EAST DONYLAND​ / ROWHEDGE

ESSEX STANDARD - Friday 9 August 1839 - “WIVENHOE, August 2.- During the heavy gale on Wednesday last, two vessels unfortunately got on the Gunfleet Sand, near the Beacon off this coast; one called the “Egeria,” of Sunderland, Vaux, Master, burthen 235 tons, on a voyage from Archangel to London, with 2,500 quarters of Oats, consigned to the house of Messrs. Ashlin and Sons, Mark Lane; this vessel, although only seven years old, such was the severity of the weather, soon became a complete Wreck; the Crew were landed here last evening.- The other belonged to Gainsboro’, and is called the “Severn,” the Crew, for the preservation of their lives, were compelled to abandon the same; she was afterwards got off, by the skilful judgment and exertions of 5 smacks and their Crews, belonging to East Donyland, after throwing about 30 tons of Shot overboard, and was brought to this place yesterday, with loss of Masts, Bowsprit, Yards, Sails, Rigging, and Rudder - making a deal of water.- The Crew landed at Harwich.- At a meeting, held yesterday, the Committee for managing the affairs of Lloyd’s, were pleased to direct Mr. John G. Chamberlain, of Wivenhoe, their Agent, to pay the sum of ten pounds to the widow and children of the late Mr. Robert Wardley, master of thr smack “Fair Traveller,” of Brightlingsea, who was unfortunately drowned, in attempting to save the crew of the “Frau Heinke,” wrecked on the Gunfleet Sand, on the 11th May last.”

 

ESSEX STANDARD - Friday 6 September 1839 - “SALVAGE - The barque Possidone, of Odessa, 281 tons burthen, Constantine Inglesse, master, from Antwerp to Naples, agreed value of ship and cargo, £6,460.- This case was heard yesterday at the Three Cups Hotel, before P. Havens, Esq., T.J. Turner, Esq., and G. Round, Esq., in which Joseph Brown, owner and master of the smack “Good Agreement,” William Cranfield, one of the crew of the smack “Phoenix,” and Samuel Taylor, of the smack “Rumley,” sought for compensation, for assistance rendered by them to the above vessel when upon the “Long Sand.” The declaration of the salvors was read over by Mr. J.G. Chamberlain, of Wivenhoe, by which it appeared that they were on board their several smacks during the night of Thursday the 15th August, cruising in the Swin, for the purpose of rendering assistance to any vessels requiring the same. On the 16th, the wind blowing fresh from the south-west, about 7 o’clock Brown and Cranfield went to the mast head of their vessels which they supposed to be aground on the south side of the Long Sand. They immediately made all sail towards her, and when Brown came within his draft of water on the Sunk Sand, he manned his boat, and at imminent peril crossed the Sunk Sand, and reached the vessel about 9 o’clock a.m. They found her lying on her broadside, in a most perilous situation. All was confusion on board, and several water casks had been emptied to relieve the ship. None of the crew could speak English, but by signs the master told Brown that he believed he had grounded off the French coast, he also knew that he required assistance. Brown succeeded in making the captain understand that it was necessary that an anchor should be carried out, and accordingly one was out into the long boat, with two cables, measuring about 1,200 feet, and dropped in a south-east direction. Brown had then charge of the vessel, and made a signal for more assistance, and the “Good Agreement” was afterwards hauled alongside the vessel in order to receive the cargo which had been got on deck. Two casks weighing each about 1,600lbs, were put on board. The bower anchor was then let go and hove up, and the vessel was sheered off by the assistance of the warps, a distance of nearly 400 fathoms, when she became afloat. The hawsers were then slipped and the necessary sails set, and she arrived at Harwich about 8 o’clock p.m., of the same day. And the declaration further set forth that the vessel, her cargo, and the lives of the persons on board were in the utmost danger, and that by their local knowledge, and great personal exertion, she was rescued from such danger. Mr. Billingsley of Harwich appeared on behalf of the owners of the vessel, and cross-examined Brown, in order to show that nothing more had been done by them, than to relieve the vessel about 5 tons, and that the anchor was carried out by the vessel’s own long boat, and principally by her own crew, two only of the smack’s men being in the long boat at the time. The Court awarded the sum of £525 to the salvors, the expenses of the adjudication to be defrayed in equal moieties.”

 

ESSEX STANDARD - Friday 15 November 1839 - "SALVAGE - The Brig Theinston. This case was heard yesterday, at the Three Cups Hotel, Colchester. Award £75.”

