The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-17 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, March 15.
CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron Channell.)
George Ross, 24, wrenchmaker, was charged with
feloniously assaulting Noah Timmins, and stealing
from his person the sum of £lOl 6s. 6d., the pro-
perty of Wm. Henry Dawes, at West Bromwich,
on the sth of February, 1859.
Mr. Scotland and Mr. A. S. Hill appeared for the
prosecution ; Mr. Cook Evans and Mr. J. Best de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence that the prosecu-
tor, Noah Timmins, was in the employ of Messrs.
Dawes, ironmasters, at Bromford-lane, West Brom-
wich, and acted as clerk and timekeeper at the
limestone pits which they had at Friar's Bank. It
was his duty to go from Friar's Bank to Bromford-
lane to obtain money to pay the men, and on Satur-
day, the sth of February last, he went there and
obtained £lOl 6s. 6d. for that purpose. There were
84 sovereigns, 14 half-sovereigns, two five-pound
packets of silver, and 6s. 6d. in loose silver. He
placed the money in a leather bag, and put the bag
in his left hand trousers pocket. On his way he
changed a small quantity of silver for copper and
placed that in his right hand trousers pocket, and
proceeded towards Friar's Bank, down a lane called
Crankhall-lane. On approaching a bridge which
passed over the canal, he saw three men coming up
the lane, at a distance of about 100 yards. When
he had passed the clock at the West Bromwich old
church, it was just three minutes past four p.m.,
and the distance about a mile and a quarter. He
kept walking on, and as he passed the three men,
the prisoner, who was the one nearest him, seized
him by his left arm, while one of the other men struck
him a blow on the forehead with a blunt instrument,
and the third man seized him by the throat. The
men kocked him down and knelt upon him to pre-
vent his cries for help. He, however, continued to
cry for assistance, and shouted " Murder !" upon
which one of the men, whom he identified as the pri-
soner, threatened to murder him if he continued
making a noise. The prisoner succeeded in getting
the money bag out of his pocket, and cried out, "I've
got it," and, upon that, all three men ran away
along the towing path by the canal side. The pro-
secutor, who acted with great courage, got up and
pursued the three men for a distance of three-quar-
ters of a mile along the towing path, crying" Mur-
der," and " Stop thief !" A farmer, named James,
saw the men running along the towing path, but he
could not identify the prisoner. Timmins borrowed
the farmer's horse, and pursued the three men on
horseback, and again caught sight of them at the
distance of 300 or 400 yards, but his horse fell, and
before he could come up with them, the men sepa-
rated, and went away over a bridge, in two direc-
tions, and he lost sight of them. In order to cor-
roborate the evidence of the prosecutor as to the
identity of the prisoner, two witnesses were called,
one of whom saw the three men at a distance of 30
yards, and the other saw them across the canal ;
and according to their evidence the prisoner was
one of the three men, and carried in his hand some-
thing which one witness thought was a turnip, and
the other a leathern bag.
Mr. Cook Evans, for the prisoner, put in the de-
positions taken before the magistrates, in order to
show some discrepancy between the evidence now
given by the prosecutor and that which he had
formerly given ; and also ealled several witnesses,
who proved that at the time of the robbery the pri-
soner was at the George and Royal Exchange
publichouses at Wednesbury.
Mr. Scotland called the servant at the George,
and the landlord of the Royal Exchange, who swore
that they did not see the prisoner at either of those
places.
Mr. Best having addressed the jury on this evi-
dence,
Mr. Scotland replied on the whole case.
Mr. Baron Channell then summed up the evidence
very elaborately, and left it to the jury to say whe-
ther or not they were satisfied upon the evidence
that the prisoner was one of the three men.
The jury, after about five minutes' consideration,
found the prisoner guilty. Sentence deferred.
Elijah Knowles, 23, miner, charged with shooting
at Eliza Slater, at Rowley Regis, on the 2d of De-
cember, 1858, with intent to murder her, and also
with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. A. S. Hill appeared for the prosecution, Mr.
