The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 22, 1861

ment of officers for the ensuing year, and a vote of
thanks to the chairman, moved by Mr. Bazley,
M.P.

FRIGBTUL _EXPLOSION AT CHATHAM

CHATHAM, MONDAY.

An explosion of a most terrible character, by
which several men belonging to the Royal Engi-
neer establishment, Brompton Barracks, have sus-
tained frightful injuries, occurred about noon to-day,
at the headquarters of the Royal Engineers, spread-
ing considerable alarm among all the persons con-
nected with that establishment. The scene of the
calamity was a portion of the establishment known
as the North Gun-shed, a building nearly 200 feet
in length by about 25 in width, which is situate at
a short distance from the main buildings compris-
ing the barracks. A portion of the shed was set
apart for the instruction of the officers and men of
the Royal and Indian Engineers in the manufacture
of fuses, hand-grenades, and other destructive mis-
siles used by that branch of the service. At the
time of the accident about thirty men, most of them
belonging to the Indian Engineers, and only a very,
few of the Royals, among whom were several non-
commissioned officers, were under the direction of
Sergeant Adams, RE., a non-commissioned officer
of great experience, who was specially appointed to
that duty from his great ability and the practical
knowledge brought to bear on the subject.
The engineers • had been employed the whole
morning in filling the fuses and hand grenades, and
nothing occurred to create alarm until a few
minutes before the time for the men discontinuing
work to go.to dinner. It is necessary to explain
that a portion of the grenades and fuses are filled
with powder, at the top of which is placed a com-
position composed of fine powder, saltpetre, and
sulphur, which is known to be of a highly combus-
tible character. Special orders were therefore issued
by Sergeant Adams to the men employed in filling
the fuses and grenades to exercise great caution in
the work, the sergeant at the same time, by fre-
quent personal observation, ascertaining that his
orders were obeyed. The composition in use by
the engineers was placed by the side of the
men in saucers, and after the fuses were filled
the composition was rammed home by means of a
copper tube. This operation of " tamping," as it is
termed, requires to be performed with great caution,
as any extra violence will cause it to explode. It
has been found from experience that a certain
number of taps are sufficient to properly ram the
composition, and all above that number are
dangerous. It appears that one of the sappers of
the Indian Engineers, a man named George Smith,
was employed in ramming the composition into a
fuse, but finding that it went hard, requested the
man next him to assist him, which he did. Sud-
denly the fuse which Smith held in his hand
became ignited, doubtless from the amount of tap-
ping it had been subjected to, Smith, who seemed
panic-stricken, still holding it in his hand. The
fuse then exploded, when the composition in the
saucers was ignited, together with the preparations
for some 10-inch shells, and half-a-barrel of gun-
powder which was in the shed. The effect of the
explosion was of a most serious character, the first
report, which sounded like the discharge of a
32-pounder, being followed by several minor
explosions as the ignited hand grenades and fuses
burst.
The portion of the roof of the gun-shed which
covered the compartment where the engineers were
at work was lifted up and parts blown away, the
lead which covered it being rolled up like a scroll.
the entire side of the shed was blown out, and the
wood-work of which it was composed scattered in
all directions, many of the pieces being afterwards
picked up a considerable distance off. The sides of
the compartment were also blown down, and a
great deal of havoc committed in the shed. Con-
sidering the number of men who were at work in
the shed at the time, it is surprising,that there
were not several killed; but as it is, about a dozen
were more or less injured, seven so seriously that
they were instantly removed to the hospital. Many
• of the men had their clothes nearly blown:to shreds,
one man having the entire front of his clothes
blown off, and being otherwise terribly burnt. Two
or three men were found to be on fire after the
' explosion, and were much burnt. A sapper
named Thomas Rogers is so seriously injured
that his life is despaired of, and should he recover
it is feared that he will be totally blind. Ser-
geant Chapman, together with two sappers named
Goode and Elliott, were blown by the force of the
explosion through the gun-shed into a coal yard
between 20 and 30 feet away. Beyond a few
bruises Sergeant Chapman was unhurt, but the two
other men are very much injured. The names of
the men removed to the Royal Engineer Hospital,
Brompton, suffering from injuries, are—James
Goode, Stephen Elliott, James Mackenzie, Francis
Macdonald, George Charles Smith, and Thomas
Rogers, the last two mentioned having sustained
the greatest injuries.
Immediately after the occurrence a board of offi-
cers, consisting of Major Lovell, Captain Schaw,
and Captain Stuart, assembled at Brompton Bar-
racks by order of Colonel Harness, C. 8., to investi-
gate the cause of the accident, and were occupied a
considerable time in the examination of witnesses
who could afford any information.