ALSO - ”WIVENHOE, Nov. 12.- The Don Juan, Shearer, from Hamburg to Newfoundland, has been brought into this port leaky, having been on shore on the Mouse Sands, and assisted off after being lightened.”

 

ESSEX STANDARD - Friday 22 November 1839 - “SALVAGE - The brig Theinston, 99 tons burthen, Shields, coals. This case, in which John Powell, mariner, of East Donyland, claimed compensation for services rendered to the above brig when upon the Knowl Sand on the 28th October last, came on for hearing at the Three Cups Hotel, on Thursday last, before T.J. Turner, Esq. (Chairman), R. Hills, Esq., and J.W.E. Green, Esq. Mr. H.S. Goody appeared for the salvor, and Mr. G. Chamberlain on behalf of the owners of the brig. Agreed value of the ship and cargo £600. The following are the facts of the case. On the morning of the 28th of October last, the appearant was in the smack, the Lord Howe, with five hands on board, cruising in the Wallett, on the look-out for ships that might require assistance, a heavy gale blowing south by south-east. About ten o’clock they saw the brig Theinston touch lightly upon the Eagle Sands, then go off again; but from the course which she immediately took they saw that she was running into great danger; they therefore made sail towards her, but before they could reach her she struck upon the Knowl Sand, where she remained. They reached the sand in the smack, and then with great difficulty and danger crossed it in the boat with their hands. The master gladly availed himself of their offers of assistance, and James Blackwell, one of the smack’s crew, proceeded to take steps to get her off the sand, on which she was bumping very heavily with two feet of water in her hold. Two pumps were set to work; the best bower anchor dropped from her bows and 30 fathoms of chain run out; the sails were then clued [clewed]; and at next high tide, about 4 o’clock in the afternoon, the cable was slipped, and the brig was got off the sand and brought into the Colne waters; from whence she was conducted by the appearant to Maldon, to which port she was bound.- Mr. Chamberlain addressed the Court in mitigation of the amount of salvage, urging that the service was attended with but little exertion or risk, and was moreover of very short duration. The Court awarded £75.”

 

CHELMSFORD CHRONICLE - 5 March 1841 - “COLCHESTER CASTLE, February 27.- Mr. James Mothersole, a respectable smack-owner of East Donyland, appeared to an information at the instance of the Board of Customs, charging him with illegally unshipping, and having in his possession a piece of foreign timber on shore, in the port of Colchester, without having given notice to the proper officer of Customs, that he had such timber, and that the duty thereon had not been paid, by which he had rendered himself liable to the penalty of £100.- Mr. Barnes appeared on the part of the Board of Customs, and Mr. J.H. Church for defendant.- Mr. Barnes laid the charge in two counts. The first under the 3 and 4 oh Wm. IV. ch. 52, sec. 51., which states, “that all foreign goods shall at all times be subject to the same duty, if landed at the Port of Colchester, or any of the Cinque Ports, as at any other Port. And if any person shall have possession of any such goods, and shall not give notice to the proper officer within 24 hours after having such possession, such person shall forfeit the sum of £100.” And by the 114 sec. it says, “that if such goods shall be seized for non-payment of duties, then in such a case the proof (if any can be adduced) that the duty has been paid upon such goods, shall be in the owner of them. “ The second count was under the 53 chap, of the Act, for having kept and concealed, and not having duly reported the same to the proper officer of Customs, which rendered defendant liable to the same penalty.

Mr. Barnes called Wm. Probin, a Customs landing waiter at the Port of Colchester, who stated, that he received information that defendant had a piece of foreign timber, upon which the duty had not been paid, and which was lying in Mr. Harris’s yard at East Donyland, which is in the Port of Colchester. He went thither on the 7th of December last, and saw defendant, and asked  him how he came by it; he said he bought it at Exeter, but of whom he did not know, nor could he state what sort of person he was, as he did not take particular notice of him. The piece of timber in question was a piece of foreign fir timber, subject to duty. The value of it about 1s. 2d. per foot, as it was partially damaged; it had never been used. Defendant said he gave 50s. for it, which was considerably more than its value, as it was but 26 feet long.

William Reeves, general constable, stated, that on the 23rd of December last, he saw defendant at the Lion Inn, Colchester, and had conversation with him about a piece of timber. Defendant said he had to travel 400 miles about a piece of timber lying in Harris’s yard, at East Donyland. Witness told him he should have delivered it up at the Depot at Wivenhoe, and defendant made no reply.

This was the case on the part of the prosecution.

