1850 Quarter Sessions and Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes ...... 8 3. Easter Sessions ...... 46 4. Midsummer Sessions ...... 54 5. Summer Assizes ...... 69 6. Michaelmas Sessions ...... 93

Royal Cornwall Gazette 4 and 11 January 1850

1. Epiphany Sessions

These Sessions were opened on Tuesday, the 1st of January, before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq. Chairman; Sir W. L. S. Trelawny, Bart. E. Stephens, Esq. T. J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq. T. H. J. Peter, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. H. Thomson, Esq. J. S. Enys, Esq. D. P. Hoblyn, Esq. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. Revds. W. Molesworth, C. Prideaux Brune, Esq. R. G. Grylls, C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. A. Tatham, W. Moorshead, Esq. T. Phillpotts, W. P. Kempe, Esq. T. Pascoe. E. Coode, jun., Esq.

The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury:—Mr. J. Dingle, , foreman; Messrs. E. S. Tucker, St. Germans; R. Curgenven, ; W. H. Middlecoat, do.; J. Martin, Saint Stephens by ; T. Lord, St. Germans; J. Budge, ; J. Dingley, Linkinhorne; J. Paliner, Gerrans; T Blamey, Veryan; T. Kitto, Linkinhorne ; P. Keast, do.; J. Blake Landrake ; J. Littleton, St. Stephens by Saltash; J. Rundle, Linkinhorne; W. Elliott, Tregony; J Dunstan, do; H. Nicholls, Gerrans; S. May, Botusfleming; C. B. Ewbank, St. Germans; B. Symons, Antony; H. Lyne, St. Stephens by Saltash; H. Lord, St. Germans. After the Queen’s Proclamation for the encouragement of virtue had been read, the CHAIRMAN delivered his Charge to the Grand Jury:—[not transcribed] GAOL DIETARY.—THE CHAIRMAN read a letter from the Home Office inclosing an amended dietary to be submitted to the magistrates.—It was subsequently stated by the Governor, that in this amended dietary, there was a general increase of half an ounce of oatmeal to every pint of gruel.—Mr. SAWLE said there had been a great deal of remark concerning our county gaol, and it bad been supposed that it was more expensive than that of others in the kingdom. Inquiries had however been made, and it was found that while this gaol was more expensive than some others, by far the greater number of gaols were much more expensive than ours. Therefore the assertion of Mr. Pearson at Exeter was altogether wrong.—THE GOVERNOR said he had looked over some statistics from the Home Office, and found that the Cornwall County Gaol was at rather a low average of expense.—Mr. KENDALL thought the county should understand that the governor of the gaol had really very little discretion in the matter; the dietary was fixed, and every article was sent in by tender.— THE GOVERNOR, in reply to the Chairman, said he dared not feed the prisoners above or below the dietary; he was obliged to conform to the dietary strictly. VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The visiting justices reported that the gaol and Bridewell were in their usual clean and excellent state. During the last quarter the number of prisoners had been unusually low, and their conduct was generally good. Some of the roofs were in a bad state. [CORONERS’ BILLS—not transcribed] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—No occurrence had transpired during the last quarter requiring any notice. The number of prisoners continued low, and the general conduct of the prisoners was very good. The building, with the exceptions of some roofs, was in good repair.—At the corresponding sessions in 1849, there were 49 felons in custody, and 7 on bail; the total number was 61.—At the present sessions, there were 21 felons in custody, and 4 on bail; one on bail for assault and one for misdemeanour (sic), making a total of 27, as compared with 61 this time twelve months. [GAOL EXPENSES—not transcribed] BRIDGES.—Mr. Pease reported that the bridges in the Eastern Division were generally in a good state of repair, and he required no levy. The magistrates of the district had ordered some improvement at the western end of Bridge, the expense of which to the county would be about 10l.—A letter was read by the CHAIRMAN, from Mr. Pedler, clerk to the trustees of the turnpike, concerning some repair, at Polbathick Bridge between Liskeard and . After some consultation with Mr. Toll, the contractor for repairing the bridge, the Court ordered repair of 100 yards of roadway at the approach denying that the county was liable to repair a greater length of roadway. Mr. MOORMAN stated that he had cash in hand 23l. 8s 8d and required an order for one levy at the next sessions. Mr. Moorman reported his receipt of notice from the West Cornwall Railway Company, of a proposed embankment and cutting at a County Road and Bridge in the parish of Ludgvan.—He also reported the occurrence of floods over the embankment and roadway at Carnon; and a more detailed report on the same subject was presented by Mr. ENYS, who attributed the overflowing complained of to the erection of a dam by the Perran Company, below the eastern part of the embankment which caused an accumulation of sand above the bridge. The sand washed down used formerly to be swept away by the rapid current under the arches. After some conversation, it was resolved, on the motion of Mr. KENDALL, seconded by Mr. SAWLE, that Mr. Enys, Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Phillpotts be requested to communicate with the parties whose interests are affected, and to report thereon at the next Sessions. On the notice from the West Cornwall Railway Company, Mr. Moorman gave his opinion to the Bench that no injury would be done to the County Bridge in question; and the Bench resolved to make a return “neuter.” —On the motion of Mr. KENDALL, seconded by the Rev. R. G. GRYLLS, it was resolved to grant a superannuation of 20l. yearly to Wm. Hill, a warder of the gaol, who had been more than 20 years in that service and received an excellent character. His salary had been 40l.—John Bramble, a marine pensioner, was appointed his successor. .—The Rev. W. MOLESWORTH stated that after the last Sessions, the trustees of this bridge consulted a parliamentary agent with respect to taking steps to procure an act of parliament; and they found that, as the trust emanated from the Court of Chancery, there was not the least probability that Lord Shaftesbury would listen to the introduction of a bill unless it came sanctioned by that Court. The trustees thought that to pursue that course would consume all their money in hand. Then, Sir William Molesworth was inclined of himself to incur the responsibility of using the money for the purpose of widening the bridge; but, wishing in the first place to obtain the consent of a Chancery lawyer, he submitted a case to Sir John Romilly, the Solicitor-general who have his opinion that the trustees were not justified, and without breach of trust, they could not use the money under the circumstances in any other way than to support and maintain the bridge. Under those circumstances, Sir William felt it would be morally wrong to incur such a responsibility; and, therefore, as far as the trustees were concerned, there was an end of the matter. It now rested with the county whether they would widen the bridge or not. He could only say it was very desirable it should be done. The Trustees would have no objection to lend the money they had in hand, at 3 ½ or 3 ¼ per cent. The 500l. which the county had offered, would go a great way towards the expense of widening the bridge.—Mr. STEPHENS suggested that the trustees should keep in their custody the plans which had been presented for the proposed improvement.—Mr. SAWLE observed that the bridge was less used than formerly, in consequence of there being now but one coach on the road; there could be no chance of stoppage on the bridge.—Capt. HEXT said no doubt the improvement was much wanted by the public; but the question was whether the County could repair the Trustees Bridge. [REGISTRATION LISTS.—not transcribed] TRIALS OF PRISONERS. WILLIAM EDWARD ROBERTS, a young lad, pleaded GUILTY of stealing potatoes, the property of the Rev. T. Phillpotts, of Feock. The prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy, on account of his previous good character. (Sentence: Two months’ hard labour) CHRISTIANA WHITE, 36, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 26th October last, at St. Austell, 5 lbs. of beef suet the property of Richard Wellington. (Sentence: Two months’ hard labour) JOHN BENNETTS, 33, was found Guilty of stealing a duck, the property of Philip Laity Rogers, a miner at St Ives. JAMES NINNIS, 20, found GUILTY of stealing, on the 14th of December, a duck jacket, a pair of trousers, a waistcoat, and a pair of drawers, the property of William Warren, at Balleswidden mine, in the parish of St. Just in Penwith. CATHERINE CLODE, 30, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 2nd of December, one blanket, the property of Robert Cosway, at . (Sentence: Three months’ hard labour) WILLIAM WARNE was charged with having, on the 10th of November last, stolen at the parish of St. Issey, two sheaves of wheat, the property of Thomas Prophet. This case excited much interest, in consequence of the respectable appearance and position of the prisoner. Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson and Mr. G. B. Collins the defence.—The prosecutor had, up to Michaelmas last, rented of the prisoner the farm of Trenance, in the parish of St. Issey. At Michaelmas the prosecutor quitted the tenancy, but was permitted still to occupy the dwelling-house for some time, and also to use the barn and mowhay for the purpose of returning his corn; the corn belonging to prosecutor, and the straw to the prisoner, his landlord. In consequence of suspicions, the prosecutor's son was, on the evening of the 9th of November, set to watch the mowhay; and, between 8 and 9 o'clock, while concealed behind one mow, saw prisoner go to another mow and pull out a sheaf of wheat, which he carried away a little distance and threw it to his (prisoner's) pigs in the pig's-house. One of the pigs ran out; on which the prisoner ran after it and tried to drive it back into the pig’s-house, but could not. He then went again to the mow and took out another sheaf of wheat, which also he threw into the pigs’-house. Prosecutor's son (William Prophet) then spoke to him and said to him, "What are you about?” He made no reply. William Prophet then went into the pigs’-house and took up a lock of wheat and spoke to him again; but he made no answer. Prophet then went away to inform his father, the prosecutor, and came back with him to the pigs’-house, and saw the prisoner standing there out the gate. Prosecutor said to him " You have been stealing wheat." He answered, "No he had not;" and, putting his arm round the prosecutor's neck, he called him into the mowhay, and asked him to say no more about it. They then went together to the pigs’-house, and prosecutor asked what was inside. Prisoner put his hand in his pocket and said he had lost the key. The prosecutor said he could get a bar of iron and take off the staple; on which the prisoner himself wrenched off the staple and said he only took a little to slock his pigs in with. But the prosecutor replied, taking up the wheat in his hand, " is this a little?" Prosecutor's son then took away the one sheaf that was bound into a room in his father's house, leaving the loose sheaf in the pig's house. On the following Wednesday, the bound sheaf was delivered to the constable.—The bound sheaf, and the lock of wheat taken from the loose sheaf, together with a sample of the corn from the mow were produced to the jury, in proof of the property.—For the defence, besides attempts to show uncertainty and discrepancy in the evidence for the prosecution, it was attempted to show that in consequence of a threatened distraint on the prosecutor for rent of the premises, he had no good feeling towards the prisoner; that the charge of felony bad been delayed by prosecutor in the hope of making terms for his rent; that the prisoner was of weak mind and that his affairs were managed for him by a Mr. Paynter and a relative; that as the mow had been opened and partly thrashed and had wads of reed placed at one end, it was probable the prisoner supposed he was taking some of these reed for the purpose of slocking the pigs; that the very small value of the property rendered it improbable the prisoner would steal it; and that his not having any felonious intent was proved by his remaining at the pig's house, or coming there again, as he was found there after the young Prophet had been away nearly a quarter of an hour to fetch his father.— The jury, however, found a verdict of GUILTY, but recommended the prisoner to mercy. (Sentence: four months’ hard labour) CATHERINE JOSE, 29, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 22nd October, at Probus, a loaf of bread and a piece of bacon, the property of Elizabeth Seccombe. (Sentence: 14 days’ hard labour) ANN BEHENNA, 56, a shrimp-seller at Truro, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 12th of November, a silver spoon, the property of George Daniell, eating-house-keeper, at Truro. (Sentence: Two months’ hard labour) ANN HILL, 23, charged with having stolen, on the 22nd November, from the person of Joseph Merrifield, of Roche, a purse containing three sovereigns, one half-sovereign, three half-crowns, three shillings, one sixpence, and one fourpenny-piece. The prosecutor was in Eplett's public-house in St. Columb, on the fair day in November, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening, and while there received some money. On his leaving the house, the prisoner accosted him, asking him to give her a lift. He refused, saying he had nothing to give and did not want her company. He then went on his road homeward. She followed him, keeping on his left and again asked him to give her a lift. He again refused. He felt her hand round his coat. Then she said suddenly, Hark, there's some one coming," and turned round and left him. As she did so, she met a man with whom she went back. Prosecutor now found that he had been robbed; he went back into St. Columb, and saw her opposite Eplett's. He took her by the hand and told her she had robbed him. She said he was mistaken. He sent for a policeman; on which prisoner made off up the street, but was stopped before he reached the Commercial Inn. On the policeman's, taking her, she was searched, but only a few pence, &c., a pair of scissors were found on her. The prosecutor stated that he was quite sober at the time of the occurrence; having taken nothing during the day but one glass of beer.—Guilty.—A prior conviction at the Assizes in March, 1849, of a similar offence, was proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: Transportation, 10 years) WEDNESDAY, 2nd January. (Before J. K. Lethbridge, Esq.) —At the opening of the Court, the Rev. Saltren Rogers took the oaths on his appointment to a perpetual curacy—we believe that of Cury and Gunwalloe. THOMAS RICHARDS, 26, and WILLIAM TONKIN, 19, charged with having on the 16th November, at Poldice mine, in the parish of Gwennap, feloniously stolen one hundred pounds weight of tin ore, the property of John Pooley, and William Dyer, tributers. A second count laid the property in Michael Williams and others, adventurers in the mine.—Mr. Hockin conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—John Pooley, one of the prosecutors, stated that he and William Dyer worked in Poldice mine as tributers, and raised tin ores, which were placed on the floors in two heaps; of which they missed some in the first week of November and the following Friday. Witness afterwards went, with William Buckingham to Wheal Unity mine, and there saw some tin on a burrow. That tin had been broken by witness and his comrade in their pitch. Wheal Unity was about 3 or 400 yards from Poldice.—Samuel Bawden, mine agent, saw the prisoners at Wheal Unity concealing the tin in an underground shirt, and gave information to a tin-dresser at Poldice, named Buckingham; on returning with him, the prisoners ran off, carrying the shirt with them, but leaving the ore on the ground.—William Buckingham confirmed this, and said that he afterwards, with Veale, a constable, followed the prisoners to prisoners' pitch at Wheal Busy, where they found them, and about 1 cwt. of Poldice tin, the same as they had seen at Wheal Unity, concealed under some earth. Bawden remained in charge of the tin.—John Veale, constable, confirmed Buckingham's evidence, and produced samples of the tin.—Richard Truran, agent at Poldice for 11 years, had remained in charge of the tin, and identified that produced as Poldice tin.—John Pooley, recalled, swore that he broke the tin produced, in his pitch.—The statements made by the prisoners before the committing magistrate were then put in. Richards' statement was—"we took the tin; I did it from want of meat; I had but one sovereign for 16 weeks; I had been obliged to pawn my best suit of clothes."—Tonkin's statement was:—"we took the tin, and I am very sorry for it."—The prisoners now stated in defence that they never stole the tin, but found it on a burrow beside the turnpike road.—Verdict, BOTH GUILTY. (Sentence (both): Four months’ hard labour) WILLIAM ROACH, 60, charged with having, on or about the 22nd of October, stolen two ewe sheep, the property of Nicholas Cock, a farmer living at Trescow, in the parish of .—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—Nicholas Cock, the prosecutor, stated that on the 21st October, he had six ewe sheep and a ram in a Down-park of which himself, his brother, and another person in the village had the use. The Down-park had been enclosed many years, and the hedges and gates were well kept. On Monday morning, the 22nd of October, there were two sheep gone. On the 29th of October, he went with a constable named Grose to prisoner's field, and there saw the two sheep, being the only sheep there. Witness had bred the two sheep, and knew them by their countenances (peculiarities in which he described). He had marked them with two streaks of redding across the back, and with a letter T in black tar on the further hip; with no ear-mark. When he found the sheep in the prisoner's field the tails had been recently cut off, and ear marks had been freshly made—there were blood marks remaining. Witness's redding marks across the back had been taken out, but there was some portion of the old mark remaining; new redding mark had been recently made. On the evening of the same day went with the constable to Lanivet church- town; the constable charged the prisoner with taking two sheep from him. He said he had not; that he had two lambs which were his son's, that if these were not lambs, then they were not his.