The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-20 00:00:00

TBE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY 'EVENING, SEPTEMBER 20, 1844.

i Lewis allowed no one on the poop but himself; the
poop gun being of no use. Boats were arriving in
great numbers every minute and crossing over out of
our fire, with the evident intention of passing down
one of the other reaches, and attacking us in the rear.
Seeing this, it was decidei to move a little further
down, so that we could prevent them rounding the
point, and at the same time compel those boats above
us to come out, at least when they fired. In a short
time, as we expected, the boats came to the point now
abeam of us, though not, as they expected, in our
rear, and received such a severe fire of grape and
musketry as compelled them to retreat; but they soon
returned with fresh boats, opening a brisk fire of
grape and musketry on us, but it was so warmly re-
turned by both vessels, that they were never able to
round the point
It was here during this heavy cross fire, that Mr.
Murray was killed ; he was shot through the heart by
a grape shot, whilst pointing the schooner's midship
gun. Two men, volunteers, came in the schooner's',
boat for me, in spite of the heavy fire; but he had
expired almost instantaneously; the expression of
"My God !" was all he ever uttered. During the
whole of the action he was very active, going from
gun to gun, and encouraging the men, ho certainly
behaved most bravely, standing to their guns, though
much exposed in the hottest fires, returning their shot
with a cheer, always ready for anything, though they
had nothing to eat but biscuit during the action.
The firing from the boats now slackened, it being
the first finis that we had been able to get them
within the range of grape and musketry, and severely
they felt it, their guns being long, and carrying a
great distance remarkably correct. After about seven
hours hard firing at our anchors, Mr. Garret, chief
officer of the schooner, with the brig's long-boat, and
a crew of volunteers, laid out a warp over the bar,
when both vessels lashed together and warped over
the bar. Though we grounded several times, yet with
a fair wind we got over safely, and made all sail for
the sea, which we could see about thirteen miles dis-
tant, still pursued by the boats, who kept firing at us
until we made a good offing about eight P.M., when
they fired their last shot, about thirty-four hours
after the first, the brig having fired alone 720 rounds
during the action. We now made all sail for the
Dutch port of Manado, to refit, &c. Mr. Murray was
interred in his own flag on the morning of the 18th
of February, at sea.
The above is the simple and correct account of all
that occurred from our entrance until our leaving the
River Coti, of the death of our lamented leader, and
of our really wonderful escape out of this nest of
pirates. Nor do any of us look back on the scenes
through which we passed without thinking of the
conduct of our commanders, Mr. Murray, Captain A.
Hart, and Captain H. Lewis, and feeling that respect
for their abilities, bravery, and coolness, which
brought us out of so much danger and difficulty : nor
of that of the other officers and gentlemen of the
expedition, who did their duty in most dangerous
situations.

From my being in both vessels during the action,
and intimately acquainted, through Mr. Murray, of
all that occurred, both before and during our stay in
the Coti, and when not engaged with the wounded,
passing my time in assisting on deck, and being thus
able to see more what passed than a person confined
to one place and one vessel, is the reasob why I have
taken the task of writing this upon me.
W. SAEL, Surgeon to the Expedition.

and consequently, although contrary to the rules, he
took him food. Deceased also told him that after Mr.
Bryan had seen him on the Monday night, no medical
man saw him until the union surgeon came on the
Friday morning, when he became much easier. Wit-
ness gave deceased money, as he said other men had
victuals which they could not eat, which he would
buy of them, as he was so hungry. Since deceased's
death the master had asked him to pay for the porter
and wine deceased had had the last two or three days
of his life, as wituess had said he would send deceased
some nourishment. Mr. Wakley said, after that evi-
dence, the case must be adjourned, for the attendance
of Mr. Hammond, and other witnesses. The inquiry
was then adjourned for a week.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

William Robinson, 23, sailor, was indicted for
cutting and wounding John Gay Walters, with
intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Crouch conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Horry defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prosecutor is an omnibus.
driver at Woolwich, and on the night of Sunday, the
Ist of Steptember, there was a fight and squabble at
that place, and upon the prosecutor interfering and
endeavouring to take away his friend who was en-
gaged in the disturbance, the prisoner stabbed him in
two or three places. There did not appear to be any
malicious feeling entertained by the prisoner towards
the prosecutor, but the affair was evidently the result
of a drunken disturbance.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty of an assault,
and he was sentenced to be kept to hard labour for
four calendar months.

