The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-18 00:00:00

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

The general court-martial, at Chatham Barracks, on
Captain Bull, of the 57th regiment, on tfte charge of
putting Major Shadforth, his superior officer, in arrest,
and assuming the command of the head-quarters of the
regiment, while on board the ship Mary Anne, in Simon's
Bay, Cape of Good Hope, having concluded the case for
the prosecution on Tuesday, we may now give a short
account of the proceedings since the 10th instant.
Previous to being sworn, Major Shadforth said it was
with deep regret that he came forward in the unenviable
position of prosecutor in the present inquiry - but ha felt
bound to do so, both for the public good, and good of
the service. He thought the accused had been urged to do
as he had done by interested individuals, unacquainted
with military disci line. On being sworn, he said, I came
home in command of the head-quarters of the 57th Regi-
ment. On July 9th, 1846, when at Simon's Bay, Cape of
Good Hope, on board the barque Mary Anne, about
midnight, the prisoner came to my cabin door, aid said,
" Mr. Allen, the master of the ship, has reported to me
that you came on board the ship in a state of intoxica-
tion. I think it my duty to order you in arrest." At
this time I had been upwards of an hour in bed. When
I came on deck the following morning, at eight o'clock,
I went on the poop. Shortly afterwards the prisoner
came up to me, and said, "Are you aware, Major Shad-
forth, that I came to your cabin last night and ordered
you under arrest." I replied, " Yes, and a-- piece
of impertinence on your part ; you want to assume
the command of the , regiment ;" he then went
away. The acting adjutant, Lieutenant Grant, was on
the poop, and I called to him to send for the regi-
mental order-book, and insert therein, " That I wished
to meet the whole of the officers at 10 a. e. that day."
He refused to obey my order. As I was leaving the
poop I said, in a loud tone of voice, addressing Captain
Bull, " It is my positive orders that no officer leave the
ship without my permission." I then sent for the ser-
geant-major of the regiment, and ordered him to put in
the pass-order book, " That I wished to meet the whole

of the officers that morning at ten o'clock." I then went
breakfast, after which, Captain Stanley, of the 57th
Regiment, under my command, reported to me in writing,
that he had been placed under arrest by Captain Bull.
I found Captain Bull had quitted the ship in disobedience
of my orders. Captain Buil had been detailed as cap-
tain of the day, for the 10th July, in his regular tour of
duty. He remained absent from the ship till the morning
of the 11th July, when he returned on board.
Major Shadforth called, as his witnesses Captain
Stanley, Assistant-Surgeon Jackson, and private James
M'Clister, the orderly of the day.
Captain Bull, by his witnesses, as a justification for
what he had done, produced evidence to prove that Major
Shadforth and Lieutenants Hunt and Logan returned on
board on the night of the 9th July, in a state of intoxi-
cation, and that he was called up from his bed by the
captain of the ship in consequence thereor, that officer
representing to him that there was danger to be appre-
hended from the state in which the officers had retired
to their cabins with lighted candles. To prove this state-
ment, A. P. Allen, the commander of the ship, was called,
and he alleged that the major, when he came on board,
fell upon the deck, and staggered to the cuddy; and
other witnesses spoke to the state of the two lieutenants,
who were described as being extremely noisy; and Lieut.
Sweton Grant, then acting adjutant, who was ordered by
Capt. Bull to go their cabin and sea to the light, stated
that he found one of them lying on his bed, and the other
so intoxicated that he was obliged to help him into his cot.
In explanation of Capt. Bull's absence, it appeared that he
went to Cape Town to represent the affair to the authorities
there, and returned with an order for the major's arrest,
and a court of inquiry followed, when the major was rein-
stated in his command, and Captain Bull ordered into
close arrest, for having unjustifiably ordered his com-
manding officer into arrest. Mr. Allen, and Mr. Prinne,
the surgeon of the ship, appear to have been the parties
who expressed their alarm for the safety of the ship, and
this led to the steps taken by Captain Bull. It was
stated by one of the witnesses that the major and the
master of the vessel had always appeared on good terms;
but it was elicited, in the cross-examination, that Major
Shadforth had complained of the state of the ship, say-
ing he did not consider her seaworthy, and that he
should report her as such; and it seems it was found
necessary to caulk her waterways by men-of-war's men,
after a visit by some naval officers. Mr. Prinne, the
surgeon, having left the country, the prisoner produced
his written evidence, accompanied by an affidavit made
before one of the judges at Westminster; but this was
rejected, after submitting the same to the Judge Advo-
cate-General, through the Horse Guards. It appeared
that up to the 9th of July Major Shadforth and the pri-
soner, as well as all the other officers, had been on those
friendly terms which usually exist between officers of the
same corps.
For the defence, Captain Bull called, besides Mr.
Allen, the commander of the Mary Anne, William
Woodbury and William Hunter, cuddy servants ; Lieu-
tenant Grant, Lieutenant Chads, and Major Garvick,
of the 31st Regiment, the latter being called to character,
having served with him in the 10th Regiment in 1839.
The evidence on both sides beine. completed. Captain
Bull asked for time to prepare hi:defence. The Cour
will therefore meet on Monday next, when the same wi
be read.

