The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-25 00:00:00

WONDERFUL RESCUE 01 THREE MEN.

A shocking occurrence was recorded in our
columns a few days ago of a number of miners
being buried alive in a pit at Kelvinside, near
Glasgow. In the course of mining operations an
old working was broken into on Tuesday last,
which contained such a quantity of water that the
mine was completely flooded, and three or four of
the men drowned at the moment. In the belief,
however, that some of the poor fellows might pos-
sibly be still alive, every effort was made to draw
the water from the shaft. This operation was con-
tinued up to Sunday last, when success crowned
the labour, and three of the remaining men were
delivered from a living tomb where they had been
immured for nearly six dismal days and nights.
The three men had not been in the pit more than
five minutes when the accident occurred ; but,
strange to say," they did not discover it for several
hours. They continued to work away unconscious
of the peril of their position, until one of them went
for a piece of bread and butter which he had taken
I down with him, when he saw what had occurred.
He returned in alarm, and communicated the terri-
ble fact to his companions, and the three men pro-
ceeded down the sloping side to the edge of the
water, which had been forcing its way into the
upper working. The extent of the calamity then
burst upon them in full force. They returned and
proceeded along the passage till they had again
reached the level part of its course, and went down
the opposite slope. The water was forcing its way
up that side also—a putrid, stinking flood that made
them almost recoil. Our readers may picture to them-
selves the terrible despair of the poor fellows when
they found themselves thus walled in between the
two floods forty fathoms below the surface of the
earth. When they had recovered from their first
shock of consternation, they began to watch the
water, which they were able to do for about two
days by the aid of their lamps. They had about
two days' oil with them, and thus managed in some
measure to compute the time. At first they
thought they could not exist beyond a few hours.
They kneeled down, and, in the anticipation of cer-
tain death, commended themselves to their Maker.
For the two days during which their oil lasted they
watched the water closely and eagerly ; onward
came the putrid mass with awful certainty and
rapidity. Hope the poor fellows had none. The
three slices of bread which one of them had taken
down with him had been divided among them, and
a little well of pure water, which was fortunately
in the workings, furnished the means of quenching
their thirst. They did not anticipate death by
starvation, but the alternative seemed inevitable,
that they would either be drowned or die by suffo-
cation in exhausted air. Strange to say, with the
latter dread upon them, they kept their lamps burn-
ing as long as they would burn. We dare say it was
some consolation to them to see each other as long
as possible. The progress of the water, which seemed
for two days to have been marching steadily on to
engulf them, became gradually slower. At last the
flood paused. What were they to make of this ?
Was it a ground of hope ? They did not know.
With anew excitement they watched the water again.
It seemed to be retiring. At first the diminution
was scarcely perceptible ; then the water retired an
inch or two only, but still it was retiring. They
began to hope after hope seemed to have deserted
them. The water still retired, and they knew from
that time exertions were being made to save them.
They did not hear the operations until what they
understood to be Saturday morning. When their
light failed them the men placed a stone at the edge
of the water, and after watching the rate at which
the water was diminishing for, as they thought,
several hours, calculated that they would be re-
lieved on the Sunday morning. The water seemed
to them to fall at the rare of a foot per hour. The
air was for some time at first close and suffocating,
but as the operations progressed, the movement of
the water, caused by the pumping, produced a con-
tinuous undulation, which made the air more agree-
able. The men had never felt the pangs of hunger,
but they became very weak and were oppressed all
the time with an unquenchable thirst, which has
not yet left them. They were in the habit of sitting
side by side to keep themselves warm, and when
the one in the middle had reached a higher tem-
perature than the others; ho gave way, for his
right
or left hand neiglibehir, -Rho in due time would
make way for the third. They slept 050 ClOO

together upon logs of wood, and covered themselves i
with a piece of oilcloth which had been found in the
working. On Sunday night the men, though still
weak, were doing well, but they are now beginning
to suffer a little pain from their long abstinence
from food. There is no doubt that a few days' care-
ful treatment will restore them to their wonted
strength. They were visited by large numbers of
their fellow-workmen, who manifested a sincere joy
at their deliverance.