William Henry New was indicted for feloniously
Sarah New, with
intent to do her grievous bodily harm.
cutting and wounding his wife,
Mr. Clarkson conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Payne defended the prisoner.
The circumstances under which the charge was
made against the prisoner have appeared within the
Last few days. The prisoner and his wife, it will be
remembered, resided at Richmond, and on the 22d of
August they had a dispute which led to the prisoner
striking the prosecutrix on the shoulder with a knife.
The injury inflicted was not of a very serious cha-
racter, and according to the admission of the prose-
cutrix, she had thrown a cup full of hot tea in his face
before he acted towards her in the way described.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
John Mitchell, 24, was indicted for feloniously beat-
ing and wounding Mary Anne Murray, with intent
to murder her.

Mr. Doane prosecuted.
It appeared that the prosecutrix kept a brothel in
East Smithfield, and the prisoner cohabited with her.
On the 4th September the prisoner came home while
she was having her tea, and he asked her if she had
done her tea. She made him no answer, and he im-
mediately overset the table and the tea-things, and
commenced a most brutal attack upon her, knocking
her down and kicking her in different parts of the
body while she was upon the ground, inflicting very
serious injuries upon her, from which it appeared she
has not, and is not likely for a considerable time, to
recover. The surgeon who was called in said he
found the prosecutrix in a most miserable condition.
She was one mass of bruises all over her body,
apparently as though she had been kicked and jumped
upon. She was perfectly insensible, and could not
answer any questions until she had been copiously
bled ; and the surgeon expressed his opinion that the
injuries the prosecutor had received were such as
might be dangerous to life. It seems that after the
prisoner had acted in the manner described, he went
out and returned soon afterwards, and was heard
whistling and apparently quite indifferent as to the
effect of his brutality.
The prisoner, in his defence, said he was intoxi-
cated at the time, and he was very sorry for what he
had done.

Mr. Justice CRESWELL, having summed up, the
jury found the prisoner Guilty of wounding the prose-
cutor with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.
The Learned JUDGE told the prisoner that the jury
had taken a very merciful view of his case, and he
added that, in his experience in the criminal courts,
he did not recollect a more brutal, savage, and un-
manly attack upon a woman, than that of which he
had been convicted. He then sentenced the prisoner
to be transported for fifteen years.
Just before the Learned Judges left the bench, at
five o'clock, the grand jury came into Court, bring-
ing with them a number of bills, and they informed
the Court that there were no more cases for them to
take into consideration.

Mr. Justice WIGUTMAN congratulated them upon
the conclusion of their labours, and said the country
was indebted to them for their services, and they were
now discharged.
The foreman said the grand jury could not sepa-
rate without expressing their high opinion of the zeal
and intelligence displayed by the members of the me-
tropolitan police who had been examined as witnesses
before them in the course of the sessions.

Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN said it was very satisfac-
tory to hear such an observation from the grand jury,
and he quite concurred in it.
The grand jury then retired.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
GUILDHALL.

