1857 Cornwall Quarter Sessions and Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes ...... 25 3. Easter Sessions ...... 50 4. Midsummer Sessions ...... 58 5. Summer Assizes ...... 92 6. Michaelmas Sessions ...... 121

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 9 and 15 January 1857

1. Epiphany Sessions These sessions were opened at Bodmin, on Tuesday last, at Bodmin, before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman, and the following unusually full bench of Magistrates:— Lord Vivian. J.W. Peard, Esq. Lord Valletort. J. Coryton Roberts, Esq. Hon. G.M. Fortescue. F. Rodd, Esq. Sir R.R. Vyvyan, Bart., M.P. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Sir Henry Onslow, Bart. P.V. Robinson, Esq. Sir S.T. Spry, Esq. J.J. Rogers, Esq. Hon Hussey Crespigny Vivian, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P. H.P. Andrew, Esq. E. Stephens, Esq. E. Archer, Esq. John St. Aubyn, Esq. T.R. Avery, Esq. H. Thomson, Esq. H.J.M. St. Aubyn, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. S. Borlase, Esq. J.F. Trist, Esq. W. Braddon, Esq. H.R.S. Trelawny, Esq. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. S.T.N. Usticke, Esq. C.G.P. Brune, Esq. E.W.B. Willyams, Esq. A. Coryton, Esq. H. Willyams, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. T.M. Williams, Esq. E. Coode, jun. Esq. Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend Boscawen E. Collins, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. S. Davey, Esq. Rev. C.M.E. Collins. R. Davey, Esq. Rev. Tobias Furneaux. J.S. Enys, Esq. Rev. John Glanville. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. James Glencross. Goldsworthy Gurney, Esq. Rev. J. Kempe. W.R. Gilbert, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. F.J. Hext, Esq. Rev. C. Lyne. Thomas Hext, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe William Hext, Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. F. Howell, Esq. Rev. J. Perry W.D. Horndon, Esq. Rev. H.M. Rice. R. Johns, Esq. Rev. H.F. Roe. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. Rev. H.M. St. Aubyn. W.P. Kempe, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. E.J. Treffry. J.B. Messenger, Esq. Rev. Uriah Tonkin. J.P. Magor, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. W. Thomas. N. Norway, Esq. Rev. Vyell F. Vyvyan C.W. Popham, Esq. Rev. R.R. Wright. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson W.R.C. Potter, Esq. The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand Jury:— Mr. Frank Parkyn, St. Veep, foreman. — Christopher Andrew, St. Mabyn. — Richard Barrett, Talland. — Peter Bowden, Cardinham. — James Cogdon, East Looe. — Henry Cossentine, Lanteglos by Fowey. — Francis Croker, Liskeard. — Robert Dunstan, Liskeard. — James Fell, Bodmin. — John Giles, Talland. — Ambrose Grose, St. Kew. — Henry Hawken, St. Minver. — James Johns, St. Mabyn. — John Marshall, St. Veep. — John Guy Profit, St. Minver. — Henry Rundell, Broadoak. — Richard Salmon, Egloshayle. — Oliver Sleeman, St. Tudy. — Nathaniel Sowden, Liskeard. — Nathaniel Stevens, St. Tudy. — Joseph Vian, St. Teath. — Richard Guy Warwick, Endellion. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— Mr. Richard West, St. Kew; and Mr. Edmund Wills, Liskeard. —After customary preliminaries the CHAIRMAN delivered his Charge to the Grand Jury [not transcribed] VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT. – The Visiting Justices reported that the prison was in its usual good order. GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor reported the generally orderly conduct of the prisoners during the last quarter, and that their state of health had lately so much improved that the hospital was now unoccupied. There was appended to the report a certificate that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been as far as practicable complied with. Several of the airing-yards and passages require repaving; most of the roofs continue in a very bad state; and some of the floors and partitions of the dormitories require repair. In other respects the prison continues much in the same state as before reported. [GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE PAST QUARTER.—not transcribed] THE COUNTY ASYLUM.—The CHAIRMAN read the Annual Report of the Visitors, embodying a Report from Commissioners in Lunacy. Mr. KENDALL begged leave to state that the subscribers had met that morning and elected five of their number of act on behalf of the subscribers—Mr. Carew, Mr. Howell, Mr. Somerset, Sir Colman Rashleigh, and himself (Mr. Kendall). The Asylum Committee also begged to nominate 10 gentlemen to represent the County:—Lord Vivian (who had consented to act), Lord Valletort, Mr. Sawle, Mr. Tremayne, Mr. Brune, Mr. Coryton, Mr. Rogers, Mr. E. Coode, junr., Mr. Brydges Willyams, and Mr. C.M.E. Collins. Mr. Kendall was sorry to say that he had received a letter from Mr. Robartes the day before yesterday, stating that from his being so much in town in consequence of his mother’s illness he should be unable to attend; and they must therefore omit him for the time. Mr. Stephens also wished to be omitted. The CHAIRMAN in submitting the names for acceptance by the Bench, observed that the committee comprised 15 members, five of whom were named by the subscribers, and 10 by the county. The names suggested by Mr. Kendall on behalf of the committee, were accepted, nem con by the magistrates. [CORONERS BILLS.—not transcribed] BRIDGE REPORTS. EASTERN DIVISION. – Mr. SYLVANUS W. JENKIN, surveyor for the Eastern Division, presented the following report:— “Yeolin Bridge.—Some repairs are required to one of the land arches of this bridge, the cost of which will be about 40s.—Badharlie Bridge.—There is a drain required across the road near this bridge and within the county limits, the cost of which will not exceed 20s.—Polbathick Bridge.—There is also a drain required across the road near this bridge, the cost of which I estimate at 40s.—St. Austell Lower Bridge. A part of the retaining wall on the north-west side of this bridge has failed, and requires to be taken down and rebuilt. I estimate the cost at about £4 10s.—Drawbridge.—The retaining wall at this bridge is liable to injury from a stream of water which might easily be diverted so as to run into the river a little below; the cost will only be about 10s.—It is very desirable that the boundary of the county roads should be defined as clearly as possible; but I find in the great majority of cases the bound-stones (if they ever existed), have been removed. If this deficiency were fully supplied, it would require from one hundred to one hundred and twenty small posts lettered with a C. I would therefore ask for a grant not exceeding 40l., to be applied to this purpose from time to time as occasion may require. I shall require one levy at a time.” Mr. Jenkins report was adopted; and it was unanimously resolved to grant his application for 40l. for bound-stones. WESTERN DIVISION.—The report of Mr. Hickes, surveyor for the Western Division, was as follows:— “I have had the bridge roads not under contract cleaned and stoned where required, and they are now in a good state of repair; some of the roads under No. 13 contract have been stoned since the last sessions, and I hope before the end of the winter to see the whole of the roads in a better state of repair.—There has been a large accumulation of sand at St. Erth bridge, which obstructed the passage of the water through the arches, which I have had removed at a cost of thirty shillings.” This report was adopted. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—Rev. C.M. EDWARD COLLINS gave notice that at the next sessions he will move that as long as the present system of inspecting weights and measures continues, the inspectors be required to make half-yearly reports of the dates of their visits, the number of visits, the names of persons fined, and the amounts of fines inflicted; and that these reports be laid before the court immediately after the bridges business. THE NEW COUNTY GAOL.—Mr. KENDALL said he was sorry to take up the time of the county; but it was a matter of very serious moment. The building committee supposed that they had arranged everything except the mere signature of the contract; but within the last few days a very serious difficulty had arisen, which their architect Mr. Porter would explain, and their solicitor Mr. Shilson would instruct them how to act in the matter.—From statements made by Mr. Porter and Mr. Shilson, and by certain of the magistrates, it appeared that, by request of the committee, Mr. Kendall, as their chairman, some time since consulted with Mr. Tite, the eminent architect, as to the expediency of employing a competent person to take out, or measure, the quantities of all the work on the new gaol for which the county was at that time soliciting tenders. Mr. Tite assured Mr. Kendall that that was the only safe plan, in a large building, and, on Mr. Tite’s approval, the committee employed for the purpose a Mr. Williams, of London; and the Messrs. Goodyear, and Son, builders, of Stonehouse, had tendered to erect the new gaol; and their tender had been accepted by the county. But within the last few days, the Messrs. Goodyear had notified their objection to accept Mr. Williams’s calculations; asserting that the proper course to adopt was that their work should be measured as it went on, and that where it proved to be in excess of the calculation on which they had tendered, they should receive a proportionately larger payment; and vice versa.—Mr. PORTER, in reply to questions from the bench, was decidedly of opinion that it would be inexpedient to give way to the contractors’ proposal, and that if it were adopted, the county would have no certainty as to the sum for which the building could be completed.—A lengthened conversation took place, in which, with the Clerk of the peace, Mr. Shilson, and Mr. Porter, the following magistrates took part:—Mr. Kendall, Lord Vivian, Mr. Carew, Mr. Lethbridge, Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney, Mr. Phillpotts, Mr. Sawle, Mr. E. Coode, jun., Mr. Coryton Roberts, Mr. Borlase, Mr. Tonkin, Mr. Rogers.—Mr. SHILSON, as solicitor to the Gaol Building Committee gave his opinion that the contract with the Messrs. Goodyear could be enforced by the county; and, after considerable discussion, and the proposing and withdrawal of resolutions, it was finally resolved on the motion of Lord Vivian—that it be left to the Building Committee to consider the question with the Messrs. Goodyear, and to adopt such measures as they (the committee) may think fit. AGENDA. The Agenda at these Sessions including the election of a Chief Constable of the new County Police—a subject which attracted the attendance of an unusually large number of magistrates—the Court now adjourned to the nisi prius Court for the convenience of the numerous magistrates. The seats around, and adjacent to, the table had been kept for their accommodation, and were now soon fully occupied; as many as about 80 magistrates being present. The CHAIRMAN said the first business on the Agenda, was “the notice given by Sir John Salusbury Trelawny, Bart., that he shall move for a committee to obtain plans for a suitable building for the Arms, Stores, and Accoutrements of the First Regiment of the Royal Cornwall Rifles Militia.”—Mr. TREMAYNE said he had been requested by Sir John Trelawny to state that it was not his intention to submit this motion. His reason was that he was ignorant of what were the views of the present Lord Lieutenant with respect to the Militia, and he did not wish, by any resolution to throw any impediment in the way of the Lord Lieutenant in the initiation of any scheme he might think proper to introduce. He therefore begged leave to withdraw that motion. The CHAIRMAN said the next notice was that given by Augustus Coryton Esq., “that he shall apply for a grant of 6l. 10s. for the expenses of fuel &c., used in airing the militia store rooms; in the 26 winter weeks.”—Mr. CORYTON submitted a motion in accordance with the terms of this notice. It was seconded by Mr. MESSENGER, and was agreed to nem con. —The next business was “the notice given by Humphry Willyams Esq., that he shall bring before the Court the inconvenience of that part of the court which is appropriated to the magistrates, with a view to suggest a remedy.” Mr. WILLYAMS said, under present circumstances he did not wish to detain the Court; but meant to propose the appointment of a committee of five magistrates to prepare plans to be laid before the next Sessions, of the manner in which the Court shall be altered for the convenience of the magistrates; the committee to consist of Mr. Carew Mr. Le Grice, Mr. Phillpotts, Mr. Rodd, and himself (Mr. Willyams). He believed the Chairman (Mr. Lethbridge) was ex-officio a member of every Committee.—The CHAIRMAN assented; and Mr. Willyams’s motion was agreed to. —The next item on the agenda was—“to receive and decide upon such tenders as may be received for conveying prisoners from Liskeard to the gaol at Bodmin.”—Nothing was done in this matter; the CHAIRMAN remarking that probably the appointment of a new police would render it nugatory. ELECTION OF CHIEF CONSTABLE. The CHAIRMAN said, we now come to the business of the day. I have before me a list of all the magistrates acting in the County; and I purpose to read the whole of their names, and to get every gentleman present to answer to his name, against which I shall place some mark. After that I shall request gentlemen to propose the respective candidates for this office of Chief Constable; and then I shall go over the names of all the magistrates present, and place them as they vote under the names of the several candidates. I shall then cast up the names, and strike off the candidate who has the fewest names, and I shall ask those gentlemen who have voted for the candidate with fewest votes, to vote again for the remaining candidates. I shall then again strike off the candidate with fewest votes; and so on till the decision comes to be made between the last two. Mr. CAREW thought it would be desirable to proceed in the nomination of candidates as had been done in Devonshire—that all candidates, who had been recommended by the committee should be considered as proposed and seconded. There would then be no necessity for speeches (hear).—(This suggestion was acted on). Lord VIVIAN believed the Court had been under a misapprehension in thinking that a memorandum read at the last session with reference to the age of the Chief Constable was merely a suggestion. He believed it was an instruction to the magistrates; and if they, perchance, elected a gentleman above the age of 45, they would find their act nullified by the Home Secretary. Under very special circumstances, it might be that the Home Secretary would sanction such an election; but only under very special circumstances. He thought it was right to mention this, because he had been given to understand that one candidate was over the age. Rev. E.J. TREFFRY begged to be allowed to ask one question—whether, if one of the candidates at the first poll had a majority of the whole magistrates present, he would be declared duly elected. The CHAIRMAN—Yes, if he has a majority of the whole number present. If there were 100 magistrates present, and 51 voted for one candidate, that would at once decide the election. The Chairman then proceeded to read over the complete list of the acting magistracy of the county; and the magistrates present severally answered to their names. Mr. E. COODE jun., before the vote was taken, would say that it was the wish of all the members of the committee with whom he had spoken, with all respect for the decision come to at the adjourned sessions the other day, they must disclaim all responsibility with regard to that scheme. The original scheme was concocted by a committee of gentlemen of all parts of the county, who took a great deal of trouble to arrange such a scheme as they thought was best under all the circumstances. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of the adjourned sessions, who had a right to do as they had done; he knew that they were the Sessions, while the others were but a committee. But at the same time he would observe that the number of magistrates at the adjourned sessions was smaller than the number on the Committee and the magistrates who attended the scheme on the Committee were principally gentlemen who were not on the Committee, and who appeared to be acting without previous consultation among themselves or much arrangement as to what they proposed. He should like to know if the chairman thought it was possible to postpone the appointment of one officer who appeared to him and to the committee as totally unnecessary. He meant the chief superintendent at a salary of £150. As far as he could ascertain the sentiments of the committee, they thought that would be a sort of deputy chief constable—which was an officer they did not want. The difference between £90 and £150 appeared to him very great, and he was anxious to save the county that expense. He feared, if he had left this until after the chief constable had been appointed it would be too late, as the chief constable would then be at liberty to fill up that office. He should like to know if it was possible to postpone that appointment. After an observation from Mr. Thomson, the CHAIRMAN said it was the opinion of many of the magistrates that the Adjourned Session made a very great alteration. As far as he understood from the Home Office, they did not adopt the scheme or pay any attention to it whatever. The magistrates would have to make the best arrangement they could. In Devon they elected the Chief Constable first, and agreed on a scheme afterwards. He apprehended that the magistrates here might make such variations in their scheme as circumstances might suggest. Rev. U. TONKIN said if they appointed the 16 originally intended, it would be for the Chief Constable to see which of them might best act as his deputy; the Chief Constable would appoint such a person as he might think proper to act as his deputy in case of his own illness. He (Mr. Tonkin) thought the proposed appointment by the magistrates at a salary of 150l. was unnecessary. The CHAIRMAN said, the question put by Mr. Coode was whether after the magistrates had elected their Chief Constable, he was certain of coming in with his sub, at 150l. a year. He (the Chairman) thought it would not be so. If they found the arrangement was not such as the exigencies of the county required, they might be a liberty to change it. Mr. E. COODE, jun.:—Do you think we are not bound to the appointment of that officer? The CHAIRMAN:—I think not. Mr. CAREW would ask if all the appointments were in the hands of the Chief Constable. The CHAIRMAN: No. Mr. CAREW was informed that in Devonshire the opinion was that the appointment of all the sub-officers was in the hands of the Chief Constable; and they decided to leave it so. The CHAIRMAN expressed dissent. Mr. RODD, reading a clause of the Act, was understood to say that the Chief Constable appointed his deputy subject to approval by the Quarter Sessions. Rev. C.M.E. COLLINS read a resolution, from which it appeared that the only question this Court had determined was the amount of salary; the appointment still remained in the Chief Constable. The CHAIRMAN thought it very important that the Chief Constable should discover and reward progressive improvement. Mr. E. COODE, junr., repeated that the Court ought not to be tied down to give a salary of £150; and proposed to move (but withdrew the motion on learning that it was out of order) that it be an instruction to the Chief Constable not to fill up that office without sanction of this Court. After an observation from Sir S.T. Spry, inaudible to the body of the court, Mr. THOMPSON said he was led to propose a first superintendent as an officer that might be looked towards to take the command in case of the absence or illness of the chief constable, or that any other circumstance might render necessary; and, to this officer, himself, Col. Coryton, and two or three others, would have readily given one hundred guineas, and even somewhat more. But Mr. Carew, Mr. Brune, and a majority of those magistrates present at the sessions, thought that less than 150l. salary would not procure a sufficiently well educated man. Therefore, we could not vote for a, believing that a man, usefully and practically educated, with ability and experience, which could be essentially necessary, and with a good judgment, energy and decision and with a good moral character, would be fully qualified under any circumstances to assist the chief constable in maintaining the discipline, the efficiency and the power of the force; and this officer we thought might be had for a very far less sum than 150l. Besides, why should this situation not be made one that the junior superintendents alone might fairly aspire to, as a reward for meat and services, and for inviting to a gentleman whose education may have given to him an acquaintance with the classics, &c. Mr. D.P. LE GRICE thought that, before proceeding to election, this Court ought to suggest where the Chief Constable should reside. He had been asked about it by many people. It was here now perfectly open; the Chief Constable might reside on the Banks of the Tamar if he choose. Considering the extreme length of this county, he thought the Court ought to assign hands within which he should reside. He would propose that the Chief Constable be expected to reside, not east of Bodmin, nor west of Truro. Mr. WILLYAMS, in consequence of a remark which had been made, begged to recall to the Bench, that every thing which the committee suggested was thrown overboard by a small meeting of magistrates at the adjourned sessions. He was sorry that the committee had not met for the special purpose of repudiating the whole of that scheme passed at the adjourned sessions. He did not, merely as a committee-man complain that the committee’s scheme was thrown overboard; but he complained that the county who had agreed to the report of the committee at the previous adjourned sessions, had those proceedings entirely upset at the last adjourned sessions, which consisted of but 17 magistrates, who, with few exceptions, had not attended any of the previous meetings. Those 17 magistrates overthrew the scheme of the committee appointed by the county, and consisting of 26 members, who had taken pains to inquire into every scheme and system before them, and all details; and yet there was not a single item of their recommendation that was not upset. He begged leave as an individual (he was sorry the committee did not do so as a body)—to repudiate the scheme adopted at the last adjourned Sessions. Mr. CAREW said it was not the fault of those magistrates who were present at the late adjourned sessions, that there were so few. Those present wanted a great inconvenience for several hours for the attendance or other magistrates, and then they proceeded to do the best they could. The CHAIRMAN said it was his misfortune, not his fault, that he was not present as that second adjourned sessions. The weather was such in his part of the world that it was almost impossible to turn out any man or beast. In consequence of that, he delayed leaving till it was too late. But he had no idea that the Report of the Committee would be upset at that adjourned sessions. Mr. RODD had understood that the last adjourned sessions was held merely because the business of the previous adjourned session was not made public. He heard the second adjourned sessions was appointed merely out of courtesy; considering that the Report of the Committee had been adopted at the first adjourned sessions, but that a second adjourned sessions was held, merely because the previous proceedings had not been sufficiently reported. Mr. CAREW observed that the Committee ought to have attended to defend their Report. Mr. WILLYAMS said, at the first adjourned Sessions a motion was made that the scheme of the Committee be adopted; but out of courtesy to magistrates who were absent, it was agreed they should have a fortnight’s consideration before they came to vote. This was entirely owing to members of the Committee at the first adjourned Sessions, that their scheme was not then actually adopted. Mr. BRUNE said, what had now fallen from Mr. Willyams was not in any way presented to the meeting at the adjourned sessions. He did not attend the previous adjourned sessions, being absent from the County; and he had no idea that the proceedings at the second adjourned sessions were appointed merely out of courtesy. There was nothing of the kind stated. If he had known that the matter had been previously considered final, and that the adjournment was merely a matter of form, he should not have attended. The CHAIRMAN then, proceeding to the election, said he understood that Colonel Seymour Hamilton was beyond the age 45; and Mr. Dunne had withdrawn. Mr. E. COODE, jun., said he had received a letter from Mr. Dunne stating that he had been elected Chief Constable for Cumberland and Westmoreland, and therefore withdrawing from the competition in Cornwall. The CHAIRMAN said the remaining candidates recommended by the committee were—Colonel Gilbert, Captain Harston, Mr. Somerset Keogh, and Captain Phillpotts. Colonel Seymour Hamilton had not withdrawn; but it was understood that he was above age. Colonel HAMILTON, who was in the grand jury gallery of the court, said he had stated to the committee when they asked him, that he was above 45 years of age. (We understood Colonel Hamilton to say that he had further stated to the committee, that he should not require superannuation.) The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to take the votes of the magistrates for the four candidates named:— Col. Gilbert, Captain Harston, Mr. Keogh, and Capt. Phillpotts; each magistrate when called on by name, by the Chairman, stating aloud for whom he voted. The result was as follows:—For Colonel Gilbert:—Lord Vivian, Lord Valletort, Hon. G.M. Fortescue, Sir R.R. Vyvyan, Bart., Sir S.T. Spry, Hon. H.C. Vivian, H.P. Andrew, H.J.M. St. Aubyn, S. Borlase, W. Braddon, R. Gully Bennet, C.G.P. Brune, E. Coode, jun., E. Collins, S. Davey, R. Davey, R. Foster, F.J. Hext, T. Hext, W. Hext, R. Johns, N. Kendall, W.P. Kempe, J.B. Messenger, J.P. Magor, W. Morshead, N. Norway, C.W. Popham, J.T.H. Peter, W.R.C. Potter, J.W. Peard, P.V. Robinson, T.J. Rogers, C.B.G. Sawle, John St. Aubyn, H. Thomson, J. Tremayne, J.F. Trist, S. Usticke, C.M.E. Collins, J. Glencross, J. Kemp, R.B. Kinsman, J. Perry, H.F. Roe, H.M. St. Aubyn, E.J. Treffry, Vyell F. Vyvyan, Total 45. For Captain Phillpotts:—Sir H. Onslow, Bart., E. Archer, T.R. Avery, A. Coryton, F. Howett, W.D. Horndon, D.P. Le Grice, F. Rodd, E. Stephens, H.R.S. Trelawny, E.W.B. Willyams, H. Willyams, F.M. Williams, Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend Boscawen, R. Buller, T. Furneaux, T. Pascoe, T. Phillpotts, H.M. Rice, S. Symonds, U. Tonkin, A. Tatham, W. Thomas, R.R. Wright, J. Wilkinson.—Total 25. For Mr. Somerset Keogh:—W.H. Pole Carew, J.S. Enys, G. Gurney, J.C. Roberts, C.A. Reynolds, John Glanville.—Total 6. For Captain Harston:—None. William Rashleigh, Esq., of Menabilly, in favour of Colonel Gilbert, paired off with Rev. Prebendary Lyne, in favour of Captain Phillpotts. The CHAIRMAN said:—I make the total number of magistrates present 78: of which one-half would be 39. Colonel Gilbert has 47 votes—8 above the necessary number; therefore I suppose it is my duty to state that Colonel Gilbert is appointed Chief Constable (applause in the body of the court). Most of the magistrates then speedily left the Court; the Chairman and remaining few returning into the Crown Court for procedure with the rest of the business for the day. —On the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., it was resolved that the late Police Committee be re-appointed, to act in concert with the Chief Constable in organizing and settling the Police Force. —Mr. E. COODE, jun., gave notice, that at the next Sessions he will move to rescind the salary of the Chief Superintendent, and to make such other alterations in the scheme as the Police Committee may think right. —In the Police Committee just re-appointed the Rev. James Glencross was appointed a member, in the place of Lord Vivian by his lordship’s request, on the plea of his not being likely to be remaining in the county; and the Rev. T. Phillpotts was added to the Committee (sic), (on the motion of Mr. Sawle) for the Truro Division of West Powder. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JOHN PERRY, aged 40, a labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 23rd of September 1856, one jacket the property of William Henry Simmons, at Crowan. (Sentence: 3 months h.l.) DOROTHY BRAY, 18, a servant pleaded GUILTY of stealing a gold ring, the property of Nathaniel May, at St. Columb Major, on the 17th of November. (Sentence: 3 months h.l.) HENRY CHESTERTON, 36, draper (late a soldier) was charged with stealing a pair of trousers, value 10s. 9d., the property of Mr. Robert Clarke, mercer and tailor, Boscawen-street, Truro, on the 17th of October.— Mr. J.B. Collins conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Richard Philp, in the employ of the prosecutor, deposed that on the morning of the 17th of October, he placed a pair of trousers outside the shop door; the trousers had the retail price on a ticket outside, and also a private mark inside the leg. Witness next saw the same trousers, the following morning, at the Town Hall, in the possession of a police officer; the private mark inside the leg was still there, but the retail price ticket had been removed.— Elizabeth Powell, stated that a little before 6 o’clock in the evening of the 17th October, she was met by the prisoner near Mr. Edwards’s shop-window in Duke-street; he asked her if there was a pawn-shop in the town as he wanted to pawn a pair of trousers, and if she would go with him to the shop, and see if he could raise 4s. or 5s. on them. He showed her a pair of trowsers, and she asked him why he had not pawned them before; he said he had but just got them, and would pawn them because he was “hard up.” She went with him to one pawn shop, but the people there refused to take the trowsers. A little before coming to a second pawn-shop, she said to him “if you did not get these trowsers right, Mr. James (the pawn-broker) will stop both the trowsers and you.” On that he said “d---n it I’ll not pawn them; I’ll sell them.” She then told him if he would wait there a bit she would get some person who would buy them; she then left him, and seeing a policeman behind them she gave the trowsers to the policeman, who took the prisoner into custody.— Thomas Prater, in October last was a policeman at Truro; recollected the last witness coming to him on the evening of the 17th of October in Truro streets; he followed her to where the prisoner was, in River-street, and then observed that he had something under the flap of his coat, and, after some objection by prisoner to his searching, found it to be a pair of trowsers which he now produced.—The trowsers were identified by the witness Philp; and the jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: 4 months h.l.) WALTER JOHN WILLIS, 24, a miner, was charged with stealing two sovereigns, five shillings, and a half- crown, the property of James Nicholls, also a miner, at Linkinhorne, on the 23rd November.—Mr. Frost conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—It appeared that the prosecutor, in November last, was working at Marke Valley mine, in Linkinhorne, and on the 23rd of that month, being pay-day, was at Allen’s beer-shop at Tupton Cross, in company with the prisoner, who was also working at Marke Valley. Nicholls, that day, received 4l. 4s. 6d., namely, 4 sovereigns, a half-crown, and two shilling-pieces. He received that money about 4 o’clock, and in the course of the evening changed one of the sovereigns, and received a five-shilling piece and a half-crown. It was his duty that night to watch the engine, and he got to the engine-house about 11 o’clock; Willis the prisoner being with him. While in the engine-house Nicholls counted his money, and put three sovereigns in his watch-pocket, and the five-shilling piece and half-crown in his trowsers pocket. At that time he had no shilling with him. He then went to lie down on his bed; and Willis made a bed for himself of some clothes, and also laid down. The next morning (Sunday) when Nicholls woke, Willis was gone; and Nicholls found that the five-shilling piece and half-crown which he had put in his trousers pocket were also gone; and in his watch-pocket, instead of the three sovereigns he had placed there, he found one sovereign and two shillings. He then went to search for Willis, and found him at Allen’s beer-shop; and, with the aid of a constable, Thomas Kelly, found one sovereign in each of Willis’s stockings that he was wearing; although he had previously told Nicholls that he had no money about him, except some silver, which he showed.—The prosecutor’s evidence to this effect was confirmed by James Ball, a miner working at West Caradon, and by the constable Kelly; and the jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) The Court then rose. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7. (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq.) WILLIAM THOMAS, 53, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a quantity of potatoes, the property of Thomas Collins, at Truro, on the 12th of December. (Sentence: 3 months h.l.) JOHN GRIMES, 30, was charged with stealing a quantity of barley in the straw, the property of James Lucas. Mr. SHILSON called the prosecutor, who stated that he is a farmer in Stratton parish; prisoner is a farm labourer, and lives near prosecutor’s premises. Prosecutor had three rows of barley in his mowhay, and having lost barley, he watched in the mow-hay four nights. On Thursday night, the 20th November, prosecutor was entering his mowhay at the higher gate, and heard some one go out at the lower gate. He went and examined a mow, and found half a sheaf had been pulled out and left behind, and about two sheaves carried away. It was very dark and he did not go in pursuit of the prisoner, of whom he had suspicion, but waited until he thought prisoner had gone to bed, when he went and searched prisoner’s pigs-house, and found there about two and a-half sheaves of barley. He went for policeman Moore, and they went and accused prisoner of the theft. The rest of the evidence showed that prisoner confessed his guilt and offered Mr. Lucas £2 to forgive him. Policeman Moore gave evidence of footmarks near the premises and into prisoner’s house, corresponding with prisoner’s boots. John Carthew, a neighbour of prisoner, also gave evidence. Verdict GUILTY. (Sentence: 4 months h.l.) ELIZABETH FRANCIS, 53, was charged with stealing a coat and ten yards of cotton print, the property of John Geary; in a second count she was charged with feloniously receiving the same. Mr. Cornish, for the prosecution; Mr. Shilson for the defence. John Geary, a pawnbroker, at Redruth, said on the 4th of December he had a coat and a light lilac dress in his shop. On the 6th of December, he missed the coat, and went to constable Hodge, and the coat and dress were found at another pawnbroker’s called Martin. Edward Martin, pawnbroker at Redruth, stated that on the 5th of December, prisoner pawned the dress at his shop, and on the 6th she pawned the coat. Prisoner, when before the magistrates, said she picked up the things. Geary, on cross examination, said the articles were placed on a shelf near the door, and many persons went in and out of the shop daily. Mr. Shilson addressed the jury contending that the evidence was insufficient. Verdict, GUILTY of receiving, knowing to have been stolen. A former conviction at the assizes in 1847, was proved against the prisoner, for uttering a forged request for goods. (Sentence: 9 months h.l.) SAMUEL TERRILL, 16, was charged with stealing a donkey, the property of Thomas Trewartha, a miner of St. Agnes. Mr. CORNISH appeared for the prosecution and Mr. SHILSON for the prisoner. It appeared that on the 6th of August, prosecutor put the donkey in a field near his house, and on the next morning it was gone. He had no account of it for three or four months after, when he found the donkey in possession of Joseph Kemp, who lived about four miles off, and who stated that he bought the donkey of the prisoner on the 8th of September. Prisoner’s statement was, that he exchanged the donkey for another with a man who lived at Redruth, but whose name he did not know, and the Chairman summed up in his favour. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. WILLIAM COOKMAN, 32, was charged with stealing a sheet and a shirt, the property of Matthew Sowden, at Madron, on the 24th of November. Verdict, GUILTY. A conviction at the assizes in July, 1853, for felony, was also proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: 4 years penal servitude) JAMES WHEELER, 23, was charged with stealing, on the 5th of November, a cheese, the property of John and William Hodge; and in a second count the prisoner was charged with stealing from the person of William Robbins, the servant of Messrs. Hodge, certain monies, their property. Mr. Frost appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Shilson for the prisoner. Wm. Robbins stated that he is a waggoner in the employ of Messrs. Hodge, of Launceston, who are carriers from Launceston to Plymouth and other places. On Monday the 3rd November, Robbins went from Launceston to Plymouth with his master’s waggon. About four miles from Launceston, he saw the prisoner, who asked to ride, and on telling who he was, the waggoner allowed him to ride to Plymouth, where he said he was going to get work. They arrived at Plymouth on Tuesday morning, and remained there till six or seven in the evening. Robins had taken oats to Plymouth, and he received the money in payment, between 7l. and 8l.; prisoner was present when the money was paid. Robbins allowed prisoner also to return with him, and on the Launceston side of Milton Abbott, he asked prisoner to drive the waggon, which prisoner did, and Robbins lay down to sleep, and slept until the waggon arrived within about a gunshot of the Launceston turnpike gate. When Robbins awoke, he said he felt something like a hand inside his waistcoat; he had placed the money he had received at Plymouth in an inside pocket of his waistcoat. At the same time there was a Dutch cheese just inside the head of the waggon, which Robbins took up and threw back to the hamper where the others were. Just after Robbins awoke, the prisoner left the waggon, and Robbins did not then suspect him of stealing, but on driving on to Launceston turnpike gate, and putting his hand inside his waistcoat for money, he found that he had been robbed, but his purse was left. On cross-examination Robbins denied that he had had a “spree” at Plymouth, or was tipsy when he lay down to sleep; he did not “spile” a cask of beer which was in the waggon on the way home. He lent the prisoner 6d. at Plymouth and gave him something to eat. Mr. W. Hodge, carrier, in partnership with his father at Launceston, stated that the cheese in the waggon was for Mr. John Pearce, at Launceston. There had been no beer taken from the cask in the waggon by Robbins. Evidence was also given by the father of Robbins, who went in pursuit of the prisoner. He said prisoner stated he had no money, and said his name was Veale, not Wheeler. He was afterwards searched by policeman Sambells, to whom he also denied that he had any money. Sambells found about his person £5 9s. 11d.; half-sovereign was in his tobbacco-box (sic), and another half sovereign was concealed inside the lining of his trousers; there was also a Dutch cheese in his coat pocket. Mr. Shilson having addressed the jury for the prisoner, the Chairman summed up the case. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: 8 months h.l.) COUNTY BUSINESS. THE COUNTY CONSTABULARY AND POLICE RATE.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., chairman of the police committee, presented a report of that committee, stating however in the first place that the committee were aware they were travelling out of the usual course of business in asking the court, when due notice had not been given, to alter the decision come to at t he last adjourned sessions in regard to the county police force. The committee appointed yesterday being invested with full powers on the subject, and having had the assistance of the chief constable, had been induced, after consultation with him, to make some slight alterations in the scheme; for if they had given notice to move for such alterations at the next sessions, it would have been impossible in the mean time for the chief constable to arrange his matters satisfactorily; he could not do so unless he knew what scheme he had to work upon. The committee, therefore, requested the court to dispense with the usual notice, and to adopt the scheme as now amended; the cost of which would be somewhat less than the scheme adopted by the second adjourned sessions. The committee recommended that the county should be divided for police purposes into six superintendents’ districts, each to be under the charge of a superintendent, and that one extra superintendent should be appointed for the head quarters, at £100 a year; two at £95; two at £85; and two at £75. There were ten inspectors proposed to be appointed at £65 per annum each. He should explain that that number had been adopted in order that there might be either a superintendent or an inspector in each petty-sessional division. In t he original scheme there were sixteen inspectors, one for each petty-sessional division; but it was the opinion of the chief constable that the work of the county could be done by ten inspectors together with the six superintendents. There was also to be one serjeant-major at 60l. a year; sixteen sergeants at 21s. per week; forty-eight constables at 18s., and nine-six (sic) constables at 16s. a week. It was proposed that the chief constable be authorized to rent for twelve months the necessary accommodation for stations in each petty-sessional division, at a cost not exceeding 200l. per annum. The pay of the above officers, together with that of the chief constable, 500l. per annum, would amount to 8933l. 12s., to which add for clothing, including boots, 1056l. and for annual contingencies, such as forage, repairs, remounts, printing, oil for lanterns, &c., 400l. with rent for stations 200l. making £600, and the probably annual cost of the force would be 10,583l. 12s. For the first outfit, expenses which would not soon have to be incurred again, 800l. was put down, for cost of horses, carts, harness, saddles and bridles, handcuffs, lanterns, cutlasses and belts, staves, lamp-belts and capes, straps, books and stationery, stable necessaries, and office and other furniture. Taking the annual cost at 10,583l. 12s., Mr. Coode said a rate of 3d in the pound on the present value of the county rate, would give a sum of £10,966 8s., which would more than cover the annual expense of the force, even without taking into account the government allowance. For the present quarter the committee thought it would be necessary to raise more than a quarter part of 3d. in the pound, as there were many extra expenses to be first provided for. They therefore proposed that a police rate of 1d. in the pound should be made for the present quarter, and that the county treasurer should be authorized to make payments on account of the force, on receiving a requisition to that effect from the chief constable. The Rev. U. TONKIN moved that the report of the police committee be adopted, which was seconded by Mr. S. Davey, and carried unanimously. Mr. E. COODE, jun., next moved that a committee be appointed, in accordance with the act 15th and 16th Vict., c. 81, for the purpose of preparing a basis or standard for fair and equal county rates, and of altering and amending such basis or standard from time to time as circumstances may require. That the committee be further empowered to inquire what parishes or places (if any) in the county are not assessed to the county rate, or are liable to the county police rate; and also what parishes or parts of parishes at present assessed to the county rate, are by reason of being within the limits of municipal boroughs, or other causes, not liable to the police rate; and in either case to prepare such new parishes, as may be necessary in order to make a fair and equal county rate. The committee nominated for this purpose consisted of one magistrate from each petty-sessional division, namely, Rev. J. Glanville, Mr. Avery, Mr. Willyams, Mr. R. Davey, Mr. Rodd, Mr. Coryton, Mr. Carew, Mr. W. Hext, Mr. R. Foster, Mr. E. Coode, jun., Mr. Gregor, Mr. Howell, Mr. Magor, Mr. D.P. Le Grice, Mr. Enys, and Mr. Rogers. The resolution and committee were unanimously agreed to. With regard to municipal boroughs paying county rate, but which would be exempt from police rate unless they amalgamated with the county, Mr. E. Coode, jun., said the committee must appeal to them not to throw any difficulty for the present quarter in the way of collecting the police rate on the old basis of the county rate. The magistrates wishes, as soon as possible, to place the police rate on a fair and equal footing, but it was impossible to make such arrangements in time for this quarter assessment. It was also highly desirable that if any boroughs wished to incorporate with the county police they should forthwith make some proposal to the committee for that purpose, as it would be much easier to take them in now than when the county force is thoroughly organised and in a working state. TRIALS RESUMED. ELIZABETH CHAMPION was charged with stealing a pair of trousers, the property of Francis Barrow, at Redruth, on the 10th of November. Prisoner went into prosecutor’s tailor’s shop and asked to look at some jackets. A pair of trousers was afterwards missed and found at prisoner’s house; it did not appear that her husband had knowledge of what she had done. Verdict, GUILTY. There were two other indictments against the prisoner, for stealing from John Cocking, at Redruth, and from Thomas Leggo; but these indictments were not prosecuted. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) WILLIAM BROWN was charged for that being a servant to Joseph Thomas, of Truro, he stole a quantity of oats his property; and in a second count the property was laid as being in the possession and power of the master. Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Stokes the defence. Evidence was given in this case at considerable length. It appeared that Mr. Joseph Thomas had sold a quantity of oats to Mr. Timothy Sara, of Pentewan in the parish of St. Austell and on the 8th of August last, he directed prisoner, who was in his employ, to take thirty Cornish bushels to Mr. Sara in his (Mr. Thomas’s) waggon. They were sent from prosecutor’s stores in twenty bags, and Thomas Clements and Christopher Nancollis in the employ of prosecutor, gave evidence of the delivery of the twenty bags to prisoner from prosecutor’s stores. It appeared that on their arrival at Pentewan, Mr. Sara desired his son to receive the oats from prisoner; he received, however, but nineteen bags, and on looking into the waggon he saw there another bag, which he told prisoner belonged to his father; upon which prisoner said it did not, it belonged to Mr. Thomas, of Grampound. Mr. Sara, jun. asked him why he had not left it at Mr. Thomas’s, Grampound, being on his way to Pentewan; to which prisoner replied that he forgot to do so. Prisoner left Mr. Sara’s premises, and afterwards, on his way to St. Austell, met Mr. Craggs’s van of Mevagissey, upon which he sold the bag of oats he had in the waggon to Mr. Edmund Craggs, the carrier, for 7s. 6d. Mr. E. Craggs said prisoner told him he had been at Mevagissey, and had a bushel more than the owner would take; the oats were Mr. Thomas’s and that it was his wagon; and that if he (Craggs) would leave the bag at Mr. Thomas’s at Grampound, prisoner would call for it, as he was coming there with a load of oats next day. It further appeared that on Mr. Sara finding he had only 19 bags instead of 20, he wrote to Mr. Joseph Thomas, at Truro, who on the 12th of August spoke to prisoner on the subject, and accused him of stealing the bag, containing a bushel and a half. He admitted that he did it (so prosecutor said), and that he sold it to Craggs for 7s. 6d. The prosecutor was closely cross-examined by Mr. STOKES, and admitted that he did not take steps for for (sic) apprehending prisoner on the 12th August; he said he told him he should prosecute him. About a fortnight after, early one morning, he again saw him, and again about a fortnight after that, when prisoner was carrying something and appeared to be going away. From further cross-examination it appeared that Mr. Hichens, the agent of the Truro Shipping Company, had been to prosecutor about some teas lost from Truro quay, and it was after that, prosecutor caused prisoner to be apprehended. Prisoner had been working on the Cornwall Railway near St. Germans, and prosecutor heard from prisoner’s father that he was coming home at Christmas; when he came home he had him apprehended. After Mr. Hichens had asked about the teas, prosecutor inquired where prisoner was, and Mr. Hichens refused to tell. The bushel and a-half had been sent by Craggs to Sara, by advice of prosecutor through Mr. Collins, of Church- lane, Truro, Craggs’s father-in-law. These were the main facts of the case; and in defence Mr. Stokes submitted that Thomas ought not to have brought this prosecution against the prisoner; that he had shown by his conduct he did not at first mean to take any proceedings in the matter, he owing the prisoner something for wages; and it was only after he was told of what Brown could state about the teas, and a demand had been made by the agent of the Shipping Company, that he showed any intention to prosecute the man. Mr. Stokes submitted it was a case which ought not to have been brought before a criminal tribunal; and that Thomas, if it had not been for certain circumstances, would not have brought it there. Further he contended that the evidence was insufficient to support a charge of felony; and to show this he commented on prosecutor’s statements, on the fact that Craggs could not identify prisoner, and other circumstances. The CHAIRMAN having summed up the case, the jury deliberated about half an hour, and then found the prisoner GUILTY. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) The Grand Jury were discharged shortly before five o’clock, the Chairman thanking them, on behalf of the county, for their services. BILLS IGNORED.—The Grand Jury ignored the bill against David Barrett, and George Howard, charged with stealing a donkey from Thomas Toms, at St. Martins by Looe; the bill against Thomas Penrose, charged with stealing sheaves of oats from Joseph Lawry, of St. Just in Penwith; and the bill against Mary Willcocks, charged with stealing an umbrella from Benjamin Andrew of St. Austell. SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P. ELIZA COOMBE, 19, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a frock, a quantity of ribbon, and a comb, the property of Annie Kate Arnall, at Camelford, on the 28th of November. (Sentence: 3 months h.l.) GUILLAUME LOUIS THEOPHILE PONCELET, 18, a seaman, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 18th of October, at Falmouth, one purse, one sovereign, thirteen shillings and a security for money called a “seaman’s advance note,” the property of George Radford. (Sentence: 3 months h.l.) WILLIAM VINCENT, 20, THOMAS MILL, 20, and WILLIAM MILL, 10, all miners were charged with breaking into the Account-house of Dolcoath Mine, in the parish of Camborne, on the 2nd of November, and stealing 6 silver table spoons, 8 silver tea-spoons, some bread, butter, flour, sugar, and beef, two towels, one corkscrew, two decanters, and about a pint each of brandy, rum, and gin, the property of Charles Thomas and others, adventurers in the said mine.—Mr. Genn conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—Ann Richards:—I live at Camborne, and am Account-house woman at Dolcoath Mine. On Saturday the 1st of November I was at the account-house and had some plate there in the pantry; I keep it in a drawer; I had one dozen silver tablespoons, 19 silver tea-spoons, and also some German-silver spoons and 9s. in money. I left the account house shortly before 7 o’clock in the evening of the 1st of November, after I had locked the doors and seen my plate all safe. I returned to the account-house about 7 o’clock on Monday morning following. The front-door was closed; I went into the house and into the pantry, and found that there had been taken away 6 silver table-spoons; 8 silver tea-spoons and 3 of the German silver spoons; 17 altogether. There had also been taken away some bread, cold beef, butter, flour, and two bags, two towels, two cork-screws, and 5 decanters, with spirits. All those things I had left there safe on the Saturday night. 12 locks had been broken open; 6 in the writing desks and the others in the doors and cupboards; the windows were also broken.—James Oxnam, miner. In November last I worked at Dolcoath mine. On the 3rd of November I entered the mine a few minutes before two o’clock in the morning, and had to pass the account-house. As I passed, I saw a light in the kitchen; I was about 30 yards from the kitchen, outside the wall which goes round the account-house. I saw it was the light of a candle moving about, and I could see the hand holding it. I then went into the sump-house, and I and some other men returned to the account-house. I then called Capt. Pearce and he went into the yard, and I remained outside the account-house window.—Capt. Richard Pearce, agent at Dolcoath. Early in the morning, the 3rd of November, in consequence of some information, I went to the account-house; it was about 2 o’clock. I found at the back of the house that a pane of glass had been broken, and an entrance made through the window that opened in the pay-room, from which room there was easy access to any other part of the house. I entered through the back door, which I found also open, from the inside. I went into the office, and found six locks had been broken open, and also that one lock had been broken in the pantry. In the dining room up-stairs a lock had been broken; two locks had been broken in the pay-room, and one in the spirit room, or wine-cellar. I know the prisoners perfectly well; they have all worked at Dolcoath within the last two or three years. Vincent lives about 3 or 4 hundred yards from the account-house.—Capt. Charles Thomas, manager of Dolcoath mine. I was at the account-house on the 3rd of November about 8 o’clock in the morning. I left there on the previous Saturday evening about 6 o’clock. I examined the house on the Monday morning and found that several locks had been broken open. I had locked up the wine and spirits on the Saturday evening, and kept the key; on the Monday morning I found that that cupboard had been broken open, and at least three pints each of brandy rum and gin had been taken away. I also locked up the cupboard in the dining room on the Saturday evening, and on the Monday morning found it had been broken open and that 5 decanters had been taken away. A cork-screw had been taken away from the wine- cellar, which had also been locked on the Saturday. All those articles I saw on the Saturday when I locked the cup-boards.—Joseph Ward:—I am constable at Camborne; on the 3rd of November I went to Dolcoath mine, between 4 and 5 o’clock in the morning, and made an examination of the premises. I found papers all about the house in different parts and that entrance had been effected through the pay-room window, by breaking a pane of glass over the fastening; I also found that several locks had been broken open. On the inside part of the wall outside the account-house I found some planks had been put up slanting, so as to effect escape over the wall. Outside the gutter were the ends of these planks rested, I found the foot mark of a boy; and on the 6th of November I apprehended William Mill, and found that his right shoe corresponded exactly with that foot mark. On the morning of the 7th William Mill’s mother brought me some clothes which he had worn on the previous Sunday; I searched the pockets and found some tea and sugar (about a spoonful). When we were going before the magistrates, I said to Noble, in the presence of the prisoner William Mill that I had found some tea and sugar in the pockets of his coat and trowsers; and William Mill said “I did not put it there; my brother Tom and William Vincent put it there, in the account- house.” After we had been before the magistrates, he said to me that there were some decanters and brandy hid away at the back of Ivey’s garden at Crane; I went there and found two empty decanters and a bottle of brandy, partly full; which I now produce. On Saturday the 8th of November, I went with William Mill to a field near Crane, and he showed me where Vincent had thrown something away, and I searched and found a corkscrew and razor, which I now produce. I then took him to a place not far from there, where he said they had eaten the beef and taken some of the spirits; and I there found some broken glass and two invoices of goods supplied to Dolcoath mine. On the 9th in consequence of something that William Mill had said to me, I went to Capt. Rutter’s field adjoining Dolcoath mine, and found the remains of five broken bottles and a towel; I produce the towel. I took Thomas Mill into custody, and when he was in custody on remand, he said in my presence to Noble, another constable, that if Capt. Charles Thomas would forgive him, he would go to the mine and work up all the damage he had done and bring back all the things he had taken away.—I also produce a second cork-screw and two decanters which I found after the committal—the cork-screw at the back of North Roskear Account-house, and the decanters near Crane.— George Noble, a constable of Camborne, on the 3rd of November, accompanied Ward to Dolcoath account house and assisted in the examination he made there. This witness corroborated Ward’s evidence as to the state of the premises as then examined; and also as to many subsequent circumstances. He also stated that on the 8th of November, he observed that violence had been used at the account-house; William Mill told him that it was done with a poker at the account house—that Thomas Mill and Vincent had broken open the locks with a poker of the account-house. Witness found that the sharp, squared top of that poker (which he now produced) corresponded exactly with marks where the cupboards and doors had been forced open.—Henry Ivey: I live at Crane; Thomas and William Mill live next door to me; I know them very well. Vincent I never saw before Monday morning the 3rd of November. On that morning, I saw the three prisoners together about ¼ past 7, at Crane. The next morning about 11 o’clock, I saw Thomas Mill out in the meadow where the bottle and two decanters were afterwards found; there is no road or pathway through that field; I have known the field for 70 years. On the following Friday I went into that field with Ward and Noble; Ward took up a bottle, and I found the first decanter. The meadow is on the other side of my wall. The second decanter was found there by Ward, I had seen Thomas Mill near that place.—The various articles produced in the course of the trial were identified by the witnesses Ann Richards, Capt. Charles Thomas, and the policeman Ward.—The prisoners’ statements before the committing magistrates were then put in and read: William Mill stated: what I told Joseph Ward and George Noble is true; I was at Dolcoath account-house on the Sunday night in company with my brother Thomas Mill and William Vincent; William Vincent took some spoons out of the drawer and asked my brother if they were silver; my brother said he did not know; Vincent said they were silver, and asked my brother if it was best to carry them away; my brother said “the Dolcoath mark is on them;” Vincent said “we can get out that;” I did not see them take any of the spoons, but they took away some gin.—Thomas Mill stated: What George Noble has said is correct, and what my brother William has said is correct.—William Vincent stated:—What William Mill has just said is true; we went to Dolcoath account-house on Sunday evening; the spoons were not taken out of the account-house to my knowledge; we took away some gin.—The Jury found a verdict of GUILTY against all three prisoners, but recommended William Mill to mercy, on account of his youth. (Sentences: William VINCENT and Thomas MILL – each 12 months h.l., William MILL - one month h.l. and once whipped solitarily.) JOHN HUTCHINGS, 30, labourer, was charged with stealing a hammer, the property of John Martin Johns, farmer of St. Enoder.—Mr. G.B. Collins for the prosecution, the prisoner was undefended.—John Martin Johns stated that the prisoner was in his employ from the 30th of June to the 23rd of September. On the 18th of August witness missed a hammer, which he had had made almost specially for his own use; and did not see it again till this day fortnight in the hands of Coomb the policeman.—Joseph King Martin, nephew of prosecutor stated that on the 18th of August he used the hammer referred to, and put it on the wall in the house where it was usually kept; the next morning he looked for it and could not find it.—Henry Coomb, police-constable, about the 22nd of December last had occasion to search the prisoner’s house and found there the hammer which he now produced.—James Rounsevell, a smith, identified the hammer produced as one which he had himself made for Mr. Johns.—The hammer was also positively identified by the prosecutor; and his nephew said he believed it to be the same hammer that he had used on the 18th of August. The CHAIRMAN summed up in favour of prisoner, in regard to the length of time—fully four months—that had elapsed from the time the hammer was lost to its discovery in the prisoner’s house; and the jury found a verdict of acquittal. JOHN HUTCHINGS, the same prisoner, was then indicted for stealing on the 7th of December, at the parish of St. Dennis, a sow pig, the property of William Julyan. Mr. G.B. Collins conducted the prosecution. The prosecutor stated that he was a carpenter living on the Goss Moor, in the parish of St. Columb Major. On Sunday the 7th of December he had a little sow pig, about 6 months old, from 70 lbs. to 4 score weight and in fair store condition. On Sunday morning, the 7th of December, he meated the pig, and then, as he was accustomed to do, turned her out on the Moor, posting the door open for her return as the weather was severe. In the evening the pig did not return as usual; and he was unable the following days to obtain any tidings of her.—John Arthur a quarryman living at St. Dennis about 2 miles from last witness, stated that about 12 o’clock on the 7th of December he saw a strange pig near his house—a little sow pig, of a dirty white ground with black spots, and about 20 lbs. a quarter. She was “in kind,” and was near his own and other pigs. The prisoner lived about 300 yards from witness’s; he had lived there about 6 or 8 weeks before December, but had not kept any pig.—Joseph Jolly, a china clay labourer, stated that in December last he worked at the same work with the prisoner. On Thursday the 11th of December, the prisoner was away from his work; and the next day told witness that he had been down to Mr. Chellews at Carnon, who owed him 30 shillings for wages; and had taken the side of a little pig, about 30 weight, in part payment. After that, the prisoner brought meat pasties to his work; which he had not done before.—William Chellew lived at Carnon in Ladock, and knew the prisoner who worked for witness for 3 or 4 months and left his employ after barley tilling last spring. Witness did not owe him any wages, having paid him the day before he left; and had not seen him from that time till the other day before the magistrates at St. Columb. Prisoner had never applied to witness for payment of any arrear of wages, and had never received from witness any side of a pig or any other pork whatever.—Henry Coomb, police constable, on Thursday the 18th of December, searched the prisoner’s house, and found in a corner of an upstairs room, in a small tub, the pork now produced, consisting of two legs, a shoulder, and both parts of a cheek. It had been but recently put in pickle, and was not properly cured. He apprehended prisoner on a charge of stealing a pig, and on the road, the prisoner said he supposed he should see Bodmin; and he also said “Kill a pig! I would rather steal a sheep than kill a pig; but I suppose they will give me a month for it.”—This witness pointed out to the jury various proofs of identity of the pork produced with the live pig that had been lost; and on the same points the prosecutor and John Arthur were recalled and examined.—The CHAIRMAN in summing up, spoke of the proof of identity as one of considerable difficulty under the circumstances; but the jury were satisfied on the point, and returned a verdict of guilty. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) WILLIAM ADDISON, 22, pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawfully assaulting Mary Treloar, with intent to ravish and carnally know her, at Wendron, on the 21st of November. (Sentence: 12 months h.l.) MATTHEW HENRY TRURAN, 17, miner, pleaded guilty of stealing, on the 12th of October, a gander, 7 tame fowls, and 4 geese, the property of John Madren, at Redruth. (Sentence: 4 months h.l.) JOHN CAMEREN (sic), 28, tailor (late a soldier), and ELLEN WILLIAMS, 24, were indicted for stealing from the dwelling house of Christopher Harvey, labourer, at Madron on the 23rd October, two coats, two pair of trousers, three waistcoats, four silk handkerchiefs, one satin neckerchief, one shirt, one razor, and one umbrella, value 7l., the property of the said Christopher Harvey. There was a second count for felonious receiving.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—The case was one of elaborate circumstantial proof; the witnesses being Christopher Harvey, the prosecutor, a labourer living at Rosehill, in Madron; Fanny Rees, a lodging-house keeper at Penzance; Henry Joseph, pawnbroker at Penzance; John Oulds, superintendent of police at Penzance; Mary Ann Branch, lodging-house keeper at Camborne; Jane Penrose, a married daughter of last witness; Thomas Knuckey, pawnbroker at Camborne; Joseph Ward, superintendent of police at Camborne; George Noble, constable at Camborne.—The jury found the prisoner Cameron GUILTY of stealing; and Williams GUILTY of feloniously receiving. (Sentences: John CAMERON - 8 months h.l.; Ellen WILLIAMS - 6 months h.l.) The prisoners had also been arraigned on an indictment for stealing, from the dwelling-house of George Martins, at Ludgvan, on the 21st of October, a coat, a pair of trousers, a waistcoat, a shirt, a pair of braces, two handkerchiefs, a pair of boots and a brooch, the property of the said George Martins.—But on this indictment no evidence was offered. The Court then rose. THURSDAY, January 8th. (Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq). WILLIAM CLEMES, JOHN PEARCE, and SIMON ROBINS, young miners of respectable appearance, were charged with stealing 10 lbs of currants, and a quantity of sweetmeats, the property of Sophia Symonds, widow, at St. Austell, on the 20th of December. In a second count the property was laid in William Bullock.— Mr. Shilson for the prosecution; Mr. Stokes for the defence.—William Bullock deposed:—I am driver of a wagon. On Saturday the 20th of December, I was employed by Mrs. Symonds of St. Austell to bring some groceries for her from Par, and I took up two boxes for her that day at Par; one of the boxes was bound with hoop-iron and fastened with ropes; I don’t know that there was any cover on the other box. When I came on the road, as far as Holmbush, the prisoners came and jumped up in my wagon. This was about 6 or half-past 6 o’clock. Clemes was the first to jump up; and he threatened to knock my bloody eyes or brains out if I said anything. The others said “hold your peace, Bill.” I had not given them any leave to get up in the wagon. Clemes sat on the uncovered box, in the front part of the wagon; and the others on the closed box behind. I saw these two—Pearce and Robins—moving their hands to and from their breast pockets. When I came to Mount Charles, Pearce got out of the wagon. I continued riding on the shafts; and when I got to the bottom of the Watering Hill, Clemes got sick, and took up a little basket which he had, and jumped out of the wagon, leaving Robins sitting with his back towards me. I then thought it was time to look about; I jumped off, and as I came round to the end of the wagon I saw Robins catch his hand out of the box on which he was sitting. I said to him “hallo, my chap, what’s going on here? you have not broke open the box, or any thing, like that?” With that, I jumped up at the back of the wagon on my knees, and Robins pulled part of the board of the box which had been broken open and placed his knees so that I should not see what he was doing; and he began to swear, and with that gave me a smack on the face and a bloody nose. Then Clemes came forth and said he would knock my head off if I said any thing of what they had been doing. I said to Clemes, “I did’nt say that you had been about the box.” I then jumped off from the hind part of the wagon and Robins came forth to the front; Clemes looked to Robins to take the basket, and then he would let it into me. As Clemes came forth and jumped off on the off side of the shafts I jumped off on the near side and walked on by my horses, and then the other two chaps came round the near side. I said “what, d’ye think you are going to do as you mind by me?” and I put my horses into a trot. Then a man came along and I spoke to him; he said to me, “young man, you had better drive down your horses to the light, and perhaps I may know these young men.” I drove on my horses into the town and stopped just in front of Mr. Stocker’s shop. I then saw Clemes and Robins come down the hill and pass round by Kellow’s Van Office to the other street; and the man whom I had spoken to came down the hill into the town close by them, and I afterwards saw him by Dunn’s Hotel; I went to see for a policeman, leaving that man to watch. I found a policeman and we went back to my wagon and looked at the boxes, and then I took the boxes to Mrs. Symonds’s, and they were opened by her in my presence. A board was broken up in the box which had been fastened the best; the paper round the currants had been broken, and it appeared that a lot of currants was gone. The other box, which had been in the front part of the wagon, had not been touched at all. Both boxes were sound and firm when I took them into my custody at Par; and no person had got into my wagon after leaving Par, but prisoners. When I got to Mrs. Symons’s, I found in the wagon a little tin dish, which I delivered to the policeman; I was afterwards present when the policeman took Clemes into custody; he asked Clemes if that was his dish, and he said it was.—Cross-examined: Clemes was a little tipsy; I did not see that there was any thing amiss with the other two.—The hind box, which was broken, was a slight box, like a candle-box or such as that.—I met plenty of people on the road, but did not make any attempt to get rid of these men. I did not talk to the men all the way; but when we came into the town, Clemes, just after he got out of the wagon, said he would give me a quart of beer or anything else I liked to drink; that was after he had been swearing at me. The wagon was an open clay wagon; it had no cover.—William Henry Rowe, store-keeper at Par, stated that on Saturday the 20th December the Forager steamer brought to Par a chest for Mrs. Symonds, and there was a box lying for her there before. About 5 o’clock in the afternoon of that day, witness delivered the chest and box to the last witness. The chest was about 3 feet long, secured with iron hoop, and with rope around it. The box had no cover, but there was straw on the top, and witness believed it was laced over. Both were in a sound and secure state when delivered to Bullock.—John Tresidder Hawken:—I am manager of Messrs. Bond’s establishment at Plymouth. On the 19th of December I packed a chest for Mrs. Symonds of St. Austell; the chest contained groceries; among other things, sweets and currants—40 lbs. of one sort of currants and 30 lbs. of another sort; and 6 bottles of sweet-meats, each bottle containing 2lbs. The box was addressed to Mrs. Symonds, Western Hill, St. Austell; it was securely fastened—more than usually strong—with hoop iron and corded. I have now seen the same box here. The sweets are of a particular kind; they are a patented article, and we are the only agents for the article in Plymouth.—Sophia Symonds, widow: I keep a grocer’s shop in St. Austell, and on the 20th of December I employed William Bullock to bring some groceries for me; between 7 and 8 o’clock in the evening he brought me a chest and box. The chest was broken open, the paper of a parcel of currants had been torn, and it appeared that there were a few currants gone. A board had been broken in at the side of the box, and it was bulged in at top. I am not at all willing to prosecute this case; I do not think it at all necessary to do so. I had ordered a few bottles of fancy sweets; and the invoice stated that six bottles were sent. There were but three whole bottles in the box, and two empty bottles, and there were some loose sweetmeats about the box. There were also some loose currants in the box. I think two parcels of currants had been torn open, and another had been moved.—Cross-examined.—The box was slight, and I should think the weight of one or two persons sitting on it would be likely to start it. I know these young men to be respectable in their stations; I have heard goo characters of them, from Mr. Petherick, Mr. Andrews, and other gentlemen.—John Westlake, constable:—About 7 o’clock in the evening of Saturday the 20th of December, I received a complaint from William Bullock, that a box had been broken open, and from information I received I went to search for the prisoners and found Clemes first. I told him I wanted to speak to him a minute, and then stopped with him till Sambell came; I charged him with riding in this wagon and stealing a quantity of sweets; he said “I have not rode in any wagon to-night.” I then said to Bullock “is this one that rode in your wagon?” he said yes; and Clemes again denied it. Sambell then produced a tin-dish and asked Clemes if it was his; and he said yes. As we were going to the lock-up, we passed a dark place, and saw Clemes throwing away something; Sambell got a candle and found that he had thrown some sweets on the ground; he said that Robins gave them to him as he was riding on the wagon.—Thomas Sambell, policeman, corroborated a portion of Westlake’s evidence, and stated that when he afterwards apprehended Robins at his father’s house, he found particles of sweets sticking about the pockets; and when Sambell desired him to put on his other clothes and come with him, Robins, who was standing near the mantel-piece, took down a sword and partly unsheathed it, declaring “I’m b----d if I’m going to St. Austell to night, for that.” Sambell secured the sword, and took Robins on to the St. Austell lock-up; and on the way he made use of many very violent and bad expressions towards some of the parties concerned in the case. The next day (Sunday) Sambell was with Westlake when he apprehended Pearce at his father’s house, and heard him say to Westlake that he rode from Holmbush to Mount Charles, but while he was riding there was nothing done. While Westlake had him in custody, Sambell went to his father’s house and received from his sister a jacket and a pair of trowsers; he took them to Pearce, who acknowledged that he had worn them on the Saturday; in the pockets of both jacket and trowsers, witness found some loose currants.—Some of the bottles were produced, together with samples of the sweets and currants; and evidence of identity was given by Mr. I.T. Hawken, and other witnesses; and evidence was also given of the quantities stolen.—The prisoners’ statements before the committing magistrates were then put in. Pearce said: I had the currants given me the night before by a young man in St. Austell Market- house; I never saw anything taken in the wagon from Holmbush to Mount Charles.”—Robins said: “I got up in the wagon at Holmbush and rode as far as the watering, and what was in the boxes I know nothing about.”—Clemes said, he never took anything from the wagon.—Mr. STOKES addressed the jury in defence, and called as witnesses to the good character of the prisoners from their childhood, John Clark, miner of St. Austell, and John Barrett of Charlestown.—The jury found all three prisoners GUILTY; but recommended them to mercy, believing that they did not intend robbery when they first got up into the wagon. (Sentences: William CLEMES - 6 weeks h.l.; John PEARCE - 1 month h.l.; Simon ROBINS - 6 weeks h.l.) WILLIAM PIPPIN, 34, labourer, was charged with stealing about 12 gallons of wheat and one sheaf of reed, and one pigeon, the property of John Rowe, farmer, at Breage.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Thomas Simmons, a miner working at Wheal Vor, deposed:—On Sunday night the 7th of December, about 12 o’clock, I was returning from Helston with Isaac Moyle and other persons. As we passed by the private lane leading down to Mr. Rowe’s farm at Sethnoe, we saw a man down the lane, coming towards the road with a sheaf of reed and a sack of corn on his back. I and Moyle went down the lane to him; and he told us that he was coming from the mine and that he had a bag of sticks. I went forth and found that the bag contained corn, and took it from his back; and the prisoner offered me a shilling, and the 5s., 10s., or a sovereign if we would let him go clear; and afterwards offered to give all that he was to receive the next pay-day. I said, “nonsense, come along with us,” and we took him down to Mr. Rowe’s house, with the read and wheat, and called up Mr. Rowe. We afterwards, at Breage church-town, delivered the wheat and reed to the constable. I had known the prisoner before; he is a lander; landers do not work on Sundays. He said he found the corn in the turnpike road as he was going to Helston to fetch the doctor for his wife. I saw his wife afterwards; she was not ill, as far as I could judge.—Isaac Moyle corroborated the above evidence.—Thomasine Rowe, a daughter of the prosecutor, stated that in the night of the 7th of December, she was looking out of one of the windows at Sethnoe and saw the prisoner near the house; saw him take something white out of his pocket and throw it over the garden wall. When her father was called up at night, she told of what she had seen, and her father and brother went to the spot and found a dead pigeon. Had seen that pigeon alive on Sunday evening at roost with others inside the barn. The prisoner was about 12 feet from her when she saw him.