—Stephen Grose, in Mr. Cock's employ, proved the loss of the sheep, the finding of them in prisoner's possession, and the alteration of the marks.—John Marshall, constable, apprehended prisoner, who said they had lost two lambs for some weeks, and his son had found them in Mr. Cock's Down-park. Witness said these were two old sheep, on which prisoner said, if so, they were not his. Witness took charge of the sheep, which were now produced in court and identified. Down-park was taken out of a large unenclosed common. Had never heard anything against the prisoner's character. Mr. SHILSON then opened the following defence. There was no pretence for saying that the sheep were taken feloniously. The prisoner was a little farmer. His sons were miners, and in October were working in an iron mine a little to the west of the father's farm. In June (the father then having no sheep on the place) one of his sons, Reuben, bought two sheep at the Queens, of a Mr. Curtis, and brought them home to the father's place. Some time in August, these two sheep were missed, and were not found from that period for 7 or 8 weeks. The prisoner's farm was enclosed from very large commons lying between and Truro. On a Sunday in October the prisoner was informed that the two sheep were in Mr. Cock's Down Park. Accordingly, he went there with one of his sons and a man named John Bray, to the Down Park, and there he saw two sheep, and two only, which he identified as those belonging to his son. He did not take the sheep that day; but, on the following Monday morning, the prisoner went again to the Down Park with one of his sons and a Mr. John Thomas. The prisoner shewed the sheep to Mr. Thomas, and tried to sell them to him; but not being able to make a bargain, he drove the sheep away to his own farm, and said he would mark them in case they should stray again. The old marks were not removed, and the sheep were driven away from Cock's by the prisoner. This defence was fully substantiated by respectable witnesses, some of whom swore to the sheep being the same which prisoner's sons had bought of Curtis; and others, that, if not the same, they very closely resembled them. There was no secresy (sic) in any part of the transaction. The prisoner received an excellent character, from the constable in attendance, from the clergyman of his parish, from Mr. Commins, solicitor, of Bodmin, who had known him 40 years, from Mr. Sobey, farmer, of Lanivet, and from Mr. J. C. Grose, of Bodmin.—After a reply from Mr. Stokes, and a careful summing up from the learned Chairman, the jury retired for consultation, and returned with a verdict of ACQUITTAL.—The constable having charge of the two sheep applied to the Court for an order as to what he should do with them; both the prosecutor and the prisoner claiming them, and threatening him with prosecutions.—The CHAIRMAN said the Court could make no order. WILLIAM COCK, a respectable-looking innkeeper, was charged with having stolen, at the parish of St. Breock, five young bullocks, the property of Thomas Cleave, farmer.—Mr. Lyne conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—The witnesses were ordered out of court, & the case was expected to occupy the court many hours in hearing the conflicting testimony of numerous witnesses; but, after the evidence of the prosecutor and two other witnesses had been heard, the Chairman stopped the case, and directed a verdict of ACQUITTAL, on the ground that it was already undoubtedly clear that the prisoner had not been guilty of any felonious taking, but had improperly taken the bullocks in order to secure a sum of money due to him by prosecutor's servant, and for which the prosecutor had made himself answerable, and also any outstanding debt which might be found to be due to him from the prosecutor himself. However unjustifiable the prisoner's conduct had been, it could not constitute felony.—The Jury immediately returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. URSULA JAMES, charged with stealing a silver watch from the person of William Chegwidden, at , on the 24th Nov. ANN O'DONNELL, 19, was charged with feloniously receiving the same. The robbery and felonious receiving were both alleged to have taken place at the Royal Oak public house in Callington, where the prosecutor and several other men were drinking in the same room with the prisoners. The robbery was effected by the girl James, in another room, to which she invited the prosecutor. The proof of felonious receiving rested entirely on a doubtful expression of the girl O'Donnell herself. The Jury, giving her the benefit of doubt, returned a verdict of acquittal in her favour, and found Ursula James GUILTY. (Sentence: Ursula JAMES: six months’ hard labour) JOHN DOIDGE, 17, charged with having, on the 13th Nov., broken and entered the dwelling-house of William Kennard, at Bulworthy, in the parish of Lawhitton, and stolen therefrom, 30 sovereigns, 9 sixpences, 18 pennies, and 92 half-pennies, the property of the said Wm. Kennard.—William Kennard, the prosecutor, stated that he was a dairyman, and that prisoner lived about half a mile distant in the service of Mr. Yeo. About half-past 4 in the afternoon of Tuesday, the 13th Nov., witness left the house to go a-milking, leaving his housekeeper, Patience Tucker, in the house; in about half an hour, she followed him, to milk also, and about half-past 6 they returned to the house, which they found locked. He unlocked the door and went in, followed by his housekeeper. She lighted a candle, and soon drew his attention to a broken pane of glass in the window. He then went up stairs, and found that a large box had been ripped open with the tongs, which were lying on it. In that box he kept his money and bills, and on the previous Monday, had seen there, 30 sovereigns, several sixpences, and 9 or 10 shillings worth of pence. The sovereigns were kept in a skivet in the side of the box, and the pence in the bottom of the box. Found that all the sovereigns and nearly all the pence were gone. The box was in its usual state about half-an-hour after dinner on the Tuesday when the robbery took place. Witness kept the key, and no one had a right to be in the house but his housekeeper.— Patience Tucker, housekeeper to the prosecutor, confirmed part of his evidence, and added that the glass was so broken in the window, as that the hasp might be turned and the window opened.—William Yeo, farmer, lived about half a mile from the prosecutor's house. Prisoner was in his employ as a servant at the time of the robbery. In the evening of that day, prisoner said, in reply to a question, that he had been to Launceston that afternoon. In the evening of the following Thursday, witness told Doidge that he was accused of the robbery, and that he must leave the service on that account. He said it would be bad times to be off. Witness replied that he knew that, and he would not have turned him away if it had not been tor this. Witness also told him if he had got Mr. Kennard's 30 sovereigns and silver he might go where he liked. Prisoner said he had not 30 sovereigns, nor yet one; all he had was 8s. 8½d., which he shewed witness; it was nearly all in half-pence. Witness asked him how he broke the glass, and if he made a rattle; and he answered that he put his hand to it and shoved it right in. On the following day prisoner came to witness again, and witness asked him if he would tell Mr. Madgwick (a neighbour) the same as he had told him. He said he would as soon as not. After dinner, witness sent for Mr. Madgwick.—Thomas Madgwick stated that in the afternoon of Friday, the 16th of November, he was at Mr. Yeo's house, and in prisoner's presence, Mr. Yeo said they had found out who had robbed Mr. Kennard's house, and that it was his Jack there. Witness asked where the sovereigns were ; and Doidge said he had no sovereigns ; that it was getting dark and he did not see any skivet or little box—he found a lot of money in the bottom of the box, and he scrambled up some and took away, and when he got out into the light, he found it was nothing but pence,—John Brooming, constable of Launceston, apprehended the prisoner at the White Hart, in that town, on Saturday evening, the 17th November, and found on him a sixpence, a fourpenny piece, and 2½ d. Asked him how it was he had silver then, when on the Thursday night, his money was all half-pence. He said he had changed copper for silver in Devonport.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: nine months’ hard labour) WILLIAM RUNDLE, 50, charged with having, on the 27th of October last, at the borough and parish of , obtained certain monies from Joseph Thomas Treffry, Esq., by false pretences, with intent to defraud the said Joseph Thomas Treffry, Esq.