The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-01 00:00:00

S3IITH V. SMITH.

Mr. A. Staveley Hill appeared for the petitioner.
Henry Smith, the petitioner, is an omnibus
driver, and he was married to the respondent, then
Elizabeth Guthrie, at St. Pancras Church, in
February, 1848. They lived together in different
parts of London until 1854. In the June of that
year Mrs. Smith left the petitioner's house, and
took lodgings under a false name in another part of
the town. She there received the visits of several
gentlemen. On one occasion the landlady discovered
that she had allowed a gentleman to pass the night
with her, and immediately sent her out of the
house.

Decree nisi granted for the dissolution of the
marriage.

STRETTON T. STRETTON.

Mr. F. H. Lewis appeared for the petitioner.
The marriage in this case took place in March,
1854, and the cohabitation continued until the
middle of 1857. The petitioner was a pork butcher
in Lambeth. The respondent was a woman of
drunken and dissipated habits, and it was proved
that since the separation she had led a life of pro-
E tit ut ion .

Decree nisi granted, dissolving the marriage.

CEN7AAL CRIMINAL COURT.—Jan. 31.

OLD COURT.

(Before .the Recorder.)
Henry Hart, an elderly man, who was stated to
be an attorney, was indicted for wilful and corrupt
perjury.
Mr. Ernest Jones conducted the prosecution ;
and Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Taylor were counsel for
the defendant.

The prosecutor in this ease was Mr. Merton, the
landlord of the Castle publichonse, in Portugal-
street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, and the charge against
the defendant was preferred under the following
circumstances :—lt. seemed that he carried on his
profession in the neighbourhood of the prosecutor's
house, and that he was in the habit of frequenting
the Castle, and was on somewhat friendly terms
with Mr. Merton. In October Mr. Merton had re•
ceived a bill for £23 10s. from a lodger who was
indebted to him, and a few days before it became
due the defendant asked him to let him have pos-
session of the bill, no doubt with the object that,
in the event of its being dishonoured, he might
take legal proceedings, and obtain the professional
costs to which he would be entitled. The prose-
cutor consented, and the defendant handed him
£23 75., the sum of 3s. being kept for his expenses
in going to the city to present the bill, and there
was an understanding between them that if the
bill was paid Mr. Merton was to keep the money
the defendant had given him, and if it was not that
then the money was to be returned, and the defen-
dant was to take legal proceedings upon the bill.
When the bill was presented it was dishonoured,
and on the following day the defendant went to
Mr: Merton's, and he gave him back the money he
had received from him, and the defendant gave him
a paper indemnifying him from all legal liability
for costs in any proceedings that might be taken
upon the bill, and the defendant also gave him a
receipt for the sum of £23 10s. The prosecutor,
after this, heard nothing more of the matter until
the present month, when, to his surprise, he re-
ceived a summons to attend at the Westminster
County Court, to show cause why he should
not pay the defendant the sum of £3 10s., which
he claimed as the balance of the sum of £23
10s. which he had received from the defen-
dant under the circumstances above stated.
The matter came on in due course for hearing at
the County Court, and the defendant then swore
that Mr. Merton only paid him £2O, and that this
was done about three weeks before the summons
was issued, and not ir, the month of October, when
the bill was dishonoured; and, with regard to the
receipt, he admitted that the signature was in his
handwriting, but he swore that he could not account
for Mr. Merton having possession of it in any other
way than that he hal stolen it from his office. The
result of the hearing at the County Court was that
the present defendatf was non-suited, or rather a i
verdict was given in favour of Mr. Merton, and the
present charge was immediately preferred against
the defendant.

The above facts were clearly proved by Mr. Mer-
ton, who produced the documents referred to, and
his evidence was materially confirmed by his sister,
Miss Emma Merton, The prosecutor was cross-
examined at some length by Mr. Sleigh, but nothing
whatever was elicited that in the slightest degree
tended to affect his testimony.
Mr. Sleigh, in his address to the jury, said it was
a very painful thing to see an old man, verging, as
he was informed, upon 70, and who was also an
attorney, and whose was at present upon the rolls
of ono of her Majesty's courts of law, standing at
the bar of a Criminal Court charged with so seri•
eus a crime as wilful and corrupt perjury, and he
said he felt assured that the jury would not convict
him cf that offence unless upon the most clear and
positive evidence. The learned counsel then called
their attention to the facts of the case, and urged
that it was possible that the defendant, being old
and decrepit, might have forgotten the real facts
of the matter, and that he had not wilfully sworn
to what was false.