—Jacob Rowe, son of the prosecutor, proved his having found the pigeon as spoken of by his sister; when he found the pigeon, it was dead but still warm; knew the bird very well; went and searched the roost, and found that one pigeon was missing out of the six that had been there. Saw the sheaf of reed which was taken from the prisoner, and could swear to its being his father’s property; witness himself having bound it. Jacob Rowe, the prosecutor; I live at Sethnoe; Sethnoe lane leads only to my farm. Prisoner lives near me and has worked for me. On the Sunday night about 12 o’clock, I was called up by Moyle and Simmons; they had a sheaf of reed and a sack of wheat, and one of them was holding Pippin by the collar. About noon on Sunday, I saw in that barn about 3 bushels of wheat in a sack, and a pile of wheat in a rough state; and on the Sunday night when the prisoner was brought to me, I found that a quantity of wheat had been taken from the pile; and I afterwards found that the wheat which had been found on the prisoner corresponded exactly with that in the pile. The sheaf of reed was similar to sheaves I had in my mowhay. It is a particular sort of wheat which I had down from London, with Mr. Julyan of Helston. The key of the barn was left in the door on the Sunday; I saw it there.— John Julyan, constable, produced the reed, wheat, and pigeon; and said—I had the prisoner in custody on the Sunday night; it was a coldish night; he was sitting back some distance from the fire-place, and complaining of being cold, he went forth towards the fire-place, and I saw him take something out of his pocket and thrust it into the fire under the boiler; I went forth, and saw that what he had thrown in was a bag; but it was all in flames and I could not take it out. The corn, sheaf, and pigeon were identified; and the jury found the prisoner GUILTY. (Sentence: 9 months h.l.) PHILIP HARVEY, 27, a miner, was charged with stealing 250 lbs. of tin ore, the property of Richard Pearce and others, adventurers in Dolcoath mine, as long ago as the 11th of June, 1854. Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—Richard Pearce, an agent and adventurer in Dolcoath mine, deposed:—On Sunday the 11th of June, 1854, we had amongst other tin ore in the yard, a quantity in a kieve; it was about a ton of a particular sort of tin—best quality tin, raised from the north part of the mine; I saw that tin all right in the kieve, about 4 o’clock on Sunday afternoon. After 12 o’clock on the Sunday night, I went to that kieve, in consequence of having been called by Joseph Jewell; I examined the kieve, and found that about 250 lbs of tin had been taken away, and there were marks of hands having dived into the tin to take it up. Close against the kieve I saw a sack containing about ¾ cwt. of tin; and about 10 or 12 feet off were two other sacks, partly full. I compared the tin in these three sacks with that in the kieve, and found that it was precisely the same sample; I had no doubt that the tin in the three sacks was taken from that kieve. I kept the tin which I had found in those sacks, until the 15th of December, 1846, when I delivered it to George Noble, constable. The value of the 250 lbs. of tin was about 9 or £10. The prisoner Harvey was not working in the mine at that time. From information received, a warrant was issued against him, but he was not brought before the magistrate till Dec., 1856.—James Jewell, tin-dresser, working at Dolcoath:—I was working at Dolcoath in June, 1854, and was in the habit of going to my work between 12 and one o’clock at night. I went there on the night of Sunday the 11th of June, with Sampson Jewell and Caroline Tenby. As we entered the yard-door, I saw a man leaning over a kieve, and said “Hallo, is that Allen?” As I got into the yard I saw a second man standing between two other kieves; this was the prisoner; and the man who was leaning over the other kieve was called Vivian. When I said “is that Allen?” Vivian made inquiries about the burning-house; he said “put as to the burning-house that we may lie down, men and maidens, all together;” Harvey was not at that time working on the mine and had no business in the yard. I went in to see the burning-house men, and to speak to my brother; and when I came out with a light I saw Vivian and Harvey run away. Vivian was not at that time employed on the mine. From that time I did not see Harvey till the 15th of last December.—After seeing Harvey and Vivian run away, I saw three sacks of tin on the ground; one close beside the kieve of tin over which Vivian had been leaning, and the two others about 10 or 12 feet off from where Harvey was standing. I compared the tin in these three sacks with that in the kieve, and found it was the same sample.—Sampson Jewell, brother of last witness, and who came to the mine with him and Caroline Tenby on the Sunday night referred to, corroborated his evidence, and added that when Vivian was discovered and made inquiries about the burning-house, he was making out to be drunk. This witness also stated:—I went up to prisoner, and put my hand on his shoulder, and said to him “what are you doing here?” He made no reply, but got out of my hand, slipped away between the kieves, and ran off. A few feet from where the prisoner had been standing I found a sack, and called Capt. Pearce. We found altogether three sacks, containing tin, which had been taken from the kieves that Vivian was leaning over. I knew the tin very well. On the Saturday evening, I had seen that the tin in this kieve was all right; but on the Monday morning I saw that there had been a pit dug in it. A person not working on the mine would have no right to be on it at that hour; there is no public road through the mine.—George Noble, constable of Camborne: I received the warrant to apprehend the prisoner in June, 1854. He was not apprehended till last December, when Ward the policeman took him, in my presence, at 2 o’clock on a Sunday morning. From June 1854, I believe he had not been in that neighbourhood; I made inquiries. (It appeared that the prisoner had been working in the eastern part of the county, or in Devonshire). I received tin from Capt. Pearce, part of which I now produce.—This tin was clearly identified by Capt. Pearce.—Mr. SHILSON addressed the Jury in behalf of the prisoner; after which the CHAIRMAN summed up, and the Jury retired for consultation and ultimately returned a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: 8 months h.l.) JOHN PENROSE was charged with stealing 5 sheaves of oats, the property of Joseph Lawry, of St. Just in Penwith, on the 30th of December 1856; and also with stealing 9 sheaves of oats, the property of the said Joseph Lawry, on the 31st of December. (THOMAS PENROSE had been indicted for the same offence, but the bill against him was ignored). Mr. CORNISH appeared for the prosecution, and, preliminary to any other proceedings, required that the prosecutor, and important witness, should be called on his recognizances. The crier of the court accordingly called three times on “Joseph Lawry to come forth and give evidence on a bill of indictment against John Penrose, or forfeit your recognizances.”—Joseph Lawry did not appear, and his recognizances were estreated.—Mr. CORNISH then addressed the jury, speaking of the peculiar circumstances under which the case was brought before them, in consequence of the non-attendance of the prosecutor, who had been bound over to appear and give evidence. On the part of the prosecution every effort had been made to bring the prosecutor before the court, but without success. The case must therefore depend on other evidence, which would show that on the morning of Wednesday the 31st December a watch was set on the mowhay at Carngrean, the prosecutor’s farm, on which the prosecutor had a mow of oats; and Joseph Penrose was seen to go to the mow and take some sheaves of corn from it. On being taken he had made use of some expression of sorrow for what he had done. A statement of the prisoner would be put in, in which he admitted having taken the corn, but somewhat justified the act.— Mr. Cornish then called Joseph Lawry the younger, whose evidence proved to be of such a negative character that the prosecution could not be sustained.—In answer to questions, he said:—I am son of Joseph Lawry of St. Just; my father occupies a farm at Carn Green. I worked with my father one day last year; at that time I did not assist him in saving oats. I was not on Carn Green mowhay during harvest. I went to my father’s house on the 31st December, but was not in the mowhay; I was out in a field near the mowhay; I was not there for any particular purpose; from where I was standing I could not see into the mowhay; I was not in the barn in the course of that morning; I never saw any thing happen in the mowhay in the course of that day; I saw the prisoner near the place, but not till after he was taken hold of by the constable; I never saw the constable take him; after he was taken I never saw any thing happen.—Mr. CORNISH addressed an observation to the bench; on which the CHAIRMAN, addressing the jury, said—You have seen, gentlemen, the nature of this case. The prosecutor is not present; he has been called on his recognizances and will have to answer for that; and this witness here, though he remembered every thing before the magistrate, he remembers nothing here. The learned advocate therefore thinks it would be useless for him to go further with the case, and you will say the prisoner is not guilty.—The jury returned their verdict accordingly.—The court ordered that the witness’s expenses be disallowed; and the prosecutor’s recognizances were estreated. This concluded the jury business of the sessions. APPEALS. PENZANCE, appellant; ST. MARY’S, TRURO, respondent. —This was an appeal against an order made by the Rev. T. Phillpotts and Col. Polwhele, county magistrates, for the removal of Emily and Edwin Johns from the parish of St. Mary, Truro, to the borough of Penzance. Mr. CORNISH for appellants, stated that both parties had agreed to send a case to the Poor Law Commissioners, and to abide by their decision. In the mean time, he applied to enter and respite the appeal until the next Quarter Sessions.—Granted. FALMOUTH, appellant, Mr. STOKES and Mr. GENN; PENRYN, respondent, Mr. SHILSON and Mr. CORNISH (for Mr. E.J.B. ROGERS, of Penryn). Mr. GENN moved the appeal, which was against an order dated 27th of November last, by J.B. Read and Sampson Stephens, Esqrs., magistrates, for the removal of George Tregaskis from the borough of Penryn to the borough of Falmouth. Mr. SHILSON stated respondent’s case, and called in support of it the pauper, George Tregaskis; Benjamin Pellow, who had served an apprenticeship as a wheelwright with the late Mr. Wynn, of Falmouth; and Harriet Fursey, daughter of the late John Tregaskis, pauper’s brother. It appeared that the order of removal was founded upon an alleged settlement by hiring and service of the pauper with the late Mr. James Wynn, of Falmouth, who formerly kept the Royal Hotel, and had his own blacksmith’s and wheelwright’s work done on the premises. In the grounds of removal it was stated that the pauper was hired by Mr. Wynn at £9 a-year, and that he was in Mr. Wynn’s service ten years, his hiring commencing in 1801; and the evidence of pauper and Mr. Pellow, who is now a farmer, was, that pauper lived in Mr. Wynn’s house, and had his meat and slept there. It appeared, however, from Pellow’s testimony, that the pauper’s evidence before the removing magistrates was a mistake as to his service commencing in 1801, because Pellow, who went as an apprentice to Mr. Wynn in 1812, recollected the pauper being there at that time, and continuing with Mr. Wynn during the five years of Pellow’s apprenticeship, and afterwards. The first question therefore arising was as to the time when the service of pauper really commenced; and as the pauper’s present evidence (differing from what he gave before the magistrates) was that he commenced hiring and service in 1808, and it was shown by Pellow’s evidence that it could not have been in 1801, Mr. SHILSON, on the part of respondents, applied to have the grounds of removal and examinations amended, and 1808 substituted for 1801, as the commencement of the hiring and service. Appellant’s advocates resisted this, as being a very wide alteration; but the Court, after hearing what there was to be said on both sides, decided on making the correction. The next point was as to the validity of the hiring and service. Mr. Stokes argued, from the pauper’s manifest want of memory in giving evidence, that he was not to be relied upon with regard to the nature of his hiring, any more than as to its date, of which he had given different accounts; and Mr. Stokes submitted that respondent’s case had broken down. The CHAIRMAN, however, thought sufficient had been shown by respondents for appellants to be called upon to answer it. Mr. STOKES then called Mr. Robert P. Wynn, son of the late Mr. Wynn, with the view of showing that the pauper was hired for weekly wages, and not by the year, and that his wages were 3s. a week. Mr. Robert Wynn recollected the pauper coming to his father’s in 1809 or 1810, to work as a boy in the smith’s shop with his brother John Tregaskis, who was a married man and lived out of the house. Mr. R. Wynn believed the reason the boy George Tregaskis slept in the house was because he was sometimes wanted to ride expresses. Mr. Wynn also gave evidence as to the payments made to John Tregaskis and his brother, the pauper; but the Court did not think his evidence conclusive as to the point of weekly hiring and wages, and after hearing Mr. Shilson in reply, commenting on the whole of the evidence, the magistrates retired from the court, and on their return, the CHAIRMAN said the Bench were unanimous in confirming the order, but they disallowed costs. SECOND COURT. THURSDAY, JANUARY 8. (Before C.B.G. Sawle, Esq., M.P.) JOHN TIPPETT, 15, was charged with stealing 8 lbs. of miners’ candles, the property of William Barrett and others. Mr. Cornish (for Mr. Shilson) conducted the prosecution.—William Barrett stated that he works at Boscundle mine, near St. Austell. On Saturday the 29th November, he had 16lbs of candles, which he placed in three chests; one of the chests contained 8lbs. The chests were in a building called the barracks, just above the engine-house. It was an open building, but the chests were locked. On the following Monday morning, he found the chest containing 8lbs. had been broken open, and all the candles were stolen.—Eliza Bone, who works at Boscundle mine, saw prisoner there on Saturday afternoon, the 28th of November; he told her that he was going to the engine-house; that he had been drinking grog all the forenoon, and that he was not working anywhere.—John Clarke, miner at East Crinnis, on the 29th November met prisoner on the turnpike road coming from the direction of Boscundle mine, a few minutes after five o’clock. He came up to shake hands with witness, and as he was doing so, witness saw two candles inside the skirt of his coat hanging down; he had a bundle in his hand. When witness shook hands with him, he fell back, appearing to be tipsy; his bundle fell to the ground, and a pound of miners’ candles fell out of it. A young man present called John Dumble said to him, “You have been stealing candles again and you’ll be hanged for it.” Prisoner swore out that he did not care for that; he then took up the candles and went off.—George Webb, miner of St. Blazey, was at the Britannia Inn, on Saturday evening the 29th November, and saw prisoner there drinking grog. Witness asked him where he got his money from to spend so freely. He replied that he had had 10s. pay that day from Par Consols, and he had spent nearly the whole of it. Prisoner left the house, and in consequence of what witness had heard he went after him, and found him at the end of the house with a bundle in his hand and candles in his pocket. He brought him back to the Britannia, where prisoner said he had not got a candle about him; but witness turned up the end of his coat, and there were candles protruding through a hole. Witness told him he believed he had been stealing candles, and he should make a prisoner of him. Prisoner begged him to let him go, and said his mother would give him 30s. if he would do so.—Wm. Webb, brother of last witness, had prisoner in charge, and asked him where he got the candles; he did not hold out any inducement to him. This was outside the door, and prisoner said he got them from a little mine over there, pointing in the direction of Boscundle; he said he did not know the name of the mine. Elizabeth Treleaven, wife of Richard Treleaven, who keeps the Britannia Inn, said on Saturday afternoon, the 29th of November, prisoner was in her house drinking beer and grog, and he paid for it in candles. The Britannia was about a quarter of a mile from Boscundle mine. The CHAIRMAN—Are you in the habit of receiving candles from boys in payment for liquor? Witness—Yes, sir, from miners. The CHAIRMAN—Then I express my opinion that it is most improper for you to do so. Witness—It is customary. The CHAIRMAN—I don’t care whether it is customary, it is most improper.—John Vicary, constable of St. Blazey, took the prisoner into custody, and found a mask in his pocket; he took charge also of 7lb. of candles, which were found in prisoner’s possession.—John Puckey, mine agent at Par Consols, stated that prisoner did not receive 10s. pay from that mine in November last; he had not been employed there since September 1855. This concluded the evidence, and the Chairman having summed up, the jury found the prisoner GUILTY. A former conviction was also proved against the prisoner, at the assizes in March last, for stealing candles, on his own confession, from Waters, Williams, and others. There was likewise a charge against him on the present calendar for stealing a coat and a handkerchief from James Rowe, at Tywardreath, on the 28th of November. The CHAIRMAN told Mrs. Treleaven of the Britannia Inn, that he thought she must discontinue the practice of taking candles from boys in exchange for drink; if she did not she might get herself into a scrape; she must have known that this boy was of bad character. Mrs. Treleaven said she was informed that miners paid for their candles, and it was the usual practice in the neighbourhood to take candles from them at the public-houses; she was willing to discontinue the practice if others would do so. The CHAIRMAN said he was sorry to hear that it was the usual practice with the St. Blazey publicans; the sooner they discontinued it, the better. (Sentence: 5 years penal servitude, with a view of being sent to Parkhurst.) JOHN WEDGE, 19, pleaded GUILTY to a charge of obtaining by false pretences, on the 2nd of January, from William Hender Sowden, at Camelford, a pair of trousers and a coat, with intent to defraud W.H. Sowden. (Sentence: 1 month h.l.) ASSAULT ON A CONSTABLE.—JAMES PARSONS, 20, was charged with assaulting Pasco Gard, a constable of the parish of Minster, whilst in the execution of his duty. Mr. CORNISH (for Mr. Shilson) conducted the prosecution; & Mr. GENN, on behalf of Mr. Stokes, (who was engaged in the other court) defended the prisoner. Mr. CORNISH having stated the case, called Pasco Gard, constable of Minster, who said, on the 24th Nov., being fair-day at Boscastle, I was sent for by two messengers to come to the Bridge Inn, at eleven o’clock at night. When I came in, I heard a great noise up stairs of people cursing and swearing. The house was full of men and women, and I went up stairs to a room which was full; there were about twenty people in the room, and the two young men were stripped, with their jackets and waistcoats off; one was called Kellow and the other was James Parsons, the prisoner. I took Kellow, asked him what he was making such a noise about, and tried to put him down stairs. He lay back at first, but afterwards he went down stairs, and I saw no more of him. The other man, Parsons, remained in the room, with several men holding him. I told him to leave the place, and begged him to put on his jacket. Persons present said I was Mr. Gard, the constable, and he must be quiet. I had at that time my staff in my hand, and showed it to him, and said, “my dear man, why don’t you be quiet.” He was in a very great rage, and had been drinking, and many others were in the same way. He said he did not care for the constable or all the men in Boscastle. The landlady said if I would leave him quiet she would take him from me. I let him go and he left the room, but in about five or ten minutes after, I heard a great noise coming; I was standing near the door, which was pushed open, and the prisoner came in and struck me severely on the head. A great many people came in with him, many bad ones, and the room was full in a minute. I recovered from the blow and held up the mace against Parsons, and he caught hold of it with his hand. I said I was a constable and required the peace. The people rushing in carried us along, and we both went down on the floor. He struck me several times, but not whilst I was on the floor. The candle was put out, and I was struck several times by other people whilst I was on the floor. The landlord called out to bring a candle, but those behind put out the candles as fast as they were brought; at last a light was brought in, and the room was cleared. How I got up I don’t know; after I got up the prisoner made to strike me again. Cross-examined—I have been a constable two years. I showed the staff when I got up into the room. It was a small room; I should think there were twenty people there. I have been asked what I would compromise the matter for, and I said, five shillings; I did not get the five shillings. Re-examined—I was sorry to see the prisoner suffer for so many bad ones; I was ordered by the magistrates not to make up the case. John Cock, a boy, was at the Brig Inn on the night in question, and gave evidence coroborative of the assault; and said the prisoner came back with a mob of quarrymen.—William Marshall, landlord of the Brig Inn, stated that when Parsons left the house he knew Gard was a constable; the latter showed his staff. When Parsons left, there was a clear house; he came back, and there was a rush of people, and Parsons and the constable were “clenched” on the ground. I got into the room; and the lights were in, but before I could render assistance, they were put out. I called for lights and several were brought, but the press of people at the door made them out. It was four or five minutes before a light was got into the room, and during that time Gard and Parsons were “clenched” on the ground; Gard was trying to get up. I could not see what was going on, but there was a great bustle in the room. When the lights were brought I helped up Gard, and then cleared the house. I saw the prisoner strike Gard once, but was not in the room to see him strike the second time. Cross-examined—The people that came with Parsons were basket people and others at the fair; they were chiefly men, but there were some women.—Mr. GENN, for the defence, submitted that the first collision was a very harmless one between the parties, and that the second assault, when so many men came back with Parsons, must not be connected with the first. The impression sought to be conveyed by the prosecution was that Parsons went out and came back with a mob on purpose to assault the constable; but there was no evidence of that, and it did not appear he knew the constable was then in the house. The constable himself did not consider the assault was a serious one, for he had offered to take 5s. to make it up; perhaps he knew he had been rather hasty, and had not shown the latitude generally given by constables at fairs.—The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said it was absolutely necessary that the constables should be protected by the law in the execution of their duty, and he considered the constable in this case had acted with great discretion.—The jury returned the prisoner GUILTY. The prosecutor said he thought the man was encouraged by others, and be begged the court would be merciful and not give him a severe punishment.— The CHAIRMAN said the constable had acted very properly, and shown a kind disposition towards the prisoner. (Sentence: 4 months h.l.) JOHN ROBERTS had, on Wednesday, pleaded guilty of stealing, on the 31st of October, three sovereigns, the property of Walter Perry, from the boiler-house at Wendron Consols mine. (Sentence: 6 weeks h.l.) This concluded the business of the Second Court. FRIDAY, January 9. The Chairman, this morning, passed sentence on the prisoners, as follows:—[see individual cases]. In the course of delivering the sentences, the CHAIRMAN spoke of there being an increase of the crimes of poultry-stealing and of plundering corn, either in the straw or thrashed; and he gave warning that the Court will henceforth visit these offences with severe punishment. In sentencing the prisoner Cameron, a soldier, the CHAIRMAN said the Bench had been informed that he had served in the Crimea; he was a disgrace to the colours he had fought under.—The prisoner said, “it is many a good man’s case.”—The CHAIRMAN replied—“I believe, for the credit of the service, that is not so.” In sentencing Parsons, the CHAIRMAN expressed the determination of the Bench to protect constables in the performance of their duty, and to punish those who attacked them. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 27 March and 4 April 1857

2. Lent Assizes

The Crown Court was opened on Tuesday morning, at eleven o’clock. The calendar contained the names of forty-two prisoners, amongst which were the following indictments:— for murder 1; manslaughter, 1; stabbing and wounding, 2; concealment of birth, 1; arson, 2; assault with intent, 2; breaking and entering, 5; assault, 2; and the remaining cases were felonies. Owing to the non-arrival of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, Mr. Justice Williams presided in the Crown Court, and the following magistrates were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Hon. Lord Viscount Valletort, foreman. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. F. Howell, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Nicholas Kendall, Esq. J.P. Magor, Esq. John Tremayne, Esq. W.D. Horndon, Esq. G.W.F. Gregor, Esq. J.B. Messenger, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. D.W.H.J. Horndon, Esq. C.D. Bevan, Esq. R. Johns, Esq. H. Willyams, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. T. Graves Sawle, Esq. R.G. Polwhele, Esq. F.J. Hext, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. T. S. Bolitho, Esq. Besides the above the following Magistrates answered to their names:—W.H. Pole Carew, Esq., John St. Aubyn, Esq., C.A. Reynolds, Esq., J.W. Peard, Esq., S. Borlase, Esq., F.M. Williams, Esq., J.F. Trist, Esq., H.R.S. Trelawny, Esq., T.R. Avery, Esq., R.H. Stackhouse Vivian, Esq., W.A. Glynn, Esq., W. Marshall, Esq., Hon. and Rev. Townsend Boscawen, Rev. R.B. Kinsman, Rev. J. Perry, Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. The following Mayors answered to their names:—The Mayor of Bodmin, the Mayor of Camelford, the Mayor of Launceston, the Mayor of East Looe, the Mayor of Lostwithiel, the Mayor of Marazion, and the Mayor of Penryn. The following Coroners answered:—Mr. E.G. Hamley, Mr. T. Good. The Royal Proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, the learned Judge delivered the following [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY.—not transcribed] TRIALS OF PRISONERS. THOMAS NICHOLLS, 58, pleaded guilty of stealing a pair of shoes, the property of Edward Martin, at Redruth, on the 28th of February. He also pleaded guilty of stealing from the parcel office of the West Cornwall Railway station at Redruth on the 28th of February, a cloth parcel containing a coat, waistcoat and trousers, directed to “Richard Uren, Redruth Station till called for.” The prisoner also pleaded guilty of having been before convicted of a felony at Penzance. The learned Judge said, if the former conviction had been for a serious offence, he should have sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude; as it was not so, he should not sentence him to twelve months’ imprisonment, with hard labour; and if he came before the Court again on any charge, he would be sent for penal servitude. HOUSEBREAKING.—FRANCES PELLEW and MARGARET JAMES were charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of James Trewheela, at St. Erth, and stealing therefrom 60 lbs. of pork, a sack of flour, and a quantity of lard. They were also charged with receiving the articles knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Yonge appeared for the prosecution and called witnesses, from whose evidence it appeared that on the 3rd of December, prosecutor had a pig killed, which was salted and placed in a dairy in his dwelling- house. On coming down stairs on the morning of the 10th of December, prosecutor found that some bars of the dairy window had been ripped off, and the window was open. A quantity of pork, and some flour and lard had been stolen. On the 11th of December, Superintendent Armitage of the West Cornwall Railway police, in consequence of information went to the houses of prisoners at Kirton Wood, with a constable of Hayle, named Adams. The prisoners are sisters and live in adjoining houses under the same roof. The constables found in Margaret James’s house six pieces of pork, in a pantry, not concealed; it appeared to have been in salt about a week; there was also from 40 to 50 lbs. weight of flour, but that could not be identified. Frances Pellew lived in the adjoining house, with her brother, a miner. Armitage and Adams went into Pellew’s house, preceded by Margaret James, who said her brother was in bed. They met him coming down the stairs. There were two beds in the room; there were bedclothes on one, but none on the other. The witness Armitage said he searched the bed which had clothes on it, and there was nothing to be found therein. At this time the two prisoners were standing with their backs against a dresser in the same room. He went to move Frances Pellew away from the dresser, upon which she leaned her head down, and said she was in a fit and was dying. She went towards the bed, threw herself backwards on it, and again said “Oh, I am dying.” He told her he would lift her on a chair, but she said she would die on the bed. He then lifted her up, and found underneath her thirteen pieces of pork wrapped in a gown. The pork could not have been there when he searched the bed just before that. When he found the pork she began to swear at him. He went down stairs and found a pot of lard. He found the pork corresponded with the six pieces he had taken from James’s house, and with the pork remaining in prosecutor’s house. Other evidence was given on the question of identity; also as to a piece of ribbon found in the dairy, which was stated to correspond with some belonging to one of the prisoners; and to show that the prisoners had given false statements of having bought the pork of two shop-keepers. The learned Judge, in summing up, put it to the jury whether they were satisfied as to the identity of the pork. After some deliberation the jury found the prisoners GUILTY of receiving, knowing to have been stolen; and the prisoners were each sentenced to Six Months hard labour. The learned Judge re-called Mr. Armitage, the police superintendent, and said, I think you showed a proper degree of activity and sagacity in this case, and I order you a reward of 40s. JOHN DENTON, 21, pleaded GUILTY of stealing at Launceston, on the 31st of January, a pocket, two sovereigns and a shilling, from the person of Catherine Petherick, the property of William Petherick. The learned JUDGE said the prisoner had already been in custody six or seven weeks, and he should order him to be further imprisoned for five months. ROBERT METHERELL pleaded GUILTY of stealing oats, on the 27th of February, the property of John Philp, at Launceston. The prisoner called on Benjamin Sambells, policeman at Launceston, and two or three of the jury to give him a character. The JUDGE said the prisoner had kept poultry, and took oats intended for the sustenance of a horse. Sentence, one fortnight’s imprisonment. WILLIAM PARSONS, 22, pleaded GUILTY of stealing 10 lbs. of wool, the property of his master, Warwick Guy Pearse, of Lanteglos by Camelford, on or about the 20th of January last. JOHN COOK, 30, rag-gatherer, pleaded GUILTY of feloniously receiving the wool, knowing it to have been stolen. The learned JUDGE asked the prosecutor what was the value of the wool. Mr. PEARSE replied, from 1s. to 16d. per lb. Prosecutor also said he begged to recommend the young man, Parsons, to the merciful consideration of the Court. He had known him from a child; he had been in his employment nearly two years, and he had never known him misconduct himself before this occasion. He believed he had been induced to commit this offence by the other prisoner. Sentence, each prisoner to Four months’ hard labour. WILLIAM STOAT, a little boy, was indicted for having maliciously and feloniously set fire to a stack of hay at Truro, on the 18th of September last, the property of George Gregson. The little boy cried when he was placed at the bar, and he pleaded GUILTY to the charge. Sentence deferred. MANSLAUGHTER.—JOHN DICK, 21, seaman, was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying John Bray, on the 17th of March at Falmouth. He was also charged with the same offence on the coroner’s inquisition. The prisoner, on being arraigned, pleaded GUILTY to the charge. Mr. HODGES, on the part of the prosecution, said, if your lordship will be good enough to look at the statement of the prisoner before the coroner, I think there is reason to suppose it was a very accurate statement of what occurred. The learned JUDGE, after looking at the depositions, passed sentence as follows:—John Dick, I have listened to the recommendation of the prosecution, and I have read the petition which has been forwarded to me, and which appears to have been signed by very respectable inhabitants of the town of Falmouth. I have every reason to believe that what they state in that petition is quite true; that the unhappy man whose death you were the unfortunate cause of, provoked and struck you in the first instance, and that you had no intention whatever of seriously injuring him. The sentence of the Court, under all the circumstances, will be as lenient as it can be, considering you have been guilty of unlawfully taking the life of another. The sentence is, that you be imprisoned in the common gaol for one week. WILLIAM JENKINS was charged with stealing, on the 3rd of January, one yard of cloth, and on the 10th of January half a yard of cloth, and a yard of serge, the property of John William Grose. Prosecutor is a draper and tailor at Wadebridge, and prisoner was in his employ as foreman and cutter. Evidence was given by Mrs. Grose, and Miss Hicks, an assistant in the shop; but the jury did not consider the evidence sufficient, and after some deliberation they acquitted the prisoner, who had received a good character from some witnesses. EDWARD DROMGOLD, 40, pleaded GUILTY of stealing books, papers, prints, and pictures, at Stratton, on the 23rd of January.—Sentence, Three months hard labour. BURGLARY.—JOHN GUEST, 29, was indicted for burglariously entering the dwelling-house of Samuel Lang, at Cotehele, and stealing about £2 in money, and a piece of metal. The prosecutor, a merchant at Cotehele, was called down stairs about six o’clock in the morning of the 4th of March, and found his office had been broken into during the night; a desk had been cut open, and the papers were lying about the place. In the desk was the key of the iron chest, which had been taken out and the iron chest unlocked. In the chest was a box containing deeds and notes of hand, which had been cut open, and the deeds was scattered over the floor. There was a secret drawer connected with the iron chest, which was not opened. In the desk the prosecutor had silver to the amount of between two and three pounds, which was taken away. The house was safe at ten o’clock the previous night. Prosecutor had seen prisoner about the premises on the previous day, and being suspicious of him, he had loaded his gun that night, and placed two pistols under his pillow, but he heard nothing in the night. Prisoner was apprehended the day after the robbery by Thomas Betty, a constable of Callington, who found in his pocket £2 6s. 10½d., and amongst that money were a bad half- crown, a marked shilling and a four-penny piece, which Mr. Lang swore to as being some of his money. The constable took prisoner’s boots, and found tracks near the office window which correspond with them. Another constable stated that as he was taking the prisoner to Bodmin, when he arrived near that town he exclaimed “Death or Glory.” The constable asked him what he meant, and he said he should either be transported or acquitted. He said he wished he had been lucky enough to throw away the marked money, and then they would be able to do nothing against him. The prisoner was found GUILTY, and a former conviction in 1851, at the Devon Assizes, for housebreaking, was proved against him. He was sentenced to Penal servitude for six years. JAMES PASCOE, 26, pleaded GUILTY of breaking and entering the warehouse of Messrs. Ferris, tanners, at Truro, on the 5th of March, and stealing therefrom 25lbs. of leather. A second count, charged with feloniously receiving. The sentence on James Pascoe was deferred, A similar charge was preferred against EDWARD JENKIN, who pleaded NOT GUILTY. His trial was deferred till the next day. The Court then rose. SECOND COURT. Before F.W. SLADE, Esq., Q.C. [The non-arrival of Chief Justice Cockburn led to an alteration of the arrangements originally made for the conduct of the Courts in Cornwall. Instead of the Chief Justice opening the Crown Court, that duty was performed by Mr. Justice Williams, who continued to preside there throughout the day. In the Nisi Prius Court, Mr. Slade, Q.C., officiated as Judge in the trial of criminal cases only. There was only one Cause at Nisi Prius; and this one cause was postponed for trial before one of the Judges. Several causes had been expected to come on for trial; but, in consequence of the pending Election proceedings and the consequent occupation of legal gentlemen, they were mostly postponed till Lammas Assizes. The postponed causes included some for special juries; the special jurors in attendance were discharged at about half past 11 this morning.] SAMUEL STACEY, 21, a tailor, was charged with stealing two fowls, the property of John Broad, at Camelford, on the 2nd of March, 1857.—Mr. Hughes conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—The prosecutor had four fowls—one cock and three hens—which he kept in a bullock’s house near his dwelling-house; he saw them there safe in the evening of the 2nd March, but the next morning found that all had been stolen; there were near the bullock’s house, three heads and some feathers, and tracks of one foot, and of the end of a crutch; which circumstances led to the apprehension of the prisoner, who is lame—walking with his right foot only and a crutch. The prisoner lodged at a short distance from the prosecutor, with a man called Nicholls.—The case was clearly proved by the evidence of the prosecutor and Richard Coomb, the constable of Lanteglos by Camelford. The prisoner was found GUILTY, and was sentenced to four months hard labour. BURGLARY AT CAMBORNE.—CLEVER CAPTURE OF THE BURGLAR.—JOHN FLINN, aged 24, labourer, was charged with burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Cady, at Camborne, on the 20th of March, 1857, with intent to steal the goods and chattels of the said John Cady.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended, and was exceedingly violent in his language and demeanour as the several witnesses gave evidence against him. In all his questions and observations, he admitted his presence in the house, and in the housekeeper’s room—Elizabeth Matthews deposed:—I am a widow, and am housekeeper to Mr. John Cady; who lives at Camborne. Early in the morning of Friday last, I was disturbed by a noise; I thought it was Mr. Cady moving about the house, and I did not think much of it at first. I afterwards heard some one come into my bed-room. This was between one and two o’clock in the morning. I called out but got no answer; I called out a second time and heard some one answer me. The man said “don’t be alarmed; I will not harm you.” I was in bed. He got up across the bed and took hold of me by my two wrists. I found he was partly undressed. (The witness described that he was undressed on the lower part of his person, to about his waist). I screamed out as loud as I could to Mr. Cady, who slept near; and when I screamed out, the man said he was a robber. He said that twice. He then got off at one side of the bed, and I got out of bed on the other side. There was no light in the room at that time. He said he knew not how to get out of the room. I said that I would show him out. I put my hand on his shoulder and followed him out of the room. As soon as I got outside I called out loudly to Mr. Cady; and Mr. Cady said “I’ll be with you in a moment.” The prisoner then said “don’t be alarmed; good night.” Mr. Cady then came and took him by the collar, and put him into his bed-room. I saw the man afterwards, when lights were brought; it was the prisoner. I never saw him before that night.—By the Court:—When he got on the bed, he said “don’t be alarmed; I will not harm you”; he was then partly undressed; I know that, because I felt him; I suppose he would have committed an indecent assault on me, if I had let him.—John Cady:—I am a purser of mines and an accountant residing at Camborne. On Friday night last, between 1 and 2 o’clock, I was disturbed, I was awoke from a very sound sleep; and heard a great noise on the landing; I thought my housekeeper had a fit, or something of that kind; I said “Good God, what’s the matter? I’ll be there in a moment.” I went out on the landing, and found the prisoner there; I seized him by the shirt, and led him into my bed-room; I led him around the bed and got him between the bed and the wall, inside the fire-place; with my left hand I held him, and with my right hand I tried to light a piece of paper at the fire, which was not quite extinguished. I failed to light the paper; and I then thought if I could get him into my dressing-room I should effect my object—to secure my prisoner. I led him towards the exterior door, near to the dressing-room door; and when opposite the dressing-room door I managed to push him into the dressing-room, and I then closed and locked the door. I slipped on an article or two of dress, and went down stairs. I examined the windows, and found that entrance into the house had been affected by lifting the sash of the dining-room window; I am sure that I had seen that window closed the night before. After that I went to Mr. Bennetts, a neighbour, and alarmed him; and Mr. James and Mr. Samuel Vivian also came to my assistance. When we came back, we left Mr. Bennetts outside, to watch the windows. Mr. James, Mr. Vivian, and myself went upstairs; we found the prisoner in the dressing-room. When I had previously had him by the collar, I heard a noise, as of some key being dropped; and when I afterwards got a light, I found that a bunch of keys had been dropped on the mantle-piece, where I had heard the noise. The night before, I had left those keys in my office. When I found the prisoner, he blubbered, and pretended to be a fool or something of that kind; and when I got him into my dressing room, he fell on his knees.—I sent for a Policeman, and Noble came. On the landing, near the housekeeper’s room, I found a sleeve-waistcoat, and in the pocket of it I found a nail file, which was my property. The night before, I had left that file on the mantle-piece in my office. In the sitting-room, I found a pair of boots and a smock frock. I examined a portable desk that I had there, and found it had been opened—unlocked with my key, I should say, I had not unlocked it since it had been in my house—about 10 days. A part of the desk, near the secret drawer, had been broken off. I found the key of the front door, covered with some paper, near to the portable desk. When I went to bed the night before, I locked the front door, and put the skit, so as to prevent any one unlocking it; and I put the key on the mantel-piece.—George Noble, constable, who went to Mr. Cady’s, on being sent for on the night in question, stated that when he came there and found the prisoner in the dressing-room, he asked him where his jacket was; and he said he had a sleeve waistcoat outside. Mr. Cady went out and brought it in to me; and in the waistcoat pocket I found this little nail-file and case. I gave the waistcoat to prisoner and he put it on. I put him to the lock-up, and then returned to Mr. Cady, and saw the desk, where it had been broken open.—This being the whole of the evidence, the learned JUDGE summed up, directing the Jury that, to constitute the crime of burglary, there must be an intent to commit a felony; but it was immaterial what kind of felony; and in the present case it was immaterial whether the prisoner’s intent was to commit robbery, or to violate the woman.—In the course of his summing up, the learned JUDGE said that the very dexterous way in which Mr. Cady secured the prisoner, reflected much credit on him.—The jury found the prisoner Guilty.—Two previous convictions were proved against the prisoner; one at the Midsummer Sessions 1848, for stealing a sovereign and a crown-piece, the property of John Edwards, for which he was sentenced to six months hard labour; and the other at the Epiphany Sessions 1852, for stealing from the person of Richard Robins a silk handkerchief, for which he was sentenced to be transported for 7 years.—The learned JUDGE now sentenced the prisoner to PENAL SERVITUDE FOR SIX YEARS. WM. TREGAY, 42, a laborer, was charged with stealing one goose and a fowl the property of John Tippett, at St. Columb Major on the 6th of January, 1857; after previous conviction.—The prisoner pleaded guilty; but, on being questioned by the Judge whether he clearly understood the nature of the charge, as to previous conviction, the prisoner said he did not know about that; and, on this, the learned JUDGE directed that the prisoner should withdraw his plea, and the trial be proceeded with.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—The prosecutor lives at Bridge, in the parish of St. Columb; and occupies a farm at Talskiddy, about a quarter of a mile distant, and it was from the wain-house at this farm that the poultry named were stolen.—The case was proved by the testimony of the prosecutor and his wife, a labourer of theirs named John Tippett; Henry Comb, police constable of St. Columb; and Thomas Tucker, a labourer.—The prisoner, when called on for his defence, only pleaded for mercy. The jury found a verdict of GUILTY.—A previous conviction was proved against the prisoner; at the Midsummer Sessions, 1853, he was convicted of stealing 7 lbs. of beef the property of John Toms, and was sentenced to Two Months hard labour.—The learned JUDGE now sentenced him to Twelve Months hard labour. WILLIAM MORRISH, and THOMAS POOLEY, on bail, were charged with stealing one hatchet, four augers, one spanner, one paint-cloth, one wrench, two hammers, and other tools, the property of Henry Edgcumbe, at Launceston, on the 9th of January, 1857.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—The evidence for the prosecution was given by Henry Edgcombe (sic), the prosecutor; William Edgcumbe his father, and Charles Edgcumbe his brother; Benjamin Sambells, at the time of the alleged felony a police constable, and Simon Adams.—It appeared that the prosecutor was a master- wheelwright, and that his father and brother lived with and worked for him. Adjoining their dwelling-house, but without any interior means of communication, was the workshop, in which the tools, belonging to the prosecutor, were kept. The three Edgcumbes went to bed between 10 and 11 o’clock at night on the 9th of January; and, after being in bed some time, they were disturbed by a noise in the work-shop. The attention of Charles Edgcombe was attracted by a noise, as of the rattling of a chain, and then he heard a noise as of the gathering up of tools; and in this, his evidence was confirmed by his brother Henry. From the evidence of Henry and his father, it appeared that the street door of the work-shop was fastened with chain inside, and that on closing the shop they left it by a back-door leading into a courtlage by which they passed to the dwelling-house, taking the key of the back-door with them, the door being perfectly closed the night before, when Henry and Charles Edgcumbe came down. On hearing the noise above mentioned, they found it had been opened, and Henry at first saw Pooley in the shop and asked him what he was doing there; and on Pooley’s saying he wanted a night’s lodging, Henry said he would give him a night’s lodging in the dwelling-house; intending thus to secure him. On this, Charles tells his brother that there was another man inside the shop; and at Henry’s request, Charles goes away to get assistance. The prisoner Morrish, coming out of the shop, seeing Henry Edgcumbe and Pooley together, put his hand on Pooley’s shoulder and said “steady, steady.” Charles then went off to get assistance; and during his absence, the two prisoners contrived to get away from Henry, and ran away up a hill, followed by some of the Edgcumbes. Morrish, the heavier man, was caught at a gate by the leg, by Henry; and at this time, an old, ragged cloth, dirty with paint, and which was laid in the indictment, fell from him. (For the defence it was suggested that it might have hitched to a button of his dress, accidentally.) Pooley was afterwards caught also; and both prisoners were handed over to Sambells, the policeman, and placed in the lock-up; and then they made excuse that they entered the shop for the purpose of getting a night’s lodging, being 10 or 12 miles from their home at Linkinhorne.—The next day, a man called Simon Adams, coming on with his cart, within 3 or 4 land-yards of the gate where Morrish was caught, found on the road two hammers, which were found to be the prosecutor’s property, and to have been left in the workshop by the brother Charles on the night in question.—With reference to the other tools named in the indictment, there had been no actual removal from the shop, but they had been collected as for the purpose of removal, and were found together by the Edgcumbe’s (sic) when they came down into the workshop.—For the defence, it was admitted that the two prisoners were in the workshop as alleged, but it was suggested that they were there for no felonious intent, but, as they had stated, for the purpose of getting a night’s rest.—Evidence of Morrish’s good character was given by his landlord, Richard Serjeant, a house proprietor at Linkinhorne, who had known Morrish for 10 years and never heard anything against him. Pooley, it appeared, lodged with Morrish, and both were miners.—As in other cases, the learned JUDGE summed up with care, and judiciously confining the jury’s attention to leading points.—The jury, after long consideration in their box, found both GUILTY, but strongly recommended them to mercy.—The learned JUDGE sentenced them to six weeks hard labour each; remarking that, but for the jury’s recommendation to mercy he should certainly have passed on on (sic) them a much more severe sentence, inasmuch as their respectable sphere in life ought to have placed them above temptation. The learned JUDGE, further, took occasion to speak of the evils resulting from habits of drunkenness. JOHN WILTON, alias SMITH, 18, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a quantity of horse-hair, the property of William Crowl, at Budock, on the 5th of March, 1857.—Sentence, Six weeks’ hard labour. MARY ANN DREW, 23, lodging-house keeper, was charged with stabbing and wounding John Cavill, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm, at Truro, on the 22nd of February, 1857. Mr. COLE conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—John Cavill deposed—I am a labourer at Truro; on the 22nd of February I was at the house Joseph Menheniot at Chapel-hill. I was sitting by the fire, on a stool, and the prisoner opened the door, rushed in on me, and stabbed me in the face with a pair of scissors. (The witness showed a mark near the left eye, where the wound had been made). It bled very near a tea-cup full. I said, my God, I am stabbed.” A girl called Catherine Cock came to my assistance. A constable was sent for, and the prisoner was taken into custody.—By the Court—She had the scissors in her right hand. I cannot say if I was stabbed with much force; I was stunned; she did not knock me off the stool; I can hardly say it was a very severe blow; if the scissors had been sharper, they would have gone deeper. There was no doctor sent for. The wound has been well about a week. I had some sticking-plaster put on it, washed it, and so on. It was swollen a good deal at the time.—Joseph Menheniot: I remember the 22nd February. I was upstairs at the time this happened; I heard Cavill cry out “My God, I’m stabbed;” I got out of bed and went down stairs as quick as I could, and saw Mary Ann Drew in the hands of Catherine Cock, who was holding her, and she held the scissors in her right hand, above her head. Cavill was near the fire, sitting down; I saw his face bleeding very much. I tried to take the scissors from Drew; but she got away and made her escape; I afterwards saw Cavill’s wound; it was swollen very much, and bled. I went for the police, and the prisoner was taken up.—By the Court.—There had been a previous quarrel between her and the young man; merely a few angry words a short time before, about the prisoner getting a little intoxicated. That is the only reason I can assign for it.—John Gay, police constable of Truro, was sent for in the afternoon of the day when this happened. I went to the house and saw Cavill holding his face over a large pool of blood; and he made a complaint of what had happened. I went after the prisoner, and found her at her own house; the door was locked, and at first she refused to let me in; but on my telling her that I must be admitted and that I should force the door if necessary, she let me in. I charged her with stabbing John Cavill; she screeched out and said “Oh, my God, I have done for myself now.” I then took her into custody.—The Prisoner, in defence, stated to the jury that she and Cavill had lived together some months before the 22nd of February, and frequently quarrelled through the means of this other young woman. On this Sunday night he had been to prisoner’s house, and she afterwards saw him go into Catherine Cock’s house, and, looking through the window, saw him and her in very improper intercourse. This irritated the prisoner, and she went back into her own house, and after speaking to a young man who came there, she went into the house where Cavill was and struck him; and on this, Catherine Cock flew at prisoner and struck her; and prisoner struck her again. The prisoner denied that she had any scissors in her hand at all.—The learned JUDGE, in summing up inclined to the opinion that the prisoner had no intent to do grievous bodily injury, and directed the jury that they might find her guilty of unlawfully wounding; and this, he thought, would sufficiently satisfy the justice of the case.—The jury, accordingly, after some consultation, returned a verdict of guilty of unlawfully wounding.—There was another indictment for stabbing and wounding Catherine Cock, with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm, at Truro, on the 22nd February; but on this indictment no evidence was offered, and a verdict of acquittal was directed.—The learned JUDGE then sentenced the prisoner to six weeks imprisonment. The court then rose. CROWN COURT, WEDNESDAY, March 25. Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS. THE PENWARNE BURGLARY AND ROBBERY OF PLATE.—GORDON TREVANION CHADWICK, 41, described as a “miner”, and JOSEPH QUICK, 29, roper were indicted for burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Michael Nowell Peters, clerk, at Mawnan, on the 24th July, 1856, and stealing three wine-coolers, two decanter stands, four candlesticks, one covered quart, three pepper stands, ten prongs, one tea-pot, one silver pint, and a quantity of other articles, the property of the said Michael Nowell Peters. The property was formally laid as of the value of £10 and upwards; but was stated by the counsel for the prosecution to be really of the value of more than £200.—In the second count, the prisoners were charged with feloniously receiving. RICHARD JENKIN had been held to bail at the same time that Chadwick was committed for trial; but he did not surrender, and it was rumoured that he had some months since left the country.—Mr. Stock and Mr. Hodges conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Cole defended both Chadwick and Quick. Mr. STOCK stated the case to the Jury, observing, with reference to the counts of the indictment, that he thought the evidence would be such as to satisfy the jury that both prisoners were guilty of the actual commission of burglary, rather than as merely as felonious receivers. By request of Mr. Cole, the witnesses were ordered out of Court, with the exception of the prosecutor and Mr. J. Borlase(?). Rev. Michael Nowell Peters deposed—I am the incumbent of the parish of Madron, near Penzance. I have a residence in the parish of Mawnan, called Penwarne, about 4 miles from Falmouth, and 22 miles from Madron. I am in the habit of being absent from Penwarne very frequently. On the 24th of July last, I was absent from Penwarne; I had left it on the 19th to go to my living, leaving at Penwarne my son-in-law, Mr. John Borlase, and his lady, and several of my servants. I returned to Penwarne the day after this robbery was committed, and found a large quantity of plate missing, and also two guns; this property was all there on the 19th when I left. I was at that time building a new wing to my house; that new wing was in an unfinished state on the 19th, the roof was on, but the window was not glazed; from the gravel walk in front of my house a person might get into the unfinished part of my house through the unglazed window, which is only about 4 feet from the ground. From the new part of my house there was a small door about 3 feet wide, on the ground floor, leading into the pantry in the old building; that doorway had been opened only about 3 weeks, and the door was always kept locked, with a strong door-lock. By obtaining access through that door, a person might go through the whole house. The bedroom in which Mr. Borlase slept was over the kitchen; and the window of that bed-room looks out on a road that runs at the back of the house; and on the opposite side of that road is a house used as a boot-house and wood-house. Since the loss, I have seen some of my plate and a gun.—Cross-examined. The road at the back of my house, and between it and the foot house, is a private road, and not open to the public. John Borlase:—I am son-in-law of Mr. Peters, and live with him at Penwarne. I was residing with Mrs. Borlase, at Penwarne, on the night of this robbery; and we were the last persons up that night; the servants had gone to bed. I and Mrs. Borlase went up-stairs about 12 o’clock; Mrs. Borlase going to the bed-room, and I to my library, which is one of the front rooms; I remained in the library about half-an-hour, and then went to my bed-room; when I got there, I found that Mrs. Borlase’s light was out. I brought in a light with me and placed it on the table, in full view of the window; the window had no shutters, but a linen blind. I heard the clock strike one when I was in bed and the light was out. The next morning I was down stairs about 6 o’clock, and I and my groom Evans started for Penzance shortly after 6 o’clock; at that time I knew nothing of what had happened; I had not been disturbed during the night.—Cross-examined. I cannot say if the door between the pantry and the unfinished part of the house was fastened or not that night. I had been sitting in the dining-room. The door that was broken open entered into the butler’s pantry, where the plate was kept. My groom had got up before me, to get my horse. William Evans:—On the 23rd July last I was living as groom with Mr. Borlase at Penwarne. On the night of the 23rd of July I went to bed about 10 o’clock. I had got instructions to get up early next morning to drive my master to Redruth, and I got up about 5 o’clock. I went to master’s dressing-room for his clothes, and then went down stairs to clean his boots and get ready to go; we left about 10 minutes past 6. Before I left I went down into the pantry for the knives and cleaned them; I saw a decanter-stand on the floor; I did not say anything about it to master, not knowing how the house had been left at night. The door between the pantry and the new building was open; but I did not know whether the builders had left it so or not, and I said nothing about it. Sarah Quick:—I was living as housemaid in the service of Mr. Peters at the time of this robbery, and had been in his service about two years at that time, living all that time at Penwarne. I and the cook went to bed about 10 o’clock on the night of the robbery; the men-servants having gone bed before. At that time, Mr. and Mrs. Borlase were still up. I know the pantry were the plate was kept; and shortly before I went to bed I saw the pantry; at that time there was, to my knowledge, a great quantity of place there, and the door that opens from the pantry into the unfinished part of the house, was locked; it had not been unlocked for several days; before I went to bed I saw that door was locked, and I believe it was then in a perfectly safe and uninjured state. I came down stairs shortly after six o’clock the next morning; I went into the pantry, and the first thing I observed there, was two decanter-stands that had been brought out of the dining-room and placed on the table in the pantry; I had seen them in the dining-room the previous evening; I found the plate drawer open, and all the plate was gone from it. The door of the pantry that led to the kitchen had no lock. On the night of Wednesday the 23rd of July there was also a considerable quantity of plate in the dining-room, kept on the side-board; and on the morning when I came down and found the plate gone from the pantry, I looked into the dining-room, and saw that all the plate was gone from there also. Besides the plate in the dining-room and the pantry, there had been a sliver ink-stand in the drawing-room; I had seen it there between 6 and 7 o’clock in the evening. When I came down in the morning, about 6 o’clock, the door between the pantry and the unfinished part of the house was wide open, and the lock was hanging on by two screws; I am quite sure that the door was safe locked the night before, when I went to bed.—Cross-examined. There had been a good many workmen about the house for some time, and there were men at work there in the morning when I came down.—Re-examined.—The prisoner Quick is my brother. Charles Snell: I was in the service of Mr. Peter’s at Penwarne, in July, as hind. On the night of the 23rd July I went to bed between 9 and 10 o’clock; the following morning I got up between 6 and 7 o’clock, and went down into the pantry, Sarah Quick and Henry Packhouse being there; I took notice of the door that leads from the new building into the pantry; the lock was broken off and partly hanging. On the floor, and partly leaning against the door, I saw a piece of iron; it was outside the pantry, and in the new building. I took up that piece of iron and the same day I gave it to the constable Armitage. Before the day of the robbery there was a double-barrelled gun in the kitchen; I had placed it there a few days before, on the gun-rack; when I put it there, the left hand barrel was loaded. When I got up on the 24th, that gun was missing; I cannot say exactly that I saw it in the kitchen on the 23rd, but I never found it missing before the morning of the 24th.—In the course of that morning I found near the house a gun which I now produce; I found it by the side of the road that leads from the back of the house towards Falmouth, and about 300 yards from the house, near a plantation, and just inside a little bound. That gun belonged to Mr. Peters, and had been kept in the boot-house; the boot-house was hardly ever locked. Near that gun, and on the bound of earth, there was a plenty of foot-marks—some of them tolerably plain; I showed them to the constable Armitage the same day. On the other side of the bound was a hay-field. I was with Armitage when he compared the piece of iron which I had found near the pantry door, with marks on the door, between the lock and the door; and found them correspond. The lock was on the side of the door towards the new building, not in the pantry. I also saw on the same side of the door, some other marks which this piece of iron did not fit. The iron was a round piece, flattened at one end. (It was produced in Court by George Julyan, a constable; and was identified by the witness Snell). There were two or three marks that corresponded with the iron which had been used to wrench off the lock. William Henry Spargo.—I live at Stithians, and work as a stone-mason; on the morning of the 24th of July, between ½ past 3 and 4 o’clock, I was going to my work, and was about 2 or 300 yards from Oppy’s Croft, and in a parish road leading to the croft, when I saw, in the neighbourhood of the Croft a man getting over a hedge between a field and a little plantation, and between 2 and 300 yards of Oppy’s Croft; [the man?] was not many yards from me when I saw him; when I first saw that man getting over the hedge, he had a gun with him. I lost sight of that man behind the plantation for a minute or two, and then saw him again, standing in a gap of a hedge. At this time there was another man with him, and they were standing close together; one of them had a bravish size parcel with him, and the other had a gun. I spoke to them and asked them what they were about. Chadwick said they had lost the road; and I said “here is the parish road close along side.” Chadwick then said he wanted to know the Stithians road to Penryn. We were then in Stithians parish, I told him the road; and then Chadwick said “can’t we go a nigher road than that?” and pointed athwart the croft, where there was no road. I told him that I did not think he had lost his road, and that he was there about the rabbits. He did not make any answer to that. I asked him where was the gun they had got with them; and Chadwick said they had no gun with them. I said “I am perfect sure you got a gun with you; I saw it this minute.” I told them they had better be gone from there about the rabbits, or perhaps they would get into it. That was all that passed between us; and I went away leaving them there. I am quite sure that the man who spoke to me was Chadwick; I should think it was a brave piece of 5 minutes that I was talking to them. When I lost sight for about a minute, of the man I first saw, the trees cut off the sight of him. From that place to where I afterwards saw Chadwick in company with another man was a distance of about 30 yards. I cannot say if the man I first saw was Chadwick or not. —By the Court.—I cannot positively say if the man I saw with the gun was one of the two men I afterwards saw together. The man I first saw had on a black coat, but I could not observe the other part of his dress. Chadwick, the man I afterwards talked with, had a black coat and lightish trowsers. I can’t tell as to his being about the same size as the man I saw with the gun. The other man was dressed all in dark. Walter Watters, a boy; I work with my father on Mr. Peters’s farm at Crill, about half a mile from Penwarne. The morning after the robbery I was working in a hay-field near the road, and found in the field, about 200 or 300 yards from the great house, a chisel. Adjoining the hay-field is the high road. I put the chisel in a thorn tree in the field, and told persons that I had found it; and when my sister Hester brought me my dinner I gave it to her to take home.—Hester Watters, sister of last witness proved that she took the chisel home to her mother, and that in the course of the same day, she saw her mother give it to John Thomas, who came there for it.—John Thomas, who worked at Penwarne in July, proved that he received the chisel from Mrs. Watters, and gave it to Henry Edwards, constable of Penryn, on the day after the robbery.—Henry Edwards, constable of Penryn, after stating that he received the chisel from the last witness, and identifying it on its being produced by the policeman, George Julyan, said:—I examined both the piece of iron and the chisel with marks on the pantry door; John Thomas and the constable were with me at the time. I compared with the piece of iron, three marks—one by the side, and two on the top, of the lock; and the result was that the marks corresponded exactly with the iron, so that I was able to say that those marks were produced by that piece of iron. With regard to the chisel, I saw on the top of the lock a mark that exactly corresponded with it; the chisel having been used between the upper part of the lock and the door, so as to make a place for the crow-bar. The frame of the lock was of wood. I gave both the chisel and the iron to Julyan.—Cross-examined. The chisel is one of common width; it is a manufacturer’s chisel—not one made down in the country; and chisel of that size and form might have made that mark. Henry Donnell, carpenter:—I reside at Perran Downs, near Marazion. I knew the prisoner Chadwick from about the 16th of June to the midle (sic) of July; he was employed at East Trefusis mine near Redruth, as a watchman. I was working there as a carpenter at the same time. The chisel now produced is my property. When I was working at Wheal Trefusis, I lent a chisel to Chadwick; but it was a smaller one than that now produced, and he returned it to me. I was in the habit of keeping my chisels in the carpenter’s shop, to which Chadwick had access. I commenced working at the mine on the 16th of June and continued working there till about the middle of July; I used my chisel up to that time, and then I found it wanting; I made inquiry of different men at the mine, but could get no report of it.—Cross-examined.—I cannot say exactly when Chadwick left the mine. The men at the mine might come into the carpenters shop at any time, while I was working there; and other men might have been working in the shop besides me. I made the handle of the chisel; but there is nothing uncommon in the chisel itself; it is one that I bought at a shop. John Dunstan:—I was living at Stithians in August last, and kept the Stonemason’s Arms there. I recollect the day when I heard tell that some silver plate had been found in Oppy’s Croft. On the evening before that day—on the 26th of August, a man named Mr. Jenkin, who has been charged with receiving this plate, and this gentleman here (Chadwick) came to my house, about 9 o’clock in the evening, and they remained there the best part of an hour; they sat together at one table and had refreshment. After staying about an hour, they inquired the way to Stithians Church Town; I think it was Jenkin who spoke; I told them I would show them the road, and I went on with them a few hundred yards till we could see the lights of Stithians Church- town, and I told them to make for those lights. Stithians Church-town is about 2 miles from my house. From where I left them it is about 50 to 60 yards to the end of the lane that leads to Oppy’s Croft, and it was about 100 yards from the main road down the lane to the Croft. James Oppy:—I live in the parish of Stithians, near Oppy’s Croft which is in my occupation. This croft is about 4 miles from Penwarne house. About 5 o’clock in the morning of the 27th of August I was out in front of my own door; I can see the Croft from my door; it is about 3 or 400 yards off. I saw two men in the Croft; they were looking around and stinking down the bushes and furze with their feet. As soon as they saw me they started off, when I had not been looking at them more than half a minute. I went in, put on my shoes, and went after them. I know the spot where some plate was afterwards found; the two men were about 7 or 8 feet from that spot. I put on my shoes and went after them, they were going very fast towards Stithians Church-town, I went after them and got in with them in a short time; they were Chadwick and Jenkin. When I came up to them I asked them what business they had there about the rabbits again; and Jenkin said (Chadwick being close by) “my dear man, we are not going to rabbit; we have neither ferret, net, nor dog with us.” He said they had missed something and were in search of it, and had missed their road. I said “I’ll have you took up before this day is out; I’ll go back and see what you have been doing in the Croft.” When I went back to the place where they had been, I saw that the dew was beat off and the grass and furze stanked down for about 40 or 50 feet around where the plate was afterwards found; but not at that exact spot. They soon came to me there. I had seen Chadwick and Jenkin the night before; I keep a beer-house, and they came there and had a quart of beer.—Cross-examined:—It had been said that the plate was hid there in the croft; some persons had mistrust of it; and there was a reward of £50 for apprehending the persons who did it. I did not care any thing about finding the plate; I never went to see for it. Christopher Oppy:—I am a son of last witness, and work for him as a blacksmith. I was in Oppy’s Croft on the 27th of August last, between 2 and 3 in the afternoon, and made search there for Mr. Peters plate. For a good while I could not find any thing; I afterwards saw a part of the croft that had been beaten and trodden down’ about 5 or 6 feet from that spot, and about 3 or 400 yards from the road, I found some articles of silver; there were three stones over it and a bush of furze; I moved one of the stones and could then see the silver. I made an alarm, and Edward Slade came to me, and then many others; among them, Holman, who took out the plate. Some of it was in two bags, and some of it out loose. We carried it away about 100 yards from where it was found, and then the constable Holman took it in his possession. On the 21st of October I was in the croft again, and found a gun lying down among the furze; I first saw the stock sticking out an inch or two from the furze. I sent for the constable John Thomas; he came the next morning about 8 o’clock, and I showed him the gun, lying in the same position as when I first found it. Thomas took possession of it; it was a double barrelled gun, and the left-hand barrel was loaded. Edward Slade: I live at Penryn, and carry on business as a watch and clock maker. On the 27th of August last I was passing through Stithians parish, and heard an alarm made by the last witness; and, in consequence, I went to Oppy’s Croft, and the young Oppy pointed out to me something, in a heap; it was a quantity of plate; I took possession of it and made a rough list of it. I kept the plate in my possession, binding it up in the two bags, which were rotten from having been exposed; I took it down to the turnpike road, and placed it on a butt or wain; I made a list of the plate and handed it over to the constable Holman. James Holman: I am a constable of Stithians parish; on Wednesday the 27th of August I received from Edward Slade a quantity of silver plate, on the road between Penryn and Helston, about 300 yards from Oppy’s Croft. (This witness produced the plate, and placed the various articles on the table, where they acccupied (sic) a considerable space; the articles consisting of 3 candlesticks (the stem of each being in the form of a lyre), a large ink-tray, 2 large wine-coolers, mustard pot, nearly a dozen prongs, fish-slice, butter- knife, large salver, 2 smaller salvers, teapot, cruet-stand, large soup-ladle, large mug and cover, small mug without cover, and decanter-stand. John Thomas, constable of St. Gluvias:—On the 22nd of October, in consequence of something I heard from young Oppy, I went in the morning to Oppy’s Croft, and he showed me a gun, lying in some thick Cornish furze; the gun had evidently been there some time; it was very rusty, and where it touched the ground, the grass was grown on each side of it. I found that the left-hand barrel was loaded; and I took the load out.—(This witness produced the gun, which appeared to be a very valuable one). Before I found this gun, Chadwick had been in my custody. I apprehended Mr. Chadwick on Saturday the 30th August, and he was in my custody five days and nights. During the time he was in my custody there was some conversation between me and Chadwick about these things, and he said he supposed he should be accused of taking the gun too; there had been nothing said about the gun being found. Henry Armitage: I am a police officer in the service of the West Cornwall Railway Company. The day after the robbery at Penwarne I went there about 4 o’clock in the afternoon. The footmarks of two men were pointed out to me in a plantation behind Penwarne House, and I examined them. There is a private road at the back of the house, and a road leads from that private road to Stithians; it was near the angle where these two roads join that I examined the footmarks. The tracks were in the direction towards Falmouth, and traced them from that spot towards Budock; they were the footmarks of two men, apparently going from Penwarne House. I measured their lengths; one of them measured exactly 12¼ inches, and the other full 10½ inches. I did not compare the shoes of the prisoners with those marks; the ground was very wet and soft, and I could only take the length of the marks. I apprehended the prisoner Quick on the 18th of September at Davey’s rope yard in Illogan; I took off his shoes and made impressions of them in the rope- yard, and found that they measured 12¼ inches in length. Before I measured, I said to Quick, “if you were one of those who were at Penwarne, your shoes will measure 12¼ inches; and I found that they measured that, to a hair’s breadth.—I traced some of those footmarks from Penwarne, for about a quarter of a mile.— Subsequently a spot was pointed out to me by Snell, where a single barrelled gun was found, and I found the same two sets of tracks there also. Davey’s rope walk, where I apprehended Quick, is in the parish of Illogan, and about 10 miles from Penwarne. After I had apprehended him, I cautioned him in the usual way, that whatever he said, I should have to repeat to the magistrates, on his examination; I told him that, just after we left Mr. Davey’s, as I was taking him to Redruth; the constables Rodda and Nicholls, were assisting me. On arriving at Redruth, I left him in Nicholl’s house, and about 4 in the evening I saw him again and remained with him about two hours. During part of that time I was alone with him, and he made a statement to me. After he had made the statement, he asked me if I could recollect all that he told me, and said I had better fetch pen, ink, and paper and put it down in writing. I did so, and read over what he had said to me; he said it was was (sic) quite correct, and signed it. I have the paper here—the very paper I wrote down and which he signed. (The witness produced the paper). The witness here underwent a severe cross-examination with reference to circumstances attending the prisoner Quick’s making and signig (sic) the statement referred to, and as to the witness’s own share in getting up the case. He said I am a railway policeman, and it is my duty to attend to the railway. I was employed by Mr. Peters to interfere in this matter; I did not at that time know that there was a reward of £50. Before I apprehended Quick, I did know of that reward. Chadwick was in custody and committed, and I was present and heard every thing at his examination. When I apprehended Quick, I did not immediately begin questioning him. I asked him if his name was Quick, and told him the charge on which he was apprehended.