L ATV 111, TELLIGENCE.-Jitly 23.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
KNIGHTS V. KNIGHTS AND PAYNIIK
In this case the husband prayed for a divorce on
the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-
respondent, and there was no defence.
From the evidence it appeared that the parties
were married several years ago, and that in 1853
the respondent, who was a professional singer at
the Grecian Saloon, in the City-road, became ac-
quainted with the co-respondent, who was a private
in the Guards, and that she eloped with him to
America, where they had been living as man and
wife. The co-respondent had been turned out of
his regiment for misconduct, and there were no
means of tracing him or the respondent to where
they were at present residing. The case came on
for hearing on Saturday, when some witnesses were
called, who proved that a female, answering the
description of the respondent, had been engaged as
a singer at the Grecian Saloon in 1853, and went
by the name of Dais, but the Court considered the
evidence of her identity was not sufficient.
The following, among other evidence, was pro-
duced to-day.
Maria Harper stated that she was a niece of
Mr. Knights', and was staying at his place in
Herbert-street, New North-road, Hoxton, in
August, 1853. Her uncle was absent from home
for about a week, and during that time she remem-
bered going with her aunt to the Grecian Saloon,
where she sang, and was announced in the bills by
the name of Dais. After the performance they were
joined by a man whom her aunt addressed as Mr.
Payne, and he drove them in a dogcart to a house
near Bow-street, where they had some supper. They
afterwards went to another house in the neighbour-
hood, where they remained the night, and the next
morning her aunt came to her bedroom and said that
Mr. Payne wished to speak to her. She went with
her to a room where Mr. Payne was in bed, and he
shook hands with her. She perceived her aunt's
bonnet, gloves, and other articles lying on the table.
They breakfasted at this house, and Mr. Payne went
and pawned his watch. They went away in a cab,
and Mr. Payne, before leaving, gave her aunt a
ring, which he had purchased out of the money
raised on his watch, and kissed her.
In reply to the learned Judge,
Witness said that she did not tell her uncle what
had occurred during his absence, but that she told
him lies on being questioned by him.
Two other witnesses were called, who gave cor-
roborative testimony, but
The learned Judge deferred giving judgment
until he fully considered the case.
JONES V. /ONES.
This was a suit instituted by Elizabeth Harriet
Jones for a dissolution of marriage on the ground
of her husband's adultery and cruelty, to which
there was no appearance.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in 1841,
and lived for nine years afterwards at Deptford,
where the respbndent worked as a cooper. The ill-
treatment commenced shortly after marriage, and
continued until the final separation in 185 S. Previ-
ously they had separated several times, but the peti-
tioner had been induced to resume cohabitation on the
respondent's promise of amendment. He was ad-
dicted to intemperance, and while under its influence
his conduct was most violent. He kept a loaded gun,
and several times threatened to shoot the petitioner,
and her face was frequently disfigured from the vio-
lence. The circumstance connected with their last
separation, which took place at Romford, were his
refusing to give up their child to their landlady
while he was drinking at a public-house, and re-
quiring her to come for it herself. She complied,
and on entering the public-house he knocked her
down, and for some time she was insensible. When
she recovered she went to her mother, and had not
since cohabited with the respondent. He went to
her mother's after her and threatened her life. A
policeman was sent for, and a large carving-knife
was taken forcibly from him. He subsequently
contracted an improper intercourse with a female
named Sarah Dowset, with whom he cohabited.
The evidence as to the name of this female was
defective, and the case was ordered to stand over.
WARNER V. WARNER.
This was a petition for divorce by the wife, on
the ground of her husband's cruelty and adultery,
and there was no appearance on behalf of the
respondent.
The respondent was described as a retired draper,
and the marriage was solemnised on the 17th of
July, 1854. The parties cohabited at Nether
Borough and other places in Leicestershire, and
there was one child issue of the marriage. Amongst
the acts of cruelty deposed to were holding the
petitioner down while he spat tobacco into her
mouth. On one occasion he was sentenced to six
months' imprisonment for ill-treating her, and in
1860 she was obliged to leave him.
The Court pronounced the decree nisi, with costs.
Dr. Phiilimore, Q.C., and Dr. Pritchard were
counsel for the petitioner.
There were two other cases disposed of, but the
details were uninteresting.

JULY 24.

HARRIS V. HARRIS AND PAUL.

In this case, which has been recently fully re-
ported, an application made on behalf of the' co-
respondent, that he should be dismissed from the
suit, as no case had been established against him—
which the Court granted.
Dr. Spinks, on the part of the co-respondent,
moved the Court to order his client costs.

Mr. Luttler, for the petitioner, oPposed the appli-
caticn, on the ground that the co-respondent's con-
duct led to the suit.
Sir C. Cresswell decided that the costs for the co-
respondent must be a sequitur on his dismissal from
the suit.