To Major-General Brotherton, the President, the
thanks of the members of the press are justly due for
his attention to their accommodation throughout the pro-
ceedings.

SUICIDE OF MAJOR R. F. EAMES,
LATE of THE 47TH FOOT—MADRAS ARMY.
Last evening the adjourned inquest on the body of
Major Richard Fairfax Eames, aged 50, who committed
suicide by shooting himself through the heart, on the
morning of Wednesday last, under circumstances which
were given in this journal of Saturday, was resumed be-
fore Mr. Bedford, the coroner, at the Prince Albert
Hotel, Leicester-place.
Mr. llamlyn Nott, assistant surgeon in the Madras
service, said he knew the deceased intimately. About 18
months back he embarked with him from India, on board
ship. He found him at times highly excited; so much so,
that, in conversation, all persons were obliged to be very
guarded. He had retired from the service, having been
invalided on account of an affection of the brain. Nile took
the smallest quantity of wine or spirits he became so
excited as almost to amount to insanity. During the
voyage he frequently shut himself in his cabin, and was
heard muttering and making all sorts of remarks on his
fellow-passengers. On one occasion the captain of the
ship, in the course of conversation, mentioned " Dutch
courage," upon which the major became considerably
excited, and said he would not allow such language in his
prasence, as he was an officer and a gentleman. The last
time he saw him alive was about a fortnight back, when
he appeared must cheerful, and told him that he was
about purchasing a shooting-box near Reading. Ile was
a native of Ireland, and was generally most cheerful.
Mr. William Day, solicitor, of No. 1, Queen-street,
Mayfair, said :he was applied to by the deceased, who
was introduced by Captain White, to negotiate for the
purchase of a small estate near Maidenhead. He then
appeared of a very nervous temprament. Witness only
saw him twice. The night before he committed the act
of suicide witness received a letter from him, in which
he requested him, if he had not gone too far, to break
off the purchase.
Inspector Wball, of the C division, produced the fol-
lowing letter, which was Round in the room where de-
ceased shot himself. It was in the deceased's hand-
writing, and was addressed "James Clarke, Esq., Post-
office, Dublin :

"Prince Albert Hotel, Leicester-square.
" Dear James,—Long before this reaches, the hand
that penned will be closed in death. From insinuations
and inuendos thrown out at various times that I
have sacrificed my honour and reputation in some
way or the other, why I know not, I find this world
no longer worth living in, and throw off the
mortal and become an immortal. The rest who
knows? You must take care how you break the news
to my dearest sister, whose fondness and goodness of
heart I have so little deserved. On you must devolve
the task of breaking it out to all. My things you will
find at 61, Jermyn-street, and my body, I suppose, will
remain here. I have been suffering much in body and
mind for the last three days ; in fact, from fancy or some
demon or another, I am more like a man beside himself.
Coutts and Co. are my bankers, and the cheque-book is
at my lodgings. I have 10,000 rupees ; let 5,000 re-
main at interest for my daughter. Now, God bless you
and yours. :I do not know what my poor dear brother
Be yamin will say. Kiss them all for the sake of their
unhappy uncle. 'Yours affectionately,

The inquest was a,qt. F. EAMES."
.Tain adjourned.