—Mr. Nancarrow, the foreman at Mr. Davey’s told me that Quick was a very quiet young man, and that he had not been away from his work at the time of the robbery. I did say to Quick that I had heard he was with Chadwick at Penwarne; and Mr. Nancarrow said, “if this young man has lost any time in going to Penwarne, I can prove it by my books.” I told Quick that I must take him to Redruth; I did so, and Rodda and Nicholls, who came to the rope-walk, went with us. I heard Quick say at that time that he did not know Chadwick.—I heard Nicholls and Rodda say to him that Jenkin’s wife had told all about it; I think it was Nicholls said that. When I saw Quick at Nicholl’s house at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, Quick was chained in a room there; Nicholls and Rodda were not with him then. When Quick began to make his statement, I told him I would not deceive him, and that I should tell the magistrates all that he should tell me; I also told him that his shoes corresponded, in length, with shoe-marks I had found at Penwarne, and that there was a chisel found in a hay-field. I did not tell him that, if he did not confess, Mr. Peters would punish his sister, and that the sooner he confessed, the better it would be for him; he asked me if his sister was in custody, and I told him she was not. I did not tell him that I could bring a man who had seen him at Stithians. I did not tell him that Chadwith (sic) had said that he (Quick) was the man who was with him; but I did tell him, after he had made his statement, that Chadwick was in custody. When he had made his statement and I had put it down in writing, I did not give it into his hands and ask him to read it, but I read it over to him, and he signed it. I read over the whole of it, before he signed it; he said it was all perfectly true. Are you the person who has got up this case against Quick? No; there are 7 constables.—Do you expect to get the £50 divided between you? I don’t expect any particular part; I have had no offer of any particular part of it.—How much do you expect to get if the men are convicted? I don’t expect any particular part of it.—But the more you can get, the better, I suppose? Certainly.—You and the other constables have been quarrelling already about who is to have it; have you not? I never heard a word about it. This witness was asked many questions by Mr. Cole, apparently with the design of introducing contradictory evidence as to circumstance attending the apprehension of Quick and the statement made by him. Armitage’s answers were mostly of a negative character, in denial of the suggestions contained in the learned Counsel’s questions; and they were not ultimately met by any counter evidence. Mr. STOCK then proposed to read Quick’s statement; but Mr. COLE objected.—The learned JUDGE held that the statement was admissible.—Mr. COLE then submitted that if the statement were read, the only name that ought to be mentioned should be that of the person who made the statement.—The learned JUDGE assented to the adoption of this course. Mr. GURNEY, the Clerk of Assize then read the statement, substituting, as he read it, the initials A.B.— which were not the initials of any particular person—for a real name which had been mentioned by Quick, and written by Armitage. The Statement as read, was therefore, as follows:— Joseph Quick, after being cautioned by me, made the following statement:—That a fortnight before the Penwarne robbery, A.B. and himself agreed to go to Penwarne and break into the house to get some silver plate; the night the robbery was committed we met at Richard Jenkins’s house about four o’clock. After waiting there about an hour, we left and went to Penwarne, and when we got there we saw a light at the back of the house upstairs in the chamber; we waited until the light was put out; then A.B. told me to keep watch outside, and he would go in; he then went round to the front of the house out of my sight. I was standing on the gravel walk behind the house, when A.B. returned with one bag of silver plate, and then went back for another bag of silver plate; he then went back again, and brought out a gun; he then went into a little house like a boot-house and brought out another gun, he then told me to carry one bag and a parcel, I told him I would not; when he said if I did not he would shoot me. I then took one bag and the parcel; he took the other bag and the two guns; we then went a short distance from the house on the road back; he then threw the old gun away. We went on until we came to a croft in Stithians, where we hid the two bags and the gun. A.B. then took the parcel from me; we saw a man that spoke to A.B. We then went to Redruth to the house of Thomas White, and A.B. gave him the parcel of silver plate, and told him he had made a smash at Penwarne, and he was to take care of it. White then took it away. The above statement was made by me, Joseph Quick, in the presence of Henry Armitage and William Nicholls.” The witness Armitage was then further examined by Mr. STOCK. He deposed:—After I had read over that statement, Quick said it was correct. About an hour afterwards, Nicholls came in, and the paper was shown to him. Nicholls asked Quick if he had made that statement, and he said yes. Nicholls then read it over to him, and he told Nicholls it was quite correct; and, on that answer, Nicholls put his name to it. Afterwards, Quick said he had been to Plymouth and did not know that his brother had been had up about it, or he should not have returned.—Armitage further confirmed the evidence previously given, as to the correspondence of marks on the pantry door and lock, with the chizel (sic) and piece of iron. Thomas Dungey:—I am the principal warder at the county gaol. A few days after Chadwick was brought into the gaol, I took a pattern in paper of the sole of his shoe, and handed it to the governor, who sent it to Armitage. (The witness produced the pattern).—Cross-examined.—I cannot say how many prisoners there are in the gaol with feet of about that size. Armitage Recalled, proved that he had received the paper pattern by post, and that it measured 10½ inches in length. Richard Rodda, constable, was sworn, but he was not examined on behalf of the prosecution. In answer to a question from Mr. COLE, he stated that Quick was in an agitated state when apprehended. William Nicholls, constable of Redruth. I assisted in apprehending Quick, and he was taken to my house at Redruth. I left him there for a time, and returned in the evening; when I came back, I went into the room where Quick and Armitage were, and saw this paper produced. I duly cautioned Quick and told him what he had told me in the morning with respect to Chadwick was false; and he said it was. I then deliberately read this paper, aloud, and said “is that true?” He said it was. I then said “is that your signature?” He said yes. I then put my name to the paper.—Cross-examined. I had no other conversation with him at that time. I had a little conversation with him in the morning; I did not tell him that Jenkins wife had told all, nor that I had arrested his brother but could prove nothing against him; nor did Rodda in my presence.—I had heard of the reward; there had been no dispute about it, on my part. There has been no correspondence between the Constables, in the Cornish papers, not about the reward. I have seen some correspondence; it was about who should have the credit of it, I believe; there was nothing said about the money that I am aware of; I had nothing to do with it.—By Mr. Stock:—I am am (sic) no party to that correspondence; nor is Armitage. The Articles of Plate were then identified by the witnesss (sic) Sarah Quick, and by the Rev. M.N. Peters; and the double-barrelled gun, by the Prosecutor and Charles Snell. For the defence Mr. COLE addressed the jury at considerable length, contending, as to the prisoner Chadwick, that the case had wholly failed; and he particularly applied this observation to three points mainly relied on by the prosecution; In the first place, as to Chadwick’s having been seen in the croft on the morning of the robbery, he asserted that Spargo’s evidence wholly failed to identify Chadwick as the man whom he saw with the gun. Secondly, that he had been in the croft subsequently, was no ground for imputing to him any share in the robbery; he might, as justifiably as other persons, have been there searching for the stolen plate which it was rumoured was there concealed. And 3rdly, as to the chisel, on which much reliance had been placed, there was no evidence by which it could be at all traced to Chadwick’s possession.—With respect to the other prisoner, Quick, the learned gentleman trusted the jury would not feel justified in finding him guilty on, which he affirmed was the only piece of evidence against him—his own statement, obtained from him in the manner which had been stated.—In further support of his defence, the learned counsel commented at much length, and with much earnestness, on the evidence for the prosecution; and then called on behalf of the prisoner Quick, Mr. Nancarrow, foreman at Mr. Davey’s rope yard where Quick worked. Mr. Nancarrow stated that he had known Quick more than 20 years, and never knew any thing against him, or heard anything against him; he believed him to be an honest, respectable young man. The learned JUDGE summed up; and in doing so said he believed the whole case against Chadwick was the correspondence of the measurement of his shoes with the foot marks spoken of.—Remarking on the importance, as against Quick, of his statement, the learned JUDGE said it appeared to him to amount to a full confession as against himself, and his lordship also said he could not see that the conduct of the constables in that matter had been blameable. At 4 o’clock, the Jury put their heads together for consultation; and in about 20 minutes, after the Foreman, on behalf of one of the Jurors, had asked a question of the Court, and been again informed by his Lordship, that a statement made by one prisoner could not be taken as evidence except against the person making it; the Jury found Chadwick not GUILTY; and Quick GUILTY, with a recommendation to mercy. The JUDGE:—On what ground? The FOREMAN: Because we believe he was induced to commit the act by another person. The learned JUDGE then passed sentence on Quick, stating that he had been convicted on satisfactory evidence. The Jury, said his lordship, have recommended you to mercy, on the ground that you were led into this crime by another. But for a man of your age to be led into a crime of this kind is a poor excuse. You were led into a burglary—and that a burglary planned beforehand and executed with great deliberation. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept to Penal Servitude for Six Years.—The prisoner appeared much affected by the sentence. RICHARD JENKIN, who had been charged with Chadwick, and had been bailed for trial at these Assizes, was now, together with his sureties, John Trethowan and Thos. Jenkin, called on his recognizances; but no one of the three answered. THE ROBBERY AT THE MESSRS. FERRIS’s, AT TRURO.—Last evening, James Pascoe pleaded GUILTY of breaking and entering a warehouse of Messrs. Ferris, tanners and curriers at Truro on the 5th March, and stealing 24 lbs. of leather.—EDWARD JENKIN, who had been held to bail on the charge, and last evening pleaded not GUILTY, was now put on his trial.—Mr. Stock conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—We very recently reported the main facts of this case. The evidence now adduced failed to substantiate the charge as against Jenkin, and, in accordance with the Judge’s summing up, the Jury found a verdict of Acquittal.—Pascoe was sentenced to Four Months hard labour. The Court then rose. N I S I P R I U S C O U R T. WEDNESDAY, MARCH, 25. (Before Mr. Slade, Q.C.) JOHN BRANCH, 36, a mason, was charged with obtaining by false pretences from Joseph Victor, a quantity of brass and a zinc chimney top, with intent to cheat and defraud the prosecutor. The prosecutor is a plumber and tin-plate worker at Wadebridge, and on the 12th November the prisoner came to his shop for some old brass, which he said was for William Williams, of St. Merryn, who was a blacksmith and wanted to make some bearings for a machine. Prosecutor had known prisoner for about twelve months, and let him have 24 lbs. of brass, the prisoner saying he should bring the money from Williams. The money not being paid, prosecutor afterwards found that William Williams was a carpenter, and that there was no blacksmith of that name either in St. Merryn or St. Eval. At the same time (12th November) prisoner ordered of prosecutor a chimney top of Mr. Hawke, farmer of St. Ervan, and directed where it was to be sent, to be left till called for. Prosecutor made the chimney top and sent it, and afterwards found that Mr. Hawke had not ordered it. It appeared that the top was put up, and Hawke paid prisoner 7s. 10d. on account, which prisoner did not pay to prosecutor, but absented himself for a time from the neighbourhood. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended him to mercy on the second charge. Sentence, six months’ hard labour. STABBING.—SILAS LUCAS was indicted for stabbing and wounding Henry Wilson, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm; another count charged the prisoner with intent to maim and disable. Mr. Phear conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Yonge defended the prisoner. Much evidence was given in this case, and it lasted several hours. The witnesses were the prosecutor Henry Wilson, Thomas Allen, a farmer of St. Austell, Thomas Harper, a miner living at a place called Three Doors, between St. Austell and St. Blazey, Edward Bone, who lived next door to Harper, J.P. Berryman, surgeon at St. Austell, and police constable Westlake, of St. Austell. The prosecutor, Henry Wilson, is a rag collector, and on the 6th of February, he had been drinking, as he said, a share of sixteen or seventeen pints of beer, and at the Britannia Inn he drank another pint. He stated that although he felt the effects of the liquor, he was still quite sensible. On his way from St. Blazey to St. Austell, after he had left the Britannia inn, and had passed by the houses called “Three Doors,” he met the prisoner Lucas, who is a miller, and was on his way from St. Austell market, in company with Thomas Allen, farmer. It was about ten o’clock at night, and a good moonlight. As Wilson met Lucas and Allen, according to his account they parted off on each side, and he went to pass between them, and jostled against Lucas, upon which Lucas caught him by the hair. Wilson said he thought Lucas was at first playing with him, and he said “don’t hurt old Billy the rag,” which was what the miners called him. Lucas, however, still held him by the hair, and Wilson struck him eight or nine times with the back of his hand; he said he struck him slightly. Lucas said if he had his revolver he would shoot him; and shortly afterwards he put his hand into his trousers pocket, and Wilson received a stab in the thigh. Wilson went back to Three Doors, where his wound was bound up, and he was afterwards taken in a cart to Mr. Berryman, surgeon, at St. Austell. The account given of the affair by Thomas Allen differed very much from the prosecutor’s statement. Allen represented that Wilson commenced the attack, and struck Lucas several times violently; that Lucas took out his pocket knife and held it towards Wilson to defend himself; that Wilson jumped up in order to give Lucas another blow, and came down upon the knife; that the scuffle in the road lasted ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and that he (Allen) did not at all interfere. The surgeon, Mr. Berryman, stated that the wound was between five and six inches long; it was a clean cut, and in the middle, he should think was about an inch deep; it was a quarter of an inch from the femoral artery; if the knife had penetrated that artery, the wound would have been fatal. The defence was that the wound was accidental, and committed by Wilson’s own act in attempting to strike Lucas; or if it was not accidental, that the prisoner had received great provocation, and being attacked was justified in thus defending himself, and that he had no such an intent as was imputed in the indictment. Evidence that the prisoner had always been a quiet and inoffensive man, was then given. The jury, after some minutes deliberation, found the prisoner GUILTY of unlawfully wounding; and the foreman said, they wished to pass censure upon this witness Allen, for having remained by for so long a time without interfering. The learned JUDGE, in passing sentence said:—Silas Lucas, you have been convicted of unlawfully wounding Henry Wilson. The jury have taken a most merciful view of your case, for the evidence undoubtedly would amply have justified them in finding you guilty of the highest offence, and if they had done so, I should have found it my duty to pass upon you a very severe sentence indeed. You have committed the base, the cowardly, and the unmanly act of drawing a knife upon an unarmed man. Whether the story told by Wilson were the true one, or whether the story told by your companion, Allen, were the true one, there was nothing to justify you in the cowardly action of which you are now found guilty. You were two strong, tall, sober men, and if the poor drunken rag-merchant had insulted you, as he himself very properly said, you might have taken him before a constable, or before a magistrate. It is fortunate indeed for you that the jury have found you guilty of the minor offence. The sentence is, that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the space of Eighteen Calendar Months. John Bolitho, a boy, pleaded guilty of stealing a pair of Wellington boots, leather slippers, cloth boots, kid-boots, India-rubber galosches, and oil-cloth cape, the property of William May, of Truro. Margaret Jenkin was charged with receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. She pleaded not guilty. Her trial was postponed till the following day. NO BILLS.—The following bills were ignored by the Grand Jury:—Against William Casley, William Waters, James Rowe, and James Thomas, charged with stealing eighty sacks of stream tin from Edward Harvey, at St. Just. Against Mary Daniel, charged with endeavouring to conceal the birth of a child at St. Austell. Against Samuel Warren Wesley Stephens for an assault with intent, &c. [Chief Justice Cockburn has not arrived from Exeter, and it is said a letter has been received stating that he will not visit Cornwall these Assizes.] THURSDAY, MARCH 26. (Before Mr. Justice Williams.) In consequence of the non-arrival of Chief Justice Cockburn from Exeter, Mr. Justice Williams proceeded this morning with the following Nisi Prius case in the Crown Court.— GRAY v. GRAY.—Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Slade, Q.C., and Mr. BULLER; attorney, Mr. WALLIS, Counsel for the defendant, Mr. KINGDON; attorney, Mr. PEDLER. Mr. BULLER opened the proceedings, and Mr. SLADE stated the case. The plaintiff, Mrs. Jane Gray, was the widow of the late Mr. Guy Gray of Endellion; and the defendant was Mr. Richardson Gray, the brother of her late husband. The action(?) was brought to recover damages for a trespass by defendant on the land of the plaintiff, and by forcible entry taking(?) possession of property which she and her husband had enjoyed for twenty-five years. The tenement was called Tremeer’s Park, in the parish of Endellion; it was about eighteen acres and consisted of two fields, one of eleven and the other of seven acres. Plaintiff’s husband, Mr. Guy Gray, died in June 1855, and by his will, dated 4th of June, 1851, he devised the estate called Tremeer’s Park, to his wife, her heirs and assignees(?); he also left her other property, and made her residuary legatee(?) of all his personal estate. At the time of his death, about an acre and a-half of the upper field was divided off by a wooden(?) fence, and part of that acre and a-half was in barley, and part prepared for turnips. The rest of the higher field, and the whole of the lower field, was in pasture. On the first day of July 1855, there was a sale by plaintiff for disposing by auction of the cattle, and the eatage of the grass in pasture. The turnips and the barley part the widow still kept; the turnips had been sown on the 26th June, after her husband’s death. Mr. Hawkey purchased of plaintiff the eatage of the grass, paid(?) until Michaelmas day, and turned in his cattle. On the day(?) before Michaelmas day the defendant, with a number of men(?), came and took forcible possession of the tenement, locked the gates, and had held possession ever since. The barley had been sold by plaintiff in August, to Mr. Long, of Port Isaac, and the turnips were sold, and the value of them appropriated by defendant after he had taken possession. Defendant also ?--- the pasture in the lower field, which had not been tilled for some years. The above and some other facts were deposed to by the plaintiff, and her evidence was supported by Mr. ?- Mably, a farmer occupying an adjoining estate called Tredg-? in Endellion. Mr. Mably believed the turnips were dug(?) about the end of January or beginning of February, 1856, and he valued them at 7l. to 8l. The plaintiff claimed compensation for having been deprived of possession, and of the profits of the land, and for the crop of turnips sold by defendant. The defence by Mr. Kingdon was that the plaintiff was not the rightful heir to the property. Mrs. Gray’s husband, Mr. Guy Gray, derived this property through the will of his father, which will, however, gave the tenement to Mr. Guy Gray’s brother, Mr. Digory Gray, in case Mr. Guy Gray died without issue. It had been stated in evidence that Mr. Guy Gray had no children living, but his brother Mr. Digory Gray, who was also dead, had a son also called Digory, in Australia, and it was in behalf of that son that defendant, Mr. Richardson Gray (another brother of Mr. Guy Gray) had entered and taken possession of the Tremeers tenement. Mr. Richardson Gray had done so because he would himself be entitled to the property, if Mr. Digory Gray died without a will. Mrs. Gray came into court claiming under the will of her late husband, but her husband had no power to make such a will, his father having dealt with the property by giving it to Digory Gray, if Guy Gray died without issue. But although plaintiff had no title, she alleged that she was in possession, and that the defendant must show a better title before he could turn her out. Defendant had taken possession lest plaintiff should hold on for twenty years, and then be enabled to claim the property. Digory Gray was at the gold fields in Australia, and had been written to to obtain for defendant an authority to act as he had done, or to ratify what he had done in taking possession. This action had been twice postponed at the request of the defendant, but no reply had yet been received from Digory Gray. If he was dead, defendant would be his proper legal representative. He (Mr. Kingdon) submitted, first, that the plaintiff had lost nothing, because she was not in rightful possession; and, secondly, that as to the greater part of the property, she was in no strict legal possession whatever. The grass land was let to Mr. Hawkey till the 29th September, and possession was taken by defendant from him on the 28th. On account of this land, therefore, plaintiff ought to have brought her action in another form, as one of ejectment. As to the barley land, she was not in strict legal possession; she was entitled to the crop alone, as her husband’s executrix, and was not thereby put in legal possession of the land. As to the turnip land, he (Mr. Kingdon) admitted that she was entitled to nominal damages for the trespass after the turnips were sown; but he contended that she was not entitled to compensation for the turnips, because by the evidence they were not drawn until after this action was commenced, which was on the 28th of January, 1856. Mr. KINGDON then put in the will of the father of Mr. Guy Gray, plaintiff’s husband; but the learned Judge, on examining it, said it gave the property in fee to Digory Gray, if Guy Gray died without issue. Digory Gray, therefore, might give the property to whomsoever he liked; he might give it to the plaintiff from the estate. Defendant had no title whatever under the will, and had no right to turn out the plaintiff if he pleased. (Mr. SLADE here said that plaintiff, to avoid the question of law as to the grass land, would exclude that from her claim, and would only seek compensation for the barley and turnips). The learned JUDGE then told the jury he thought there was evidence that plaintiff was in possession of the barley land as well as the turnips. The trespass took place the day before Michaelmas-day; the action was brought on the 28th day of January following, and they would say to what compensation they thought the plaintiff was entitled.—The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £10, being one quarter of a year’s rent of the tenement, for which Mr. Mably said in his evidence he had tendered £40. CRIMINAL BUSINESS. WILLIAM STOAT, a little boy, who had pleaded guilty of setting fire to a stack of hay at Truro, on the 18th of September last, the property of Mr. Gregson, was ordered to be whipped, and then discharged. CHARGE OF MURDER. JAMES BURNS was indicted for the wilful murder of Robert Beecroft, on the high seas, on the 21st of October last. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. The following were the jury sworn to try the case:—Pascoe Barable, foreman; John Box, Jeremiah Clyma, John Hodge, John England Jenkin, Richard Johns, William Langdon, William Lucas, Tobias Mankey, Solomon Martin, John Perry, and William Stephens. The Counsel for the prosecution were Mr. Stock and Mr. Bere; attorneys, Messrs. Rodd, Darke, and Cornish. Counsel for the prisoner, Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Buller; attorney, Mr. Commins. The prisoner is a Scotchman, a native of Montrose, about forty-five years of age; he was decently dressed, and by no means of a stern, much less a ferocious aspect. He attended to the evidence and proceedings of the trial with much concern, but exhibited no such emotion as some person have done when placed in similar awful circumstances. At the time of the investigation of this case before the magistrates at Penzance, we gave a long report of the evidence, and there is now no occasion to do more that recapitulate the main circumstances of the case. On the 5th of April, 1856, the brig Mars sailed from Dundee, in Scotland, and put into Lowestoft, on the English coast, on the 20th of May, where the boy Robert Beecroft, about 14 years of age, was taken on board as cabin-boy. He was of a quiet, mild disposition, and was not ill-used on the passage out to Cuba. The vessel arrived at Guatemala, in Cuba, on the 14th Aug., and remained there several days taking in a cargo of rum and sugar. Before they left Guatemala, the boy complained of illness, but with medicine had recovered. They went from Guatemala to St. Jago, also in Cuba, and they left St. Jago to return to England on the 9th of October. About the 17th of October, the boy complained of a head-ache. Before that time he had shown one of the crew a bruise on his temple. After the 17th he became worse, and ate very little, and some medicine—salts and castor-oil—were given him by the captain. On the 21st of October, the last day of his life, the witnesses particularly spoke of the captain’s ill-usage of the lad. James Aldridge, the cook, said that on the 21st Oct., the captain ordered the boy to remove the grindstone from under the long-boat. The boy said he was not able, and he asked Aldridge to do it for him, which he did. The captain said, “you are better able to get it out than I am; you had better jump overboard. The captain afterwards ordered the boy to light the binnacle lamp. (A model of a brig was placed on the table in court, and the learned counsel, Mr. Stock, when stating the case to the jury, showed the place of the binnacle, &c., by the model). In rough weather it was necessary to light the lamp from below, and the boy went down into the cabin to do it. He stood on the table, but could not reach to do it, and the captain was seen by Aldridge to strike at him through the skylight, and he heard the boy fall down a heavy fall. Other evidence was given by the witnesses of the captain beating the boy in the cabin, of his beating him with a tarred rope an inch and a half in circumference, of his having dragged him on the deck, and that just afterwards the boy went head foremost down the companion ladder, and pitched on his head. The captain was not seen to throw him down, but he immediately afterwards went down into the cabin, and again commenced beating the boy, who appeared not to have been injured by the fall”, as he got up immediately the mate spoke to him. When the captain struck him the boy said “I must die,” and the mate told him not to strike the boy any more, as he was not able to work. The captain then left off striking him, and the mate carried him up the ladder, and the man at the wheel, John Davison, helped him to his berth. Next morning he was dead, and his body was sewn up in canvass and thrown overboard. The witnesses described the appearance of the body. The mate said the right side of the head was a solid mass of blue, and about the legs there were blue and red stripes. The left side of the head was not so much discoloured as the right; there was a little blood between the teeth. The vessel came into Penzance harbour on the 8th of December; information was given by two of the crew of the ill-usage of the boy; and the captain was taken into custody, and committed by the magistrates to take his trial for wilful murder. The witnesses were John Blair, the mate of the “Mars,” James Aldridge, cook, John Davison James Dryden, John Somerville, and William Anderson, seamen, and Charles Augustus West, surgeon, of Bodmin. In addition to the facts above stated, some of the witnesses said they had often seen the captain intoxicated on the voyage home, and Aldridge said he was in that state when he struck the boy through the skylight. The cross-examinations of Mr. Coleridge were directed to show that some part of the cargo broke adrift on the voyage home, and that the vessel was leaky; that some of the crew suffered from sickness at Cuba and on the voyage home; that they had rheumatism, pains in the limbs, and headache; that some of them had sores and swellings; and that nearly all the crew were under the care of Mr. Couch, surgeon, after their arrival at Penzance, to be cured of the scurvy.—The medical evidence was also important. Mr. West believed the treatment of which he had heard evidence given, would have accelerated any disease of which the boy might have been suffering; it would have made it worse, but he could not say the ill-treatment killed the boy. Probably the death of the boy would not have taken place so soon but for the ill-treatment. In his opinion the boy was afflicted with some disease. He thought the fall down the companion ladder might have contributed to death. The witness was Cross-Examined at great length by Mr. COLERIDGE as to the symptoms of scurvy, and the appearance of a body after death from scurvy.—Witness had never seen a case of scurvy, he derived his knowledge of the disease from books. He believed the discolourations of the body spoken of by the witnesses, and the stiffness of limbs and debility of the deceased, might all have been the accompaniments of scurvy, except the stripes on the body. Scurvy however made the skin very impressible, and stripes might have been produced by the boy lying on something hard two or three nights before his death. A person might have the beginnings of scurvy without showing it much. A man or a boy might be ill of scurvy without being aware of the dangerous state he was in. Re-Examined—Yams and sweet potatoes, which were used in the cabin until after the boy’s death, were repellents of scurvy. Mr. COLERIDGE, at the opening of the trial, had objected to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that to have jurisdiction it must be proved that the vessel was owned by a British subject, in support of which he quoted the Mercantile Marine Act, 17th and 18th Victoria, c. 104, sect. 18 and 106; and it was necessary, he said, that this should be proved by the best evidence, the production of the ship’s papers. The learned JUDGE decided that the case should proceed, and on the objection being now renewed, he said he would reserve the point, and see how far it deserved attention. Mr. COLERIDGE then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, in an able and eloquent speech, commenting on the evidence, complaining that the prosecution had not called Mr. Couch, of Penzance, who attended the crew for scurvy after their landing, and submitting on several grounds that the accused must be acquitted. He argued that the boy in all probability died of scurvy, the vessel being unhealthy in consequence of the cargo breaking loose, and some of the rum and sugar mixing with the water in the hold; and that the boy did not die in consequence of being beaten by the captain; nor was his disease in the slightest degree produced or contributed to by the acts of the captain. If the acts of the captain, unlawfully exercised, accelerated the death of the boy, the captain would be guilty; but he contended that the chastisements inflicted by the captain were no more than were right and lawful, on the part of a captain of a ship, and that as the captain did not know the boy was ill at the time, he was not guilty of the unlawful design which must be shown before he could be convicted. The learned JUDGE summed up the case at great length, and impressed upon the jury the solemn nature of the inquiry before them, inasmuch as it might end in the forfeit of the life of a fellow creature. He then explained the law as bearing upon the case, and read over and commented upon the evidence. Finally, he put it to the jury, whether they thought the violence of the prisoner in any way contributed to the death of the boy; if they believed it did not, they would find a verdict of acquittal. If they thought that violence did either cause or contribute to, or accelerate the death of the boy, the prisoner would be guilty in some shape or other. If there was malice in the prisoner’s act it must be express or implied. Express malice would be where there was a deliberate design to kill; they could hardly suppose that of the prisoner in the present case. Still if there was implied malice, the prisoner would be equally guilty of murder. Implied malice was where the conduct of the party charged showed a malignant intention to do mischief, or was attended by acts of cruelty, unaccompanied by any circumstances which negatived the intention to do serious bodily harm, or substantial mischief. As to implied malice, there were points in the evidence which they would have to consider. The most favourable view they could take of the conduct of the prisoner, was, that he was not aware of the ill health of the boy at the time, and that when he inflicted chastisement (which he might lawfully do if there was occasion for it, on a person in the deceased’s position, and within reasonable bounds) he was not aware of the reduced state of the boy through illness, and therefore did not intend to do serious bodily harm or substantial mischief. On the other hand, if the jury thought the conduct of the prisoner contributed to the death of the boy, but that the killing was unattended with malice, they would find the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. The jury deliberated about ten minutes and then found the prisoner NOT GUILTY. There was another indictment against him for doing grievous bodily harm, and another count for common assault; but on these charges the prosecution offered no evidence. The prisoner was then discharged, and looked exceedingly cheerful as he left the dock. The trial lasted from noon until ten o’clock at night, and the court was greatly crowded. The court was then adjourned. THURSDAY, March 26. (Before F.W. Slade, Esq., Q.C.) MARGARET JENKIN, on bail, was charged with receiving a pair of Wellington boots, a pair of leather slippers, a pair of men’s cloth boots, a pair of kid boots, a pair of India-rubber goloshes and an oil-cloth cape, knowing the same to have been stolen by John Bolitho, from his master, Mr. William May of Truro.— Bolitho had pleaded guilty of stealing the articles, and was admitted to give evidence on the charge against Mrs. Jenkin.—Mr. Yonge conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—William May, boot and shoe- maker, Boscawen-street, Truro, stated that the boy Bolitho had been in his service as errand-boy about 7 months; and during the last two or three months he had missed several pairs of boots and shoes, goloshes, great-coat, macintosh and oil-cape; some of which articles had since been produced to him by Nash the policeman.—William Joseph Nash, superintendent of police at Truro:—In consequence of some information, I went to Mrs. Jenkin, a dealer in second-hand clothes, on the 13th of March, and told her that I had come about a pair of Wellington boots that had been stolen from Mr. May’s shop, and that were then on her son’s feet. She said her son had a pair of Wellington boots, but that he was out. I also told her that 7 or 8 pair of boots and shoes had been stolen from Mr. May’s, and were believed to be in her possession. She said she had bought 7 or 8 pairs of shoes and she believed she had sold some of them to persons in the country; but she produced several pairs, which I now produce. (Witness produced a pair of Wellington boots, a pair of cloth-boots, a pair of laced slippers, a pair of men’s kid boots, and a pair of women’s goloshes). She told me she bought the whole of them from a boy called Bolitho. I took the articles to Mr. May’s shop, and Mr. May identified them; I then went and took the boy into custody.—Cross-examined. I know the woman at the bar very well; I never heard a word against the woman up to this time. She said the boy told her he was sent by his young master to sell them. There was one pair of boots which she obtained and showed me. All the articles were second-hand. The Wellington boots and cloth boots are good; but they have been worn and clamped; it is very often the case that when such articles have been repaired they do not fit well, and are sold to persons in the prisoner’s condition of life.—By the Court. She said she bought the oil-skin cape of the boy; it is an old one.—Mr. May identified the various articles, and gave evidence as to their value. The pair of boots which Mrs. Jenkin’s son had on were worth about 5s.; they were in a better state when I lost them; they were very good boots, but not new; when new they would be worth about 16s. As to the cape, I did not put any value on it; I don’t know the value of it; it was bought for our errand boy. The cloth boots I value at 4s. The India rubber goloshes are in a very good state; I estimate them as worth about 1s. 6d. A shilling is the value of the pair of shoes. At the time I lost the kid- boots, their value was about 4s. I never allowed my errand boy to sell shoes.—Cross-examined. I did not cry it to the whole town that I did not allow my boy to sell shoes. Neither myself nor wife ever sold such things as these; we gave away cast-off things to our workpeople.—By the Court. These boots and shoes were in use by my family, and were taken from the dwelling-house to the shop to be cleaned; I never sell anything second-hand.—John Bolitho, an unusually intelligent looking lad, was then examined;—I have been charged with stealing those boots and shoes; I did steal them from my master, Mr. May. I took first two pair of goloshes and an odd shoe; that’s the first I carried; but I can’t say what day it was on. When I had taken them from my master, I carried them up to Mrs. Jenkin; I saw Mrs. Jenkin; she said, “Oh then, you’ve brought a pair for me; stop a minute, I will try them on my little girl and see if they will fit her.” She then said, “if they will not fit her, I can sell them.” She said, “what shall I give you for them?” I said, “I don’t know any thing about selling, for I’ve never sold nothing before.” Then she said “I suppose then I must give my own price”; she gave me three-halfpence, and said “that’s more than they are worth.” I did not ask her for more; and she afterwards gave me three-halfpence for the two pair of goloshes and an odd shoe.—I afterwards carried some more shoes to her; the next morning I took her a pair of Wellingtons; I told her that I had the shoes down to Mr. May’s; she told me “when your master comes to find it out don’t you tell your master that I put you up to do it, whatever you do.” When I took the Wellingtons to her, she said “well, I want a pair for my boy; these will just fit him; I suppose I must give my own price for these too”; and I said “yes, I suppose you must.” She told me to run up again, and when I went up, she said “I’m thinking these are not worth much, because the boot is cut, and when any person is walking, people will take notice of the cut”; and she said she would give me 2½d. for them; she told me to call up again, as she was out of money; I went up the next morning and she gave me 2½d.—Then I next took up a pair of kid ones; this was two days after the Wellingtons; I don’t know what she gave me for the kid ones; I have forgot; I can’t tell exactly, but I think it was 4½d.—Four days after that, on a Thursday, I took up these cloth ones; I saw Mrs. Jenkin, and she said “Oh, that’s a good boy; brought another pair.” Every time I took any thing, she said “Oh then, you’ve got them; but if you come to be found out, don’t you tell your master of it.” She gave me for the cloth boots 3½d.; and the next Saturday morning, when master was gone to Camborne, I took up the cape to her; she said “it is very full of holes, and will take wet, and I must hire cloth to mend it.” She said “you had this too down to Mr. May’s;” and I said “yes;” then she said, “well I suppose I must give you 4d. for this;” and I had 4d. for it at the time.—There is also a pair of patent leather slippers; she gave me a penny for them; there’s a rip by the side, and she said they were not worth more; I took these to her on the Monday after the Saturday when I took the cape. When she gave me the penny for the slipper, she said “well, that’s a good boy; don’t you tell your master;” she said that two or three times.—I had spoken to Mrs. Jenkin before I took the first pair of shoes to her; I was going up Pydar-street on an errand for my master, and she called me in and asked me to fetch a turn of water for her. I told her I could hardly stay, for master told me to let him see what haste I could make. She said I might fetch in a couple of turns of water and she would give me two pence; and so she did. When she first called me in, she said “here, my son.” I was going with some leather to a man, to be made into boots. She said, “leave the leather here, while you go for the water;” and she pointed to where the water was. I fetched in the water, and she said “where do you work to?” I said “Mr. May’s.” She said “how many are there in family there? Mr. May have got a large family, I believe.” I reckoned them up by name, and she counted them. She then said, “I suppose you could pick up a few boots and shoes down there for me to help me out to sell; and any old dirty bonnets and frocks; try to pick up some and bring them up, and I’ll give you a few pence for them.” She said “you’ll bring up some, won’t you?” I said, “yes, if I can, but I did not think I could, for all they got, they wear.” She said, “well, you can pick up some unknowing to them.” I left her, and the next morning I carried up the two pair of goloshes and the old shoe. Then she said. “Oh, you’re a very good boy; you’ve brought up a pair for me.” I told her that I went down into the kitchen to carry them to the work-shop to brush them, and that I brushed them, and then took them to her house. All that I carried to her I told her how I got them—that I had to clean them in the workshop for my master and young masters. I told her about the cape—that it was what the errand-boys had to wear, and that I had it home, and mother told me I had better carry it down; and instead of carrying it to the shop, I carried it over to Mrs. Jenkin. For cross-examination the witness, who had thus far given his evidence from the dock, was placed in the witness-box, by request of Mr. COLE, who desired that the jury should see the witness’s face.—The JUDGE remarked—it is just the face they ought to see.—He was then questioned by Mr. Cole and said—I began to steal the morning after Mrs. Jenkin told me; I never stole before; the first person I ever stole from was my master. I did not steal a lot of books from a gentleman near Truro and sell them for a few pence; I never heard of that before. My master charged me with stealing some money and biscuits; I did not steal them, I never seed them.—Do you know a person called Northey at Truro? Yes, Sir.—Did you steal two pair of stockings from her?—Witness, after long hesitation “stockings!” (laughter).—Did you steal two pair of stockings from Mrs. Northey, on your oath? I don’t mind any thing about stockings.—What did you steal from Mrs. Northey? Nothing that I know of, Sir.—Do you mean to swear that you did not steal two pair of stockings from Mrs. Northey? I never heard any thing about it.—Did she charge you with stealing them? (No answer).—The JUDGE.—Were you ever charged with stealing stockings from Mrs. Northey? Yes; up in Daniell-street.—Mr. COLE:—Did you steal them? Yes.—Did you steal a scarf from Mr. Mackenzie the draper? No. Did you go to Mr. Mackenzie and get a scarf from him by saying you had been sent there by a lady of Truro? Yes.—That was not stealing it? No, Sir.—Mr. COLE.—No; that was getting it. You have been a thief all your life, almost ever since you were born? No, Sir.—Have you not been stealing ever since you have known any thing? No.—How long is it since you were charged with stealing those stockings? Just at the time when Mrs. Jenkin spoke to me; I told her where I got them.—The JUDGE: Did Mrs. Jenkin buy the stockings? Yes; she gave me a penny for them.—Mr. COLE: And that you swear? Yes, sir.—Is this the first time you ever mentioned that? Yes, sir.—You told me just now you did not steal the stockings? I forgot all about it, then.—Did you forget all about the scarf, too? No, Sir.—Did you forget all about the biscuits? I never stole any money nor biscuits.—What did you do with the scarf? I carried it back again when they asked for it.—Did they give you a tanning for it? No.—Mr. COLE: It’s a pity they did not.—Witness. I carried that scarf to Mrs. Jenkin, and she bought it for 4d. I went up for it again, and she gave it back to me and told me not to say I had come there with it. At that time I was living with Mr. May, and I told Mrs. Jenkin that my mistress had found out about the scarf. I weared the scarf on the Sunday, and then carried it to Mrs. Jenkins.—Mr. COLE. I want to know what Mrs. May had got to do with the scarf; did you go and get the scarf at Mackenzie’s, and say you were sent for it by a lady? Yes, and paid him for it.—The JUDGE:— Who gave you the money to pay for the scarf? It was my money, that I had got for the boots and shoes; I had it for eighteen-pence.—You bought it for 1s. 6d, and went to Mrs. Jenkin, and sold it for 4d? No sir; that was a scarf that I took from a servant at Mr. May’s.—Re-examined—I bought one scarf at Mackenzie’s and gave 1s. 6d for it; it was a girl’s scarf; the money that I paid for it was part of what I had received for the boots and shoes. I have not got that scarf now; Mr. Mackenzie took it, and said he must see Mrs. May before he gave me the money or the scarf; that was after I had been charged with stealing the boots. I went in to Mr. Mackenzie’s and asked him about the price of a scarf; there was a lady there—a dress-maker—at the same time; he said 20d. was the price, but I should have it for 18d.; I had it for that, and paid him the money. After that, Mr. May’s son took the scarf down to Mr. Mackenzie; Mr. May found me with a scarf and sent me back to Mr. Mackenzie’s with it; and Mr. Mackenzie said I should not have the money or the scarf till he had seen Mrs. May. I gave Mr. Mackenzie money for that scarf, and did not steal it. The other scarf I had from Mrs. May’s servant, and took it to Mrs. Jenkin and had 4d. for it. That scarf I stole. That was after I had taken up the pair of goloshes. Mrs. Jenkin said, “tis a nice scarf,” and tied it round her neck, and said, “I suppose I must give you 4d. for it.—The stockings were stolen after I had taken up those boots to Mrs. Jenkin, and I told her where I had them; she said “they are a nice pair, only there are holes in them,” and she gave me 1d. for them. I have not stolen anything else. I had never stolen anything before I stole those boots from my master.—By the JUDGE—I was at Mrs. Northey’s waiting for her little boy, who works at the same shop that I do; I saw these stockings lying on the table, and took them up to Mrs. Jenkin. The prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrate was then put in and read: In it she stated that the boy Bolitho came to her house at different times offering the boots and shoes now produced for sale, stating that he was sent by Mr. May’s son; she gave him 1s. for the men’s cloth boots, 1s. for the Wellingtons, 4d. for the cape, 4d. for the slippers, and 6d. for the kid boots. Mr. COLE ably addressed the jury for the defence. He spoke of the respectability of the prisoner, commented in the strongest terms on the conduct and evidence of the boy Bolitho; and said it was a hardship on the prisoner that, until the case came into the court, it was not made known that the boy was to be examined. He then urged the improbability of the boy’s story—that in the prisoner’s very first communication with him, she suggested to him to rob his master; thereby placing herself in his hands; that the boy would then have nothing to do but to inform his master against her as a receiver of stolen goods, or he might go to her and say “now, you know you have been buying stolen goods, and if you don’t’ give me £20, I’ll go and inform against you.” Did the jury think that any one in her senses would place herself in such a position?—It was proved by the Inspector of Police that the woman was of respectable character, and that her conduct when charged was fair and open.—There was, in fact, nothing in the case that was in the slightest degree suspicious, except on the boy’s evidence; and this, the learned counsel treated as wholly undeserving of credit. The probability was that the woman’s statement was perfectly true, that the boy told her he was sent by his young master; and it was well known that for such articles, second-hand, and particularly if repaired, but very low prices could ever be obtained from dealers. John Knight, butcher and innkeeper, of Truro, had known the prisoner upwards of 30 years; she had always been a very honest, industrious, hard-working woman.—Another witness, Ann Gummow, was called for the defence; but she did not make her appearance. The learned JUDGE summed up. He concurred with the learned counsel that this was a very wicked case; it was the province of the jury to decide where the wickedness lay. The case against the prisoner very much depended on the credit to be given to the boy Bolitho; but it did not entirely depend on his testimony. If the jury believed him, there could be no doubt the woman well knew that the goods were stolen. By rule of law, an accomplice uncorroborated was not to be believed; but it was not necessary that he should be corroborated in every particular; he must however be supported in some material particular, in order to satisfy the jury of the truth of his story. Now the boy Bolitho was supported, not only by the evidence of his master Mr. May, but also by the material fact, admitted by the prisoner Jenkin, that he sold her boots and shoes at a very inferior price.—The learned JUDGE then went through the evidence, applying to it the above principles; and the Jury, after brief deliberation, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. BOLITHO was afterwards sentenced to a Fortnight’s Imprisonment with hard labour, and then to be sent to a Reformatory School for a term of Two years. In passing sentence, the learned JUDGE said:—You have confessed yourself guilty of stealing these things. It is a very sad thing to see so young a lad commencing with crime. If you go on in this course, your life will be miserable and your end will be disgraceful. If you want to be a happy man, you must be an honest boy; for no boy or man can be happy unless he is honest. I am willing to believe you have been made a tool and a dupe by older and greater criminals that yourself, and I will do all in my power to reform you, and make you a useful member of the community. You are very young, and probably have many years before God calls you to Himself. Do think how much better it is to live happy and respected than to live always under fear of being apprehended and punished. I shall give you a slight punishment, in the hope that the school to which I shall take care you be sent, will reform you and make an honest man of you. EDWARD THOMAS, 45, miner, was charged with violently and feloniously ravishing and carnally knowing Elizabeth Cock, at Camborne, on the 17th November 1856.—Mr. Oxnam conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—The prosecutrix, about 17 years of age, lived with her father at Trevarnon Moors, in the parish of Gwithian. On the 17th of November, about 11 o’clock in the forenoon, she was returning to her home from her sister’s at Camborne; she was alone, and on passing through Tremellyn Croft, she met a man whom she had never seen before, and, after some apparently casual conversation, committed the alleged offence. On the 21st of December, she went with her father to Treswithian Downs, and there, among three men, pointed out the prisoner as the man who had “mislisted” her, against her consent; and she now swore positively that he was the man.—The defence was, in the first place, an alibi—that the prisoner throughout the whole of the forenoon of the 17th November, was at work with his son, tilling potatoes, at Tincroft, in the parish of Illogan; and next, that whoever was the man who committed the offence, it was not done without consent of the prosecutrix. The summing up was in favour of the defence; and the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. THOMAS CLIMO, 31, shoemaker, and WALTER STODDERN, 24, tinker, were charged with assaulting and putting in bodily fear and danger of his life James Thomas Sawle Thomas, and violently stealing from his person £1 15s. 6d., at Bodmin, on the 1st of August, 1856.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—The prosecutor said: I live at Tregorrick, near St. Austell; I am a veterinary surgeon, attend sick cattle, and cure wounds in humans occasionally.—The JUDGE: You are, then, a general medical practitioner? (laughter). Are you a cow-leech?—No, I don’t cow-leech (laughter).—By Mr. Holdsworth. On Friday, the 1st of August, I came from Simonward, and went first to the Talbot Inn, in Bodmin, and thence to the Garland Ox. It was in the evening, but good daylight, when I got to the Garland Ox; I went into the kitchen, and had a couple of penn’orth of brandy neat, the landlord’s treat, and then I had a glass of best brandy to myself; then came in Stoddern, Climo, and another man; they sat in the settle and had some beer; and there was a young man from Penzance there, who knew me. After they came in, I had another glass of best brandy. I took out my purse, with two sovereigns in it, and gave one to the landlord, and told him to take for my brandy and bring me the change; the change he brought me was a half-sovereign and 9 shillings. At that time, the prisoners could see perfectly well all that I was doing. After that the prisoners, and then the young man from Penzance, asked me to give them a quart of beer, which I did, and paid 6d. for it; I took out my purse again to do so; I put my purse into the breast pocket of my coat; and the three men, after drinking the quart of beer, left the house. In about 10 minutes afterwards, I left the house, and went up the street towards the Asylum, on my way to Nanstallon, about two miles from Bodmin, and where I was going to sleep. Before I got to Wendon’s beer-shop, out came these three men by my side, from a passage; I looked at them but did not stop; I kept on my way up the right hand side of the street, as fast as I could walk fittily. When I came to Harding’s shop, I turned round and saw those three men coming after me, and about 10 or 11 paces behind. When I got to the toll-gate, I called out to the gate-keeper, Walter Benny, and talked to him a bit, as he was inside; I then wished him good night and went on. I heard something stanking after me, and fancied it was a horse; I turned aside to let it pass, when in jumped that man Stoddern upon me, and demanded my money or my life. I kept my hands over my coat-pocket, and said I had had no money; but he said “you d----d b----r, I know you have, for I saw it just now.” I still kept my hands on my pocket, and Stoddern up and struck me on the right ear, and knocked me down on the road, and I fell down on my side. This was 2 or 3 hundred yards from the stop-gate. Before I was knocked down, I saw the other prisoner and the third man standing up by the corner. At that time Stoddern had me hold by the collar.—When I was down on the ground, Stoddern turned me round on my back, put a knife across my throat, and said, “I’ll have your money or your life, you b----r.” I put up my hand to defend my throat, and he then put his hand into my coat-pocket, took out my purse, and ran back to the other two men, and they all went back into town. The purse which Stoddern took was that in which I had put the sovereign and the change given me by the landlord; when taken from me, it contained £1 15s 6d.—I was afraid to go into Bodmin—I was so much hurried and frightened; and I went on to Nanstallon, where I stopped the night. The next morning I went into Bodmin—first to the Garland Ox, and then to the Exeter Inn, where I told a little chap called the Roper how I had been robbed; he went out, and then Climo and Stoddern came into the Exeter Inn; and I told Stoddern that he had robbed me. He said “you’re a liar; if you say that, I’ll knock you down.” Climo said he never robbed me. I then went to the Garland Ox, and they came there too; I told Stoddern again about his having attacked and robbed me; and he said he had not. I then went to Bray and another constable.—Samuel Bray Hayes, landlord of the Garland Ox, gave evidence confirmatory of that of the prosecutor; adding that it was about 12 o’clock when the three men left his house; that when the prosecutor first came there, it was apparent that he had been drinking; that he afterwards had 4 or 5 glasses of brandy, and was sick before he left the house.—Joseph Hendy: I keep a lodging-house, more than 200 yards from the Garland Ox, down the street; Stoddern lodged there; on the night of the 1st of August he came home about half-past 12 o’clock; I let him in at the front door; I said to him, “Walter, why did you stop out so late?” He said he had been up to the Garland Ox. Climo lives in the next passage above mine; between mine and the Garland Ox. Going down the passage to Climo’s, a person can come up my passage, by passing over another property.—Mary Rowe, wife of Richard Rowe:—I live in Bore-street, about 100 yards from Hendy’s, and keep a common oven at the bottom of Hendy’s passage. On the Saturday morning, the 2nd of August, about 7 o’clock, I saw Stoddern come in at the front door, and heard Hendy say to him “you are a pretty fellow; I stopped up till between 12 and one o’clock, and you were not in then; I’ll not keep open my house for no travellers.” Stoddern said, “never mind, old man; we have had a d----d good spree to-night.” William Bray, constable:—About the middle of the day, on Saturday, the 2nd of August, I went with Thomas, to Climo’s house, and found Climo and Stoddern there. I told them they were charged with robbing Thomas out by the Asylum that night; they said they had not been the higher side of the Garland Ox that night—that when they left the Garland Ox, they went right home. The distance from the Garland Ox to Hendy’s Passage is about 100 yards; from the Garland Ox to the Asylum Quarry, 800 yards; from the spot where Thomas told me he was robbed to where he said he saw the other two men standing at the time was 24 yards. The Jury found BOTH GUILTY; which the learned JUDGE said was quite right. Sentence; Four years penal servitude, each. The Court then rose. CROWN COURT, FRIDAY, March 27. Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS. ARSON.—THOMAS PLINT (27) & NICHOLAS PLINT (19) were severally indicted for maliciously and feloniously setting fire to a stack or mow of oats, the property of Mr. Thomas Hawkey, of Allet Common, in the parish of Kenwyn, on the 24th December last. Mr. Stock appeared for the prosecution, and the prisoners were defended by Mr. Cole. It appeared from the witnesses for the prosecution that on the night of Wednesday, the 24th December last, the prosecutor had a mow of oats in his mowhay, and soon after going to bed about 11 o’clock was aroused by the fact of the mow being on fire. He immediately made an alarm, and went in search of the supposed offenders, and after visiting the house of the prisoner Thomas, proceeded to the house of prisoners’ father, where he found both prisoners with several others belonging to the family spending Christmas-eve. In consequence of suspicious circumstances occurring on the visit, the prisoners were apprehended, but the only conclusive evidence against them appeared to be a statement made by them, whilst in the police station at Truro, and overheard by police constables Nash and Woolcock. For the defence it was attempted to set up an alibi, and in support of it several of the prisoners’ relatives, who were present, spending the Christmas-eve, at the father’s house, were called. The Judge carefully summed up the evidence, and commented on the conduct of the police constables Nash and Woolcock, and said he thought they might have abstained from procuring up evidence and getting up a case under such circumstances. The jury after a short consultation found both prisoners Guilty, and they were each sentenced to six years penal servitude. This case concluded the Assizes about 2 o’clock. ======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 10 April 1857

3. Easter Sessions These sessions opened on Tuesday the 7th inst., at Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, ESQ., Chairman Lord Vivian. E. Coode, Junr., Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. R. Gully Bennett, Esq. Sir S.T. Spry. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. W. Peard, Esq. T.J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. Neville Norway, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. E. Stephens, Esq. Gordon W.F. Gregor, Esq. Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend John Tremayne, Esq. Boscawen. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. Vyell F Vyvyan. S. Borlase, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. J. Glencross. A Coryton, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. J.B. Messenger, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. J. Wilkinson. F. Howell, Esq. The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury:— Mr. G. Andrew, St. Mewan, foreman. R. Bate, Lanteglos by Camelford. W. Bishop, St. Merryn. C. Boney, Davidstow. R. Carveth, St. Austell. W.D. Dodge, St. Austell. R.D. Gynn, Davidstow. P. Hain, Davidstow. J. Hellyar, St. Merryn. R.H. Henwood, St. Issey. S. Hocking, Lanteglos by Camelford. J. Hurdon, Lanteglos by Camelford. H. Jewell, Lanteglos by Camelford. E. Johns, Lanivet. J. Key, St. Dennis. R. Kitto, Alternun.. H. Lanxon, Lanlivery. W.H. Littleton, Lanlivery. W. Marks, Poundstock. T.G. Michell, St. Austell. W. Pearce, Poundstock. J. Pethick, Davidstow. J. Preston, St. Mewan. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:—Mr. James Rickard, Trevalga; Mr. George Sandercock, St. Gennys; Mr. R. Scantlebury, Mevagissey; Mr. J. Smeeth, St. Gennys; Mr. F. Stokes, St. Michael Carhayes; Mr. T. Sweet, St. Teath; Mr. W. Vercoe, St. Dennis; Mr. W. West, St. Blazey. The CHAIRMAN, in charging the Grand jury, said it was ….. [remainder not transcribed] VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT. – The Visiting Justices reported that the gaol, was in its usual condition, and that the conduct and health of the prisoners were satisfactory. [CORONERS’ BILLS.—not transcribed] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor of the Gaol reported that since his last report there had been a daring but unsuccessful attempt to break prison by a prisoner named John Guest. With this exception the prisoners were orderly and well conducted. The hospitals were now, and had been for some time unoccupied.—Appended to the report was the governor’s usual certificate as to the state of the prison. [GAOL EXPENSES.—not transcribed] ASYLUM ACCOUNTS.—The CHAIRMAN said no rate was now required for the Asylum. The payments during the past year amounted to £6902 7s 9d.; the receipts, to £7821 12s. 6d.; leaving a balance in hand on the 31st of December last, of £919 4s. 9d.—The average weekly cost of patients, per head, was 8s. 3¾ d.—Mr. KENDALL stated, in answer to the Chairman, that the charge to pauper patients was 8s. 9d. HALL EXPENSES, during the last quarter, £13 17s. 6½d. EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF NEW GAOL, £30 3s. 5d. BRIDGES WESTERN DIVISION.—The report of Mr. HICKS, Bridge Surveyor for the Western Division, was as follows:— The bridge roads under contract are now in a better state of repair than they were, but are not so good as I should wish to see them. There is a drain required across, and at the side of the road west of the bridge at Newlyn, the cost of which I estimated at thirty shillings. Mr. D.P. Le GRICE brought under notice the fact of an alleged trespass on the county property in the bridge at Newlyn West, by the making of a door-way in the wall of the bridge; and, after statements in the matter by Mr. HICKS the surveyor, and some discussion among the magistrates, it was resolved, on the motion of Mr. BORLASE, seconded by Mr. D.P. Le GRICE, that the question of the door in the bridge at Newlyn West be left to the magistrates at West Penwith to inquire into, and report at the next Sessions. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. SYLVANUS JENKIN, surveyor for the Eastern Division, presented the following report: St. Blazey Bridge.—As instructed by the last Sessions, I have examined the condition of St. Blazey Bridge with reference to the silting up of the river, and now beg to present you with the following report upon the same. Mr. William Pease, in his able report of the state of this river, made to a committee of Magistrates and presented at the Epiphany Sessions 1853, has entered at considerable length into the history of the various changes that have taken place in the bed of the Par River both above and below St. Blazey Bridge for many years past, and has shown that a progressive deposit of silt has been taking place even long previous to the working of Fowey Consols Mine, whilst since that time the deposit has become much greater. He also registered the distance from the soffit of the arch of St. Blazey, Middleway, and Par bridges, (the first only being a County Bridge) to the then bed of the river at those points, and this has enabled me to institute a comparison between those heights as they then were, and as they now are. Moreover, Mr. Pease having remarked in that report that the level of the river bed varies materially during different seasons of the year, it is fortunate that my inspection was made at a corresponding season, both injuries referring to the middle of the month of March. During these few years, the height under the soffit of the arch at St. Blazey bridge has decreased from 6 feet to 4 feet 6 inches, whilst under Par bridge the height has, if anything increased, thus bearing out the observation made by Mr. Pease, that the height of the bed will not increase in the lower part of the river as it does in the upper part, in consequence of the increased velocity imparted to the water. There is no doubt that when St. Blazey bridge was built, about 20 years since, its water-way was sufficient to accommodate the water of the river, even during floods; and moreover, whilst the banks were low, the water overflowed the surrounding land before it reached such a height as to fill the arch of the bridge. When, however, the railway was constructed, the river was confined by high banks on each side, and then a water-way was required under the bridge, nearly equal to that of other parts of the river, whilst at the same time it was being rapidly increased by the accumulation of sand. The sketch attached will show the relative proportions of the waterway under the bridge as it is now, and as it was when Mr. Pease reported on it; also that of the river immediately below the bridge. It will be evident that at some stage or other of this process of accumulation, either the bridge or the banks must give way, depending upon the relative strength, or upon the suddenness with which the water may rise, unless indeed they are both strong enough to allow the water to fill the channel and flow over them, which is not probable; and this leads to the inquiry whether any, and if any, what means can be adopted to prevent or check that which must eventually lead to the necessity for the reconstruction of the bridge. To straighten the channel as much as possible, that is, to get rid of any sudden turns and the eddies which are sure to result from them, to confine the water within such limits as will give the ordinary stream sufficient velocity to scour its bed, and to remove as far as possible all obstacles to the free flow of the water, are, I believe, the simple means which, if kept steadily in view, will be found most efficacious in preventing, or at all events in checking, the vast amount of injury which in many of our valleys is resulting from the deposit of silt brought into them; but this can only be done by some system of operations through their whole length. I do not know of any means by which a local interest, such as that possessed by the magistrates of the county, in St. Blazey bridge, can either prevent or check the progress of accumulation, great as is the injury inflicted on them by its continuance.—I have no application to make at this time excepting for the sum of 40s. for painting and repairing the cutwaters of Clapper, Pillaton, and Callington new bridges. On the subject of St. Blazey bridge, a long discussion took place; in which the Chairman, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. Carew, Mr. Sawle, Lord Vivian, and Mr. Kendall took part. Information on matters of practical detail was given by the surveyor, and also by Mr. Wm. West, of St. Blazey, who suggested that without altering the level of the present roadway, a space of one foot might be gained beneath the roadway—the distance between the roadway and the internal part of the arch being, at present, as much as three feet; and by the use of four iron girders in place of the existing arch, a space of six feet might be gained to the width of the bridge; altogether, Mr. West’s suggestions went to the increasing three-fold, the present area of the bridge. It was ultimately resolved, on the motion of Mr. CAREW, seconded by Mr. SAWLE, “that the report on St. Blazey Bridge be referred to the magistrates of the Tywardreath Division to report at the next session; to take to their assistance the Clerk of the Peace; and should the Committee, with the assistance of that gentleman, question the liability of the county, then a case to be stated for the opinion of Counsel, to be reported at the next session; and should the opinion be against the county, that the committee be authorized to obtain plans to meet the difficulty. AGENDA. —The first business was to receive the Report of a Committee appointed at the last sessions, to consider the inconvenience of that part of the Court appropriated to the magistrates, with a view to suggest a remedy.—In the absence of Mr. WILLYAMS, the chairman of the committee, and of a written report, Mr. CAREW briefly stated the nature of a suggestion made by Mr. Willyams, the object of which appeared to be to provide for the accommodation of the magistrates by seats arranged against two sides of one of the angles of the Court; instead of, as at present, along the length of one wall.—The business was, however, postponed. —Mr. J.B. MESSENGER moved, seconded by Mr. CORYTON, for a grant of £6 a year, as payment for the use of a room, at the hotel, Callington, for the weekly meetings of the magistrates of the Middle Division of the Hundred of East.—On division, the motion was defeated, almost unanimously; only two hands being held up in its favour. [WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—not transcribed] COUNTY VOTING:—Mr. SAWLE gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move that this court make application to the Queen in Council that Torpoint be made a polling place for the Easter Division of the County. County Elections were now limited to one day; and all the electors in the neighbourhood of Torpoint had to travel 16 miles to Liskeard, to vote. And besides this, there was a considerable number of out-voters in the towns of Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport, who, by a recent act, might transfer their qualifications to Torpoint, and thus would only have to go two miles to vote.—Mr. KENDALL observed that the proposed change was very desirable. COUNTY POLICE EXPENSES.—Lord VIVIAN gave notice that at the next Quarter Sessions he will move that a sum not exceeding £3,000, be granted for building Police Stations in the six districts to which Superintendents have been appointed. TUESDAY, April 7. [POLICE REPORTS.—not transcribed] [CHIEF CONSTABLE’S REPORT.—not transcribed] PETTY SESSIONS.—The CHAIRMAN read a letter which he had received from the Home Office, concerning an intention by Sir George Grey to make inquiries, with the view of effecting uniformity in the certificates granted by magistrates in Petty Sessions, for expenses allowed to prosecutors.—On the CHAIRMAN’S suggestion, the letter was handed to the Clerk of the Peace, in order that he may write to the several Petty Sessions on the subject, in order to obtain their returns. THE MILITIA.—Leave was given to Colonel CORYTON, to sign, on behalf of the county, a lease of store- house for the purpose of the 1st Regiment of Militia; the site Castle-hill; the rent £45 for one year, and £40 for every subsequent year. POLICE.—The CHAIRMAN said he had received memorials from policemen, making application for superannuations.—The policemen who made the application were from Redruth; their names, Thomas Hodge, 46 years old, 8 years service; Charles Tregoning, 53 years old, 15 years of service; and Martin Williams, 52 years old, nearly 14 years service, and 3 years in the London police.—They were all in Court, and it appeared from their statements—Martin Williams being the chief spokesman—that the ground on which they asked the favourable consideration of the Court was that they were put out of their employment as policemen, from no fault of their own, but by the operation of the Act of Parliament under which the new Police Force is established. They had received 17s 6d a week each, and £5 annually allowed for a suit of clothes. They had devoted themselves to the service of the public, to the neglect of their several trades or businesses; and it would take them some time to get into modes of earning their living. Under these circumstances they asked the favourable consideration of the Court, and that some allowance or gratuity might be granted to them.—Mr. REYNOLDS, of Trevenson, gave the men very good characters, and in this respect spoke particularly of Williams, whom he had known, as resident in his parish for many years.—The magistrates who took part in conversation on the subject were the CHAIRMAN, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. D.P. LE GRICE, and Mr. E. COODE, jun.—There appeared to be a not unfavourable feeling towards the applicants; but, for the sake of precedent, it was held that the subject could not be considered except by due notice for its consideration at the next Sessions.—No magistrate, however, gave such notice, and consequently, all that was now done was that the CHAIRMAN made a note of the memorials having been received. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. EDWARD LARK, 40, described as “a labourer,” was charged with forcibly entering a cattle-house at Cornelly, on the night of the 6th of March, and unlawfully and maliciously maiming one cow, one heifer, and five steers, the property of his brother James Lark.—In a second count, the charge was made as maliciously wounding.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence.—Before the prisoner was called on to plead, Mr. Childs, reading the depositions in the case, made application to the Court, that he ought not to be arraigned, in consequence of insanity. It appeared that in September 1854, the prisoner had been placed in the Cornwall Lunatic Asylum, and was discharged in May, 1855; he was again placed there on the 22nd of August, 1855, and discharged on the 29th of August, 1855; and he was prepared to prove, by the evidence of Mr. Ward, surgeon, that the prisoner was now insane, so that he ought not to be arraigned.—Mr. STOKES, for the prosecution, said there was no doubt as to the prisoner’s insanity, and all that his brother, the prosecutor, wanted was to have him properly taken care of, and to be himself protected against him.—The CHAIRMAN, however, with the Clerk of the Peace’s concurrence, held that the prisoner ought to be arraigned, and it would be seen whether he was or was not competent to plead. The prisoner was accordingly arraigned, and he pleaded “Not Guilty,” as calmly, deliberately, and intelligently as could any other prisoner.—The trial then proceeded; and Mr. CHILDS, after stating the case to the Jury, proceeded to call the following witnesses:— James Lark:— I am a farmer residing in the parish of Cornelly; the prisoner is my half-brother. We were once in partnership together as farmers; that partnership ceased in September, 1854. Some time after that, a settlement took place between us, which was concluded in November, 1855; and from that time there had been a bad feeling towards me on the part of my brother. On the 6th of March I had five steers, one cow, and one heifer, I saw them safe in the cattle house late in the evening of the 6th March. About 2 o’clock next morning my man called me, and I went to the cattle-house, and found that all seven bullocks had been stabbed; one was stabbed in the ribs, and another in the belly; in two, the bowels protruded through the wounds that had been made; we are obliged to kill one of these. I had not seen my brother for 6 months before that.—Cross-examined.