Kennedy defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner had kept company
with the prosecutrix, a girl of about 20, for as much
as nine months, but, for some reason, she had dis•
carded him, and refused to have any more to say to
him. The prosecutrix was a nailer, and on the 30th
of November last the prisoner went to her while she
was at work, and said in a desponding tone, " Well,
Eliza, are you in the same temperks you always
were ?" She said she was, and he then said, " If you
won't have me, I'll make you so as none else shall
have you ; it will be a Kite's-hilljob." The prisoner
went away, and the prosecutrix, who was much
frightened, communicated her fears to another girl,
who worked in the same place. The following
night the prosecutrix was at work in the same
place, and observed the door thrust open. She closed
it, and it was again thrust open. The prisoner then
entered with two others, and pointing a gun at her
discharged it. Her face was singed, and according
to the evidence there were marks on the wall,lwhich,
it was suggested, were the result of the discharge.
A man named Westwood swore that he was about
40 or 50 yards from the place, and saw a flash, and
saw the prisoner and two others get over a wall,
and one of them said, "I think we have finished
the - at last," and that the prisoner had a gun
in his hand at the time. The weight to be attached
to this witness's evidence was diminished by the
fact that he did not speak to the prisoner, and had
not seen him for several years previously. The
prisoner, when he was taken into custody, said he
was in bed at the time. The police produced five
very small shots, about the size of a pin's head,
fwrohh
micthtey had
eh
wall,
againstfound in t
which,
shop,
ch,itw and
assugaglseostaedb,rLcke
shot had struck.

Mr. Kennedy addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and called several witnesses to prove an alibi. He
contended from the appearance of the shot that
they had not been fired, and that it was more pro-
bable that the gun had been fired by some boys in
order to frighten the prosecutrix, and without any
intention of doing her any harm.
While the counsel for the prosecution was reply-
ing on the prisoner's evidence, a remarkable occur-
rence took place in the appearance of a young man,
who wished to be sworn, he having first admitted
to the prisoner's counsel that he had fired the gun
at the prosecutrix.

Enoch Partridge, the young man in question,
was :then sworn, and, having been told by the
learned judge that he was not bound to answer any
question tending to criminate himself, proceeded to
state that, in pursuance of an agreement made the
preceding night with two other young men, he
loaded a gun with powder and paper and fired it
at the prosecutrix. He was cross-examined at
some length, and persisted in his story that he did
it, and that his only object was to frighten the
young woman. He said he had walked as many
as 20 miles that day to give this evidence.
Mr. Hill, in his reply, contended that this wit-
ness had come forward and perjured himself in
order to screen the prisoner from the consequences

of a conviction of the serious offence with which
he was charged.
Mr. Baron Channell summed up the evidence at
great length and care, and left it to the jury to say
whether or not they believed the charge was
brought home to the prisoner.
The jury found the prisoner Not Guilty.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—LINCOLN, MARCH 15.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice Campbell and a
Special Jury.)
NEWCOMB V. WILLISON.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr.
Field were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant
Hayes and Mr. Beasley for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff (pro-
prietor of the Lincoln, .Rutland, and Stamford Mer-
cury) against the defendant (the editor of the Lin-
colnshire Chronicle), on account of certain alleged
malicious and defamatory libels published by the
latter against the former in the defendant's news-
paper, which it was stated by inuendo imputed to
the plaintiff that he had improperly and unjustifi-
ably broken off a certain agreement of marriage
entered into by him with a young lady whose name
did not transpire. The defendant had pleaded-
1, that he was " not guilty ;" 2, he traversed an
averment in the declaration that the engagement
was broken off forjvst cause ; and 3, set forth, by
way of justification, that the alleged libels were
true statements of facts.
