The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-25 00:00:00

THE SUN,

don't think I sheula use strings, because the valw-; ;
may be moved by going on the deck.
Mr. William Joyce was next examined—Ha said,
I live at Greenwich, and I am an engineer. I merely
present myself in order to reply to any questions
you or the jury may think proper to put. I have no
statement to make. I contracted with Mr. Smith
to make the boat and her machinery complete.
The boat and machinery were made under
my superintendence. The boilers were made by Mr.
William Trotman, of Whitecrcss-street, in the
Borough. The boat and machinery were made to
my satisfaction, and the boat was handed by me to
Mr. Smith as sound. The front plates were nearly
flat, but there was a slight convexity which
was perceptible to the eye. It never came
to my knowledge until after the explo-
sion that the valves had been tied. I examined the
boat with Mr. Lloyd after the explosion. I agree in
Mr. Lloyd's statement with respect to the pipe at the
end of the lever, which was a fact Mr. Lloyd could
not be aware of. I think the pressure must have been
far more than 120 before it gave way. Except the
boilers had been very much strained and bent, I think
the boilers would bear a pressure of 1501bs.
By Mr. M. Chambers—lf any important repairs
were required the boats used to be sent to me.
By Mr. James—l contracted for the boats and
machinery of the Ant and Bee, but I did not construct
the boiler. I had used such boilers with my ma-
chinery for the last two years, and I believed them
to be good. The engines and boilers have to perform
exceedingly heavy work. I took the utmost pains in
the making of the machinery and no expense was
spared. Mr. Trotman had his own price for his
boiler. I did not bate him down a farthing. My
opinion that the boiler would not burst at 150 is
founded upon the assumption that the boiler had not
been strained before. When it burst at 136 the stays
were gone, and the angle-iron was very much in-
jured. I agree most undoubtedly with Mr. Lloyd,
that the explosion could not have happened unless the
valves had been interfered with in some way or other.
By the CORONER—A very small cord tied at the
end of the lever would keep it close, against a pres-
sure of 1501bs. If it were possible to get a boiler to
bear a pressure of 1,0001b5., it is probable the string
would give way before it reached that.
By Mr. James—l do not consider the strings
necessary to an engineer who understands
his business. The pulleys in the Ant and Bee
are for pulling the valves up for the purpose of
relieving them. Supposing the maximum pressure
to be 66, and the minimum 59, I do not think any
injury could have been caused to the boilers in
six months. Commercially, it is unusual to
make boilers to bear ten times their pressure.
Locomotive boilers bear a pressure of 100,
and they would not bear a pressure of 1,000.
I do not believe there is a boat in the river that
would bear more than or five times the pressure for
which it is made. Convexity is not a defect.
By Mr. Morgan—lron marked B B H, or Lowmoor,
is the best. I believe the Cricket boiler was made
partly of it. It is only used for the furnace in com-
mercial boilers. A person named Horton made the
boilers of the Ant and Bee. I don't think any
Lowmoor iron is used in their construction. They
are thicker in some parts, as they are larger—half a
16th thicker. Ido not know whether the angle-iron
is thicker.

Mr. Trotman was next examined—l have been a
boilermaker since my youth. I furnished the
boilers of the Cricket to Mr. Joyce. He
said they were to work at a pressure of
from 40 to 50, never to exceed 50. I proposed to
prove them for a 100 with cold water, and Mr. Joyce
said he should be perfectly satisfied. I did not prove
them because Mr. Joyce said he would prove them
himself. I filled them with water to try if
they leaked. I believe he offered to prove
them to save time. I should not have he,i-
tated for a moment to prove • them for
200. I consider they would have borne that pres-
sure. I form this opinion from practical experience
in the building of other boilers. I went up and down
the river several times to see how they worked. I
heard no complaint of them. When they first set
to work I did a little caulking to the front
plates. I consider that some unfair means must
have been resorted to otherwise the boiler would
not have exploded. The angle-iron was torn, and
it was made stronger than usual. I bought the iron
from Messrs. Moser, of the Borough, who supply the
greater part of the engineers of London. I paid them
151. per ton for the light, and 201. a ton for the two
plates. I worked tons of it, and next to Lowmoor I
prefer this iron to any other—the B B H.
By Mr. M. Chambers—l left Mr. Horton sixteen
years ago. I have been in business seven years.
When I received the order I did not know that
Messrs. Horton had made the engines of the Ant
and Bee. I examined them, but I did not ascertain
the thickness of the front plate. Ido not know their
thickness. I did not know that Messrs. Horton had
been applied to to make the boilers. Mr. Joyce gave me
the dimensions and thickness of the boiler. I make
merely the boilers, without fixing the safety valves or
making apertures for them. I think I have made as
many boilers as any man who has been in the trade
for the same length of time. I never made a high
pressure engine for any vessel. I would undertake
to patch up the remaining portion of the exploded
boiler, and I have no doubt it would bear a pressure
of 2001bs. If it did not, I would do the work for
nothing.
By Mr. James—ln my opinion the boiler which
exploded would have worked for years if it had been
fairly worked—with a fair pressure. I understand
the *Cricket's engines have been worked at as high a
pressure as 80 degrees. I never knew an ordinary
boiler that would stand a working pressure of ten
times its proof pressure. I cannot account for this
boiler bursting, unless it had been overpressed. The
shell of the boiler, which weighed a ton and a half,
was driven through the stern of the boat, and 40
yards through the water. That shows there must
have been an extraordinary pressure of steam. I
never knew Lowmoor iron used without a special
order.