The Recorder having summed up the evidence,
the jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
When the verdict had been delivered his Lordship
inquired the age of the defendant.
Mr. Sleigh said that he was informed that he was
72. lie was also instructed to state that his mental
faculties were very much impaired by his age and
infirmities.

The Recorder said he could not listen to a mere
statement of this kind. There should be some evi-
dence, if the fact was as stated.

Mr. Ernest Jones said he thought it right to in-
form the Court that the prosecution had been insti-
tuted by the direction of the Judge of the County
Court, who was well acquainted with all the facts.
The Recorder then addressed the defendant, and
said that he had been convicted of an offence of the
most serious description upon evidence that was
perfectly satisfactory to the Court, and which left
no doubt that he had committed the crime of wil-
ful and corrupt perjury by deliberately swearing
that which he knew to be false in order to enforce
an unjust claim for 70s. His offence was greatly
aggravated by his position as an attorney of one of
the superior courts of law, whose duty it was to
assist the administration of justice, but instead of
doing so he had endeavoured to poison it at its very
source by the commission of this offence. Nothing
but his age prevented him from passing upon him a
sentence of penal servitude, which undoubtedly,
under ordinary circumstances, would be inflicted for
and he should also take
an offence of this character,
into consideration that he would undoubtedly re-
ceive another punishment, by not being permitted
to remain upon the roll of attorneys for another in-
stant after this conviction. Taking these facts into
consideration, and also his great age, he should re-
frain from passing upon him a sentence of penal
servitude, but his offence was, a very serious one,
and he felt called upon to pass a severe sentence.
He then ordered the defendant to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for 12 months.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)
John Jelf, 32, labourer; John Percival, 30,
labourer ; John Preece, and Robert M'Gregor (the
lattertwo had bren out on bail), were indicted,
Preece, Jelf, and Percival with stealing 511 b. of
metal, value £2, and WOregor with receiving the
same, knowing it to have been stolen.
The case, which occupied the Court the entire
day, and lasted until late in the evening, did not

present any special feature of public interest. The
three first-named prisoners were in the employ of
Ale;-_,srs. Bndd and. Co., the copper merchants and
smelters et.' Custle Baynard-wharf, and had been
watched by a city police coustable named Gayler,
while carting old ship metal from the docks
at,Rotherhithe, to stop at the house of M'Gregor,
in that neighbourhood, and there deposit some of
the metal which they had taken out of the cart.
The jury found them all guilty, and
The Court sentenced Jelf and Preece to nine
months' imprisonment, Percival to 12, and M'Gregor
to

THIRD COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner. Kerr.)

Edward Kinkin, Thomas Graham, and George
Williams, three well dressed respectable-looking
youths, were indicted for a robbery with violence
on Daniel Bushell, and stealing from him a watch
of the value of £2l.

Mr. Blackburn prosecuted, and Mr. Cooper
defended.

It appeared from the evidence that the prosecu-
tor, who is a hop merchant residing in the Wands-
worth-road, was on the 20th of December last, at
about one o'clock, passing through Great Alio-
street, Goodman's-fields, when the prisoner Wil
hams came up in front of him and snatched his watch
from his pocket, and at the same time some one from
behind tried to trip him up. The prosecutor, how-
ever, kept from falling, and ran for a short dis-
tance after Williams, when the prisoner Graham
came up and hit him upon the face, and at the
same time a third man came up at his back and put
his knee between the prosecutor's legs and threw
him with violence to the ground, Graham at the
same time striking him again on the head,and they
then got away. All this was seen by several
persons who knew the prisoners, but no attempt
was made to stop them. Information having been
given to the police, Graham was taken into cus-
tody at Wilton's public house, Wellclose Square,
on the sth of January, for picking pockets, and
Williams on the 11th, and when spoken to about
the robbery he (Williams) said that all he knew of
the matter was, that the watch fetched £7 10s.
The third prisoner (Kinkin) was not taken until
some time after, and then under somewhat singu-
lar circumstances. Some one who was known to
the police had been at Wilton's Music Hall, Well-
close Square, where he met a girl, who took him
to a brothel in the neighbourhood, and introduced
him to the prisoner Kinkin, and they got into
conversation. Kinkin asked this person if he was
a thief, and told him that he (Kinkin) had been
down to Plymouth to keep out of the way, as he
had knocked down an old gentleman and robbed
him. This being communicated to the police he
also was taken, and they were all most positively
sworn to as the persons concerned in the outrage.
The Commissioner asked whether the concert
room in Wellclose Square was the resort of this
class of loose women.

