The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-03 00:00:00

THE CREW
APPREHENSIONOF THE }I() iDONFER, ON A CHARGE
thiswßani morning,
considerableo
u wil anxietyremember ha
that
at
FEB. 1.-1 have to inform you of the arrival here,
ofeßltrifsokr
had
de
put
tt
into
of the schooner Brisk, Captain Mansfield, for
beenth
or six days.
Falmouth harbour, while on her voyage from London, and that
on the night of the 25th, while the Captain was on shore on
the ship's bu=iness, the mate and crew got her under weigh
old sailed off with her ; and, notwithstanding the most diligent
,nquiries, nothing could be learnt of her till her arrival here.
At the sitting of the Magistrates this morning, the Captain,
who had arrivei here by coach, applied for warrants to appre-
hend the mate and crew, on a charge of piracy; and their
Worships having granted him the assista,.ce of a body of the
police, they went on board, and captured the mate, John Mar-
shall, and five men, named John Gower, James Hamager,
David Gravel, Michael Berry, and John Isaacs, who were
(traightvray conveyed to the justice-room, and placed at the
bar on a charge of piratically and feloniously running away with
the vessel.
The captain, Mansfield, having been sworn, deposed
that on the 25th ult., the Brisk schooner, of which he was com-
mander, was lying in Falmouth harbour. Witness had occa-
ion to go on shore on the ship's business ; he sent some fish
and other things on board • and at length, seeing that a heavy
gale was (liming on, he and the masters of some other vessels
agreed that it would not be prudent to leave the harbour that
evening. At about ten o'clock he went to look for his vessel,
and she was gone. He had never given any permission to the
prisoners, or any of them, to sail without him, and, by so doing,
they had revolted against his authority.
Upon being called on for their defence, the.mate, Jahn Mar-
shall, said the Captain went on shore under pretence of buying
half a yard of canvass, and remained on shore all (lay. There
were a great many of the vessels in the harbour getting
under weigh, and he said to the men, " I suppose we shall
have the Captain on board presently," and told them to set
the foresail and make ready. At ten o'clock, finding that
the Captain did net come on board, he got the vessel under
weigh, and sailed, as the vessel would have drowned in half
an hour.
Mr. George (magistrate) said, if he had weighed anchor
for safety, he ought to have beat about for awhile, and then
returned.
The Mate said it was ebb tide; besides, they (the men)
were paid by the run, and they were not going to be kept
there while the Captain was taking his pleasure on shore.
Resides, the owner told him, if the Captain was incompetent,
to take the command.
The Captain denied this, and the owner, Mr. Williams,
having been afterwards sent for, denied it also. He said the
Mate told him the Captain was not competent, to which he
replied, " But you are, and you can suggest to him ; and surely
both of you can bring the vessel round'?"
Mr. Burges, Magistrate's clerk, said if the vessel had been
lost the matter might have been serious to the owners, as the
Captain not being on board the insurance would not have been
payable.
Mr. George said it was a case of piracy, for which they were
all liable to be hanged. They must be taken round to Fal-
mouth, to take their trial for that offence.
The owner, Mr. Williams, said he should not press the charge
against them.
The Captain said be moat certainly should. Indeed, he was
vatisfied that Lloyd's would prosecute.
The Magistrate said the police should assist him in taking
them round to Falmouth on his paying the expenses.
The prisoners were then removed in custody, with the ex-
ception of the boy Isaacs, who was discharged.
SALVAGE OF THE IOSPEROUS.-A question of salvage
was also heard before our Magistrates to-day, which excited a
good deal of interest in the mercantile world. The vessel
saved was the Prosperous sloop, from Bristol to Bridgewater.
She was the property of a shipowner named Stevens, and had
on board a cargo of timber, belonging to Mr. Ennett, a con-
tractor on the Bristol and Exeter Railway, and a small quan-
tity of wine.
The salvage was claimed, on the one part, by seven men,
named henry, Charles, John, Edward, and Hobert Bacon,
Wm. Fry, and Wm. Loscombe; and on theother part by the
owners of a steam-tug boat called the Tiger:
Previously, however, to its being brought into Court, some
arrangement was made with the latter parties, and the case was
only heard with reference to the men.
Mr. Wasbrough, of the firm of Wasbrough and Stanley, ap-
peared for them ; Mr. King for the owner of the cargo ; and
Mr. B. Smith for the shipowner.
It appeared from the evidence of Henry Bacon, that seeing
the vessel beating against the rocks in Walton Bay, he and his
brother boarded her. They then got a line out, and having
made her fast, sent for the Lioness steam-tug. The Captain
of the Lioness thought she had net sufficient power, and the
Tiger was sent round. She hauled the vessel off, subsequently
took her up to the basin, Henry Bacon and his brother weering
her, and afterwards taking charge of her.
The cargo was admitted to be worth 250/., but the sloop was
so much damaged as not to be worth more than 50/. It was
also stated that 30/. had been premised to the owner of the
steam-tug.
The Magistrates directed 201. to be paid to the men-51. by
the shipowner, and 15/. by Mr. Ennett.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 2.
WRIGHT V. KING.

This was an action for false imprisonment. The de-
fendant is proprietor of a boarding-school, and the
plaintiff, being for a short time in his service as cook,
was given by him into the custody of a police-officer,
and taken before a Magistrate upon a charge of felony.