Yesterday a young man of decent appearance,
named John Jones, was brought before Mr. Alderman
Hughes, charged with stealing ninety-nine yards of
carpet, the property of Messrs. Monkhouse and Whit-
field, of Barnard Castle.
' William Oatley, of No. 51, Aldermanbury, stated
that he occupied the upper part of the premises, and
the warehoua2s below are occupied by Messrs. Monk-
house and Whitfie!d's London agent, Mr. Margetson.
Between five and six o'clock the preceding evening
witness was at the house No. 25, Aldermanbury,
where he carries on the trade of a painter, and saw
the prisoner come out of the warehouse No. 51 with
the roll of carpet, apparently not in the state in which
it would be delivered to a customer. He ran over to
the warehouse, and told Mr. Margetson what he had
observed. Mr. Margetson pursued the prisoner down
Aldermanbury.
Mr. Margetson stated that he overtook the prisoner
in London-wall. He was carrying the roll of carpet,
but he threw it down on being collared. Witness
gave him in charge to a pOliceman. The property is
of the value of 4/. 12s.
The prisoner asked him if the piece of carpet was
unlike any other ?—The witness said it was not.
The prisoner asked if lie had got others like it in
the warehouse ?—Witness said he had not.
Prisoner asked if the manufacturers had not made
and sold others like it ?—Witness replied he had no
doubt they had.
The prisoner asked how he could swear positively
to it ?—The witness said he had missed such a piece,
which he saw safe in the warehouse a quarter of an
hour before.
Mr. Alderman Humus told the prisoner he was
mistaken when he supposed the property could not be
identified because he had torn off the manufacturer's
mark.
The prisoner questioned the first witness whether
he could swear the piece of carpet produced was the
same that was taken out of the warehouse ?—Mr.
Oatley admitted he could not.
Prisoner asked if he Could swear that somebody had
not given him that piece of carpet ?—Mr. Oatley said
he could not.
Mr. Alderman HUGHES remarked, that the ques-
tions he had put, and his manner of putting them, led
him to believe the prisoner had had some experience
at the bar before.
The prisoner said he had not, and stated that he
was employed by a stranger to carry the piece of
carpet.
The ALDERMAN committed him for trial.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Yesterday Alfred Walker was brought before Mr.
llardwicke for final examination, in reference to a
charge of having been concerned in stealing nearly
5001. in money, and some other valuables, the pro-
perty of Mrs. Tarbox, the housekeeper, from the resi-
dence of the Earl of Harrowby, in Grosvenor-square.
The whole circumstances of the robbery, and the
grounds of suspicion against the prisoner, who was
employed in the house in the capacity of bug de
stroyer, have alre idy been detailed in the reports of
the prisoner's previous examinations.
Inspector Pearce, of the A division, who has been
actively engaged iz tracing out the property, and who
had obtained such a clue to the whole affair as to in-
duce him to apply for more than one remand, yester-
day made such a communication to Mr. Hardwick as
clearly showed that he had lost all hope at present of
being able either to produce the property or to bring
to punishment the perpetrators of the offence. Under
these circumstances Mr. Harwick ordered 'Walker to
be placed at the bar, and forthwith discharged him
from custody.
The accused has had more than one lucky escape.
• He has been tried at the Old Bailey for a robbery in
rthe house 'of a lady in Macclesfield-square, and in
other houses where he obtained jobs property has been
missed. 'When the accused was first apprehended,
the servant of Lady Thomond was present to put
some questions to him relative to the loss of, a cloak
which had been missed during the time he was occu-
pied in cleansing the rooms in her Ladyship's house.
tained that very
In the course of these inquiries, the police ascer-
who call themselves bug or ratdestroyers, and whose
characters are not ascertained, for obtaining admission
into the houses of
great facilities are afforded to persons
noblemen and gentlemen. These
persons are generally allowed to have free access to
every part of the house, and it is believed that more
than one serious robbery has had its origin in want of
due caution.

The police summoned a great number of omnibus
drivers before Mr. Maltby and Mr. Hardwick, for
causing an obstruction in the public streets by stop-
ping longer than necessary to set down or tale up
passengers. The defendants were mostly drivers of
Kensington and Chelsea omnibuses, and the alleged
obstruction arose from the practice of the drivers
stopping before the White Horse Cellar and other
booking offices for a few:minutes, in order to ply for
passengers.
The police stated that the rivalry of the different
omnibus companies produced a serious obstruction at
the White Horse Cellar, as, sometimes, so many om-
nibuses were collected in the same place, stopping
from ten to twenty minutes, as to render the road
almost impassable.
The defendants were all fined in a small penalty,
with an intimation that the full penalty would be in-
flicted if the practice complained of was not put an
end to.