Mr. Macaulay addressed thejury for the plaintiff,
who it appeared had been in the medical profession
until the death of his uncle, Mr. Richard New-
comb, the well-known late proprietor of the Lin•
coln, Rutland, and Stamford Mercury, and the
owner of large paper works at Wansford. Upon his
uncle's death he succeeded, under his will, to the
large fortune of the late Mr. Richard Newcomb, to
the proprietorship of the Stanford Mercury, which,
it appeared in evidence, was worth several thousands
a year, to the paper works at Wansford, and was
made sole legatee under his uncle's will. The
plaintiff employed a responsible editor to conduct
the paper of which he was the proprietor, but not a
syllable had ever appeared in that paper reflecting
on the defendant. For some time, however, pre-
vious to the publication of the libels which were the
ground of this action, a series of articles had ap-
peared in the Lincolnshire Chronicle impugning the
honour and personal conduct of Mr. Newcomb, and
having reference to a certain provision made in the
will of his late uncle. The first alleged libel
appeared in the paper of October 15th, and was as
follows :
" Matrimonial Contretemps.—Hardly has the gossip aris-
ing from the circulation of a handbill about the non-erection
of certain schools in Stamford died away than the town is
rife with the report of a rupture between the party we refer
to and the fair fiancee to whom he was to have beenmanied
on Tuesday last. Unlike the schools, about which nothing
has been done beyond the proprietor of our contemporary
and sole recipient of his uncle's property allowing his name
to appear,' with others, upon a committee for building
schools at the public expense, in the face of a clause in the
will bequeathing the munificent foundation of a site, with
£2,000 for the erection of buildings, and £4OO a year as an
endowment, a bequest which our readers are fully aware
remains up to the present moment unfulfilled—for the wed-
ding day everything has been duly prepared—wedding suits,
wedding rings, wedding favours, and the day, the important
day, was already fixed, when, ere it was allowed to dawn,
the fates—ever more prone in the plenitude of their va-
garies to dash the cup of happiness from mortal lips than
bid them drink—shivered in a moment the hopes and joys of
the bride elect, who, left to reflect on whatever may be
said about marriages being made above, may be consoled
with the conviction that, in this particular case, the fates
were no parties to the suit. It is said, however, the case
will give rise to an action in the law courts, and that pro-
ceedings are already commenced. IA good deal of sympathy
is felt for the lady, who is said to be very amiable and ac-
complished."
The second alleged libel appeared in the same paper
of October 22, and ran thus :
" A scene' at Wansford.—' Fire ! fire!' is at all times
a cry of terrible impost ; but it was doubly significant when
raised at Wansford on the evening of the 12th inst., which
day—but for the matrimonial contretemps referred to in our
last impression--ought to have been a red-letter day in the
history of the place. Between 8 and 9 o'clock in the even-
ing named hurried footsteps were heard in the village
streets, and the exclamations of ' Fire ! ' brought from their
dwellings numbers of the householders to gaze upon what
turned out to be the burning of the effigy of the faithless
swain. So quiet had everything been only a few minutes
before, and so unconscious were the majority of the in-
habitants that anything of the kind was projected, that
many had retired to rest and were not cognizant of the
reality until they had been roused from their slumbers in
the manner described, and had turned out to look upon a
gibbet, in the centre of which hung by the neck a lay
figure, as like—or rather unlike—a gentleman (in the
strictest sense of the word) as could be supposed. Under-
neath this effigy, which had previously been well tarred,
were piled more than a waggon load of faggots and other
firewood ; and a lighted match being applied, the mob
laughed and jeered while the flames leaped upward amid
the execrations of the bystanders with a vigour which
almost betokened that the fire, too, enjoyed the
sport. The scene of this extraordinary event
was a field occupied by Mr. Samuel Clipsham, situate
about 150 or 200 yards from the lawn in front of the villa
of the proprietor of the Stamford Mercury, and from the
front window of the said villa the inmates could, if they
had been so pleased, have obtained an excellent view of the
burning lay figure. The demolition of the effigy did not
occupy above half-an-hour ; nevertheless, the ceremony
was most significant, and enough was done to show that a
very indignant feeling was abroad, and that it merely re-
quired some outward demonstration to mark how unmis •
takeable was its existence. That it has had the desired
effect is surmised from the fact that very great pains have
since been taken in certain quarters to find out the ring-
leaders. We aro told that a lawyer from Stamford has
visited the spot for this purpose, but his inquiries have
failed. Unfortunately the rural policeman resident in the
village was absent on the night in question, and although
this individual has, with all the 'cuteness characteristic of
the better class,' been exceedingly persevering with his
interrogations, the only answer he has hitherto been able to
obtain is, Don't know,' and, when his back is turned, a
significant wink, with an elevation of the thumb to a par-
ticular portion of the countenance, raises a laugh at the
expense of the functionary. The affair is still talked of as
a capital joke,' but in the midst of the merriment which
has been evoked expressions of anything but goodwill
towards the person aimed at are freely indulged in by the
people of Wansford and the surrounding villages."