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Mr. Shilson, in opening the case, stated that the prisoner had been a hind in the employ of Mr. Treffry, and had the management of an off farm. His duty was to manage the farm—to render monthly to Mr. Treffry or his clerk, an account of all labour done on the farm of the labourers who had done it, and of the wages due to them; and to receive from the clerk the amount of wages due to them. Mr. Shilson then stated the nature of the fraud charged which was, to enter in the monthly accounts and to receive from the clerk, larger amounts for labourers' wages than were actually due, or paid to the labourers. In some of the instances now to be adduced, it would be seen that the prisoner, perceiving that suspicions of his conduct had been excited, showed great anxiety, after he had received his monthly amount for wages to press on the labourers the full amount which he had charged in his account. Such a fraud and breach of trust as that now charged against the prisoner, Mr. Shilson characterized as one of importance to any employer; but it was especially so with so extensive an employer of labourers as Mr. Treffry.—The following witnesses were then called:—William Polkinhorne stated that he was an accountant and clerk under Mr. Treffry. It was his duty once a month to attend at Fowey and pay different parties their claims for wages. Prisoner had been in the employ of Mr. Treffry on an off farm at Greadieu. In the course of his business, the prisoner rendered an account once a month of labour done and wages due in respect of that farm; and witness paid him the amount so sent in. On the 27th October, witness attended at Fowey to make such payments. The prisoner's account was from the 22nd of September to the 20th of October. Witness paid him 1l. 1s. 8d. alleged to be due to George Varcoe for 13 days labour at 1s. 8d. a day. Also paid him 3s. 6d. for Ann Pooley, for seven days, at sixpence a day. Also paid him 2s. 3d. stated to be due to Jane Woolcock, for four and a half days, at sixpence a day. Paid him 15s. 4d. stated to be due to George Varcoe and Co. for turning and mixing 26 heaps of dressing at eightpence per heap. There were also some other sums mentioned in the prisoner's account for that month, altogether amounting to £8 2s. 9d., which sum witness paid to him on the 27th October, for Mr. Treffry.— George Varcoe, a labourer employed on Greedy (Greadieu) farm. Prisoner managed that farm and kept account of the laborers' wages. From September 22nd to October 20th, witness worked 9 days at that farm; his wages were 1s. 8d. a day. Witness and Daniel Philp were also employed that month to turn 26 heaps of manure at 7d. a heap, at which rate they took that piece-work. Witness turned 17 heaps, and Philp turned 6 heaps; altogether 23 heaps at 7d. At the end of that month there was due to witness 15s. for day-work, and 9s. 11d. for turning 17 heaps; altogether 1l. 4s. 11d. On Monday, the 39th (sic) October, prisoner asked him what his demands were. Witness told him the whole 1l. 4s. 11d. Prisoner, however, told him that he had charged 8d. a heap instead of 7d. for the manure. (Eight-pence was the price witness had first asked, but prisoner then told him he could not afford more than 7d.) When prisoner told him he had charged at the rate of eight-pence, witness thanked him, and said that would make it 1l. 6s. 4d., which sum prisoner paid him. About 7 o'clock in the morning of Tuesday, witness saw him again. He told witness if any body asked him what days he had worked in the last month to say 13. Witness said he could not say that, because Daniel Philp knew as well as he did what days he had worked, and what pay he had received. Prisoner said, " You may say it is all right." Witness replied, "It cannot be all right, because I never worked it." On the following Friday morning, about half-past 5 o'clock, prisoner came to witness's house, and said "I am come over here to pay you that four days' work." Witness said, "I never worked it, and I cannot take it." Prisoner said, " You must; and you must call it subsist and day work, as you were home with a bad leg last month." He then took out seven shillings. Witness said, “Well, that is fourpence too much, even then, for four days work." Prisoner replied, "Oh never mind the fourpence." He then left the 7s.; which money witness took to Daniel Philp, to take to Mr. Treffry, and say it was money that had been given him by the hind, but that he (witness) had not worked for it and would not have it.—Daniel Philp, labourer at Greedy Farm, stated that he took the money which the last witness gave him, to Mr. Treffry. On the following day, the prisoner came to him about it. He said he had been put up to it the very first bill he had turned in to Mr. Treffry (Rundle had been in Mr. Treffry's employ in the way stated, about 1¾ years). Witness said, "if you were put up to it then, I suppose you have been doing it ever since." Prisoner said "yes, a little." In the month from the 22nd of September to 10th October, witness mixed and turned six heaps of dressing, for which the prisoner paid him 3s. 6d., at 7d. a heap as had been agreed on.—Ann Pooley, in the month above referred to was employed on the farm 5 days at 6d. a day; and on the 3rd of Nov., she received from the prisoner 2s. 6d.—Jane Woolcock, in the same month, worked two and half days at sixpence. On the Thursday evening, he came to her house; she asked him for 1s. 3d. which was all that was due to her, but he paid her 2s. 3d. He said that as that was the last month in the year she would work there, he would give her a shilling.—William Polkinhorne recalled, stated that according to the regular practice, the prisoner would not have received any more than the amount of wages actually due to the labourers. For the defence, Mr. STOKES addressed the jury on the evidence, and called several witnesses to character, only one of whom appeared—Richard Lanyon, farmer, who had known the prisoner seven years, and never heard any thing against him till now.—The Rev. F. Kendall, of , was also called. He did not appear; but Mr. Shilson stated that he knew that, as Mr. Stokes said, Mr. Kendall had come to the sessions for the purpose of giving the prisoner a good character and had waited in Bodmin some time to do so; and he, Mr. Shilson, was willing that the prisoner might have the benefit of the character from Mr. Kendall.—The jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: four months’ hard labour) SECOND COURT.—Wednesday, January 2. (Before C. B. G. Sawle, Esq.) Sheep Stealing.—WILLIAM BOND, 38, and JAMES SAUNDERCOCK, 37, were indicted for stealing, at the parish of Minster, a ewe sheep, the property of Thomas James. The sheep was killed in the field, where Edward Elson, the owner's servant, found the blood, skin, and head. Foot-marks were tracked to where Bond lived, and a quantity of mutton, badly cut up, and dirty, and mixed with grass and wool, was found in his house. Mutton in a similar state was found in Saundercock's house, with a bloody frock shirt. Bond's shoes corresponded with the foot-marks. Saundercock confessed on his way to the magistrate. Verdict, both GUILTY. (Sentence (both): eighteen months’ hard labour) THOMAS JEWEL, 38, was found Guilty of stealing, at Kilkhampton, on the 26th December, two silk handkerchiefs, the property of Thomas Jones. He was also convicted of stealing two fowls, the property of Richard Mountjoy. (Sentence: three months’ hard labour) JOHN EVANS, 48, charged with stealing from Wh. Vlow, in Perranzabuloe, a pair of trousers, the property of Richard Michell, miner, was ACQUITTED. The trowsers (sic), which was brought up by the constable for identification, was placed in the witnesses' room the evening before and stolen from it, or at all events, could not be found. JOHN LUXON, 19, was found Guilty of stealing, at the parish of St. Minver, on the 25th of November, a linen shirt, the property of Richard Bishop. (Sentence: two months’ hard labour) JOSEPH HICKS and RICHARD LANE were convicted of stealing, at the parish of Lawhitton, on the 31st of December, a tarpaulin, the property of Mr. Powsland, a farmer of that parish. Lane was afterwards found guilty of stealing plough iron, which was found in the bag with the tarpaulin when they were apprehended, and which was stolen from Mr. Lobb, farmer, of Lawhitton. (Sentence: Joseph HICKS: four months’ hard labour; Richard LANE: five months’ hard labour) THOMAS POLLARD, 19, was convicted of stealing at Stokeclimsland, a jacket, waistcoat, handkerchiefs, and other articles, the property of William Abbott his fellow servant. Prisoner slept in the same room with Abbott and another servant, and while they slept, he secured Abbott's clothes and decamped. Prisoner said Abbott had given him the clothes to pawn, and had promised to leave the house with him; but this prosecutor denied.—GUILTY. Two former convictions were proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: Transportation, seven years) ANN REEVEN, 38, was found GUILTY of stealing a sum of money from the person of William Martin, a labourer at Lelant, on Saturday evening the 17th of November. (Sentence: nine months’ hard labour) MARY ANN BUNNY, 48, and TIMOTHY BUNNY, 11, were charged with stealing, on the 17th of December, a deal rafter, the property of Mr. John Lyne, of Moorswater, near Liskeard.