The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-18 00:00:00

A DEED OF DABLY G.

During the gale on Saturday last, which raged
from W.N.W. to N.W., the bark Darius, of South
Shields, Alexander Smith commander, from Sun-
derland, bound for Constantinople, laden with coals,
went on shore on the Lon ;sand at high water, about
noon, and such was the violence of the gale that the
sea soon made a complete breach over her, and at
four o'clock the crew cut away her foremast and
mainmast to ease her, but the survivors were com-
pelled by night to take refuge in the rigging of
the mizanmast, which was still standing. As
attempt had been made by the crew to leave
her, and the long boat was hoisted out, and three
men got into her, but she was soon capsized by
the violence of the sea, and the three poor
fellows fell a sacrifice to the devouring waves.
The remainder continued in the rigging all night,
their vessel all under water, and the mizenmast only
about 15 feet out of water. On the morning of the
following day three smacks appeared off the sand,
one of them being the Volunteer of Harwich, Thos.
Adams master. It was at once seen that the poor
shipwrecked mariners on the mast were in a most
perilous condition, and they were shouting for help,
their wailing cries being heard amid the storm. All
around the land was a white foam, the sea flying
over the mast of the smack. Saving them at one
time appeared a matterof impossibility. The master
of the Volunteer, however, resolved to try it, and a
boat was manned and put off from the smack, but
the breakers were such that no boat could have lived
in them. Not wishing, however, to give up the at-
tempt, they brought their boat up near the edge of
the sand, to wait for a lull in the storm, or some op-
portunity of tide, to renew their praiseworthy
efforts, the smack lying to for them. The other two
smacks lay off for a time, but made no attempt to
save the men, and at last sailed away, leaving the
gallant Volunteer alone in her noble duty. Her
boat's crew remained near the edge of the sand for
five hours, but, findingthebreakers increased rather
than not, they returned on board their vessel, the
poor men on the mast still shouting for help. They
did not remain long on board, having resolved to
make another trial, and again manned their boat,
this time having recourse to another plan. The
Volunteer took the boat in tow, and sailed over part
of the sand, till the master of the smack was infear
of her striking ; but by doing this (the smack being
a very smart vessel) she could sheer the boat in, by
casting her off at a particular moment, and send her
among the breakers to the wreck. The attempt,
however, failed, and the sea and tide were too much
for them, and they could not fetch to the wreck,
and again the good smack picked up her boat.
Daring these gallant endeavours such was
the exhausted state of the poor men on the
mast that two of them were observed to drop from
it, and were seen no more. The case appeared
to be getting hopeless, it being clear the men
could not hold out much longer, and the tide was
rising, but the smacksmen resolved to risk their
lives and their vessel in another attempt to save
their distressed fellow-creatures. The same means
were again tried, and when the smack was found to
be in only about 101 feet water, with almost inevi-
table risk of striking, the boat was again sheered
in, and this time reached the wreck. After some
time the poor fellows were got into the boat, which
was rolling and pitching about in the foaming sea,
and the smack was reached, and the six survivors
of the crew of the Darius were in safety, though
almost exhausted by exposure and fatigue. The
crew of the smack supplied them with dry clothes
and warm coffee, and reached Harwich about seven
o'clock in the evening. The crew were so pros-
trated by their night's exposure that the smacks-
men had to carry them from the boat to the Wel-
lington Inn, where their further wants were sup-
plied by Mr. 0. Williams, the hon. agent to the
Shipwrecked Fishermen and Mariners' Royal
Benevolent Society, by whom they were forwarded
home on Tuesday. A representation will be made
to the Board of Trade of the facts of this case, in
order that a suitable reward may be given to the
brave crew of the Volunteer for their meritorious
and daring conduct. They will get nothing as
salvors, as all the property is lost, and was gone
before they saved the crew. We would suggest
that the case is well worthy of public recognition.
Ipswich Journal.

SENTENCE 01 DEPRIVATION ON A

CLERGY .IM.

In the Com t of Arches, on Friday, sentence was
pronounced by Dr. Lushington in the case of
Burder v. Heath, in which the Rev Mr. Heath was
charged, by direction of his diocesan, the Bishop of
Salisbury, with heretical doctrines.
Dr. T%iss, for the plaintiff, said that, pursuant to
the statute, Mr. Heath had been allowed a fortnight
to consider whether he would revoke his errors, and,
if so, it would be desirable to submit a form of re-
tractation to counsel.