Mr. Church asked Mr. Barnes which of the two counts he meant to rest his charges upon.

Mr. Barnes said, he should make no selection, as defendant had committed two distinct offences; one, for not duly reporting the timber, and the other for having in his possession goods upon which the duty had not been paid, without giving notice to the proper officer. He (Mr. B.) would press both the charges, and not make any selection.

Mr. Church then submitted that the case must fall, as there was no proof that defendant had illegally unshipped the timber, or that he had not paid the duty upon it; or that it was ever derelict and flotsam at sea; or that defendant found it at sea, or that there was any concealment of the property, which brought defendant within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, as the timber was found in Mr. Harris’s public ship yard, and was never upon defendant’s premises at all. He hoped, therefore, that the bench would take all these circumstances into their most serious consideration, before they came to a decision, as it was most important to defendant; for he (Mr. C.) was not aware whether the bench had the power to mitigate the penalty in case of conviction.

Mr. Williams, Collector of Customs, said, the Magistrates had power to mitigate the penalty to one fourth.

Mr. Barnes, in reply, submitted that it was not necessary for him to show that the piece of timber had been picked up at sea; for in cases of that sort it was generally impossible for the parties prosecuting to adduce such proof, nor did the Act of Parliament require it, for it said that if any goods should be seized for non-payment of duties thereon, it was for the defendant to show in what manner he came into possession of them. Therefore, under the first count, the offence had been proved, as he had traced possession to defendant.

The Chairman (after consulting with the rest of the bench) said, that as the case was an important one, the Magistrates did not wish to treat it too hastily, therefore they would defer giving their decision till next Saturday, as to whether the onus laid upon defendant to show in what manner ne came into possession of the timber, or that the duty had been paid upon it.”

 

ESSEX STANDARD - Friday 7 May 1841 - “VESSEL SUNK ON THE BUXY SAND - On Tuesday morning last the Lively (Humberkeel), W. Seaton, master, from Goole, in Yorkshire, laden with stone, and bound for London, struck upon Buxy Sand, off the mouth of the Colne Harbour, and sunk. The crew were saved by the exertions of the master and crew of the Lord Howe smack, of Rowhedge, who nearly lost their lives in their efforts to save some of the sails and tackle of the sinking vessel. The destitute crew of the Lively were relieved and forwarded to London by the honorary agent to the “Shipwrecked Fishermen and Mariners’ Benevolent Society” ....”

​

The Humber Keel was a type of sail craft used for inshore and inland cargo transport around Hull and the Humber Estuary.

 

ESSEX STANDARD - Friday 10 December 1841 - “SALVAGE - Yesterday (Thursday) J. Bawtree, G. Round, and J.W.E. Green, Esqrs., sat as Commissioners of Salvage, at the Cups Hotel, Colchester, for the purpose of awarding compensation to the crew of the smack Sea Mew, for being instrumental in saving the lives of fourteen of the crew of the barque Union, of London (Howard, master), lately ashore on the Sunk Sand, off the Essex coast.- Mr. F.G. Abell, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the salvors.- It appeared from the evidence of George Cook, Henry Simons, and Philip King, that on the 28th of October last the Sea Mew, while in the Swin, descried the Union on the Sunk Sand, when the crew of the Sea Mew, assisted by men from two other smacks, rowed towards the Union, and found the crew on board. They immediately set to work at the pumps, and used every possible means to save the vessel and cargo; but after twenty-four hours’ service (having saved the crew, fourteen in number) they were compelled to abandon the undertaking, and the vessel soon afterwards went to wreck. The crew were landed the next day at Wivenhoe. A boat, together with four oars, a kedge anchor, and cable, were lost by the salvors, and another boat damaged.- After a short deliberation J. Bawtree, Esq., told the salvors that the Court had given the case their best consideration, and in their award had made no difference between the different crews engaged, as it appeared they were all embarked in the same cause, and were all desirous of rendering assistance. The Court had taken into consideration the loss of the boat, &c., and had decided on awarding £45 for the services rendered, together with a moiety of the expenses incurred in the present inquiry.”