—GUILTY,—the boy recommended by the jury to mercy on account of his age. (Sentence: Mary Ann BUNNY: Three months’ hard labour; Timothy BUNNY: one week’s imprisonment) JOSEPH BIRT, was indicted for an assault, with intent, &c, on Grace Craze, a girl about 14 years of age; and a second count charged a common assault. The offence was alleged to have been committed on Illogan Downs, on the 3d Dec, while the girl was returning from Gwithian with a donkey cart of sand. Two other girls with a donkey cart were in company, and confirmed Craze's evidence. Verdict, GUILTY of a common assault, which the jury expressed their opinion was very aggravated. The jury were then discharged. (Sentence: six months’ hard labour) NO BILL.—The Grand Jury ignored the bill against ANN JULIAN, charged with stealing turf at Roche, the property of William Knight. In the course of this day the Chairman remarked on the extreme coldness of the Court, which was likewise a subject of complaint with the jury, and others in attendance on the business. The Chairman more than once observed that something ought immediately to be done to render the place more comfortable in inclement weather. It appears that the apparatus underneath the halls for warming them is very defective in its application to the Nisi Prius Court. [LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.] CORNWALL EPIPHANY SESSIONS.—Thursday, January 3.— The only business after the passing sentence on the prisoners, as reported in our last number, was the hearing of an appeal, in which Thomas Trevarton was appellant, and the Justices of Trigg respondent.—Mr. Shilson and Mr. Preston Wallis appeared for the appellant; and Mr. Hockin and Mr. J. B. Collins for respondents.—The appellant, a miner, working at Wh. Sarah, in St. Teath, had been committed under the vagrancy act, for three months imprisonment, on a charge of indecent exposure of his person on the 4th of November at a place called Raddiford Mill Hill, near the changing-house of the mine. The witnesses, (two young women,) on whose evidence the appellant had been convicted before the committing magistrates were now examined and cross examined at great length; and opposing testimony was then adduced on the part of the appellant. The result, however, was that the conviction was sustained and the appellant sent back to undergo his three months imprisonment.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 29 March and 5 April

2. Lent Assizes [Two preliminary paragraphs—not transcribed] The town this (Monday) morning, presents a much less bustling appearance than is usual on the first day of Assize-time; owing to the cold ungenial weather and a rather heavy fall of snow—circumstances which prevented the wonted influx of visitors from the surrounding neighbourhood. There are few persons about, beyond those immediately connected with the approaching business of the Courts. Much disappointment is expressed, particularly among the ladies, at the withdrawal of two cases of Breach of Promise of Marriage,— from the evidence in which they had been led to anticipate much enjoyment. The business was opened in the Crown Court at eleven o’clock, before Mr. Justice Erle. The calendar contained the names of 64 prisoners, some of them committed for serious offences. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., Foreman Sir Joseph S.G. Sawle, Bart. Edward Archer, Esq. John Hearle Tremayne, Esq. John Tremayne, Esq. T.J.A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. Henry Prynn Andrew, Esq. Charles B.G. Sawle, Esq. Wm. David Horndon, Esq. Edward Collins, Esq. James B. Messenger, Esq. Nicholas Kendall, Esq. Richard Johns, Esq. Francis Rodd, Esq. Deeble Peter Hoblyn, Esq. Richard G. Polwhele, Esq. William Morshead, Esq. John Gwatkin, Esq. William Peter Kempe, Esq. John Davies Gilbert, Esq. Francis John Hext, Esq. William Williams, Esq. Edward Stephens, Esq. The following magistrates also answered to their names:—E. Coode, jun., Esq., T.G. Graham, Esq., J.T.H. Peter, Esq., and W. Braddon, Esq. The mayors of Bodmin, , , Launceston, , Penryn, , and Tregony answered; and the county coroners, Mr. Hamley and Mr. J. Carlyon, the other coroner, Mr. Hichens, being unwell. [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY—not transcribed] TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JOSEPH NEAL, 24, was indicted for maliciously cutting and wounding John Robins, with intent to maim and disable him; and another count charged the prisoner with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Hughes prosecuted, and Mr. Collier defended the prisoner. John Robins said he lived at Pyworthy, in Devonshire, and was employed about the boats in the canal. On the 21st of November, he was engaged in towing a string of six empty boats, and was walking on the towing path driving his horse. Prisoner is a driver in the same way, and was coming smartly after prosecutor also with six empty boats. This was near a bridge situate in Bridgerule parish in this county. Prisoner came up to the boats prosecutor was towing, and held on to one of them with his boat-hook. He then got into one of prosecutor’s boats, in which was a lad called Penwarden. Prisoner was struggling with Penwarden and prosecutor therefore went back to the boat to take the part of the lad. He ordered prisoner to go out, and gave him a “shove”, in doing which prosecutor’s heels slipped out, and he gave prisoner as he said, a slight touch by accident with a whip which he had in his hand doubled up. On that, prisoner jumped out of the boat, and caught up a boat hook, which had iron at the end of a pole from 7 to 8 feet long. With this he struck prosecutor violently on top of his head; the blow cut through his hat, broke his skull, and knocked him down. Prosecutor said he bled very much, and when he was recovering from the effect of the blow, and was getting up, prisoner struck him again with the boat-hook and broke his shoulder; and as he was bleeding he struck him the third time across the small of the back.—Prosecutor was strictly cross-examined by Mr. Collier. It appeared that the prisoner was endeavoring to get ahead with his boat, and the effect of his holding by prosecutor’s boats was that the horses of the latter had to pull an additional load. The occurrence took place at a bridge which they had to pass, and there was another set of boats coming laden the opposite way at the same time. Prosecutor said he did not know that there was a penalty for not letting a boat pass; he said the other boats could not have passed him at the place where they came up to him.—John Penwarden’s evidence showing that the occurrence took place between seven and eight in the morning at a place called Grove Turn. He said that when prisoner came into the boat he tried to lift witness out over on the off side into the canal. Robins then came back and said, “you shall not serve my mate like that,” and there was then a scuffle between them. Before that, witness had set up a pole to prevent prisoner from passing.—William Hamley, who was driving the boats which met those of prosecutor and prisoner, also gave evidence in part corroboration of what has been already stated.—Mr. Pearse, surgeon, Holsworthy, was called to attend Robins on the 21st of November, about ten in the forenoon; he was in bed at his own house, and witness examined him. There was a lacerated wound on the right side of the head, the right parietal bone was injured, witness had no doubt it was broken. He also sustained a fracture of the right shoulder-blade, and had bruises on the arm, but no other bruises that witness noticed. Should think the bruises might be produced by such a pole as the bargemen use. The man was about three weeks or a month under witness’s care; he at first thought that the wound on the skull was dangerous, but after a few days, the symptoms of danger disappeared. He was now recovered from the injuries, but still complained of a good deal of pain in his arm; witness believed he would have the use of his arm ultimately. CROSS-EXAMINED—The outer plate of the skull was broken but there was no concussion of the brain, and not a great deal of blood; the blow might not have deprived him of his senses; the wound on the skull healed in about a week or ten days, that on the shoulder blade (which was broken) in about three weeks.—Mr. Collier addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending that there were some discrepancies in the evidence. He also submitted that Penwarden was doing wrong in setting up the pole to prevent prisoner from passing with his boats. There was no evidence of previous malice, and when a man was struck, as prisoner was in the first place by prosecutor, he would likely to become so angry as not to think at the moment what instrument he might strike with in return. He submitted that though the jury might find the prisoner guilty of a common assault, there were not warranted in finding him guilty of the more heinous offence named in the indictment. He then called William Bickle, a farmer, who gave the prisoner a good character.—The learned Judge summed up, observing that the question was whether the prisoner intended to do some grievous bodily harm. The blow might have been given suddenly, and not with that intention; but with regard to the second and third blows, they must consider whether these blows would warrant the finding a verdict on the first count in the indictment,—otherwise they should say whether the prisoner was guilty of a common assault.