« AnteriorContinuar »
easily. On the 12th, while steaming up the Irish Channel, a gale from the north-west gradually arose. She was then under topsails, foresail, and fore and aft sails, and using half her steam power. By five p.m., when within twenty-five miles off Holyhead, the gale became furious, and the sea very high. Under these circumstances it would have been running a fearful risk for an immense vessel like the “Prince Consort’” to have been run for a small harbour like Holyhead; the sails were therefore furled, and the frigate put head to sea, and towards Ireland. For the last three hours she had been labouring, and (although battened down) taking in much water. With her head to sea the ship's magnificent engines were very thoroughly tested, and they drove this enormous mass of matter six knots at first, and eight knots afterwards an hour, in the face of a very strong gale. At six p.m. it was reported that the water was within a few inches of the fire. All the pumps, including the steam pump, were immediately set to work, but the water continued slowly but gradually to increase. Every effort was made to discover the leak, but without success. About midnight, when the men, who had been six hours at the pumps and nearly twenty-four hours at work, and without food from noon, began to show signs of exhaustion, Howth Lights were made, and at half-past twelve the ship was anchored. The men had then a glass of grog served them, went at the pumps again with a will, and continued there until two a.m. In the mean time the steam pump was taken to pieces, put to rights, and set to work again, and at two the ship's company were allowed a rest of two hours. By five a.m. the steam pump had reduced the water eighteen inches, and all immediate anxiety was removed. The ship was then taken to an anchorage off Kingstown. One unfortunate man had his leg fractured by a piece of funnelcasing falling on him, and seven or eight men were more or less bruised, but not dangerously, by being thrown off their legs during the gale. The water that the ship took in over all, and by leakage through the ports, was very great. 21. THE CRowN PRINCEss of PRussia LAYING THE FIRST STONE of WINDSOR NEw CHURCH.-The Crown Princess of Prussia (Princess Royal of England) celebrated her birthday by laying the foundation-stone of a new church which is to be built in the Francis-road, about a mile from Windsor Castle. A numerous and brilliant assembly witnessed the ceremony.
1. OPENING OF THE CHARING-cRoss RAILwAY.—A partial opening of this important metropolitan communication took place. It was opened for passenger traffic in the first instance between Charingcross and Greenwich only, the progress of the works at the terminus not yet admitting of its being used for the long traffic of the South-Eastern system, which it is destined, when completed, to convey into this central part of the Metropolis. The inauguration of the undertaking took place with all the éclat which could be imparted by the visit of a large party of directors and their friends, and a sumptuous diffeiner at the termination of the proceedings.
6. DowAGER LADY BLANTYRE v. THE ST. JAMEs's HoTEL CoMPANY. —MYSTERIOUs Robbery of JEwBLs.- (Sittings at Westminster, before Mr. Justice Byles and a Special Jury.)—This was an action to recover damages for a loss sustained by the plaintiff in money and jewels while staying at the defendants’ hotel. The defendants denied their liability, on the ground that the plaintiff had given no notice to the manager of the hotel that she had the said property in her possession, and that she did not take proper care thereof.
Lady Blantyre deposed that, having come to London for the season in April last, she went with her daughter, Mrs. Ferrand (the wife of Mr. Ferrand, M.P.), to the defendants' hotel, which is situated at the corner of Berkeley-street, Piccadilly, but which was not then quite finished, and agreed to take certain apartments in it when they were fit to-be occupied, which it was stated they would be early in May. Accordingly, on May 8, the plaintiff topk possession of the apartments—viz., a drawing-room, two bedrooms, a dressing-room, and a dining-room on the second floor. These rooms were en suite, with a door in each leading from one room into another. There was also a door leading from the passage into each room. One bed-room was occupied by Lady Blantyre, and the other by Mr. and Mrs. Ferrand. On the 19th of May Lady Blantyre dressed for dinner at seven o’clock in the evening. She had then occasion to use her dressing-case, in which there were 500l. worth of jewels, and 571, in gold and silver. The jewels consisted of a large diamond brooch, worth 320l., a pair of diamond buckles for bracelets, worth 611. 5s. ; a half-hoop diamond ring, worth 30l. ; an emerald and diamond half-hoop ring, 30l. ; a diamond ring, with a ruby in the centre of it, worth 35l. 3 a. half-hoop ring of small brilliants, worth 101. ; a ring, three diamonds, and a pearl, worth 101. ; an onyx, pearl, and diamond ring, 131. ; and an Indian boy, with ruby eyes, worth 187.