Mr. Newcomb had, it appeared, contemplated mar-
riage with a lady;and that marriage had not taken
place. He appeared in the witness-bdx with letters
from both the affianced bride and her father. These
were not put in evidence, but it transpired that they
had assented to the engagement being broken off.
Sergeant Hayes, on the part of the defendant,
addressed the jury. As to the first paragraph, he
contended that it was no libel, and the other one
so slight that he thought the plaintiff would have
done well had he followed Mr. Field's advice
to pass it by, as he was not likely to obtain
more than one farthing damages. He was
sorry that Mr. Willison, the defendant, had un-
happily been prevented from attending by in-
flammation of his eyes. He proceeded to com-
ment severely on the conduct of the plaintiff,
who, with the enormous fortune his uncle had
left him in 1841, took advantage of the opinion of
counsel to keep a sum not less than £20,000,
which the testator, who had made so munificent a
bequest, had intended for the benefit of the poor
children of Stamford, in the hope of doing for them
and for posterity some little good, as an acknow-
ledgment of the many bounties that had been
showered on himself. The only real sting in the
alleged libel was that part relating to the schools,
but of that they did not complain. Oh, no. It
was for the unfair attack upon private life. Could
such a perversity of intellect be conceived as that
of the plaintiff, who complained of these para-
graphs, and yet thought (as he stated in his evi-
dence) that an imputation on a gentleman that he
is about to be made a co-respondent in the Divorce
Court is a fair matter for remark by a journalist ?
He had been advised by his counsel to pass the
matter over, as he could well afford to do so. That
he certainly could in one sense—he had money
enough. He might keep his money in his pocket,
but he could not stop people's mouths. There was
no great hardship in being called " a faithless
swain," nor in an effigy being said to be "not like
a gentleman in the true sense of the word," as the
paragraph complained of had described it.
Evidence having been adduced as to the cause of
Mr. Willison's absence, which was stated to be an
inflammation of the eyes and an abscess,
Mr. Macaulay addressed the jury, remarking
strongly on the absence of the defendant, and
pressing upon them that the plaintiff, who had
been the subject of a most unjustifiable attack, was
entitled to heavy damages.
The learned Chief Justice, in his summing up,
remarked that although the conduct of the plaintiff
respecting the provision in his uncle's will for
establishing schools was a fair subject of comment
by the editor of a journal, yet the imputation that
the plaintiff had improperly broken off his matri-
monial engagement was unjustifiable ; it was a
matter belonging to private life, which should be
respected and held sacred, and it was for the jury
to consider what should be the amount of the
damages.

The- jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, £2O.
His Lordship expressed his very strong reproba-
tion of the conduct of the defendant in printing
and publishing the opinion of Mr. Field. It was
most unjustifiable. The opinion of counsel should
be regarded as sacred. His Lordship certified for
the costs of a special jury.

THE CITY OF CANTON.--.Canton is claimed to be
the oldest city in the world, its records dating back 4,000
years since; but there is not perhaps a single brick of the
original town in existence, as the place was several times
partially destroyed. Its entire circumference is about six
miles English measure, but including the suburbs outside it
exceeds ten. The number of streets within the wall is 600, but
they are all narrow tortuous lanes, with the exception of two.
The population is about a million and a quarter, of which a
quarter of a million live together in boats upon the river,
and seldom or never go ashore. For the general population
there are some 2,000 medical practitioners—all physicians
and apothecaries, surgery being comparatively unknown
among the Chinese, in consequence of the prejudice against
dissection. The worst element of the Canton population is
the pirate element. It is said that an organised band of
these villains—some 20,000 strong—exist in the city, and
infest the river and the vicinity of the town.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—March 16.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Mr. William Newton,
printer and publisher of Backchurch-lane, Com-
mercial-road-east, appeared in answer to a summons
granted under the 6th and 7th of Victoria, chap.
96, sect. 5, charging him with maliciously printing
and publishing a false and defamatory libel upon
Dr. John Godfrey, the well-known physician, who
was recently the defendant in a case of " Gardner
v. Godfrey."
Mr. Tindal Atkinson appeared for the prosecu-
tion, and the defendant, wholwas unrepresented by
counsel, pleaded not guilty.