but I cannot read, and I swear that I do not know
there is a rule making it incumbent on me to tell
the authorities if there is gas.
By the Coroner—l have worked there 18
months, and during that time I have heard the
rules read over once.
By Mr. Llewellyn—l am now working at Aber-
earn. Some six or seven months ago Abraham
Bees and I and some one or two others were
coming out of the pit because there was fire in our
workings, when we met Evan Beddow and Mr.
Harrison on the slope. Bees and I told them why
we were going out, but they told us to go back, as
the fire would be cleared out. The others went
back, but I refused to do so, and left the pit. I did
not get the sack for that, but I have known men
to be threatened for it.
Mr. Llewellyn—Tell us who they were.
Witness—lt's no use me telling you about men
that are dead—they can't speak for themselves.
Mr. Llewellyn—Well, who threatened them?
Witness—Evan Beddow.
Mr. Llewellyn—He's dead, too, isn't he P
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Llewellyn—lt's very easy to put these things
off upon dead men.
Mr. Owen—Remember 142 are dead, and only
200 worked there by day.
Mr. Llewellyn—Whom did Beddow threaten ?
Witness—Jomathan Edwards, and he's dead, too.
I heard Beddow tell Edwards, when he complained
of fire, that if he left the pit he wouldn't be wanted
there any more ; but Edwards did leave the pit,
and he wasn't sacked. There was no accident in
my stall on the morning of the explosion.
By Mr. Owen—l had been at work about three
hours when the explosion took place. Then I heard
a whistling noise, but I did not know what it was
till West, who worked in the next stall, told me.
Thomas Phillips, a collier, who was working in
the Black Vein Pit the night before the explosion,
and on its east side, deposed that he found every-
thing in a satisfactory condition on that occasion,
and that he had sometimes seen gas there at inter-
vals, coming, as he supposed, from some old work-
ings. Had known his lamp to get red hot suddenly,
and then for all the gas to Clear off in an hour or
two. After the explosion heard a" blower" in Sage's
stall, which he was the first to observe. There was
a good deal of gas over the gobs, but he never
troubled himself about that, as it was not his business
to go up there, and even if a fall had come and
thrown the gas into his working it could not have
fired unless his lamp was imperfect, which was
never the case.
The inquiry was proceeding when our report left.

LAW IATTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 21.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius—Before Mr. Baron Bram.
well and Common Juries.)
DAVID V. NICHOLSON-MONEY LENT.

The plaintiff in this action, Henry John David,
sued the defendant, William Nicholson, to recover
£29 ss. 3d., money lent.
The defendant pleaded never indebted, and that
he had satisfied the claim.

Mr. Henry James was counsel for the plaintiff;
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. M‘Namara represented
the defendant.

It appeared that both the parties are students of
Gray's-inn. The plaintiff resides at 3, Verulam-
buildings, Gray's-inn, and the defendant at St.
George's-road, Brighton. According to the case for
the plaintiff he was born in London, but has resided
for the greater portion of his life in America. Five
or six years since, being desirous to go to the Eng-
lish bar, he returned to this country and entered
himself at Gray's-inn. He there met the defendant,
and ultimately an arrangement was come to between
the parties under which the plaintiff went to board
and lodge at the defendant's house, at Elgin-road,
Notting-hill, paying £llos. a-week. The plaintiff
was in the habit of lending several sums of money,
varying from £2 to £2O, to defendant on his I 0 U's.
The case for the plaintiff was, that although all
former loans had been satisfied by the bill, the
items forming the present claim had subsequently
accrued. This was denied by the defendant, and
in fact was the real issue between the parties.
The plaintiff was calledto prove his case, and was
examined at considerable length with respect to his
monetary transactions with the defendant.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry—ln July
Mr. Nicholson called on me. He did not say that he
wished all transactions between us to cease. He
said I had spoken slurringly of him to a Mrs. Gomez
—that I had said he had only a few hundreds a-
year, and was always in difficulties. If I did say
so it was true. I asked for a settlement of our
accounts. He said he would call and pay next week.
I did not tell him, on my honour, that all the
I 0 U's I am suing on had been. destroyed. H© did
not wish a cloak and arm chair which he had lent
me to be set off against the account. I have passed
by the name of Kellar. I lived at Kensington-
crescent. I employed a medical gentleman to attend
a lady there in her confinement. She died there.
Sbe had a child, which is still living. _ _