The driver of a Hampton omnibus, who had been
summoned, pleaded that the public convenience abso-
lutely required that a pause of a few minutes should
be made at the booking-office when going or coming
from such a distance. It was impossible to collect
passengers and luggage in one minute, and therefore
he did not think that the ten minutes he took at the
booking-office was such an offence as the Act of Par-
liament contemplated.
Mr. MALTBY could not excuse the fine in this in-
stance, and on the grounds urged, because the Act of
Parliament made no exceptions in favour of any par-
ticular class of public vehicles.

she was only acting under the control of her hus-
band, and she was acquitted. It turned out in the
course of the investigation that the present defendant,
who escaped while the police were making se. arch,
had cohabited with both sisters for some time past,
that Bayntun's husband had been separated from her
many years, and that Bolton stood in the double re-
lationship of father and uncle to the boy he had ac-
cused of robbing him, and his wife was very anxious
to get rid of her rival by accusing her of the theft.
The prisoner Bolton kept out of the way until yester-
day morning, when he returned to his home, and a
policeman named Wykes, who saw him talking to
his wife in the shop, entered and took him into custody.
The Magistrate; sentenced him to a iptiy a fine of
301., and in default of payment to be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour for three calendar months.
The prisoner was then removed from the dock and
put into the witness-box to give exidence against
William Bayntun, his nephew and reputed son, for
stealing a half-sovereign.

Mr. BALLANTTNE committed the prisoner for trial.