​

ESSEX STANDARD - Friday 10 December 1841 - - “COLCHESTER CASTLE. Saturday, December 4,- CUSTOM HOUSE INFORMATION - Mr. J.S. Barnes appeared on behalf of Mr. W.P. Gardiner, collector of Customs for the Port of Colchester, to support an information against John Rogers, a thatcher, of Fingringhoe, charging him with knowingly harbouring and concealing twelve foreign deals, the duty on which had not been paid. Mr. Barnes said that under the 44th section of the 3rd and 4th George IV., c.63, the defendant had rendered himself liable to a penalty treble the value of the goods found. He should show that the defendant was in possession of the deals, and it would be for him to prove that they were lawfully come by, and that the duty on them had been paid. The value of the deals was but trifling, but such practices had been carried on to so great an extent, that the Collector considered it his duty to bring the case before the bench.- The penalty sued for amounted to £10. 16s.- James Webb, a Custom-house officer, deposed that in consequence of orders from his superior officer, he, in company with the Comptroller (Mr. J.W. Argent), went to the defendant’s house, at Fingringhoe Haye, and in a loft pver the stable he found twelve foreign deals, which he seized. He afterwards saw the defendant, who told him that he had bought the deals of a man named Crickmore, at Rowhedge.- Mr. Gardiner here observed that the proceedings were instituted in consequence of information that the defendant had been engaged in selling wrecked property. The deals were not in the same state as when imported, but had been cut to the length of about ten feet, apparently to enable them to be put in the hold of a smack.- This being the case for the prosecution. Rogers stated, in defence, that he bought the deals of John Crickmore, a carpenter, who at that time lived at Birdsbrook, in East Donyland; he did not understand any thing about duty.- Mr. W.S. Cooper, solicitor for the defendant, contended that there was no charge against the defendant - that the transaction on his part was bona fide - that he purchased the deals for the purpose of repairing a shed - that they were not concealed, but were laid in an open building until required for his work, and then they were removed to the loft where they were found. Mr. Cooper then called the following witnesses:- Charles Ratford, a labourer, living next door to defendant, stated that he saw some deals in a shed in defendant’s yard, but he could not swear that they were the same as those seized by the Custom-house Officer.- John Crickmore, a carpenter, deposed that about a year ago he sold twelve deals to the defendant, who fetched them about the middle of the day. The deals were 12 feet long when the defendant bought them, but he (witness) cut about a foot off each, at the defendant’s request. He had not seen the deals since, and could not swear they were those seized.- Mr. Barnes submitted that the defendant had not proved his case, as there was nothing to show that the deals were the same as those deposed by the witnesses.- The Chairman said that as the case at present stood the bench were of opinion that the charge had not been sufficiently made out against Rogers; but if Mr. Barnes thought he should be able to bring further evidence the case might be adjourned till next Saturday.- We have authority to state that the information against the defendant in the above case will be withdrawn; and that the Collector has recommended the Board of Customs to institute proceedings in the Court of Exchequer.”

 

ESSEX STANDARD - Friday 20 January 1843 - “COLCHESTER CASTLE - Saturday, January 7. SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST THE MASTER OF A VESSEL - Thomas Barnard, of Rowhedge, master of the smack Unity, was brought up on a charge of having, between the 17th and 20th of August last, feloniously stolen a chain attached to the Black-tail Beacon, in the Swin, the property of the Corporation of the Trinity House.

Mr. Sayers Turner appeared to support the charge, and Mr. Goody for the prisoner.

Mr. Turner said he was instructed by the Trinity Board to bring before the Bench a case of a very serious nature. He was not aware till about two hours before the sitting of the Bench that the prisoner was in custody, and therefore he had not been able to procure the attendance of all the witnesses in the case; he thought, however, he should be able to bring sufficient evidence to warrant the Bench in committing the prisoner, or at all events to remand him. The circumstances of the case were these:- Some distance from Brightlingsea, on a dangerous part called the Maplin Sand, was placed what is called the Black-tail Beacon, which was the property of the Trinity Board. The beacon consisted of a sunk vessel, with a single mast, supported by shrouds; and he should be able to show that some time in the month of August last, the prisoner, who was at that time at sea, ordered his men to go with him to the sands to look for wilks (sic); they afterwards went to the beacon, when the defendant stole a chain which was attached to it, and the removal of which was very likely to have the effect of destroying the beacon. He (Mr. Turner) was afraid the prisoner’s motive was not the value of the chain, but something of a worse nature.

