of the ROLLS said he had no doubt that
it was quite competent to him to transfer the prisoner to
the Fleet. His opinion was, that what had been done
was correct ; but, as it was a case that might frequently
occur, he would inquiie as to the practice of the Court.

DUNN V. FLETCHER.

Mr. ELDERTON moved on behalf of the creditors of a
testator for a special injunction to restrain the defendant
Melville Fletcher, from receiving from the auctioneer
and purchaser of a leasehold estate that had been sold, the
residue of the purchase money, and to restrain the latter
parties from paying the same to him.
The defendant resided in Scotland, and was the sur-
viving executor of a person named Ramsay. On testator's
death, defendant came to London and proved his will;
and having possessed himself of considerable assets re-
turned to Scotland, taking the whole of the proceeds
with him, without satisfying or making any arrangements
for the satisfaction of testator's debts, as he had been
required by the will, notwithstanding be had
been applied to by the creditors for that purpose.
Since that period, a leasehold public house belonging to
the testator, called the Angel, and situate in St.. Giles's
parish, had been sold by public auction for 1,5001., and
the purchaser had paid a deposit of 375/., and was about
to complete the purchase to-morrow, for which purpose
defendant had returned to England. It was alleged in
the affidavits, that if he were allowed to receive the
money, it was believed that he would again remove out
of the jurisdiction of the Court, and appropriate it with-
out paying testator's debts, or otherwise carrying into
effect the directions of the will.

The MASTER of the Rom.s—You may take the order,
subject to the right of the other parties to move to dissolve
the injunction if they shall think proper.

CREASE AND WIFE U. JOHNS AND ANOTHER.

This motion for an injunction to restrain defendants
from holding and working certain mines in Cornwall
was agaiii mentioned this morning. The facts were re-
ported in The Sun some days ago.
Mr. Icartnnsi.it having stated that Mr. 'Williams
would give an undertaking to appear,
The MASTER of the ROLLS granted the injunction,
the plaintiffs undertaking to keep accounts, and to work
the mines in a workmanlike manner until the trial, and
the defendants being at liberty to inspect the mines
twice a month, with liberty to apply.
These motions being dispose:l ol; the Court rose.

VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 21.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
SIR JOHN MORRIS V. VIVIAN AND WILLIAMS.
This was an injunction to restrain the defendants, who
represented the Swansea Coal Company, from draining
the water of the Wern Coal Mine, in Glamorganshire,
into certain adjoining mines, the property of the plaintiff.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Stewart, who
appeared for the plaintiff, that, in the year 1839, a drain
was opened in the mine of the defendants, which con-
veyed the water from it into the mines of the
plaintiff, to the great injury of his works. Pro-
mises were made at the time that the evil should
be remedied. In the month of January, 1841, how-
ever, the passage was again opened, and the plaintiff
after having in vain made certain remonstrances felt it
necessary to bring forward the present motion.
Mr. LOYD, on the part of the defendants, applied for
time to answer the affidavits of the plaintiff, which had
not been filed until the 14th instant.
His HONOUR granted the request, ordered that the
answer should be filed by the 31st instant, and stated
that he would come down specially to Court to hear the
case on the Tuesday following.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
SEDDONS V. PRINCE.
Mr. COOPER showed cause against dissolving an in-
junction to stay trial. The Learned Counsel said the
cause had already been heard before his Honour on ex-
ceptions. Thomas Seddons and James Seddons were
the plaintiffs, and John Prince, Daniel Prince, and John
Bird, the defendants. The bill prayed an account of
dealings and transactions between the plaintiffs and the
defendant Daniel Prince, and prayed that certain promis-
sory notes, or bills of exchange, nine or ten in number,
might be delivered up to be cancelled, and that the de-
fendant John Prince, and Daniel Prince might be restrained
from proceeding on them. The motion against destroying
the injunction was made on behalf of the first defendant, J.
Prince. When the cause same before his Honour on the
10th of November, upon exceptions, all the exceptions
after the 6th were allowed. John Prince had made a
further answer, and on his behalf he now moved to dis-
solve the injunction. The Messrs. Seddons were extensive
upholsterers. In the year 1832 their circumstances be-
coming embarrassed, they came to a composition with
their creditors. By the deed of composition the creditors
of the plaintiffs gave them a license to carry on their
business, and the plaintiffs agreed to pay certain instal-
ments towards the liquidation of their debts, and also
entered into a special covenant that the defendant Daniel
Prince should keep their accounts, and be in the nature
of an inspector for the security of the creditors. Daniel
Prince was to receive 1501. a year for his services. Whilst
at the manufactory, the defendant Daniel Prince received
and paid several sums of money ; and the plaintiffs, who
became indebted to him on various occasions, handed
over to him various bills of exchange towards the satis-
faction of those debts. Some of those notes were the
subject of the present suit. The plaintiffs alleged that
the defendant Daniel Prince had not kept the accounts
in an intelligible way, and that it was impossible to as •
certain from them whether the sums which he alleged to
be due to him from time to time, were in fact due to the
defendant. There had been a settlement of accounts be•
tween the parties in July, 1838, and the result was that
there was then a sum of 239/, 2s. 2d. due from the plain-
tiffs to Daniel Prince, and for that balance the first of the
bills of exchange was given. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to state that John Prince went in 1837 to
China, and before leaving England appointed Daniel
Prince his agent ; but he contended that it appeared that
although the agent of his brother, Daniel had no general
authority to accept and indorse notes and bills of ex-
change. Upon the investigation of the accounts, it had
turned out that there was the sum of 2,808/. 10s. due from
Daniel Prince to the plaintiffs. He contended that he
only stood in the shoes of his brother. John Prince, on
his return from China, discovered that his brother had
defrauded him to a considerable amount ; he did not
appear to have been more faithful to his brother than he
was to the plaintiffs ; and John Prince having got into
his possession these bills of exchange and promissory-
notes, it would be for his Honour to say whether he was
to be considered in a better condition than his brother
with respect to those bills of exchange.
His HONOUR, after hearing Counsel on the other side,
refused the motion.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 21.
(Sittings at .NisiPrius at Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN
and a Special Jury.)
HUTTON AND OTHERS V. BARNET.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. The-
siger) stated the case. It was an action brought by the
plaintiffs, who are merchants trading to the coast of
Africa, to recover compensation for the loss sustained by
them in consequence of the defective description of cer-
tain guns called Tower guns, supplied to them by the
defendants, who are gun manufacturers carrying on busi-
ness in the Minories. The order was given to the de-
fendants in the year 1838 for 400 Tower guns. They
were understood to be for the African trade, and the
price paid was 9s. each. When the goods were landed
on the coast of Africa, it was found that a large
number of the :guns were spliced in the stocks.
They were old Government muskets instead of being new
ones, and many of them were in so defective a state that
they were not merchantable and were obliged id be taken