After dressing, the plaintiff saw that the property in question was safe in the dressing-case, which she locked, and placed, as usual, on the drawers in her bed-room. She then went to dinner, and subsequently retired to her bed-room between eleven and twelve o'clock at night. She did not lock the doors of her bed-room, but she placed a chair against the door which opened upon the outer passage. Next morning she rose about half-past eight o'clock, and went to breakfast in the dining-room. She returned to her bed-room at eleven, and upon looking into her dressing-case she found that her jewels and money were gone. The dressing-case had no appearance of having been forced, and Lady Blantyre had the key on a ring with other keys in her pocket. She immediately informed her son-in-law, Mr. Ferrand, of her loss, and he communicated with Mrs. Francatelli, the wife of the manager of the hotel; after which he went to the police-station in Wine-street, and obtained the assistance of a detective. He subsequently saw Mr. Francatelli, who said it would have been better if he had left the case in his (Mr. Francatelli's) hands, and that the proper place to have gone to was Scotland-yard, whither Mr. Francatelli went and gave the necessary information. No clue, however, was obtained to the robbery, and up to this day it was a mystery. Only one of the stolen notes, a 101, one, had been traced, it having been paid into the Bank of England. There were several workmen about the hotel all the time that the plaintiff and her relatives were staying there. Lady Blantyre cross-examined by Mr. Bovill—The dressingcase (which was produced) had a Bramah lock and key. When she saw it on the morning of the 20th of May it was locked. She always kept the key in her pocket with her other keys. She remembered telling Mr. Francatelli that a piece of pink tissue paper was always inside the dressing-case. This was found on the table in the drawing-room on the morning of the robbery. She discovered that one of the 207 notes which she thought had been stolen had been paid away by her some months before. She neyer said that another of the 10l. notes was found by her in a piece of blotting-paper. There was no doubt that she had lost 571. in notes and gold and silver. Mr. and Mrs. Ferrand were also examined, and they corroborated that part of the case which came within their knowledge. They also deposed that previous to the robbery of Lady Blantyre's property they had lost money. Half-a-sovereign had been taken out of Mr. Ferrand’s purse as it lay on his dressing-table in his bed-room, and a sovereign had been abstracted from Mrs. Ferrand’s purse during her absence from the drawing-room. The servants of the plaintiff and of Mr. and Mrs. Ferrand were also examined, for the purpose of enabling them to say that they knew nothing of the robbery in question. Mr. Hunt, of the firm of Hunt and Roskell, and Mr. Hunnett, a diamond merchant, of Southampton-street, deposed to the value
of some of the lost jewels with which they were acquainted; the former witness also gave an estimate of the value of some of the other jewels, according to the description given of them to him by Lady Blantyre. The total value of the jewels was 527/., which, with the 571, in money lost, would make the damage suffered by the plaintiff 584/. Mr. Bovill, for the defendants, contended that they were not liable for the plaintiff's loss, for Lady Blantyre was bound to have given notice to the manager of the hotel that she had the property described in her possession, in order that his attention might be directed to it, especially as a card was placed in every room of the hotel, on which was printed the following notice : —“The compan do not hold themselves responsible for property lost in the hotel, unless placed in the special charge of the manager.” He contended that the proprietor of an hotel had a right to say upon what terms he admitted persons to take up their residence there, and that if they did not comply with these terms he was not liable for any loss sustained by them while staying at his hotel. This view was so strongly entertained by Parliament, that it passed an Act last Session limiting the liability of the keeper of an inn or an hotel to 30l., and obliging a guest to give up pro}.