Dr. Lushington—lf Mr. Heath will now say
that he is ready to retract, the Court will give him
further time to shape his retractation, which will
of course be submitted to counsel on the other side.

Dr. Phillimore said Mr. Heath found great diffi-
culty in this matter, as he did not quite understand,
as to the thirteen articles against him, whether 'the
Court required them to be retracted separately
from, and independently of, _each other; or what
shape the retractation was to assume or whether he
was to retract the errors in the form in which he
was accused, or in the form in which they appeared
in the sentence. The proper course now would be
for Dr. Twiss to state the form in which the pro-
moter of the suit required Mr. Heath to sign, and
then Mr. Heath would be able to state whether
he could sign it or not. He knew of no case
in which a form of retractation was ever
brought here except in the case of Mr. Stone,
who drew up one which the Court deemed insuf-
ficient. In this case, where thirteen articles relate
to a book of sermons, it is difficult to know whe-
ther the retractation should be of the passages cited
in the articles, or of the errors contained in the
summary at the end of each charge. It was, there-
fore, only fair that the form should be suggested by
the other side or by the Court, and then Mr. Heath
might be allowed time to consider the matter. He
did not at all desire delay, or to raise difficulties,
but he found great difficulty in making up his mind
at present.
Dr. Lushington said he considered it to be in no
respect whatever the duty of the Court to frame the
retractation. What the Court had done was this :
Laying aside the formal articles, which were not
and never had been the subject in discussion, the
Court decided that four articles were erroneous,
and therefore they are all that the Court desires
Mr. Heath to retract. But it is not for the Court or
for the opposite party to frame the retractatation.
Dr. Phillimore said he did not think that the form
of retraction could relate to the errors, but rather to
the passages cited. Suppose—though he had no au-
thority for saying it—that his client were to say,
" Such and such passages are charged against me ;
I have no hesitation to retract thos9 passages." Or,
" Such and such errors are contained in such and
passages ; I retract those errors."
Dr. Lushington said that before the retractation
came before the Court, the Gaud would not give
advice as to the manner in which it should be
framed. He could only pronounce that the doc-
trines set forth by Mr. Heath in certain passages
were contrary to the Thirty-nine Articles.
Dr. Twiss said he presumed that the retractation
must be of the erroneous doctrines contained in the
passages.
Dr. Lushington—lt is now for Mr. Heath to say
whether he was prepared to retract or not. If so,
he would give him further time to consider. If
not, he should now pass sentence.
Dr. Phillimore having explained this to Mr.
Heath, who is very deaf, Mr. Heath said (to his
counsel) it was impossible for him to retract the
passages.
Dr. Phillimore —Well, as to the errors therein ?
—Mr. Heath—The errors laid down in the charge
were laid down in the judgment. They are
different.

Dr. Phillimore—The errors contained in the
judgment ?—Mr. Heath—Well, really I don't know
what is wanted of me (turning to the Judge); per-
haps if I had another fortnight I could make up
my mind. To-day I really do not know what is
wanted.

Dr. Phillimore—The errors to be retracted must
be the errors referred to in the sentence. _

Dr. Lushington—l require an answer to this
question—ls Mr. Heath prepared to retract ac-
cording to law or not ? If he is, I will give him
further time to shape retractation ; if he is not, I
must proceed to pass sentence.
Mr. Heath (after a pause)—Well, my answer
must be, that I don't know what the law requires
of me.

Dr. Phillimore—You must give a positive answer.
Mr. Heath—l can give no other answer. I don't
know what the law requires of me.
Dr, Phillimore here retired, with hio

and on their return, after the lapse of two or three
minutes, Dr. Phillimore said—Mr. Heath instructs
me to say, my lord, that he has mo other answer to
make than that which he has made.

Dr. Lushington--Then I have no option. I
deeply regret that the court is placed in the situa-
tion that it is by Mr. Heath's determination ; but,
according to the terms of the statute, I am bound to
pronounce against Mr. Heath the sentence of depri-
vation, and I do so accordingly, with costs.
Notice of an appeal to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Couucil was immediately given.

CHARGE OF CRUEL I'y TO A _HORSE
BY A GENTLEMAN.

At the Edmonton Petty Sessions, held at the
Angel at Edmonton, on Thursday afternoon, Mr.
John Donnithorne Taylor, a gentleman of large
landed property at Southgate, appeared in answer
to a summons taken out against him by the Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
charging him with having on the 3d, 4th, sth, 6th,
7th, and Bth of October, unlawfully and cruelly ill-
treated, abused, and tortured a certain horse, con-
trary to the statute, &c. _ _ _

The Bench was composed of E T. Busk, Esq.,
Chairman ; J. Mayer, Esq., F. Newman, Esq., and
Colonel Somerset.

