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

SUN,- LONDON,

their becoming proprietors would throw upon them
various and serious responsibilities. They were re-
sponsible persons for the safety of the boats and
machinery, and for the acts of those 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 such 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 bueri 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 obtaininf compensation for the loss of
those individuals. The sole question for them to
satisfy themselves upon was, whether there had
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
upwards 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 hadEproducesl. the,
explosion. Gouda
The jury, at eight o'clock, retired to consider their
verdict. After being absc;at 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—
" IVe 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 QC/BONER 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 10,000/., 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 suspet*Oo.Aertificeofor 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 behalf 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 again 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. WricAN 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, arid 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
behind his back. ,The bankrupt had no opportunity
of repelling these accusations, and he (the Commis-
sioner)aaeetie
question
very mach disposed
of h
tebankrupt,
who
the
letters in
then act against his defamers as he might be advised.
were The s bankrupts, °ul Da
euAianetlusilar
ersßionydS
's BANKRUPTCY.
anditai
sßichardquare. HTahremfieart,
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
I house, Mr. Harmer's mind became so much affected
by his misfortunes that .he was for a considerable
period art 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
on trading, 11,846/. 4s. ; good debts,(to the credit of Richard Harmer), 5,1821. 7s. Bd.;
profits
4,4241.11,5181. 7s.
12s. ; 1.1;23p. r; oipeeirs
et ya
6,8991. 10s. sd. Mr. Boyd drew from the concern
trade
ebetxfupel
expenses, 5,8051.
3,8971. 175.; Mr. Harmer, 6,6901. Is. The balance-
sheet extends from the Ist 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 it creditor named Randall-

The case was before the Court two days since,
when an adjournment took place to enable the detain-
ing creditor to produce his books to prove the ex-
istence of a debt due from the insolvent. To-day
Mr. Rogers, draper, of Bishop's Sfortford, the de-
taining creditor, produced his books, in which were
entries of goods supplied to the insolvent.
_ _

Mr. Cools then admitted the existence of the
debt, but submitted that the Court should dismiss this
petition, inasmuch as the arrest was evidently a
friendly contrivance to enable the insolvent to get
rid of his liabilities without any corresponding bene-
fit to the creditors. 'Mt. Randall, the opposing cre-
ditor, was a tradesman at Bishop's Stortford, against
whom the insolvent, in his capacity of inspector of
weights and measures, laid a complaint, which was
dismissed by the magistrates, and Mr. Randall
brought an action, which he after wards consented to
waive, but the insolvent compelled him to proceed to
trial, when a verdict for the plaintiff, and 201. da-
mages was given. The creditor now complained that
the insolvent had procured his own arrest to evade
payment of his just debts.
Mr. Nichols appeared for the insolvent.

The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER said this might
be a case for the entire benefit of the insolvent, with.;
out regard to his creditors, but since the alteration of
the law the watchfulness of the Court with respect to
friendly arrests had been removed, because the Le-
gislature had thought fit to give the greatest facilities
to every debtor to accommodate his own affairs, in
one court or another, at any time that might best suit
himself, the interest of creditors,being little considered.
This Court had, consequently, come to the determi-
nation that where a debt was proved, except under
the most stringent circumstances, the petition should
not be dismissed on the ground of a friendly arrest.
In this case the existence of a debt was admittel, and
therefore the petition would be sustained, although it
would have been more creditable to the insolvent
and the detaining creditor if they had not .evaded
much the question of the friendliness of the arrest.
Mr. COOKE having required the insolvent to amend
his description by inserting Captain Kelly, the case
was adjourned to Thursday.