The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-03 00:00:00

spinners, Bradford (so far as regards W. Hargreaves)—
S. May and P. Mottram, drapers, Shrewsbury—E. Hunt
and G. T. Tyndale, merchants, Liverpool—S. and S.
Smith, tailors, Manchester—H. Leaker and T. TrudeP,
ironmongers, Leadenhall-street—T. J. Kirton and J.
Newman, white lead manufacturers, Baukside, South-
wark—F. W. Roller and A. C. Wirsing, merchants,
Union-court, Old Broad-street—J. Amis and S. Mar,
shall, silk mercers, Bishopsgate-street Within—E. and
M. Barnett, "schoolmistresses, Great Frescot-street,
Goodman's-fields—J. Hall and 5. H. Moreton, meat
salesmen, Leadenhall-market—J. and J. Thorpe, cur-
riers, Nottingham—J. Calvert: and T. M•lntyre, woollen
drapers. Leeds—W. Stawpert and R. Panuett, grocers,
Willington, Northumberland—J. M. and W. Carkeel,
general merchants, Plymouth—R. Roy, J. Blunt, D.
G. Johnstone, and C. Walton, attorneys, Loth bury (so
far as regards C. Walton)—C. R. Meltzer and J. Wads-
worth, flax merchant,, Leeds.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
Stewart and Mitchell, slaters, Dundee, Sept. 8 and 28,
at one, at the British Hotel, Dundee.
Alexander 'Arthur, draper, Glasgow; Sept. 4 and 25,
at two, at the chambers of Messrs. Wilson and Christie,
Glasgow. '
Henderson and Brydon, woollen drapers, Dalkeith,
Sept. 5 and 26, at two, at the Royal Exchange Coffee-
house, Edinburgh.
Ebenezer Brown Primrose, manufacturer, Glasgow,
Sept. 9 and 30, at twelve, at the chain_ hers of Mr.
Fleming, Glasgow.

THE LATE ACCIDENT ON THE
MOONLIG TIT `TEAM-BO AT.

The coroner, Mr. Redford, and the jury selected to inquire
into the circumstances attending the death of James Purcell,
aged 13, on board the Moonlight steamer. assembled for the
fourth time on Monday evening, at the St. Martin's Tavern,
Duke-street,Adelphi.
The CORONER having announced his intention to hear the
evidence of Mr. Simonds and Mr. Flemming, pas-engers, to
whose examination an objection was raised on the last oceasicn,
owing to the presence of those witnesses during a former part
of the inquiry,
John simonds, of Southampton-street, Russell-square, silver
smith, stated that he was on hoard the MoorAight, close un-
der the captain of that vessel (who stood on the right-hand
paddie-boi), when she arrived alongside the Prince of Wales,
at the Hungerford-pier, on the evening of August the 18tn.
He saw the head-rope thrown over, and attached to the
Prince of Wales prior to the landing of passengers. It was
fixed to the sponson of the latter boat by a lad on deck.
Shortly afterwards he . heard the captain give the order
" Go a-bead," and almost simultaneously " Stop her." He
then heard an outcry among the passengers, and saw the de-
ceased, whose foot had been torn effbythe bead-rope, supported
by some persons on board. He heard the passengers say that_ it
was shameful conduct on .the. part of the captain to proceed
without seeing that the rope was de►ached from the Prince of
Wales, but he (witness) did not think him blameable, as the
call " Stop her" immediately :succeeded• the order to "Go
i-head." The boat cerfttnly appeared to move forward, but,
he was satisfied that the engines were not in motion. The
tide secs running against the vessel, towards London-bridge.
He considered the accident attributable to the absence of any
person on board the Prince of Wales to remove the head-rope
of the Moonlight from her. •
George Flemming said, that at the time of the accident there
were three boats at the Hungerford-pier. The Syren, a Wool-
wich boat. moved away free the pier, and the Prince of Wales,
which stood next, with her bow facing the bridge (the same as
the Moonlight), went a little astern in order to take the place
of the Syren. The Moonlight's head-rope was then attached
to her larboard sponson. Immediately afterwards he saw the
deceased being conveyed away from the Moonlight, but he had
nut seen the accident.