The greatest interest was manifested in this case,
in consequence of the high position the defendant
held in the district, and his reputed connection with
the magistracy of the neighbourhood.
Mr. Sleigh was specially retained to conduct the
prosecution on behalf of the Society for the Preven-
tion of Cruelty to Animals, instructed by the secre-
tary; and Sergeant Ballantine was specially
brought down for the defence.

MI. Sleigh, in opening the proceedings, said he
had no doubt that the Bench would receive, as ho
did at first, with a great amount of incredulity, the
statement of cruelty he should have to lay before
them. It appeared from his instructions that Mr.
Taylor was a gentleman of large landed property in
the neighbourhood, and that the society, in conse-
quence of information they had received, sent their
chief officer, Mr. Love, down to see him. Mr. Love
called upon him accordingly, and having presented
his card, and told him who he was, entered into a
conversation with him, when the defendant ad-
mitted that the information furnished to the society
was substantially correct, and that what he had
done was done for the purpose of breaking the
horse's temper. Having alluded to the various
sections of the act of Parliament which defined
what cruelty to a horse was, and what the punish-
ment should be for such acts, he contended
that if he proved that a horse had been kept for five
days without food it would come under the deno-
mination of cruelly ill-treating a horse, and subject
the person guilty of such conduct to all the pains
and penalties of the act of Parliament.
Mr. William Love stated that he was the chief
constable of the Royal Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals, and had been in their service
for about eight years. In consequence of a commu-
nication which reached the society he proceeded on
the 11th of October to Southgate, and saw Mr.
Taylor, the defendant. He said a complaint had
been made at the office of the society that he (the
defendant) 1 ad a horse tied up in such a manner
that it could not lie down, and that, in fact, he was
starving it to death. Witness said his instructions
from the secretary were to go direct to defendant
and ascertain the facts, rather than make inquiries
in the village, and give rise to scandal. The defen-
dant then said, " Well, I will tell you all about it.
This is a colt I have bred myself, and I sent it
to London to have it broken in, but I expect
that it got into wrong hands, and got knocked
about and spoilt. I found that it was most refrac-
tory, and I beat it till I could beat it no longer, for
I found it would let me beat it to death. When I
found beating useless I said, Well, I will pinch
your stomach, and see if that will bring you to
subjection.' I then put it in a break, and kept it
there for two days, but finding that was of no use,
I took it out and took it to the stable, where I tied
it up so that it could not lie down, and it has not
lain down since. That is about eight days ago.
For the first five days it had nothing to eat and only
a little water to drink. I then gave it a little hay,
and it has had hay once or twice since. I am going
to take it out of the stable to-day, and if it goes all
right it may have some more hay, but if it does
not it shall not have any." Witness said, " How
long do you say that you have kept it without food ?"
and defendant replied, "Let me see—it was
about yesterday week that I first put it into
the break." Witness said, " But have you
not given it anything to eat during that time ?"
and defendant replied, "No, but I have given it a
little water, you know." Witness remarked, "Are
you sure that none of your men have given it any-
thing to eat?" and he replied, shaking his head,
"They know better than to disobey my orders."
Witness said, " But are you not afraid of injuring
his constitution ?" and he said "No, I have kept a
horse for 11 days without food without injuring
him." Defendant then offered to show witness the
horse, and the latter went to the stable, where he
saw a man who showed him the horse called
" Wonder," upon which the alleged cruelty had
been practised. The horse was in a low condition,
hollow in its flanks, and its head was banging. It
appeared to be very ill and very anxious; dull and
heavy about the eyes, as if suffering from pain. The
horse was thoroughly out of condition.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine cross-examined the wit-
ness very severely, and in reply to his questions he
stated that he did not know who gave the informa-
flan to the society. He did not know his name, or
whether he was present, nor had he told him to be
present. He did not know whether the name was
known to the society. He did not know whether
it was a discharged groom of the defendant's who
gave the information. He did not know the name
of the man who showed him the horse. He made a
note of the conversation with Mr. Taylor at the
time, and had it with him. (On the request of Mr.
Sergeant Ballantine, the note was produced and
examined by him.) The defendant did not say why
he had kept the horse 11 days without food.
By the Bench.—He did not know the age of the
horse, but it was in a low, bad condition. He did
not feel his pulse. _ _ _

Professor Spooner, of the Veterinary College of
Surgeons, stated that, in his opinion, a horse could
not be kept without food for a period of five days
without producing to the animal a great deal of
anguish, perhaps not acute pain, but a great deal
of anguish. The horse was a domestic animal,
which, from its construction, required feeding three
or four times a-day, and to keep a horse for five
days without food was an act of the greatest cruelty.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—We don't want an ex-
pression of your opinions. You are here to give
scientific evidence, and not to give opinions that
are not asked.