—On the dissolution of our partnership, our accounts were made up between us, and reduced by a solicitor; the accounts were made up correctly and properly as regards my brother’s share, and the amount paid him was £504 0s. 8d. Whatever was justly due to him I paid him. It was in September 1854 that we dissolved partnership; and in that same month he became insane and was put to the Asylum; I think it was on the 11th of September he went to the Asylum. We had parted with some of the stock on the farm before he went there; and, after that, I took an attorney’s opinion and had the property valued. He was discharged from the Asylum in May, 1855, and appeared then to be better. Before he was sent to the Asylum, I had had a medical attendant for him several times, and he advised that my brother should be sent to the Asylum. In the following August he again manifested signs of insanity and threatened to shoot me; the usual medical certificate was obtained as to his state of mind, and he was again sent to the Asylum. Since that, I have had occasion twice to go before the magistrates and swear the peace of him; I am in bodily fear of him at this moment, supposing he were let loose. I cannot say what is his state of mind now; that’s best known to the medical men.—By Mr. Stokes.—On the 3rd of September he was bound over to keep the peace for six months. Richard Arthur:—I am a farmer residing in Creed, and know both the prosecutor and the prisoner. In September last, about the 15th or 16th I think, the prisoner called at my house and told me he was bound to keep the peace again for 6 months, toward his brother; he said to me, “as soon as the 6 months is expired I will go to Killiow again, and if I can’t drive the cattle off, I’ll leave them waste on the place.” He desired me particularly to tell his brother of it, for he would as surely do it as that he had said he would. I saw his brother on the 17th September, and informed him. John Aver:—I am a farmer residing at Cuby, and have known prosecutor and the prisoner for many years. On the 1st December last, I saw the prisoner near St. Austell, and had some conversation with him. I said I hoped all unpleasantness between his brother and him would cease for ever. He said “no; as soon as my bondsmen are liberated, I will come down again and do worse”; and he said that would be early in March. I said “no, Mr. Lark; I would not come down; I think the men that valued your property did it in a right manner; I would put my life in their hands; if I were you. I would give it up for ever.” He said, “no, I will not.” Then I said “Mr. Lark, if you do come down, I would come down by day; I would not do it by night, it looks so dirty.” He said “they would shoot me like a rabbit, if I came by day.” I said “no, no, sir, they will not; and you will stand in a different position if you are taken up again; you will be tried at the bar as a criminal, I should imagine.” “Well, he said, if I am cast and convicted, I shall be only sent where I came from, as labouring under a delusion.” I said it was too bad to ruin his brother and say he was labouring under a delusion; and he said he would be revenged. I have seen him on several occasions since that, and on one occasion he said he should come down again in March.—Cross-examined. I had known of his having been sent to the asylum; I had reference to that when I said I thought he would stand in a different position. I considered at the time that he was not exactly right. I know the persons who valued the property from the prosecutor and prisoner; I have confidence in their integrity and would place my life in their hands; they are honourable men and men of integrity; and I have no doubt justice was done between the parties. I should think the prisoner is a dangerous person, if he was let loose on society; I am quite convinced of it, in my own mind. Nicholas Wills:—I am an innkeeper and live at London Apprentice, in the parish of St. Austell, and about 1¾ miles on the road to Mevagissey. Persons can go that way from St. Blazey to Cornelly. On Friday night the 5th of March, about half past 9, I saw the prisoner going in the direction towards St. Ewe, on the road to Cornelly; he had a black dog with him, and was carrying upright, something shining, in his arm. Elizabeth Trevorrow: I reside in the parish of St. Austell; on Friday night the 6th of March, I was near the London Apprentice, and saw the prisoner; he passed close by my side; he was carrying a saw on his arm, and a large black dog with him. William Werry: I am a constable of St. Blazey; I have known the prisoner about 12 months; he has been living at Par for about that time. On Saturday the 7th of March, about 7 o’clock in the morning, I went to his house; there was a black-and-white sheep dog at the door. I was sent there by his brother; the prisoner came down stairs, and appeared very fatigued; his clothes were dirty and his boots wet. I asked him where he lodged last night. He told me that was no business of mine, and afterwards he told me he lodged there. Then he asked me “what’s up.” I told him there had been some depredation committed down to his brother’s, and that he was accused of it. He said “if tis so, tis so.” He then said he would go down to his brother’s and shoot £100 worth of cattle before his brother’s face, and I might go down and look at him. Nothing more passed then, and I did not take him into custody. On the following Monday, I saw him at Mr. Lyne’s, where he came of his own accord. He asked Mr. Lyne what authority I had to come to his house and ask him where he slept. Mr. Lyne told him that he had sent me. The prisoner said I had exceeded the bounds of my duty. After some conversation with Mr. Lyne and me about the cattle, he said he believed God would smile on the man who stabbed the bullocks, and one thing he regretted very much was that he had not shot down his brother, the doctor, the constable, and all, dead at his feet. He was not in a state of excitement then. He said God would smile on the man that would kill his brother, and that his brother was as big a murderer as was ever executed. Mr. Lyne said, “why, he never murdered you.” He said that when he, the prisoner, reached forth his hand to take poison, his brother did not prevent him. William Joseph Nash:—I am Police Superintendent at Truro. On Monday the 30th of March, I went to the prisoner’s residence at Par, in company with Serjeant Woolcock, and constable Werry, between 5 and 6 o’clock in the morning, for the purpose of apprehending the prisoner. I apprehended him, and on the way to Truro, he said he was aware I was looking for him, and that he had been to Bodmin Assizes to have advice from Counsellor Cole, whether he should go down to Truro and admit the charge; and Counsellor Cole told him ‘no, he had better wait and see what they would do in it.’ He also said that on the previous Monday, he had agreed with some gipsies (sic) to go down and take the horses; but their hearts failed them. I understood he meant his brother’s horses. He was then in the same state as he is now, and spoke very rationally. When I apprehended him, I told him what it was for, and the warrant was read over to him. I have not the least doubt he knew me well. William Woolcock, Police-serjeant at Truro. I was in charge of the prisoner during part of the journey down to Truro. He was talking to a friend of his, Mr. Bennallack, at the London Inn, in St. Austell, who appeared to be remonstrating with him. I heard the prisoner say he would never leave his brother rest while he had a head of cattle left, and he would bring him down till he was obliged to do a day’s work. The prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrate was then read. It was:—“I claim this property as my own.” The PRISONER was permitted to address the court and jury, at considerable length, giving his own version of transactions between his brother and himself, and of his treatment in the asylum. He expressed himself with much emotion at times, and frequently repeated that he had been wronged with regard to his property, and ill-treated by being kept in the asylum, adding that his brother wanted to have him led about, in the midst of a dense population, with a rope round his waist.—In answer to the CHAIRMAN, he admitted that he had received the £508; but appeared to have a notion that he was entitled to some subsequent profits on the farm, and that the arbitration was not right.—The referees were Mr. Arthur, and Mr. Doble of Barteliver. Mr. CHILDS addressed the Jury for the defence; which was, that the prisoner was insane at the time of the offence charged against him. John Ward:—I am a medical man, residing at Bodmin, and am surgeon at the Gaol. I have seen the prisoner in the gaol, and knew him when he was in the Asylum. When he was at the Asylum, I had him under my charge for a long time, during the absence of Dr. Boisragon, and my impression was that he was monomaniac. There were many points on which he was as sane as other people; but when you came to talk to him about his property, he would go off into this wild nonsense. When he came to the gaol, I recognized him at once, and asked him what he was brought there for; and he went off into a long statement precisely as he used to do before, at the Asylum. I am perfectly convinced that he is a monomaniac—that he is mad on one particular point, having reference to matters in dispute between himself and his brother.—I have not seen him so rational since he has been in my charge, as he appears to- day. Dr Boisragon was of the same opinion as myself—that he was a monomaniac; and I believe it would be found that he is so entered in the books at the asylum. I never saw his brother at the asylum; but I take the prisoner’s expression, that his brother wanted to have him taken out and led about with a rope round his waist, as one indication that he was a monomaniac. The CHAIRMAN summed up; and the Jury found that the prisoner was guilty of the act charged, but that he was insane at the time.—On this verdict of insanity, he was ordered to be detained, awaiting Her Majesty’s pleasure. FRANCIS CLEMENCE, a miner, was charged with stealing a £5 note, the property of Isaac Nicholas Dyer, at St. Austell, on the 6th Sept., 1856. In a second count, he was charged with feloniously receiving.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Isaac Nicholas Dyer deposed: I am a miner living at Redruth, and was at St. Austell in September last. On Saturday, the 6th of September, I received my wages from my mine; among the money was a £5 note, which I put into my waistcoat pocket wrapped up in a bal-bill, with my brother’s name on it. In the evening of that day, between 8 and 10 o’clock, I was at Stephens’s public-house, and the prisoner was also there in the same room—the kitchen. I got up to leave the house about 10 o’clock, and put my hand in my waistcoat pocket and found my money was gone. I am sure I had it there when I went into the public-house. I immediately made known my loss; a police-man was sent for, and several persons in the room were searched, but the note was not found that night. Caroline Lemon, the servant who attended in the room, was searched as well as others. About a week or a fortnight afterwards, I asked the prisoner about the £5 note, but he did not seem to know anything about it.— Caroline Lemon:—In September last, I was servant at Stephens’s public-house, and was there on the evening of the 6th Sept. About 10 o’clock, I heard the prosecutor say publicly in the kitchen, that he had lost a £5 note; the door was closed, and a policeman sent for; Sambells and another policeman came, and searched several persons, but the note was not found. I was searched, and I saw the prisoner go to the parlour to be searched. On the Saturday following I left service at that Inn, and in the evening saw Clemence and a man called Gill (since dead) standing below the market corner. Clemence asked me to go to the Queen’s Head with him. I went there with him and Gill, and another young woman. Soon after that, Clemence left the house and was absent nearly half an hour; when he came back, he had 5 sovereigns in his hand; he was trembling, and I asked him what was the matter; he said “nothing”; I asked him if it was anything about me; he said no, but he would tell me by and by; after that he and I left the house together; I was going to my sister’s, at Sticker; on the road he told me that he had the £5 note which Dyer lost at Stephens’s public-house, with the bal-bill wrapped round it; he said he had broke up the bal-bill and chewed it down; I asked him what he did with the £5 note when he was searched; he said he put it in the cuff of his coat, between the lining and the cloth. The next day me and him and Richard Gill and his young woman went to Par; Clemence told me that he had changed the note that night when he was trembling so, and that he had given Gill a sovereign of the money; he said he found the note in Stephens’s kitchen, wrapped up in a bal-bill that had Dyer’s name on it.—Cross-examined.—I was friendly with Clemence: he was courting me, or I suppose he would not have told me about it. It was not because his banns were put in with another young woman, that I told about what he had said; the reason why I told of it was because I had the fault of it, and was charged with having had the £5 note; I never had any of the money.—Thomas Sambells, policeman, at St. Austell; on the evening of Saturday the 6th of September, I went to Stephens’s public-house with Westlake, another constable; there were about 50 persons there; we searched several; I searched Gill, and Westlake in my presence searched Clemence; we did not find the £5 note. In consequence of information I received from the last witness, I apprehended the prisoner on the 26th of March, at St. Ewe; on the road to St. Austell, he said “I suppose you know who has been doing all this;” I said I did; he said, “what have she been telling up about it now?” I said she had informed me that he had told her that he had found the £5 note; he said “the note was found, but I did not find it; the man is dead who found it; I had my share, she had her share, and the man had his share; through the means of the note, I slept with her one night and he slept with her the night after; and I would not marry her, because she had done this.” He said, Gill was the man who found the note. ON the 28th March, before the magistrates, he said, that he had 50s., and Gill 50s., and that each of them gave the girl half-a-sovereign. He said he told the girl he found it, in order to take the blame on his own back.—Cross-examined: He told me that the young woman had made this charge against him, because the banns had been called between him and another young woman.—Mr. STOKES addressed the jury, after which the CHAIRMAN summed up. The jury at first found as their verdict that the prisoner was guilty of concealing part of the money; but, on being told that that was not the offence charged, they re-considered, and found him Guilty of feloniously receiving the money, knowing it to have been stolen. He was sentenced to Four Calendar Months hard labour. This concluded the trials, and the jury were discharged. PENANCE, appellant: Mr. Shilson. ST. MARY, TRURO, respondent; Mr. Stokes. This was an appeal against an order for the removal of three persons named Johns from St. Mary’s, Truro, to the borough of Penzance. Mr. SHILSON applied to enter and adjourn; the parties having agreed to state a case for the opinion of the Poor Law Board. The Appeal was entered and adjourned accordingly. Rev. SAMUEL SYMONS, appellant; OVERSEERS and CHURCHWARDENS of PHILLEIGH, respondent. Mr. STOKES moved to enter and adjourn an appeal against an assessment for the relief of the poor of the parish of Philleigh, made and allowed on the 1st of January last. ROAD ORDER.—On motion by Mr. SHILSON, the Court confirmed orders made by the magistrates of two Petty Sessional Divisions, for stopping up a road that passes through parts of the parishes of Menheniot and St. Germans, and through property of Mr. Trelawny at Coldrennick. Mr. Shilson explained that it was not Mr. Trelawny’s wish to have the road stopped up; but, on his application to have it repaired, the Justices in Petty Sessions, to whom the application was made, decided that the road was unnecessary and advised that it be stopped up. In the applications now made to the Court, from the parishes of Menheniot and St. Germans, it was alleged that the road in question was of no practical utility to the public, and that there was another road more convenient and advantageous for the public use. BREACHES OF THE PEACE.—ROBERT STEPHENS, 56, and his son, ROBERT STEPHENS the younger, 20— shoemakers, had been committed on the 16th February, for want of sureties in a breach of the peace at Lostwithiel. No one appearing against them, they were admonished and discharged. JOHN IVEY, 18, a miner, had been committed on the 2nd of March, by E. Coode, jun. Esq. of St. Austell, for want of sureties to be of good behaviour. No one appearing against him, the Chairman cautioned him as to his future conduct, and especially to avoid drunkenness, and discharged him. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 3 July 1857

4. Midsummer Sessions These sessions opened on Tuesday the 30th of June, at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— JOHN KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. S. Davey, Esq. Gordon W. F. Gregor, Esq. F. M. Williams, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. E. St. Aubyn, Esq. J. Jope Rogers, Esq. J. F. Trist, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. C. G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. W. P. Kempe, Esq. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. Hon. & Rev. J. Townshend E. Coode, jun., Esq. Boscawen. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. C. M. Edward Collins. T. Hext, Esq. Rev. Uriah Tonkin. R. G. Bennet, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. C. A. Reynolds, Esq. Rev. J. Wilkinson. H. Thomson, Esq. Rev. J. Glanville. E. Stephens, Esq. Rev. James Glencross. J. W. Pearce, Esq. Rev. R. B. Kinsman. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. The following gentlemen qualified as magistrates:—Richard Henry Stackhouse Vyvyan, Esq.; and Robert Gould Lakes, Esq., of Trewarrick. The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury:— Mr. James Akermann, St. Just in Penwith. —Nicholas J. Boyns, ditto. —Francis Carter, Sancreed. —Jacob Corin, Madron. —Edward Davey, Redruth. —John Davies, St. Keverne. —William Neale Ellis, Sancreed. —Pascoe Grenfell, St. Just. —Benjamin Gundry, Perran Uthnoe. —John Buckingham Kempthorne, Mullion. —George Laity, Perran Uthnoe. —Bryan Lawry, St. Just in Penwith. —Philip Marrack, Sancreed. —Sampson Nicholls, St. Keverne. —Solomon Nicholls, St. Anthony in Meneage. —Samuel Phillips, Madron. —John Quick, Morvah. —W. Hodge Sandry, St. Just in Penwith. —Thomas Shepherd, Mullion. —John Thomas, Mullion. —William Tonkin, Paul. —Richard Ustace Williams, St. Ives. —James Young, St. Ives. After the usual preliminaries, inclusive of the reading of the Queen's Proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue and for the punishment of vice and immorality, the Chairman delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY (not transcribed). […..] With some concluding remarks, the Chairman dismissed the jury, requesting them to forward bills as speedily as possible; but in this they were much hindered by unreadiness on the part of attorneys. VISITING JUSTICES REPORT,—The Visiting Justices—Mr. Thomson, Mr. Neville Norway, and the Rev. C. M. E. Collins—reported that the gaol and bridewell are in their usual excellent order. CORONERS.—Mr. STEPHENS said, while the coroners were present, he wished to make some remarks. He lived in a parish which was close to the sea, and very liable to shipwrecks, and to bodies being thrown up by the sea. He saw in this court, and still more in Gloucestershire, that justices seemed rather to have dissuaded coroners from holding inquests than to have persuaded them to do so. He looked to the opinions of his fellow-justices with the greatest respect; and had heard with great pleasure the remarks that had this day fallen from their Chairman. He must say that his own opinion was diametrically opposite to that of the justices of Gloucestershire. He should have ordered the constables in both cases (as they were reported in the papers), to have fetched the coroner. It seemed to rest entirely with the justices in quarter sessions; and, as one of them, he wished to express his opinion that the fees were to be considered as nothing in comparison with the holding of an inquest. It appeared to him that it was in doubtful cases especially that it was necessary inquests should be held. Of course, if it was a case of plain murder, an inquest must be held in order that the body might be buried; but the duty of a coroner was scarcely appreciable then, and was of no value in comparison with its importance in doubtful cases. As far as was in his power, he should always promote the holding of an inquest. Rev. R. B. KINSMAN said, at the last Sessions he felt it his duty to make some observations with reference to an inquest; and Mr. Kendall either preceded or followed him.—We understood him to express a qualified concurrence in the remarks made by Mr. Stephens; after which he spoke of the decision which, since the last sessions, had been ably laid down by one of our most eminent and upright judges—Lord Campbell, who, Mr. Kinsman remarked, almost re-echoed the observations he used at the last sessions. Having said thus much, he should be sorry for the coroners to suppose that he wished them to be negligent in the performance of their duty. But, considering the great expenses constantly being placed on the county, magistrates ought to be careful to economize as far as possible; and while the law was effectually carried out, coroners should exercise that discretion which he maintained, had not been exercised in the case he alluded to last Sessions; in that case, it was patent to the whole neighbourhood that an inquest ought not to have been held. As he told the coroner, he had no doubt this court would pay the mileage, and he had his remedy if he thought proper to prefer any further demand. Mr. RODD, with regard to persons drowned by wreck believed it had been deemed sufficient if one or two inquests were held on the bodies out of the wreck, without holding inquests on all the bodies afterwards found; provided it was clear that all owed their death to the same accident. Mr. STEPHENS did not see how the holding an inquest on one body could afford the slightest information as to bodies found on the shore several days afterwards. The CHAIRMAN entertained an opinion that it was a very difficult matter. He had been in hopes that in the case of the Queen v. Gloucestershire he should have found some guidance; but after reading it he found himself almost in the same position as before. All that he had said to the grand jury was, that now that there would be authorized individuals, in the new Police, there would not be messengers coming to the coroner on slight occasions. It was very difficult to exercise a discretion in such cases. A messenger came, perhaps with exaggerated statements, and the coroner had not power to inquire into all of them; he therefore went to the spot, and, if he went, he ought to be paid. (We may here mention that, at this stage of proceedings, and also frequently afterwards, Mr. Le Grice, and other magistrates complained of great inconvenience in being unable to hear, at all connectedly or intelligibly, the observations made by their fellow-justices if at any considerable distance on the platform. The CHAIRMAN next read the Coroners' Bills, for the last Quarter, as follows:— Mr. Carlyon's for 24 inquests, … … … … £82 9 3 Mr. Hamley's “ 13 “ … … … … 45 10 8 Mr. Good's “ 11 “ … … … … 38 13 4 Mr. Jago's “ 12 “ … … … … 37 14 0 Mr. Hichens's “ 17 “ … … … … 51 6 7 £255 13 10 For the corresponding quarter last year, the bills were:— Mr. Carlyon's … … … … … … … … … … £100 16 8 Mr. Hamley’s … … … … … … … … … … 49 6 10 Mr. Good's … … … … … … … … … … … 25 3 8 Mr. Jago's … … … … … … … … … … … … 29 11 0 Mr. Hichens's … … … … … … … … … … 73 0 0 £277 18 2 In the course of reading these bills, the CHAIRMAN said he observed, from Lord Campbell's remarks that the whole question as to sending for the coroner, fell into the hands of the constables.—He had asked one of the coroners—Mr. CarIyon—whether the average expense of the messenger and of the summoning the jury amounted to 1l.; Mr. Carlyon thought the average was about 14s. BILLETS.—The Chairman said he had received a letter from the Home Office transmitting a circular from the War Office, by which it appeared that henceforth innkeepers are bound compulsorily to supply full forage rations to H.M. Cavalry forces at a fixed rate of payment, 1s. 9d. per day per horse, instead of 9d. as by previously existing arrangements. GOVERNOR’S REPORT—The Governor had much satisfaction in reporting that the conduct of the prisoners during the past Quarter had, with some few exceptions, been orderly. A large number of the males had been employed on the new works, where they still continue to do a considerable amount of labour. The summary and other committals had lately increased owing probably to the vigilance of the County Constabulary.—The several defects and dilapidations before reported, continued to exist, but under present circumstances, the Governor did not recommend that any repairs be undertaken. [GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE PAST QUARTER.—not transcribed] PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEW GAOL.—The CLERK OF THE PEACE informed the Court that the architect, Mr. Porter, had certified for payment to the contractors to the extent of 7 or £800, and also required payment of £100 to himself. It was an order of this Court that the money required for the New Gaol should be taken up at interest, in three sums of £10,000, £8000, and £7,000, from the West of England Insurance Office. No money had as yet been taken up, because none had been wanted. It would be an act of folly for this Court to pay interest on £10,000 before that sum was wanted. The CHAIRMAN said he understood that Mr. Coode would advance the 8 or £900 now required at interest, so that the Court should not have occasion to call on the Insurance Office for £10,000 when only £900 was wanted; it would be much better to borrow £900 in this way, than to take up £10,000 at interest. (We understood that this suggestion was assented to.) DEPOSITIONS.—The CHAIRMAN, having before had occasion to complain that the Grand Jury were not promptly supplied with Bills of Indictment, now complained that depositions had not been duly sent to him, he said it was always desirable they should be received by him the night before the Sessions. He mentioned some instances of neglect, and remarked that in one of these cases the commitment took place many months back. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT.—The comparative statement of prisoners in gaol at the present time and at the corresponding Sessions last year, showed that the total number now for trial was 44; this time twelvemonths, 20.—Last year, under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, there were 13 in prison; at the present time, 16.—Under the Juvenile Offenders Act, there were last year, 3 prisoners; at the present time, one.— Totals; last year, 36; at the present time, 63. BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—The Report from Mr. S. W. Jenkin, surveyor of Bridges in the Eastern Division, was as follows:— Trekerner Bridge:—A drain is required at the Western extremity of the approach-road to this bridge, and a little pointing to the bridge itself; the cost will be about 20 shillings. Boyton Bridge.—A portion of the Bridge belongs to the County of Cornwall, and the remainder to the Hamlet of Northcott in Devonshire. The bridge is a very poor one, with stone piers and rough wooden beams laid horizontally. The pier on the Cornish side has now become so weak that it is unsafe to allow it to remain any longer in its present state; and I have therefore to apply for the sum of 30l. to meet the expense of taking down and rebuilding it. But I think it right at the same time to state that after this has been done, it will still leave the Bridge in a very unsatisfactory state, no provision having been made for preventing the decay of the timber of which the roadway is composed. St. Austell Lower Bridge.—Some extra drains are required to carry the water off from the road at both ends of this bridge: the cost will be about £3.—I shall not requre (sic) any levy at this time. The various sums asked for by Mr. Jenkin were granted by the Court. WESTERN DIVISION.—The Report from Mr. Hicks, Surveyor of Bridges in the Western Division, was as follows:— "I have pleasure in stating that the bridges and bridge roads in my Division, are now in a better state of repair than they have been for some time past. There is a drain required at the side of the road at Chyandour, the cost of which will be about 25 shillings.—l would recommend painting with white paint the tops of the granite posts and the iron rails at Higher Carnon; I estimate the cost at 35 shillings.—l shall require one levy at the next Sessions.—The sums required by Mr. Hickes were granted. THE COURT.—Mr. Thomson said, as Mr. Willyams appeared to have dropped his motion with reference to making arrangements for promoting the convenience and comfort of the Court, he begged to ask whether the gaol Committee might not be requested and empowered to make the necessary inquiries on the subject. He was induced to mention this now, because, before Mr. Willyams's motion, he (Mr. Thomson) had been spoken to with regard to the bad condition of the painting of the Stalls; it was absolutely necessary the wood-work should be painted; but he (Mr. Thomson) postponed his motion to that effect, because he thought it better that any alterations in the arrangements of the Court should be made before painting. He now desired to propose that the Gaol Committee be requested to make inquiry as to what additional convenience and comfort can be added to the Bench and the Court. Mr. SAWLE said the great difficulty was that the Court was required for two different purposes—for Assizes and for Quarter Sessions. For Assize purposes the Court was considered very convenient; and they must be careful, in any alterations made, not to spoil the Court for assize purposes. Mr. LE GRICE thought there would be no necessity for altering the Court, if, for the transaction of county business, the magistrates sat at the table, the Chairman occupying the Clerk of the Peace's seat for the time; and, he believed, the only alteration suggested by Mr. Willyams was to prevent magistrates going on the platform and to induce them to occupy the seats around the table. Mr. PETER also concurred in the propriety of sitting at the table.—After some further conversation on the matter, and some complaints of the frequent inaudibility of proceedings as now conducted, the Chairman adopted the tenor of Mr. Thompson's motion as a notice for the Michaelmas Sessions. THE AGENDA. The CHAIRMAN said the first notice was that given by the Rev. R.B. Kinsman that the Rev. J GLANVILE would move that the Police Committee should be requested to consider and report whether any, and what, re-arrangement of Petty Sessional Divisions was desirable, in order to the better carrying out the purposes of the Police Act. The Rev. J. GLANVILLE submitted his motion according to notice; but, afterwards, acceding to a suggestion from the Chairman, he consented to the adjournment of his motion, waiting definite information from the Chief Constable, Lieut.-Col. Gilbert, as to what may be his requirements for the effectual action of his force. COUNTY VOTING.—At the Easter Sessions, Mr. SAWLE gave notice that he would now move that this court make application to the Queen in Council that Torpoint be made a polling place for the Eastern Division of the County.—Mr. SAWLE now stated that he was not in a position to submit the motion, inasmuch as the notice was informal, in consequence of its non-compliance with the requirement that it be signed by two electors. Mr. SAWLE also intimated that perhaps, he had better leave it to the people of the neighbourhood of Torpoint to make the application themselves, if they regarded the inconvenience of travelling 17 miles to poll. COUNTY POLICE EXPENSES.—At the Easter Sessions Lord VIVIAN gave notice that he would now apply for a grant of a sum not exceeding 3000l. for building Police Stations in the several districts to which police have been appointed.—The CHAIRMAN said his lordship, in a letter to him, left it to him to say whether or not this motion had better be adjourned; and he (the Chairman) thought, in the present state of the Police, the motion had better be adjourned till next Sessions. No doubt the County would soon be called on by Colonel Gilbert: but at the present moment it was not known what stations would be wanted, or where. Mr. Le GRICE asked if there was any estimate for the proposed Stations. The CHAIRMAN said it seemed that Lord Vivian was desirous of getting the £3000 first, and then the estimates. Mr. Le GRICE thought the better plan would be to get the estimates first. ST. BLAZEY BRIDGE.—At the last Sessions, after reception of an elaborate report from Mr. Sylvanus Jenkin on the condition of St Blazey-bridge, with reference to the silting up of the river, it was resolved to refer that report to the magistrates of the Tywardreath Division "to report at the next Sessions; to take to their assistance the Clerk of the Peace; and should the Committee, with the assistance of that gentleman, question the liability of the county, then a case to be stated for the opinion of counsel, to be reported at the next Sessions; but should the opinion be against the county, that the Committee be authorised to obtain plans to meet the difficulty." The following documents were now presented and read:— Liskeard, 27th May, 1857. Dear Sir, At a Petty Session for the Tywardreath Division of the Hundred of Powder, held on Monday the 18th instant, the order of reference made at the last General Quarter Sessions was produced and read. The Justices present were the Rev. C. Lyne, the Rev. E. J. Treffry, Richard Foster and N. Norway, Esquires. Mr. Jenkyn, the County Surveyor for the Eastern Division, attended and produced a plan and estimate for the alteration and improvement of the Bridge, which were approved of by the Justices. The Justices are of opinion that there is no immediate necessity for effecting such alteration and improvement, and desire that the question as to the liability of the county to defray the cost of such alteration and improvement, if made, should be submitted for the opinion of Cornwall, in case such a course should have your approval. The Justices then present regretted that your absence from the county should have prevented your attending the Meeting, and instructed me, as the Clerk, to communicate this information to you. I remain, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, C. CHILDS. Clerk to the Justices for the Tywardreath Division of the Hundred of Powder. Edward Coode, Esq., Clerk of the Peace, St. Austell. Liskeard, May 16th, 1857. To the Magistrates of the Division of Powder, Tywardreath. Gentlemen, ln accordance with instructions received from the last Petty Sessions of your division, I have prepared a drawing of a cast-iron girder bridge to be substituted for the present stone one at St. Blazey, with an area of waterway of 135 feet, as compared with 46 feet at the present bridge, and 90 feet at Middleway Bridge, and capable of being raised at any time at a trifling expense, should it be required.—l estimate the cost of this bridge at about £170, including taking down the present bridge, and altering the road. I remain, gentlemen, Your obedient servant, SILVANUS W. JENKIN. NEWLYN BRIDGE.—At the Easter Sessions, Mr. LE GRICE brought under notice the fact of an alleged trespass on the County property in the bridge at Newlyn West, by the making of a door-way in the parapet- wall of the bridge; and it was referred to the Magistrates of West Penwith to inquire and report on the subject. The following report was now presented and read:— Report of Justices acting for the Western Division of the Hundred of Penwith, to whom it had been referred to inquire into an alleged encroachment on the approach wall of Newlyn Bridge— "We have inspected the locality of the encroachment alluded to, and have made careful inquiry respecting it, and we find the facts relating to it to be as follows:—The parapet on the northern side of the bridge at Street-an-nowan, in Newlyn, extends in a westerly direction about 30 feet beyond the bank of the river. It is about 4 feet high, and properly coped with granite, and is the property of the County. About 35 years ago, the owners of the property lying adjacent to the bridge, without any permission, built upon the parapet wall of the bridge, the wall of a warehouse, without disturbing the wall of the bridge; nor does it appear that the parapet wall in question has ever been actually repaired by any party; it apparently has not required it. Until within the last 12 months the parapet was entire; but within that period Mr. William Carter of Newlyn (who has recently purchased the premises adjacent to the bridge, of which the warehouse above alluded to forms a part), has taken down part of the said parapet wall of the bridge, and made a doorway for the purpose of " therethrough," passing into the warehouse stores of coal and other merchandize.— The door is within 12 feet of the arch of the bridge; and the road opposite it, and on either side of it is at no place more than 15 feet in width. The road at the spot in question is an important highway, and one of very considerable traffic; this bridge being the only highway between the populous village of Newlyn and Mousehole and Penzance.—As the door is not sufficiently capacious to admit a cart, each cart must discharge its load of coals on the bridge, there to remain till shovelled into the warehouse. We are therefore unanimously of opinion that no time should be lost in taking steps to abate this very grievous nuisance. If the nuisance is not abated, the obstruction will be so serious that the Bridge must be widened, thus causing the county considerable expense."—The Report was dated June 27, 1857, and was signed by Col. SCOBELL, as Chairman of the Petty Sessions. Mr. Le GRICE moved that steps be taken to abate the nuisance, in compliance with the Report; and the motion was seconded by Mr. St. AUBYN.—Some conversation ensued, in which the CHAIRMAN, the Rev. U. TONKIN, Mr. LE GRICE, and Mr. SAWLE, and the CLERK OF THE PEACE took part; but, we believe, no definite determination was arrived at. PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEW GAOL—Recalling attention to a matter previously mentioned, the CHAIRMAN (the Bench assenting), signed an order on the Treasurer for £700 to pay the contractors according to the architect's certificate, and for £100 to be paid to Mr. Porter himself.—The order was also signed by another magistrate. COUNTY RATE COMMITTEE.—The CHAIRMAN announced that Capt. Hext had written to request that his name be removed from the County Rate Committee. —Bills for Registration were presented by the Clerk of the Peace, but the amounts were not stated. THE COUNTY CONSTABULARY.—The CHAIRMAN read the following report:— Chief Constable's Office, Bodmin; 30th June, 1857. My Lords and Gentlemen; I have the honour to inform you that the Constabulary Force of this county now consists of six Superintendents, seven inspectors, one serjeant-major, nine serjeants, ten 1st class constables, and 69 second-class constables; and that I have occupied the Petty Sessional Divisions of Stratton; Lesnewth; Northern, Middle and Southern Divisions of East; the Division of West; and East and West Kirrier; thus completing three out of the six districts into which the county is divided for police purposes. I propose next to fill up the two divisions of Penwith, and for the Superintendents at once to take charge of the Truro and Bodmin Districts, consisting of West and East Pydar, West and East Powder, Trigg, and Tywardreath; completing them with officers and constables as fast as possible.—I am happy to be able to report that the general behaviour of the force is very good, all ranks showing a desire to uphold its character.—Recruiting for the force is going on very slowly. I have experienced great difficulty in procuring suitable accommodation for the men, in the districts occupied, and have been quite unable to get any buildings which would serve as temporary locks-up. Great inconvenience has arisen in consequence; and I trust the Magistrates will see the necessity of at once building stations; and I beg to recommend that buildings should be erected at the following places, viz.:—Camelford, a Superintendent's station; Helston, ditto; Torpoint, for a Serjeant and two Constables; Gunnis Lake, for a Serjeant and two Constables; St. Cleer for two Constables; and Menheniot for two Constables. in the Helston district there is only one lock-up at present, viz., at Falmouth; and in addition to the Station near Helston for the Superintendent, I should recommend one for the Inspector at St. Day or Gwennap.—l beg further to state that it is absolutely necessary the Superintendents of the Launcestion (sic), Liskeard, and Bodmin Districts, should have two horses; these Districts contain over 170,000 acres each, and it is impossible for the Superintendent, with only one horse, even to exercise a due surveillance over his District; and when the conveyance of prisoners is added to his other duties, it would be quite out of the question. I have the honour to be, my Lords and Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, W. R. GILBERT, Lieut.-Colonel and Chief Constable. To the Justices of the Peace for the County of Cornwall. On the motion of Mr. SAWLE, it was resolved that this report be referred to the police committee, and that the committee be empowered to purchase three horses; this permission however, not to be drawn into a precedent for making application for money, without notice. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S EXPENSES.—The CHAIRMAN stated that the Chief Constable reported his expenses during the last quarter, to amount to £380 2s. 9d.; of which £120 was for the purchase of horses, and there were items for the purchase of six new carts, harness, &c. The Chief Constable further reported that he should require a half-penny rate in the next quarter. COUNTY RATES.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., read the following:—The County Rate Committee beg to report that they have endeavoured, by holding meetings in each petty sessional division, throughout the county, at which the overseers of the several parishes were examined on oath, to get the best information in their power as to the rateable value of property. Understanding, however, that new assessments to the property-tax are now in course of preparation, they deem it advisable to await the completion of such assessments, with the view of securing the greatest attainable amount of accuracy in the foundation of their new basis.—Mr. E. COODE, junr., said he had been informed by the Chief Constable that probably before three months were over, he should be able to undertake the conveyance of prisoners throughout the County; and therefore he recommended that notice be given to the different contractors to terminate their contracts. Mr. COODE also gave notice that he should move at the next Sessions that the Chief Constable be desired to obtain plans and estimates for such Stations as he recommended, and that the Police Committee report thereon. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. MARY MARTEN, 21, MARY JANE PROUT, 19, and FRANCIS GILES, 21, were charged with stealing two bottles of rum and two bottles of port wine, the property of Mr. Mark Guy, at Endellion. In the second count, the prisoners were charged with receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen. Mary Marten, and Mary Jane Prout, on being arraigned, said they were guilty of taking the two bottles; Francis Giles pleaded NOT GUILTY, and was put upon his trial. Mr. SHILSON conducted the prosecution, and Mr. CHILDS defended the prisoner. Mr. Shilson having stated the case, called John Mably, who said, I am servant with Mr. Mark Guy, of Roscarrock; the prisoner, Francis Giles, was a fellowservant, and we slept in the same room. On Sunday the 10th of May, I was in the bedroom and noticed prisoner's box. I lifted the cover and saw there two bottles. I took them out and carried them to the corn chest in the stable, and locked the chest. Afterwards, on the same morning, I went again to prisoner's box, and took out two more bottles. I put one in each of my boxes in the same room, and locked the boxes. About twelve the same day I saw the bottles in my boxes, but at ten o'clock at night, I found one of my boxes had been broken open, and on Monday evening, when I went to the box again, the bottle was gone. On Sunday night, Giles asked me if I had seen the key of his box; I said, no. He said four bottles had been taken from his box by some one. I asked what was in them, and how he got by them. He said there was rum or something in them, and he got them from the two maidens. Next morning I saw all three of the prisoners in the kitchen, and Mary Marten said, you are the very person we wanted to see. I said, you are the very persons I wanted to see; you have broken open the cover of my box. Mary Marten said she was looking for the bottles, and the cover of my box flew open. I don't know what became of the missing bottle. When my master returned home on Wednesday I told him what had occurred. The three bottles were produced in court, and witness was Cross- examined by Mr. CHILDS, and said he had been in Mr. Guy's service twenty-one years, and Giles eight or nine years. There were four maid-servants in the house and four men. He and prisoner were on good terms. Each man-servant had a key to his box, and the boxes were generally kept locked; prisoner's box was not locked when witness found the bottles in it; the cover was not down tight. Mr. Mark Guy said he left home on Monday morning the 11th of May, returned at night and left again the next morning; had no opportunity of speaking to Mabley (sic) till Wednesday evening; he then delivered three bottles to me. I examined one of the female prisoners, Marten, and then the other, and then I went to Giles and asked him where he got the bottles that were found in his box. He said he had them from Mary and Molly; he said they wanted to put them there, and he would not allow them; they again pressed him, and he gave them the key. I asked him how long he had them he said a week or ten days. There are two bottles of rum, and one of port wine; they are marked with the same seals as the other bottles in my cellar. I have an outer cellar and an inner cellar beer for the house and the farm is kept in the outer one: the female servants are frequently in the habit of going there. The key of the inner cellar is kept in a cupboard in the sideboard in the dining-room, and the servants have occasionally access there. I very seldom use that inner cellar; have sherry, rum, and port wine there. The words "Matthews and Opie" are on the seals. I found about a dozen and a half of sherry also missing. I knew the quantity of sherry there, but not the quantity of rum and port. On Cross examination, Mr. Guy said there are nine men and boys in his household; four sleep in one bedroom and four in another; and one out of the house. He might not have gone to the inner cellar for the last two months. He should not have known the bottles if it had not been for the sealing. Matthews and Opie are wine and spirit merchants of Exeter; Opie was an old friend of his and that was the reason he ordered of him; he did not know that he dealt with anyone else in that neighbourhood. The female prisoners told prosecutor they had taken the bottles from his cellar. Giles had lived with him twelve or thirteen years. This concluded the case for the prosecution.—Mr. CHILDS submitted that there was no case for the jury; but this was overruled. He then addressed the jury, and contended it was not satisfactorily shown that the bottles found were Mr. Guy's; and with regard to the second count, he said there was no evidence that the prisoner had received them knowing them to have been stolen.—The CHAIRMAN summed up and told the jury what the other prisoners had said was no evidence against this prisoner. Giles, however, had said that he received the two bottles from the two women, and if the jury believed he knew them to have been stolen, he would be guilty. The jury, after some deliberation, found the prisoner GUILTY on the second count for feloniously receiving. (Sentences: Mary MARTEN and Mary Jane PROUT – six months h.l.; Francis GILES – four months h.l.) SARAH ROBINS, 19, was charged with stealing a silver watch and chain, a purse, tobacco-box, and 1l. 10s. from the person of John Salmon, at Truro, on the 10th April.—Mr. STOKES, for the prosecution, called as witnesses, John Salmon, Mr. Nash, police superintendent at Truro, and police serjeant Woolcock. It appeared that on the day named, Salmon, who is a blacksmith at Kenwyn, was drinking at the Railway Inn, Truro, in company with the prisoner. He went to the inn about eight o'clock in the evening, got drunk, fell asleep, and when he awoke found the prisoner had left, and that his property, as named in the indictment, had been stolen. Information was given to the police, and about half-past eleven, prisoner was apprehended by the superintendent and serjeant. Prosecutor's tobacco box was lying at her feet, and his purse and £1 2s. in it, were found in her possession. Prisoner said the man gave her the money. Verdict GUILTY, and a former conviction in July 1855, for felony, was found against her. (Sentence: twelve months h.l.) MATTHEW MINERS, 54, was charged with stealing two worsted stockings, the property of the guardians of the Truro Union, on the 25th June. Mr. STOKES conducted the prosecution. The prisoner had been in the union, and the case against him was proved by the evidence of George Dowling, the governor, Martin Williams, the porter, W. J. Nash, police superintendent, and Selina Gay, an inmate of the union. The prisoner was found GUILTY, and a conviction at the sessions in October, 1847, when felony was proved against him, when he received six months' hard labour; and a subsequent conviction at the assizes in July, 1848, for setting fire to a stack of corn, when he was sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. (Sentence: twelve months h.l.) ANN WILLIAMS, 42, was found guilty of stealing a pair of shoes, the property of James Miners, at Redruth, on the 19th June. Prosecutor lives at Chacewater, and sells shoes at a standing in Redruth market. A former conviction in June 1854, for felony, was also proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: six months h.l.) JOHN MARLEY, 23, was found GUILTY of stealing a pair of boots from Thomas Maynard, at Bude, on the 2nd of June. (Sentence: four months h.l.) The Court then rose. TUESDAY, June 30. APPEAL.—On the application of Mr. SHILSON and Mr. BISHOP, an appeal against an order of Mr. Peter and Mr. Bennet, justices, for removal of Mary Curtis from the parish of St. Columb Major to Fowey, was entered and respited. ______SECOND COURT. (Before C. B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq.) GEORGE CURNOW, 14, a miner, & ALFRED CHARLES DENNIS, 13, a sailor, pleaded guilty of breaking into the dwelling-house of Richard Allen, at St. Kew, and stealing one pair of boots, three books, four handkerchiefs, one pair of stockings, and other articles, the property of the said Richard Allen. (Sentences: George CURNOW – six months h.l.; Alfred Charles DENNIS – two months h.l. and to be once whipped) ROBERT NORMAN, 64, plumber and tinman carrying on business at Camelford, was charged with stealing 15 lbs. of lead, the property of Edward Trewarthan Pearce, surgeon, of Camelford.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Frost the defence.—It appeared that in May last Mr. Pearce employed the prisoner to repair his pump; and on the 19th of that month, the prisoner said he wanted 18 feet of new pipe, as the old pipe was poor. Mr. Pearce said he would wait till his brother's return, as his brother probably might have some pipe; on his brother's return, they measured the old pipe, which had been taken up, and found that it measured but 14 feet, 2 inches, and that it was divided into three pieces, which would not match one with another. In consequence of this, the prosecutor went with Jarrett, a superintendent of County Police, to the prisoner's house; and, after the prisoner had more than once denied that any of the prosecutor's lead was in his house, Jarrett found in his bed-room two pieces of old pipe, which corresponded with the pipe previously measured by Mr. Pearce and his brother; and they afterwards found below stairs, behind the bench in prisoner's work-shop, a smaller piece of pipe. On the discovery of the several pieces the prisoner acknowledged that they were Mr. Pearce's property, and said, of those found in the bed-room, that he had taken them home to make solder for the repair of Mr. Pearce's pump; and of the small piece he said he took it to replace a piece that he had applied from his own stock, to a portion of Mr. Pearce's pump. It was proved, for the prosecution, that the prisoner was distinctly informed, on behalf of Mr. Pearce, that he (the prosecutor) would provide all the necessary solder.—The prisoner was well defended by Mr. Frost; and it was proved, in his behalf, by one of the witnesses for the prosecution, that, when repairing the prosecutor's pump, he did apply a small piece of lead as weight to one of the clacks. His denials, however, that he had any of the prosecutor's property in his profession (sic), were put to the jury, in connection with the results of the search and his subsequent statement, as affording strong presumption of felonious taking; and the jury found a verdict of Guilty. (Sentence: four months h.l.) This Court then adjourned. ______WEDNESDAY, July 1st. (Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq). In the course of this morning, Charles Dacres Bevan, Esq., qualified as a magistrate. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. ROBERT ROBERTS, 19, miner, pleaded guilty of stealing a pair of trousers, the property of Thomas Harris, at Illogan, on the 11th or 12th of May, 1857. (Sentence: two months h.l.) WILLIAM EMMETT, 20, and JONATHAN MALLETT, 24, masons, were charged with stealing from the person of John Seccombe Tonkin, at Hayle, on the 6th of April, a purse containing three 5l. notes, one cheque for 2l. 2s. 0d, 23 sovereigns, two-half-sovereigns, one half-crown, and one Spanish silver coin, the property of the said John Seccombe Tonkin.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson defended the prisoner Emmett, and Mr. Childs defended Mallett. By request of defendants' advocates, all witnesses were ordered to remain out of Court until severally called for examination.—The case for the prosecution was that, on the 6th of April, Mr. Tonkin, an Emigration Passenger broker living at Gwennap, was at Hayle on business, and there received money from several persons. Between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, he went into the Steam Packet Hotel, and having booked some passengers, he went into the kitchen to give the porters some ale. In the kitchen there were, besides himself and porters, three or four other persons. He gave the porters two quarts of ale, and as he took out the last of two sixpences he had in his purse, to pay for the second quart, (he having at the time a large cape around him) a sovereign fell out of his purse and trundled towards the prisoner Emmett, one of the persons in the kitchen; Mallett also being present there. Keeping the purse in his hand, Mr. Tonkin went towards Emmett, thinking to pick up his sovereign; but Emmett was by that time, on the floor picking up something, which he said was only a sixpence. Mr. Tonkin insisted that it was a sovereign; and taking out his purse, he held it on the table before him, and counted over his sovereigns and found that at that time, instead of having 24 sovereigns, (as there had been in the purse when he entered the room) he had but 23 sovereigns; besides which, the purse contained two half sovereigns, three £5 notes, a cheque, a half-crown, and a Spanish silver coin. Having counted his money, he put his purse containing it into his left trousers pocket. At that time, (according to the prosecutor's statement), Emmett was standing on his right and Mallett on his left, and close to him; while all the other persons in the room were sitting at a distance from him. He had no sooner spoken about his sovereign than he felt on his right side a grasp or pinch from a persons’s (sic) hand; on this sensation, he pushed the man off from that side, and at that moment he felt a pressure on his left side, and a hand slipped out of his pocket. Recovering from the shock thus occasioned, Mr. Tonkin put his hand into his pocket, and found that his purse and contents were gone. Turning round, he saw Mallett—the man who had been at his left side—leaving the room behind him; he called out that the man who was leaving the room had robbed him of all his money. Mallett made no observation, but left the room; while Emmett, standing at the prosecutor's right, put his hand on his shoulder and said "Oh, I didn't rob you." No person left the room but Mallett, who was absent three or four minutes. Mr. Tonkin went towards the door to go out after him; but, at the door, met Mallett returning into the room, and asking "who said I robbed him?" The prosecutor replied, "You are the man that robbed me; and Mallett offered to be searched, and pulled off his frock, and threw it on the floor. The landlord was then called in, and he closed the door and forbad any man leaving the room until the constable arrived. Some time afterwards, the constable came, and, separately, took every person present into another room and searched him. The prosecutor himself was also searched, and only fourpence found on him. No purse was found on any one; nor in the room or on the premises, which were searched by the Constable; but a sovereign was found on Emmett, and small sums of silver on one or two other of the party searched.—The charge of actual robbery being made against Mallett only, Mr. Cornish in opening the case, stated that he should prove that Emmett was in concert with Mallett, for the purpose of robbery.—Besides the prosecutor, there were examined, James Polkinghorne, one of the porters; Mark Watts, a nut and orange seller, one of the party in the room; Joseph Gilbert, the constable; and Jane Gillies, a servant at the Hotel.—The evidence was minutely circumstantial; in several points the witnesses varied among themselves and also from statements made by the prosecutor; and the constable stated that Mr. Wearne (for whom the two prisoners worked) had told him that on Saturday week before the 6th of April, the prisoners had been paid by him £2 each for work.—For the defence, the Jury were addressed by Mr. Shilson and Mr. Childs, in behalf of their respective clients; and, remarking on the discrepancies of evidence, Mr. Shilson observed that the prosecutor's important statement that Emmett grasped him on one side and Mallett put his hand into his pocket on the other side, was not confirmed by any other witness; although these were circumstances that must have been seen by all persons in the room, had they really occurred. The prisoner Mallett, who had served in the Royal Cornwall Miners' Artillery, received a good character from Mr. Edyvean, the Mayor of Bodmin, and from Mr. Thomas Cook, a master mason, who had known Mallett from a child, and had employed him many years.—In summing up, the CHAIRMAN said he could see no evidence of concert or combination between the two prisoners, so as to implicate Emmett in the deeds of Mallett, and with regard to Mallett, the Chairman's observations bore in favour of acquittal. It being certain, he said, that Tonkin had the money in the room, the jury would have to consider two questions—1st. Whether Tonkin had been robbed; and then, if he had been robbed, by whom had the robbery been committed.—The jury were a long time in consultation, and finally agreed on a verdict of NOT GUILTY, in respect of both prisoners.—Another indictment was preferred against Emmett, for stealing the single sovereign referred to in the previous case; but on this second indictment, the prosecution offered no evidence; and the prisoner was consequently acquitted. JOHN BUCK, 23, a labourer, was found GUILTY of stealing various articles of clothing, &c., the property of Elijah Toms, at Gwennap, on the 30th of April; and a previous conviction of felony was also proved against him. (Sentence: four years penal servitude) ELIZABETH BAWDEN was charged with stealing on the 15th of May, and at different times, six pairs of trousers and two pairs of men's drawers, the property of James Hichens, at Truro.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution.—James Hichens, the prosecutor, stated that he was an outfitting tailor residing at Truro, and the prisoner had been in the habit of coming to his house as charwoman for several months this year. During that time he had missed 7 pairs of trowsers and two pairs of drawers. The prisoner had access to his shop.—John Gay, police-constable of Truro, produced one pair of drawers and 3 pairs of trowsers which he had received on the 30th of May and the 1st of June, from Mrs. Behenna, pawnbroker at Truro.—(These articles were identified as his property, by the prosecutor).—The prosecutor, recalled, stated that one particular pair of trowsers produced, had been made by a workwoman named Julia Williams, about the end of March, and he missed them shortly afterwards.—Emma Behenna, pawnbroker, in River-street, Truro, proved that on the 28th of January, the prisoner pawned with her a pair of trowsers and a pair of drawers; on the 16th of May, another pair of trowsers; and also a pair in December. These various articles the witness identified from among those produced by Gay. Witness stated that the prisoner was in the habit of pawning things at her shop for other people, as well as for herself; but she could not say what the prisoner said with reference to the particular articles produced.—ln answer to the prisoner, the witness stated that Ann Bawden, a tailoress had told her that she (Ann Bawden) gave the articles to the prisoner, and that she (Ann Bawden) would come to Bodmin to clear her, because Elizabeth Bawden, to whom she gave them to be pledged, never knew that the articles were stolen. Ann Bawden had since absconded from Truro.—Gay, the policeman gave evidence confirmatory of this testimony in behalf of the prisoner; and hereupon, the court stopped the case; and the jury gave a verdict of ACQUITTAL.—The CHAIRMAN cautioned the prisoner not to go pledging goods for other people; and he also warned the pawnbroker, and pawnbrokers generally, against too easy a reception of articles the appearance of which, as in the present case, must show that they were new.—Mrs. Behenna, in explanation, stated that tailors were often in the habit, when out of work, of making up articles for pawning; and that she never objected to policemen examining her stock. WILLIAM ROWE, 48, fishmonger, was charged with stealing 100 lbs. of cast iron, the property of William Rowe Northam, at Alternun, in or about the month of April last.—Mr. Frost conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson, the defence.—Mr. FROST, addressing the Jury, stated that in the parish of Alternun was a mine called Alternun Consols. About 12 months since the mine ceased working, and there was an auction sale of the materials. The prosecutor purchased a considerable portion of the materials, which were left on the mine, in an exposed situation, and considerable depredations of the property took place. The prosecutor instituted inquiries among purchasers of iron, and after some time discovered at Mr. Langdon's, an iron founder at St. Thomas's-by-Launceston, some portions of a cast-iron centre piece, which had been attached to a large wooden axle, worked by a windmill for the purpose of drawing water. This centre-piece had been cast in a mould at Mr. Langdon's, and thus Mr. Langdon was enabled to prove that the pieces of cast iron found at his premises had formed part of the centre-piece; Mr. Langdon had purchased the pieces from Mr. Wise, a seller of iron in Launceston, who had purchased them from the prisoner.—Mr. Frost then proceeded to call witnesses:—William Rowe Northam stated that he now resided in London, but in 1856 and to Lady-day, 1857, he lived at Five Lanes, in the parish of Alternun. About Lady-day, 1856, he attended a sale of materials at Alternun Consols mine (formerly called Wheal Vincent), and purchased a great many things; among them a cast-iron centre-piece, which had been made by Mr. Langdon of St. Thomas by Launceston.—Charles Pearce Wise stated that he lived at Launceston, and was in the habit of buying old iron. Knew the prisoner, who was in the habit of attending mine sales, and purchasing iron. In April last, prisoner came to witness and offered some iron for sale, and witness purchased it—5 cwt. 2 qrs. 23 lbs., at 3s. 3d. per cwt. Some time after that, witness sold that iron to Mr. Langdon, iron-founder. A few days afterwards, witness bought of the prisoner another lot of cast-iron—3 cwt. I qr. 20 lbs., also at 3s. 3d.; and Mr. Langdon took part of that also.—Cross-examined.—Had dealt with the prisoner several years, and always found him honest; had bought many tons of iron of him, and afterwards sold it to Mr. Langdon. Prisoner was in the habit of attending mine sales, and also of buying and selling scrap iron.—William Langdon, iron-founder, residing at St. Thomas by Launceston, was in the habit of buying old iron of the last witness. On the 7th of May last, attended before the Magistrates when the prisoner was charged with stealing iron, and produced some portions of a cast-iron centre-piece—the same that he had purchased of Mr. Wise; and they were handed to Holman, the constable. In 1849, witness received instructions from Capt. Spargo, the captain of the then Wheal Vincent, to make a cast-iron centre-piece; and it was accordingly cast in a mould in his foundry. It was an unusual piece of machinery, and witness had never made any other centre piece from the same model. That model was produced before the committing magistrates and given into the custody of Holman the constable. About Lady-day last, witness, at prosecutor's request, went to the mine in company with James Crocker, and then saw on the mine the centre-piece in question; at that time it appeared to be entire, and was on its original wooden axle. The weight of the centre-piece when made was 8 cwt. 3 quarters, 3 lbs.—James Crocker, carpenter, of Alternun, referred to by last witness, confirmed part of his evidence, and stated that the date of their visit to the mine was the 20th of March, on which day he would swear the centre-piece was on the mine.—James Holman, constable, produced the wooden model of the centre-piece, and some pieces of cast-iron; and Jonathan Clements, a modeller in the employ of Mr. Langdon, and who made the centre-piece 7 or 8 years since, proved that the pieces of iron produced had formed part of it; he showed the exact correspondence of the pieces of iron produced, with the wooden model.—Mr. Langdon, Mr. Wise, and Mr. Northam also gave evidence as to the pieces of iron having been, at various times, according to previous evidence, in their possession.—For the defence, Mr. SHILSON, to the jury, said there could be no question that the iron produced had formed the centre-piece on Alternun Consols mine; but there was no proof whatever that the prisoner stole it, and there was no charge against him for felonious receiving. From the evidence, the jury were bound to assume that that (sic) the prisoner had hitherto maintained an honest character, and pursued his calling legally. The iron must have been taken from the mine between the 20th of March and the 4th of April; and from its weight and size Mr. Shilson consented that more than one person must have been concerned in its removal. (The witness Northam had stated that it might, possibly, have been broken up by one person). The learned advocate insisted that the evidence was consistent with the presumption that the prisoner was an innocent purchaser of the iron. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, reminded the jury that the law made it incumbent on a person having possession of property recently stolen, to account for that possession; and no such account had been given by the prisoner.—Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: three months h.l.) ELIZA NICHOLLS was charged with having feloniously received a quantity of ribbon, the property of James Bennett Job, at Truro, on or about the 15th of April last; well knowing the same to have been stolen by Catherine Crewes—(Crewes, the principal felon, was admitted to give evidence against the prisoner charged with having feloniously received the property).—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence—Mr. Stokes having opened the case to the jury, proceeded to examine witnesses:— James Bennett Job; I am a diaper, of Truro. At the close of January last, I took stock, and among my gauze ribbons, I saw a white ribbon with pink flower—an unusual ribbon, because in ribbons of that width it is not usual to see the flowers shaded. I saw that ribbon again, about the third week in March, when I looked over my stock previous to my going to Manchester and London; I then took notice of this particular ribbon, because it was the only gauze ribbon of that width remaining from my previous summer's stock. On the 12th of June, I found that this ribbon was wanting.—William Joseph Nash, superintendent of police at Truro. I produce two pieces of ribbon, one of which I obtained from Mrs. Ann Levy on Saturday the 13th of June, and the other was given to me by the prisoner on the 15th. That from the prisoner is about three yards, and the other 2 ½ yards.—Cross-examined.—l had first apprehended Crewes, and in consequence of what she told me I went on Monday the 15th to Mrs. Nicholls's house, but she was not in; and afterwards she came to me at the police station; she said she had heard that the girl Crewes had been saying something, and she told me that she had purchased some white and pink ribbon from Crewes.—Mr. Job recalled, swore that the pieces of ribbon produced were his property, and that he had not seen any ribbon like it in Truro, although he had made inquiry of every draper. Emily James, an assistant in Mr. John Barrett's draper's shop. On Thursday the 11th of June, in the afternoon, Mrs. Nicholls came to the shop and asked me if we had a bonnet like the one she had on; I told her yes, and she desired to look at one; she had on her own bonnet some of the ribbon now produced; I remarked to her that it was a very pretty ribbon; she said yes, and that the bonnet she then bought was for Mrs. Levy and was to be trimmed with the same kind of ribbon—some that was left from her own bonnet; she said she had bought the ribbon from a customer; she does not keep a shop or any place of the kind; I said I had not seen any ribbon like it in Truro, and she said there was one like it at Mr. Harris's in Lemon- street. The pieces of ribbon now produced precisely resemble what she had on her bonnet.—Cross-examined. She made no secret to me of having more of the ribbon; she has been in the habit of dealing at our shop for years.—Ann Levy: I reside at Truro, and know Eliza Nicholls; on Thursday the 11th of June she came into my shop to look at a pair of slippers, and I shewed her a pair; while she was there, I said she had a very pretty ribbon on her bonnet; she said she had bought a remnant, and it was more than she wanted—that she had 2½ yards left, which she would sell to me at 9d. per yard; I told her I would let her have the slippers for the ribbon; the price of the slippers was 1s. 9d., and I let her have them for the ribbon; I asked her to call at Mr. Barrett's shop and request one of the assistants to send me a bonnet and flowers to look at; the assistant brought me some bonnets, and I chose one, and delivered it to Mrs. Nicholls to take to Mr. Barrett's, for one of his assistants to trim it. The ribbon now produced is the same which I received from the prisoner; I delivered it to Mr. Nash on Saturday the 13th of June.—Cross- examined. I think 9d. a yard was quite enough for the ribbon; I had no suspicion that the ribbon was dishonestly come by, and the price would not lead me to think so; a remnant might be bought cheaper than the ordinary selling price.—Mr. Job, recalled, stated that the price of the ribbon in his shop was 12½ d. per yard.—Catherine Crewes:—I am seventeen years of age, and have been a tailoress, and can also turn my hand to boot-binding; I have not been out of work; I have had as much as I could do; though sometimes I may be out of work. I know the prisoner, and have taken ribbons to her; about 2 or 3 months since I took her a white ribbon with pink flower, like that now produced; I delivered it to herself at her own house; it was about 5½ yards; she told me how to get it, and I stole it from a ribbon-box in Mr. Job's shop; she gave me a shilling for that 5½ yards and told me to get all I could.—Cross-examined I stole that ribbon about 2or 3 months since; I never stole any before that. I did afterwards; I cannot say exactly when; she sent me several times afterwards; I cannot tell how often; I am quite sure I never stole anything before that white ribbon there; I first became acquainted with Mrs. Nicholls by going to work there, about a month before this stealing; I never offered to sell ribbons to any other person; I did not offer to sell this white and pink ribbon to a Mrs. Blake before I offered it to Mrs. Nicholls; I have sold ribbon to Mrs. Eathorne; she sent me to get some; that was not till after I had sold some to the prisoner.—Mr. SHILSON: On your oath, did you not sell ribbon to Mrs. Eathorne in January?—I cannot say when it was, but I know it was after I had sold to the prisoner. I offered to sell ribbon once to Mrs. Tremain; I have not offered stolen ribbon to Mrs. Mathews of Truro; I have never offered for sale any stolen cuffs, collars, or kid gloves; I never stole anything before that white ribbon; I was honest up to that time; I was once a servant with Mrs. Wotton in Lemon-street; I left there, because I went up the country to my uncle; my mistress did not charge me with stealing some articles of dress and other things; I never heard of it before now; it was not on that account that I went to Staffordshire, to visit my uncle; while I was away there, I was not charged with stealing some gold rings and trinkets. I was once in Mr. Hichens's employ at Truro; I served my time with him: I was not discharged for stealing things there. I have not been charged with stealing children's clothes. I knew Emily Vincent; she is in court here now; I sold something to Mrs. Tremain, and Emily Vincent is here to prove that. I got a shilling from the prisoner for the pink and white ribbon; I had no benefit for the ribbons which I took to her from other people, except sometimes she would give me a sixpence; she said I should go to Plymouth with her and her master. I only stole from two shops—Job's and Parkyn's; I don't know that I visited them pretty frequently.—Emily Geach: I am a milliner, and attend at Mr. John Barrett's shop on market-days as an assistant, and have done so for some time. I know Eliza Nicholls and the girl Crewes; I have often seen Crewes at the prisoner's house; I live about 16 or 17 doors from Mrs. Nicholls in Fairmantle-street; for the last three or four months, I have watched Crewes going to Mrs. Nicholls's house: about a month or two ago I saw her go towards the door and turn back again. I had trimmed a bonnet for the prisoner about a fortnight before I trimmed one for Mrs. Levy on the 11th of June; I trimmed them both with the same description of ribbon as that now produced: there were 3 yards put on Mrs. Nicholls's bonnet, and 2½ yards on Mrs. Levy's. In consequence of some information I received from Mr. John Barrett, I gave him a slip of the ribbon. When I trimmed the bonnet for Mrs. Levy, Eliza Nicholls said she had more than she wanted for her own bonnet, and she had sold the remainder to Mrs. Levy for 18 pence. Some few days after I had given the slip of ribbon to Mr. John Barrett, I saw Eliza Nicholls on the opposite side of the street where I live; she said "you have done for me; had it not been for you, it would not have been discovered; if my prayers can be heard, I will do for you." I am quite sure she said those words. I never had any quarrel with her. I made no reply, but went back to my mother's house.—John Barrett, draper; on Friday, the 12th of June, I received from the last witness a slip of ribbon, which I produce; and I went to different drapers' shops to search for ribbon like it, and at last I found it at Mr. Job's. On the Thursday afternoon when Eliza Nicholls was at my shop and made purchase of a bonnet, I noticed the trimming, and in consequence of something I had heard, I got a slip from her own bonnet. On the Saturday morning I saw her at the Police Station; she said "I bought that ribbon of Catherine Crewes, and did not know but it was honestly come by." She also said "I should not have come into your shop with that ribbon on my bonnet, if I had thought it was stolen." She said it was about 5½ yards, and that she gave Crewes 3s. 6d. for it, about 9d. a yard, which she considered was its full value. On the Wednesday following, she came to me in my cloth-room, and said it was very hard that she should be charged about this ribbon, when there were others who had bought ribbon as well as herself. (She had previously said the same at the Police Station.)—Cross-examined.—I had no suspicion of Crewes before the 11th of June; but since then, I have heard of other charges of dishonesty against her, and about her stealing trousers from Mr. Hichens, where she served her time.—Mr. SHILSON addressed the jury for the defence. Asserting that Crewes's evidence was wholly unworthy of credit, he contended that all the other testimony was consistent with the prisoner making a legitimate purchase of the ribbon, believing it to have been obtained honestly; and, in contradiction of Crewes, he called the following witnesses:—Ruth Blake:—I live in Fairmantle-street, three doors below the prisoner; I know Catherine Crewes; she once, in the middle of April came to my door, with some ribbons wrapped in a white cloth, and asked me if I wanted to purchase any; I said no, I did not; I asked her if they were her own; she said no, but she was selling them for a young person who was going into black; she then opened the cloth a little, and I saw a green ribbon; I did not buy any. I saw her go to Mrs. Nicholls's shortly afterwards in the same day; and in the evening Mrs. Nicholls asked me to go into her house to see some ribbons she had there; I did so, and saw some white and pink ribbon, precisely the same sort as that now produced.—Cross-examined—Mrs. Nicholls purchased the pink and white ribbon, and the green one also. I am not quite clear that there was a white and pink ribbon in the cloth when Crewes called on me; I could only see a green ribbon, but there were other ribbons in the cloth.—By Mr. Shilson.—The green ribbon I saw at Mrs. Nicholls's was the same I had seen in the cloth.