An Inspector who was present said it was.
The Commissioner directed that the licensing
magistrates should be made acquainted with this
circumstance.

The Jury found the prisoners guilty.
The police said that Kinkin and Williams, both
of whom were not 18 years of age, had been
thieves, the former for ten, and the latter for six
years, and had been repeatedly convicted of daring
robberies, but Graham, although their associate
for some months, had not been tried.

The Commissioner, in passing sentence, told
them they had been convicted of a most atrocious
outrage, in robbing a gentleman, with violence,
as had been proved, in broad daylight, and in
a crowded street. With regard to Graham, as
he was not known to have been before convicted,
the sentence upon him would be that of four years'
penal servitude. Williams it did not appear was so
unfavourably known to the police as the other
prisoner, and therefore he should make a difference
in his sentence, and ordered him to be kept in
penal servitude for a term of six years.
Williams upon hearing this, and leaving the
dock, bawled out in a defiant tone, "If it was eight
you would not know where it is" (meaning the
watch). He was then removed from the dock.
The Commissioner then addressing a few words
to the remaining prisoner Kinkin, sentenced him
to be kept in penal servitude for the space of eight
years ; and he upon leaving the dock said, " I would
sooner be tied up at eight and cut down at nine,
before I would let them know where the watch is."
With these cases the business of the sessions was
brought to a close. The next session commences
on Monday, February 25.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—jan. 31.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Augustus Bherrings, a
respectably-dressed young man, a foreigner, de-
scribed as a merchant's clerk, and who had been
bailed, was charged before the Lord Mayor on
Wednesday with an alleged attempt to stilt) Jona-
than Magnus Marshall with a pocket-knife.
Mr. Beard attended to prefer the charge.
The complainant said—l am a coasting pilot, and
live at 8, Russell-place, Blackwall. The defendant
was formerly in my employment as clerk in a ship-
chandler's trade, in which I was engaged with a
person named Brandt. The partnership terminated
in November last. Yesterd ty, between three and
four o'clock, I was passing along Little George-
street, Minories, and met the defendant. I asked
him where Mr. Brandt was, to which he made no
reply. I asked him a second time ; he spat at me ;
upon which 'immediately struck him. We separated,
and I went to Bretz's hotel in the same street.
About a quarter of an hour afterwards, when I
was sitting in a room there alone, having some
brandy-and-water, the door opened, and I looked
round and saw this man, the defendant approach-
ing me with the knife produced (a pocket one) in
his hand, which he was trying to conceal. Afraid
he would stab me I turned round and knocked him
down, and then ran out for a policeman. My
thumb was severely cut—l believe by the " instru-
ment"—and it has been since dressed by a sur-
geon. When he entered the room I fancied he
had a pistol ; and, like a man in battle, I thought
I should be shot if I ran away. I called for the
landlord, and as he came I was in the act of
" bolting." I have been a good deal among these
foreigners, and it is a common practice for them to
use the knife.

By Mr. Beard—l immediately struck him on his
entering the room, when I saw the " instrument" in
his hand, believing I was about to be murdered.
The Lord Mayor (to the complainant)—You first
struck the man in the street, under an apprehen•
sion, perhaps well founded, that he was about to
molest you, but there is no proof of it ; and you
also struck him first on his entering the room. For
anything that appears to the contrary, it may be
that he did not intend to use the knife, and that
the wound was given by accident.
Witness, in reply to Mr. Beard, said he went
very much in fear of the defendant's violence,
believing that the defendant meant to kill him.
The complainant occasionally gave his evidence
in a flippant manner.
The defendant said, in broken English, he was
in a wrong position. He had intended to give the
complainant into custody for assaulting him in the
street, but before he could find a policeman the
complainant had the cunning to give him in
charge. The complainant on meeting him in the
street struck him in the eye without any provoca-
tion, and on remonstrating he struck him a second
time. He (the defendant) had been repeatedly
threatened by him, and was not safe in the open
street against his violence.
The Lord Mayor told the defendant he should
have to bind him over to keep the peace towards
the complainant, who had sworn that he went in
bodily fear of him.
The defendant (a gentle-looking young man) said
he had not broken the peace, and that in truth he
went in apprehension of violence from the com-
plainant.
The Lord Mayor said he was obliged to act upon,
the evidence of the complainant on that point, given
upon oath, and ordered the defendant to enter into
his own recognisances in £2O to keep the peace
towards the complainant for six months.