Robert Rettie, of Ham, civil engineer and practical
mechanic, deposed—l have frequently been on board
the Cricket as a passenger. I have not examined the
exploded boiler. My opinion is, from a model of
the engine and boilers I have seen, that if the quantity
of water in the boiler was not sufficient to cover all
the tubes, the tubes would become overheated, and
would generate steam faster than the valves could
deliver it, and would, thereby cause an explosion.
The listing of the boat would assist in producing such
an effect. The great heating surface would increase
the risk of an explosion. The lifting valves, such as
were used in the Cricket, are apt to " gag," and then
would not move ; they would require a blow to
slacken them. If all the valves had been tied down
with such spun-yarn as has been described, I consider
that they would not all have resisted the pressure. I
do not think five-yarn spun-yarn would have held
down the valves till the boiler burst.

By Mr. James—The valves might have been tied
down in such a way as to cau.se the bursting of the
boiler. I think if the levers were tied down with
three-yarn spun yarn they might resist a pressure
of 3001 b.

Charles Sedge, engineer, of Greenwich —I was
employed by Messrs. Joyce while the engines of the
Cricket were being put on board. During out expe-
rimental trips we proved the boiler, by steam, to a
pressure of 301 b. more than she would ever work at.
We proved her by hydraulic pressure at 1301 b. We
then, by steam, worked her at 801 b. the square inch,
and saw no indication of the boilers giving way. We
applied a straight-edge to the front plate, and found
both boilers slightly convex to the extent of a quarter
of an inch. I screwed down Salter's valves to 21b or
31b. above the weight which the other valves would
bear.
Mr. Smith wished to correct an error in his former
evidence, in which he had stated that the present pro-
prietors were Mr. W. Corry, Mr. Alderman Thomp-
son, Mr. W. Forman, and himself. He found that
he bad made a mistake in mentioning the names of
Alderman Thompson and Mr. Forman ; he found
that their partnership ceased in July last.
Mr. Hearne, juryman, said that Mr. Smith had
first sworn that Alderman Thompson and another
gentleman were partners with himself and Mr. Corry.
The jury ought to be satisfied by some written docu-
ments who were the real proprietors of the boats.
Mr. Smith explained how the circumstances had
arisen. The two gentlemen in question had the op-
tion of retiring from the proprietorship on giving a
certain notice, which he had since found they had
given ; so that they had ceased to be co-proprietors in
July last. The proprietors of the Cricket steam-boat,
at the time of the explosion, were himself and Mr. W.
Corry. _ _

There being no other evidence,
The CORONER then addressed the jury. He said
that, although they had arrived at the termina-
tion of their labours, their chief duty was now about
to commence ; yet by the patience, intelligence, and
perseverance which they had displayed throughout the
course of this long and arduous 'inquiry, they had
shown themselves fullyqualified for the office which
had devolved upon them. They would none of them
forget the scene which they had Witnessed in entering
upon the inquiry, and it was. unnecery to repeat
i
that they were mpanelled to inquire into the
causes of the death of Thomas Shed, John Littleton,
John Blunt, George Shute, and John Buckley. Their
duty was to inquire by what means the death of these
persons had been caused, whether it had been produced
by the criminal act or neglect of any other person,
and if so, by what persons. They would remember
thatif they were not satisfied that the explosion had
been caused by the acts of any one particular indi-
vidual, it would not, therefore, be their duty
to pronounce that it was caused by accident.
They would collect from the evidence generally that
certain highly respectable persons had become the
proprietors of certain steam-boats. The mere fact of