—Emily Vincent: Last February I was living with Mrs. Tremain in River street; I was up stairs and was told that Catherine Crewes was below, offering ribbons; but I did not see her; Elizabeth Tremain brought me up some ribbons, and said Catherine Crewes brought them; and I heard a voice below saying they were from some person who was going into black. Elizabeth Tremain bought 4 yards of ribbon, and I bought some from Elizabeth Tremain.—Cross examined. I did not know that the voice below was that of Catherine Crewes.—James Hichens, tailor; I know Catherine Crewes; she lived with me and assisted in my work; I discharged her from coming to my house because she took things from me; I charged her with having taken some trowsers and drawers, and she acknowledged it.—Cross examined. I continued to give her work afterward for two or three months. I did not prosecute her; she was very young and I thought she would do better; I gave her the best advice I could.—By Mr. Shilson. She told me that she had taken a pair of drawers and some trousers, and had sold them.—Mr. STOKES replied on the whole case; and the Chairman summed up, after which the jury found a verdict of Acquittal.—The prisoner, however, was detained for trial on another indictment charging her with feloniously receiving ribbon stolen from Messrs Parkyn and Reed. ______SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, JULY 1. (Before C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq.,) MARY SIMS, alias BORRELL, 46, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a shawl, cape, dress, four silver teaspoons, and a silver sugar tongs, the property of Johanna Fletcher, at the parish of Falmouth, on the 10th of June. A former conviction at the assizes in March, 1852, for stealing wearing apparel, was proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: three years penal servitude) PRISCILLA FOWLER, 42, was found GUILTY of stealing a shawl and a pair of boots, the property of Thomas Brown, of Treyew, in Kenwyn, on the 15th of April. (Sentence: two months h.l.) WILLIAM CHARLES BEARD, was charged with breaking and entering the mill of John Rowe, of St. Enoder, and stealing therefrom one sack and 160lbs. of flour. The evidence was slight, and the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. ROBERT WILLS, 15, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a silver watch and chain from John Perry, at Liskeard, on the 19th of April. A former conviction for felony in August 1853, was proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: six months h.l.) WILLIAM WEARE, 19, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of boots at Liskeard, on the 30th of June, the property of William Stripp Luke. (Sentence: two months h.l.) JOHN FENTON, 19, pleaded GUILTY to an indictment for breaking and entering mills at Leveddon, in the parish of Bodmin, on the 10th of April, and stealing therefrom about 35 lbs. of coarse flour and a bag, the property of Michael Higman. Mr. Everest proved a former conviction against the prisoner at the Lent Assizes, 1856, when he was convicted of stealing a number of articles, and sentenced to nine months imprisonment. (Sentence: four years penal servitude) RICHARD WESTLAKE, 19, was indicted for breaking and entering the shop of Susan Baskerville, at Treneglos, on the 10th of April, and stealing laces, braces, combs, stockings and other articles. Mr. Commins conducted the prosecution. On the morning of 11th of April, prosecutrix found that her shop window had been broken, a hole made through the wall, and a quantity of articles stolen. Between four and five in the afternoon of the same day, a lad named Heard was in his father's barn, about a gunshot from prosecutrix's shop. He heard a noise in the "tallet" adjoining the barn, and saw the prisoner rise up amongst some reed. The lad, his father, and James Jeffery went to the loft after the prisoner had left, and found a number of articles there, belonging to Susan Baskerville. James Jeffery went in pursuit of the prisoner, ran after him about a mile, and captured him. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: twelve months h.l.) JOHN HARDING was found GUILTY of stealing an iron mallet from Benjamin Lukey, of Menheniot. Both parties worked at Trehane mine, and prosecutor was in the habit of leaving the mallet near his pitch. He missed it seven months ago, prisoner having taken it. One of the new County police apprehended the prisoner three weeks since. (Sentence: two months h.l.) MARY ANN HOOPER, 19, was charged with stealing 1 lb of butter and two bottles, containing gin and rum, the property of her master, Richard Roberts, of Landulph. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. ALICE JANE RUNNALLS, 17, was indicted for stealing a five-pound note and four Sovereigns, on the 16th of May, the property of John Eddy, shoemaker, of St. Just in Penwith. The money was in a drawer upstairs. Prisoner had lived with Mrs. Eddy five years.—Elizabeth Grey, an assistant at Mr. Wolff's shop, Redruth, stated that on the 18th day of May, prisoner bought various articles of drapery and a bonnet at the shop, and paid witness a five pound note and some shillings.—Martin Williams, police constable of Illogan, apprehended the prisoner, and she confessed that she took the five-pound note from Mr. Eddy's house, but denied that she took any more money. Verdict, GUILTY. A conviction by justices at petty sessions, under the summary jurisdiction act, for larceny at Penzance, on the 17th of February, was also proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: nine months h.l.) WILLIAM HOCKING, 34, was charged with stealing, on the 27th May, twenty-four gallons of wheat and a bag, the property of his master, Thomas Jones, of Calstock. JOHN CROOK was charged with receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen. (Crook had been admitted to bail, and failed to answer when called on his recognizances.) Mr. GILBERT HAMLEY appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. CHILDS for the prisoner Hocking. Prisoner was servant to the prosecutor, who is a farmer living in the parish of Calstock. Prosecutor had directed prisoner to take a score of wheat to the mill; ten bags were taken, and the other ten were loaded, but before going to the mill, prisoner told a lad called Trees, who was with him, to take a bag to the house of a man called Crook. He did so, and Crook told the lad to take the bag of wheat to the stable, and put it under the manger. Crook kept a public house, and John Rogers, constable of Calstock, who was there at the time, and saw the corn brought and placed in the stable, informed the prosecutor. The constable, Rogers, stated that when he took Hocking into custody, he said to Mr. Jones, "If you will please to forgive me this time, I will never wrong you a farthing more." Verdict, GUILTY. A previous conviction in October, 1848, for breaking and entering and stealing from a dwelling house, was proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: four years penal servitude) JAMES TIPPET, 14, was charged with stealing £5 12S. 6d, the property of his master, Thomas Canniford, at Maker on the 4th June. Mr. HAMLEY for the prosecution. The lad was intrusted with the money to pay to Mr. Ivey, of Tideford, for some lambs. He did not return to his master, but went to Plymouth, and spent the money in buying new clothes, a watch, accordeon, &c. Verdict, GUILTY; and a previous conviction for larceny was proved against him. —ln passing sentence of Three Years Penal Servitude on the boy James Tippett (sic), the CHAIRMAN said the object of the Court was that he should be sent to a Reformatory ,and the Court hoped he would benefit by the good instruction he would receive there. JOHN MILLMAN, 33, was charged with stealing seven metal teapots, two sets of fire irons, ten knives, and ten forks, the property of William Escort, at Calstock, on the 3rd of May. Mr. E. G. HAMLEY prosecuted; Mr. CHILDS (for Mr. Stokes) defended. The prosecutor is an ironmonger at Tavistock, and has also a shop at Gunnislake, in Calstock. On the morning of the 4th of May, one of the prosecutor's apprentices went to the shop at Gunnislake, and found that some person had broken into it by the removal of one of the window shutters. Suspicion fell on the prisoner, and a warrant was granted for his apprehension. He was found at the carpenter's shop of the Edgcumbe and Duchy mines, where also was found a lot of goods belonging to the prosecutor. On his road to Calstock after his apprehension, and in the presence of constable Crocker, in answer to one of the prosecutor's apprentices named Baker, who asked how he came to break into Mr. Escott's shop, prisoner said, "Oh that ever I did it, oh, that ever I should have been led away by such company." Mr. CHILDS briefly addressed the jury in defence, after which the Chairman summed up and the jury returned a verdict of GUILTY. A previous conviction was proved against the same prisoner at the Epiphany Sessions in 1854. Two other indictments were preferred against him; but in neither of them was any evidence offered. (Sentence: four years penal servitude) The Court rose at half-past six. (Before J. King Lethbridge, Esq.) WEDNESDAY, JULY 1. WILLIAM KIRK, appellant.—JUSTICES OF EAST LOOE, respondent.—An appeal against a conviction, by C. W. Riley Esq., Mayor and Justice of East Looe, of William Kirk in the penalty of 10l. for hawking without a license on the 11th of June last.—Mr. CHILDS, for the appellant, moved to quash the conviction.—Mr. BISHOP, for the respondent, consented; the authorities of the Inland Revenue considering the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. THURSDAY, JULY 2. CHARLES KELLY, 24, and WILLIAM RESCORL, 60, labourers, were indicted for having, on the 23rd of May, wilfully and feloniously slaughtered a ewe, the property of Edmund Bryant, at Lanreath, with intent to steal and carry away the carcase (sic) of the said ewe.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Rescorl was defended by Mr. Shilson; Kelly by Mr. Bishop.—Edmund Bryant deposed—l am a farmer living at Court Barton in Lanreath; I keep a flock of sheep on my farm; on Saturday, the 23rd of May I counted them; they were 66 in number—ewe hogs and wethers mixed; the next day in consequence of something told me, I counted my flock again and there were only 65; on the following day, I gave information to the inspector of the constabulary force, and went with him to the house of the prisoner Kelly, and then to an orchard in his occupation, and there found some staens containing mutton—shoulders and ribs—cut up in a clumsy manner—not as a butcher would cut it up; the staens and mutton were hidden in grass, docks, and thistles, so that they could not be found without search. The following morning, my man brought me a sheep-skin; it was the skin of a ewe-sheep, and was my property; I afterwards gave it to the Inspector. I was satisfied it was the skin of one of my sheep. I compared it with the fleeces of my other sheep, and found it correspond. The skin appeared to have been recently cut; the skull was left in it, but the ears had been cut off. Kelly lives about two miles from me; Rescorl lives in the same village with me; my farm-yard gate opens into the village. Through my farm there is an occupation-road leading to Bogga Mills, about a mile distant from my house; that road passes through a field called Quarries Meadow. The skin was produced before the committing magistrates, and compared with mutton found in Kelly's orchard.—Cross-examined—l did say before the magistrates that, in my opinion, the ear had been wrenched off by a clever dog or a pig (laughter).—Daniel Bryant—I am a brother of last witness, and assist him in his farming matters; I look after the sheep; about 9 o'clock on Sunday morning, the 24th May, I found there was one of the sheep missing. On Monday morning, I saw the skin of a sheep, produced by a workman called Fearn; it was bloody about the neck, and had the appearance of having been recently taken from a sheep; the ears were gone—they appeared to have been taken off by a pig or dog, or with a knife. I know it was the skin of one of our ewe hogs, because all our wether hogs had a red paint mark over the spine; and our ewes and wethers had fly - powder on their fleeces; which fly-powder we ourselves prepared.—George Fearn, a labourer in the service of Mr. Bryant—On Sunday, the 4th of May, about 3 or 4 o'clock, I went to the Quarries Meadow, and there found a sheep-skin; there was a cloth about its neck, and the cloth was bloody with fresh blood; I did not examine the skin, but left it on the ground till the next morning when I went to work, and I then took it to my master. My master did not, at that time, keep any sheep in the Quarries Meadow. The skin was afterwards produced before the magistrates, by the inspector, and I identified it as the one I had seen in the Quarries Meadow; and the same with the cloth.—James Brazier, inspector of the new constabulary police—My station is at Dubwalls. On Monday, the 28th of May, in consequence of information, I went to the house of Kelly, with the prosecutor, Serjeant Sambells, and policeman Michell. In Kelly's house I found a pasty containing mutton; and in the orchard, adjoining the house, two pans or staens, also containing mutton, and covered with nettles, dock-leaves, and thistles. (The witness produced the mutton and staens). On the same day I saw Kelly, and charged him with having stolen a sheep from Mr. Bryant; he said he knew nothing about a sheep; I told him I had found some mutton on his premises, and to that he made no answer; I took him back to his house and pointed out to him where I had found the staens, and asked him if that was his premises; he said yes. I afterwards went to Rescorl's house, in the village if Lanreath; Serjeant Sambells was with me; we there found, in a cupboard, another staen, containing mutton, and also some mutton boiling in a pot. (Witness produced the various pieces). The whole of the mutton was very badly cut up—torn rather than cut. I afterwards apprehended Rescorl, and charged him with stealing a sheep; he said he knew nothing about stealing a sheep, but he had bought 10 lbs. of mutton of a man at Lanreath. I afterwards compared some of the mutton found at Kelly's with the skin; the legs found at Kelly's exactly fitted with the trotters in the skin.—Cross-examined.—The pot in which we found mutton at Rescorl's was in an ordinary place; there was no concealment. The orchard at Kelly's was not enclosed by a hedge; it was open to the country, and any person could get into it. What the pasty contained might have been lamb; I did not taste it.—Re-examined—The dock-leaves and thistles on the staens were fresh.—Thomas Sambell, a serjeant in the Constabulary Force, and formerly policeman at St. Austell, corroborated the last witness; and added that when Kelly had been apprehended and taken to his own house, he (Sambell) unbuttoned his leggings, and found on his trowsers beneath, two spots of blood, which he said were caused by his having had a tooth drawn.—Cross-examined.—It is not unusual for men going to work to wear leggings; it was a wet morning; I cannot say that the spots of blood were not human blood.—Henry Whetter; I reside in the parish of Lansallos and am now a farmer; I had been a butcher for 20 years. On the evening of the 25th May, Kelly was apprehended at my house; he had worked for me 17 weeks and lived in the house. After his apprehension, he was taken to his own house, and I went there; the inspector produced to me some mutton from a pot—the same that has been produced here to-day; there were some bones which I compared with trotters left in the sheep-skin, and found them correspond. The mutton had not been cut up by a butcher; the skin too had not the appearance of having been taken off by a butcher, and was cut up very much; part of the head appeared to have been much mauled, and the ears had been torn off—l don't know with what. In the evening of the same day, at Mr. Bryant's house, some mutton was produced to me by the inspector; it corresponded with what I had seen at Kelly's, and belonged to the same sheep. It was very thin mutton; I have sometimes seen thin mutton brought to market, but this was very thin— not such, I think, as any butcher would take to market for sale. What the pasty contained was mutton or lamb; there was a kidney in it, which I should say was the kidney of a sheep, though it was rather a small one.—Cross-examined.—There was no comparison of the mutton found at Rescorl's with the skin. When I say that the mutton at the different places belonged to the same sheep, I mean that both parts were thin.— l did not taste the meat in the pasty; it was very small meat, and I will not swear it was not lamb. While Kelly was working with me, and before this affair of the sheep, he asked me one day for leave to go and have a tooth taken out. I never had any fault to find with him all the time he was with me.—Jane May; I am in the employ of Mr. Whetter; about half-past 9 o'clock in the evening of Saturday the 23rd of May, I saw Kelly, near Bogga's Mill, going towards Lanreath, in the direction of Mr. Bryant's farm; he had something under his arm; I spoke to him; he said he was going to Lanreath; he was not going in the direction of his home.—Cross-examined.—There was nothing unusual in his being where I saw him; it did not look like a heavy bundle that he had with him; it was a coarse cloth or bag, or something of that sort—There was no one with him.—Rescorl's statement before the committing magistrates was then put in and read; it was as follows:—I wish to repeat what I said to the inspector, that I bought the mutton; it was 10 lbs. weight; I bought it of a strange man who was going about selling mutton.—Mr. Whetter was recalled, by request of Mr. Bishop, and stated that Kelly was at his house until after 8 o'clock in the Saturday evening named, as he did some extra work, and had his supper there.—Mr. SHILSON and Mr. BISHOP addressed the jury, on behalf of their respective clients; and, after a careful summing up, the jury found both prisoners GUILTY.— A previous conviction was proved against Kelly; at the Midsummer Sessions 1846 he was convicted of stealing a barn-door fowl. (Sentences: Charles KELLY – four years penal servitude; William RESCORL – three years penal servitude) ELIZA NICHOLLS, acquitted yesterday of feloniously receiving ribbon stolen from Mr. Job, draper, Truro was now charged with feloniously receiving ribbon stolen from Robert Buckingham Parkyn and Thomas Reed, drapers, at Truro.—The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty; but Mr. Shilson moved the Court that she be allowed to withdraw that plea, and plead that she was yesterday acquitted of the offence now charged. In support of his application, Mr. SHILSON said the prisoner was yesterday charged with feloniously receiving in the middle of April, a pink and white ribbon, stolen from Mr. Job; but from the evidence of Mrs. Blake, it was clear that the prisoner received the green and white ribbon, stolen from Messrs Parkyn and Reed, at the same time that she received the pink and white; and that therefore, although the articles had been stolen from different persons and at different times, the receiving of the two ribbons was but one offence.—The COURT, after hearing Mr. STOKES, in opposition to the application, ordered that the trial should proceed. Mr. STOKES then opened the case to the jury, and proceeded to call witnesses:—Catherine Gilbert Symons:—I am assistant in the shop of Messrs. Parkyn and Reed, and have under my particular charge the ribbons. At the stock-taking in January this year, I saw a green and white ribbon. William Joseph Nash, Inspector of the Truro Police, produced two pieces of green and white ribbons; one of which he had obtained from Mrs. Mary Savage, and the other from a person named Williams, on the 13th June, and he had kept them in his custody from that time. Miss Symons, examining the ribbon produced:—We had ribbon of that kind at our stock-taking this year; the pattern is a black spot on the edge, and a stripe in the centre. The selling price we put on it was 16½d a yard; there were several yards on the roll, in January, but I don’t know the exact quantity. The ribbon was kept in a drawer in the counter, with a great many other ribbons; and when customers came to buy, sometimes two or three ribbon-drawers were taken out at once; I should not miss this quantity from a ribbon-drawer unless my attention was particularly called to it. Catherine Crewes has been in the habit of coming to our shop this year; she frequently looked for patterns of ribbons.—Cross-examined.—We had only one roll of that ribbon. A roll contains 18 yards, when first purchased. We had sold some off this roll before January. From my own knowledge, I could not say that any was missing at any time.—Re-examined. We did not know that any was missing, till a pattern was brought, and then, on looking to the drawer, we found the ribbon was not there. Robert Buckingham Parkyn:—I am a partner with Mr. Reed at Truro. The ribbon produced I distinctly recognize as one we had; I know it by the peculiarity of pattern; we had this pattern in three colours; ribbon of this description was in my shop at the stock-taking in January; we put 16½d as the price for this Spring sale; that would have been a fair selling-price.—Cross-examined.—I have no other means of recognizing the ribbon than by the pattern; manufacturers very often manufacture more than one piece of a pattern. Catherine Crewes, again brought into the witness-box from custody of the gaoler:—I am between 16 and 17 years old; I am a tailoress at Truro, and know Eliza Nicholls. I saw these ribbons at Parkyn and Reed’s shop; I cannot say exactly when; it might be 2 or 3 months since; I was there more than once this Spring; once when I was there, I saw ribbon of that kind, on a roll, in a drawer on the counter; I took it and gave it to Eliza Nicholls the same day; I did not pay for it. Eliza Nicholls gave me 2s. for it. I gave it to her in her parlour; I did not give her any other ribbons on that day. I afterwards saw the ribbon at the Town Hall; Mrs. Savage had it there; I had no particular mark on it; I only speak from its appearance.—Cross-examined. It was about two months ago that I took this ribbon from Mr. Parkyn's, and I gave it to Mrs. Nicholls the same day. I know Mrs. Blake; I saw her here in the Hall yesterday; I did not offer any ribbon at all to Mrs. Blake to sell; I did not at any time call at Mrs. Blake’s to offer ribbon before I went to Mrs. Nicholls; neither then nor at any time; if Mrs. Blake swore yesterday that I did call and offer her any ribbon at any time, she swore false.—I have not been in the habit of going to other shops than Job's and Parkyn's, where I was told to go; I have not sold a good many ribbons around Truro; l am on my oath to that; I have not sold more than she has sent me with; she would measure out ribbons and then send me out with them to sell; I have not sold many, but all I have sold has been by Mrs. Nicholls’s orders; I have sold to Mrs. Eathorne, and to Mrs. Tremain in River-street; I did not sell more than once to Mrs. Tremain; that was the same that the girl Vincent spoke about yesterday; I cannot tell exactly when I began to go round the different shops in this way. I sold to Mrs. Eathorne after Mrs. Nicholls had the white and pink; it was about two or three months since that I first began; it was not more than three months. I first became acquainted with Mrs. Nicholls by going there to work; I cannot say exactly when that was;—whether it was the beginning of April; I cannot say the month; I should think it was about three months ago. Up to that time I had been an honest girl; no person could say harm of me, but some swore false about me yesterday; Mr. Hichens swore false yesterday. Before I became acquainted with Mrs. Nicholls, I never stole any thing from any person. I sold to Mrs. Tremain after Eliza Nicholls had hers. I heard Emily Vincent examined yesterday; I heard her say that I had sold to Mrs. Tremain in February last; that was false also; I did not sell to Mrs. Tremain till after Mrs. Nicholls had hers. I served my time with Mr. Hichens; I heard him say, yesterday, that he had had suspicions of me; I did not hear him say yesterday that he had charged me with stealing trowsers and drawers and that I acknowledged it; I heard him say that he discharged me; but he did not discharge me, and I told him so here. I was afterwards in the employ of Mrs. Wotton for a little while; I was not accused by her of stealing some articles from her; I never heard of it till here. I went into Staffordshire a brave bit after that; that was not in consequence of Mrs. Wotton’s accusing me of stealing things; I never heard of it before yesterday. I never heard, before yesterday, of my having been charged with stealing gold rings and trinkets when I was away in Staffordshire, and you can't bring one to say I did. I should not have done this if it had not been for Eliza Nicholls; she sent me to the drapers' shops to steal ribbons and bring them to her; I went by her directions to Parkyn's shop and took ribbons and carried them to her. I sold some ribbons to a Mrs. Buckingham; I did not sell any to a Mrs. C----?. The money I made of these ribbons, Eliza Nicholls had; she said I should go to Plymouth with she and her master; she kept all the money; but I might get a sixpence, in and out. I heard Mrs. Blake's evidence yesterday; I am certain she swore false; Eliza Nicholls put her up to swear against me. Mr. Hichens swore false. Miss Vincent swore false in stating that I sold ribbon to Mrs. Tremain, in February. I think Mrs. Blake said yesterday she did not buy of me; I did not go to her door. All those witnesses were perjured witnesses; they were none of them allowed to speak at the Town Hall; why didn't they bring them against me there? Mary Savage:—I reside at Truro, in Rosewin Lane. About two months ago I went to the house of Eliza Nicholls in Fairmantle-street, and saw, on her table, two pieces of ribbon, precisely the same as those now before me. She asked me if I wanted to buy a trimming for my children's bonnets; I said I should want some; she then said she had bought more ribbon than she wanted for her own use, and she could sell me those two lengths at 2s. 4d. each length. She told me there was four yards in each length; I purchased the ribbons, and took it home. About 4 weeks ago, I believe on a Saturday, Mr. Nash came to me, and I delivered to him one of the lengths, not cut; the other I had let Mrs. Williams have, and I went with him to her house and saw him take it. The pieces of ribbon now produced are the same.—Cross-examined.—I went to Mrs. Nicholls's accidentally. I was at Mrs. Blake’s house, an old friend of mine, and saw Mrs. Nicholls there looking at some caps; a conversation took place with Mrs. Nicholls, and I went with her into her house, and there saw these ribbons lying on the table. When I bought them, I considered I was giving a fair price for them; I did not suppose I was giving full value for them, because she had got them before, and it was not like my going to a shop; I gave as much as I thought I ought to give for ribbons for my children; it is not to be supposed that l am a judge of ribbons; I thought I was buying at second-hand, and might be giving a penny less or so than if I had bought at a shop. She did not tell me how; she got them. I don't know the girl Crewes; I never saw her till in the Town Hall, Truro. I cannot tell exactly when it was that I went into Mrs. Nicholls's house; it might have been about two months before we were before the magistrates (the 15th June.) John Barrett, draper, of Truro:—I should say the price of these ribbons might be from 15d. to 18d. a yard; the quality is very superior; sometimes the price of ribbons varies 10 to 15 percent. I saw the prisoner at the Police Station in the morning of the 13th of June; she addressed conversations to me, and in the course of it she said “I only bought that ribbon of her (meaning Crewes) that was in my bonnet; I did not know it was stolen; if I had, I should not have come into your shop with it."—Cross-examined.—It was not known at that time that this ribbon had been obtained from Mrs. Savage. The expression she made use of was not that she had only bought on one occasion of Crewes. The prisoner's statement before the committing magistrates was put in. It was:—l acknowledge that I purchased green and white ribbon from the girl Crewes, believing it to be honestly come by. This being the whole of the case for the prosecution, Mr. SHILSON submitted to the Bench that there was no case for the Jury. His friend Mr. Stokes, admitting that his case rested mainly if not entirely on the evidence of Crewes, charged the prisoner with receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen; in other words, with being an accessary (sic) after a felony. Now, Crewes's evidence must be regarded as either truth, or falsehood. If she had told truth, the prisoner was not an accessary but a principal, because she was accessary before the fact, and a party to the commission of the felony; but she was not indicted as a principal.—If the evidence of Crewes was false, of course the case fell to the ground; because, except on her evidence, there was no proof of the property having been lost by the prosecutor; Miss Symons could not say the ribbon was missing, nor whether it was sold out of the shop or not; nor could Mr. Parkyn. The COURT, reserving the objection, directed Mr. Shilson to go to the jury.—Mr. SHILSON then addressed the jury. He re-asserted that there was no proof of the felony, except on the evidence of the girl Crewes, who, he said, was utterly unworthy of any credit whatever; and, even supposing she told truth, there was no proof that the prisoner Nicholls received the goods knowing them to have been stolen. The assertion by his friend Mr. Stokes that the prisoner bought the ribbon under value, was disproved by the evidence of Mrs. Savage; during the time she had possessed the ribbon, there had been no concealment on her part; and afterwards she went to the Polite Station and gave an account of the transaction; According to Mr. Barrett she had gone to his shop with some of these ribbons on her bonnet; and, according to Mrs. Savage's evidence, these ribbons were lying open and exposed to view, on the table in the prisoner's house; her whole conduct was fair and open. The CHAIRMAN summed up; and in the course of doing so, with consent of the advocates, read the portions of evidence given yesterday by Mrs. Blake, Mr. Hichens, and Elizabeth Vincent, which had been now so flatly contradicted by the witness Crewes; and remarked that her contradiction of three witnesses, who appeared to be respectable, and who, he had no doubt, had spoken truth, must tend much to shake the credibility of her own evidence; and, if they thought that the evidence of this accomplice was not to be believed, they could not find the prisoner guilty. Verdict, Not Guilty. CATHERINE CREWES then, crying bitterly, was moved to the dock, and charged with stealing, on the 15th April, 23 yards of ribbon, the property of James Bennett Job. She pleaded “Guilty; but I should not have done it, had it not been for Eliza Nicholls, who put me up to it."—Hereupon, she was told by the Clerk of the Peace that she was at liberty to plead not guilty; which she accordingly did.—She was also charged with stealing on or about the 16th of March, 15 yards of ribbon, the property of Robert Buckingham Parkyn and Thomas Reed. To this also, under sanction of the court, she pleaded not guilty. The Bench—one of whom expressed himself with warmth on the subject—considered it would be unfair to the prisoner to put her on her trial, immediately after the prejudice against her that must have been excited in the minds of the jury; and Mr. STOKES, deferring to the feeling and opinion of their worships, declined to offer evidence on the charges. The CHAIRMAN accordingly directed the jury to give a verdict of acquittal on each charge.—The jury, however, although no evidence had been offered to them, showed considerable hesitation and reluctance in complying with the direction of the Court; but eventually gave their verdict of acquittal. The CHAIRMAN addressed to the prisoner, words of reproof and admonition; he trusted, as, by her own account, she was of industrious habits, and worked both as a tailoress and a boot binder, she would endeavour to redeem her character, and never let any Court hear of her again, except satisfactorily. Her father thanked the Court, and she left in his care. ROBERT STEPHENS, 19, JAMES WILLCOCKS, 19, shoemakers; JAMES PARTRIDGE, miner; ROBERT PHILLIPS, and JOHN BLEWETT, were indicted for a riot at Lerren (sic), in the parish of St. Winnow, on the 28th of April, and assaulting Thomas Rowe.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes defended Blewett and Willcocks; Mr. Sobey defended Partridge and Phillips; Stephens was undefended.—William Honey, a constable of St. Winnow, stated that there was a fair at Lerrin in that parish on Tuesday the 28th of April; he was there about 8 o'clock in the evening and went to Stephens's public-house, having been called there. Between the house and the bridge were from 40 to 50 people, and there was a very great disturbance but no fighting; the prisoner Stephens took off his cap and shirt to fight, and witness took him into custody, and was taking him away, when there was an alarm made that some one had killed or was killing Thomas Doney, and witness left Stephens and went over to Doney, who was lying on the ground; witness at first thought he was dead, but after some time he moved and said "let me alone.” This took place in the dumb of the evening; Stephens was the only man witness could identify.—William Sandy, a labourer living at Lerrin, was there about 7 o'clock in the evening, and saw Stephens, Partridge, and Willcocks in the public- house parlour, drinking beer; and there were other persons in the house. About 8 o'clock, some women were screeching, outside, and he heard there was fighting; he went out and saw Stephens and Thomas Rowe fighting, on the bridge; saw other persons, besides Stephens, strike Rowe; when Rowe was falling to the ground, and some were lifting him up, other persons hit across Stephens and struck Rowe. Saw Willcocks and Partridge about in the dring with the rest, but did not see them strike any one. Lerrin people were not doing much; but all the others were fighting and striking at almost every person that passed. Saw a man called Allen there, and had conversation with him, but had not seen him since that time. Witness said to Allen, it was a bad job for them to come out kicking up a rig, and they would surely be brought up for it; Allen said they came out on purpose for a rig, and that he was going away next morning, to his work on a tunnel. Witness spoke to a man who was striking John Cundy, and said "what a shame 'tis for you to be striking an old man like that"; he said "well, I will not hit him any more;" and he knocked up with the same. Another man said he did not care about being brought up, for they were all going to Australia next morning.—Cross-examined. Did not see Willcocks strike, but he had his coat partly off. Might have seen Blewett, but not long. Saw Partridge in the inn drinking with the others, but did not see him offer to strike any one for the evening, nor with his coat off, nor doing any thing bad, but only running about with the rest.—Amelia Hicks, in the evening of Lerrin fair-day was employed at Stephens’s public-house. About 5 or 6 o'clock, the prisoners Stephens and Willcocks came to the house, with others; about 10 or 12 all together. They wanted to dance in the parlour, and there was none allowed. A man named Thomas Howe was there. Stephens was quarrelsome, and said “we are come out for a row and a row we'll have before we go home; I will have a fight with some one.” Stephens then went outside and stripped and was going to fight with Rowe; but Rowe said he would not fight, but would wrestle. Heard a man called Allen, say to Stephens "fight him, and we will every one be on him in 10 minutes." Saw Stephens knock Rowe down; and witness herself received a blow in her side; did not know who struck her. They almost had Rowe over the bridge, but Mr. Pearce of Lerrin caught him by the leg and saved him from going over the bridge; the tide was at that time up very high. Many others, besides Stephens, struck Rowe, but witness could not say who they were. Saw Rowe lying by the bridge; he could not rise, and then they all left him; he was put home by his mother and sisters; witness thought he was almost dead.—After this, heard Stephens say "I will fight with some one; we have come for a row and a row we'll have; who shall I fight?" Allen said to him "go down through, and hit any person—man, woman, or child." Saw Stephens strike Rowe on the ground; as no one was near, witness caught hold of Stephens by the hair of his head and pulled him back; it was then that she received a blow in her side. There was a gate put up before the public-house window to protect it from cattle; Stephens pulled it down and said he would knock the window in; master had not provoked him in any way. Saw Willcocks, when in the house, partly take off his coat to fight. In consequence of the disturbance, the public house door was closed.—Cross-examined. The noise took place after they were not permitted to dance. Rowe had been in the house all the afternoon drinking; he was very tipsy, but not so much that he could not stand upright. Did not observe Partridge do any thing, nor make use of any expressions that he wished to fight.—William Guy, hind to Mr. Howell at Ethy; was at Lerrin between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening. When he arrived at the bridge, he heard a noise and disturbance; saw Thomas Rowe on the ground and a great disturbance around him; could not see exactly what they were doing; went forwards towards Rowe, and almost immediately some one ran towards witness and kicked him; witness did not know who that was; got out of his way, and then some person struck him (witness) on the face. There was much fighting and disorderly conduct going on. Saw a man called Doney knocked down. There were about 10 active in the disturbance, all strangers to witness; there was a great number of people assembled, and the public peace was broken; a man named John Cundy was shamefully beaten. Their conduct was such as to put him (witness) in bodily fear; they were setting? at every person they passed.— Mary Ann Cundy, a servant to Mr. Howell at Ethy, was at Lerrin on the fair day; when at the end of the bridge, saw the last witness coming towards her, and saw the prisoner Blewett strike Mr. Guy a blow on the face, and afterwards told Mr. Guy who it was that struck him.—Cross-examined: Had known Blewett from a child and never heard any thing against him; he was always a very quiet boy; but was quite sure that it was he who struck Guy.—William Haynes, lime-burner at Lerrin; was there about half past 8 or 9 o’clock, and saw several people there; there was fighting and a great disturbance and row. Saw the prisoner Phillips, from behind, strike Doney on the side of his head; also saw Stephens there fighting, and also Allen. The disturbance was enough to put people in terror and fear.—Thomas Doney, a workman living at Lerrin, said:—Honey, one of the constables, called me to his assistance, and a man struck me twice; Alien struck me twice; he got hold of one cuff of my coat, and another man of the other cuff, and at that time, I received a blow on the head.—Cross-examined. I did not know Allen before, but he said he knew me; I said, “if you know me, let us talk and not fight;” and he said, “well, let us reason together;” and while we were talking it over, he hit me on the head (laughter). I did not return the compliment; I was knocked down to the ground, like a bullock with a hammer. The rest of the men called out, “a ring, a ring;” I said “don’t you make a ring for me; I am not going to fight.” There was nothing like a challenge between me and Allen; I did not volunteer to assist the constable before he summoned me; I did not say to the constable “you go in and call on me, and I will put a stop to all this.” I may be the biggest man in Lerrin, but they came round me like dogs on a fox (laughter).—James Evil, a constable of St. Winnow, had been bound over by the magistrates to prosecute this indictment. Knew the prisoners Willcocks, Blewett, and Stephens, live at Lostwithiel; Partridge and Phillips in Lanlivery. Had a warrant against Allen, but had not be able to apprehend him.—By Mr. Sobey:—It is about 3 miles from Lostwithiel to Lerrin.—Mr. STOKES, addressing the jury, contended that as regards Willcocks, the case had broken down; and with respect to Blewett, although he struck Mr. Guy, that did not amount to riotous conduct—the offence with which he was charged. There was no proof that either Willcocks or Blewett went to the fair with the intention of creating a riot, or any disturbance whatever, that might lead to a breach of the peace.—Mr. SOBEY also addressed the jury, and called Joyce Hawke, a fruit-woman attending the fair, Catherine Harris, and Richard Cundy, a labourer, to prove that the prisoner Phillips was actively endeavouring to put a stop to the disturbances and to assist injured parties.— The jury found Stephens GUILTY; and acquitted all the other prisoners. (Sentence: six months h.l.) This concluded the criminal business of the sessions. IGNORED BILLS.—George Inglis, unlawfully assaulting Grace Skelton, at Budock, with intent, &c.—John Ivey and Thomas Vivian, stealing candles, from several persons, at St. Mewan. (Appeal). APPLICATION FOR GUNPOWDER LICENCE.—Mr. HOCKIN, in behalf of the Wheal Busy mining company, applied to the Court for license to erect a powder magazine and ?--ep powder in unlimited quantities, on Hallenbeagle Common.—Proof of due service of notice of application was given by Edward Francis Harvey, a clerk to Messrs. Hodge and Hockin.—James Bray Pascoe was then examined by Mr. Hockin. He said: I am an adventurer and the manager of the Great Wheal Busy mine; we have at present about 300 men(?) on the mine, and are increasing the number every week; we are about working Old Hallenbeagle in connection with it. The quantity of gunpowder now used for Great Wheal Busy is about 7 cwt. a week; and that quantity will be considerably increased when we work Hallenbeagle. The proposed site for the new magazine is on the highest ground of a high hill—the safest spot on the whole property. At present, our magazine is in the midst of the mine and of the people working there; we are none of us safe with the powder there. The people of the neighbourhood have consented to the removal of the magazine to the proposed site, as pointed out on the map produced; we have applied to Lord Falmouth’s steward and mineral agents, and they also have consented. The roads about the common, as shewn in the Plan, are used by people coming to the mine.—Cross-examined by Mr. Shilson:—I believe these are not party(?) roads, but there may be a public right of way over them; the pathways across the Common are open to every one. The pathway nearest to the site is only a communication from Wheal Busy mine to Hallenbeagle, and is not a public thoroughfare.—The license for the existing magazine is granted to some members of the company, but not to the Company; this magazine will be done away with, as soon as we can erect the proposed one. I want to have it at once if I could; the magazine is only for the use of Wheal Busy mine.—By Mr. Hockin: Our object in making this application, is to get the magazine removed to a higher place than at present.—Mr. Henderson, of Truro, civil engineer, said he had been on the spot and had sufficiently tested the map produced, to be enabled to say it was accurate. The proposed site(?) was the highest ground in the neighbourhood, he believed; it was on a hill of considerable height. The nearest house was about 111 fathoms distant; the next nearest 141½ fathoms; the West Cornwall Railway 185 fathoms; the nearest point of the Redruth public road nearly half a mile; the parish church a mile and half, he supposed—beyond the limits of the map. In the event of an explosion he apprehended there would be no danger to the nearest cottage, as the site of the magazine was at the top of a high hill, and the explosion would be upwards.— Capt. Pascoe, recalled by Mr. Hockin, stated that when Hallenbeagle was worked in connection with Great Wheal Busy, the consumption of powder would be about 6 tons per month; there ought to be a place to store something like 3 months stock(?).—Mr. SHILSON said an explosion of three months stock(?)—18 tons—would shake the whole county. He stated(?) that if the court granted the application, it should be conditional on the removal of the existing magazine, and that the quantity of powder to be kept should be limited.—Mr. HOCKIN suggested that there would be less danger to the public by allowing the storing of three months stock, than by the more frequent carriage of powder to the magazine, which would be necessary if the store were limited. At all events, there should be liberty to store at least one month’s consumption—6 tons.—Capt. Pascoe said that would be a very small quantity, and that it would be almost better to shut up working than to be so limited.—The COURT granted the application on condition that the existing magazine be removed, and limiting(?) the quantity to 6 tons. ______SECOND COURT. THURSDAY, July 2nd, 1857 (Before C. B. G. Sawle, Esq.) JOHN MOCK, labourer, was indicted for obtaining, by false pretences, the sum of one shilling and six pence from Jonathan Pedlar, at St. Austell, on the 13th May. Prisoner pleaded GUILTY. (Sentence: three months h.l.) WILLIAM STEVENS EASTON, 39, mason, was charged with having committed an assault with intent, &c., upon Mary Hobb, at Pillaton on the 6th of June. There was also a --? in the indictment for a common assault. Mr. E. G. Hamley prosecuted. Prosecutrix, a little girl of only eleven years of age, was sent on the 6th of June by her father to St. Mellion? from Pillaton, and on the road thither she met two men, one of whom was the prisoner. It was between eleven and twelve o’clock in the day, and on her coming opposite to a gate, she was dragged by the prisoner inside, where the assault alleged was committed. It further appeared by the evidence of [a person?] named Warwick, that at this time, he was going towards ?---ld for the purpose of getting some vetches for his horses, and heard screams. On his arriving inside the gate, he saw prisoner who was in the act of rising from the ground, and ?---rds ran away. Prisoner in defence admitted his being in the field and said the little girl came inside the gate and threw stones at him. but he denied ever assaulting her. The jury found him GUILTY on the first count. (Sentence: fifteen months h.l.) WILLIAM HANCOCK, 23, labourer, was indicted for assaulting Mary Ann Clatworthy with intent, &c., at Landrake, 22nd of June. Mr. Hamley appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Childs defended the prisoner. It appeared that on the [day in?] question a teetotal festival had taken place at St. Germans, where the prosecutrix and prisoner were with a great [many?] others, and in the evening she was accompanied part of [the way?] home by the prisoner, who for the time being regarded himself as her "sweetheart." It was some distance to her home at Landrake, and the prisoner offered her his arm, which at first she refused, but on her being satisfied by a youth named Line that he (the prisoner) was not a married man, she consented. All passed on agreeably in company with Line and his sweetheart till they arrived at Tarlaton Down Cross at which places the parties separated; the prisoner and his companion went one way, and Line and his another. When they came near to Whotton Cross, it appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix, prisoner assaulted her; she was thrown down and harassed so much that she fainted. After she recovered, she went on to Whotton Cross and aroused up a man and his wife named Ough, who stated the girl was in a very exhausted state when she came there, and also that she came to them the next morning, and expressed a wish that nothing should be said about it. It further appeared that the prosecutrix was subject to fits, and whilst in course of examination in court she fainted, and was obliged to be taken out. Police- superintendent Giffard, of the county constabulary, obtained scent of the affray, apprehended the prisoner, and took possession of the things prosecutrix wore on the day in question. The shape the bonnet assumed was a complete novelty, and the dress looked as if it wanted the assistance of crinoline. Mr. CHILDS urged the jury to acquit the prisoner of the first count in the indictment, as there was no evidence to support that charge. He submitted the case was altogether one of a trifling character, which would not have been heard of had it not been for the police. The superintendent of police hearing of this case, went to the prosecutrix, and told her if she did not prosecute, she would be liable to punishment herself, (which statement was deposed to in evidence here); and such a threat as this, Mr. Childs submitted, ought not to have been held out; in so doing, the police officer had exceeded his duty. The CHAIRMAN summed up., and took the same view as Mr. Childs, with regard to the conduct of the police in this case. The jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner GUILTY of a common assault. (Sentence: four months imprisonment) PHILIP BATTEN (on bail) surrendered to take his trial on an indictment charging him with stealing ten pounds weight of barley, and ten pounds weight of barley meal. Mr. BISHOP prosecuted, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. CHILDS (for Mr. Shilson). Robert Oliver, the prosecutor, said, l am a corn factor, and live at Polbathick, in St. Germans. On the 9th January, the prisoner came to me for employment; he was a stranger to me, but I gave him some corn to grind. We agreed for a certain price, viz., 5d. per sack; we went on until the 21st February, on which day I delivered to the prisoner three bags of barley. I weighed each bag; each weighed 102 pounds of barley. On their return each ought to have weighed 100 pound of meal. The meal was not returned to me until the 3rd March, when the three sacks were brought back. In consequence of having found sand in previous bags, I ordered them to be placed separately. After he left, I weighed one of the sacks and fund (sic) it was not the proper weight; it weighed 104 pounds. I had not then untied the sack, but a short time after it was, and I took out two pounds of the meal and washed it. I found it contained sand; from the two pounds of meal I washed 3 ounces and half of sand. On the 20th March the prisoner came to my house and I weighed in his presence twelve and a half pounds of meal, which was taken out of another bag. I took it to the water and washed from it one pound and a half of sand. Prisoner said he did not put sand into the bag, but that the bag untied on the road, and he swept it up together. The remaining portion I winnowed in the presence of the constable, which weighed 107 pounds; it produced 12 lbs. of sand. I keep large stores at Polbathick, and myself and man only have access to them. Cross-examined:—The mills the prisoner occupied are called Downderry. They were not occupied for some time previous to the time they were taken by the prisoner. I never tasted sand in meal before. It is not usual for millers to return over weights. I weighed sack and meal together, but allowed four pounds for the former; I did not weigh the sack, it was however perfectly dry. I am confident a shell floated on the top of the water when I washed the meal. I never saw it in combination with barley meal. I don't know Whitsand Bay, although I live in St. Germans; Whitsand Bay I believe contains fine sea sand. Prisoner was present when I made the analysis. The sand I produce came from the meal; it was the result of the winnowing. Mr. CHILDS asked the witness whether it contained mica or quartz; the question, however, was over-ruled, the court considered that no technicalities were necessary. Witness went on to say that he lived in the interior part of St. Germans; what he saw floating on the water he was certain were small particles of shell. It is a common practice for sand to be brought to Downderry for manure.—William Clarke, constable of St. Germans.—ln consequence of information from the prosecutor I took possession of the sand produced. I saw the prosecutor winnowing the barley meal, and the sand now produced was extracted from it; I know Downderry well, and large quantities of sand are there. John Clarke was called to prove that he was a servant in the employ of the prosecutor, and was the only person besides his master who had access to the stores. Mr. CHILDS subitted (sic) to the court that there was no evidence to support a charge of larceny; it was merely a breach of trust. The prisoner was the bailiff of the goods for the purpose of breaking bulk. There was no felonious intent on the prisoner's part at the time he received it. Mr. SHILSON at this period came into court, and was also heard in support of the same point, quoting from Archbold. Mr. BISHOP said the same question arose when before the committing magistrate, but was then overruled. He submitted that previous acts by the prisoner was a proof of the felonious intent, and contended that a termination of the bailee had taken place. The Chairman said he had experienced a great deal of difficulty at the outset, and all through the case on this point; and considering the case did not amount to a larceny, he directed a verdict of acquittal. The prisoner was then returned by the jury Not Guilty. The Court then rose. ______FRIDAY, JULY 3. The CHAIRMAN, this morning, passed sentence on the prisoners, as follows:—(transcribed above) —In the course of delivering the sentences, the CHAIRMAN remarked that, in his experience at the Cornwall Sessions, he had never known so large a number of previous convictions as on the present occasion.—The Chairman gave warning that the Court would henceforth severely punish cases of sheep- stealing, and of carnal assaults on women and female children—offences which, he said, appeared to be somewhat on the increase in this county. APPEALS. TRESMEER, appellant; Mr. Childs. St. GENNYS, respondent; Mr. Shilson and Mr. King. This was an appeal against an order by Mr. Avery and Mr. Sloggett, dated the 10th April last, for the removal of John Julius Marshall and Helen Marshall, children of John Marshall, from the parish of St. Gennys to that of Tresmeer. Mr. Childs stated that the order was made on alleged birth settlement of the children's father, who, it appeared, had absconded; but birth was, in fact, no settlement; it was only evidence of settlement, and that too of the slightest possible kind. The appellant's ground of appeal was that settlement had been acquired by paupers' father, in the parish of Jacobstow, by apprenticeship with James Parkyn, a blacksmith, at Langdon Hill in that parish. The precise dates of the apprenticeship could not be given, inasmuch as the indenture had been lost by the master who, before the completion of the term of apprenticeship, left his business and the neighbourhood; and, it was asserted, had gone to America.—ln support of the appellant's case, the following witnesses were examined:—Ann Marshall, widow, mother of John Marshall, and grandmother of the pauper children; Walter Bate, a blacksmith living at Boyton; Richard Congdon, a sawyer living at Launceston; John Parkyn, nephew of James Parkyn, who formerly carried on business as a blacksmith at Langdon Hill, in Jacobstow.—In the course of examination of witnesses discussion took place on an objection raised by Mr. Shilson to Mr. Childs's offering hearsay evidence.—Mr. CHILDS, admitting that he could not offer hearsay evidence in support of any point affecting immediately the settlement itself, contended that he was entitled to offer hearsay evidence for the purpose of introducing secondary evidence of a written document which had been lost, as with the indenture in the present case; and, in support of this argument, he cited Freeman v. Arkell, 2, Barnewall and Creswell; Brewster v. Sewell; R. v. Denio, 7B. and C, and R. v. Kenilworth, 14, Law Journal.—Mr. SHILSON contended that R. v. Kenilworth was only applicable to the extent of admitting hearsay evidence of what took place at the search, in order to let in secondary evidence of the contents of a lost document. For that purpose, and that purpose only, R. v. Kenilworth allowed evidence of what the party who had had charge of the document, said at the time of the search for it. He admitted that his friend Mr. Childs might go thus far, but no farther. He contended that his friend had NO right to offer hearsay evidence that James Parkyn, (with whom the paupers' father was an apprentice) said he was going to America. For aught that appeared before the Court by legal proof, Parkyn might never have gone to America, and might still be in England, and therefore ought to be called before the Court for examination. Mr. Shilson cited R. v. Castleton, 6T. R. 236.—The Court ruled that the hearsay evidence now tendered was admissible; and, apprenticeship in Jacobstow being thus proved, the Order of Removal to Tresmeer was quashed, with £5 costs; the Court declining to grant Mr. Childs’s application for exemplary costs. Rev. SAMUEL SYMONS, appellant. Mr. Stokes and Mr. Hockin. CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF PHILLEIGH, respondent. Mr. Shilson and Mr. Childs. Mr. HOCKIN having moved the appeal, Mr. STOKES proceeded to state that the appellant was the rector of the parish of Philleigh, and he appealed against a poor rate made in that parish on the 1st of January last; his appeal being in respect both of his own assessment and of the assessment made on various persons in the parish. The 1st ground of appeal stated that Mr. Symons objected to the Rate, because he was assessed at a greater sum than he ought to be assessed at. The 2nd—virtually a repetition of the first ground—was that he was assessed at too large a sum and in unfair proportion as compared with the sums assessed on other occupiers.—ln the 3rd ground it was alleged specially that the appellant was assessed at too large a sum and unfairly, in comparison with Robert Doble, James Hocking, John Hocking, John Sobey, Richard Pascoe, Richard Davey, William Olivey, and Richard Doble; to each of whom notice of this appeal had been delivered.—The 4th ground of appeal was that all the occupiers in the parish were assessed at less sums than they ought to be.—The 5th, that the several gentlemen named before were assessed at less than they ought to be assessed at.—6th , that the several occupiers in the parish, (except the appellant,) and particularly those above-mentioned, were not assessed at the full value of their local, visible property in the parish.—7th, that the assessment was not made on the estimated value described in the Act for regulating parochial assessments.—8th. That a large proportion of the entire rateable property was not assessed.—9th, that the difference made in the said rate, between the estimated rental and the rateable value, was excessive, unjust, and illegal. Lastly, that the rate was in other respects illegal and bad on the face of it.—Mr. STOKES proceeded to direct the attention of the Bench to the Act for regulating Parochial Assessments—6 and 7 William 4, cap. 96; and read the 1st section of the Act, which provides that no poor rate shall be allowed by any justices, or be of any force, which shall not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto; that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent-charge, if any, and deducting therefrom the probable annual average cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent—Mr. Stokes then called on the respondents to produce the rate in question; and Henry Libby, called by Mr. SHILSON, produced the Rate-book, and it was handed to Mr. Stokes, who, reading from it, stated that the rate was dated January 1st, 1857, and was a rate of 8 pence in the £ on all occupiers above the value of £8 a year, and of 6 pence in the £ upon the occupiers of a less value. The gross estimated rental value of the entire parish was stated to be £3146; the net rateable value £2017; so that the rateable value was less by one- third than the gross estimated rental; and by looking at the individual assessments seriatim, it would be found that that difference—or about 30 to 35 per cent—was maintained throughout the rate, between the gross estimted (sic) rental and the net rateable value. He would proceed to speak of the particular occupiers to whom notice of this appeal had been sent. (We shall omit the shillings and pence, as unimportant in our Report.) The gross estimated rental of Mr. Richard Doble's estate, at Tolverne, was given in the rate book, as £313; rateable value £200. Mr. Stokes asserted that the gross estimated rental was less than the rateable value ought to be.—Messrs. James and John Hocking were rated in the gross, at 190l.; rateable value 120l.; it would be proved that the rateable value ought to be 220l.—Mr. John Sobey, for Penhallow, gross rental, 162l.; rateable value, 102l.; and for Trewarthal, gross rental, 206l.; rateable value, 138l.; whereas the rateable value of Penhallow ought to be 203l., and that of Trewarthal, 264l.—ln the case of Mr. Richard Pascoe, there was not so great inconsistency; the gross rental was 95l.; the rateable value 64l. He believed that, in that case the gross rental was too high, and that the rateable value might be fairly put at 65l.—Then came the case of Mr. Richard Davey, one of the members for West Cornwall. For Polsue, Mr. Davey was assessed as follows: Gross Rental 82l.; rateable value 50l. For that estate, the rateable value ought to be 86l. at least. Then, for Mr. Davey's estate of Crigmurrian the gross rental was stated as 60l.; the rateable value 36l.; the rateable value on that estate ought to be 83l.—Mr. William Olivey: gross rental, 101l.; rateable value, 64l.; the rateable value ought to be 83l.—Mr. Richard Doble, for Eglosrose; gross rental, 253l.; rateable value, 160l.; the rateable value ought to be 252l.—just about what was given in the gross rental column.—Now if they looked at the Tithe Rent Charge, the gross amount was stated to be 321l., and the net rateable value, 238l.; so that, in that case, the deduction was not equal to that made on the several farms; it was only a fourth, instead of a third; and why such a difference had been made, the appellant was at a loss to understand.—The difference between 321l. and 238l. had been allowed to the appellant for poor-rate, way-rate, per centage for collecting rent-charge, repairs of chancel, procurations, and casualties or occasional losses; but the appellant contended that, in addition to these deductions, he ought to have a further deduction of 35 per cent., as had been taken off the value of the farms. And, further, the appellant said there ought to be a deduction from the rent-charge, of land-tax, which had not been allowed him; 15l. being the sum which the appellant paid annually for land-tax.—Mr. STOKES cited, as leading cases in reference to rating of tithes, and in support of his claim for allowance to the rector in respect of land-tax, R. v. Rodwell and R., v. Capel; and then proceeded to call witnesses:— Henry Rowe, examined by Mr. Stokes:—l live at Treluswell, in Gluvias, and have been for many years a tithe-collector, and a valuer of tithes and a valuer of lands for poor rates. I know Philleigh and the adjacent parishes very well; I have valued estates in Philleigh, and have valued 20 or 30 parishes in the county. I have recently had my attention called to the property of Mr. Robert Doble at Tolverne in Philleigh; I valued that place, in company with Mr. Thomas Rogers of St. Just; we made a very careful valuation of every close there; we made that place to be worth 330l., for rent, free of all usual out- goings; that is what we consider it would let at.—We made the same careful survey of Messrs. James and John Hocking's tenement at Ardevorah; it would let for 222l., free of all out-goings—the net rent that a tenant should pay.—.Before we commenced our valuation, we agreed not to take corn at its present high price, nor at a low rate, but at a medium—a guinea for wheat, 10s. 6d. for barley, and other grain in proportion, per Cornish bushel.—Mr. John Sobey’s, at Penhallow; that's his own land in his own occupation; we took that to be worth 203l. net; we think it would let for that. Trewarthal, also belonging to Mr. Sobey, we took to be worth 264l., for rent.— We did not survey Polmenna, Mr. Richard Pascoe's; but I was over it about 2 years ago; I then thought it was worth about 75l. a year, but I understand it has been in bad hands since, and has gone back.—Mr. Richard Davey's property at Polsue we took, as an ordinary farm, to be worth 75l. a year. There were some buildings there, which we thought would not be required for ordinary farm purposes, for which we put down 12l. a year. I have no doubt the whole would let for £86 a year. At Crigmurrian, because there were no buildings, we deducted 10£ a year, which brought it to £83.—We surveyed Mr. Olivey's, at Polglaze, and we took it to be worth £82.—Mr. Richard Doble's, at Eglosrose, we thought would let for £252; I have no doubt it would let for that sum.—I have had large experience in these matters. Whenever I have valued for poor rate, I have made my survey on actual value, as if the property was going to be let; but the farmers have always expressed a wish to have it put a little below (laughter); I never, however, took off more than 5 per cent. from the actual value, and then I carried that deduction all through the rate—the tithe-rent charge as well as every thing else.—As regards tithe rent charge I have been much engaged; we deduct all payments, and also a per centage for collecting. Where the clergyman has paid the land tax, I have deducted for it from the rent charge, but I have heard a question raised whether we ought to do so or not. After deducting every payment from the rent charge, whatever per centage—say 5 per cent—I took off from other property, I took off from rent-charge also.—Cross-examined by Mr. Shilson:—'Whenever I have made a rate, I have always had the Parochial Assessment Act before me, and I have always acted on the principle of that act. In valuing tithe rent charge, the only deductions to be made are tenants' rates and taxes and ecclesiastical dues. In Mr. Symons's case the rent-charge was commuted at £350. By the averages for last year, it would be reduced perhaps to £328. If I were going to make a rate, I should take off precisely the same from the rent-charge as from the farms; besides which there would be deductions for collecting, for repairs of chancel, tenths, procuration, and Court fee; and I think the land-tax should be deducted, because it is a payment, but I have heard that deduction questioned.—Mr. SHILSON read from the act that property was to be rated, free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes; the question was whether, in law, the land tax was a tenant's tax or a landlord's tax.—Mr. ROWE did not know what the law was; but he knew that in his neighbourhood, the custom was for the tenant to pay the land-tax, and that without agreement.—By the Chairman:—All the valuations I have given to-day are on the assumption that the tenant pays the land-tax, and that it is not allowed by the lord.—By Mr. Shilson:—I have not deducted any land-tax from the rent- charge; a paper was put into my hands, and I thought your deduction was fair. The deductions I have made are according to my reading of the act. We valued the glebe, and thought it was fairly rated. (Mr. Stokes said the appellant made no complaint as to the glebe.)—To arrive at the gross estimated rental, for every estate, we added to the Rent all the out- goings of the parish, including tithe rent-charge. We found that the outgoings of the parish of Philleigh were rather under those of the district generally. I am clear to say that if I had been called to value for Lord Falmouth (and I have valued several estates for him) I should have set down the clear rent at the same sums as I have now stated. Besides the deductions for outgoings which I have mentioned, I take off 5 per cent, to please the farmers; I have refused to to (sic) do it in some parishes, and then they would take off something, themselves (laughter); I do not think it is right to take off 5 per cent., and I should not do so if the rate was likely to be appealed against. I have repeatedly seen the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners for rating.—Mr. Shilson:—ls this part of the Poor Law Order:—The column of gross estimated rental must be filled up as if there were no rates, taxes, repairs, or insurance, or other expenses? Mr. Rowe.—That is the order.—Mr. Shilson: Then, in strictness, you ought to fill in without any deduction, and then take the deductions out of it ?—Mr. Rowe. That's what is set down there; but it would be very difficult, and I believe is never done.—Mr. Shilson: And then the column for rateable value must be filled up by deducting the tenants' rates, repairs, insurance, and other expenses necessary to keep the property in its present condition. In answer to a question from Mr. Shilson, how he made up the valuation of Tolverne,—Mr. Rowe said: We made up all the valuations on the same principle; we went into a field and ascertained what number of bushels of wheat or barley it would carry, and set down the value at a guinea per bushel for wheat, and half a guinea for barley. Our valuation was made last week; the figures would have been the same if we had made it a month ago. I knew Tolverne previously to my going over it now; I don't know Mr. Doble's rent.—At Polsue we added £12 for buildings; they are beautiful buildings; I never saw anything like it. We deducted 10l. from Mr. Davey's other estate, so that on the whole there would be but 2l. increase.—Mr. Richard Doble, of Eglosrose, is a tenant of Sir Charles Lemon's; I don't know that he has recently had a fresh take; I made my valuation there on the same principle as in the other cases.—By Mr. Stokes:—I don't know Mr. Hill, but I have heard that he has valued the parish of Philleigh. The eastern farmers don't like to see us western men up along, because, they say, we put on too high a figure (laughter). We made our valuations, knowing that the outgoings in the parish of Philleigh are on rather a low scale. I have always deducted the land-tax; in going over these several properties, we looked over them as if the tenant was paying all the land-tax; the land-tax in Philleigh seemed to be rather higher than usual, but that added to the poor-rate and other things would not equal the usual deductions. Thomas Miners Rogers, examined by Mr. Hockin:—I live in the parish of St. Just, adjoining Philleigh; I have many times valued for tithe commutation, with other persons, and have also been a land valuer. I have been well acquainted with the parish of Philleigh for 40 years. In company with Mr. Rowe, I went over the several estates referred to, and I agree with him as to the amounts he has mentioned. One estate we valued separately, and agreed within a very trifle. The amounts we agreed upon are the same as if we had valued for Tithe Commutation purposes. I should be very glad to have some of the estates at those rents. I have not been in the habit of making any deduction in addition to the usually allowed deductions; it has not been my habit to make any allowance to please the farmers; they will do that sometimes themselves in vestry. I believe the estates in Philleigh that have been mentioned would actually let for the amounts mentioned, or more; we were very nice in every instance. I don't know the actual rent in any case; we had no rate book or any thing else to guide us; we went entirely on our own judgment.—By the Chairman:—In making a rate I ascertain the actual rateable value; and if the rated occupiers choose to make further deduction, it is for them to do so. We considered we were valuing as if were (sic) to take the estates.—By Mr. Hockin:—On Mr. Davey's estate at Crigmurrian, there are 39 acres, and the land is worth about 42s. per acre; it is now rated at 18s. 6d. per acre.—By the Chairman. There was no common land on the estates we valued; wherever there was any waste or moory land we deducted it. The average acreage value of the parish is perhaps about 25s. There's a pretty deal of pasture land, which we took at 5s. per acre.—By Mr. Shilson:— The 39 acres at Crigmurrian include 4 acres of plantations, for the whole of which we put down £1. The Glebe is 21 acres; we valued it at £29. The Glebe is not half so good as Crigmurrian; I would rather pay 42s. an acre for Crigmurrian than have the Glebe for nothing; it has a N.W. aspect, and a good deal of it is on a clay bottom.—ln making the valuations we deducted for repairs and insurance, and every thing of that kind; the amounts deducted for repairs depended on circumstances. At Tolverne and Eglosrose all the repairs are done by the landlord; no deduction was made for repairs at Eglosrose, because the buildings are only in course of erection; nor for insurance, because we did not know it was insured; we deducted nothing but rates and taxes.—By Mr. Hockin:—The per centage for insurance is only about 1s. 6d. At Tolverne they never asked for any deduction for repairs, and we saw none going on. At Crigmurrian many of the fields were worth more than 42s. per acre. (Mr. Rowe said he believed they put the highest at 55s.) At the rate Mr. Davey is going on, he will make it worth £10 an acre, if it was near Truro. (Mr. Rowe:—I never saw such farming in my life). Mr. HOCKIN summed up the evidence on the part of the appellant. He affirmed that the two witnesses who had been examined were persons eminently qualified to give evidence on the subject; and it would be for the Court to consider the great difference between the amounts at which the parties appealed against were at present rated, and the amounts which these witnesses had stated were proper rateable values. If the principal owners in the parish were rated so improperly, he would ask their worships to consider the effect it must have on the county rate; and as it was in their worships' discretion either to amend the existing rate, or to quash it altogether, he, would submit it ought to be quashed, because of its being so wrong as to create injustice with regard to the county generally Mr. SHILSON addressed the Court for the respondents. With reference to alleged difference in the rating, between the farms and the tithe rent-charge, there could be no doubt as to the correct sum at which the tithe rent- charge ought to be rated; and even taking his friend's own view of the case, the tithe rent charge was not overrated; but if it had been, it was rated according to a certain principle; and the rate itself was made according to the requirements of the Act. His friend had said there was a deduction of more than a third; but, whatever might be the Amount of deduction, it was made on the principles of the Poor Law Act; the gross estimate was first taken, and then deductions were made for poor-rate, way-rate, church-rate, rent-charge, repairs and insurance; and these deductions would account for the difference between the gross rental and the net rateable value; they made a difference of about 30 per cent, more or less, according to circumstances, and the respondents had done right in making that deduction from the Gross Rental.— Then came the question as to the net value. The rate now appealed against was based on a valuation made in 1854 by Mr. Jonathan Hill, land-surveyor of Hessenford, employed under the order of the Poor Law Board to survey the parish of Philleigh for the purpose of poor-rate. He having completed his valuation, left it for examination by all rate-payers, with a notice appended, by which he requested to be informed if any rate- payer objected to the valuation. Fair opportunity was therefore given to the appellant to make objection; but he made none; and afterwards, at a vestry held for the purpose of receiving objections, not a single objection was made to the valuation by any one; but now, after the lapse of two years, objection was taken on the very general evidence which had been offered by the two surveyors. He could not but think that these two gentlemen must have been greatly mistaken. Rent was generally considered a tolerably correct criterion of the value of land; and especially if that rent was continued for two terms. These two surveyors had valued Mr. Doble's farm at Eglosrose at £252 net rateable value. He (Mr. Shilson) held in his hand a lease from Sir Charles Lemon dated April 1836, by which that farm was let to Mr. Doble for 21 years from Michaelmas 1837, at a rent of £165, and that term being about to expire, another lease had been granted, at the same rent, for 14 years from Michaelmas 1858. And yet this was the property which those two gentlemen had made to be worth 252l.; and they had valued all the other farms on the same principle. Yet it was on such evidence that his friend asked the Court to quash the rate and put the parish to the expense of obtaining another valuation. He (Mr. Shilson) could not give similar proof of rental in all the cases; because, in some of them, the owners were in occupation; and tenants did not like on all occasions to have their rents produced. It was enough, however, for him, on behalf of the respondents, to put in evidence the one case he had referred to, in order to show how wrong in principle Mr. Rowe and Mr. Rogers must have been. But he would also call Mr. Hill, and two gentlemen who were as well acquainted with the parish of Philleigh as were the two surveyors. Mr. STOKES said Mr. Symons was present to explain that the reason why he did not object to Mr. Hill's valuation was that his wife died about that time and he did not attend to business; but he afterwards communicated with Mr. Hill. Jonathan Hill, examined by Mr. Childs:—I am a surveyor at Hessenford, and have been so engaged nearly 30 years; I have had to make four or five rates under the new Parochial Assessment Act. In 1854 I was employed to make a valuation of the parish of Philleigh; the proposal was made to me by public advertisement, and others tendered, as well as myself; I have no connection whatever with the parish. I went over the whole parish—every acre, I believe; and made the rate, as it appears in the Rate-book produced. Throughout the parish, in every instance, the deductions which I made from the gross estimated rental, were for poor-rate, way-rate, church-rate, rent-charge in lieu of tithes, repairs, and insurance. After having made my survey, I left my estimate for the rate, at a public-house, for 14 days, for inspection, and I received no complaint; I believe every one who attended the vestry signed that it was an equable and fair rate. I afterwards received a communication from Mr. Symons; the only thing Mr. Symons objected to was that I had not deducted the land-tax. According to the instructions of the Poor Law Board, land-tax could not be deducted from tithe rent charge. Mr. Symons made no complaint with reference to the Glebe.— Cross-examined by Mr. Stokes:—ln going through those several properties, I did not ascertain what rents the owners actually paid; and I did not know what the old rate was; I valued according to my own judgment. I have no doubt that since 1854, property in that parish has improved in value; in point of fact, almost every parish has improved in value since 1854; perhaps 5 to 10 per cent. in some cases. I did not look at the old rate; the way I learned what to deduct for poor rates was by asking every one; and they told me what they paid; the overseer told me what the average of rates had been throughout the whole parish. At Tolvern I deducted—for poor-rates, £31 13s. 4d.; way-rates, £5; tithes, £43 10s.; church-rates, 16s. 8d.; Insurance, Repairs, and landlord’s expenses in collecting, £32 14s. (Of this sum £19 14s. was for repairs). I calculated that the landlord should have 2½ per cent. for collecting his rent; and I deducted that from the gross; I consider the tenant takes free of every thing. I did the whole parish on the same principle, except that I allowed a little more for repairs of thatched premises; and I gave Mr. Symons the same benefit as all other parties. I think it would cost 19l. regularly, to keep Tolverne in repair; it is for the lord to do that. I saw that place on Saturday last; it might let for 5 or 10 percent., or more than that, above my valuation, for one year; but I don't believe that, for a term, it would let for more than 5 or 10 per cent. above my valuation; I don't believe it would make a clear rent of £300. (The witness gave similar evidence concerning Eglosrose, as to rise in value since the date of his survey). I saw Messrs. Hocking's premises at Andevorah (sic) the other day; I have no doubt that about £1100 has been laid out there since my valuation, in repairs and buildings; but it would not, at present, let for more than before; in January last the improvements were not finished, and therefore, not rateable.—By the Chairman:—When I make a survey, I go over every estate and into every field, with a tracing of the whole parish, and sometimes I never see the farmer at all, and get no information from him; I ask the overseer what is the average of rates in the whole parish. In valuing an estate, I add the outgoings to the actual value; supposing an estate was worth 20s. an acre, and I consider the landlord's rates, taxes, and other outgoings would make up 26 or 27s., I put a third on the rental.—By Mr. Stokes:—Crigmurrian and Polsue have been greatly altered since I valued them; they are now in very fine cultivation; I went down there on Saturday last, to see if there were buildings or any thing else, on which any thing could be added to the rate, and I saw nothing that was rateable in the way of buildings. According to my valuation in 1854, I made Crigmurrian to be worth about 19s. 6d. an acre; but that may not be a fair value now; when I valued it, it was in a dreadful state.—Mr. Sobey 's premises are his own; I valued them on the same principle as the others; I do not know what he gave for them; if he gave £16,000, I should think he will never make it. He has wonderfully improved the estate.—By Mr. Shilson.—At Eglosrose, my gross estimate was £253; from which I deducted £93 for poor-rate, way-rate, church-rate, rent-charge, insurance, repairs, and collecting; leaving the net rateable value £160. I adopted precisely the same principle in valuing the glebe. I do not consider it is legal to deduct land-tax from tithes, and I have not done so in any parish that I have valued.—To the best of my judgment that rate was a just and equal rate; I have not deducted land-tax in any case.—By the Chairman:—The sums I have stated are what I consider the farmer ought to pay as rent, clear of all rates and taxes; at Eglosrose, for instance, if the tenant paid every thing, the rent should be £160; if the landlord paid all the outgoings, then the tenant ought to pay him £253.—By Mr. Stokes:—l am not particularly friendly with Mr. Sobey; I made the rate without favour or affection for any body; I dare say his estate is now worth more than £1 0s. 6d. per acre, but I cannot say how much; but at the time I made the rate it was worth no more than I valued it in. John Penhallow Peter, examined by Mr. Shilson:—I was owner of lands in Philleigh, and also assessor of the parish for many years. This week I went over some lands in the parish, accompanied by Mr. Treffry. My mode of valuing is to find what the property would be worth to the tenant, if he had nothing to pay but rent; and then I find the rental, at so much per acre. Tolverne I valued at 316l. gross estimated rental; 211l. net rateable value.—Mr. James Hocking’s (Andevorah), gross, 191l.; net rateable, 128l. I sold that estate last spring twelve-months, at just about this rateable valuation.—Polsue, gross 78l.; net, 54l.; the ground is improved there.—Crigmurrian, gross 61l.; net 41l.—Mr. William Olivey’s, Church-Town, gross 102l.: net 63l.—Eglosrose, gross 251l.; net 169l.—I have valued Philleigh: I made a rate for it, with the approbation of the whole parish; I know the whole parish well, and I think the rents I have mentioned, are fair rents, if a landlord would choose respectable tenants. I was occupying Andevorah and other places when the valuation was made by Mr. Hill, and I consider that his rate was just and fair.—Cross-examined. The house at Crigmurrian has been pulled down; but I think the estate would let for more now than it did three or four years ago, because the land is improved. Mr. Davey bought Crigmurrian at a valuation less than I have now made of it; 35 acres of it would let, I think, for 5s. an acre more now; these 35 acres are worth 35s. an acre now, if the landlord paid all rates and taxes. William Treffry: I live at Ruan Lanyhorne, and am a land-surveyor and a farmer. On Monday and Tuesday last, I ! valued some of the farms in Philleigh:—Mr. Robert Doble's, at Tolverne, gross £316; net £211.— Messrs. Hocking's, gross £191; net £128.—Mr. Davey's, at Polsue, gross £78; net £54.—Crigmurrian, gross £71; net £41.—Mr. Olivey's, gross £102; net £63.—Eglosrose, gross £251; net £169.—In making my valuation, I proceeded on the same principle as that mentioned by Mr. Peter; I consider the net sum is about the rent which the tenant would pay, clear; there would be some slight repairs besides, which a tenant would pay and not turn in to his landlord. We valued on the principle of the Poor Law Board's instructions. I have known Philleigh and have been in the habit of passing through it, for many years.— Cross-examined by Mr. Stokes:—ln making my valuation, I went into every field, with exception of a small plot or two where there were moors; we put our valuation on each close as we were going on; I knew nothing of the rents, and never saw the rate of the parish till after I had finished my work. I have no property in Philleigh; but I manage an estate there for Mrs. Martin. Some time ago I did talk to Mr. Symons as to the propriety of appealing, because Mrs. Martin thought her estate was unjustly charged; but since that, l have met Mr. Hill and he has given me reasons why Mrs. Martin and myself thought she was overcharged; and Mrs. Martin is satisfied.—By the Chairman: What I have called "net" is what I consider the tenant ought to pay; and if he pays much more than that, he will get nothing for himself.—By Mr. Stokes:—If any common tenant farmer farmed Mr. Davey's estate for two years, it would look a very different thing from what it is now; guano is not land; I must say that Mr. Davey's land is very much improved; but guano has a tendency to deceive the eye, especially in a dropping season like the present.—By Mr. Shilson:—Mr. Davey has been laying out a large amount of money there, especially in guano; he has had it three or four years, and has been farming high. I knew it before Mr. Davey had it, for 20 years or more. I should think that £50 would fairly represent the net rateable value of Polsue two years ago. Mr. SHILSON, summing up the respondent's evidence, asserted that Mr. Hill's valuation had been made according to the order of the Poor Law Commissioners. It was clear, he contended, that the tithe rent- charge had not been over-rated; and it was not legal to deduct for land-tax, because that was a landlord's tax. There were valuers on both sides; but Mr. Hill's valuation had been corroborated by Mr. Treffry and Mr. Peter, who had been a landowner in Philleigh, and whose "net rateable value" differed not more than 5 per cent, from Mr. Hill's; and Mr. Hill considered it very probable that since 1854, the value had improved somewhat in consequence of the times. There was, further, the evidence that Mr. Peter sold his estate at rather less than Mr. Hill's valuation. In conclusion, he contended that the rate, in its general principles, was correct; and that it was, as nearly as possible, correct as to particular instances; and the utmost that could be asked of their worships was that those particular instances might be corrected. But those differences were so small, that he could not but think that their worships would hardly think it necessary to make any alteration. Mr. STOKES then replied on the whole case. It was observable, he said, that not one of the persons on whom the notice of appeal had been served, had appeared. Mr. Doble had put in his lease to show that 20 years ago, he took his estate from Sir Charles Lemon at £160, and that the lease had recently been renewed at the same rent. But that was no proof that that sum was the fair rent of the estate. The act required that the criterion of rent should be that, at which an estate might reasonably be expected to let, from year to year. The surveyors had taken as the criterion the rent which the tenant ought to pay, in their opinion. Mr. Hill's valuation was made in November, 1854, and he had not seen the parish from that time till last Saturday, when he went over it, not for the purpose of valuing, but simply to see if there were any new buildings. Mr. Hill, however, did admit, that, generally, all land had improved in value 5 or 10 per cent; and to that extent, his testimony was corroborative of Mr. Rowe and Mr. Rogers.—Then again, Mr. Hill came from a distant part of the county, into a district that he was not before acquainted with; while Mr. Rowe and Mr. Rogers had always resided in the neighbourhood, and Mr. Rowe was one of the most experienced surveyors in this county. Mr. Peter and Mr. Treffry acted pretty much on the same principles as Mr. Hill; but they were not exactly the persons who were in the habit of giving evidence as surveyors; and certainly, Mr. Treffry was not a professional surveyor. But, still, it was remarkable that, in almost every instance, they raised the rateable value.—On the whole, however, the variance between the surveyors was of so remarkable a character that it was quite obvious this rate could not be relied on. Whether it was to be remedied by quashing the whole rate, or by amending portions of it, was for their worships to determine. The Magistrates—Mr. Lethbridge, Mr. Sawle, and Mr. J. T. H. Peter—retired for consultation; and, after an absence of 20 minutes, they returned into Court, and the CHAIRMAN said:—“The Court considers the discrepancy between the Surveyors to be so great that they quash the Rate; but without costs.” This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 31st July and 7th August 1857