Mr. Turner then called Joseph Kent, who said - I am a seaman and live at Wivenhoe; in the month of August last I was a seaman on board the smack Unity, of which the prisoner is master; the crew consisted of four, including the captain; between the 15th and the end of August, we were off the Swin; I remember on the 17th or 18th of August going with the prisoner and the apprentice Salmon in a boat to the Sand to get some wilks. We did not get any, and Barnard then said he would go to the beacon to get some muscles (sic); we went there, and the prisoner got up the beacon, and when he came down he said “here’s a piece of chain which I want, and I’ll have it;” Edward Salmon helped him, the prisoner telling him that if he did not he would “rope’s end” him; prisoner took the chain and carried it on board, the chain was at the bottom of the beacon, one end being fastened to the shrouds and the other to the sunk vessel; the chain is called a “lanyard,” and was used to support the mast; I told him he ought not to take it, for if the beacon fell down vessels would go ashore; he said “he would have it, and it would be a b----y good thing if the beacon did fall down, for then he should get a job; I do not know what he meant by that; the prisoner took the chain, and we then rowed to the vessel and Barnard took it on board.

Cross-examined by Mr. Goody. This was about six months ago; I have left his service nearly six months; I do not know how long Barnard was up the beacon; If the apprentice swears that while Barnard was up the beacon & I stole the chain he will be false; If he swears that I had to take my shirt off and stoop a foot under water to get the chain it will be false; I can swear that the chain was not in the boat when Barnard came from the top of the beacon; I never spoke about this to Harry Cook or anybody else till I spoke to the Collector; If anybody swears that Barnard blamed me for taking the chain, or that I wanted to get another piece, it will be untrue; I can swear that he told the lad he would “rope’s end” him if he did not help him; I can swear that I told him he ought not to take it; and that for six months I never told anybody of it.

By The Chairman. Barnard did not ask me to assist him.

By Mr. Turner. We came home directly after this happened, and I then left his service; I thought I should get into further trouble if I kept with him; another reason why I left him was because he would not pay me my share.

By Mr. Goody. The reason why I did not get a warrant against him was because I did not wish to get him into trouble. I was once before this Bench for stealing oysters, but was let off.

Mr. Richard Stevens, collector of customs, examined. On the 12th of December I received information from Mr. Bull that Barnard had got the chain which was stolen from the Black-tail Beacon; I went to Brightlingsea, and, in company with Mr. Bull, went on board the prisoner’s vessel; I saw two men and Salmon the apprentice; Salmon denied that there was any chain on board; Barnard was not there, but I subsequently saw him at Wivenhoe; I asked him if he had got a chain belonging to the beacon? he said it was on board his vessel, and that he had had it about three months; I told him he had done very wrong; he said that Joseph Kent, one of his men, took it, but he (Barnard) knew he had done wrong in not reporting it; I told him I had orders to take it, and directed him to leave it with Mr. Chamberlain, at Wivenhoe, which he promised to do; prisoner did not leave the chain at Wivenhoe; I saw no more of him till the 24th of December, when he came to the Customs-House with Mr. Chamberlain; prisoner then said he had put the chain back, and had to go six feet under water to do so.

By Mr. Goody. Barnard did not attempt to deny that the chain was on board his vessel; he said that Kent took it while he was up the beacon; it was a small chain, and there would have been no difficulty in concealing it.

By Mr. Turner. I did not hear that he had replaced it till I began to investigate this matter.

Mr. William Argent, Clerk at the Custom House, heard Barnard say that he took the chain back to the beacon and replaced it; and that he had to go down six feet under water.

Mr. Goody then addressed the Bench for the prisoner, who (he said) was very much surprised at having been called upon at this distant period to answer this charge, especially upon the evidence of the very man whom he should bring evidence to show committed the offence himself. He thought the Bench after hearing the evidence would say that this was a case got up at the instigation of certain parties, who had induced Kent to come forward to do the prisoner an irreparable injury. This was a case of a serious nature, and he hoped the Bench would sift it to the bottom. He submitted that Barnard had acted fairly in the matter, for he had never secreted the chain, although he might have done so.

Edward Salmon, the apprentice, examined. The prisoner is master of the Unity; and I am his father’s apprentice; I remember, six months ago, going to the sands to get some wilks; Barnard, Kent, and myself went, we afterwards went to the beacon; it was then about low water; Barnard went up the beacon, which is about 30 or 40 feet high, and was up ten minutes or quarter of an hour; while he was up there Kent took the chain from the beacon, and laid it in the boat; Kent had to turn up his shirt sleeves, as part of the chain was under water; when Barnard came down he said if he had been there Kent should not have taken it; Barnard wanted to put it back, but the tide had gained so much that it could not be done; the chain was brought away in the boat; it was not used for anything, but laid about the vessel; it was five or six yards long, and was not so big as my finger.