GUILDHALL.—Joseph Covington was sum-
moned on the charge that he was the proprietor of
an omnibus, No. 6,958, plying between Paddington
and London-bridge, the conductor whereof did un-
lawfully take more than his lawful fare.
Mr. Thomas, of No. 1, Falcon-street, Falcon-
square, said—l entered the defendant's omnibus on
Friday night last about half-past 11 o'clock at.
Rathbone•place, and on arriving at the General
Post-office, I tendered the usual fare of 3d. The
conductor demanded 6d, upon which I told him I had
never paid more than 3d, and I gave him a 5s piece.
Colonel Wilson—How much did he take ?
Complainant—He gave me 4s change, and said.,
"'I hat is how I serve such men as you."
Conductor—He threatened to summon me, and,
as the matter was to be contested, I said I would
charge him the full fare of ls.
Colonel Wilson—Did the conductor tell you that
the fare was is at the time you entered the omni-
bus ?

Complainant—No, sir, and I was not aware of
there being a is fare.
Conductor—lt is painted on the door, and I have
a right to claim it. The fare has been several times
disputed, but I have convicted persons who have
refused to pay it before Mr. Henry, at Bow-
street, and Mr, Mansfield, at Marylebone.
Complainant—The Is. fare is imperceptible to
passengers inside the omnibus.
Inspector Duddy said—ln consequence of this

complaint I have obtained a faithful copy of the
table of fares in the omnibus in question, and the
ls. fare is so small, so illegibly painted, and in such
a position as would render it impossible for pas-
sengers in the omnibus to read it.

S'ldcrtuan Phillips (to tnt: conductor)—Did ycu
at first ask for 6d. and then take ls. ?

Conductor—l did, sir. Ido not deny it.
Colonel Wilson—ls this a London. General Om-
nibus Company's omnibus.
Conductor—No, sir.
Colonel Wilson—They would not be guilty of
such a thing ?
Conductor—No, sir.
Colonel Wilson—No ; they would be ashamed to
practise such a deception upon the public.
Conductor—We run after the London General
Omnibus Company, and I have done the same
thing for the last 23 years.
Alderman Humphrey—l don't believe that, or
you would have been found out before.
Alderman Phillips—lf you have carried on this
imposition so long it is quite time it was put a stop
to. This gentleman very properly tendered you
the ordinary fare, and objected to your demand for
Gd., and because he: trusted you with a larger amount
of money you take ls. 1 consider your conduct
exceedingly reprehensible.
Alderman Copeland—l am inclined to think the
gentleman would have been justified in giving you
into custody for stealing the money.
Conductor—l have only taken the fare aecording
to the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
Inspector Duddy—l wish to explain to the court
that Covington is the proprietor of two omni-
buses, the numbers of which are 6,958 and 6,234.
They run from the Royal Oak at Paddington
to the Railway Terminus at London bridge.
The ordinary fares by the London General Omni-
bus Company's vehicles and other omnibuses are
2d. and 3d., but the defendant's outside bills are
printed with an intention to deceive, for between
the words " Farringdon-street," which appear in
large letters, and a large figure of " 2d.," the words
" To the Bank" are introduced in letters so small as
to be perfectly invisible to the general public riding
by these omnibuses. Whenever either of the defen-
dant's omnibuses arrive at the Bank, complaints
from the passengers are sure to follow about the
fares, and this morning I heard several of the de-
fendant's customers declaring it was a rank swindle.
I rode in the omnibus this morning for the purpose
of obtaining a copy of the fares. The ordinary
charges appear to have been painted by a profes-
sional hand, but the extraordinary fares complained
of are daubed in at the bottom of the door in any-
thing but a legible manner, or a conspicuous posi-
tion.

Col. Wilson—Then a person would not be able
to see it at night time ?

Inspector Duddy—No, sir; nor at any other'
time from the inside of the omnibus.

The conductor said the omnibus was outside the
court for the inspection of the magistrates, who ac-
cordingly went out to view it. They entered the
vehicle, and having carefully observed the table of
fares and the positions of them returned into court.
Alderman Phillips said the table of fares is not
in acordance with the Act of Parliament, which
requires them to be painted distinctly, and in a con-
spicuous part of the omnibus. The fares, " Before
9 a.m. 6d." and " After 11 p.m. and before 3 a.m.
is.," are neither distinct nor in a conspicuous posi-
tion, and my brother magistrates are of the same
opinion with me, that this is a gross attempt on the
part of the proprietor of these omnibuses to impose
on the public, and I therefore fine the defendant
20s. and costs.