—Verdict, GUILTY of a common assault. The learned JUDGE said the jury had taken a merciful view of the case; he cautioned the prisoner to beware how he again indulged angry feeling in such a reckless manner, and sentenced him to twelve calendar months imprisonment hard labour. BENJAMIN LEDDICOAT, 23, was found GUILTY of stealing, at Truro, on the 31st of December, a fowl, the property of Richard Crewes.—Four months’ hard labour CHARLES HARRIS was charged with stealing a piece of beef, the property of Richard Hoskin; in another count, prisoner was charged with receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen. Prosecutor was a butcher at Wadebridge, and had killed a bullock, which he left hanging up in his slaughter house on Thursday night, the 28th of February. In the morning, prosecutor’s son found that the slaughter-house had been entered, and a piece of the bullock had been cut off; a sheep there was also thrown on the ground. Samuel Hill, constable of St. Breock, went with another constable called Blake, to search prisoner’s house. Prisoner’s wife was there, and on the constable taking out the warrant to read, she left the house. The constable proceeded to search first in a drawer, and under some bread he found paper, beneath which were rags, and in a corner some pieces of young pork. In the coal-house the constable found a bundle, in which was a paper- full of ducks’ heads, fowls’ wings and entrails, from a gallon to three pottles in quantity. From a cupboard he took down a dish, in which there was a piece of a neck of mutton, and in the same cupboard was found a small piece of beef, which, the constable said, on comparison with the bullock in prosecutor’s slaughter- house, showed, “as a nice a fit as could be” with the place whence it had been cut of.—Mr. Collier addressed the jury in prisoner’s defence, and called as a witness prisoner’s brother, who stated that he left prisoner’s house about nine o’clock on the night of the 28th of February; prisoner then locked the door, and seemed to be going to bed; in the morning about half-past six, he and prisoner went to work together. In the evening there was no beef in the cupboard; on two shelves of it there was only some earthenware, and on the third there was some tobacco and a mousetrap.—Mary Truscott, who lives at Wadebridge, was also called in behalf of the prisoner. She said her window looks out on the house of the prisoner, and that on the morning of the 1st of March, about seven o’clock, she saw William Hooper (who lives in the same court with Harris) go into prisoner’s house, having in his hand a boiler; and that he stayed in the house two or three minutes. William Hooper is brother to a man who is also indicted for stealing from prosecutor’s slaughter-house; and the defence by Mr. Collier was that the piece of beef had been carried into prisoner’s house to screen another party. Mr. Collier also called Mr. Henry Stevens, captain of the mine where prisoner worked, who gave him a good character. Mr. Slade, for the prosecution, replied, inquiring why it was that Hooper, who was supposed to have put the meat away, was not called to give evidence. The learned Judge having summed up, the jury found the prisoner GUILTY on the first count, of stealing.—Sentence deferred. RICHARD STEPHENS COCK, 58, was found Guilty of stealing, on the 17th of January, at the parish of St. Blazey, some potatoes, pilchards, pair of boots, and other articles, the property of Charles Merratt. A former conviction for felony was proved against the prisoner. He was sentenced to Twelve Months’ Imprisonment, and cautioned not to appear at the bar again, or a more severe sentence would be inflicted on him. STEPHEN ROGERS, was acquitted of a charge of stealing, on the 13th of March a faggot of wood, the property of William Jewell. JAMES HALSE, 22, pleaded guilty of stealing, on the 1st of March, at Truro, five fowls, the property of Richard and William Henry Penhaligon. JOHN JENKIN, 20, and THOMAS ELLICOTT, 20, were charged with the same offence and were found GUILTY. Sentence—each to Three Calendar Months’ Hard Labour. NANCY TONKIN, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 16th of February, at the parish of St. Austell, two pounds of candles from the stores of Thomas Hichens, tallow-chandler. The prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy.—Sentence Deferred. MATTHEW JUFFS, 45, was convicted of stealing, on the 6th of March, at the parish of , a patch hook, belonging to William Pengell.—Three Months’ Imprisonment. The Court then rose. NISI PRIUS COURT. Mr. Justice TALFOURD took his seat in this court at 10 o’clock. The following was the cause list for the assizes: Plaintiff’s Atty. Plaintiffs. Defendants. Defendant’s Atty. Hodge & Hockin Vawdry, [S. J] v. Millett..Case. John, Rodd, & Co. Pascoe Coulson & another v. Nicholls.. Debt. Millett Smart & B Howell, [S. J] v. Rowe & another.. Tres. Cragg & Jeyes Coode & Co. Hockin (withdrawn) v. Pethick..Debt. Little & B. Cragg & Jeyes Doe d. Rowe & anr. v. Howell..Eject. Smart & Boller Same Same v. Same..Eject. Same Same Same v. Same..Eject. Same Same Same v. Same..Eject. Same Same Same v. Same..Eject. Same Same Same v. Same..Eject. Same Coode & Co. Hockin, re-entered v. Pethick..Debt Little & B

COULSON AND ANOTHER v. NICHOLLS.—Mr. Cole for plaintiffs; attorney, Mr. James Pascoe. Mr. Paull for defendant; attorney, Mr. J.N.R. Millett.—This was an action brought by Messrs. T. and W. Coulson, merchants, of Penzance against William E. Nichols, an attorney and who also had an interest in vessels. About the end of 1842, the defendant, having had dealings with plaintiffs, was indebted to them about 100l; and, on the 25th February 1843, accepted two bills drawn by plaintiffs; one of these bills being for 50l. payable in three months; the other being also for 50l., but payable in six months. Besides two counts in respect of these two acceptances, there were counts for goods sold and delivered and on account stated. Defendant pleaded that he did not accept the bills,—that he was never indebted—and that the declaration was barred by statute of limitations.—It appeared that, immediately after his acceptance of the bills, defendant went away, and was not seen again in the neighbourhood until August last,—as it happened a few days before the expiring of the six years after the 28th of August 1843, when the second bill became due. As to the bill which became due in May 1849, plaintiff’s counsel at once admitted that that claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The claim as to the second bill was not so barred, inasmuch as the writ in this action was issued on the 10th of August, and served on the 14th of August, 1849.—The only witness called was James Bevan Coulson, a clerk of the plaintiff, who proved the defendant’s hand-writing to the acceptance. The Jury found a verdict for 68l.; and the Court ordered immediate execution. DOE D’ ROWE AND OTHERS v. HOWELL.—Mr. Crowder, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Karslake for plaintiffs; attorneys, Messrs. Cragg and Jeyes.—For defendant, Mr. Butt, Serjeant Kinglake, and Mr. Rowe; attorneys, Messrs. Smart and Boller.—Mr. Karslake having opened the pleadings, Mr. Crowder stated that the action was brought by the plaintiff Richard Rowe, to recover possession of a tenement called Lemellyn, consisting of about 80 acres of land, in the parish of Lanteglos by Fowey; which land is now in the occupation of a person called Hicks holding under the defendant, Mr. Francis Howell, son of the late Mr. David Howell, of Trebursye, who died in 1845.—The plaintiff sought to establish his right to the property, as heir of two persons—one of whom, James Howell, a lunatic, died in the year 1838; and the other, the Rev. John Francis Howell, was a Canon of Exeter, and died in 1824; the latter of these being the person who was the purchaser, and the occupier, as owner of the estate of Lemellyn. After the death of John Francis Howell, his elder brother, who was a lunatic, did not take possession of this property; but it was held possession of by the widow of John Frances Howell, under her marriage settlement. In November 1838, the lunatic, James Howell, died; and the present action, brought within 10 years of that date, was within the statute of limitations. Mr. Crowder went onto say that, in support of the plaintiffs’ claim, he should prove that the defendant’s father, Mr. David Howell, of Trebursye, was the illegitimate son of David Howell, of Lanlawren, who was never married, by one Betsy Parsons, his housekeeper; and supposing that David Howell, of Lanlawren, then there could be no heirship in the defendant. When James, the lunatic brother of John Francis Howell, the Canon of Exeter, died in 1838, there was a complete end of that branch of the family, which proceeded from Richard and Grace Remfry, through whose daughter, Thomasine, married to the Rev. Arthur Spry, in 1695, the present defendant claimed. The plaintiff, Rowe, claims through Mary, another daughter of Richard and Grace Remfry, a co-heiress with her sister Thomasine. This Mary Remfry married as her second husband, William Davis, by whom she had a daughter, Thomasine, who married John Rowe, grandfather of the present plaintiff. Mr. Crowder went on to state particulars of the evidence he proposed to adduce to prove the illegitimacy of David Howell of Trebursye, and of his sister Elizabeth. This fact, he said, would be shown partly by parol evidence, and partly by the manner in which the said David Howell, of Trebursye, was described in the will of his father, David Howell, of Lanlawren, in the will and codicil of the last named David Howell— and in the letters of administration taken out by David Howell, of Trebursye. Mr. Crowder having stated the case to the jury, proceeded to adduce evidence, which consisted, to a large extent, of certificates of baptism, marriage, and burial, and other documents, produced by Mr. Commins, solicitor, of Bodmin, Mr. Whitford, solicitor, of St. Columb, Mr. John Rowe, son of the lessor of the plaintiff. The other witnesses were Mr. John Hicks, formerly tenant of Lemellyn, and Mr. Edward Dingle, overseer of Lanteglos.