Cross-examined by Mr. Turner. When we were in the boat at the beacon Kent took the chain; he did not say anything to me about taking it; I do not remember whether he had a coat on or a banyan; whatever he had on was off - (laughter) - he turned up his shirt sleeves; I did not see him take his banyan or coat off; I did not say anything to Kent about its being wrong to take the chain; I am an apprentice, and am forced to do what I am told; I have a “piece of rope” now and then from the captain; I remember Mr. Stevens coming on board the vessel and asking for the chain; I told him there never was a chain on board; that was a lie; I did not say it was there, because I thought it would get Kent into a mess; Kent and I are not very good friends; I know Mr. William Cheek, of Wivenhoe; I saw him last week; I do not remember having any conversation with him.

By The Chairman. I was in the boat when Kent took the chain; I do not know which end he undid first.

Mr. Goody to witness. Do not the muscles fasten themselves to the sunk vessel? and was not Kent searching for them when he took hold of the chain?

Witness. Yes.

The Chairman observed that the witness was very ready to answer “yes” to a question put in that way; but he did not consider it satisfactory evidence.

Mr. Bawtree remarked that Salmon appeared to have been a close observer of Kent, and it was strange he could not tell which end of the chain was undone first.

Mr. J. G. Chamberlain, Deputy Serjeant of the Cinque Ports, examined. I remember Barnard coming to me on the morning after the collector had spoken to me about the chain; I advised him if he was guilty of taking it not to deny it; he told me that Kent took it; he said he should like to go and replace it; I did not advise him to do so.

Mr. Turner then put it to the Bench whether they considered the evidence sufficient to commit the prisoner for trial; if they thought it was not sufficient, he should call on them to remand him.

The Chairman said the Bench were quite of opinion that it was a case which required further investigation, and they should therefore remand the prisoner till next Saturday.

Mr. Goody applied to have the prisoner admitted to bail; which was opposed by Mr. Turner; but the Bench ultimately agreed to do so.

The prisoner was then bound over in the sum of £100 to appear in answer to the charge, and his father and Mr. John Allen became his sureties in £50 each.”

 

ESSEX  STANDARD - 27 January 1843 - “COLCHESTER CASTLE, Jan.21. THE BEACON CASE - Thomas Barnard, who was remanded last week, was placed at the bar for final examination, charged with stealing a chain from the Black Tail Beacon, upon the Maplin Sand, the property of the Corporation of the Trinity House. The court was densely crowded throughout the investigation, which lasted upwards of three hours.- The depositions taken at the former examination of the prisoner was read, and Mr, Turner for the prosecution called several additional witnesses.

Two youths named Cheek stated, that Edward Salmon, who had sworn he saw Kent take the chain told them the prisoner took it.- Wm. Crickman (sic), master of the Blue-Eyed Maid said, the prisoner told him he had taken some chain from a jib tack from the beacon.

Mr. Goody addressed the bench for the defendant on the nature of the evidence adduced, and called a witness to prove that Kent left the prisoner because he ran the vessel on the hardway at Donyland.

As the bench intimated that the offence would be treated as a felony, Mr. Goody proceeded to argue that the case was one for fine or imprisonment, and not for commitment for felony.

Mr. Turner referred the bench to the 4th and 5th Geo. IV. which rendered parties liable to be tried for felony, who had committed murder, robberies, or piracy, upon the high seas; therefore it was quite clear, that as the beacon was the private property of the Trinity House, the magistrates had power to treat the case as one of felony.

The bench decided on committing the prisoner for trial.

Mr. Goody applied for bail, but the chairman said, they were of opinion it was a case in which they ought not to admit of bail. Therefore the prisoner stood fully committed to Newgate for trial at the Central Criminal Court.”

 

ESSEX  STANDARD - 27 January 1843 - “MELANCHOLY OCCURRENCE - On Wednesday last an inquest was held at the Ship public-house, Rowhedge, before J.M. Churchill, Esq., coroner, on the body of a young man named Henry Turner, a mariner, who came to his death under the following melancholy circumstances. It appeared that the deceased belonged to the smack Ino of this port, which was on the look-out in the Swin, for the purpose of rendering assistance to vessels in distress, when early in the morning of Tuesday last they discovered a ship on the Gunfleet Sand, and the deceased, with Captain Blackwell, and another seaman, put off in a sail-boat to go to her, but a sudden squall upset the boat, and they all went to the bottom. The body of the deceased was picked up on the sand at low water on the same day, and brought to Rowhedge; but the others have not yet been found. Evidence to the above effect having been heard, the jury returned a verdict of “Accidentally Drowned.”