OALTZD SALmoN----
The revenue authorities having
bad under their .7a consideration
_rst. an application from cer-
tain parties, o
, owners
esti class sufferance wharf on
utiO
the river side„ re
allowed to be landed at tirthat salted salmon may be
of the principal officers or
tilvehadrf, and also the reports
commending. that salted salmon cpartm.elit thereon, re-
, as British taking, im-
ported from Newfoundland, ma—
y be add d ! to the list of
articles allowed to be landed at the
particular premises
alluded to, and that a similar privilege may be extended
to all the first-class sufferance wharves ; orders have
been issued for the same to be permitted in future sc.
cordingly.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 17.

COLEMAN P. THE DIRECTORS OF THE EASTERN COUNTIES
RAILWAY COMPANY.-IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

His HoNoun. delivered judgment in this case to-Jay,
which came before the Court upon a motion on the part
of the defendants to dissolve an injunction that had been
obtained by the plaintiff. The question at issue was one of
the greatest importance to the public. There were five
parties to be considered in this matter :—the Eastern
Counties Railway Company, the Eastern Union Railway
Company, the Harwich Steam-packet Company, the
plaintiff, and the public. The plaintiff was a shareholder
in the Eastern Counties Railway, which by its Act was
invested with very extensive powers. Railways were of
so comparatively recent an existence that neither the Le-
gislature nor courts of law had been able to consider those
powers in all the lights, relations, and operations in
which they should be regarded, to enable them to be
correctly dealt with. However, general princip!es
must be applied to them where such were appli-
cable. To look at a railway as a common
partnership .would be hardly sufficient to estimate
it, its powers being so vast, and the exercise of them
so influential on private and public interests. The Act,
in his opinion, gave no further powers to railway com-
panies than it stated, or, at all events, than were necessary
for carrying out what was set forth, which latter was
not always very clear. It had been stated that power
was given to railway companies to enter into new trans-
actions, and it had been contended that they were em-
powered to use the funds of the company in any way
they thought was calculated to increase the traffic of the
undertaking. But in no Act on the subject was there
power given of the nature contended for. He did not
mean to enter into the question of the advantage which
the project, proposed by the defendants, might confer
on the railway or the public. It might even be
a national benefit, but in effecting it the directors would
be dealing with millions of the capital of the railway
under their direction. They would be applying this to
the support of the Harwich Steam-packet Company to
an extent of 150,0001. or 390,0001. But they not only
proposed to do this by giving an interest of 5 per cent.
out of the funds of the railway company, but they even
guaranteed to secure, from the same source, those who
should embark in this steam-packet company, against
all loss in the event of its failure. Now, there was
nothing in the Act of Parliament to authorise this. He
did not attach much importance to the consent of the
majority at a - meeting to embark in the proposed
undertaking, for it could not confer legality upon that
which they had no authority or power to perform. Be-
sides, it was well known that the motives which fre-
quently obtained acquiescence in certain speculators,
were no other than an extravagant cupidity to obtain a
larger return than they were at present realising, or a
terror of entering into a contest with those who
were more powerful than themselves. From these con-
siderations he would not dissolve the injunction.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Dec. 17.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LUCAS.