} o that amount to the landlord or manager of the otel. It was clear that Lady Blantyre did not take that care which she ought to have done of her property, and she was not, therefore, entitled to recover against the defendants. Mr. Francatelli, the manager of the hotel, was examined to show that a card with the printed notice referred to was placed in every room in the hotel, and might have been seen by the plaintiff. The servants of the plaintiff, and those of Mr. and Mrs. Ferrand, used occasionally to be visited by their friends. The servants of the hotel were all persons of good character. There were no workmen about the hotel at the time of the robbery but two carpenters and two gasfitters, and they were employed in the basement. The learned Judge, in summing up, said that the law of liability of an innkeeper was as old as the Roman law. It was not only the law of England until modified by a recent Act of Parliament, but it was the law of every country in the world. With respect to the notice furnished on the card which had been put in evidence, it was of no value whatever, for it could not take away the responsibility of the defendants. He left it to the jury to say, first, whether the plaintiff had been guilty of negligence in not reading the notice in question; secondly, whether she had been guilty of negligence in not locking her bed-room door; and thirdly, whether she had been guilty of negligence in not leaving the goods in the charge of the manager of the hotel. The jury, after a short deliberation, found a verdict for the plaintiff on all the grounds. Damages--5841. 9. DEPARTURE of SIR John LAwRENCE.-The new GovernorGeneral of India, Sir John Lawrence, took his departure from
England, en route for Calcutta, to assume his Vice-regal duties. 10. GREAT FIGHT BETweeN HEENAN, THE AMERICAN PUGILIST, AND KING, THE ENGLISH CHAMPION.—This event, which excited extraordinary interest in sporting circles, and was regarded with anxious expectation on both sides of the Atlantic, took place near Wadhurst, in Sussex, in the presence of an immense crowd of spectators. The gathering took place at the London Bridge station of the South-Eastern Railway at four o'clock in the morning, when a strong body of police were drawn up to prevent the ruffianly outrages and robberies which occurred on the last occasion of a contest for the “Championship of the Prize Ring.” It was, however, a quarter past six before the train, consisting of some thirty-three carriages, occupied by about 800 people of all conditions, from the peer to the prizefighter, left the station. On the journey large bodies of police were met with at every station except the one nearest the intended scene of action (Wadhurst); but there not a single constable was visible. The stakes being driven, the spectators seated, the ring-keepers active with their thick gutta-percha whips, the few differences on the subject of individual allotments of space amicably adjusted, and every thing settled into a pervading breathlessness of expectation, the men were anxiously looked for; and a buzz of suppressed excitement went round the assembly when they stepped into full view from their little knots of backers and friends. King was the first to fling his cap into the arena, and Heenan was not long after him. Both had, of course, their partisans, but it was quite clear that the majority of the lookers-on simply wanted to see a fair fight; and although there was a natural feeling in favour of the young English sailor, his rival had not the least reason to complain of a cold or even a lukewarm reception. In whatever way the betting ran before the combatants came into sight, there was evidently a strong and universal desire, when they did appear, to back both. The toss for choice of position was won by Heenan. The seconds busied themselves with the toilette of the boxers, whilst the spectators, settling themselves down in their places as best they could, waited with some impatience for the commencement of the struggle. King was seconded by two prizefighters named Noon and Tyler; Heenan's seconds were Macdonald and his former antagonist, Thomas Sayers, ex-champion of England, who was welcomed with much cheering by the crowd. A louder cheer soon told that Heenan was ready. As he stepped forward into the arena it was impossible to gaze without a certain admiration at so grand a form. The beauty, indeed, was almost entirely physical; but it was perfect of its kind. As a proof of the excellence to which man, as a mere animal, can be trained, a moment’s glance at Heenan was worth a whole volume of anatomical discourses. So terrible appeared the long arms, of which the muscles moved with the pliancy and, as it seemed, with the