The defendant, at starting, took an objection to
the magistrate's jurisdiction, conceiving that the
charge ought, if at all, to have been decided on at
the Thames Police-court, within which district his
printing premises were situated, but the objection
was overruled, the magistrates having, of course, a
concurrent jurisdiction throughout the whole me-
tropolis.
Mr. Atkinson then said—l appear in this case
for Dr. John Godfrey, a physician of great eminence
who is obliged to come here and complain of a most
atrocious and calumnious libel uttered against him
by the defendant, Mr. William Newton, as the
publisher of a local paper named the East London
Observer. It is unnecessary to go through the par-
ticulars of the truly painful case of " Gardner v.
Godfrey," heard at the Nisi Prius sittings at Guild-
hall, but it is imperative that I should draw atten-
tion to the fact that the verdict in that action was
given for the defendant, after a very patient and
lengthened investigation, and by, I must say, a
very intelligent jury. Fair play is the acknow-
ledged principle of the press of this country, but
the defendant has gone very widely from that hon-
ourable course by the publication of an article so
defamatory to the character of my client, so cruel
in its nature, and tending to such fearful results,
that it is imperative upon Dr. Godfrey to adopt
these proceedings, as the only means of reinstating
himself in that honourable position he had previ-
ously filled, and regaining that confidence he had
previously enjoyed. My client's health has already
suffered severely from the baneful effects of this
libel, his wife is now lying upon a sick bed, the
confidence of some of his patients is nearly de-
stroyed in him, and unless he by this course, for
there is no other open to him, clears himself from
the ignominy thus heaped upon him, his head will
be bowed in sorrow to the grave. The injurious
matter complained of is not contained in a fair re-
-1 port of the case I have mentioned, but is contained
in what is known as a leading artitle, printed in
large type, and, after some prefatory remarks, runs
as follows :—" She (the daughter of Mr. Gardner)
gave her evidence with great circumstantiality, and
it did not seem to be shaken by the cross-exami-
nation." Now, this portion, relative to the girl's
evidence being unshaken, is not a fact, and the con-
cluding lines I particularly point out as constituting
the principal part of the first libel. which were—
" Some corroborative testimony was given, and the
whole case appeared to exhibit the most revolting
conduct on the part of Dr. Godfrey." This, sir, I
hold to be the first libel, and the second runs thus :
—" He appears to have taken advantage of a child
little more than 14 years of age, just returned from
school ;" and this was followed by another remark,
which appears to be even stronger than the pre-
ceding :—" These statements excited the most pro-
found indignation, which was greatly heightened
by the correlative rumours which arose in all quar-
ters of the general grossness of character and
bestiality of conduct known to possess Dr. God-
frey." Now, sir, I think it impossible to conceive
anything more likely to blast the reputation of a
physician—a reputation resembling the bloom upon
a peach, which has only to be touched to be de-
stroyed, than such a republication as this ; the shaft
so levelled has certainly gone direct to its mark,
and he who levelled it has made a once happy home
nearly desolate. There are also two other portions
of this leading article to which I must direct your
attention, and which are these :—" People viewed
with abhorrence the idea that a medical man, the
trusted and confidential of families in sickness and in
grief, should abuse the trust reposed in him by
corrupting the mind and debauching the person of
a child, the daughter of afflicted parents, and
in the sanctuary of her own h ome." The other was
—" The case of Mr. Gardner sacrificed. Dr. God-
frey seems to have been treated as a prisoner, and
got the benefit of the doubt, but, with all deference
for the opinion and decision of the. jury, and with
all faith in their thorough conscientiousness, we
cannot help saying that the inclination of our
opinion is opposed to that indicated in the verdict."
Mr. John Bride, assistant-surgeon to Dr. God-
frey, deposed to puiehasing a copy of the defend-
ant's paper at the shop of a newsvendor named
Kirby, at the corner of a street opposite the doctor's
residence, and also a second paper at the same shop
a few days afterwards.
Mr. John Staunton, the defendant's acting
printer, deposed that the paper produced was com-
posed and issued in Backchurch-lane but printed in
the city, and that papers were supplied by them to
Mr. Kirby, of whom those produced were pur-
chased.