11, :

ti,iIOUS

spohtible pump., 7.f:1- qt. :,,,feLV .rf the boats and
machinery, an,; for the acts of tho:e in their employ
—their servants and agents. The proprietors had
engaged on board their boats persons to whose single
care the lives of hundreds of persons were entrusted,
and they ought to be persons to whom they could
safely confide suoh a charge. It was proved that
Mr. Smith, one of the proprietors, heard of the
valves of the Cricket being tied; that he only made
inquiry of one person whether that was true or no,
and that he took that person's denial. If there had
been any neglect on the part of Mr. Smith, that would
be matter of consideration and inquiry elsewhere,
and not for them, unless the jury considered that
the conduct of the proprietors had been criminal ;
that was, that he took a part in tying the strings
which caused the explosion, if the jury were of
opinion that the explosion was so caused. A
deviation from their duties on the part of the
servants would effect them criminally, and might
affect their employers criminally also. Then the pro-
prietors were bound to purchase their boats and
machinery from parties properly qualified to know
whether they were made secure ; and it appeared that
the engine-makers, gentlemen of eminence, had
guaranteed the security of the steam-boat, as between
themselves and the proprietors. There were various
responsibilities which might have to be considered,
but their duty was narrowed to the question, whether
the explosion arose from any fault or negligence that
was of a criminal character—namely, that was con-
nected directly with the explosion. Their inquiry
had been further narrowed by the abolition of
deodands, which had been carried into effect by a law
passed during the last session of Parliament. Partly
as a substitute for the law of deodand, the families of
persons killed by accidents might now receive com-
pensation. Up to the passing of the law of last session
this anomaly existed—that whereas parties who were
injured and mutilated by any accident had a remedy
against the proprietors, the families of those who were
more unfortunate, the families of those who were
killed by an accident, ceased to have any claim for
compensation. By the law as it now stood the claim
still enjoyed by the injured and mutilated was ex-
tended to the representatives of the deceased, and was
a means of obtaining compensation for the loss of
those individuals. The sole question for them to
satisfy themselves upon was, whether there bad
been any criminal act or negligence or not. It was
stated by the evidence of various witnesses that
Clarke, the company's engineer, was in the habit of
tying down the safety valves. The jury would weigh
the whole of this evidence, and would decide whether
Clarke did or not tie down the valves, and whether
that was or was not the cause of the explosion. The
evidence on that point was, that Clarke was the engi-
neer of the Cricket down to the 15th of August, and
that he was on board on the morning of the explosion,
but only for a short time. It appeared that Haisman
was the engineer at the time of the explosion, and
there seemed to be no direct evidence that Haisman
had tied down the valves on the morning of the ex-
plosion. Then it was the duty of Haisman to give
his attention to the engine, and if he were absent
from the engine-room at the moment when he
ought to have been there, and when his
presence was absolutely required, he would
be criminally responsible for the explosion.
The jury had received important assistance from the
very valuable evidence by Mr. Lloyd, and his sug-
gestions would no doubt receive due attention else-
where. Among other startling statements made by
Mr. Lloyd, it appeared that the boilers of the Cricket
were not made so as to bear, for any length of time,
the pressure which they ought to be able to sustain,
and Mr. Lloyd's hint to the Board of Trade upon
that point might prevent the probable repetition of
accidents from the causes he had mentioned; He
should prefer laying the evidence before the jury,
but he must draw their attention specifically to one
or two points as he proceeded. (The Coroner then
read the depositions of the witnesses, which occupied
up wards of an hour.) He would now leave them to
consider their verdict, merely repeating that they
would hear in mind whether there was any criminal
responsibility with any individual, so as to have con-
nexion with some act done which had produced the
explosion.
The jury, at eight o'clock, retired to consider their
verdict. After being absent about two hours, they
returned into Court.

The CORONER (addressing the jury)—Are you all
agreed upon your verdict ?
The Foreman replied in the affirmative, and said—
"We find that Thomas Shed, John Littleton, John
Blunt, George Shute, and John Buckley, came to
their deaths through the bursting of the boiler of the
Cricket steam-boat on the 27th of August, 1847.
We find a verdict of Manslaughter against Henry
Robert Haisman. We consider Thomas Clarke highly
culpable, and unfit to hold a situation of engineer. We
likewise consider Mr. Smith's conduct shamefully ne-
glectful in not properly investigating the complaint
made against Clarke."
The CORONER immediately issued his warrant for
the apprehension of Haisman, which was handed to
Inspector Marsh for execution.
It was whispered in the inquest-room that several
of the jury were disposed to pronounce a more severe
expression of their opinion with regard to Mr. Smith
than that which was eventually adopted in their
verdict.

