The Sun.
London, England, 1869-11-02 00:00:00

THE CHARGE OF SCUTTLING A SHIP,

The charge against the captain and mate of the ship Old
England of scuttling that vessel has been further investigated
before Alderman Sir Robert Carden, at the Mansion House.
After hearing some further evidence, Mr. Day
addressed the magistrate on behalf of the accused. He
4welt on the improbabilities of tho case, remarking that
it was unlikely that Hanlon and Collins—who were only
men before the mast—should take such an interest
in the ship, and When they could have "turned
in " if they chose. It was improbable that
if the prisoners had any fraudulent attempt—which
he denied—that they would have gone about the
work in the manner stated, and even if
they meant the ship to sink, the large leak
in her bottom was quite sufficient without any scuttling.
Was it not improbable that the carpenter should openly go
about with his angers, and bore holes in the
ship ? Carpenters generally carried their tools
about with them. The day before the ship was
said to have been scuttled it was agreed to leave her, so
that it would have:been useless:to scuttle her. Sir Robert
Carden said after watching the evidence carefully
from beginning to end, he felt it his duty
to send the case to the Central Criminal Court for
trial. The cessation of pumping, and the old log-book
being lost and a new ono made, were circumstances he
could not look over, and the case must go to another
tribunal.

THE PROSECUTION OF THE DIRECTORS
OF OYEREND, GURNEY, .i4NI? COMPANY.

On Monday Mr. George Lewis, jun., applied to Mr.
Buckley, Chief Clerk in Vice-Chancellor Malins's Chambers,
on behalf of Dr. Thom, for means necessary to continue the
prosecution against Messrs. Gurney and the other
directors on the charges of conspiracy and fraud. Mr.
Lewis:grounded his application on the precedents afforded
by prosecutions in the Leeds Bank, the Unity Bank, and
the English Joint Stock Bank Companies, resting his ap-
plicatkon particularly on the prosecution of Mr. Finney in the
latter. Mr. Markby, the official liquidator, said he did not
consider it-within the scope of the liquidation to provide
funds' for this prosecution. Mr. Lewis said it was a
monstrous thing that Dr. Thom should be asked to prose-
cute this case. Mr. Gladstone had stated that the matter
had been considered by the Cabinet, and that the opinion
was that it was a matter entirely for the shareholders. He
(Mr .L ewis)therefore contended that the case he had cited bore
particularly on the question, and justified his application.
He could not understand why, in a case of this kind, when
justice was so necessary, the liquidators should resist it.
The Chief Clerk said the liquidators could gain nothing by
the prosecution. They considered they had already lost
,aufficient without it. Mr. Lewis said, when he referred to
-the evidence of one of the liquidators, he found an answer
to the question as to the present costs the company had
incurred, that they amounted to £70,000. Now, there would
probably be an increase of that amount of £20,000,
and it seemed ridiculous to oppose the payment of a
rum of £5,000, to which he was prepared to limit
the coat of the prosecution, when it was so insig-
nificant compared to the costs alrco.dy incurred.
The Chief Clerk said there was a return of
the £70,000, but there would be none of £5,000. He had
not the slightest notion of what the Vice-Chancellor would
say on the matter, and thbrefore would express no opinion
cf his own. He would refer it to the Vice-Chancellor in
Chambers.