Mr. John Godfrey, solicitor of Liverpool, deposed
to calling at the defendant's premises and seeing
Mr. Staunton, whom he asked if he was about to
insert another article on this subject the next day,
and that he replied in the affirmative, said the copy
had been sent off to the printer, and that it was a
stronger article, but shorter. Witness told him it
was a pity they should iterate such articles when
they knew the verdict which had been returned,
and that the answer to that was, that there was a
great difference between the verdict of a jury and
public opinion. Witness, while addressing him,
held the paper before him, with the objectionable
parts underscored, and after his last remark warned
him that if there was a repetition of such matter he
should bring an action against the paper.
Mr. T. Atkinson said that this was his ease and
after the defendant's asking the magistrate whether
he thought the publication had been proved, and the
magistrate's answering that he thought it had been,
the defendant then contended that no malice, which
was most essential,had been proved against him. Both
the plaintiff arid the defendant in the action were
totally unknown to him,and he had had no correspon-
dence with either, He admitted the publication but
he had carefully expunged from his articles all details
given at the trial, and he thought he deserved
commendation for so doing. If it was to be held
libellous, as a matter of law, to express a different
opinion from that arrived at by a Jury, the news-
papers were daily so committing themselves. The
observations in the article impugned were un-
doubtedly strong, but the trial had lasted four days,
great indignation did certainly possess the public
mind before the defence was entered upon, and he
conceived himself entitled to make froe comments
upon such a trial, and under such circumstances.
Mr. D'Eyncourt, holding that if the matter in-
serted was libellous, malice was to be inferred, said
it was quite clear to him that the defendant had
used observations which were libellous, and he had
virtually stated that the jury had given a wrong
verdict. He had no option but to send the case for
trial, and he should therefore order the defen dent
to put in bail, one surety in £5O, and his own re-
cognisanees in the sum of £5OO, to appear and an-
swer an indictment at the next sessions of the
Central Criminal Court.
The bail was immediately tendered and accepted,
and the defendant thereupon liberated.

CHARGE OF HaanCIDE AGAINST THE ENGI-
NEERS OF THE SCREW STEAMER BOGOTA.

LIVERPOOL, TUESDAY EVENING.
John Buchanan, chief engineer, and Archibald
Mitchell, second engineer, of the Pacific Screw
Steam-ship Company's steamer Bogota, recently
arrived at Liverpool from the Pacific, were yester-
day charged at the Liverpool Police-court with
having caused the death of a fireman named Lan-
don, under circumstances of the most disgraceful
nature. The cam has been before the court on two
former occasions, when it was remanded for the
production of further eTidence, and for instructions
from the Board of Trade. In order to make the
case more explicit to our readers we again repeat
some of the facts. The Bogota left Bahia early in
the month of January, for Liverpool but, as cus-
tomary with the steamers of the Pacific Company,
they call at different ports on the South American
coast and Brazil; and on the 25th January, when
within several hours' sail of Rio Janeiro, the de-
ceased (Landon) complained of exhaustion, occa-
sioned, ho said, by the excessive heat of the stoke
hole, and went on deck for fresh air. To this the
chief engineer objected, accused the deceased
of " skulking," and eventually ordered Mitchell
(the second engineer) to lower Landon down with
a tackle into the stoke-hole, and, if he would not
" stick to his work," to tie him to the ladder.
Mr. Aspinall, instructed by Messrs. Lowndes
and Co., appeared for Buchanan ; and M. r. Deigh-
ton, instructed by Mr. Snowball, for Mitchell. M.
Tyndall appeared to watch the case on behalf of
the Board of Trade, and with him Dr. Inman, a
physician of local eminence, appeared to give
evidence as to the probable cause of death.
Wm. M'Clellan was the first witness called
by
Mr. Tyndall,—lle said ho was a seaman on board
the Bogota, and joined the vessel at Valparaiso.
Knew the deceased, Landon; he was a stout,
able-bodied man. He frequently complained of
being unwell, and offered some of the men £lO if
they would take his place, as he was unable to work.
Deceased had told. witness that he wqs a miner from
England for the purpose
oCfhsieleina.ngdh.r.safsamgoillyn.g toO n the day the Bogota left
Rio, this witness saw the second engineer drag the
deceased by thelegs towards the stoke hole. Heard
_ _