5. Summer Assizes CROWN COURT. WEDNESDAY, JULY 29. This Court was opened at 11 o’clock; at which time time (sic) Mr. Justice Coleridge took his seat on the bench. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., foreman; G.W.F. Gregor, Esq. S. Borlase, Esq. J.K. Lethbridge, Esq. D.W.H.J. Horndon, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. H.P. Rawlings, Esq. C.D. Bevan, Esq. T.S. Bolitho, Esq. H. Willyams, Esq. F.M. Williams, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. T.R. Avery, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. J. Batten, Esq. W. Haddon, Esq. R.H.S. Vyvyan, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. E. Coode jun., Esq. W.A. Glynn, Esq. S. Davey, Esq. J.W. Peard, Esq. The following Magistrates also answered to their names:—L. Coker, Esq.; W. Hext, Esq.; W. Moorshead, Esq.; J.T.H. Peter, Esq.; W. Peel, Esq.; W.R.C. Potter, Esq.; Rev. James Glencross; Rev. R.B. Kinsman. The Mayors and Coroners were then called; after which, and the reading of the Queen’s Proclamation, the learned Judge delivered the following [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY:—not transcribed] The Grand Jury then retired, and shortly returned some Bills, and the Court proceeded with the Trials of Prisoners. The following cases were this day disposed of:— JAMES OADES, a miller, aged 21 years, was indicted for stealing a shirt, the property of William Blight, and also a shirt, the property of William Onslow, at Antony, St. Jacob, on the 26th May. He was also charged with feloniously receiving of the goods, knowing them so (sic) have been stolen.—He pleaded GUILTY, and was sentenced to three months hard labour. SIMON PERRY, a labourer, aged 37, was indicted, after previous conviction of felony, for having stolen 16 lbs. of wool, the property of his master, William Nicholls, at Camborne, on the 16th of July. He pleaded GUILTY.—Sentence deferred. WILLIAM STEPHENS, a miner, aged 19, was indicted for maliciously stabbing and wounding Thomas Adams the younger, with intent to maim and disable him at Redruth, on the 7th of December, 1856. In a second count, he was charged with stabbing and wounding with intent to do some grievous bodily harm.— Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of unlawfully wounding, but not with intent to do harm.—Sentence, Nine months hard labour. JANE BATH, a servant, aged 22, pleaded GUILTY to two indictments; the one charging her with stealing a pair of women’s boots, the property of her master, Martin Thomas, at Redruth; and the other with feloniously embezzling money received by her on account of her said master.—sentence deferred. WILLIAM COOK, miner, aged 28, was charged with burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Alford, innkeeper at the Fisherman’s Arms at East Looe, on the 7th of May 1857, and stealing three £5 Bank Notes, 22l. 7s. in gold and silver, and one silver watch-guard chain, of the value of £10, the property of the said William Alford.—Mr. Cole and Mr. Carter conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended by counsel, but showed considerable tact and acuteness in conducting his defence. The learned JUDGE, too,—as well during the examination of witnesses, as more formally in his summing up, suggested all possible points in behalf of the prisoner.—The jury, however, found the prisoner GUILTY, and the Judge expressed his approval of the verdict.—Sentence, Four Years Penal Servitude. JOHN HARRAGAN, a labourer, aged 23, was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Down, at Southill, on the 27th of January, and stealing therefrom a shawl, the property of the said John Down.—Mr. Carter conducted the prosecution.—The prisoner was found GUILTY.—On another indictment against him for stealing a bundle of straw, the property of Richard Snell, at Callington, no evidence was offered.—A former conviction was proved against the prisoner. At the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions, 1855, he was convicted, under the name of John Morgan, of breaking and entering the dwelling- house of Thomas Bate and stealing therefrom various articles; and was sentenced to twelve months hard labour.—He was now sentenced to Six Years Penal Servitude. JOHN PEARCE, labourer, aged 16, pleaded GUILTY, after previous conviction, to an indictment charging him with burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Carhart, innkeeper, at Bodmin, on the 15th of April, and stealing three silver table-spoons, eleven electro-plated prongs, one bottle of brandy, and a bunch of keys, the property of the said John Carhart; and 3 lbs of tea, 8 yards of cloth, one piece of cassinette, the trimmings for a suit of clothes, one cashmere handkerchief, one wrapper and two leather straps, the property of James Browne.—Sentence deferred. WILLIAM CARNE, 19, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing three geese, the property of Philip Hawke, at St. Ervan, on the 4th of July.—Three other prisoners charged with him, for the same offence, pleaded not guilty; their trial did not come on to-day. WILLIAM GRIFFIN, an elderly man of St. Blazey, was indicted for breaking and entering, on the 28th inst., the dwelling-house of Thomas Kean, a tin streamer, in the parish of Luxulyan and stealing therefrom a watch and three pennies.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. His own statement in defence was that he was of infirm intellect and occasionally subject to fits, and that sometimes he rambled about not knowing whither or for what purpose.—When he was found by the prosecutor in his (the prosecutor’s) bed-room, after having entered the house by violent means, he said “he had missed his way” (laughter).—The prisoner’s statement, in defence, was somewhat corroborated by a parishioner of his in court—Joseph Kempe of St. Blazey, who had known him for a considerable time.—The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, with recommendation to mercy.—The judge passed sentence of Six Months Hard Labour, explaining to the jury that the hard labour would be only such as the prisoner would be found fit to perform; and observing that no ill consequence could result to the prisoner, from his detention for a time in a place where he would be cared for. JOHN PARNELL, 20, was charged with stealing a gold watch, value 20 guineas, the property of Ann Campbell, at Truro, in or about the month of July or August, 1856.—Mr. Phear conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. The evidence in the case was given by the Rev. George Colin Campbell, (now resident of Torquay, but who, at the time of the robbery from his aunt the prosecutrix, was residing at Truro); by his sister, Miss Ann Campbell, (who last year resided with her aunt at Mrs. Green’s lodgings at Truro); and by Robert Michell, a Serjeant of Police at Torquay, where the prisoner, to the time of his apprehension and the discovery of the watch in his possession, on the 17th of July instant, was still living in the service of the Campbell family.—The jury found the prisoner GUILTY; and he was sentenced to 18 months hard labour. The Court then rose. During the day, the following Bills were ignored:— John Drew, charged with ravishing Grace Head, at Phillack, on Sunday, the 15th of March.—Nicholas Grylls, charged with manslaughter of John Kernick, at Menheniot,—Jane Treble, stealing a clock and other articles, the property of William Daw, at Calstock. True Bills have been found against Susan Chinn, and Betsy Rawlings, severally charged with child murder. ______NISI PRIUS COURT. WEDNESDAY JULY 29. The learned Judge, Mr. Justice Crompton, took his seat in this court at eleven o’clock. The following was the cause list:—

Plaintiff's Attys/ Plaintiff. Defendant. Defts' At Miilett & Borlase. Steward & Another v. Comeford & Another Plomer. Wallis Morshead v. Kellow Coode & Co. S.T.G. Downing. Ley & Others [S.J.] v. Peter Same. Jenkinson & Co. Crease [S.J.] v. Harvey Hodge and Hockin

STEWART and ANOTHER v. COMEFORD and ANOTHER.—Mr. KINGDON, on behalf of plaintiffs, said the parties in this case had agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiffs, subject to certain terms.— Verdict accordingly. MORSHEAD v. KELLOW.—Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. BULLER; attorney, Mr. Preston Wallis. Counsel for the defendant, Mr. COLLIER and Mr. KARSLAKE; attorneys, Messrs. Coode and Co. Mr. BULLER having opened the pleading, Mr. Coleridge stated the case, from which it appeared that the plaintiff is Captain Morshead, a magistrate of this county, living about five miles from Bodmin; and the defendant is Mr. William Biddick Kellow, a proprietor of vans and omnibuses, and the proprietor of the “Fairy” omnibus, which travels from the western part of this county to Plymouth. Capt. Morshead had a valuable mare, nearly a thorough-bred, which his servant was taking, on the 4th of December last, to Blacklands, seven or eight miles from Plymouth, where Capt. Morshead was going on a visit. The servant rode the mare to Liskeard in the morning, and stopped to feed at Webb’s Hotel, after which he was riding out of the town on his way to Plymouth, when shortly after leaving the Hotel, and descending the hill in Pounds Lane, he was met by the “Fairy” omnibus coming up the hill, the splinter bar of which (according to the groom’s statement) struck the mare, and she was knocked backwards and fell over towards the wall. The groom fell over the mare’s back, and was hurt by a blow on his foot. The mare on getting up could only stand on three legs, and was taken to Webb’s Hotel, where she was attended by a veterinary surgeon named Channon, and on the next day she was taken home. Two farriers named Cottle and Cawrse afterwards attended her, but the injuries received were such that according to their evidence she was now worthless. Capt. Morshead valued the mare in 60 guineas, and several pounds had been incurred for expenses; and compensation was sought by this action, the plaintiff alleging that the injury was occasioned through the careless and negligent driving of the omnibus. The evidence given in the case was very conflicting. On the part of plaintiff, the groom, James Oliver, and other witnesses, gave evidence that the omnibus came down the hill from Castle Street at a steady pace, until nearing the bottom, when the horses broke into a gallop, went across the flat ground at that pace, and continued galloping up Pound’s Lane, which the groom was descending riding plaintiff’s mare; that the omnibus came up the wrong side, leaving only three feet for the mare to pass which was insufficient, and that the animal in consequence backed, and was knocked down by the omnibus. On the other hand, the evidence given by the driver of the omnibus, Samuel Geare, by four of the passengers, and one or two others, was that the omnibus went slowly down the hill, when near the bottom broke into a trot from five to six miles an hour, and continued at that pace up the hill until meeting plaintiff’s mare, without galloping at all. Also, that the omnibus was on the proper side of the road, and that there was five fee between the vehicle and the wall for the mare to pass; that the mare might have gone straight forwards, and that the accident was occasioned by her shying, and swerving across the road, when she was struck by the wheel-bar behind the wheelers. The road where the accident occurred was stated to be 13 feet 6 inches wide, and the breadth of the omnibus from nave to nave of the wheels was about 6 feet 9 inches. Evidence was also given on the part of plaintiff, to show that the mare was a quiet animal, and not given to shying when passing coaches or carriages. There were thirteen witnesses examined in behalf of plaintiff, and eleven on the part of defendant, and the case lasted from half-past eleven in the forenoon till half-past seven in the evening. Mr. Coleridge had then concluded his address on the whole case, and the learned JUDGE was about to sum up. Previously, however, to doing so, he asked the jury whether they would prefer that he should sum up in the morning, as, it being a case of conflicting evidence, they might require some time for deliberation, and if he went through the summing up that night, they might have to be locked up. The Foreman of the jury replied that they would rather hear the summing up in the morning; and the court was then adjourned. We shall therefore be unable to give the conclusion of the case in this week’s paper. We had prepared a much longer report, but the length of the business in the Crown Court compels us to restrict ourselves to the above summary of the leading points of the evidence. [We shall report the remainder of the Assize trials and the Nisi Prius business in next week’s paper.) CROWN COURT, THURSDAY, JULY 30. (Before Mr. Justice Coleridge). JOHN PEARCE, 16, labourer, who pleaded GUILTY on Wednesday, of burglariously breaking into and entering the dwelling-house of John Carhart, at Bodmin, and stealing silver table spoons, electro plated prongs, and other things; and at the same time stealing tea, cloth, &c., the property of James Browne, was placed at the bar to receive sentence. The learned JUDGE said the prisoner had pleaded guilty after a former conviction in October, 1856, for house-breaking, when he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. On coming out of gaol he must immediately have returned to his former habits, and the sentence of the court for the offence to which he had now pleaded guilty was, that he undergo six years’ penal servitude. JANE BATH, 22, had yesterday pleaded GUITLY of stealing a pair of women’s boots, the property of her master, Martin Thomas, of Redruth. She was sentenced to four months hard labour; and for embezzling money belonging to her master, to which charge she had also pleaded GUILTY, she was sentenced to an additional four months’ imprisonment with hard labour. SIMON PERRY, 37, labourer, who yesterday pleaded GUILTY of stealing a quantity of wool, the property of his master, William Nicholls, of Camborne, was placed at the bar to receive sentence. The JUDGE said he should have passed upon him a more severe sentence, if there had not been circumstances in the case which led him to believe that the prisoner had still some good principles remaining in him. He then sentenced him to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. THOMAS ELLIS, 23, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a silver watch, guard, seal, and key, the property of William Rowe, at Constantine, on the 12th July last.—Six months’ hard labour. MARY ANN HARVEY, 21, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a bonnet, cap, and pair of boots, the property of Richard Sampson, at Breage, on the 23rd June last.—Sentence, six months’ hard labour. NICHOLAS GRYLLS, 40, shoemaker, had been committed to take his trial, for the manslaughter of John Kernick, at Menheniot. Mr. COLE said a bill had been sent up to the Grand Jury in this case for manslaughter, by riding over a man in the public highway. The Grand Jury had thrown out the bill, and he (Mr. Cole) should offer no evidence on the part of the prosecution on the coroner’s inquisition. The learned JUDGE then directed the jury to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY; and that verdict having been given, he ordered the prisoner to be discharged. RICHARD CROOK, 17, miner, was charged with stealing half-a-crown from the shop of Richard Higman, at Calstock, on the 14th of July. Amongst other witnesses in this case, a little girl under six years of age was admitted to give evidence by the learned Judge. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. WILLIAM CARNE, 19, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing three geese, the property of Philip Hawke, at St. Ervan, on the 4th of July. WILLIAM GREGOR, 21, THOMAS GREGOR, 16, and HENRY MARTYN, 25, were also charged with stealing Mr. Hawke’s geese, and in a second count with receiving the geese knowing them to have been stolen. On these charges no evidence was offered by the prosecution, and the jury, by direction of the Judge, returned the two Gregors and Martyn NOT GUILTY. William Carne, who had pleaded guilty, was sentenced to three months’ hard labour. WOOL STEALING.—THOS. STEWART, 20, seaman, was indicted for stealing five fleeces of wool and a sheep-skin, the property of William Veale, jun., of St. Columb Major. Richard Jenkin, foreman to Mr. James Hawke, wool-dealer, St. Columb, was called by Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prosecution, and stated that on the 27th of June prisoner came and offered him a fleece of wool for sale. He bought the fleece, which weighed 8lbs., and put it with the rest of their stock; they were taking in a large quantity at the time. On inquiry by the learned Judge, it appeared there was no means of identifying the fleece, as it had been thrown in with the stock; and therefore on this charge the Judge directed an ACQUITTAL.—Another charge was preferred against THOMAS STEWART, WILLIAM JARVIS, 21, miner, and JAMES HAWKEY, 24, labourer, for stealing, on the 30th of June, four fleeces of wool, the property of William Veale, jun., and in a second count the prisoners were charged with receiving the wool knowing it to have been stolen. Richard Jenkin, foreman to Mr. Hawke, stated that on the 29th June the prisoner Stewart brought a skin and fleece to him to sell, and he purchased them; he placed the skin with some others, and afterwards gave it to Brewer the constable. On the 30th of June, the prisoners Jarvis and Hawkey brought a bag of wool to Mr. Hawke’s office; Jarvis carried the bag, and asked witness what he was giving a pound for wool. Witness told him he should not buy any more wool of suspicious characters, as he already entertained doubts about some he had bought. Hawkey said to witness, he need not be afraid to buy it, as Jarvis had had it by him for some time. William Brewer, constable at St. Columb, saw the prisoner Stewart, on the 30th of June, pass along with a pack of wool on his shoulders. He went out to him and asked him what he was carrying. Stewart said wool, and that he had had it of a gentleman at Newquay. He asked him the gentleman’s name, and Stewart said he could not tell, but if he would allow him to go, he would bring the gentleman in five minutes. Witness said he could not let him go, he must detain him on suspicion of stealing the wool. Witness took him into custody, and when he was in the lock-up he said he might thank the party for bringing him into this; now they had got him into the scrape they had “hooked” it. After this, witness and constable Burrows went to look for Jarvis and Hawker (sic). They could not find them at St. Columb, but traced them to Truro, and found Hawkey concealed in a privy at the back of a lodging house. He had bolted through the chamber window, and had only his shirt and trowsers on. Witness took him into custody, and charged him with offering wool to Mr. Hawke’s foreman, knowing it to have been stolen. Hawkey said he only went as company for Jarvis. John Burrows, constable of St. Columb, went with Brewer to Truro, and searched some lodging houses; found Jarvis in a field inside a hayrick, and took him into custody; he said the wool had been stolen, but he did not steal it. After the prisoners were committed, on their way to gaol Hawkey said to Jarvis, “we cannot find fault with the witnesses, but if we are found guilty, we shall have 3 or 4 years at it because we have been there before.” William Veale, sen., lives at Rosewastis with his son. Saw the prisoner Jarvis going out of his yard with a coarse manure bag on his back on the 26th of June; the bag was full of something. He asked the man what he had got, and he said bones. He thought the man was one of the bone collectors, and did not say any more to him. On the 29th, he met a man with a bag on his back, but he could not see his face. On cross-examination witness said, to the best of his knowledge it was Jarvis he saw on the 26th of June. John Smart, who lives at Trekenning mill, was near Mr. Veale’s farm on the 29th of June, and saw Stewart pass on the Turnpike road with an empty bag on his back, and in about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, saw him return from the direction of Mr. Veale’s farm with what appeared to be the same bag tolerably full of something. He knew Stewart was in the habit of buying rags and bones. William Veale, jun., had shorn 133 sheep this year, and kept the fleeces in an old dwelling-house belonging to the farm, 10 or 15 yards from the house where he lived. The old house was fastened by night, but a person he found could get in through the bars of the window, could then unbar the door, put out the wood, bar the door again, and go out at the window. On the 30th June, in consequence of information, witness counted his fleeces, and found that nine and a sheepskin had been stolen. Mr. Jenkin was recalled, and said he had bought five fleeces of Stewart. Brewer, the constable, produced a skin and four fleeces which he got from Stewart on the 30th of June when he took him into custody. Mr. Veale jun. looked at the skin produced, and identified it by the ear-mark. He could not swear to the fleeces, but they were much like his wool; his fleeces were tied differently, and so were these. On the prisoners being called on for their defence, Stewart said he gave the fleeces to Jarvis and Hawkey to sell, but they did not know how he obtained them. The learned JUDGE having summed up, the jury found the prisoner Stewart GUILTY of stealing, and Hawkey and Jarvis GUILTY of receiving the wool knowing it to have been stolen. A previous conviction was also proved against Hawkey for durglary (sic) in 1854. The Judge sentenced Stewart to four years’ penal servitude; Jarvis to four years’ penal servitude; and Hawkey, to five years’ penal servitude. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER.—SUSAN CHINN was indicted and also charged on the coroner’s inquisition, with the wilful murder of her male child, at the parish of St. Erth, on the 3rd of July. When arraigned the prisoner pleaded not guilty. She was described in the calendar as a servant, aged 17. She was of low stature, and apparently below the average degree of intellect. She held down her head, and looked very serious when in the dock, but exhibited no emotion. The Judge told her she might sit down, and she did so. Mr. COLERIDGE conducted the prosecution, and Mr. COLE defended the prisoner; attorneys for the prosecution, Messrs. Rodd, Drake, and Cornish; for the defence, Messrs. Commins and Son. Mr. COLERIDGE made a short statement of the circumstances of the case, and then called the following witnesses. Eliza Luke who said, I am the wife of John Luke, labourer, in the parish of St. Erth. Prisoner is my sister; she was living in my house when taken up on this charge, she has lived with me for the last two or three years, and is just turned seventeen. I had no reason to suspect she was with child. On the morning of the 3rd July I came down stairs about eight o’clock; I did not observe anything, but on going to the back door saw blood there. My sister was then down stairs, and I asked her what was the matter; she said she was very poorly. I sent my husband for Mary Goldsworthy, and she came. Cross-examined by Mr. COLE—My sister used to come to my house when she was out of service; she used then to go “charring.” She is a little weak in her intellect. At the back door the place is paved outside with ragged rough bricks. There is a privy fourteen or fifteen yards up the garden. Re-examined by Mr. COLERIDGE—She cannot read; had never been but nine weeks in service, which was about two years ago. Mary Goldsworthy, wife of T. Goldsworthy, was called by Mr. Luke between 8 and 9 o’clock on the morning of the 3rd July. I went to Mrs. Luke’s, and saw in the kitchen Mrs. Luke and Susan Chinn, the prisoner. I asked Mrs. Luke what was the matter; she said she did not know, she was afraid something was the matter with Susan more than ought to be. I turned to Susan and asked what was the matter. She made no answer. I said, I insisted upon knowing; I said Susan, you have had a baby. She did not speak; I said Susan, where is your baby? She still did not speak. I said, Susan, I insist on knowing where your baby is, because your life is at stake in this case. Her sister then said, you had better tell Mrs. Goldsworthy where your baby is. She then said, out in the pig’s “crow” (meaning the pig-stye). I want to the pig’s crow, which was about two yards from the back door. I looked, but could not see the baby. I came back to the kitchen and said, Susan, I don’t see the baby, you were able to put it there, come and show me where it is. She went with me to the pig’s crow door, and pointed and said “there it is.” I opened the straw and there the baby was; it was covered and alive; I heard it before I took up the straw. I carried it to the house and sent for Mr. Mudge, who came in about twenty minutes. He did different things to it, and I assisted. Before Mr. Mudge came I bathed the child’s mouth in a little cold water, and blew in its face and slapped it, hoping to keep it alive. It died about eleven o’clock. I stayed in Mrs. Chinn’s house most part of that day; and in the night Susan Chinn told me she had the baby upstairs when she was standing by the side of the bed in the next room to her sister’s bed-room and that she was there alone. She said when the baby was born she did not know what to do by it, and through fear and fright she rested it for 5 minutes, and then she took it downstairs and took it to the pig-stye. She told me she might have knocked it, for what she knew, in a hurry, but not intentionally to injure the baby; she had no thought of that; she said she might have knocked it against the door of the pigs’ crow in putting it in. Cross-examined;—When I first saw her she was agitated, was like an idiot almost; she has been of weak intellect. During the night she was much agitated and took no rest; she hardly seemed to know what she was about. Re-examined—I don’t know whether she was ever attended by any doctor on account of weak intellect. James Mudge, surgeon living at Hayle. I remember John Luke coming to my house on the 3rd of July, and I followed him to his house almost immediately. When I entered, the infant was in Mary Goldsworthy’s lap; it breathed convulsively and occasionally. My first impression was that it was a case of suspended animation occurring at the time of birth. I ordered a warm bath to be got ready, and whilst it was in preparation I made further examination of the child, and discovered bruises more particularly on the left side of the head commencing at the top above the left ear downwards, and in front of the left ear. There was blood issuing from the child’s nostrils and mouth. There were also two slight bruises just below the left shoulder, on the arm. The child was put in the warm bath, and I tried all the usual restoratives without success. I remained from half to three-quarters of an hour, and finding the child getting weaker, I left, considering it a hopeless case. It was born a fine, strong, healthy-looking child. I discovered symptoms of fracture by the touch, and on post mortem examination found it to be so. There was a fracture of the skull, also of the collar bone on the left side, and a scratch at the bottom of the back, between the buttocks. On dividing the scalp or skin over the bones of the head, I found a quantity of coagulated blood, which seemed to be mixed with the tissues of the scalp, as though bruised together by a blow or blows struck upon it, or the thing itself struck against another substance. The principal part was just above, and anterior to the ear the place where I have already described the bruise. The bones of the skull were fractured severely; a portion of the bone of the skull was driven into the membrane which surrounds the brain. There was a fracture at the base of the skull, but not a distinct fracture. There was large quantity of blood from the fracture at the base of the skull. I examined the child internally; it had every appearance of a healthy child at that time of life. I attribute the death of the child to the fracture of the skull. I should think the fracture was occasioned by more blows than one, or otherwise by the child coming in contact with more surfaces than one at the same time, which of course would be the same thing. Mr. COLERIDGE—Would a single blow against a door-post have occasioned the injuries you saw? Witness—I don’t think a single blow on a perfectly plain smooth surface would have occasioned all the injuries I saw. Mr. COLERIDGE—Did you see the door-way of the pig’s-crow, would a single blow against that, in your judgment, occasion the injuries you saw? Witness—I cannot undertake to say whether it would or not; it depends whether the blow was struck against a corner or smooth surface; there were corners, and smooth and rough surfaces on the door- way. Mr. COLERIDGE—So that doorway would have produced the injuries you saw? Witness—I will not undertake to give an opinion. The JUDGE—You have an opinion that it might? Witness—It might, my lord, under certain circumstances. Cross-examined—I have known the family of this young woman for some time; should say she was a young woman of weak intellect, decidedly so; do not know personally that some of her near relatives have been in confinement. I believe this was her first child. Many young women, and those who have had children before, do not know the symptoms indicating the approach of a birth, and they are delivered unawares. Young women sometimes are not aware they are with child, and sometimes up to a late period; some women do not increase much in size. The pains of labour are sometimes mistaken by women for bowel complaints; a woman many go to a privy and be confined there. A woman may be delivered suddenly and the child fall from her standing. Mr. COLE—Supposing this woman had been confined suddenly, without assistance, in a standing position and the child had fallen upon any rough substance, might it not have produced the injuries you observed? Witness—Had the child fallen upon any particularly rough, hard, and uneven substance, I think it is within the range of possibility that those injuries might have been occasioned. Mr. COLE—All the injuries were on the left side? Witness—All the marks were on the left side except the scratch on the buttocks, which was merely superficial as with the nail. Mr. COLE— Supposing the woman had been suddenly confined, and the child had fallen on the rough brick-work in the yard? Witness—That might have produced the injuries. A sudden delivery often produces great excitement, and would be the more likely to do so to one of weak mind. Mr. COLE—And to such an extent that she would hardly know what she was doing? Witness—Quite so. The skull of an infant is very soft? Yes. And from the blow the child might have lost all sensation? Witness—It might have been stunned and apparently dead. So that a person might have thought the child was dead? Witness Quite so. The young woman continued in state of excitement some time? Witness—She was weak and poorly, and at times did not know what she was about; I thought it necessary for someone to stay with her, she was not fit to be left alone. Re-examined by Mr. COLERIDGE—A child falling on the flooring of Mrs. Luke’s bed-room would not be likely to receive the injuries I have described. It happens occasionally that women do not know they are with child until the time of birth; at least they say so. Mr. COLERIDGE—Do you believe it? Witness—I believe they do not know it occasionally. Mr. COLERIDGE—Is it common for a delivery to be so sudden that a child would fall from a woman when standing? Witness—Yes, it is particularly common in Cornwall, where so many women are delivered standing up; it is common among the lower orders in Cornwall, that the women stand to have their children. The JUDGE—Have you had experience in other counties, that you make a distinction as to Cornwall? Witness—I have, my lord. This concluded the case for the prosecution, and the learned JUDGE intimated his opinion that the evidence was not such as to support a charge of wilful murder. Mr. COLE then addressed the jury for the defence, stating that the prisoner was relieved from the charge of murder, and contending that there was no evidence to support against her a charge of manslaughter. He submitted that the death of the child was entirely the result of accident; that the woman was suddenly delivered as she was going to the privy, and that the child fell on the hard and uneven brick pavement in the back yard. He said a statement of the prisoner to the effect had been kept back through the rules affecting the reception of evidence. The learned JUDGE summed up, and after stating his conviction that the evidence was not such as to support a charge of wilful murder, he explained the difference between murder and manslaughter, and then said, the question is, whether the prisoner is guilty of the latter offence. The child having been born alive, it became the mother’s duty to do what in her lay to preserve her child’s life. If you think she conducted herself with blameable carelessness; that she neglected the usual precautions she might have taken, and must have understood she ought to have taken; if you think anything happened, from want of such care, to occasion the death of the child, then undoubtedly she is guilty of manslaughter. On the other hand, if from the circumstances which had befallen her, the pain of body, the anguish of mind, the general weakness of her intellect, the shame she was apprehending, and other circumstances of that kind, you think she was reduced to such a state of excitement, or ignorance of all things about her that she really did not know what to do, and hardly knew what she was doing at the time, then I think you would hardly say she was guilty of carelessness, because that implies the ability to take care, and in that case I think you may properly say she is not guilty. The learned JUDGE then read over and commented on the evidence, and the jury retired from the court at twenty minutes to three to consider their verdict, and after remaining about a quarter of an hour, they returned and delivered a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The JUDGE then ordered the prisoner to be delivered into the charge of her sister, and she was removed from the dock. BLASPHEMY.—THOMAS POOLEY, aged 50, a dirty looking, excitable man, with a long grisly beard, was placed at the bar and arraigned as follows:—You are indicted for unlawfully writing and publishing a blasphemous and profane libel concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion. Other counts charge you with uttering and speaking blasphemous words; are you guilty or not guilty? The prisoner answered, “not guilty.” Mr. COLERIDGE, for the prosecution, addressed the jury. It was not often that a criminal court was occupied with the investigation of the guilt or innocence of a prisoner for the publication of a blasphemous libel. It was the law of the land that blaspheming God, or turning the doctrines of the Christian religion into contempt and ridicule, was an indictable offence at common law. All blasphemies against God, denying His being or His providence, or contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, or exposing any part of it to contempt and ridicule, are considered as offences tending to subvert religion and morality, and they are punishable by the temporal courts with fine and imprisonment. It was not for holding or maintaining any opinion, if it was maintained decently, with due consideration for the feelings of other people, and due respect towards the laws and religion of the land, that a prosecution like this would be instituted, or could be sustained; for this, certainly, was not a time when the laws or people of this country could be justly accused of want of Toleration. But it was essential that the foundations of religion, and the feelings of the well-disposed body of society should be respected, and if persons were found not merely respectfully and decently maintaining opinions contrary to our common christianity, but determinedly and deliberately outraging our feelings by contumelious expressions, reviling our blessed Lord, and holding up the Holy Scriptures to contempt and ridicule in foul and opprobrious language, he thought the jury would agree with him that such offences ought to be visited with punishment and put down. The learned Counsel then stated the words which the prisoner was accused of writing and uttering, in four counts of the indictment. The second count he did not proceed to prove by evidence; and the third, in which the prisoner referred to the potato disease, he said was less offensive than the first and fourth; the latter was the most serious of all. He read from legal authorities to show the nature and extent of the offence, and he then called the following witnesses:— Mary Bowden, wife of George Bowden; lives in the parish of Duloe, and was working on the 22nd of May last, in a field in that parish, belonging to the Rev. Paul Bush. The gate abuts upon the high road leading from Duloe to Tredinnick. It is a four-acre field, and she was about half-way in. About twelve o’clock, she saw a man come to the gate, and write something on it. She went towards the gate and he left off writing, and went on the road. He had fustian clothes on, and a tin can, such as bill-stickers use. She could not read the writing on the gate; it was not there a quarter of an hour before Mr. Michell came up, and she showed him the writing. Mr. Bush came a few minutes after Mr. Michell left. To the best of her belief, Pooley was the man she saw writing, but she did not like to swear to him. William Michell, carpenter, at Duloe, met Pooley nearly a quarter of a mile from the gate; he said he was posting bills for houses to let or sold at East Looe. Witness went on to the gateway and saw Mary Bowden there. The gate is black, and there was something written on it with chalk. He could make out the words “Jesus Christ,” and the prisoner’s name at the bottom, “T. Pooley.” Witness met no person between prisoner and the gate. By the PRISONER—Opposite the gate is a road leading down to a sand-place. Rev. Paul Bush, rector of Duloe, on the 22nd of May, went to one of his fields in which Mary Bowden was working, and saw written on the gate “Duloe stinks of the monster Christ’s Bible—Blasphemy—T. Pooley.” He sent to have it rubbed out that same day. Richard Crapp, labourer at Duloe, was in a public-house at Sandplace, in the parish of Morval, about the end of May. Prisoner was there; he had some bills and a tin can; the bills were about selling some houses at Looe. Prisoner said he had been about posting the bills, and he said how fine the potatoes were looking. Witness said, they were promising to be good crops if the disease did not take them. Prisoner asked witness if he knew how to get rid of the disease; witness said, no. He said he did; he then said, “if folks would burn their Bibles and take the ashes for dressing, it would get rid of the disease.” (Prisoner cross-examined this and the other witnesses, endeavouring to show that they had mistaken his words, but they persisted in their statements.) Alfred Stripling, one of the county police, was with the prisoner at the public-house at Trecan Gate; there were two of them present. Some remarks were made about the county police, and Pooley said—[We cannot publish this. It is too abominable.] Prisoner then addressed the jury in a rambling way in his own defence, and said he hoped the jury were not Christians. The learned JUDGE then summed up, and said it had been very properly stated that by the laws of this country decent discussion upon the different doctrines of our religion is not forbidden. It is thought to be better for the advancement of truth that such matters should be discussed. It is not doubted that from such free discussion truth will ultimately be the gainer. At the same time the law requires that that discussion shall be decent, reasonable and serious. It will not allow the feelings of mankind to be shocked, the interests of religion to be prejudiced, the foundations of all good government to be stopped by profane, and contumelious, and contemptuous writings or expression with regard to our religion. His lordship then remarked upon the evidence, and upon the words stated to be written and uttered by the prisoner. If the jury believed the evidence, and that the first count in the indictment was proved (as to the words written on the gate) it seemed to him that those words brought the prisoner within the reach of law. On the second count no evidence had been offered. The words stated to the third (about the potatoe (sic) disease) were ribaldry; but the counsel for the prosecution had put it that it might have been a jest. The words in the fourth count (uttered to the policeman) were impious and opprobrious blasphemy, if they believed he used those words. The jury almost immediately returned the prisoner GUILTY on the first, third and fourth counts of the indictment. The JUDGE then passed sentence, saying it was almost unnecessary for him to point out the enormity of the prisoner’s offence. You have expressed a hope that your jurors are not Christians, I rejoice to believe that they are Christians, and I hope all the persons in this court are Christians, and if you think it a happiness not to be so, then yours is a most unfortunate state of mind. I hope while you are in prison you will have the good sense not to refuse to listen to the advice given to you; you may then find that the superiority of knowledge and wisdom you may suppose you possess, is a matter of the greatest blindness. A new light may dawn upon you; and if it does, you will reproach yourself, and repent in bitterness of heart for the words you have uttered and written. The sentence of the court is, that upon the first and third counts of this indictment you be imprisoned for the space of six calendar months each, the second six to commence after the first six has expired; and that upon the fourth count, you be further imprisoned for nine calendar months. ANOTHER CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER.—BETSY RAWLINGS, aged 21, a servant, was indicted, and also charged by the coroner’s inquisition with the wilful murder of her male child, at the parish of Egloshayle, on the 19th of June. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. HOLDSWORTH was for the prosecution, and Mr. COLE for the defence. Mr. HOLDSWORTH said he had read the evidence very attentively as given in the depositions, especially the testimony of the surgeon; and he thought he should be acting most fairly in stating to the jury at once, that he did not think the depositions as he had read them, brought the charge home to the prisoner. He therefore did not intend to offer any evidence against her.—The learned JUDGE said, he had also read the depositions, and he confessed he was taken by surprise that the bill was found for wilful murder. There was no ground to suppose the charge could be established, and the learned counsel was perfectly right in the course he had taken. The jury would therefore say that Betsy Rawlings was not guilty.—A verdict of NOT GUILTY was then returned, and she was discharged. HENRY BENNETT, 21, a miner, was charged with stealing a silver watch guard, the property of Edward Garland, at Callington. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. The Court then rose. ______NISI PRIUS COURT. THURSDAY, JULY 30. Before Mr. Justice CROMPTON. MOORSHEAD (sic) v. KELLOW.—The learned JUDGE, this morning summed up this case which was tried on Wednesday, as reported in our last number.—The jury, after about 10 minutes consultation in their box, found a Verdict for Defendant; the foreman stating that they thought it was a case of mere accident, caused by the horse turning in a narrow road; and that there was no blame on either side, and no vice in the horse.—The learned JUDGE said:—That is very much my view of it; no blame on either side, to man or horse, but a mere accident. SPECIAL JURY CASES. LEY and OTHERS v. PETER.—Counsel for plaintiffs, Serjeant Kinglake and Mr. Karslake; attorney, Mr. Downing. Counsel for defendant, Mr. Montague Smith and Mr. Kingdon; attorneys, Messrs. Coode and Shilson.—The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. Edwin Ley, John Morgan Ley, H.V. Grantham, and John Hoskins, and Mr. John Thomas Henry Peter, of Chiverton, was the defendant. The action was one of ejectment. Serjeant Kinglake, stating the plaintiff’s case to the jury, said the action was one of ejectment, brought for the purpose of recovering an undivided one-third portion of two meadows. The property was small, each meadow being but about 1½ acre; but it was a matter of importance to both the plaintiffs and the defendant that this matter should be determined between them. The real plaintiffs were the Messrs. Ley; Mr. Grantham’s name being added as a trustee under a deed of settlement, and Mr. Hoskins’s, as a tenant under the Messrs. Ley. The meadows in question were called Barn Meadows and Stone Hill; and they were part and parcel of the manor Ventongimps in the parish of Perranzabuloe. This was an ancient manor; and it would appear that on it was an ancient tenement called Ventongimps and Gilberts, which had never been in the occupation of the Leys, but had been leased out from time to time, to different parties. It would appear too that the tenement had been divided—one portion of it passing for many years as Clark’s Moiety, and the other portion as Argalls. In or about the year 1765, a lady named Mary Foss was owner of the manor of Ventongimps; and, after her death, one-third of the manor passed to the family of the Leys who were still in possession of it; another third to a person called Jago; and the remaining third to a person named Cornish. That third, belonging to the Cornishes, became distributed about in various ways, until, about the year 1787, a twelfth portion of it, which had belonged to a person named Sowden, came into the possession of a Mr. Thomas who had a property called Chiverton adjoining the fields which were the subject-matter of the present dispute; the defendant, Mr. Peter, deriving his alleged title from Mr. Thomas, who was his grand-father. Mr. Thomas had a mansion on Chiverton, and the estate came down to, and breasted on, the two fields named Barn Meadow and Stone Hill. On the part of the plaintiffs, it was alleged that these two meadows were, and always had been, part of the tenement of Ventongimps and Gilberts; Barn Meadow always passing under lease as part of Clark’s Moiety, and Stone Hill as part of Argalls.—The manor of Ventongimps having become divided into three parts, on the death of Miss Foss, and Mr. Thomas having in 1787 purchased Sowden’s 12th share of the third which had descended to the Cornishes; in 1807, Mr. Thomas purchased, from a person named Geach, another twelfth of that third; so that he then became the possessor of two-twelfths of the manor.—It would be shown that in the year 1765, Miss Foss, being then entitled to the whole of the manor, leased to one Paul Clark, a moiety of Ventongimps and Gilberts, in reversion, for 99 years, on the lives of himself and Ann Bawden, who afterwards became his wife; and in 1779, Miss Foss dealt in a similar manner with the other moiety of the tenement, which was called Argalls and included the Stone Hill meadow, by leasing it for 99 years on lives, to the same Paul Clark; the last life on that lease was Paul Clark the younger, a son of the lessee, and he died in 1854. Those two leases were in existence when Mr. Hugh Ley, father of the two plaintiffs, became entitled to one-third of the manor, and, of course, on the expiration of the leases granted in 1765 and 1779 would be entitled to the property which had been so granted. The lease which included Stone Hill expired in 1854; and that which included Barn Meadow dropped in 1818.—The learned Serjeant said he believed one question that would be raised in this case was, whether or not the two fields in question were really part and parcel of the tenements leased; but he believed that the evidence to be offered on the part of the plaintiffs would clearly establish that they were. The Chiverton estate extended down to the meadows in question, and the Chiverton mansion was at this extremity of the estate, the yards, courtlages and some of the buildings abutting on the fields in dispute. Those two fields, however, had no separate existence as closes, until the years 1800 to 1804 respectively. In 1800, the Barn Meadow was, for the first time, taken, by Mr. Thomas, out of a piece of land called Higher Gilberts; and in 1804 Mr. Thomas separated the Stone Hill field from what had been called the Three-cornered field. In 1800, Mr. Thomas, being then living on his property which abutted on the two moieties referred to, obtained from Paul Clark an assignment of his interest in about 1½ acre of Higher Gilberts, which he held under the lease of 1765; Mr. Thomas enclosed the piece of land so assigned to him, and, from the existence of a barn or wainhouse in it, if was afterwards called, sometimes the Barn Meadow, and sometimes the “Wainhouse Meadow.” In 1804 he obtained from Paul Clark, a similar assignment of Stone Hill, taken out of the Three-cornered field, and which was held by Paul Clark, as part of Argalls, under the lease of 1779; and Stone Hill was likewise enclosed by Mr. Thomas.—In 1791, Paul Clark obtained from persons named Jago and Geach and other persons interested, an extension of his existing lease of 1779; and in 1806, Mr. Thomas, being owner of one-twelfth of Cornish’s third of the manor, applied to Paul Clark and obtained from him, the reversion of his interest under the lease of 1765 from Miss Foss; the deed containing an exception of the one-twelfth of Barn Meadows previously assigned by Paul Clark to Mr. Thomas.—Mr. Thomas died in 1825, and was succeeded in the possession of Chiverton by Mr. William Peter who had married his daughter, and who lived at Chiverton until he left this country on acceptance of an official appointment; soon after which time his son, the present defendant, took possession of the Chiverton estate, and had from time to time been dealing with the Chirverton property and with the meadows in question, and now disputed the right of the Messrs. Ley to recover possession of the property. The learned Serjeant then referred to correspondence which had passed between the late Mr. Thomas and various stewards, agents, and tenants of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in possession of the property; and also to acts done by Mr. Thomas, the late Mr. W. Peter, and the present defendant, for the purpose of showing that, both before and after the expiration of the leases of the meadows in question, there had been acknowledgment of the title in the plaintiffs and those under whom they claimed, and a desire to become their tenants, if a proper rent could be agreed on. It was not, he said, until after 1840 that the defendant resisted altogether the payment of rent, and said he should not be disturbed in his possession, and that the only way to settle the matter would be by the Messrs. Ley producing their title; Mr. Peter stating that he did not know much about the matter, but that he believed all the presumption was against the plaintiffs. The reason why the plaintiffs did not bring an action at that time was that the plaintiff’s title to the Stone Hill meadows would not accrue until the expiration of the second lease; and, the property being very small, it was considered desirable to delay proceedings so as to have but one action for the settling of the right as to both premises, Serjeant Kinglake concluded by expressing his conviction that after the evidence for the plaintiffs had been heard, Mr. Peter would feel satisfied that the Messrs. Ley were entitled to the property, and would be willing to take a lease of the premises from them. Documentary and other evidence, at considerable length, was then taken; the oral testimony being given by the following witnesses:—William Symons, surveyor, of Truro; John Hoskins, yeoman, of Ventongimps, grandson of Paul and Ann Clark; Blanch Tregonning, John Mugford, and John James, all elderly persons; and Mr. John Nicholas, Richard Millett, who had the management of the Leys’ third part of Ventongimps farm from 1830 to 1852, and during such management had met Mr. Joseph Newton, who received rents on behalf of Mr. Peter.—In the course of Mr. Millet’s examination a letter to him from Mr. Newton, in June 1837, was referred to.—Mr. Montague Smith objected that his letter was not admissible as evidence, because Mr. Newton, the agent, had no authority; Mr. Peter, had never heard of this letter until the present moment; and, in order to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations, it was requisite that the letter of acknowledgment should be signed by the principal himself.—The learned JUDGE appeared to concur in this opinion; and ultimately, it was arranged that there should be a verdict for plaintiffs for one-third of Stone Hill Meadow and for one-third of Barn Meadow, with leave to move as to Barn meadow, to set aside the verdict, on the ground that there was no evidence to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations. This concluded the Nisi Prius business of the Assizes; the cause, Crease v. Harvey, in which many witnesses were in attendance and which appeared to excite interest among gentlemen connected with mining, having this morning been amicably settled out of Court. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. OLIVER NORTHEY, a miner, aged 18, was charged with maliciously stabbing and wounding Simon Whitford, at Chacewater, on the 31st of March, with intent to maim, disfigure, and do some grievous bodily harm.—Mr. Phear conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—From the evidence of the prosecutor, confirmed by his brother Joseph Whitford, it appeared that, about 10 o’clock in the evening of the 31st of March, they were returning from work and passed the prisoner and one or two companions, who said to the Whitfords “go home, you have no business here,” and followed them, throwing stones at them. The Whitfords turned back, and Simon asked Northey why he and his companions were throwing stones, Northey said he had not thrown any, and Simon Whitford said he had; violent words followed, and they called each other liar, several times; till, at last, Northey sprung forth, thrust a knife into Simon Whitford’s left hip, crying “take that you b—r.” Simon fell, and was caught by a third brother. Joseph asked Northey what he had done it for; on which, he lifted his knife and threatened to serve him (Joseph) exactly the same, if he did not go away.—Mr. John Moyle, surgeon, of Chacewater, deposed: I remember being called to attend the prosecutor about ½ past 10 o’clock at night of the 31st of March. I found him at the house of his uncle, lying on the ground floor, partly faint from loss of flood (sic). I examined the seat of injury, and found that his trousers, drawers, and shirt had been cut through, and that on the outer and upper part of the left thigh was an incised wound into the flesh; the wound measured 1½ inches in length, and from contraction of the muscle it gaped open three-quarters of an inch; I probed the wound with my finger, which passed readily to depth of two-and-a-half inches. I dressed the wound, and afterwards attended the prosecutor. In order to prevent unfavourable symptoms coming on, I thought it necessary to confine him to his uncle’s house, where I saw him daily for about three weeks. From the direction of the wound and its passing near the femoral artery and several important veins, it was of a dangerous character. I have no doubt the wound was inflicted with considerable violence.—By the prisoner:—I do not remember hearing Simon Whitford say that he had struck you; but I think I heard him say, before the committing magistrates, that he held his fist up before you and said he would knock you down.—John Phillips, constable, of Chacewater; in consequence of information I received, I apprehended the prisoner at his house about half-past 11 o’clock at night of the 31st of March; he had gone to bed, and was quite sober.— Cross-examined by the prisoner:—When I took the prisoner to the house where Simon Whitford was, the prisoner asked him if he (Whitford) did not strike him first; Whitford replied that he was not quite certain, but that he rather thought he did.—This being the case for the prosecution, the prisoner addressed the jury, giving a different version of the original affray from what had been stated by the prosecutor and his brother, and concluding by saying that, after Simon Whitford had struck him, he, in the heat of passion and not knowing what he was about, threw a knife at him in self-defence.—The jury found the prisoner guilty of unlawfully wounding, but not with intent to do grievous bodily harm.—The learned judge passed sentence of two years hard labour; stating that if the jury had found the prisoner guilty of the greater offence charged in the indictment, he should have felt it his duty to sentence him to penal servitude for some years. GEORGE LACEY, glass-cutter, aged 20, was charged with stealing a crate of earthenware, the property of his master, Stephen Bartlett, at Bodmin, on the 16th of June.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; Mr. Carter the defence.—Mr. Cole said the facts of this case were somewhat peculiar. The prosecutor was a dealer in earthenware, at St. Austell, and had been in the habit of employing persons to sell for him. In the present case there had been an agreement, by which the prisoner was supplied at wholesale prices with goods, to be sold by him, at any profit he could make, provided he paid the prosecutor the wholesale price. One day in June, the prisoner wrote to the prosecutor, requesting him to send a crate of specified goods, of the value of £3 0s. 1d. at wholesale prices. The goods were accordingly packed in a crate and sent from St. Austell to the prisoner at Bodmin, in which town and neighbourhood the prisoner was to sell; but, in consequence of substitution of one set of articles for another, the actual wholesale value of the articles sent was reduced from £3 0s. 1d. to £2 19s. 1d., which amount it was the prisoner’s duty to pay to the prosecutor, after selling the articles by retail at what profit he could get. But, instead of so doing, he sold the goods, crate and all, for £2, without unpacking, and immediately made off, and was afterwards traced to Torrington, some 55 miles from Bodmin. The crate, of the value of 3s. 6d., was clearly in no way the property of the prisoner; and Mr. Cole submitted that the circumstances of the whole case amounted to larceny, and that the prisoner was rightly charged under this indictment.—Stephen Bartlett, the prosecutor, was examined. He stated that he employed persons to sell for him, and that they entered into written agreement that they would work with him as servants, bona fide. At one time the prisoner entered into such a written agreement with him.—The witness produced the agreement, and after the judge had overruled an objection made by Mr. Carter to its admissibility as evidence, because it was unstamped, it was put in and read. The following is a verbatim et literatum copy of the document:— April 1, 1857. I the said George Lacy as agreed to travel as a bonified servant for the said Stephen Bartlett and no one else from this time April 1, 1857, until 1 day of August 1857, either to sell the goods are (sic) return them. (Signed) GEORGE LACEY. Witness, James Benanna. Mr. Carter objected that the agreement was invalid, from want of mutuality; but the Court overruled the objection.—The Witness went on to say that on the same day that this written agreement was drawn up, a verbal agreement was come to, that the prisoner was to live in Bodmin, and to hawk the country for ten or twelve miles around that place during each week, and keep Bodmin market on Saturdays. Every Monday, the prisoner was to send to witness the wholesale price of all articles he had sold; and he had no authority to sell for less than wholesale price. Witness supplied him with goods, and he sent back the money from time to time. On the 15th of June, witness received from him a letter (which was produced), dated the 14th of June, and signed George and Mary Ann Lacey, requiring a supply of goods amounting to £3 0s. 1d. in value, at wholesale price. Witness packed up and sent the goods as requested, except that he substituted a set of decanters for a toilet set, thus reducing the value of the whole to £2 19s. 1d. These goods were forwarded in a crate by Penaligon, a carrier. The crate was witness’s, and the prisoner had no authority whatever to sell it. On the 20th of June, in consequence of some information, witness went to Bodmin, and found that the prisoner had left the place, leaving witness’s license which had been entrusted to him, in his room. Witness afterwards found the prisoner, in custody of the police, at Torrington.—Cross-examined. When I sent the goods, I debited him with the amount, at wholesale prices; the goods were charged against him, and he was always obliged to keep the stock of goods by him or return me the money. When he wanted goods he sent me an order, and I fulfilled the order by sending the goods. I did not charge the crate against him, because there was an agreement that he was to send back the crate every Monday morning. If I were to send goods to an ordinary dealer, I should charge the goods and make an entry of so much for the crate or other package. Where there is no agreement to return crates, we charge them, and if they are not returned, they must be paid for. If he had broken all the goods, and paid me the money, that is all I should require; I did not want to see the goods again.—By the Judge.—He paid me on account from time to time; he did not send me the exact amount of money for any particular goods, but paid me on account from time to time. Since April he has paid me £31 17s. 6½d. I carried on the balance against him, from time to time. He was not to send me back the goods every week, but was to send the money every week and keep the goods charged against him. If he sent me the wholesale price, I did not care what profit he made; but he was not to sell for less than wholesale price. He himself paid the rent of a room at Bodmin, and did not charge the rent to me. I swear that I told him he was not to sell for less than prime cost.—At various stages of the case the prisoner’s counsel had suggested, and insisted on, reasons for the opinion that the indictment could not be sustained, under the circumstances in proof; and at the close of the evidence, by the prosecutor, the learned Judge directed a verdict of not guilty, on the ground that the circumstances were much too doubtful to sustain a charge of larceny; and the jury returned a verdict in accordance with the direction of the Court. The Court then rose. ______CROWN COURT. FRIDAY, JULY 31. (Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.) CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER BY POISONING JOHN BEARD, aged 64, a labourer, was indicted for the wilful murder of Harriet Jane Beard, at the parish of St. Allen, on the 4th of April. When arraigned, the prisoner pleaded in a firm voice, “Not Guilty.” He was a rough, coarse-looking man, and appeared to have lost the sight of his right eye. The learned JUDGE asked if he had any counsel. Prisoner said he had no money to pay for one. The JUDGE then said, I have desired the learned counsel, Mr. Yonge, to watch the case on your behalf, and to defend you; do you agree to that? The prisoner said, yes sir, I do. The following were sworn as a jury to try the case:—Peter Hammond Gutheridge, foreman; John Langford Littlejohns, Roger Baskerville, Abel Hicks, John Rickard, Stephen Grylls, Emanuel Routley, Richard S. Spear, Valentine Pope, Thomas Elliot Dawe, George Bickford, and Richard Ashton. The counsel for the prosecution were Mr. STOCK, and Mr. SHEAR; attornies, Messrs. CARLYON and PAULL. Counsel for the prisoner Mr. YONGE. Mr. STOCK addressed the jury, stating that the enquiry upon which they were about to enter, was one of the most lamentable and distressing that ever occupied the attention of a court of justice. The prisoner at the bar stood charged with the wilful murder of his grandchild, who was about three years of age, and the principal witness against the prisoner was the mother of that child, his own daughter. Mr. Stock then proceeded to state the circumstances of the case, after which he called the following witnesses, the first being Grace Beard, the daughter of the prisoner, who had been committed with him to take her trial for the murder, but was admitted as Queen’s evidence by the prosecution. Grace Beard (who was sometimes much affected while giving her evidence) said, I am the daughter of the prisoner, John Beard. He is a labourer living in the parish of St. Allen, near Truro. My mother, Martha Beard, lived in the same house. I had a child named Harriet Jane; she was born on the 12th of January, 1854, and was two years and nine months old in April last, when she died. She was a healthy child. I recollect Wednesday the 1st of April. I went down stairs between six and seven in the morning, and found my father there. I was dressing my little girl, and Jecoliah Roberts came in and said how she was growing. My father said, it would be a blessing if she was in heaven. This was a base-born child. I never knew my father ill-treat her. He merely told me at different times not to stop there, as he would not be troubled with the child. He asked Jecoliah Roberts if she was going to Truro. She said she was not. I said I was going, as I wanted some bread. My father went out and came back in about a quarter of an hour, and gave me sixpence, and asked me to bring home three pennyworth of arsenic or ratsbane. I asked him what he was going to do with with (sic) it. He said it was for rats. I asked him where he got the money. Whether he said the poison was for Mr. Tozer, or he had the money from Mr. Tozer, I cannot say; he said something about Mr. Tozer. I went to Truro, and first saw a Mrs. Allen, and then went to Mrs. Martin’s shop. I saw Mr. Greenwood, who attends to the shop, and told him I wanted three pennyworth of arsenic or ratsbane. He refused to give it to me, but said he would give me a pot of paste instead. He took out two on the counter, a threepenny and sixpenny pot. It was a pot like this (looking at one produced). I gave Mr. Greenwood 6d. and he gave me back 3d. I took the threepenny pot and went home and got there between two and three o’clock. My father was at the door when I got home. I gave the pot to him and the change; he did not make any remark; he put the change in his pocket; what he did with the paste I don’t know. I said to him, Mr. Greenwood refused to give me the arsenic or ratsbane, and has sent you a pot of paste instead. He did not say anything, he walked on. After this I changed my clothes, being wet, and then went to a neighbour’s house, for whom I had a parcel. I stopped till between 7 and 8 o’clock, and then returned to my father’s house. My child was then in bed, and so was my father; my father did not usually go to bed so early. I went to bed between 8 and 9. The child was then asleep, but awoke me between 5 and 6 in the morning. She was then very comfortable, and looked to get up and sit on my stomach to ride, as she usually did. (The witness here cried very much.) The child afterwards asked me what o’clock it was. I told her it was six. She told me it was time to rise; she said there was a flea biting her, and that she had pain in her bowels. I turned up her night dress, but could not see anything. She turned very pale; her bowels were puffed; they seemed swollen a little. She was crying, and I got out of bed and dressed myself, and carried her down to dress. While I was dressing her, she lay back on my lap very stiff. I sent for Jecoliah Roberts and she came in. Down stairs the child was taken sick, throwing up; after that she got better, and in the course of that day (Thursday) she became pretty well and continued so through the night and part of the next day. On Friday, Olivia Roberts brought the child in to me at Roberts’s house, which adjoins ours, under the same roof. I was there at the time. It was between 10 and 11 in the morning, and the child then had something in her hand eating. I asked her where she got it and the child made some answer. I took it in my hand and looked at it. I said, it is the colour of the meat of an almond comfit; it was brown. Olivia Roberts took it away from the child and gave it to me. I smelled to it, and it smelled like brimstone; I threw it into the wood-corner. It was a square bit, about the size of the two upper joints of my two fingers (witness here held up her fingers, showing that it was a piece of about an inch an half square.) I dined between 12 and 1 that day; my child was in the house at the time. My father had his dinner; I did not dine with him. I went picking sticks about 2 o’clock, and left the child in my father’s house. Olivia Roberts went with me picking sticks, and we came back about 4 o’clock. The child came to meet me; she had something eating then. I did not stop, I went on with my bundle of sticks on my back, and put them down in my father’s house. I then went into Roberts’s house; I did not stop there five minutes, but went back to my own house, as I was going to light the fire for the oven for my mother to bake. Whilst I was doing that, the child came in and told me that she was bad and wanted to go to bed; she told me that she was bad in her belly. I undressed her and warmed her by the fire, and gave her a piece of bread and put her to bed. She did not eat the piece of bread; I found it in the bed when I went up. I don’t know that she tasted it; if she did it was a very little bit. I went to bed between eight and nine; the child was then asleep. Shortly after I went to bed the child was taken sick and threw up. I called out to my father to light the candle; I said, “father, the child is sick, will you light the candle.” He slept in an adjoining bed in the same room. He swore and said, “d—e, I will have alterations in this very soon. I will not be disturbed in this kind of manner.” I said to him he was never disturbed by my child at night. He then lighted the candle. My child continued sick and throwing up for a little time, and then she got better; she threw up into the night commode. The child shortly got easier, and I put out the candle again and fell asleep. I was awakened about ten at night by the child again; she was throwing up, and went on in that way till five o’clock in the morning, she then fell asleep. I don’t know exactly the time she was sleeping, because I went to sleep too, but it was not long. She waked again just before six; she then began to throw up again. I brought her down stairs between six and seven (Saturday morning) I dressed her, and she wanted to go to bed again, and I made up a little bed in the window, and put her there. She asked for drink, and I gave her cold water several times. She got up from the little bed between nine and ten o’clock, and told me she was better; she rose up and wanted to be taken out. I took her out, and she sat on my lap; she wanted to have her boots put on, she said her feet were cold. She next complained of a pain in her arm; I looked at her arm and there was nothing to be seen. She lay back on my lap and looked very hard, as if she was looking at me. She was stiff, and seemed to be convulsed. I fancied she was not looking as usual; I moved my face and she did not notice it; I passed my hand across her forehead, and she took no notice. I began to screech, and said my child was dying, and called in the neighbours. Shortly after that, my mother took the child, and I went into a neighbour’s house Elizabeth Ball’s. I was away about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour; when I came back a woman of the name of Jeffery was stripping my child; she was then dead (witness cried bitterly) Jeffery was stripping off her clothes. I said, “that I never had the doctor before.” My father was there and he said “d—me” what do you mean, I’ll heave you and your d—d bastard out of doors.” I did not make any reply; the neighbours said my child was as near to me as other people’s; my father then left the house, and that was all that passed then. I spoke to him about the paste shortly after the child’s death, I said, “father, what did you do with that pot of paste I brought home.” He gave me no answer the first time. I asked him a second time, and a third time, and he then asked me whether I meant to hang him or not. That was a day or two after the body of the child was taken up.