—The wills and letters of administration referred to in the opening, were put in; and them Mr. CROWDER called on the defendants to produce a marriage settlement which was referred to in the will of John Francis Howell, which settlement, it was alleged, affected this particular estate of Lemellyn, so that in respect of it John Francis Howell died intestate, and therefore, at his death in 1824, his widow came into the possession of Lemellyn for her life time, under her marriage settlement, to the exclusion of David, of Trebursye, who would otherwise have come in as residuary legatee under the will. After some delay, Mr. BUTT produced the marriage settlement of Ann Kitson, on her marriage in 1794, to John Francis Howell. Under it, the manor of Lemellyn was assigned by the said John Francis Howell to Trustees, for the benefit,—first of Ann Kitson his intended wife—and then for the children of their marriage; and if no children, then to the said John Francis Howell, and his executors and administrators; the term being for 1000 years, of which 900 were unexpired. On this evidence, which gave rise to some considerable legal argument, the learned JUDGE held that as, with respect to the property in question, there was simply a chattel interest, being a term of years, the heir- at-law could not claim it; and on this decision, the plaintiff was nonsuited. There were five other cases on the Cause List, between the same parties, which it was considered prudent, at present, to withdraw. HOCKIN v. PETHICK.—Mr. M. Smith for plaintiff; attorneys, Coode and Co. Mr. Greenwood for defendant; attorneys, Messrs. Little and Co.—This was an action brought by Mr. Hocken, merchant, of Bude, against a mason of Poughill, to recover the sum of 45l. 18s. 10d. There having been dealings between the parties from 1836 to 1842, there was in the latter year the sum of 65l. due from defendant to plaintiff. The defendant gave the plaintiff a security on some leasehold property, and also on his household furniture, to the amount of 100l. On the 7th November, 1844, an account was stated between the parties, and there was found to be due from defendant to plaintiff, 58l. 18s. 3d. After that, in October, 1845, defendant paid to plaintiff, 1l. 8s., and 22l. 7s. was realized by a sale of defendant’s household goods. It was for the balance due on this transaction, and for interest to the present time, that the present action was brought.—A long legal argument was opened by Mr. Greenwood, on an alleged interpolation, subsequent to execution, in the mortgage deed.—The jury, however, found a verdict for the plaintiff, on the account stated, for £45 18s. 10d. This was the last common jury case at nisi prius; and as the special jury cases had been fixed for Tuesday morning, Mr. Justice TALFOURD now proceeded to the hearing of CRIMINAL CASES. JANE GEORGE, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 15th of March, at Wadebridge, three candles, the property of Mr. Thomas Martin, merchant.—One month hard labour. NICHOLAS GEORGE was indicted for stealing two bed sheets, the property of Thomas Martyn, merchant, of Wadebridge. In a second count, he was charged with feloniously receiving the sheets.—The prisoner’s wife was a charwoman at the prosecutor’s and, at the time she was in that employ, some sheets were missed by Mrs. Martyn, and, on search being made in the prisoner’s house, one sheet was found in his room, and a portion of another sheet was found there, in prisoner’s bed; the constable being shown to the room by prisoner’s wife—the prisoner being absent. There were only two rooms in the house and the prisoner’s wife said, this bed was theirs. There were two beds in the room; and it was stated that an old man occupied one of the beds and lived in the house.—Mrs. Martyn identified the sheets by her work; the mark had been cut away and another piece of stuff put in place thereof. The Judge, in summing up, directed the jury that there was no proof against the prisoner, as to the charge of stealing; and, as to the charge of feloniously receiving, the proof that the prosecutor’s mark had been removed was evidence against the presumption that the prisoner knew of the possession of any sheets that were not his own property.—Not guilty. ELIZA WILLIAMS, 13, charged with stealing at Truro, on the 18th April, 1849, from the person of Emily Bartley (now Emily Martin), a purse containing two gold rings, an ivory box, and a half-crown. It appeared, that in the afternoon of the 18th April, there was a public sale at Mr. Endean’s shop in Boscawen-street; and that a young man named Pearce, while sitting on the counter at a few yards distance from the prosecutrix, saw prisoner put her hand under her mantle, towards the prosecutrix, and gave the latter information thereof. She put her hand in her pocket, and missed a purse with two gold rings, an ivory box, and a half- crown. Pearce pursued the prisoner, and, with the assistance of Mr. Payne, Inspector of Police, found the rings on the prisoner who was at the back of the Red Lion stables.—Mr. Houldsworth was counsel for the prosecution; Mr. Cole, for the defence, tried to impute the robbery, by insinuation rather than assertion, to the witness Pearce, to whom, also, he put several questions implying charges of felony against him in past years. The witness however, answered these questions in a way that quite vindicated his own character, in the opinion of the judge, who, in summoning up, took occasion to deprecate the line of defence which tended to impute felony and a previous bad character to one who, apparently, was an honest young man, and who had behaved very properly in respect to this robbery.—The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended her to mercy, as did also the counsel for the prosecution.—The judge, with much feeling, admonished the prisoner and her father, and passed the lenient sentence of three days imprisonment. CHARLES EVANS, 11, HENRY EVANS, 13, and JOHN WATERS, 12, were found GUILTY of stealing a quantity of copper and brass, the property of Mrs. Elizabeth Poat, of Kenwyn-street, Truro.—They were sentenced each to one fortnight hard labour and to be once privately whipped. SUSAN SCOBLE, 24, charged with stealing, on the 13th of March, a pair of cloth trowsers the property of Nicholas Bray of Baldhu, in the parish of Kea. The trowsers were missed about one o’clock in the day from a garden where they had been placed to air; and, in the same afternoon, prisoner offered to pledge them at Mr. James’s the pawnbroker at Truro; but Mr. Edwin James, having received an account of the robbery, gave information to the police, which led to the apprehending of the prisoner, and to the identifying of the trowsers by Bray.—The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to one month hard labour.—Mr. James the pawnbroker, was commended by the Judge for his conduct. HARRIET PENROSE, 34, charged with stealing, on the 14th January, at Truro, 4 sovereigns, the property of William Toms, a travelling razor grinder. The prosecutor stated that on Sunday afternoon the 13th of January, he entered Truro, and about 7 in the evening, he met with the prisoner who asked him for something to drink. She (sic) went with her to her house and paid for some beer. When he went into the house, he had four sovereigns, a half-sovereign, and some silver. After some time, he went and lay down on a bed, in his day-clothes; and, about 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning, he woke and heard a little boy saying “Mother, you shall not take away the man’s money.” He then felt the woman’s hand in his pocket, and catching hold of her, took two sovereigns out of her hand. He told her that if she did not give up the sovereigns at once, he would send for a policeman. He did send for a policeman on whose coming she put one sovereign in her mouth.—In answer to questions from the court, the prosecutor stated distinctly that he had never had any intercourse with the prisoner nor with any other person in her house; he admitted that he was tipsy when he went to lie down, but was quite sober when he woke in the morning.—In reply to other questions, suggested by statements of the prisoner, he positively denied that he owed her any thing, or that he had given her the sovereigns, as she asserted, on the Sunday evening.—The policeman Staples proved that on his taking prisoner to the prison, she said if he thought it best, she would go back and give up the money.