The proceedings did not terminate until nearly
half-past 10 o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
-COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Sept. 24.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
WILLIAM ROLFE'S BANKRUPTCY.

The bankrupt was a corn-dealer and farmer resid-.
ing at Leyton, in Essex. His debts are about 1,0001.,
and the assets trifling. It appeared that Rolfe had
been previously a bankrupt, owing 10,0001., of which
only a dividend of 2s. in the pound was paid. The
expenses in this balance-sheet were 2,902/. whilst the
whole profits of the business amounted to only 2,3271.
He came up for his certificate.
The COMMISSIONER said the expenses had been
heavy, and recollecting that Rolfe had been previ-
ously a bankrupt, and looking at the general com-
plexion of the balance-sheet, he felt it incumbent, upon
him to suspend the certificate for six months from
this date.
Protection refused.
ROBERT DREW'S BANKRUPTCY.

Drew was a wine-merchant, in High street, Shore-
ditch. The debts were about 1,0001. This was the
certificate meeting.
Mr. Lawrance supported, and Mr. Duncan opposed
on b?half of two creditors. It appeared that Drew
had been a bankrupt in 1833, an insolvent in 1834, a
bankrupt again in 1836, in 1841 he was anin a bank-
rupt, again in 1843, so that this was the sixth occa-
sion of his appearing before the Court. The main
grounds of opposition were dealing in accommodation
bills, obtaining goods by fraudulent representation
from a creditor, and excessive expenditure.
Mr. DUNCAN examined the bankrupt, who stated
that his chief profits arose from keeping and selling
public-houses; that his expenditure was to some ex-
tent caused by maintaining a corps of professional
singers at one of the taverns which he occupied—the
Gun at Shoreditch; that it was true he had dealt to
some extent in accommodation bills, but nobody had
been prejudiced by such dealing, and no holder of any
of them now opposed him. He denied the charge of
obtaining goods by false representations.
His HONOUR said that under all the circumstances
of the case he did not think he should be acting in
accordance with the spirit of the statute in allowing a
man who had been five times a bankrupt and once an
insolvent, to launch into the mercantile world again
with the certificate of that Court in his hand. He
must refuse the certificate altogether.
Protection was refused even for a limited period.
The COMMISSIONER remarked that in the case of
Drew several creditors had written to him complain-
ing of the bankrupt's conduct. He must say that
such communications were most improper, and for his
part he would never place any faith in the representa-
tions of men who were base enough to slander a man
enin verythe hands muchof the behind his back. The bankrupt had no opportunity
of repelling these accusations, and he (the Commis-
sioner)astin
felt disposed
htaoapklraucp
te the
who
letters in
Imight
then act against his defamers as he might be advised.

BOYD AND HARMER'S BANKRUPTCY.
The bankrupts, Isaac Boyd and Richard Harmer,
were silk manufacturers in Spital-square. The fiat
is dated June the 26th in the present year. It was
issued on the petitition of Messrs. Coxhead, Fordati,
and Goldsmid, of Threadneedle-street. This was a
meeting for the last examination of the bankrupts,
and for the proof or debts. Since the failure of the
house, Mr. Harmer's mind became so much affected
by his misfortunes that he was for a considerable
period an inmate of a lunatic asylum, and a physi-
cian's certificate was on this occasion produced, stating
that the unfortunate gentleman was unable to attend
from the same cause.
The main items of the joint balance- sheet are as
follows :—Sundry creditors, 22,3151. 18s. 7d. ; capital
(to the credit of Richard Harmer), 5,1821. 7s. Bd.;
profits on trading, 11,8461. 4s. 6d. ; good debts,
4,424/. 7s. 101. ; doubtful debts, 104/. ; property,
11,5181. 12s. 9(1.; trade expenses, 5,8051. 125.; losses,
6,899/. 10s. sd. Mr. Boyd drew from the concern
3,8971. 175.; Mr. Harmer, 6,6901. Is. The balance-
sheet extends from the lst of February, 1840, to June,
1847.

Mr• Boyd passed his last examination without op•
position, and debts to a considerable amount were
proved against the estate.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Sept 24.
IN RE WALDRON KELLY.
This insolvent, late superintendent of police at
Bishop's .Stortford, was opposed by Mr.. Cooke, on
behalf of a creditor named aandall.