—Cross-examined by Mr. YONGE.—My father worked for different persons; he was not a steady labourer at any place. The day the child died, he was cleaning out Mr. Tozer’s stables; he had been working for Mr. Tozer before the 1st of April. I never found any fault for my father being unkind at all; the child was fond of my father; would go and sit by him on her stool and talk to him. It was not often I was at meals with him; I was mostly working; I have been in custody on this charge as well as my father; I came out of gaol this morning; I went before the Grand Jury yesterday. I told Sarah Roberts, the daughter-in-law of Jecoliah, that I brought home a pot of paste for my father to destroy rats; that was several days after the child’s death, and before the body was taken up. I don’t know whether the child had been eating pork the day I had been to Truro; I gave her sops in the morning. She had not been eating greens or vinegar to my knowledge on the Wednesday, or any day that week, to my knowledge; there was no vinegar in my mother’s house. When I took the stuff from the child which she was eating on Friday morning, she resisted and screamed. I threw it into the wood corner, and did not see her take it up again, as I went into my mother’s house, and left the child in Jecoliah Robert’s with Olivia and Sarah. There was a box of lucifer matches kept on a stool by the side of my father’s bed, and some kept in a box down stairs on the mantel-piece. I sent for Elizabeth Ball when I thought she was dying; she came, and said, give your mother the child and come with me. She took me to her house, and I was called for in about a quarter of an hour when the child was dead. It was after the child’s death, when I was crying, and the house was full of neighbours, that my father said he would heave me and the child to doors. It was a day or two after the child was dead that I first asked him what he had done with the paste, and he made no answer. A day or two after that, I asked him again, and he walked out of doors. The third time I asked him was after I had heard the child was taken up. I told him they supposed it was poisoned, and I asked him what he did with the pot of paste he brought home. He said, “D—me, what do you mean to hang me then?” I said, “What do you mean, father?” He said, “I wish you and your d—d bastard were in hell.” He did not tell me about the paste; I have never seen it since. Re-examined—I don’t think father worked for Mr. Tozer the week I went to Truro; I won’t positively say he did not. I mentioned about the pot of paste to Jecoliah Roberts the Wednesday after the child’s death, and also to Sarah Roberts, after that. I had never seen my child’s bowels puffed before. I generally came home to dinner, and then gave my child her dinner. On the Tuesday, the day before I went to Truro, I did not give her dinner, as I was out to a neighbour’s washing; on the Monday I gave her dinner myself. When the child came to meet me and Olivia Roberts, as we came home from picking sticks on the Friday, she had bread in her hand; mother had given her a morsel from my own loaf. I provided myself and child with provisions, and have before known mother give her a bit from my loaf. The child could not reach to the lucifer matches on the mantel-piece down stairs; she could get at those up stairs very well; they were on a chair; it was a large box with a great many in it; at different times when I have gone up and down stairs I have seen the box open and the cover off. When I lighted the candle the second time that night, I took two or three matches and left them on the tester of the bed. I never noticed that a great many were missing from the box up stairs; when mother wanted some in the little box down stairs, she would take them from the large one up stairs. I remained in the house with my father until the child was taken up; I talked to him the same as before; sometimes he was rather hurrisome. The witness was then asked questions by the JUDGE, and replied that Elizabeth Ball was a married woman, and knew witness was in the family-way at the time of the child’s death; and she was in the family-way now. When witness thought the child was dying, Elizabeth Ball said she was afraid it would hurry her, and that was the reason she took her away to her own house, where witness remained about a quarter of an hour, and was then called to come home after the child’s death. The JUDGE—Was this little child that is dead your first child? Witness—Yes, sir. Did your father know you were in the family- way the second time? Yes, sir. Had he had any words with you about it?—Yes, he told me of it several times, Was he angry with you about it?—Yes, sir. When he said he would not be troubled with you and your bastard, did he say bastards? No, he said bastard. Jecoliah Roberts, wife of Thomas Roberts, who lives next door to the prisoner, said:—I have known the little child about two years; it was always a healthy child. On Thursday morning, the 2nd of April, I went into prisoner’s house, and found the child lying on her mother’s lap quite stiff; her arms were straight out by her sides, and her eyes were almost shut home. I spoke to the child, and she took no notice; before I left the house, I touched the child on the side of the face, and she turned towards me, but did not speak. I left the house, and came back at dinner time, one o’clock; the child was then in my house, apparently well, and I gave her a piece of bread and butter. I saw the child again on Friday morning, and at dinner time, and did not see anything amiss with her. I gave her a piece of bread and butter the same as I eat myself. I went to my labour, and returned about six in the evening; I was then told the child had gone to bed very ill. On Saturday morning Grace Beard came into my house crying. I did not then see the child; I went out to my labour, and when I came back at dinner time the child was dead. I remember the child being taken up; I heard John Beard swearing and cursing the Sunday morning after, and saying he wished all the neighbours were in hell flames, to think they could not let the child rest after it was in its grave, and everything was gone quiet. On the Sunday after the child died, I heard John Beard very angry; he was swearing, and saying he would heave her to doors if she did not be quiet grieving for her child; he said the child was better cared for than she could do for it. Grace Beard was then sitting down with a piece of paper before her, as if she was going to write to her sister; she was crying at the time. Prisoner did not say anything to me about the death of the child. He said to me one evening that Mr. Nash had been inquiring where he had been working, and he told him at John Michael’s. He said Nash asked him if he had picked up any poisonous thing, or whether any “varmints” were about the place, and he told him he had not been working there above seven or eight days. He said he told Mr. Nash there had been some “varmints” about our own houses, about a year and six months ago, but none lately. One morning after Mr. Nash had been there, prisoner came into my house; he was then bad with the erysipelas in his face, and he said, Jecoliah, do you remember anything of my asking you to bring home an errand for me from Truro. I said, I remember you came into my house on the 1st of April, when Grace went to Truro, and I said I was going to work, I was not going to Truro that day. He said, I wanted to send for an errand, and Grace said, father, I am going. He did not say anything more to me then. He came into my house a day or two before he was taken up, and he said, “Jecoliah, Grace is determined to bring me to the gallows.” One morning after the body of the child was taken up, I heard Grace say to him, “father, if you have not given this poison to my child, what have you done with it?” I never heard any reply from the old man. I went to the door to call Grace to go to work, and she went with me. Cross-examined—This was a day or two before they were taken into custody. Re-examined—It was inside her own house that she put that question to her father. The old man was sitting at the table, and she was standing at the other end of the table; I was at the door. I said, Grace, are you going to work, and she went with me. I did not hear him make any answer. Olivia Roberts, daughter of Jecoliah Roberts, said she was thirteen years old. On Thursday the 2nd April I went into John Beard’s house, between seven and eight in the morning. The little girl was on her mother’s lap; I took in a piece of bread and butter for her, gave it to her mother, and the mother gave it to the child. The child bit off a piece, spat it out again, and then threw up; she was looking very pale. I saw her again between ten and eleven; she seemed better then. At dinner time my mother gave her a piece of bread and butter; she was pretty well then. I saw her on the Thursday and Friday morning at different times, and she seemed well. Before dinner time on Friday she was in our house eating something which I thought was beastly soap; it was of a dark colour. I took it away from her, and gave it to her mother. Her mother looked at it, and threw it into the wood-corner. Her mother went away, and the child then went and took it up, went to the door and “clunked” it (meaning swallowed it). I and Grace Beard after that went out and picked wood; we came back about four o’clock, and the child came to meet us; she had a bit of crust of bread with something spread over it, looking dark; it was like what she was eating in the morning; it was plastered over smooth. She was eating it when she met us; she had only a bit of crust, there was not much left. On Saturday morning I went into Grace Beard’s house about eight o’clock; Harriet Jane was in the window on the bed-clothes, she looked very pale, and asked for water; her mother gave it to her and she then threw up; that happened ever so many times. I saw her mother take her in her arms, and then the child screeched; John Beard was not there. I stayed till the child died, between ten and eleven; her arms were stretched down by her side; I did not notice if she was stiff; when the child was dead I went away. In the afternoon I was in our little garden, and heard John Beard inside his own door swearing and cursing, and saying to Grace Beard, if she did not hold her tongue about the child he would heave her out of doors. Cross- examined—The wood-corner is touching the chimney. The child saw the stuff thrown there; it was about the size of the ends of my two fingers, and of a brownish colour. When she was eating the crust of bread, the brown on it was the colour of the crust; it was spread over smooth on the little piece of crust; it was not spread thick, but thin, just like bread and butter. Sarah Roberts, daughter-in-law of Jecolia (sic) Roberts, lives in the same house with her. On Thursday the 2nd of April I went into Beard’s house in the morning; I took in some treacle which Grace had asked me to lend her. The mother gave it to the child, but she did not taste it; the child was very sick and throwing up. The child was in the window; it was a little after eight. I did not stay there. I saw the child several times during the day; she had recovered. On Friday afternoon she came into our house; she had something in her hand. Olivia took it away, and gave it to her mother, and her mother threw it into the wood-corner. On Saturday morning about eight o’clock, I went into Beard’s house; the child was on her mother’s lap, sick and throwing up, and kept on drinking water; she was convulsed a little before she died. Before that Elizabeth Ball asked Grace Beard to go into her house; she did not like for her to see the child die. When Grace Beard was nursing the child, she seemed much distressed and was crying. I remember the body of the child being taken up. I heard John Beard swear, and say they could not leave the child rest after it was in its grave. James Greenwood—I am a chemist, and managed Mr. Martin’s business at Truro. I remember in the early part of April last, Grace Beard came to Mrs. Martin’s shop; she asked for three-pennyworth of arsenic. I refused to supply her, and asked for what purpose she required it; she said it was for destroying rats. I then recommended her a paste we sell for that purpose, called phosphor paste; this is a similar pot (exhibiting one). When the pots are sold they are covered with a blue paper, on which the words are printed, “Roth and Ringiesen’s vermin destroying Phosphor Paste.” Inside the blue paper there are directions: “For rats and mice, spread the paste rather thick upon thin pieces of bread about an inch square, and place them in or near their holes.” Another direction is for black beetles and cockroaches. It states that it requires to be placed at night, and if any paste remains, remove it in the morning and renew with fresh portions the following night. Then there is a caution at the bottom:—“Be cautious to place it beyond the reach of children, and out of the way of cattle, horses, &c., and avoid throwing dead vermin into the poultry yards. Dogs and cats will not touch it.” We do not make this paste ourselves, we get it from London. After refusing to sell Grace Beard the arsenic, I showed her two pots of the paste, the larger size price sixpence, and the smaller price threepence. This is a three-peeny (sic) pot (producing it), the same size as she bought. Mr. STOCK—How many grains of phosphorus does that small pot contain? Witness—I cannot say exactly; but many chemists make their own paste, and according to the formulae we have for making it, I have made calculations, and find this threepenny pot would contain from seven to seven and a-half grains of phosphorus. Cross-examined—I have not made any analysis of the contents of any of these pots; according to calculations I have made from the usual way of making it, the threepenny pot would contain about the quantity of phosphorus I have named. I cannot remember the precise words she used; I think she said it was for her father; I would not positively say whether she asked for it for herself or anybody else. James Tozer, farmer at St. Allen. The prisoner has worked for me many times; he was at my place on the evening of the 1st of April, but he was not working for me that day. I don’t recollect, but I don’t think he was there the following day. I never commissioned him to get any rat poison for me at any time; he never brought any to me in his life; I never gave him any money to purchase arsenic or other poison. Cross- examined—The prisoner worked for me on and off at different times; when he had done his work, I paid him off in the evening, at 2s. a day. About the end of March I think he was in my employ. I dont think he had been working for me for two or three days before the 1st of April; I am not certain I had not paid him for two or three days. He worked chiefly for other people; he did jobs anywhere; he was a very industrious man, and always inclined to work. I always found him very honest; he had plenty to do, and was always willing to work. Re-examined—I don’t think I paid him any money in the week of the 1st of April. James Stephens, sexton of the parish of St. Allen, stated that he buried the body of Harried (sic) Jane Beard on the 6th of April, and took up the same coffin to show Dr. Barham, Mr. Andrew, and Mr. Nash, on the 29th of April, about eight in the evening. William Joseph Nash—I am Superintendent of Truro police. In consequence of information I applied to the Secretary of State for authority to exhume the body of the child and received it. I accompanied Dr. Barham and Mr. Andrew to St. Allen on the 29th April, and was present when the coffin was taken up. I saw it opened in the belfry; the body was taken out and examined in the belfry by Dr. Barham and Mr. Andrews. The different internal parts were placed in jars in my presence and sealed, and I took them to Truro. On the following day I took them to Mr. Andrew’s surgery, and there was a further examination there in my presence. The internal parts were finally placed in four jars, sealed, and taken into my custody. I went to Bristol to Professor Herapath, and delivered to him the four jars on the 5th of May. On Monday the 11th May, I had a conversation with John Beard at his dwelling-house at Zelah-lane, about five miles from Truro. I asked him how long he had resided in that house; he said about three years. I asked him if he was infested with rats or any kind of vermin about the premises. His reply was no. He said, about a year and a-half ago he caught a rat in a gin, and he had never seen any on the premises from that time. I saw him again on Thursday the 14th of May, and asked him did he ever purchase any poison for destroying rats. He said, never. I obtained two pots of paste from Mr. Greenwood who conducts Mrs. Martin’s business. I sent one pot to Professor Herapath in a registered letter, on the 31st of May. On Cross-examination, witness was asked whether he cautioned Beard when he asked the questions of him. Mr. Nash replied, that on the 14th of May, he went for the purpose of executing the warrant to take Beard into custody. Before he did so, he asked him question, and cautioned him, telling him, you must be particular as to what you say to me, for you must consider I am your greatest enemy. He took him into custody on 14th of May, and also Grace Beard the same evening. Grace Beard made a statement to witness, but that was not in John Beard’s presence. William Woolcock, serjeant of police at Truro, accompanied Mr. Nash on the 11th and 14th of May to Zelah. I was present during the conversations Mr. Nash has given in evidence, and he has correctly stated them. On the 14th of May I apprehended John Beard. He was in bed; we knocked at the door, and he came down and let us in. I then told him he must consider himself a prisoner, and must go to Truro. He went up stairs apparently for the purpose of dressing himself, and I followed him. His wife was in bed; she asked him what was the matter, and he said “I’m took up.” His wife asked him what for. He made no reply, and she repeated the question several times. He then swore out a dreadful oath and told her to hold her tongue. I asked him why he spoke to his wife in such a manner. He said, “why does she keep on like that; she knows well enough what I’m taken up for.” Mr. Herapath was then called, and was examined by Mr. Stock. He stated that he was professor of chemistry at the Bristol Medical School, and had given his attention particularly to toxicology. On the 5th of May last, he received from Mr. Nash four sealed jars which contained the stomach, intestines, and liver of a child, and the next day he proceeded to apply to them chemical tests. The stomach was highly irritated, in a peculiar way; it had the general character of having been acted on by an irritant poison, but the appearances were peculiar in some respects; there was a high degree of inflammation—a general characteristic of irritant poisoning, but the inflammation was more of a scarlet colour, and on the inflamed parts there was a great number of small blisters. Witness produced portion of the stomach spread on glass, and said it was a dried portion of the dependent part of the stomach, where the poison introduced into the stomach would rest. The blisters on it were quite unusual; he had never seen them before, in any case of poisoning; they appeared to contain air, but did not burst, and were still quite visible. The stomach, when brought to him, was empty. The duodenum was not inflamed to any great extent, but was blistered. The remainder of the intestines were rather natural, except that at one place there was in intro-susception. Had heard of one recorded case, and only one, in which intro-susception had been observed where poisoning had been effected by phosphorus. The mesenteric glands were enlarged; and the lowest intestine, for about 4 or 5 inches, had the same blistered appearance as the stomach and duodenum. Tried to discover what poison had caused the death; tried for arsenic, antimony, mercury, lead, copper, strychnine, and several others—for almost every known irritant poison, and discovered that there was none there. Did not think of phosphorus; but conceived that if it had been there he should have detected it by the smoky appearance it presents; but at that time, he had no intimation that the suspected cause of death was phosphorus. On the 16th of May, he received a pot of Roth and Ringeisen’s phosphor paste which he had now with him and which was similar to the one which had been already produced. He analyzed the pot which he so received, and found that it contained 5 per cent. of finely divided phosphorus; the remainder being starch and water, and a little colouring matter. He was told that the pot contained 3 drams; if so, the quantity of finely divided phosphorus would be about 9 grains. After having received this pot of phosphor paste, he pursued his examination of the remains of the child, looking for phosphorus; but did not find any. Assuming that the child had been poisoned by phosphorus, at the distance of time stated before he received the remains, he could account for not finding any phosphorus in the body; phosphorus was constantly being destroyed, as phosphorus, by the action of the air; it was constantly burning slowly, when exposed to the air, and passing into phosphorous acid and phosphoric acid. After violent sickness, and after a month’s exposure in the grave, and the subsequent exposure to the air on opening the stomach, he could expect that the small quantity of phosphorus remaining would be changed into phosphorous acid. Phosphoric acid as the result of poison, he should not expect to find; because this acid being always found in the bodies of Carnivora, he should not be able to tell what was natural and what was adventitious. As to the phosphorous acid, he could not, at that time, separate it from the hydro-sulphate of ammonia which was always present in putrefied animal matter. He should say that phosphorous acid, resulting from decomposition of phosphorous, was also poisonous.—Had never, himself, seen a case of poisoning by phosphorous before this; such cases had been very rare; there were only about 10 cases recorded; in one of those cases, the phosphorous had been found at the end of 14 days; that was the latest period recorded; but then, in that case, two drams had been given to an animal. He believed that if phosphorous remained in its original state, as phosphorous unaltered, it might be detected at any period. 14 days was the latest period of its discovery, which had been recorded; in all the other cases the discovery had been made within that time.—Had made some experiments with this child’s remains, on insects; but not on dogs or cats because they would not eat it—they will not eat putrid matter. He put a small portion of the remains into a glass with meat flies, which will feed on putrid matter, and covered the glass with wire gauze; the next day he found that all the flies were dead. Also introduced a small quantity of water with the stickleback, or minnow, and found that it died between one and two days. Exposed some portion, in his garden, to the atmosphere, and afterwards found an enormous quantity of meat-flies dead in the jar; each having laid only a very few eggs. The meat-flies will feed and live on putrefied matter; they prefer it, and there is nothing in such feeding to cause death to them; they also lay their eggs in putrefied matter, and thus produce the gentle, which also lives in it. After having obtained this pot of Phosphor Paste, made experiments with its contents, on rats; found they ate it very freely, but were dead the next morning; examined their appearance after death, and found the stomach slightly inflamed, and presenting the same characters, but not to the same extent, as this child’s stomach, but there were no blisters. The contents of one of these small pots of Phosphor Paste would be a great deal more than enough to destroy life in a child of this age. The inflammation of her stomach and intestines was very considerable. Mr. Herapath exhibited a piece on glass to the Court and Jury, and said it ought to be of the colour of dry bladder, whereas it was of the colour of blood; it was not now of so florid a red as when it was first prepared; it had got darker. The inflammation which he detected was certainly sufficient to cause death. In his judgment the death of the child was caused by some irritant poison; and from the appearances and the evidence he had heard, it appeared to him that the death of the child more nearly resembled the cases of death by phosphorous than any thing he knew. In his judgment, the death of the child was caused by phosphoric poisoning; it had a great many of the symptoms—convulsions; stupor; extreme vomiting without strongly marked diarrhœa, which almost invariably accompanies the other irritant poisons; thirst; and length of time. With regard to length of time, he had extracted nearly all the cases recorded in the principal works. The general result of witness’s statements on this point was that the time varied from 7 hours to 10 days, in the several cases referred to. Generally speaking, phosphorus was slower in its operation than irritant poisons generally, and its operation was intermittent. Supposing this child had taken the whole contents of one of these pots of paste, there would be nothing extraordinary in the symptoms not becoming apparent for some hours. Supposing the death of the child had been caused by some irritant poison, the length of time which elapsed before the symptoms appeared would not, with certainty, lead to the conclusion that the death was from phosphorus; but, generally speaking, it was slower in its operation than other poisons. The witness was here requested by Mr. Stock to open an unopened pot of phosphor paste, which was standing before him in paper, as sold in the shops. He accordingly opened it; and, to the surprise of the court and others within view of it, the enclosed paste presented a bright blue colour. Mr. Herapath stated that at first it was white, but that immediately after exposure to the air, the indigo with which it was coloured turned it blue. A fume arising from it was, he said, owing to slow combustion of phosphorus.—In answer to a question from the JUDGE, he said that when once this turned blue, it would remain blue unless it was mixed with something else.—By Mr. Stock:—If on opening the stomach of the child, a fume were to appear, it would indicate the presence of phosphorous; phosphorous was the only poison that would produce such fume in solid bodies.—This paste, when first opened, was white, but on exposure to air it became blue and remained blue; but if it were mixed with any other substance—say, brown sugar—the blue colour would of course, be masked by the brown.—Cross-examined.—I do not know that it is usual to mix colouring matter with poisons, except with arsenic, where it is required by Act of Parliament. This mixture (the phosphor paste) when opened, is white; but as soon as it is exposed to the air it turns blue, instantly. That blue indigo might colour sugar; but that is a question of quantity of each.—Mr. Yonge. Supposing sugar was mixed with sufficient quantity of the mixture to destroy life, such has been stated—about the size of the ends of two fingers—would it not colour the sugar blue? Witness:—It would have a tendency to colour it blue; but that is a question of quantity. In a quantity the size of an almond comfit I think sufficient phosphorous might be introduced to destroy life. One grain is the smallest recorded quantity of phosphorous that has destroyed life in a human subject; but I know that a much smaller quantity has produced injury. There are 9 grains in one of these pots; I have analysed it and ascertained that.—By the Judge:—I have not tasted this mixture; it is a dangerous body.—Ultimately, however, Mr. Herapath tasted the mixture, and said it had no taste nor heat, but a very disagreeable smell which uneducated persons might say was like brimstone, but which he should consider like garlic.—By Mr. Yonge:—Phosphorous is used for making lucifer matches, but in that case the mixture is different; the phosphorous is mixed with a salt which has a taste.—In cases of death by irritant poisons, it is not, generally, long before the death takes place, except it is through secondary symptoms. In most instances death takes place in from a few hours to a day-and-half or two days. If the party does not die from the first operation of the poison, sometimes the inflammation will go on to produce suppuration of the stomach, and death will take place from secondary effects. There was a number of small blisters on the stomach; that is what I never observed before, and they have never been described in any reported case of death from other poison. As far as I know, those small blisters tell nothing, except that this is a new case. In the case of the rat I examined there were no blisters on the stomach; but that was a quick death—in a few hours; it was not a strong dose given—about the size of a bean; but it might be a strong dose in proportion to a rat’s powers; the stomach in that case was not so inflamed, but the inflammation was of the same character as that in the child’s stomach; there was the same florid red; the inflammation was redder than usual.—Intro-susception might sometimes be the result of natural causes, and might be followed by inflammation; but these are medical questions that are not within my province.— I looked for all the other irritant poisons, but could not find any. If phosphorous had been in the stomach when I examined it, I am sure I should have found it; there certainly was no phosphorous in the stomach at the time I examined it. On exposure to the air, phosphorous would be changed into fluids by action of the air; the fact of the child being buried would not prevent that effect; there is always oxygen about the body, and it had been exposed for some days before I received it; there would always be air enough left in the vessels of the body to absorb the small quantity of phosphorous.—A quantity I operated on—139 grains went to water, in a water-glass, when exposed for about a day and half; it was so finely divided. The result of the exposure would be that phosphorous would be changed into the acids I have mentioned; I did not find such acids in this child’s body, with any certainty; I tried for phosphorous and also for the acids; but a great portion of the material was gone by the time I received the information about phosphorous. I made examination with a view to finding phosphorous acid, and I had not such indications as would enable me to say positively it was there. I had never before seen a case of poisoning by phosphorous; and whatever I have said has been from recorded cases and from my own observations in the present case.—As to the experiments I made on insects, when I put the meat-flies into a glass I did not exclude the air; I covered the glass with pierced zinc and placed the glass in an inclined position so that air might pass through. All the meat flies I put in died, I put in three at different times and they died in course of the night. After flies have laid the whole of their eggs, they generally die; the laying of the eggs lasts several days.—In my experiment in the garden, the number of flies was enormous; there were a great many pitching and flying off again.— Phosphorous acid would kill those flies; hydro-sulphate of ammonia would not kill them; they do not die from putrid animal matter. We know that phosphorous acid is poison; but I do not know that phosphoric acid would kill them; it might kill, if in a concentrated state. There would be phosphoric acid naturally in a body; and I know that the phosphoric matter usually met with in dead animals does not poison flies.—I know it is a common thing for children, of two or three years of age, to suffer from convulsions; I do not know about convulsions being produced by vomiting as well as by other causes; I would rather leave such questions for medical men. Supposing a child had taken all the contents of one of these pots, I cannot say whether we might expect such delay in the symptoms as occurred in this case; I cannot answer that, and I do not think any one can, from the cases recorded; there is not very much known as present about poisoning by phosphorous.—Re-examined.—The smallest quantity recorded to have poisoned was one grain; in that case the death took place in two days; but it is not mentioned whether that was an adult or a child. It is generally considered that one-sixth of a full dose is sufficient for a child of two or three years old; and, if so, one sixth of a grain of phosphorous would in the present case have been sufficient to cause death; I am assuming that the case of one grain was that of an adult. In my judgment, a small fraction of a grain would be sufficient to kill a child of this age.—The colour of this paste mixed with sugar or any other substance, would be a compound of two colours.—Mr. Stock:—Taking it that the piece you have heard described was about the size of two fingers, what quantity of phosphorous might be introduced into a brown matter without changing its colour? Witness:—I really cannot tell, without seeing the brown matter, whether light or dark; I should think it possible to introduce into that quantity enough phosphorus to kill, and yet for the colour to be disguised; and it is most likely that a person going to apply it in that way would mix it and use it at once, and would not expose it for any length of time.—Mr. Stock:—In a mass of that size, assuming that brown sugar was the ingredient, could as much as half a grain of phosphorus be introduced without changing the colour of the sugar?—Witness:—Yes, I should think there might.—Mr. Stock:—More than half a grain?—Witness:—I don’t know; I should not like to go very particularly into an answer of that sort.—Mr. Stock:—I understand you to say that in lucifer matches the phosphorus is mixed with a salt and that the taste is disagreeable?—Witness:—In lucifer matches there is a salt introduced, of the taste of nitre and chlorate of potass.—The JUDGE, having the pot of phosphor paste and a spatula handed to him, said the consistency of the paste seemed to be something like that of soft soap; it is quite soft.—Witness:—It is quite soft like paste; it is more like paste than anything else.—The Judge:—You have talked about this colour being masked by brown sugar; might not the mixture produce a third colour?— Witness:—It might do so, but I should not expect that indigo would be changed; it is a very permanent colour; I hardly think indigo would lose its colour. I have not tried the experiment whether a third colour might be produced by mixture of this paste with grease or any other substance.—By Mr. Stock:—In the reported case of 300 matches being sucked by a female, the female was not killed; she recovered after some time; she must have been under medical care, because it is a doctor reports the case.—The Judge:— You have heard the evidence of the child having a brown substance in its hand; what would produce such a substance? brown sugar and this paste would not clearly.—Witness:—I think a bit of brown bread, or many things.—The Judge:—For the child to be carrying about like a lollypop?—Witness:—I can scarcely imagine any thing to be so mixed with the paste as to be like that, unless I could know the consistency of the body; but it might have been soft, and adhering to the fingers or some other body. Dr. Barham, physician, of Truro. On the 29th of April, I went to St. Allen with Mr. Nash and Mr. Andrew; a coffin was brought to me, and I saw it opened; it contained the body of a female child about 3 years old. Mr. Andrew made the examination, and I took the notes and observed its progress. In the external appearance of the child there was nothing unusual; it had the appearance of a child that had been dead about the time stated; putrefaction had not advanced, but was commencing. The body being opened, we examined the contents externally, but purposely omitted dissecting them, knowing that the different organs were to be sent for analysis. The external examination showed me that there had been great fullness of blood in the organs of the chest in all probability prior to death. The abdomen and intestines presented a generally healthy appearance externally, but the stomach was rather deeply stained. The kidneys were not remarkable. We opened the cranium and removed its contents for examination by day-light. Those various portions of the body which I have been mentioning I put into jars and secured them, and subsequently sealed them with my crest. We returned together to Truro; Mr. Nash kept in his charge all but the brain and the contents of the skull, which Mr. Andrew took charge of. The next day I went to Mr. Andrew’s surgery, and Mr. Nash produced the same bottles to us and we made a further examination. I examined the stomach especially; prior to being opened, it was distended, but on being opened it collapsed, in consequence of the escape of gas; I found it contained nothing except a very small quantity of viscid fluid, and mucus spread over the surface throughout; this showed the existence of irritation before death. Through this coating of mucus there were signs of inflammation of the inner coat of the stomach, distinctly visible; but we did not proceed to very minute examination, because we wished to preserve this mucus for Mr. Herapath’s subsequent analysis. I scraped off a small portion of this mucus and made a microscopic examination of it. In scraping the coat of the stomach, I satisfied myself that it was firm and capable of subsequent accurate examination.—We subsequently examined the brain; it exhibited proofs of great fulness of blood prior to death, but nothing to be called disease. As the result of my examination, I discovered no indications of natural disease except the inflammation of the stomach, which might be natural disease. I have heard Mr. Herapath’s examination, and I agree with him that the cause of the child’s death was irritant poison. I have also heard the other evidence in the case—evidence of the symptoms exhibited by the child; and judging both from my reading and from scientific observations on animals which I have made myself, the conclusion I come to is that the symptoms correspond with those stated by others and observed by myself to be produced by phosphorus. I have myself made experiments with this phosphor paste, and it is partly judging from that that I say what I now do; I form a more decided opinion from my own observations than I should do otherwise. Undoubtedly, there is sufficient phosphorus in one of these pots to cause death; and more than sufficient.—Cross-examined—I made a microscopic examination of the mucus in the stomach, but I did not discover any poison. If there had been poison introduced into the stomach, I should not have expected to find it unless it had been mineral or crystalline. If it had been poison strongly coloured with indigo, I should have detected it, had the colour remained in the stomach; if there had been any quantity of it in this mucus, I should have found it, indigo is a colour that stains very deeply. There was not any coagulated blood on the coat of the stomach. There was no blue to be discovered in the viscid fluid; it was of a reddish brown. If I knew that blue colouring had been introduced, if it had been introduced shortly before death and no great amount of vomiting had occurred, I should have expected to detect it.—The inflammation of the stomach which I observed might have been the consequence of natural disease; I say the inflammation which I observed, but not the inflammation which I have since had an opportunity of examining, as shown to me by Mr. Herapath since I have been here. Mr. Herapath has made a more minute examination, and has presented the results in a portion of this same stomach, to the Court and to me; the inflammation thus shown presents characters of great singularity, and such as enable me to say they are quite beyond the characters of ordinary inflammation. There is a disease called Gastritis; it occasionally produces inflammation, and is more readily induced in a child than in an adult. If that inflammation existed in a child, it would never assume the characters presented by this particular specimen, (the portion of stomach exhibited by Mr. Herapath). Inflammation neglected would be much greater than if attended to medically; inflammation neglected is a dangerous disease, and especially to children. Blisters on the stomach are unusual; statements made by a German who has investigated the action of phosphorus, point to similar action on the stomach, greater in degree than in this case; but that was where phosphorus had been given more in substance. At the time I made my examination, I was not informed of any suspicion of phosphorus. I have now given my opinion from the symptoms I have heard described by the other witnesses. If I had not heard anything about phosphorus, the appearances I saw at the time of my examination I should readily have attributed to neglected inflammation; but not what I have now seen. Vomiting would certainly be a symptom arising from natural inflammation of the stomach by disease. Thirst is also a natural symptom. After inflammation of the stomach has existed for some time in a child, convulsions would be apt to occur; they are more common in children than in grown persons, and they may arise from different natural causes. Such symptoms as I have referred to, if neglected would not unfrequently terminate in convulsions.—Re-examined:—This child died on the 4th of April, and my examination was made on the 30th of that month. Supposing the child had taken a sufficient quantity of this paste to destroy life, from the examination I made of the contents and mucous covering of the stomach, (it was a very small portion), and looking to the time that had elapsed since death and the vomiting during life, even had I known that this paste had been given, I should not have been surprised at the absence of this colour. In the animals poisoned by this paste, though the examination was made in two instances in about 26 hours, and though in one of them the fumes of phosphorus were very manifest, the colour was not at all marked; the colour was not distinguishable. So far as I carried in my examination on the 30th of April, I did not discover any thing beyond the characters of ordinary inflammation. I have now before me a portion of the stomach as prepared by Mr. Herapath; this presents most decidedly, something beyond the characters of ordinary inflammation—characters such as would not proceed from natural causes. I ascribe such appearances to the taking of irritant poison; and also I go a step further:—taking the investigation that has been made as my ground-work. I regard it as being more similar in effects to the action of phosphorus than to any thing else that I am aware of. In the case stated by the German, he mentions ecchymosis: but that is not, strictly, bladder. He states that, in giving phosphorus in substance, it produced a destructive action amounting to perforation of the stomach in distinct patches. I consider that to be a further stage of such action as is presented here; I think if there had been a larger amount of phosphorus given, these blisters would have proceeded to perforation; I would not undertake to say that the small quantity given in this case would have proceeded to perforation.—By the Judge:—When I made my examination, there was no fuming at all, that I observed.—The Judge:—According to your experience, might fuming last longer than colour?—Witness:—In some of these animals fuming did not appear, though they were examined early; in others, or in one, fuming was very manifest indeed.—The judge: Should you expect, from hearing Mr. Herapath’s evidence, that though the colour was gone, the colouring matter—the indigo, might have been found?—Witness:—I am scarcely entitled to form an opinion; I do not know how far indigo is destructible or not; I should have thought it possible that such a substance as indigo might have been found, but I have no knowledge of the destructible qualities of that matter; I don’t give any opinion upon it. Mr. Herapath, recalled and questioned by the judge:—No indigo was found, but, very likely, it was carried away by vomiting; it is so light; while the phosphorus, being heavier, might have remained by adhesion to the coats of the stomach. Most likely the starchy matter and indigo would go together. Indigo is about the weight of water; and phosphorus about twice that weight. Mr. Henry Andrew, a surgeon and apothecary residing at Truro. On the 6th of April last I accompanied the coroner to St. Allen when an inquest was held on this child. Nothing was then communicated to me to raise suspicion that death was occasioned by other than natural causes. No post mortem examination was then made, except that I looked at the body externally, and noticed nothing particular. The jury returned a verdict of death from natural causes. On the 29th of April I accompanied Dr. Barham and Mr. Nash to St. Allen and assisted in the examination of the body, both on that day and the following day. I have heard Dr. Barham’s evidence as to the result of the examination on both days, and, as far as he went, his statements are correct. In my opinion, irritant poison was the cause of death. I was the person who, on the second day, opened the stomach; as I was in the act of opening it, I observed a white vapour escape from the stomach. I know of nothing else but phosphorus but (sic) would produce that appearance of white vapour on opening the stomach. Taking that fact, with the evidence in this case, and what I observed myself, I should say that the death of this child was from phosphorus being taken into the stomach, producing inflammation of the stomach, irritation of the brain, and convulsions.—Cross-examined:—I have seen the vapour produced from the body of an animal that had taken phosphorus; it died one day, and the post mortem took place the following day; the vapour was similar to this, only in larger abundance. I know of no other cause that might produce such a vapour; it was very distinct from the child’s body. In my opinion the cause of death in this case was irritant poison. Death might result from inflammation of the stomach produced by natural causes; and I am aware that persons have died naturally from intro-susception. The first time I saw the body I had no suspicion whatever; I was examined at the inquest, and gave my opinion as to the cause of death.—The Judge:—With regard to this vapour you observed, I gathered from Dr. Barham that the examination took place by candlelight?—Witness: No, my lord; it was on the following day, by day-light that the stomach was opened. There were present, Dr. Barham, a surgeon, a pupil, and myself; and Mr. Nash. Dr. Barham, the surgeon, and the pupil, were all taking an interest, scientifically. Dr. Barham took the notes. I was the only person of the four who discovered the vapour; it was very distinct, and I mentioned it to them at the time. At that time I was not aware that phosphorus had been administered or bought, or that it was connected with the case in any way whatever. I did not at the time know, from science or otherwise, the importance of that incident. It drew my attention, and I mentioned it; nothing more. I had never seen such a thing before. I never before made a post mortem examination, in a case of poisoning.— By Mr. Stock:—The escape of white vapour continued but a very short time; I drew the attention of those around me to it immediately, and it was gone. At this time none of us had heard any thing about phosphorus, or any suspicion of the kind. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. YONGE then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He remarked upon the absence of anything like an adequate motive. As far as the evidence went, prisoner had used no expressions of unkindness towards the child during her life-time. On the contrary, he had been kind to the child, and the child was fond of him. It had been suggested that the child was base-born; but there was no proof that he considered she was a burden. It was true that he sometimes used hasty expressions towards his daughter on account of the child; but that was by no means sufficient to show that he wished to put the child out of the world. It was attempted to be shown that the child had died of poison; but he contended that there was no satisfactory proof of that. He admitted that there were strong circumstances of suspicion, and that the appearances of the body after death were consistent with the administration of poison. Still, it must not be forgotten, that a great degree of inflammation is sometimes produced by natural causes. Medical men cannot always speak with certainty of the appearance in such cases, because when deaths occur, post mortem examinations do not always take place. The blisters on the stomach seen in the present case, were different from other cases of poisoning by phosphorus; Mr. Herapath had poisoned animals with phosphorus, and had not found such blisters. In ordinary poisoning cases the poison had been found in the body. In such cases it was a matter of certainty that the death had been this occasioned; but in the present case, no phosphorus or other poison was found. As to the experiments with flies, he did not consider they were by any means conclusive, or of much importance in leading the jury to a conclusion by which the life of a fellow-creature would be forfeited. He thought it was impossible to say, with certainty, that the child did not die from natural causes. Mr. Herapath had told them this was a new case, and he was not able to give them any positive opinion as to the effects of phosphorus as a poison. He submitted that there was no certain and satisfactory proof that the child died of poison. If, however, the jury were disposed to believe that the child was poisoned, they must, before they could convict the prisoner, be satisfied that he administered that poison. There were other ways in which the poison might have found its way into the child’s hands. Grace Beard’s evidence in the case must be received with great suspicion and jealousy. There was nothing to corroborate her statement that the prisoner asked her to procure the poison. Grace Beard had stated expressions used by the prisoner; but was it credible, if he had poisoned the child, that immediately after its death, he would have heightened suspicion against himself by showing ill-feeling towards it. Then as to the colour of the stuff the child was seen eating, the witnesses said it was brown, like “beastly soap,” but the phosphor paste was a bright blue. The insinuation was that it was mixed with brown sugar; why then was not Grace Beard asked by the prosecution whether there was brown sugar in the house, when they knew the brown colour had to be accounted for? The paste itself was of so offensive a smell, that no child would use it as a comfit. Then on the next day the child was said to have been seen eating a crust, with something spread on it like butter. But there was no proof that the prisoner gave it to her; other persons gave her things to eat, and if the crust had been smeared with the blue mixture, it would have told its own tale. Where then was the evidence to connect the prisoner with the administration of this poison to the child; or that the child had certainly died of poison? One of the medical men spoke of seeing a white vapour when the body was opened; but that might have arisen from the child sucking lucifer matches, to which she had access in the bedroom. If the child was poisoned, might she not in some way have got hold of the poisonous substance herself? He contended that there was no case ever presented to a jury which was less conclusive, and more a case of mere suspicion. They had been told by Mr. Tozer that the prisoner was an industrious, honest, and hard-working man, and such a man was not likely to commit the dreadful crime with which he was charged. He did not ask them to believe that the mother did it; but he asked them, by their verdict, to acquit the prisoner of the awful charge against him. He should call a witness to testify to the prisoner’s good character; and he now besought the jury to consider all the reasonable doubts there were in the case, and to take care that they did not pronounce an unrighteous verdict. The prisoner here said he wished to speak to the doctor who attended the inquest. Mr. Andrew then stood up, and the prisoner said—Did you not then question my daughter what the child had made use of? Witness—I asked various people on that occasion. Prisoner—Did not she say to you that the child had had nothing but vinegar and greens that she knew of, in the next neighbour’s house? Witness—I heard that said by some one.—Grace Beard was then told to stand up, and in answer to the JUDGE, she stated that Mr. Andrew asked her at the inquest what the child had made use of, and she told him that she had only given the child bread and a few sops, she did not tell Mr. Andrew that the child had been eating greens and vinegar; her mother told Mr. Andrew that a neighbour had killed a pig and given the child some pork which had turned the child’s stomach; on the Friday she gave the child dinner herself. The JUDGE—Was there another little child living in the house with your father? Grace Beard—Yes, my sister’s little boy, between seven and eight years old. The JUDGE—Was that a natural child? Witness—Yes, a base child. Mr. Andrew was then asked questions by the Judge, and in reply stated his belief that Grace Beard told him at the inquest she had given her child sops, and she said now; her mother said a neighbour had killed a pig and given pork to the child; and some one spoke of the child having had greens and vinegar. Grace Beard was then ordered to stand up, and the JUDGE said—Do you remember going to work with Jecoliah Roberts on the Wednesday after the child’s death? Grace Beard—I do sir. Did you say to her, you had accused your father wrongfully, and hoped the Lord would forgive you?—I did, sir. Did she not say, why did you accuse your father wrongfully?—She did, sir. Did you not answer, I don’t know, I thought my child had eaten what it ought not to?—Yes, sir. How do you explain that now—your saying that you had accused your father wrongfully?—Because when the medical man, Mr. Andrew, examined the child at the inquest, I thought he would have found out if there was anything wrong; that was the reason I said after the inquest I had condemned my father wrongfully.—Mr. STOCK here said the inquest was on a Monday, and the conversation alluded to took place on the following Wednesday. Jane Hosken, of St. Allen lane, was then called by Mr. Yonge, and said her husband is a small farmer, and prisoner had lived in a house of his as tenant for the last three years and eight months. His character had not been bad since he had been at St. Allen; he had been a quiet, well-conducted man. The learned JUDGE then summed up the case to the jury. He said the nature of it was such that the verdict must be either guilty of wilful murder, or an entire acquittal; the jury could not find a verdict of manslaughter, as there had been no provocation given. With regard to the amount of proof required they certainly could not expect that there should be eyewitnesses of everything that had been done. Charges are often made out by circumstantial evidence, and all they required was to be satisfied, under all the circumstances, that the thing had taken place as alleged. Remarks had been made as to want of motive. People do not often commit shocking cruelties and crimes, and take away the life of another deliberately, without some motive. But juries must be very careful how they estimate what is a sufficient motive. Rightly considered, no motive is an adequate one to take away the life of a human being; but motives, as they all knew, do sometimes operate which ought not to operate. Still the jury would require that there should be some motive shown; and in this case the motive suggested was, that the prisoner was burdened with the base-born child of his daughter, and had another living with him in the house, and that he sought to rid himself of the maintenance of this child. It was for the jury to consider whether they could believe that was a motive sufficient. The learned Judge then stated the way in which the prosecution sought to make out the case against the prisoner, and then read over and commented on the evidence. He said he had assented to the application of the prosecution to admit Grace Beard as a witness; and he had been very much influenced in doing so, by his conviction, on reading the depositions, that she had taken no part in the crime, if such had been committed. Remarking upon the evidence, the Judge said it might be reasonably supposed, that if the prisoner intended to destroy human life he would have used more concealment in sending for the poison; instead of which he seemed to have been perfectly indifferent whether the poison had been fetched by Jecoliah Roberts or his daughter; if Roberts had been going to Truro, he would have employed her. The prisoner’s coarse expressions, before and after the child’s death, were to be considered, but should not weigh too much with the jury, as a coarse minded man would often use expressions of that kind, and not mean more than other people who expressed themselves in different language. Prisoner said to his daughter on one occasion “do you mean to hang me;” but that was said after application had been made to the Secretary of State, and the body taken up, and the prisoner might mean that any such questions as his daughter was asking would tend to attach suspicion to him. The prisoner was stated to be an honest, hardworking man, getting good wages, and such people were amongst the least likely to commit crimes. It had been shown, however, that there was no need of poison to destroy rats on those premises; and the prisoner had deliberately denied to Mr. Nash that he had ever purchased or sent any member of his family to purchase poison. That denial must have due weight given to it as as a suspicious circumstance; at the same time, he should tell the jury that many men had not had moral principle or firmness enough to speak the truth, when a charge had been laid against them, although they had afterwards been proved innocent. The learned Judge next remarked upon Mr. Herapath’s and the medical testimony; and with regard to the phosphor paste, a pot of which was handed up to him, he said, if brown sugar was placed all over it, of course the blue colour would be concealed. There was no proof, however, that any brown sugar was in the house; and the child was first seen with a piece of the substance itself, not upon bread. Whatever that substance was, it must have attained more consistency than the paste in the pot before him, which appeared to soft for a child to carry about in the way described. His lordship concluded by saying the jury would have to look, first, at the amount of motive which had been spoken of, and the conduct of the prisoner towards the child; secondly, to the evidence as to the procuring of the phosphorus, upon grounds which it was alleged were not true; thirdly, to the evidence that the child was seen eating something of a brown colour, not blue—something which, if it was not phosphorus, must have had something sweet and agreeable mixed with it to induce the child to eat it with so much pleasure. They would look also at the evidence of the child’s illness which followed the eating of that substance; at the evidence of the internal appearances of the body when it was examined; at the opinions of Mr. Herapath and the two medical men; and the declarations made from time to time by the prisoner. The question is, said his lordship, whether the whole of the evidence will bring your minds to that undoubting conclusion which they ought to come to, before you can find the prisoner guilty of this offence; or whether there still remain certain difficulties in your minds which the prosecution has failed to remove; as, for the instance, what has become of this paste, what evidence is there that the prisoner ever gave any at all to the child, whether he may not have actually wanted the paste for Mr. Michael or for some other person, and whether, if he did intend to use it for this desperate and deadly purpose, he would have gone about getting it so openly as he did. Questions of this kind will naturally suggest themselves to your minds, and it is not for me to draw the conclusion, it is for you; but this I must say, that unless, upon the whole, you feel clearly certain that the case is made out against the prisoner, your duty is to find him not guilty. It is far better that he should escape from human justice, and meet whatever retribution his great Judge shall award to him in another world, than that, if he should be innocent, you should pass upon him, by any mistake, an unrighteous verdict. On the other hand, if, upon a full consideration of the case, knowing that you are bound to do your duty to your country as well as to the prisoner, you are satisfied that it is made out to the reasonable conviction of all reasonable persons, that the prisoner, and only the prisoner, has been the cause of the death of this little child, then it is equally incumbent on you to say he is guilty. You will now consider the case, I am sure, with all the attention it deserves, and deliver such a verdict as you will have no reason hereafter to repent of. The learned JUDGE concluded his summing up at about half-past five. The jury then retired from the Court, and at six o’clock returned and gave a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The prisoner was then ordered to be discharged, and went out of the dock with great alacrity. The jury were then discharged. This concluded the business of the Assizes, and the learned Judges left Bodmin to hold the Assizes for Somersetshire.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 23 and 30 October 1857

6. Michaelmas Sessions These Sessions commenced on Tuesday the 20th instant, at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, ESQ., Chairman. Lord Vivian. H. Thomson, Esq. Lord Valletort. W. Morshead, Esq. Hon. G.M. Fortescue. F.J. Hext, Esq. Hon. & Rev. J. Townshend J.T.H. Peter, Esq. Boscawen. J. Penberthy Magor, Esq. Sir S.T. Spry. W. Coulson, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. S. Davey, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. F.M. Williams, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. T.R. Avery, Esq. C.G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. W. Peard, Esq. Gordon W.F. Gregor, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. John Tremayne, Esq. R. Gould Lakes, Esq. Francis Rodd, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. Francis Howell, Esq. Rev. Uriah Tonkin. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. Vyell F. Vyvyan. J. Jope Rogers, Esq. Rev. Arthur Tatham. Augustus Coryton, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. J. Perry. Edward Collins, Esq. Rev. J. Wilkinson. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Rev. J. Glencross. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. The Rev. John Carlyon took the oaths, on appointment to the living of St. Merryn; and the Rev. George Dempster Johnstone, on appointment to the living of Creed. The following gentlemen were sworn in the grand jury:— Mr. Joseph Morcom, St. Austell, foreman; “ Arthur Berryman, Zennor; “ William Boase, Zennor; “ Marshall Valentine Bull, Falmouth; “ Richard Cook, Liskeard; “ John Geldard, St. Austell; “ John Gummow, St. Austell; “ Peter Hambly, jun., Liskeard; “ William Hearn, St. Austell; “ John Hoskin jun., Marazion; “ Nicholas Johns, Tywardreath: “ William Martin, St. Austell; “ John Michell, Zennor; “ Thomas Noye, Gulval; “ Joseph Odgers, Stithians; “ Matthew Osborne, Zennor; “ John Pearce, Tywardreath; “ Benjamin Pearse jun., Gulval; “ William Pease, Boconnoc; “ George Gibbs Powell, Penryn; “ Peter Roskilly, Liskeard; “ John Solomon, Penryn; “ John Spargo, Stithians; After the usual preliminary business, the CHAIRMAN delivered his charge to the Grand Jury [not transcribed] VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The CHAIRMAN read this Report, as follows:— We, the undersigned Visiting Justices of the County Prison, at Bodmin, have to report the cleanly state of the Gaol and the efficient discipline maintained therein. We have to recommend that Thomas White, who was a appointed a Warder at the last Michaelmas Sessions, should be placed on the same footing as the other Warders with respect to the annual increase of salary of £1 after the first year, with the same allowance of Clothing, &c.—The Governor having been directed to employ a night-watchman in lieu of William Beard (who had become hard of hearing and unfit for that duty) had selected Thomas Jago, jun., subject to our approbation, and we, approving of the selection, have to recommend that his appointment may be confirmed at the same salary and allowance as William Beard; such appointment to bear date 31st August, 1856, being the day he commenced doing the duty. We have further to report the death of William Hill, a pensioned warder, which took place on the 7th October instant.—Signed, H. Thomson, Richard Foster, C. M. Edward Collins, and Neville Norway. SURGEON’S REPORT.—The annual report from Mr. Ward, the surgeon of the county gaol, was as follows:— I have the honour to report that during the first three quarters of the current year, the health of the prisoners in the county gaol was remarkably good—the average number treated being 67. But in the fourth quarter the number amounted to 159, shewing an increase of 92 cases over every other period. This I attribute to two causes:—1st, the increased number of committals; and 2ndly, the prevalence of diarrhoea, so usual at this time of the year; the cases, however, were all mild in character; the disease has passed away, and I can now report the gaol to be in a very health state. [CHAPLAIN’S REPORT.—not transcribed] CORONERS BILLS.—The following Bills were allowed:— £ s. d. Mr. Carlyon, for 28 Inquests 98 10 8 Mr. Hichens “ 34 “ 104 13 8 Mr. Hamley “ 15 “ 57 10 9 Mr. Good “ 12 “ 36 2 0 Mr. Jago “ 14 “ 41 3 4 338 0 5 For the corresponding quarter last year the amounts were:— £ s. d. Mr. Carlyon, for 27 Inquests 105 5 6 Mr. Hichens “ 40 “ 124 17 5 Mr. Hamley “ 20 “ 73 17 6 Mr. Good “ 8 “ 30 1 10 Mr. Jago “ 16 “ 54 4 4 388 6 7 On the mention of Mr. Hamley’s Bill, Mr. NEVILLE NORWAY, on behalf of the Bodmin Board of Guardians, asked Mr. Hamley what were the circumstances of the inquest held by him on a woman of Bodmin named Elizabeth Cock.—Mr. HAMLEY said he did not remember any case in which an Inquest could be more necessary. An old woman, named Elizabeth Cock, lived in Bodmin, maintained by a prostitute; she was down about in the house about ½ past 8 in the evening, perfectly well; nothing more was seen or heard of her until the unfortunate woman with whom she lived got home about 12 o’clock, and then found her in a dying state with a large quantity of blood about her; a medical man was sent for, but before he could come, she was dead, Under these circumstances, even if she had been a respectable woman, living with respectable poople (sic), he should have felt it his duty to hold an inquest.—Mr. NORWAY said this statement was at variance with that made by the relieving officer, who reported that the old woman was living with her son, and that the daughter-in-law told him that the old woman came to live there about six months before her death and enjoyed good health up to the day of her death; in the afternoon of that day she was taken unwell and spat some blood, and went to bed about 10 o’clock very unwell; she took a cup of tea, and after that said she was better; she then said “bring me a pipe of tobacco,” and the daughter-in- law left her smoking; she said she would blow out the candle and that she hoped to be better next day; but in about half an hour afterwards, the daughter-in-law heard a knocking, and on going to the old woman found her sitting on the side of the bed with the utensil in her hand and blood running from her mouth; the daughter-in-law sent for Dr. Couch who came immediately, and gave her some gin, but she could not make use of it, and she died immediately in the doctor’s presence. Mr. Norway added that it was a feature in this case that the old woman lived within 200 yards of Mr. Hamley’s residence; that Mr. Couch, in answer to a question from him (Mr. Norway) said he had not the slightest hesitation in certifying that the old woman died from natural causes.—Mr. HAMLEY said it was true that the old woman lived near him, but she was a perfect stranger to him; he knew nothing about her previous to the inquest. He was quite sure that the freeholders of the county would have blamed him if he had not held the inquest. He also stated that Mr. Couch had never said he gave the old woman any gin, and that Mr. Couch had that morning said it was decidedly a case in which an inquest ought to be held.—Lord VIVIAN thought it was most unfortunate that cases of this sort should be brought forward on the one hand and attempted to be refuted on the other, without sufficient grounds to work upon. It was unpleasant to have questions raised in this way as to the conduct of coroners; and it was still more unpleasant to hear loose statements made by a coroner as to the character of a woman. He would take this opportunity of giving notice that at the next Quarter Sessions he would move the adoption of a rule similar to that which he observed, had been adopted by the magistrates of the West Riding:—“That future inquests, as far as possible, be confined and limited to deaths by violence, and to other cases of death, where reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct or culpable neglect exists.”—After some further conversational discussion, (in the course of which Mr. Kendall very justly complained of hearing, satisfactorily, the proceedings during county business), it was determined to appoint a committee of magistrates to inquire into the subject of Mr. Norway’s complaint. The gentlemen appointed on the committee—Mr. Rodd, Mr. Gregor and Mr. R. Davey—retired; and, at a later period of the day, presented the following Report, which was read in Court by Mr. RODD:— “We the Committee appointed to inquire into the death of Elizabeth Cock, and the inquest held upon her body by Mr. Gilbert Hamley, the Coroner, having examined Mr. Couch the surgeon, as to the circumstances under which he was called upon to attend her whilst in a dying state, find that the two persons who called him up came to his house at about 12 o’clock at night; that they were persons residing in the same court, but otherwise wholly unconnected with the deceased, who it appears had come but a short time before to stay with her son and daughter-in-law; both of whom, as far as the Court is aware, are people of respectable character; that on his (Mr. Couch’s) arrival he found Elizabeth Cock dead, with blood flowing from her mouth, proceeding from the rupture of a blood-vessel from some accidental cause. And he further adds that, if he had any stimulant with him at the time, he might have applied it to her mouth, but whether he actually did so or not, he cannot recollect. Mr. Couch did not give an opinion as to the necessity of an inquest, but referred the constable, whom he accidentally met in the street, and to whom he communicated the circumstance, to Mr. Hamley. Mr. Couch further states that the case was one of sudden death, but arising from natural causes; the body exhibiting no appearance of violence of any kind; and further, that the deceased had not been before attended by himself, or as far as he knows, by any other medical man in Bodmin.” In answer to a question from Lord Vivian, Mr. RODD added:—We think the inquest was rightly held. —The CLERK of the PEACE presented and read the Mortgage of the County Rates, to the West of England Fire and Life insurance Company, as security for re-payment of £10,000 (and interest) the first instalment of a loan of £28,000 from that company, for the erection of the new County Gaol.—The mortgage was signed, in open court, by Mr. Lethbridge, Mr. Kendall, and Mr. Sawle. GAOL EXPENSES, for the past quarter:—The total expenses for the past quarter were £942 9s. 8d., after credit of 12s. for subsistence of a deserter. Repairs amounted to £27 19s. 3d.; making a grand total of £970 9s 1d., Hall Expenses £6 10s. 11d. GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor’s report was as follows:—In making my present Report, I am unable to give your worships a satisfactory account of the behavior of the criminal prisoners, some of whom have conducted themselves exceedingly bad. The committal of criminal prisoners, for the present year, I am sorry to say, exceeds that for 1856 by 112, viz: 1856—458; 1857—570; being a greater number than for the last 7 years.”—Attached to the report was the following certificate:—I hereby certify that the rules and regulations for the government of this prison have been, as far as practicable, complied with. I further certify that the several defects and dilapidations before reported continue to exist; but under present circumstances, I do not recommend any repairs of consequence being undertaken. —The CHAIRMAN said there were various expenses arising in connection with works at the new Gaol buildings, which amounted to £133 12s 8d.; from which was to be deducted £11 6s. received for cart-loads of earth sold. BRIDGES.—EASTERN DINISION (sic).—The following report was presented by Mr. S.W. JENKIN, surveyor for the Eastern Division:— Beriow Bridge.—There is an accumulation of shingle above this Bridge, which requires to be removed, the cost will be about 10s. Callington New Bridge.—A part of this Bridge requires pointing, the cost will be about 7s. 6d. Clapper Bridge.—Some slight repairs are required to the arches of this Bridge, the cost will be about 20s. Wadebridge.—Some of the large stone, forming the foundation of the piers of this Bridge, have been washed out into the archways, the cost of replacing them will be about 50s. Seaton Bridge.—The approach road at the Eastern end of this Bridge, is so low as to be frequently overflowed by the tide, rendering it dangerous to passengers, and also tending to undermine the parapet wall, which has been built for the purpose of protecting this part of the road. The accompanying sketch will be further explanatory.—I estimate the cost of raising it to a proper level, including some alteration of the parapet walls at about £8. St. Austell Lower Bridge.—It will be necessary to form a paved water table for a considerable distance from the western end of this bridge, and a covered drain to carry the water into the river. I estimate the cost of this at about £4 10s. —The various sums applied for by Mr. Jenkin, were granted. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. HICKES’s report was as follows: The Bridge-rooms under No. 13 Contracts are now in a good state of repair, except Newlyn, which at the time of much rain is overflown as well as the adjacent property; this may to a considerable extent be prevented by enlarging the present drain and extending it across the road, and farther west; I would recommend this being done; it will cost about £6. Mylor.—The guard walls require some slight repairs, which will cost about five shillings. Perran.—The coping of the eastern guard-wall requires some repairs which will cost about 7s. 6d. Higher Carnon.—This road will require metalling this season, which will cost about £3. Tregony and Cornelly.—These roads will also require metalling this season, which will cost about £4 10s. St. Erth.