,
Mr. Sergeant Parry—Was that-lady the Hon.
Mary Jones, sister to Lord Ranelagh ?
Witness—No.
Mr. Sergeant Parry—Was you.ever known as
Kellar in America ?
Witness—Never.
Mr. Sergeant Parry—Were you married to Lord
Ranelagh's sister in America ?
Witness—l was married to her at New York, on
the 3d of March, 1858, at the Rev. Mr. William-
son's church. I was married to her as Henry John
David. I registered the death of the lady, who
died at Kensington-crescent, and also the birth of
the child.
Mr. Sergeant Parry—Do you know:a lady named
Caroline Van Doren ?
Witness—l know a persoß you allude to as
Caroline Van Doren.
Mr. Sergeant Yarry—Were you married to her ?
Witness—l was not.
Mr. Sergeant Parry—Did she follow you to this
country with four or five children ?
Witness—No ; with six children, if you please.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Baron Bramwell-..Brother Parry, is the
number of children material? (Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Parry—Did you not call yourself
Dr. David, and live at Walham ?
Witness—l am quite entitled to do so, as I re-
ceived the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I never
represented myself to be a physician.
Mr. Sergeant Parry—What, not as physician to
the Empress of the Brazils? (Laughter.)
Witness—No.
Mr. Seigeant Parry—Have you been to the Bra-
zils—to Rio Janeiro ?

Witness—Yes.
Mr. Sergeant Parry—And you swear you did not
represent yourself as
phyzlician to the Empress of
the Brazils ?
Witness—l do. I was in Eng Land three years
before I knew the defendant. I has :11 office in
!here i
Buckingham-street, Strand. I lent money
I held myself out as ready to make investments. ..
never was charged with fraud in America. I never
was charged with defrauding a Mrs. Ross at New
York. I was arrested on a charge of forging a bill
of £l,OOO on Mr. Keene of New York. I was taken
from the similarity of my name for a person named
Dowd or Abrahams, and when I proved who I was
Mr. Hall, the police magistrate, dismissed the
charge. I knew a Mr. Keene, of New York. No
true bill was found against me there. I presume it
was Mr. Keene who made the charge of forgery
against me. I met him at Morley's Hotel, Charing-
cross, in 1856, and we had some champagne toge-
ther. I was to be found anywhere for two years
afterwards ; but two months after I had left the
country for the benefit of my. wife's health and my
own he mada the charge against me, but ho never
dared to repeat it. I have never been a Presbyte-
rian minister. I knew the Rev. Mr. Van Doren,
the father of Caroline.
Mr. Sergeant Parry—The lady you spoke of ?
Witness--No, the lady you spoke of. (Laughter,)
Mr. Sergeant Parry—Well, we both spoke of her.
Re-examined—l took the name of Kellar at Ken-
sington , crescent, because that was the name of the
lady who resided there. She was known by that
name before I went to reside there. I obtained my
degree at the University of Gottenburg.
A letter from the defendant's wife, who was then
at Brighton, was then put in. The writer acknow-
ledged the receipt of half of a £5 note from the
plaintiff, and expressed a wish that he would take
charge of and educate one of her boys, who should
not be a burthen to him.
Proofs of the payment of certain cheques having
been given, the plaintiff's case closed.
The case for the defence was that the bill of ex-
change for £5O, dated May 3, had not in reality
been given until after the last of the items claimed
by the plaintiff, dated June 28, had been due, and
that the bill, in point of fact, covered the whole of
the plaintiff's demand. The defendant explained
the matter, in reference to the £5O bill, in this way:
he had received cheques from the plaintiff, amount-
ing to £33 45., and afterwards for £ll—making
£44 4s. The plaintiff wanted to pay even money
into his bank, and the defendant, therefore, gave
the bill for £5O, the amount of which was made up
by £5 15s. 3d. received at the time, the previous
advances, and 9d. for the stamp. The defendant
also contended there were overcharges in the plain-
tiff's demand, and he claimed a set-off for a chair
and cloak, which he had lent to the plaintiff.
Cross-examined—l preferred a charge against
the plaintiff for burying a lady in a wrong name. I
did so because I had been the means of introducing
him to respectable people, and as he could not be
found I told the inspector of police where he was.
My charge )vas that the lady Was Lord Rallelitgia's

•

sister. Lord Ranelagh did not prefer the charge.l
I did so, because I thought his conduct so disgraceful
that I did not wish that justice should be defeated
by trickery. Mr. Scott, my attorney's clerk, was
the complainant.
Re-examined—Before I made the charge I ob-
tained this certificate.
The document was put in. It was a copy of the
registry of deaths for Kensington town of the death,
on the 19th October, 1859, at Kensington-crescent,
of Mary Dakella, aged 38, wife of Henry Dakella,
gentleman.
Further evidence having been adduced in support
of the defendant's case,
The learned counsel on both sides addressed the
jury, when his lordship summed up.
The jury then retired, and after an absence of
three hours came into court and stated there was
no possibility of their agreeing.
They were accordingly discharged without coming
to a verdict.