As the parties affected by this inquiry, if the accident was
the result of negligence, are either the crew of the Moonlight
or the Prince of Wales, or the piermen employed by the
Hungerford-pier Company ; and es the evidence as to the most
material point was of the mast conflicting nature, it may be as
well to give a short summary of the witnesses examined, with
their opinions as to the party responsible for each negligence.
Mr. E. Brydges, carpet-manufacturer, of Cheapside, a pas-
senger in the Moonlight, heard the captain give the order to go
a-head before the rope was detached from the Prince of Wales.
Saw the accident, and heard the passengers calling to the cap-
tain to stop the vessel, which was then in motion. The Prince
of Wales was not moving at the time.
Mr. Joseph Marsh, a hat-maker, of Cheapside, also a pas-
stnger, believed that if any one had been on board the Prince of
Wales,to remove the bead-rope . f the Moonlight from her lar-
board sponson, the accident would not have occurred. Heard
the people calling to the captain to stop, but the boat was not
stopped immediately.
Mr. Walter Scott, secretary of the Harwich Railway Cem-
pany, and a passenger in .the Moonlight, saw nobody besides a
lady on board the Prince of Wales when the accident happened.
The passengers of the Moonlight called for some one to
unfasten the head-roptt, bat no one was there to do it. The
captain might have seen that the rope had not been removed,
if he had looked in that direction.
Samuel Waller,of Chelsea, a passenger, witnessed the ac-
cident, and called to the eaptitii of the 11lootlight to atop the
vessel. The Prince- of Wales was at the same moment going
astern.

James Stewart, a pierman, employed by the Hungerford
pier Company, was attending upon the Syren, Woolwich
boat, when the Moonlight and Prince of Wales were along-
side her. It was his (witness's) duty to attend to the head-
ropes of the different vessels arriving at the pier, when he
could do so ; but it was impossible for him to attend to all
at once.

Henry Tucker, the foremost hand in the Moonlight. usually
attended to the head-rope. He threw it upon the larboard
of the Prince of Wales, where it was fixed by a boy. When
the captain gave the order to go a-head witness tried to jerk off
the eye of the rope, and then let out the loose rope It trig on
deck, not observing that the foot of the deceased was entangled
in the coil. He called to the captain to " stop her," and was
certain that the boat had gone ahead only about two revolu-
tions, but at the same moment the Prince of Wales went
astern.