The charge was founded upon the fact of lolb. weight of
suet having been found in her cupboard. Before the
Magistrate the plaintiff declined to prosecute, and the
plaintiff; who received an excellent character from her
former master, brought this action for the alleged in-
jury. The Jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 10/.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Feb. 2.
IN RE wM. urreitcocw.
The further investigation of this matter was resumed
his day.
The cross-examination of Mr. Gladstone was continued
by Mr. Mardon.
You have •stated in your examination of 26th January
that your last transaction with the bankrupt was the
12th July, 1841; state what that transaction was ?—Be-
fore I answer that question I should like to explain that
[amide a mistake in a date relative to interest. I stated
[B3B, and it should have been 1839.
Mr. MARDON repeated his question.--ft was a small
parcel of goods amounting to 11. ls. 4d. sold by me to
the bankrupt.
When did you sell any goods to the bankrupt prior to
that date ?—On the 30th June or Ist July.
Can you state the amount?—l believe upwards of 1001
Then did you sell any goods between the Ist July and
the 12th of the month beyond the sums mentioned P—l
think not.
Were you in the habit, prior to the Ist July, of supply-
ing goods to the bankrupt weekly or oftener ?—Yes.
When did you credit the bankrupt in your books with
the 8631. Bs. 9d., Heeles' bill ?—On the 18th May.
Did you make the entry on that day ?—Without doubt,
as it appears in the book.
My question is not as it appears in your book, but
when the entry was male ?—On the 18th May.
Did you credit his cash account on that day with the
amount, or was it carried to his cash account ?—lt was
carried to his cash account.
You have spoken in your examination of an interview
with' the bankrupt on the 2d of July; did the bankrupt
then inform you that he should stop unless you afforded
him assistance and unlimited credit ?—No.
Do you recollect what statement he made to you on
that occasion ?—I do.
Will you state what then took place ?—He stated that
we did not-give him sufficient support ; that we did not
answer his references in a way to do him credit, anti
having a large account with us it was an injury to him.
You have stated that you sent to the bankrupt on the
Ist July a letter stating that his buyer had been very
frequently with you, which was contrary to the under-
standing, referring to the loss of the sth May, which had
been acknowledged by the bankrupt in his letter of the
28th May. Do you mean by that answer that there was
any understanding between you and the bankrupt in
May that he should instruct his buyers not to call upon
you so frequently ? No ; I wish to observe we then
advist-d him to buy with great caution, which he pro-
mised to do, and these purchases made in .Tune we
thought were too large to be consistent with that pro-
mise, especially as the trade of the season was so ad-
vanced.
Was that the only reason that you had for the under-
standing between you and the bankrupt ?—Yes.
1)o you consider that the season was far advanced in
May in the retail West-end trade P—My answer refers
to the Ist July.
Why, when you wrote this letter, May 5, 1841, did you
caution him against keeping too much stock P—Because
we had heard he had been buying goods freely in the
market. '
Did your caution against buying too much stock apply
to yourselves, your own firm ?-It, did generally.
Mr. HUMFREY—What do you man by generally ?
With respect to ourselves and others.
Mr. MA 'IRON —Did you caution hint not to buy of
other houses on the sth of May ?—Our caution was a ge-
neral one, meaning that he should do business on as small
a stock as possible.
What amount of goods did the bankrupt purchase of
your house after March 16, up to and inclusive of 12th
July, 1841 ?—lt appears to me, looking at the book, to
be 2,080/., without returns, which amount to 1801.,
leaving the actual amount 1,9001.
What amount of cash and bills did the bankrupt pay
to your firm during the same period ?—The 4th April
5001; the 18th May to Heeles' cheque 863/. ; on the 20th
7501 ; on 29th 1,000/. ; on Ist June 525/. 12s. 6d. ; those
are all.
Do you find nothing on June 4th :P.—That bill was not
paid ; those I have mentioned Were. The different bills
falling due up to 4th July for goods were all paid, but by
means of our own advances.
From what time up to July ?—From March.
Can you point out what bills were paid by the bankrupt
without advances of yours 2—l don't think I can tell
without going through the books. I can tell the whole
advances of the year to the bankrupt. I can explain the
payment of each la by going through the books.
Before you part with that book will you look if you
did not receive a bill on April 4th, 1841, for 226135.—N0.
Neither to his goods account nor his cash account ?
I seem to have no such bill here, but this book will not
show, it does not go far enough back.
Referring to a letter of the sth May, 1841, you say
the bankrupt is warned from expecting any more assist-
ance from you, beyond, for a time, the 7,000/. and Mr.
Cooke's 3,000/. From what time did you mean the assist-
ance of the 7,000/., which refers to the joint promissary
note of the bankrupt and Mr. Geo. Hitchcock, to continue.
—The 7,0001 was lent to be paid at the rate of 1,0001
annually.
Then do you mean it was for a term of seven years?—
The loan 'of 7,000/. was for the term of one year ;
6,000/. the second, and so on.
When was that 7,000/. lent ?—ln sundry sums in
May, 1840.
Was there not a joint note of the bankrupt and George
Hitchcock given for that amount, payable twelve months
after date, and dated the Ist June in that year 2—yes.
When the bill became due in 1841 was it presented for
payment ?---Yes ; I suppose so.
Do you know of your own knowledge who presented
that note for payment ?—I do *not.
Do you believe that it was presented for payment ?
suppose Q.