Professor Spooner—l am here to answer ques-
tions and explain certain matters connected with
the case, and I shall do so.

By Mr. Sleigh—The want of food in the intes-
tines would cause spasms, which would put the
horse in acute pain, and then he would show it by
pawing with his foot. Tying the head of a horse
up, as ho had heard the head of the defendant's
horse bad been tied up, would disarrange the ner-
vous system, and would, in his opinion, be cruelty
to the animal.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—
Any punishment would disarrange the nervous
system, the same as flogging a boy. The duty of
persons employing punishment was to do it in a
moderate degree ; but it seemed to him that to keep
a horse for five days without food was an act of
gross cruelty. He did not contend that punishment
was not to be applied to animals and persons, but
it was a question of degree, and that was to be
decided by persons that were competent to judge of
it. Some animals were extremely obstinate and
unmanageable. There was not a great variety of
opinion as to the mode by which the subjugation
of a horse was to be come at. There was some
difference of opinion as to the treatment of Rarey
towards his horses. Some thought it a failure.
There were some horses that were jibbers and very
refractory, and could not be cured, while others
could be cured only by measures of severity which,
in his opinion, would be extreme cruelty. He
thought a horse of that kind should be destroyed
rather than resort to the cruelty that would
be necessary to break it in. He thought that a
horse might be punished judiciously, the same as a
child. He was not a follower of Rarey ; he thought
that his plan was very consistent, and did not sub-
ject in many respects the animal to much torture.
It was quite possible to convince a horse of the
superiority of his master without resorting to
cruelty.
Re-examined—There were no circumstances, in
his opinion, under which a horse could be kept five
days without food without great torture.
By the Bench—He was aware some horses never
laid down for weeks or months—some not at all;
but these were exceptions to the rule. He did not
lay much stress on the animal being kept standing
up, as it would be able to recover that; but what
he thought most cruel and injurious was depriving
the animal of food for five days.
Mr. Richard Vines, of 3, College-street, Camden
Town, said he had been a professor of the Royal
College of Veterinary Surgeons for fourteen years,
previous to 1858, and from the evidence he had
heard, the horse having his head tied up, so as
to prevent him from lying down, and being kept
without food, was most detrimental to the animal)
and might have caused inflammation of the bowels
and lungs.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then addressed the
bench for the defence. He said he had now to an-

ewer a summons that had been taken out against
a highly-respectable gentleman, and that had been
attempted to be supported in a mast extraordinary
manner. The prosecution had brought the matter
forward, and had spoken of a conversation that had
taken place at Southgate Park between the officer
and the defendant, a conversation which he could
not contradict, as there were no witnesses present.
The learned counsel then proceeded to contend that
the evidence of a single witness, unsupported by
corroborative testimony, was not sufficent to justify
the magistrates in casting a slur upon the character
of a gentleman of the defendant's rank. True,
they had got admissions from the defendant which,
though to a certain extent correct, had been
coloured by the officer. He then proceeded to con-
tend that the treatment the defendant had subjec-
ted the horse to, though severe, had been conducted
and regulated by experience; that the horse had
been watched every four hours, to see that no injury
had happened to it ; and that the result of this
treatment had been a great success, as the horse
was now a good, sound, safe, and excellent
perfectly safe to ride and to drive, and exhibiting
no signs of injury from the treatment it had been
subjected to.

The Chairman said they were in a difficulty.
They had no direct evidence of the commission of
the alleged offence with the exception of the slight
portion where Love saw the horse. On the other
hand, the defendant had admitted that that part of
the allegation was true, but had not stated to what
extent. Under these circumstances, the Bench felt
that there was not sufficient evidence to justify
them in convicting the defendant, and they must
therefore dismiss the summons, at the same time
stating that they did not wish to throw any slur
on the society, as they considered it a very admi-
rable one, and that it had, no doubt, acted properly
in taking up this complaint.
The summons was then dismissed.