—These is a further accumulation of sand at this bridge which will cost 30 shillings in removing. My attention has been called to the pooling of the water above this bridge. I beg to lay before you a letter I have received on the subject:— Trewinnard, 17th October, 1857. Sir, Permit me again to request your special attention to the state of Saint Erth Bridge, and the river above and below it, especially the latter. I have no doubt that at your last visit you observed the ruinous accumulation of sand in and near the arches, which, as the winter comes on is likely to increase. The channel of the river below, which in 1852 was cut open at a considerable expense, is again much incommoded by the rise of mud and sand in the bottom of it, and local efforts must be made again to clear it. But whenever the floods come down, the want of sufficient water way through the Bridge is evident by the large accumulation of water above it. To lessen the evil complained of, it is proposed to open a separate channel on the north side of the valley (as straight as the nature of the ground will admit), to commence down the valley, between the crossing of the Railway and the Causeway, and extend south so far as to join the river coming from the Battery Mills. But this cannot be done without permission of their worships the Magistrates to build an additional arch through the bridge on the western side of the present arches. The object of my troubling you at this time is to request (on the part of myself and neighbours, and the land- owners I serve, whose property in much injured by the evil complained of), that at the ensuing Quarter Sessions you will represent the case to the Court and recommend that such an additional Arch shall be built, provided the expense to the County does not exceed £25. There will be considerable expense incurred in opening the channel and completing the improvements; but no doubt that will be provided for by local exertions. I remain, Sir, yours obediently, JOHN GOLSWORTHY. Mr. Hickes, Surveyor, Truro. After discussion, in which the Rev. T. Pascoe, Rev. U. Tonkin, Mr. Carew, Mr. Kendall, and Mr. Le Grice took part, in consultation too with Mr. Hickes, it was resolved, on the motion of the Rev. U. TONKIN, seconded by Mr. KENDALL, to grant the sum of 30 shillings applied for by Mr. Hicks.—Mr. KENDALL alleged that this grant was an admission of the county’s duty to make a grant for the clearance of accumulated sand at St. Blazey Bridge; although when, some time since, he had moved a grant for that purpose, it was declined on the plea that as long as the county kept a good roadway over the bridge, there was no obligation on the county to clear the waterway beneath. NEWLYN (West) BRIDGE.—The CLERK of the PEACE stated that in compliance with instructions from the Court, he had written to Mr. William Carter, on the subject of the alleged encroachment on the parapet of Newlyn Bridge. The CLERK of the PEACE presented a reply which he had received from Mr. Carter, and which was read by the CHAIRMAN; after which it was resolved on the motion of Rev. URIAH TONKIN, seconded by Mr. LE GRICE, that the question in dispute be referred to arbritration (sic)—one arbitrator to be chosen by the county, and another by Mr. Carter; and these two to choose a third. COUNTY POLICE.—The CHAIRMAN read the following report from the chief constable:— Chief Constable’s Office, Bodmin, 20th October, 1857. My Lords and Gentlemen, In presenting you with my quarterly statement of the numbers of the constabulary force of this county, I am sorry to be obliged again to refer to the fact that recruiting for the force is going on very slowly, and that I am still very far short of the number required to be raised. This I can only attribute to the high rate of wages paid in this county, and the low pay of the constables as compared with the neighbouring county. The present force consists of 7 superintendents, 8 inspectors, 1 serjeant major, 11 serjeants, and 102 constables; and although I have been able to occupy 3 police districts with their full number of constables, and a fourth with nearly their complement, and the towns of St. Austell, St. Columb, and Wadebridge, yet I fear it may be some time before I can fully occupy the county—the number wanting to complete being 50. I beg to lay before you a return showing the amount of crime, which has come under the cognizance of the police from the time they have been employed up to the 29th of September, and I cannot but congratulate the county on the light nature of the crime, as well as the comparatively few cases, and the entire freedom from the higher classes of crime, such as murder &c. The force is, at present under great disadvantages from not having suitable stations and locks-up; and I trust that the police committee will obtain such a grant as will enable them to do what is requisite. I have been obliged on some stations to expend small sums of money in repair of locks-up, and have also partially built one at Gunnis Lake, and two at St. Just, the rest of this expense having been borne by the landlords; but there are many stations without locks-up of any sort, and many towns and stations yet to be occupied that are entirely without them; and I beg also to state that in the parish of Falmouth, as well as in the town of Camborne, the locks-up are not fit to put a prisoner into.—With reference to the notice in the agenda—“that it be referred to the police committee to take into consideration and to report as to a re-arrangement of the petty sessional divisions, with a view more effectually to carry out the police act,” I beg to state that I have carefully considered this matter, and have submitted to the committee a map of Cornwall, with the petty sessional divisions re- arranged, and with the corresponding Return of the Acreage, Population, and Assessment of each petty sessional division.—Should the committee determine to propose the adoption of my plan for the arrangement of the petty sessional divisions, I have to request the Sessions will sanction another police distict (sic) being formed under a superintendent; this will entail the purchase of another cart and harness, and saddlery, &c., for one of the two horses which I should send from the Bodmin district into the new one, and also the yearly cost of 10l., the difference between a superintendent’s pay of the 3rd class, and an inspector’s; there would also be a trifling additional expense in stationery. In conclusion, I beg to add that the conduct of the force under my command has been on the whole very satisfactory. N.B. It will be necessary, in consequence of the conveyance of prisoners having become a part of the duty of the police, that it should be determined at this sessions the amount which is to be charged per mile for conveyance of prisoners, and in pursuit of offenders. I have the honour to be, My Lords and gentleman (sic), Your obedient servant, W.R. GILBERT Lieut. Colonel, and Chief Constable of Cornwall. To the Chairman and Justices of the Peace for the county of Cornwall, in Quarter Sessions assembled. Mr. LE GRICE drew attention to, and much insisted on, the necessity of compliance with the Home Secretary’s order—that the chief constable’s rules and regulations receive the sanction of the court; and, after discussion, in which various magistrates and the chief constable took part, it was resolved—on the motion of Mr. E. COODE junr., seconded by Mr. LE GRICE,—that the rules and regulations be submitted for the sanction of the court, but that, for sake of convenience, they be first referred to the Police Committee, to report thereon at these sessions. A suggestion by Mr. CAREW was adopted—that after the rules and regulations shall have been sanctioned by the court, printed copies shall be placed in the hands of all county magistrates. The CHAIRMAN read the Chief Constable’s Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure in connection with the police force; from which it appeared that the total expenditure had been £4840. The CHIEF CONSTABLE stated that his account contained no entry of payment to the County Treasurer for duties in relation to the Police Force; he knew that in other counties £50 a year was allowed to the treasurer for such duties. [REPORT OF THE POLICE COMMITTEE.—not transcribed] PROPOSED ALTERATION OF THE COURT.—Mr. THOMSON said it was almost unnecessary for him to observe that for a very long time the want of comfort and convenience around them in that court had been complained of. He would therefore propose that it be referred to the Gaol Committee to inquire whether or not those inconveniences are immovable. This, he had no doubt, they would readily do and make to the Bench their report. It was certainly essentially necessary at all times that the magistrates should most distinctly hear what fell from each other. But what was the case at present? Why, that those magistrates who spoke on the right of the Chairman were but imperfectly heard by those on his left, and not at all scarcely by those who happened to be near the door. Surely this was a state of things that ought never to have existed, and which ought no longer to remain. Mr. Thomson also complained of the narrowness of the Bench as leading to inconvenient crowding of the magistrates.—Mr. Thomson’s motion for reference to the Gaol Committee was seconded by Mr. Le GRICE was agreed to; as was also a suggestion by Mr. COULSON, that the Committee report at the next Sessions. [INSPECTION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—not transcribed] PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISIONS.—Mr. KENDALL (on behalf of the Rev. J. GLANVILLE), moved that the subject of the re-arrangement of the Petty Sessional Divisions be referred to the Police Committee, to report at the next Quarter Sessions; and that the Report then received, be sent to the magistrates of the several Petty Sessional Divisions. Mr. E. COODE jun., said that Lord Vivian wished him to take up a subject of which his lordship had given notice. He would therefore move for a grant of £3000 for the purpose of building stations in the different districts in which Police had been appointed; and also, that the Chief Constable be instructed to obtain plans and estimates for such stations, and that the Police Committee be requested to examine and report upon the plans and estimates.—Lord VIVIAN seconded the motions; and they were agreed to. Mr. COODE jun., gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move that the power of applying and expending the sum of £3000 granted for providing Police Stations be vested in the County Police Committee. Mr. E. COODE jun., gave notice of motion that, with the consent of the Devon Court of Quarter Sessions, the parishes of North Petherwyn and Werrington, be transferred to Cornwall, for police purposes. Lord VIVIAN moved a grant of a sum not exceeding £20 for renting stores for the 2nd Cornwall Rifle Militia. Col. CORYTON gave notice of motion for a grant of a sum not exceeding £40, for rental of stores at Bodmin for the Royal Cornwall Rangers. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20. TRAILS OF PRISONERS. EMMA HENDY, 19, was charged with stealing money from the person of William Bone, at St. Austell on the 9th of September. It appeared that the prosecutor, a respectable looking young man of 19 years of age, of the parish of St. Stephens, went to visit the prisoner, a prostitute of St. Austell, at her house, with 24s. in his pocket, consisting of two half sovereigns and 4s. in silver; and, after giving her money, and having something to drink, he had left in his trowsers pocket, two half sovereigns and a four penny piece, of which she contrived to rob him.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h. l.) WILLIAM SMITH, 21, horse-trainer, was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Thomas at Sancreed, on the 28th August, and stealing certain money, a silk shawl, and a turnover, the property of the said William Thomas. In a second count he was charged with stealing from a dwelling-house of the value of 5l.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution.—Wilmot Thomas, wife of the prosecutor, lived at Lower Drift. About 5 o’clock in the morning of Friday the 28th Aug. she went away to work, leaving the house securely locked up. On her return about 5 or 6 o’clock in the evening, she found the outer gate untied, a pane of glass taken out of the parlour window, and the window heaved up. Going up stairs, she found that a chest of drawers which had been locked, was broken open, and from a box in the drawers there was taken away 4 sovereigns and 8 half-crowns. In another drawer she found a penny loaf—one of two that had been baked together, and which was not in the drawer when she left in the morning. On the following Sunday morning, she missed from the drawer in which she found the loaf, two shawls, which she afterwards gave to the policeman; the penny loaf was also given to the policeman, after being shown to the woman of whom it was bought.—Grace Oates stated that she lived at Buryas Bridge, about a quarter of a mile from the prosecutor’s, and kept a small shop. About one o’clock on the 28th of August, prisoner came to her shop and asked for a two-penny loaf; and had two penny ones, together. On paying for it, she at first objected to receive a smooth penny-piece; and he said he could not pay for it if she would not take it. She ultimately took his money, and he went away over the bridge towards Drift. About half an hour afterwards, he came back and bought six-penny worth of apples giving her a half-crown to be changed in payment; he then went away towards Penzance.—Mary Roberts resides at Penzance, and saw the prisoner at her house in August; the first time was on Tuesday the 25th August; he left on the Wednesday, and came back again on Friday afternoon, bringing a parcel in which were a new shirt, a turn-over, and a shawl, which he said he bought; and he gave the shawl and turnover to her; she afterwards delivered them to Oulds the policeman.—John Oulds, superintendent of police of the borough of Penzance, on the 29th, of August apprehended the prisoner. Produced a penny loaf which he had received from Wilmot Thomas, and a shawl and turnover received from Mary Roberts.—Mrs. Thomas identified the shawl and the turnover; and Grace Oates believed the penny loaf was one of the two she had sold to prisoner.—Verdict, GUILTY on the 1st Count. (Sentence: nine months h. l.) EDWARD LEMIN, 30, labourer, was indicted for stealing a mare, a saddle, and a bridle, the property of John Button, at St. Mabyn, on the 17th of August.—In this case the prosecution offered no evidence, and the CHAIRMAN accordingly directed a verdict of ACQUITTAL, observing that all imputation against the prisoner had been removed. JAMES EUSTICE, 12, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a cart-horse, value £25, the property of John Ball Smith the elder, at Creed on the 14th September. (Sentence: six months h. l. and to be twice privately whipped) William BEST, 47, labourer, pleaded GUILTY, after former conviction, of stealing a quantity of iron, the property of John Lovering and another at St. Austell, on the 13th September. (Sentence: twelve months h. l.) HENRY AGER, 21, schoolmaster, was charged with stealing 46 copy-books, 5 boxes of steel pens, a quantity of penholders, slate pencils, and copy slips, 2 jars of ink, one brush, 11 church-catechisms, 3 prayer-books, 24 other books, and a variety of other articles, the property of the Guardians of the Falmouth Union, at Budock.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended, but was himself very active and pertinacious in cross-examining witnesses, and in addressing the court and jury.—Jane Hill, an elderly woman, stated that for three or four years she had been an inmate of the Falmouth Union house and attended on the prisoner who was schoolmaster there. In August last saw him packing a great number of copy-books and other books in his own box, and saw the box afterwards wheeled away by two of the boys named Gibbs and Sincock, towards Falmouth; the prisoner going away with them.—Thomas Crompton Gibbs, 13 years old:—I belong to the Falmouth Union House; in August last, the prisoner gave me two boxes, and told me to take them to Mr. Coombe’s. I helped, with the boy Sincock, to bring these boxes down from the schoolmaster’s sitting room; and the prisoner was there when we took the boxes down stairs and put them out into the men’s yard, and he helped us put them on the barrow, outside the Union- house gates. We drove them to Mr. Coombe’s. The prisoner went with us some of the way, and at some parts of the road he would go on before us. After taking the two boxes to Mr. Combe’s (sic), on a Saturday, we took a trunk there on the following Monday, and on that day I saw the prisoner at Mr. Coombe’s. The prisoner had taught me to read; some of the books I used under him were the same as I had used before he came there; and I have seen him make marks in some of the Church Catechisms.—Edmund Sincock, 7 years old, gave evidence confirmatory of the preceeding (sic).—Thomas Shearston, serjeant of the county police, at Falmouth:—On the 18th of August, about 10 o’clock at night, I went to the house of Thomas Coombe, at Woodlane, Falmouth, and took possession of a great quantity of books; there were three boxes altogether, and a bundle. Two of the boxes were nailed, and tied with cord; the other was only tied. I opened the boxes and took out the contents, a portion of which I produce. I took the prisoner into custody the same night, and stated the charge against him; he said it was a foolish thing of him. The next day, after his committal, he said he should not employ any person to defend him—he should not get up any defence at all, and should not give any person half an hour’s sport over his trouble. He said he was very foolish to have done what he had done for a few trifling articles like that; and he selected some of the books as the portion that had belonged to the union; and he threw back several other books, which he said belonged to him. I produce those which he said belonged to the union. (Witness produced these books, and also the brush referred to in the indictment)—Jane Hill, recalled, very positively identified the brush as one of four shoe-brushes which had been under her notice, and the boy Gibbs identified, by means of marks, various of the books.—William James Genn, clerk to the Falmouth Union.—I recollect the prisoner becoming schoolmaster of the Union; he was there in August last. On the 18th of August, the prisoner was sent for to be examined before a meeting of the Board of Guardians. I told him that, as he was about to leave his situation, it was desirable that every thing should be settled as to stationery; and as a bill had been sent in by Mr. Dixon, stationer, the Guardians desired to know if it was correct. I handed him that bill, and he returned it me, saying that he believed it was correct. I have that bill here. I then asked him if the copy- books and other things charged in that bill were in the school. He said they were. I told him they appeared not to be there, and I asked him if the school-books were all there. He said one book perhaps might be in his box, and he would return it. I then held up Dixon’s bill, which I had before put into his hands, and said “is it not true that many of those things are in your box?” He said there might be some copy-books, and that he would return them, or pay for them. He was told that could not be. He then used an expressions to this effect:—“Oh dear, gentlemen, do pray forgive me this once; and that he repeated. After that, there was some conversation in the Board Room, and in the course of it he said he did not know how it happened, except that he had been strongly tempted by Satan, and had yielded. There was some conversation about the brush; he said he had brought a brush into the Union when he came there, and he had taken the brush that was found, in place of it. This was before the constable had taken possession of his boxes.—The prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrates was:—I feel heartily sorry to think that I have done such a thing; I cannot account for it, unless it might be a strong temptation of Satan; my character has always been good before, but I find it will now be stained; I don’t think I can say any thing else; from the articles produced, I select all that belong to the Union, and they are now in the hands of Thomas Shearston, serjeant of police.—This closing the case for the prosecution, the prisoner addressed the jury at some considerable length.—Verdict, GUILTY of Larceny as a Servant.—The prisoner humbly begged the mercy of the Court, and that it would take into consideration the sufferings he had endured, and that his character, from childhood, had been highly esteemed. (Sentence: six months h. l.) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21. (Before J.K. LETHBRIDGE, Esq.) —Among the magistrates present at these sessions was the Rev. John Bird, formerly of Lanteglos by Camelford; his name was omitted in the list sent yesterday. —At the opening of the court this morning, Mr. BEVAN, Judge of the County Court for Cornwall, stated that Mr. Everest, the Governor of the County Prison, had represented to him that a debtor, named Sally Cardwell, who had been committed to Bodmin Gaol in July last, had complained to the assistant matron of the gaol that, after being taken from Redruth to Truro, and placed in the charge of Mr. Pearce, the contractor for conveying criminal prisoners, she was put in the Truro prison with a criminal prisoner who had itch and vermin, and with whom she was conveyed the next day to Bodmin gaol. Mr. Bevan said it appeared that the contractors for conveyance of those prisoners instead of themselves taking them to the gaol, chose to hand them over to a man who had hitherto been under contract for conveyance of criminal prisoners; their reason was that they were not sufficiently paid for doing otherwise, and they made an excuse, that they had been accustomed to pursue the same plan under the late Judge and had had no complaint made. Mr. Bevan desired to express to the Chairman his great obligations to Mr. Everest for reporting the circumstance of which he had spoken. He should at all times feel personally obliged to any county authority who would do him the favour to report any improprieties they might observe in the officers of his court; and he had very great pleasure in now acknowledging to the chairman the cordial co- operation and assistance he had hitherto received from all the county authorities. He hoped there would be no cause for any future complaint such as that he had now referred to. Mr. EVEREST said he had felt it his duty to report the matter. Mr. BEVAN:—It was not only your duty; but I feel very much obliged to you. MADDERN TREMBATH, a young man, was indicted for unlawfully and maliciously cutting and wounding Richard Casley; and in a second count he was charged with assaulting and beating Richard Casley.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—Richard Casley, the prosecutor, stated that he was a miner of St. Just. On the 21st of August he was at Levant mine with James Trebilcock, Maddern Trembath, and other persons. I and Trembath had come there by request of the agents. When I came out at the account-house door, I met Trembath there; and James Trebilcock and other parties were there. Young Trembath began “a blast of God d—n ye;” and Trebilcock told him if he was swearing at him, he would throw him over the hedge. Trembath said to Trebilcock, “wilt thee go over into the field with me?” Trebilcock made no reply; and Trembath’s father said to Trebilcock, “if thee’st go out into the field, I’ll put down a sovereign that my son will beat thee.” I told Trebilcock to go into the field, for a sovereign; and then the prisoner said to me “if thee’st go into the field, thee shalt never come out again alive, for I will rip thee up.” After that we separated. In the evening I went to the house of Trebilcock’s mother, and there met Trebilcock, and about 8 o’clock we went down through Warren’s field and into a lane, where we met the prisoner who was alone; he again began to blast and swear as before, and said he would give me two inches of steel; he came towards me with an open knife in his hand raised up—a small-blade knife; I catched his left arm and threw him against the hedge; he raised his right hand over my head, and made a cut at me with the knife, and it come on the back part of my head; it cut the skin and flesh, and blood ran down my back. Then the prisoner’s father came forth and catched me by both collars and asked me what I was about, I let go the young man and turned round against the father; and the prisoner then struck the knife into my side. My wounds were afterwards dressed by Mr. Berryman of Penzance. (Witness produced a blue-stripe shirt, worn at the time of the assault; it had marks of blood about the neck and side, and at the side there was also the mark of a small cut.)—Cross-examined.—I and the prisoner work at the same mine; there was no ill-feeling on my part towards him; the shoemaker at the mine had charged prisoner’s father with stealing some leather, and on the 21st of August the matter was investigated at the account-house, and the charge was dismissed. I did not say, when I came out of the account-house, that it should not end there, but that I would serve them out before the night was over; I said afterwards, at Leggo’s public house, to the prisoner that it should not be over yet, but I would tell Mr. Borrow, the purser. When I left the public- house, I went home; I live in the same village with prisoner. I see a wound on the prisoner’s forehead; I did not make that wound; I should think his father did it; his father had him down, knocking his head against the ground. William Angwin was the constable who came; I had had the two stabs before he came; I did not tell the constable that I had been stabbed, but I had said so before to the people there. I believe it was the prisoner’s father who sent for the constable, and gave his son into the care of the constable. There was another constable in the case—Richard White, whom I sent for about half past 8; the assault took place about 8 o’clock.—James Trebilcock, a miner working at Botallack, was at the meeting in the account-house at Levant, on the 21st of August, and gave evidence generally confirmatory of the preceding as to the occurrences outside the Account house, and also as to the circumstances of the assault in the evening. Did not see prisoner strike a knife, or whatever it was, into Casley’s side. Heard Casley say he was stabbed; that was before the Constable came.—Cross-examined. I saw the prisoner’s father take the prisoner up and throw him violently on the ground and beat him most terribly. I heard the prisoner charge Casley with striking his head with a stone, and also with cutting his thumb with a knife.—Richard Dennis a lad:—I live in St. Just, and work at some stamps. A few minutes before 8 o’clock in the evening of the 21st of August, I saw the prisoner on the road, about 250 yards from the place where this scuffle happened. He stopped and talked, and played with me, and in the midst of the play I saw an open penknife in his hand, and told him to put it in his pocket; he said “no, that was his guard.” I told him a second time to put it in his pocket, for fear he should do mischief; he said he did not mean any other; he shut the knife and put it in his pocket, but took it out again and went on his road, and I saw no more of him.—Arthur Berryman, surgeon of Penzance:—The prosecutor came to me between 6 and 7 o’clock in the morning of the 22nd of August; he said he had been stabbed. I found a wound on his left hip, and another on his head; the wounds were trifling, and were not in dangerous places; but I have no doubt they had been made with some sharp- pointed instrument. There was a wound on the forehead, that looked like a bruise.—Cross-examined. The wound on the side was about a quarter of an inch in width, and the same in depth. The wound in the head was still less. On the same day I attended the prisoner; I found a large jagged wound on the head; the skull laid completely bare; it was an awkward wound, and might have been attended with serious consequences; it was such a wound as was likely to have been made with a ragged stone.—Mr. SHILSON then opened the case for the defence, and called the following witnesses:—William Dimond:—I live at St. Just, and on the 21st of August was at Levant mine; I went there by request of Trembath. When I came outside the Account- house, Casley and Trebilcock and others were there; angry words took place there, and I heard Casley say “it shall not be over yet; I will serve them out before the night is over.” Prisoner had said “there’s a parcel of you here, come to laugh and sneer, I suppose.” I heard the conversation about going into the field to fight, but did not hear prisoner say to Casley that if he (Casley) went into the field he should not come out alive, for that he (prisoner) would rip him up. If that had been said at the time stated I must have heard it, for I was close to prisoner.—Between 7 and 8 o’clock in the evening I saw Casley and Trebilcock outside the Trembath’s front door leaning against a hedge in Warren’s field; Casley was waving his hand and appeared to be in a state of great excitement; I saw them there in that portion about 5 or 10 minutes, and then they went down the field towards the place where the assault occurred. I and Trembath the father went out at the back door, and when we got down the lane we saw Casley and Trebilcock leaning against a stile at the bottom of Warren’s field. We made a little bit of a stand and saw a youngster come along, who appeared to be the prisoner; then I heard a noise of different voices, and one voice, which I believe was the prisoner’s, saying “I wont.” The father Maddern said “that’s my boy;” he ran on and I followed him and when we came to the spot the prisoner and Casley were on the ground scuffling, and Casley was cutting away and striking Trembath on the ground. Trembath was crying out that Casley was cutting his head abroad with a stone; and blood was flowing down his face so that we could hardly distinguish his features. I never saw any knife in prisoner’s hand, and never heard that he had one. I said to Casley, “are you not ashamed of yourself? you are making good the words you made use of—that you would serve him out before night’s over; you have taken advantage of him because he is drunk, or if he is not drunk he is worse than drunk.” The prisoner was in a very excited state, and it took two or three to hold him afterwards. Casley said nothing to me about a knife, or his having been stabbed, or any thing of the sort; but he asked me if I would fight him, and I said “no;” he then said “then stand off, or I will serve you the same, and will beat the lot of ye.” I never saw any wound on Casley, and did not not (sic) at that time hear of any,—I did not see prisoner’s father take up the prisoner and beat his head against the ground.—William Angwin, constable at St. Just. I live near where this assault took place; in the evening of the 21st of August, I heard from my door a noise; I went down to the place and saw a great many people there. Maddern Trembath, the father, called on me to take care of his son, telling me that Casley had cut open his son’s head; he did not give me his son as a prisoner, but as a person deranged, or something of that sort. The father was holding him in his arms; I saw blood running from his head over his face, and his shirt was covered with blood; he did not appear to me a man in his right senses, from the language he used. I did not see any thing like a knife about him. Casley did not tell me a word about his being stabbed, or about any knife. I ordered him off.—Margaret Guy—a young girl:— I was returning from my work in the evening of the 21st August, and saw the prisoner before me; he was going towards his home; I saw him go into the lane leading to Warren’s field, and then lost sight of him. Shortly after that I heard a noise, and heard the father call a constable; I kept on, and when I came up to the place, his father had him in his arms; I could not see his face for blood; he said Casley had cut his head with a stone. I saw Casley hit him in the head with his fist while he was in his father’s arms; and I also saw him lift his foot to kick. I did not see any knife, and did not hear Casley complain of being stabbed; I did not hear any thing about a knife till nearly 2½ hours afterwards. Casley did not appear to me to be bleeding, nor any thing of the sort.—Maddern Trembath, the father:—There was some dispute between Casley and my son on the 21st of August; I was there all the time till he parted from Trebilcock and Casley; I did not hear my son say that if Casley would go into the field, he would rip him up and he should not come out alive. If it had been said, I must have heard it, for we were all close together. Afterwards, in the evening, I saw Casley and Trebilcock standing outside my house; Casley was talking in a very excited manner; I then saw them leave the spot and pass down before my door and go across the field to a stile leading into the lane. I saw them standing near the stile and my son went towards them; and just after that I heard my son say “I wont, I wont;” I called to get a constable, and then ran towards them as quickly as possible; I saw my son on the ground and Casley illusing (sic) him very bad; I catched hold of Casley and shoved him off, and then catched up my son in my arms, and said to Casley, “Now you have had your revenge, I should think.” My son said Casley had cut him on the head with a stone. I told the constable to take care of my son, for his head was lashed to pieces. Casley said “stand off; I’ll fight three of you.” I never saw a knife in my son’s hand, and did not hear any thing about one. I did not notice any wound on Casley.—In summing up, the CHAIRMAN directed that the jury that the question was not as to which commenced the assault, or was most in fault with respect to it; but whether the prisoner had, in the course of the conflict, used a knife— whether he was guilty of stabbing deliberately and maliciously.—The jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. EMILY CHADWICK, 17, was charged with stealing certain quantities of tin ore, the property of Wm. Page Cardozo and others, adventurers in Pednandrea mine, at Redruth on the 3rd September last, and on several previous occasions. In a second count there was a charge of feloniously receiving.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—Elizabeth Ann Hicks, single woman residing at Redruth. I work at Pednandrea mine, and the prisoner works there also. She was working there about March last. One day when we left work, about 12 o’clock, the prisoner said to me, “I want you a minute.” She told me she was going to take a little tin, to sell. I told her that I would not do it for all the world, and that if she was going to take tin, I would not see her. I then left her and went to the head of my buddle; as I was wiping my face, I turned round and saw Emily Chadwick putting the last board on the kieve; I saw a bag on the floor besides the kieve, and tin in the bag; it was tin cleaned and fit for the smelting-house. I said “Emily, if I was you I would not carry it away.” She said “hold your tongue, Elizabeth Ann, and if you won’t tell, I’ll give you a shilling or eighteen pence.” Then she took up the bag of tin under her arm and carried it away out of the mine. That tin was the property of the adventurers.—Cross-examined. It was a public open place, and 12 o’clock at noon. She carried it away under her shawl. I did not tell any of the adventurers or agents what I had seen; I said nothing about it till I was asked about it last month by Capt. Carpenter, the head agent.— Harriet Ann Gray:—I have worked at Pednandrea since February last; prisoner was at work there before I came there; we both worked in the tin yard. About a month or six weeks after I came there I went into the tin yard to look for my apron. On the wall at the head of the buddle I found there a shawl belonging to Emily Chadwick, and a bag underneath it, which I saw contained tin. I went to Emily Chadwick and asked her if that was her tin. She said “yes, but what you know keep to yourself.” At dinner time I saw her take that bag from the wall, throw her shawl loosely over it on her arm, and carry it out of the mine. I recollect leaving the mine in the evening of the 2nd of September, leaving Emily Chadwick and same (sic) other girls there to work at night to get ready for sampling. I came to the mine next morning about 7 o’clock and put my apron on the top of the chest; between 9 and 10 o’clock I went to search for it and then found a covered basket of tin at the head of Emily Chadwick’s buddle; I lifted the cover and saw tin in it; I asked her if she was not afraid to carry it away through the streets; she said “what you know keep to yourself.” I saw her take the basket from that place and carry it out of the yard.—Cross-examined. It was about 12 o’clock in the day on the 3rd September when I saw her take that basket out of the mine. I could not be certain that there was tin in the basket at that time. A little way out of the mine I saw her talking to her father. About ¾ of an hour after that, I again saw her with her father, who had then taken the basket from her. I did not mention this matter to the agents; was afraid; the first person I named it to was my father.—Richard Williams Pearce, agent at Pednandrea, proved that the tinyard and tin there belonged to the Adventurers, of whom there were several—Mr. W. Page Cardozo being one.—Cross-examined. I know the prisoner and her family; her grandfather was a person of station.—Ann Penrose, examined only for the defence:—I know Harriet Ann Gray; I think that she and I left the mine together for dinner on the 3rd September; I dont know that I saw Emily Chadwick go away from the mine that day.—Mr. SHILSON addressed the jury for the defence; and, after a summing up by the CHAIRMAN, the jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. COUNTY BUSINESS. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSFER OF INSPECTORSHIP OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES TO THE POLICE.—[not transcribed] THE COUNTY POLICE:—Mr. E. COODE junr. read the following report:— The Police Committee beg to report that they have examined the police accounts which were referred to them by this court, and find them correct. They have also considered and approved the rules framed by the chief constable, for the regulation and government of the police force, and recommend them to be adopted by the Court; and, when printed, to have added on the title-page, the words “approved by the Quarter Sessions.” —With regard to the rates of allowance, referred to them, they beg to recommend as follows:— For conveyance of prisoners, at per mile, for one prisoner 9d. For each additional prisoner 4d. For constable in pursuit of prisoner, out of his district, at per mile 6d. Mr. E. COODE, jun., on behalf of the Police Committee, brought under consideration of the Court the subject of an allowance to the County Treasurer for extra trouble and responsibility with reference to the police accounts. It was due to the County Treasurer to state that he had made no application on the subject. The attention of the Committee was called to it by the chief constable who said it was usual in other counties to make such allowance to the County Treasurer. Lord VIVIAN gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move that a sum of £50 a year, being the usual allowance in other counties, shall be paid to the County Treasurer for keeping the police accounts.—This payment being exclusive of the allowance for stamps and stationery, and to have a retrospective effect, dating from the time of the formation of the force. —With reference to the above-named payments to the police for conveyance of prisoners, Mr. E. COODE, jun. explained that they would not in reality constitute any extra charge on the county; inasmuch as all sums thus expended in the conveyance of prisoners, or in pursuit, would go to the reduction of the Police Rate.—On the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., seconded by Mr. KENDALL, the scale of payments recommended by the committee was adopted. THE NEW GAOL.—Mr. KENDALL, on behalf of the Gaol Building Committee referred to a matter of importance connected with the new gaol. Last night, the committee, after passing certain accounts certified by the architect, Mr. Porter, were called on to pass another account for the payment of £512 to Mr. Goodyear the contractor for quarrying for the new building. The committee were astonished at this demand, because they had not the slightest notice that any such claim could arise. Mr. Kendall stated that, prior to the commencement of the building many hundreds of tons of stone had been prepared; and such was then the appearance of the quarry that the committee thought there would be no difficulty in raising as large a quantity as they had already. Fine weather coming on and Mr. Goodyear having a very good staff, the work went on rapidly; and very shortly, the attention of the committee was called to two facts:—that the stone was rapidly disappearing, and that the quarry was not likely to turn out as well as had been expected. Mr. Everest said he thought he should not be able to keep up the supply of stone by prison labour; while the committee, on the part of the county, were most anxious that nothing should be done to open to Mr. Goodyear any claim for compensation for any breach of contract by delay in the supply of stone. The committee therefore ordered Mr. Everest “to employ sufficient labour to keep good the supply of stone;” and, up to last night the committee had not the slightest idea that that power had passed into the hands of Mr. Goodyear; but at the same time it was fair to Mr. Goodyear to say that no unnecessary expense had been incurred. The committee, however, complained that they had not been informed of the change. Mr. Porter, the architect, it appeared, was to have a commission of 2½ per cent. on this sum of 512l. which Mr. Goodyear claimed. Mr. Kendall asked, on behalf of the committee, for instruction from the court which course should be pursued. Considerable discussion and conversation took place on the subject; together with inquiries of Mr. Everest, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Goodyear; the magistrates taking part in the discussion being, (besides Mr. Kendall) Lord Vivian, Mr. Le Grice, Mr. E. Coode, jun., and Mr. Reynolds. Eventually, it was resolved, on the motion of Lord VIVIAN, seconded by Mr. REYNOLDS—that Mr. Goodyear’s demand for 512l. for extra cartage, be referred back to the committee, to report at the next sessions; and if, in the interim, the committee be of opinion that any money is due to Mr. Goodyear on account, the committee be empowered to advance him £400. —The CHAIRMAN said he had received a note from Mr. Enys tendering his resignation of office, as member of the Gaol and Finance Committees. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JOHN TRESERGE JAMES, 19, labourer, was charged with stealing 16lbs. of lead fixed to a dwelling-house, the property of Sir J.S. Graves Sawle, Bart., at St. Ewe, on or about the 1st of August. The felony, committed at Nansladrow (sic), an unoccupied house belong (sic) to Sir Joseph, was clearly proved by the evidence of John Allen and Rosamond Warne, marine store dealers of St. Austell, Mr. Christopher Merifield, an agent of Sir Joseph Sawle’s, and Henry Burnard, police constable; and by the prisoner’s statement. He was found guilty; and a previous conviction was proved against him; he had been summarily convicted at the Truro Petty Sessions on the 26th of June last, of stealing 13 eggs, the property of Richard Pill, of St. Clements; and was sentenced to one month hard labour. (Sentence: six months h.l.) JOHN TRESERGE JAMES and JAMES HARRIS, aged 12, were then charged with stealing 2lbs. of copper, also the property of Sir Joseph Sawle and from his house at Nansladron. On this charge James was acquitted, and Harris was found GUILTY. (Sentenced to two months h. l. and to be privately whipped) WILLIAM COLWELL, 36, was charged with stealing 11 sheaves of wheat, the property of his master John Cowling, at Jacobstow, on the 15th of August last. Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—The prosecutor was a farmer living at Trekennard, in the parish of Poundstock, and occupying another farm, at which the prisoner was hind, at Dinnecomb,e (sic) in the parish of Jacobstow. The trial resulted in an acquittal. WILLIAM TONKIN, 31, miner, was charged with stealing two tables, 4 chairs, one bed, and other articles, the property of Emanuel Croker, at Calstock, on the 12th of July.—As the case proceeded, it came out that the articles were in reality the property of a person called Williams, now in Australia, who, on leaving, gave Croker authority to receive rents for him, but for no other purpose. The property therefore wrongly laid in Croker, the CHAIRMAN directed an ACQUITTAL. GEORGE PERRYMAN, 27, labourer, committed from Redruth for want of sureties in a breach of the peace toward his father, was admonished and discharged. No one appeared against him; and, according to the prisoner’s statement, his only offence was that he had stood up in behalf of his mother during a hasty and not very violent fracas between his father and mother. APPEAL. ST. KEW, appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Collins. BODMIN, respondent; Mr. Stokes and Mr. T. Commins. This was an appeal against an order for the removal of Mary Ann Crowe from the parish of Bodmin to the parish of St. Kew. Mr. STOKES stated that the order was grounded on a hiring and service of the pauper, in the year 1830, and that corroborative evidence as to date was the death of Jane Goodman, the wife of pauper’s master in that year; but that it had now been discovered that there were two Jane Goodmans, one of whom died in 1830, and the other in 1834, and that, in fact, the one who died last was the wife of the pauper’s master. The overseers of Bodmin had therefore been altogether misled by the circumstance of there being two Jane Goodmans of the same parish, whose deaths were certified in same register; and therefore he submitted that the other should be quashed without costs.—Mr. SHILSON, on the part of the respondents, objected to this course, and the order was eventually quashed on the merits with £5 costs. ______—The Jury business of the Sessions was concluded to-day. —The following Bills were ignored:— John Dyer, stealing a hammer, the property of James Fell at Bodmin; and Thomas Grant, obtaining, by false pretences, money from William Werring, and some articles of food from Henry Bullen. ______SECOND COURT. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq.) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18. JOHN STONEMAN, 14, was indicted for stealing a mare, the property of William Solomon, of Kenwyn, on the 29th of July last,—Verdict, GUILTY. The Foreman of the Jury remarked that they considered Bennet Treloar, who bought the mare of the lad, was very reprehensible; the CHAIRMAN called Treloar into the box, and said he considered the conduct of persons like himself, who bought things of boys or other persons, under suspicious circumstances, and without proper inquiry, was the occasion of many robberies taking place; and he deserved to have his expenses as a witness disallowed. (Sentence: eight months h. l.) CHARLOTTE HOCKING, of St. Erth, was charged with stealing on the 1st inst., in that parish, a cotton chemise, the property of Grace Thomas.—GUILTY. (Sentence: two months hard labour) RICHARD JEWELL, 18, pleaded GUILTY to a charge of stealing a piece of brass, value 4s., the property of Michael Dunstan, of Kea, on the 13th instant. (Sentence: six weeks hard labour) WILLIAM LETCHER, 23, was charged with stealing a brass candlestick, the property of Jane Endean, at Kenwyn, on the 9th of August last.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: one month hard labour) ELIZABETH PHILLIPS, 28, of Saint Agnes, was charged with assaulting Elizabeth Varcoe, and occasioning grievous bodily harm, on the 9th of August last, and in a second count with a common assault. Prisoner was undefended. Mr. STOKES conducted the prosecution. From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner and Varcoe had some altercation about stealing potatoes and water at the back of the prisoner’s house, when the prisoner threw water over Varcoe. A close fight then ensued, when prisoner beat the old woman with a pitcher, and inflicted several wounds. Mr. Whitworth deposed to having seen Vercoe on the forenoon in question, and found her head bleeding profusely from a punctured wound over the right ear, a considerable swelling around the wound, a swelling behind the left ear, a small cut on the nose, and bruises on the left eye. These wounds were such as would be occasioned by a broken pitcher, such as was said to have been used. He attended Vercoe for a month in consequence of these injuries, nine days of which time she was continued to her bed. From prisoner’s statement it appeared that the parties had been long in the habit of quarrelling and provoking each other by language of the most abusive and foul character. Verdict, GUILTY of a common assault, but recommended to the clemency of the court, on account of the provocation received by the prisoner. (Sentence: six months imprisonment) HENRY ALLEN, of Gorran, pleaded GUILTY to a charge of stealing on the 13th instant, certain money and one flasket, twenty pieces of earthenware, and one steelyard, the property of Joseph Burton, the younger, his employer. (Sentence: four months h. l.) EDWARD ARMSTRONG, 30, was indicted for breaking into the dwelling house of W. Thomas, at St. Germans, on the 12th of September, and stealing a cloth jacket, waistcoat and trousers, pair of stockings, boots, two handkerchiefs, a shilling and a half crown. Prosecutor and his wife stated that they saw the clothes on leaving their house in the morning, and missed them on their return in the evening. Thomas Stanton, who lives a quarter of a mile from Thomas’s house, stated that he saw the prisoner on the 12th of September, go in that direction, and particularly noticed him from his suspicious appearance. W. Clifford, superintendent of police, apprehended the prisoner in Stonehouse-lane, on the morning of the 13th of September, and found the clothes now produced on his person. The prosecutor and his wife identified the clothes as their property. Verdict GUILTY. A former conviction was proved in 1856, when the prisoner was sentenced to eight months’ hard labour for stealing various articles of clothing. (Sentence: six years penal servitude) ANN CHYNOWETH, 25, was charged with stealing a silver ring, the property of W. Stoneman, at Camborne, on the 12th or 13th instant. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. SUSAN TOY, 22, was indicted for stealing a silk handkerchief, a satin neckerchief, and three knives and forks, the property of Thomas Knuckey, at Camborne, on the 3rd of August. The prosecutor is a pawnbroker at Camborne, and the prisoner washed for his family in his house. John Welsh, a collector of rags and bones, stated that he bought a yellow silk handkerchief on the 30th July of the prisoner, and a satin neckerchief and three knives and forks on the 5th August. He sold the knives and forks to Mrs. Moses, and retained the other articles in his possession until they were handed over to the superintendent of police. Jane Phillips, housekeeper to Mrs. Moses, stated that her mistress purchased the knives and forks of Welsh. Prosecutor identified the articles produced as his property. The jury, however, were not satisfied that the prisoner stole them, and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. MARY ANN GEORGE, 18, was indicted for stealing a sovereign and a half-sovereign from the persom (sic) of William Richards, at Camborne, on the 16th instant. Richards deposed that he works at Basset mine, and that their pay day was on the 16th October. He received 3 sovereigns and 2 half-sovereigns as his pay, after which he walked from Pool to Tuckingmill. He overtook the prisoner and Jane Mitchell, and went with them to Hunter’s Hotel, in Tuckingmill, and treated them to some drink. They drank two quarts of porter and sugar and some shrub, for which he paid, by changing a half-sovereign; his gold was then in his right waistcoat pocket and his change in his right trowsers pocket. They left Hunter’s at eight o’clock together, when his money was right, as he counted it; they then went to Camborne, and on going down Trelowarren street, the prisoner put her hand into his right waistcoat pocket; when she withdrew it he put in his hand and found one sovereign and a half gone, and charged her with taking it. He went about one hundred yards and entered Williams’s beer-shop for a pint of beer, when they went away. Jane Mitchell corroborated some parts of the evidence, but saw no money from prosecutor’s pocket. It appeared the prisoner was intoxicated. The jury at once returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL. GILDEROY BROWN, sen., 39, tinker; GILDEROY BROWN, jun., 15, tinker; JOHN SMITH, 28, engraver; and MARY SULLIVAN, 29, were indicted for assaulting Robert Cleave, jun., Ann Cleave and Elizabeth Ann Cleave, of St. Kew, on the 18th September. This was a case of assault by vagrants. Robert Cleave heard the cry of a child in the mill near his mother’s house. He went out, saw the prisoner Sullivan, and asked her what she was doing to the child. She said, “the little devils won’t tell me the way to Wadebridge.” She used abusive language, and young Brown, one of the prisoners, then came and held Cleave, and took a brass ball from his pocket, and swore he would knock his brains out. Sullivan held up her hand to the other prisoners on the hill, and laid hold of Cleave by the hair. His mother came and said, “Run, Robert, there are more coming.” He got free, and then the two men came up, one with an open knife and the other with a parcel. He ran towards home, ran past the house and went to his brother’s for assistance. In the meantime Sullivan knocked down his mother, Mrs. Cleave. Her daughter came, when two men pursued her towards the house, one with an open knife in his hand. The daughter ran in and barred the door. The elder Brown kicked the door, and swore he would kill all in the house if the door was not opened. Dreadful language was used by the prisoners, and Mrs. Cleave was so much alarmed that she was unwell for several days; she had fits and sent for a surgeon. The prisoners were captured by Wm. Cock and others. Wm. Bray, constable of Bodmin, apprehended Sullivan, and found the knife in her possession which Smith had when the outrage took place. The jury found the four prisoners GUILTY. (Sentences: Brown, sen., three months imprisonment; Brown, jun., four months imprisonment; Smith, six months imprisonment; and Sullivan, four months imprisonment) The Court then rose. THURSDAY, October 22. The Court this morning passed sentences on prisoners: [see accounts of individual cases] On the prisoner Armstrong being called on, the Governor (Mr. Everest) made complaint to the court that the turnkeys had just reported to him that this prisoner had most violently misconducted himself in the cell below, after being brought thither with other prisoners from the gaol to receive sentence.— Armstrong, addressing the court with much vehemence of manner, stated that Osborne (a turnkey) came to him and said something or other about what his sentence would be; and he (Armstrong) said, “well, they can’t hang us”; and so one word led to another.—The CHAIRMAN—We have a wretched character of you.— PRISONER—And ‘twill be worse for the time to come; worse than ever; all this will do me no good.—The CHAIRMAN, stating that the prisoner had been previously convicted, at the Epiphany Sessions, passed on him sentence of six years penal servitude; on which the Prisoner exclaimed—“I hope you’ll break your bloody neck against I come back.”—The prisoner then, making violent and powerful resistance, was removed to the cell below, exclaiming when he got down. “I hope all you bloody b—rs will break your bloody necks; I’ll serve your out at the end of six years.” We observed that two men in the court—we believe constables—went down to the assistance of the turnkeys, and we have been informed that it took seven men to hold the prisoner, and to handcuff him and take off his shoes. The other prisoners, we are told, showed themselves willing and ready to assist the gaol officers in securing this violent fellow. The prisoner, John Smith, on receiving his sentence, with remarks from the chairman on his violence in the commission of the assault, exclaimed:—“I was not there at all; the witnesses, with the exception of the last, were perjured; I take six months for nothing, and one month I have been in prison already; that’s your Cornish evidences and your Cornish law-dealers!” JAMES COOK, aged 62, a labourer, had been indicted for attempting to destroy himself, at St. Cleather. No one had appeared to prosecute the indictment. In obedience to a command from the CHAIRMAN, he was now placed in the dock, to be admonished and discharged.—The CHAIRMAN said to him:—You have been brought before us in consequence of some unhappy attempt you made on your life.—Prisoner:—Yes, your Honour: I was very tipsy at the time, and I am very sorry for it.—The CHAIRMAN.—Another instance of the effects of drinking. How long has he been in prison?—The GOVERNOR:—Two months.—The CHAIRMAN to the prisoner:—You see what that intoxication has cost you.—Prisoner.—I will never drink any more, sir.—The CHAIRMAN:—Your attempt at self-murder was a most serious offence; to rush into the presence of your Maker without thought or preparation, and, worse than all, in a state of intoxication!— You will now be discharged; but whenever you are tempted to drink again, think of what has passed to- day.—Prisoner earnestly repeated that he would never drink again. APPEALS. BUDOCK, appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Bullmore. CALSTOCK respondent. This was an appeal against an order for removal of Mary Manuel Hancock, widow, and two children. There was no appearance on behalf of respondents.—Mr. Samuel Lawry, assistant overseer of the parish of Budock, proved due publication and service of the notice and grounds of appeal; and he added that on his seeing the overseers of Calstock, and informing them of the grounds of appeal, they said that in that case they thought they should withdraw. Since that he had had some communication with them, and they wished to make certain conditions; but he informed them that they must withdraw first; there was something said by them about finding out the settlement, but since that he had received no further communication from them, and they had no notice of abandonment.—Under these circumstances, Mr. SHILSON applied that the order be quashed, and with extra costs, to meet the appellants’ expenses in attending to-day, with witnesses, to prosecute the appeal; and to show that the appellants had been acting bona fide, and, and (sic) with the full intention of trying the appeal, there was read a copy of a letter written on Monday last, by Mr. Bullmore, to the respondents’ attorney, to which no answer had been received.—The Court quashed the order, with £15 costs; no maintenance. IMPORTANT TO CARRIERS &c.—JOHNSON, appellant; Mr. Stokes, and Mr. John H. Dwelly, (attorney for the Board of Excise).—STANTON, respondent; Mr. Shilson. Mr. STOKES stated that in this case, the appellant was Herbert Johnson, supervisor of excise in the Liskeard district; and the respondent was William Stanton of Liskeard. The appeal was, in fact, against a decision of the justices of the Borough of Liskeard in a case in which Mr. Herbert Johnson applied to those justices to enforce a penalty of £100 against Stanton for having let out a horse to hire without having obtained the necessary license for that purpose. The Liskeard magistrates, having had two hearings and having taken time to consider, ultimately refused the appellant’s application. Thereupon notice of appeal was give (sic) by the appellant, and the parties now came here to try the case over again; the Commissioners of Excise having directed the appeal. The facts of the case were shortly these:—The defendant keeps a van at Liskeard, and in respect thereof pays, under the Assessed Taxes Act, a duty of £2 6s. 8d. per annum; this being the amount of duty payable by him as a common carrier, for one horse. Having that van, he was employed in the early part of June, by Mr. Sanders, who keeps an academy at Liskeard, to take some of his school-boys from Liskeard to Truro; the bargain being, that Stanton was to take them, at a charge of 5s. 6d each. Mr. Stokes stated that Truro was not the ordinary route of this van, its ordinary route being from Liskeard to Plymouth, and back; the route to Truro was wholly different, and considerably longer. The bargain was first made with Stanton by Mrs. Sanders, and afterwards confirmed by her husband; 8 boys were conveyed to Truro, and Stanton was subsequently paid at the rate of 5s. 6d. He believed that on the road, one or two other persons were taken up; and he was not instructed to say that there was an exclusive letting of the van by Stanton to Sanders. These being the main facts of the case, the question was, whether the defendant had thus incurred the penalty now sought to be enforced. The Act under which the appellant proceeded was the 16th and 17th Victoria, cap. 88—and Act to repeal the duties payable in respect of horses let for hire, and to grant new duties on licenses to let horses for hire. The 2nd section of that Act stated what the duties were to be, and the 4th section—the important one—contained this provision:— “Every person who shall let any horse for hire to be used either as a saddle horse or for drawing any carriage conveying any person, shall, before he shall let any such horse for hire, take out a proper license for that purpose, to be granted by the Collector or other person having charge of the Collection, and the Supervisor of Excise within the Collection and District in which the person requiring such license shall reside or carry on the business of letting horses for hire, or by such other person or persons as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall appoint or authorize in that behalf, on payment of the duty chargeable on such license.” Then, if that license were not taken out, by another section—the 15th—a penalty of £100 was imposed; which penalty, however, might, of course be mitigated.—The first question was, whether the agreement which Stanton made with Sanders to take the boys to Truro at 5s. 6d. a head, was really a letting of his horse to hire. On the part of the appellant, he (Mr. Stokes) was instructed to contend that such was the proper construction of that bargain; for, obviously, the van could not go without the horse, and, in agreeing to take the boys to Truro, Stanton did, in fact, agree to supply a horse as well as carriage. It was precisely the same as if he (Mr. Stokes) went to a post-master’s and hired a gig; the postmaster would furnish him with horse and gig, and he should pay the charge for both; the postmaster having paid post-horse duty.— Then, the next point was one which his friend Mr. Shilson would urge, and which had been relied upon before the magistrates at Liskeard—that, virtually, this clause did not apply, but that Stanton, being a common carrier and having paid a duty of £2s 6s. 8d. as common carrier, was exempt from the operation of this clause by the provisions of another Act—the 16th and 17 Victoria, cap. 90—an Act to repeal certain duties or assessed taxes and to grant other duties in lieu thereof. The important portion of that Act was in Schedule D:— “For every carriage used by any common carrier principally and bona fide for and in the carrying of goods, wares, or mechandize (sic), whereby he shall seek a livelihood, where such carriage shall be occasionally only used in conveying passengers for hire, and in such manner that the stage-carriage duty or any composition for the same shall not be payable under any license by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue— £2 6s. 8d. His friend, Mr. Shilson, would say that the £2 6s. 8d. was all that the respondent was liable to pay, inasmuch as he was a common carrier travelling at a rate not exceeding 4 miles an hour. In the present case there was no question raised as to the rate of travelling. The question was whether, under the circumstances of this case, the respondent, by payment of the duty of £2 6s. 8d. as a common carrier, was exempt from the Post-horse duty of £7 10s. It would be seen by the act to which he had referred, that in order to be exempt from that duty, a common carrier, must be, bona fide, principally employed in carrying goods, and that the permission to carry passengers was qualified by the word “occasionally.” He (Mr. Stokes) conceived that the meaning of that was, that the van being principally employed to convey goods, passengers might, occasionally, be taken up and let down on the road. But could it be said that a distinct hiring of the van for a given day to go on another than its usual route and take boys at 5s. 6d. a head, was such an occasional use for passengers as the act contemplated? Here there was as much a distinct hiring of the defendant’s horse and van for a long journey, as if Mr. Sanders had gone to the hotel and hired a carriage for the conveyance of the boys to Truro.—In reply to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Stokes said he believed the defendant had but this one carriage, and that the day on which it went to Truro was not one of its days for its usual route between Liskeard and Plymouth.—But, however, that might be, here was a distinct bargain by the defendant for his own gain, and he was bound to take the consequences. Hotel-keepers naturally complained that van-owners paying only the common carrier’s duty of £2 6s. 8d., should be able to let carriages in this way.—Mr. Stokes proceeded to cite a case which, he thought, would help the court in its construction of the clauses to which he had referred, and would show that a bargain, such as Sanders made with Stanton that the latter should take the boys to Truro at 5s. 6d. a head, was in fact a hiring of a horse. The case cited was a Plymouth case—Fuge v. Cockram, 1, Price’s Exchequer Reports, p 317. In that case the hire was of a carriage; but it was held by the Court that the hiring of a carriage was within the statute which imposed a certain duty on the letting of horses to hire. It was also held in that case that the defendant was not protected by the Plymouth Local Act; and, further, that although the carriage did not run the whole extent of its ordinary route—from Plymouth to Devonport,—but only to Stoke Church, it was as liable to duty as if it had gone the whole of its usual route; its liability to post-horse duty resting on the ground that the hiring to go to Stoke Church was a special and distinct hiring. Mr. Stokes contended that the same principle was precisely applicable to the present case.—He then proceeded to examine witnesses:— Sarah Sanders:—I am the wife of Mr. William Sanders who keeps a school at Liskeard. On the 30th of May last I saw Mr. William Stanton, who keeps a van at Liskeard. Having some young gentlemen to be taken to Truro, I inquired if he could take them. He said he would think of it and let me know. He came to our house some day in the week following, and I saw him; he said he could take them at 5s. 6d each if they would leave early, for he could not travel beyond 4 miles an hour; he inquired the number, and I told him somewhere from 7 to 9. The boys went—8—on the 10th of June; and three weeks after, I paid him at the rate of 5s. 6d. a head.—Cross-examined. I only asked him if he could take them. So far as my agreement, I had nothing to do with his carrying as many as he pleased beside; I only agreed with him that he should take the boys at 5s. 6d. a head; I had nothing to do with the carriage, and did not pay any turnpikes or any expenses whatever. I did not hire any horse or carriage, but there was simply this agreement, that he should take the boys at so much a head.—Re-examined. Nothing was said as to whether he should or should not take up others.—William Battershill Sanders:—I am husband of the last witness; I authorized her to make the bargain she made, as by the evidence given in court; I was cognizant of it. 8 boys went.—Cross- examined. It was uncertain up to nearly the day they left, how many there might be; I was at liberty to send as many as I had to go to Truro; I thought there would be from 7 to 9; I made no contract myself with Stanton, but I saw him when he came to the house to fix on the day and hour of leaving. I hired no carriage nor horse, and gave no instructions for the care of any carriage or horse. The boys’ luggage went, as well as themselves.—Robert Nicholls:—I am one of the young gentlemen who went to Truro on the 10th of June in Stanton’s van. He stopped at Bodmin and took up a man who went to Truro with us; and two females went all the way from Liskeard to Truro; I think one was his wife, and the other his sister. I don’t know that he took up any luggage on the road.—Herbert Johnson:—I am supervisor of excise in the Liskeard district. The respondent Stanton is the person I proceeded against for this penalty, before the magistrates at Liskeard. He does not take out a post-horse license; I know that, because it would come through me. I imagine he pays assessed taxes to the amount of £2 6s. 8d. for his van; but I don’t know that of my own knowledge. (Mr. Dwelly stated that Stanton paid this tax.) After I had commenced proceedings, I saw Stanton, when I went to inquire into the particulars of the case, in order to report them to the Board. He said he had taken Mr. Sanders’s pupils from Liskeard to Truro, at 5s 6d. a heard, on the day that he did not go to Plymouth. His usual days for going to Plymouth were Mondays and Thursdays, returning on Tuesdays and Fridays. Wednesday was an unoccupied day. He stated that he considered he was allowed to take the boys to Truro, as a common carrier. I never heard that he travelled in any other direction than to Plymouth, except an occasional job of this kind. He said he considered he might go as a common carrier, because he took the boys’ luggage. I represented these facts to the proper authorities, and what I afterwards did was by their direction.—Cross-examined. We were three times before the magistrates; at first the magistrates present were Mr. Jones and Mr. Pearse; on the 3rd occasion Mr. Childs and Mr. Anstis were had in; there were these four at the third hearing. Stanton may occasionally vary his times for going to and returning from Plymouth; but I believe he does so very rarely. He license as a common carrier does not confine him to any particular route.—Re-examined. In the decision of the Liskeard magistrates, there were three lawyers against one who was not a lawyer; but I believe Mr. Anstis had very great doubts. Mr. SHILSON, for the respondent, said it appeared to him perfectly clear that his client was entitled to do what he had done, by virtue of an Act of Parliament to which he would call attention. He contended that Stanton was not chargeable to post-horse duty; but, if he was chargeable at all, it would be to stage carriage duty. Mr. Shilson referred to the Stage Coach Act, 2nd and 3rd, Will. 4th, cap. 120; the 5th section of which Act gave the definition of a stage carriage as follows:— “Every carriage used or employed for the purpose of conveying passengers for hire to or from any place in Great Britain, and which, when passing along any highway or other road, shall travel at the rate of three (by a subsequent act extended to four) miles or more in the hour, shall, without regard to the form or construction thereof, be deemed and taken to be a stage carriage within the meaning of this act; provided the passengers, or any one or more of them, thereby conveyed, shall be charged or shall pay separate and distinct fares or a separate and distinct fare, or shall be charged or pay at the rate of separate and distinct fares, for their respective places or seats or his place or seat therein or conveyance thereby.” Every carriage conveying passengers for hire at a rate of 4 miles an hour was a stage-carriage; and then came an exemption of carriages travelling at a less rate than 4 miles an hour. There was then, in that section, this proviso:—“Provided the passengers shall be charged and pay separate and distinct fares, or at the rate of separate and distinct fares.” The respondent in this case would have been liable to stage-carriage duty, if he had travelled at a rate of 4 miles an hour; but it appeared from the evidence that he agreed to take the boys at 5s. 6d. a head, provided they would start early, so that he might not travel at a rate of four miles an hour. If he travelled at a rate within four miles an hour, and carried passengers for separate and distinct fares, then he came within the exemption from stage carriage duty, and paid a duty of £2 6s. 8d. accordingly. This was precisely the respondent’s case; he was not liable to stage-carriage duty, because he conveyed passengers at a less rate than 4 miles an hour, and used his carriage for getting his livelihood by the conveyance of goods, and occasionally for the conveyance of passengers. He was not bound by any Act of Parliament to any particular road. As a common carrier, he might travel on any road he pleased, and he might change his route as often as he pleased. There was nothing, therefore to prevent the respondent, though usually travelling from Liskeard to Plymouth, from travelling any where else; and he was empowered expressly by Act of Parliament to convey persons for hire at separate and distinct fares. If he had travelled at 4 miles an hour, he would have come within the Stage Carriage Act; and if he had let his carriage wholly, to Mrs. Sanders, then he would have been liable to post-horse duty. But the evidence was, that she had nothing to do with the carriage, and that he might convey to Truro as many more passengers as he pleased. His friend Mr. Stokes said it was the same as if he hired a carriage at a Hotel. He (Mr. Shilson) denied that it was so; if his friend Mr. Stokes hired a carriage at a hotel he would hardly expect to have other passengers put in with him. Even the case which his friend had cited—Fuge v. Cockram—put him out of court; for in the decision in that case, there was the stipulation—“if hired wholly for the performance of a special duty.” That was the whole point in this case; if the carriage had been hired wholly by Mrs. Sanders, so that no other passengers might be taken with the boys, then Stanton would have been liable to the duty sought to be imposed; but, according to Mrs. Sanders’s evidence, he might have taken whomsoever he pleased. Suppose Mrs. Sanders had hired him to take her husband’s goods to Truro, he would then have been a common carrier; and it was immaterial whether he took goods or passengers, if, in the course of his business he took principally goods, and occasionally passengers. The respondent travelled principally with goods to Plymouth; but occasionally, as in this case, when the carriage was not in employ for that purpose, he conveyed passengers—in this instance, to Truro; and he agreed to take passengers—as many as there might be to go—from 7 to 9, provided they started early, in order that he might not become liable to stage- carriage duty. Mr. STOKES was heard in reply; after which the magistrates retired. In about a quarter of an hour they returned into court, and the CHAIRMAN said:—We unanimously confirm the decision of the magistrates at Liskeard. Mr. STOKES applied for a case; which was resisted by Mr. SHILSON on the ground that it would be inflicting a great hardship on the respondent—a poor man, who had already incurred considerable expense and lost much time in this case—to compel him to enter on a contest with the Crown, for the purpose of settling a point of law.—After considerable delay and deliberation, the court refused the application for a case. DANIEL BRENDON, appellant; JUSTICES of LISKEARD, respondents. Mr. Shilson appeared for the appellant; the respondents were unrepresented, and, in fact, there was no opposition to the appeal.—Mr. SHILSON stated that the appeal was against a refusal by the Justices of Liskeard to grant a license to the appellant for selling wines and spirits by retail. Mr. Brendon, it appeared, was already duly licensed as an ale and porter merchant; and he was desirous of procuring a license to enable him to sell wines and spirits in quantities less than two gallons. His object was not to open a shop, or to sell wines and spirits in small quantities over the counter, nor to sell for consumption on his premises, but to be enabled to sell in quantities less than two gallons to respectable customers. He was a highly respectable person, and had the concurrence of all respectable classes in Liskeard, in favour of his application; in proof of which Mr. Shilson read a memorial numerously and very respectably signed; the memorialists stating that they were desirous that an establishment should be provided to which they might send, when necessary, for small quantities of wines or spirits, without obliging their children or servants to go to public houses. There was at present no such licensed house in Liskeard. There was no resistance to the application; and it was refused by the magistrates at Liskeard, Mr. Shilson said, merely because of some local peculiarity in the case. The usual retail license was required; but, on an understanding, and an undertaking by Brendon, that he would not make use of his premises as a public house, nor sell for consumption on his premises.—On Mr. Brendon’s assurances and promises to this effect, the Court granted the license; at the same time expressing very strongly, their determination to discourage an introduction into Cornwall of anything like the gin palace system. JAMES BABB, appellant. JUSTICES OF CALLINGTON, respondents; Mr. Stokes appeared for the appellant; there was no attorney or advocate for the respondents.—Mr. Stokes stated that this was an appeal by Mr. James Babb of Callington, against a refusal by J.B. Messenger, Esq., and the Rev. -- Rice, to grant the appellant an innkeeper’s license. It appeared that Babb had formerly, for 12 years, kept, reputably and without complaint of any kind, the Market-house Inn; about three years ago, in consequence of his term in the premises expiring, he left the Market-house inn, and opened a beer-shop close adjoining stables which he had been obliged to hire for the accommodation of his customers at the inn. He had made application, unsuccessfully, for three consecutive years, to the Callington magistrates for a licence to open his beer-shop as an inn; and had been constantly refused. His present application was backed by memorials numerously signed, from leading inhabitants of Callington (including some respectable innkeepers), from 41 farmers of the neighbourhood frequenting Callington market; and from carriers.—The witnesses examined in support of the application were, the appellant himself; Henry Bullen, constable; Henry Bullen, the younger, landlord of the Bull’s Head Inn; Thomas Betty, constable; and Gabriel Edwards, wagoner.—After an examination of considerable length and minuteness, the court refused the application. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

Transcribed and checked by Karen Duvall, Kirsty Sjoholm and Claudia Richards