LIEUT. P UDDICOMBE—HIS "13RO-
THER OFFICERS"—THE PRESS.
(From the Cork Examiner.)
" Trial by Jury—the glorious bulwark of the sub-
ject's liberty !" has long been a cant in the mouths of
unthinking and inconsiderate men, even of those
who, by their own acts, make a mockery of their
words, and a nullity of a great principle. How, or
in what terms, can we allude to the reprehensible
conduct of the brother officers of an unfortunate
young man, who, as yet, has not been found guilty
of any crime—who has not, as yet, been tried by a
jury of his peers ? We confess we have not language
strong enough to express our indignation at conduct
so precipitate, so wanton, so cruel, and so unjust.
An officer and a gentleman is invited to a ball—he
goes there, amuses himself for the evening, and retires
at a late hour. Some silver is missed; and, because,
in a week after a female offers broken pieces of silver
to a silversmith, and tells him that she had received it
from this officer, and that the silversmith believes that
he can discover the traces of a certain crest, or cer-
tain initials, on the mutilated pieces of silver—
therefore this officer is guilty of a base and pal-
try robbery—therefore he has violated every prin-
ciple which the gentleman and the man of honour
should hold dear as his life—therefore he is guilty
without judge or jury, save and except the
rash judgment and unscrupulous verdict of his own
brother officers! The brother officers of an accused
man are the first to blacken him in the eyes of the
world, by a damning manifesto, in which guilt is not
only taken for granted, but positively assertel. We
have published this extraordinary document before
now, but we cannot avoid re-inserting this single
paragraph, at once remarkable for blundering con-
tradiction and illegal accusation :
" Lieut.-Colonel Burton and the officers of the bat-
talion of Royal Marines serving in Ireland, beg, indi-
vidually and collectively, to convey to Captain Warren
the expression of their indignation at the reported con-
duct of one of their brother officers, Lieut. Puddicombe,
for whose infamous violation of every principle of hos-
pitality and honour in Captain Warren's house, on a
recent occasion, they blush with shame."
Here, in the first place, they are indignant at the
" reported conduct" of a brother officer ; and then
they convict him, on the strength of mere report, of
an " infamous violation of every principle of hospi-
tality and honour in Captain Warren's house, on a
recent occasion." So then, if any man goes before a
magistrate, and accuses Lieut.-Colonel Burton of
picking a pocket, or stealing a spoon, or doing any
act which every rational person ought to be sure he
would not do, his own brother officers would be the
very first to express their " indignation" at his " re-
ported conduct," and to denounce him as guilty and
disgraced, before he had the benefit of a legal inquest.
Mutat° nomine, the case is the same, whether the ac-
cused be Lieut. Puddicombe or Lieut.-Col. Burton.
But what injury has this document done to the
accused ? It has done him the greatest and most
grievous injury that any body of men could inflict
upon a single individual—it has prejudiced the public
against him, and, therefore, the minds of the jury
who are to be selected from that public. This is an
injury of the greatest magnitude.
There is something radically wrong in our nature
—a proneness to believe everything bad against our
brother; and hence, the rapid acceptance of an evil
report, or a foul accusation. We more readily
believe in a man's guilt than in his innocence ;
and the very fact of a man being accused of
a crime, or standing at the bar of justice,
charged with the commission of an offence, is in it-
self sufficient to array the whole prejudices of society
against the accused. Was not this prejudice heavy
enough against this unhappy gentleman, that his
brother officers should fasten conviction on the public
mind, and, of course, on the jury ? The fact is, that
where ever one turns in this city, in passage, in cove,
or for miles round, the cry is, " Oh, what a wretched
man is Lieut. Puddicombe !—how could he commit
so base an act P—oh, he must be guilty—for otherwise
how could he have come by the silver ?" If ever man
were condemned before trial it is this unfortunate
young man. The belief of his guilt is universal.
And why not, when his brother officers have given the
sanction of their belief, and their indignation, to, the
vulgar rage for false judgment?
A very serious question arises from this studiously
created prejudice—can this young man be safely tried
in this city? Can he hope for a fair trial ? Is he cer-
tain of an unbiased jury ? From what we know of
the present temper of the public mind, from commu-
nication with more than one hundred persons, we do
say, that a trial in this city would be a risk. No
matter how honourable twelve men are, no matter how
sensible, how rational, how just they may be, preju-
dice will taint the judgment of the most honourable,
the most sensible, the most rational, the most just. In
our opinion, it would he far better if the accused were
tried at the Fermoy Sessions, when the public feeling
would have cooled down into dispassionate calmness,
and when the evil influence of the document of his
" brother officers" had been in somedegree neutralised
by time.
Now only imagine the cruel injustice of the follow-
ing paragraph :
"It only remains for the Lieut.-Colonel and officers
to intimate to Captain Warren their intention to see
such measures immediately adopted as will remove Lieut.
Puddicome from her Majesty's service; and the Lieut-
Colonel and officers brg Captain Warren will have the
kindness to allow them to make good the articles of
plate that have been abstracted."
So, before the accused is found guilty, he is to be
regarded as guilty, and to be deprived of his commis-
sion—the means of his existence as a gentleman.
We have one word to say to a certain por-
tion of the local press. For the miserable de-
sire of furnishing a topic of scandalous gossip
to its readers, it has out-Heroded Herod—gone
beyond the inconsiderateness, and injustice of
the "brother officers." Court-martial law is far
different from the law of the land. Officers know
but the former—a journalist is supposed not to be
utterly ignorant of the latter. And yet, the accused
has been stripped of his uniform, degraded, debased,
found guilty, and held up to public scorn, by a
thoughtless writer—all for the sake of appearing to
know something of a matter publicly agitated. To
our mind this conduct is disgraceful in the extreme,
and worthy of the strongest indignation. What
atonement can this journal make ? Ignorance is no
plea for such fplly and injustice.
We say nothing about the guilt or innocence of the
accused—that question is for a jury. Our motto is,
" fair play."