This was a petition on which exceptions were taken to
the Master's report. The defendant, Mr. Lucas, had
married the daughter of the petitioners (Mr. and Mrs.
Jago), who was only 18 years of age, and entitled to
property to the amount of 20,0001. The Master's finding
would, if carried out, give the defendant a power over
the property of the wife, which, it was contended, was
at variance with the spirit and terms of the Act of Par-
liament, which provided, that a husband marrying under
these circumstances should not derive any pecuniary bene-
fit from the estate of his wife, nor be placed in a situation
to exercise any power over its disposition. The case turned
entirely upon the construction of the Act of Parliament,
which the defendant's counsel contended never contem-
plated an interpretation so stringent as that sought to
be established by the petitionurs, which, if carried cut,
would operate meat injuriously, depriving the wife of the
power of rewarding her husbrid for kind treatment.
Mr. Romilly appeared in support of the petition, and
Mr. Tinney for the defendant.
His lioNoun deferred judgment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 17.
HOOPER AND ANOTHER V. TREFFEY.
In this case Mr. Gurney and Mr. Baddeley appeared
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Crowder, with whom was Mr.
M. Smith, appeared for the defendant.
It appeared that tho defendant, who was a gentle-
man of considerable property, residing at Fowey,
and the proprietor of a considerable extent of
woodland, was anxious to dispose of a quantity
of the bark from the trees upon his estate. A
sample was accordingly sent to a friend of his, residing
in London, who waited upon the petitioner with the
sample, and was referred by him to Purday's Tavern,
Leadenhall-market, a house much frequented by per-
sons in the tanning trade. Upon that occasion,
he met a person of the name of Thomson, who
approved of the sample, and agreed to purchase a
quantity of it for the plaintiff. A schooner, freighted
with about 80 tons of the bark shortly after arrived at
Leith, for the perstin who had agreed to purchase the
article in London. The plaintiffs had previously given
their acceptance to the defendant for the amount of the
bark, which had since been paid. Upon the delivery of
the cargo to the purchaser, Mr. Thomson, it was disco-
vered that it was not according to sample, and also that
it was much damaged by the effects of the weather.
Mr. CILOWDER contended that there was no ground
fur the present action by the plaintiff against the de-
fendant. The sole party aggrieved, if any, was Mr.
Thomson, the purchaser of the cargo, and he was the
party who should have brought the action.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that he would reserve
that point.
Mr. CaowDEa then contended that the cargo was
originally equal to sample, and proceeded to call wit-
nesses.
It appeared, however, from the cross•examination of
one of them, that the sample originally sent up was not
of the same quality as the cargo.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff fur the
sum claimed.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Dec. 17.
(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)
THE GAZELLE COLLISION.

This was a suit brought by the owners of the
schooner Despatch, to recover compensation for the loss
sustained by them in a collision between their vessel and
the schooner Gazelle.

The schooner (of 18 tons), laden with coals, on the
21st of January last, was steering S. and by E. about
ten miles off the South Dudgeon Light. The Gazelle
was bearing off N.N.W. half W. The wind was blow-
ing strong, the night dark and hazy, and the rate of the
steamer was eight miles an hour. The steamer struck
her: ❑ear the paddle-box, and she herself sunk almost
immediately, and for this (total) loss the suit was
brought. The course taken by the two vessels on near-
ing, and seeinz each other, was that the helm of the
Gazelle was put to port, the helm of the schooner hard
a starboard. These were the main facts, and the ques-
tions raised upon them were chiefly—Was the steamer
justified in a dark night, in such a situation, in sailing
at such a rate? Ought she not to have eased her engines?
When the accident became inevitable, had each vessel
adopted the proper course ?
Drs. Joiner and Doane were for the schooner ; Dr.
Addams and Dr. Phillimore for the owners of the Ga-
zelle.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON was assisted by Captain Baynton
arid Captain Ferrer of the Trinity House, and in sum-
ming up to them the facts of the case, said that it was
moot important that the rule of navigation for steamers
should be" distinctly understood. The rule had been laid
down that steamers should give way to :merchant ships,
fur they were considered in the position of sailing vessels
having the wind fair, and such vessels were always bound
to give way. That rule had been laid down, and unless
the Trinity Masters thought it wrong its observance
should ba insisted upon. The first question, however,
here was, whether the rate of the steamer in a dark
night, in a sea crowded with colliers, was not too rapid?
Ought not her engines to have been eased? If the col.
lision were attributable to her, she must bear the loss ;
but if the schooner had also done wrong in starboarding
her helm, the damage must be borne between them.
The Trinity Masters held that the orders given to
starboard the helm were given simultaneously with the
accident. They exonerated the schooner from all blame.
The steamer was to blame in going at such a speed in a
thronged thoroughfare.
The COURT accordingly pronounced for the damage,
with costs.