Conductor-6 Will you inflict a heavier fine, so as
to enable me to appeal; for I have had the point
decided otherwise by other magistrates ?
Alderman Phillips —But they did not see your
omnibus. I have decided, and the case is therefore
at an end.

George Vernon Jackson, who carried on business
as a general merchant under the name of " Jackson
and Co." at No. 6, New Broad-street, was brought
up on remand relative to the charge of obtaining
goods on credit within three months of his bank-
ruptcy, under the false colour and pretence of
carrying on business and dealing in the ordinary
course of trade, with intent to cheat and defraud
his creditors.

No fresh cases were opened, and the further or
final hearing of the whole matter was adjourned
until Wednesday next, for the completion of the
depositions.

BOW-STREET.—Charles Sealbach was brought
up, on remand, on the charge of embezzling moneys
received on account of his master, Mr. Mabley,
printseller, 143, Strand.
_ _

The Rev. Launcelot Capel Bathurst, 4, Cam-
bridge-terrace, Ken sin gton, deposed that on the 16th
January the prisoner called at his house and deli-
vered some chromotypes, or coloured lithographic
prints which witness had purchased at Mr. Mabley's.
The prisoner at the same time presented the bill.
Witness paid the money, £4 75., and the prisoner
receipted the bill, but did not put a receipt stamp
on it. Witness had since obtained a properly
stamped receipt from Mr. Mabley.
Mr. Mabley said the prisoner had a stamped
receipt, which he ought to have delivered to Mr.
Bathurst, but which he returned to witness. He
never accounted for the money. The receipt which
had now been handed to Mr. Bathurst was the
same which the prisoner ought to have delivered to
that gentleman.
Mr. Hall remarked that this fraud bad been com-
mitted in precisely the same manner as that which
had been proved at the former examination.
The prisoner, who offered no defence, was com-
mitted for trial on both charges.
A young lady, the daughter of the prisoner's
former employer (who recommended him to Mr.
Mabley), was in attendance in order to watch the
proceedings, with a view of communicating the
result to his friends, who reside in Germany. The
prisoner himself is a German, and speaks English
with a slight accent. He has hitherto borne an
excellent character.

LAMBETH.—Phcebe Assiter and Mary Worelly,
young women in the service of Mrs. Sarah Chuck-
erbutty, an Indian lady residing at 8, Thurloe-
villas, Park-lane, Dulwich, were charged with rob-
bing their mistress of property to a large amount.
Mrs. Chuckerbutty, wife of Mr. Soorje Chucker-
butty, an Indian gentlemen, said that on Wednes-
day morning at about half-past 7 the prisoner As-
siter entered her room and told Ler that the house
was broken into, and she in consequence sent the
other prisoner down stairs, who came back and said
the same. Witness went to her dressing-room, and
missed a gold bracelet and a quantity of jewelry,
plate, and other articles. She sent to Mr. Lancaster,
a friend in the neighbourhood, who promptly cams
to her house, and soon after a police constable was
sent for. The articles produced are her husband's
property, and part of those she missed, and were of
the value of £95.

Mr. C. S. Lancaster deposed that on Wednesday
morning he was sent for by the last witness, and
on going to her househe found it in a state of great
disorder. The contents of the drawer's were strewn
about ; some bonnets smashed, and clothes and
other articles thrown about in different parts of the
drawing-loom. The kitchen was strewn with the
remains of eggs, and the trap through which the
coals were put into the cellar was cut as well as the
cellar door, both inside and out, as if some instru-
ment had been passed near the button thatfastened
it. He sent to the station, and Inspector Bond
came. Both prisoners said that on going down stairs
on that morning they found the gas lighted, and
missed about 12 eggs, as well as some fish from the
pantry. At that time it was his opinion that the
house had been broken into from without, and this
was confirmed by the inspector, and when there on
Wednesday night the prisoner Assiter made a dis-
closure to him. She said that a fortnight before
Worelly had said that something was going to hap-
pen that night, and, on her asking her where, she
replied at the house and to the mistress ; that sub-
, sequently they bad conversed from time to time
on the subject of the robbery, and on the night
before it took place Worelly, who slept in the same
room with her mistress, proposed that she (Assiter)
should take the property while she (Worelly) re-
mained in her mistress's room to see that she was
not disturbed. She (Assiter) then collected the pro-
perty together, and put it into a copper on Tues.
day night, and on Wednesday morning Worelly
cut the places in the door, to make it appear that
there had been an entry there. He (witness) asked
her where the property was, and she told him in
the garden, where he found a bucket, in which the
property was deposited. Among the articles was a
massive gold bracelet, a valuable gold watch and
chain, a lace shawl of Indian production and con-
siderable value, a quantity of spoons and forks, and
the other property produced. On ma-king this dis-
covery, witness went upstairs to Worelly's room
and asked her if she could give any information of
the property, and her reply was that she knew
nothing about it. He then produced some of the
articles that had been missing, when she said if
they had been stolen they must have been taken by
Assiter. He then confronted the prisoners, when
Worelly still denied the robbery, but on his asking
her if she had not proposed to divide the property
with Assiter, she said, "No, that was Assiter 's pro-
posal." Witness told her that this amounted to a
confession, and she then said she had proposed the
robbery, because their mistress would not believe
them when they said that thieves were in the
house ; but she had forgotten her proposition until
Assiter had reminded her of it on the night before.
He (witness) then gave both into custody.
Police-constable Smith, 276 P, said he took the
prisoners into custody, and on tallin4 them the