William Giles, mate of the Prince of Wales, described his
boat as stationary at the time of the accident. The engines
of the Moonlight were idmotion.
James M'Clarens, a lighterman, on board the Prince of
Wales, saw the accident, and believed it was caused by the
absence of piermen to attend upon the boats. There were not
half enough hands employed by the Pier Company for this
purpose, and accidents consequently were always happening
there. He was positive that the Moonlight was going for-
ward when the accident in question occurred.
Alexander Mill, a wood-turner, near Euston-square, believed
that both the Moonlight and the Prince of \Vales must have
been in motion at the time of the accident, owing to the rapidity
with which the head-rope was run out.
Another passenger of the Moonlight, named Gordon, else
believed that beth - vessels were moving, but the Prince of
Wales was going astern more .rapidly than the other was pro-
seeding forward.
Wiliiam Atkinson, master of the Syren, did not witness the
accident. but saw the confusion occa,ioned by it, and believed
that both vessels were stationary at the time.
The evidence of the house-surgeon of Charing-cross Hos-
pital related to the injuries received by the unfortunate lad,
whose leg was amputated about six hours after he reached the
hospital. The case progressed favourably until the following
Friday, when death, resulting from mortification, took place.
The Cotton/Ea, after reading over the evidence, said that he
did not feel called upou to address many observations to the jury
in referenoe to the conficting testimony which had been pre-
sented to their notice. It was for them to infer, from the mass
of depositions before them, whether the accident was caused by
a neglect of duty or otherwise, and, if so, who were the blame-
able parties. The larger proportion of the evidence had been
given by passengers on board the vessels at the Hungerford-
pier, and, in considering their verdict, the jury would give due
attention to the statements made by the more interested wit-
nesses likewise. He ought, perhaps, to explain, to them that when
men acted without sufficient caution, and death was the conic-
quence, they were liable to the charge of manslaughter; but it was
the more desirable on that account, that they should be agreed' as
to the party to whom the blame in such a case was really attribu-
table. He mightremind them, in c 'reclusion, that the law of deo-
dands was still existing, and,' if they thought fit to mat k their
sense of any minor negligence, they were at liberty to record a
verdict of accidental death, at the same time imposing a deo-
druid proportionate thereto.
The room was then cleared of strangers, and the jury pro-
ceeded to consider their verdict. After upwards of an hour's
deliberation the public were re-admitted, and
The foreman announced that the verdict of the jury was—
". Accidental death, a deodand of 401. being imposed upon the
Moonlight steam-boat " He stated that his brother jurymen
and himself had experienced great difficulty in arriving at a
conclusion, owing to theextremely contradictory nature of the
evidence submitted to them by parties whose respectability
entitled them equally to credit. They had, however, come to
the unanimous opinion that the Hungerford Market Company
were in duty bound to provide more piermen for the better
protection of the public.

MISCONDUCT OP THE EXCISE.—The Kelso Vail
publishes a very gross cue of misconduct on the part of two
Excise officers, which was exposed at the Roxburghshire
Quarter Sessions on the- sth current. It• appears that t Vro
officers of Excise, stationed at Kelso, disguised themselves es
anglers, and went to the house of an innkeeper at.Yethohn,
whim th y ma.'e drink with them until he was drunk, and their
induced him to sell them'a quantity of whisky. without a per -
mit, to be ca.ried across the border, in contravention of the
statute. Lard Minto and all the justices present, except one,
concurred that the innkeeper could not be convicted on the
denee of officers who acted in such a nay ; and• at the same
time, some wholesome rebukes were administered.
pf
ACCIDENT AT lIUNGERFORD STEAM-
Monday night, between seven and eigh', another accident
the crowded state of the
occurred at this pier, arising
sm.! the rush made to get .on board
hart es forming the pier,
the rayons swam-
iy7itt man named Double.
boats owing to the cheap we of :he fares
alp
.by the Chelsea woolen bn)aiit.sg.
and before she
was
day, on the Pinurese co.
his way acrossthe Prince of Waled
fairly mop red, forced
Greenwich boat, and endeavoured to get on board the Prim.
onden-bri Ige, and, although called on by
rose, to proceed to L
those on board to wait until the Prix ce of wales), bow
gang,
,av-board was properly fastened, he went on. The board
broke short off at the the persons on board could net see
him, and it was believed he had gone under the boat. For-
tunately, however, he succeeded in laying bold of the chains in
front of tie bows of the Prince of Wales, and was ultimately
rescued from his perilous sititation. •
Art itiquest tvos 11.1,i LA-wos on SatUrday, on It
little boy, named Charles Holden, who had been killed on the
previous evening by the wheel of one of the Brighton coaches'
passing over his body. Having heard the evidence the jury re-!
turned a verdict of " Accidental death," with a deodand of
forty shillings on the coach and horses belonging to Messrs.l
Read and Ticehurst,- accompanying the verdict with the fel-;
lowing.observatioa,..—" And the jury cannot separate without'
marking strongly their sense of the dangerous manner in which,
the proprietors of the Brighton and Lewes coaches generally
.allow their servants to drive, to the imminent" danger of tlici
public life,"