charges against them, Assiter said, " I will tell you
the whole truth. I should not have thought of any-
thing, of the kind had not Mary (Worelly) put me
up to it. It was she who cut the door with a knife
before we went to bed, so that mistress should think
some one had broken into the house." Worelly was
present at this time, but said nothing.
Inspector Bond said the prisoners were aware
that their mistress had been daily expecting a large
sum of money, and no doubt they calculated on
finding a large sum in some of the drawers, and if
they had succeeded, their intention no doubt was to
have started away with the whole of the property.
In reply to a question from the magistrate, the
prosecutrix said that all the missing property had
not been found ; and the prisoners, who offered
nothing in defence, were remanded.

HAMMERSMITH.—SamueI May Ambrook, a
private in the Royal Artillery at Woolwich, was
re-examined on a charge of stealing a watch and
chain from Mr. Fund, a builder, of Clifton-street,
Shepherd's-bush.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced
to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. •

DISASTROUS 8111 P FVRECK.

SUPPOSED LOSS OF TWENTY-EIGHT LIVES.

LIVERPOOL, Thursday.—We have to add another
to the long list of shipping disasters which have
been reported here within the last few days. Capt.
Wallace, of the Sea Wave, which arrived at this
port from Pernambuco last night, reports that on
Jan. 8, when in lat 22 N and long 40 W, he fell in
with an open boat, containing the mate and 19 of
the crew of the ship David Brown, 1,700 tons
burthen, bound from San Francisco to Liverpool
with a valuable cargo, consisting amongst other
articles of 1,600 tons of grain. Capt. Wallace took
them all on board the Sea Wave. They were in a
most deplorable state, having lost all their clothing,
and never having tasted food for several days.
It appears from the statement of the sufferers
that the David Brown, under the command of Capt.
Berry, and a crew of about 30 men, and 18 passen-
gers, sailed from San Francisco for this port on the
11th October. After being out at sea 84 days she
sprang a leak on the sth January, and began to
make water at a fearfully rapid rate. Three pumps
were set to work, but they were unable to keep the
water down, and in less than three hours she had
12 feet of water in her hold. Everything was done
to lighten her, (upwards of 3,000 bags of grain
being thrown overboard, but it was of no avail, and
at length, it being discovered that she was rapidly
sinking, two boats were lowered, and the passen-
gers and crew left the unfortunate vessel. One of
the boats contained Mr. Daly, the first mate, and
19 of the crew, and in the other boat were the cap-
tain and 17 of the passengers and remainder of the
crew. They had not left the ship many minutes
before she sunk. With the exception of the cloth-
ing which they had on them, neither the passengers
nor crew were able to save anything. '1 hey managed
to collect some articles of wearing apparel before
leaving the ship, and these were placed in the boats,
but very shortly it was found necessary to throw
them overboard, as well as a quantity of provisions
which they had secured, in order to lighten the boats.
For a period of four days and four nights they
suffered the greatest privations from cold and
hunger, having nothing on board with the excep-
tion of a few biscuits. The two boats remained
together until the evening of Monday, Bth January,
when the boat picked up by the Sea Wave lost
sight of the other boat, containing Captain Berry
and his 27 unfortunate companions, who, at that
time, were in a state bordering on starvation, hav-
ing scarcely any provisions on board, and being at
the time upwards of 2,000 miles from land. Unless
they were picked up by some other vessel, it was
feared that they could not hold out more than a
day or two, and must have perished from hunger.