— The jury found the prisoner not guilty. NISI PRIUS. Tuesday, March 26. CHARGE OF LIBEL.—VAWDREY v. MILLETT.—A special jury case.—Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Crowder and Mr. M. Smith; attorneys. Messrs. Hodge and Hockin.—Counsel for defendant, Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Rowe, and Mr. Karslake; attorneys, Messrs. John Rodd and Darke.—The plaintiff in this case was Mr. George Vawdrey, a surgeon, carrying on business at ; and the defendant was Mr. Richard Oke Millett, also a surgeon at Hayle.—Mr. M. SMITH having opened the pleadings, Mr. CROWDER proceeded to state the case to the jury. He said the plaintiff complained of a very serious injury which he had sustained from the defendant’s publication of a scandalous libel upon him. Mr. George Vawdrey had been in the medical profession as general practitioner, surgeon, and apothecary, for about 20 years. He was born in the parish of Phillack, his father being a clergyman living in that neighbourhood. After having entered the profession, he went for a short time to India, and, in consequence of ill health, returned to Hayle, where he had been in practice for the last 12 years, and had conducted himself so as to acquire the respect of the respectable persons residing in that neighbourhood. In 1843 he was elected by the Guardians of the Union a(s) medical officer of that union; and that engagement still subsisted. At the time of the breaking out of the cholera last year a sanitary board was appointed in the parish of Phillack, under the General Board of Health. That local board, consisting of 26 respectable persons, unanimously elected Mr. Vawdrey one of the medical attendants to aid in checking the progress of cholera. This election took place on the 6th August, 1849; and Mr. Vawdrey undertook and performed the duties of the office to which he had been elected. The cholera raged throughout August and through September; towards the middle of October it ceased in most places. He believed that by the end of October, the cholera had, in Hayle, no longer existence. Certainly, on the 29th of October, the date of the alleged libel, the cholera no longer existed there; although it had been very fatal in its effects in the neighbourhood. Mr. Crowder then, previous to mentioning the libel more particularly, described the defendant as a medical gentleman who had obtained a German diploma, and about 6 or 7 years ago, having served his time in London, came down to Hayle and commenced practice. Mr. Vawdrey was at that time already in extensive practice, and therefore a considerable obstacle to the defendant’s success as a medical practitioner. There was also at Hayle, as was often the case in country places, a party feeling; and an angry feeling had been excited against Mr. Vawdrey. From this state of things, the learned counsel deduced a motive in the defendant to the publication of the alleged libel, which was done in the following way. On the 29th of October, the defendant wrote a letter to the secretary of the Board of Health, London, under pretence (sic) of making an important and necessary communication to a public Board on a matter important to the public weal. That letter was as follows: — Hayle, Cornwall, October 29th, 1849 The Secretary, Board of Health, London. Sir,—By this mail I send you the Cornwall Gazette, and beg to call your attention and that of the Board, to a letter written by Mr. Webber, and headed “The late epidemic at Hayle.” One half of the facts are not stated. The Rector grassed his horses and sheep up to last Saturday, or very lately, in the Churchyard, and heaps of human excrement lie around the vestry, church, &c. The bodies met with in digging the graves were crushed up and doubled, and placed in the bottom of the graves. Hair in profusion was on their heads, and they were wrapped in flannel. The medical men are the scorn of the neighbourhood. Unreduced dislocated shoulders and crooked limbs are the beacons of the public judgment, and yet these very men were appointed by the Board to fill such responsible offices. The Board is father, two sons, and nephews, and underlings—butchers and shopkeepers, farmers and clerks, merchant, who supply flour, and clothes, and brandy to the dying. I know not, nor care not, what steps may be taken in the matter, but this I know, that such acts as have just been enacted here, are disgraceful even to savages.—Should inquiry be instituted, it must be carefully done; however, enough is visible to be condemnatory. I am, your obedient servant, (Signed) H.E. EDWARDS The signature, “H.E. Edwards,” turned out to be an assumed name. There was no such person as H.E. Edwards,—the letter was evidently in the defendant’s handwriting, and there was no question that the letter was penned by the defendant and by him sent to the Board of Health in London. In fact, Mr. Millett had acknowledged that he wrote and sent the letter. The London Board of Health afterwards enclosed the letter to the Guardians of the Redruth Union, for the purpose of investigation, and an investigation was conducted by a committee of the Redruth Union Guardians, consisting of two clergymen and another gentleman of the neighbourhood. That investigation took place on the 17th November. On the 15th of December, Messrs. Hodge and Hockin wrote the following letter to the defendant: — Truro, Dec. 15th, 1849 Sir,—Above we send a copy of a letter dated 29th October, and signed “H.E. Edwards,” a fac simile of which, forwarded by the General Board of Health, in London, is now before us. We are informed that you have openly acknowledged yourself to be the author of this letter—both on the 17th November, before the Rev. J.W. Hawkesley, the Rev. W. Gillbee, and Mr. James Paull, the Committee appointed by the General Board of Health, to investigate the charges therein named, and also on a subsequent occasion before many other persons. The letter indeed evidently appears, from the fac simile, to be in your hand-writing. That letter, written by you under a fictitious name, contained a very serious libel on the professional character of the two respectable medical gentlemen employed by the board, and that libel, from the mode of its publication and the necessary publicity occasioned by the enquiry instituted in consequence, obtained very extensive circulation. On behalf of these medical gentlemen, Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye, and now that ample time has been allowed for reflection, we are instructed to apply to you for an apology, and to require you to disclaim the charge imputing to them that their mismanagement of surgical cases had been such as to excite horror in the minds of the public. It is not a light thing to say that any man is “the scorn of the neighborhood” and to make public a charge of that kind in the way this has been made public is calculated not only to inflict the severest annoyance and distress, but to do the most serious injury. We are, Sir, Your obedient servants, HODGE and HOCKIN. R.O. Millett, Esq., M.D., Penpoll, Hayle. On the 18th December, Messrs. Hodge and Hockin received the following reply from defendant:— Penpoll, Hayle, Dec. 17, 1849 Gentlemen, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th inst., and regret that so much time should be wasted on the subject. I am, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, R.O. MILLETT. Messrs. Hodge and Hockin, Solicitors, Truro. These being the circumstances of the libel, the defendant pleaded first, that he was not guilty of its publication. That plea might be dealt with in two ways; either that he did not write the letter, of which fact, however, there could be no question; or, that it was a privileged communication and was written under circumstances which rebutted the charge of malice. In order however to make it a privileged communication, it must be shown to have been written under a strong sense of public duty. But although it was written to a public Board of Health, there was no pretence for saying that it was written for the purpose of giving information with reference to the cholera; the letter was not written till after the cholera was at and end in Hayle. Besides, a person who believed that he was called on by public duty to make a communication in writing, did not usually sign a fictitious name. Mr. Crowder also observed that the defendant, at the time when he asserted that Mr. Vawdrey was the scorn of the neighborhood, was himself living in that neighborhood, and must have known whether what he said was true or false; and he (Mr. Crowder) would call numerous witnesses of respectability and judgment, and who also knew the opinions of the neighbourhood, who would prove that Mr. Vawdrey was well known, and was employed in their families because of his being considered a man of repute and character as a professional man in the same neighbourhood as that in which the defendant was living. And no man could claim the benefit of privileged communication for a writing in which he stated what was false, knowing it to be false.—Another plea of the defendant was that of justification, under which was set out some ten cases of patients treated professionally by Mr. Vawdrey, and which cases, it was alleged, proved that he was unfit to occupy the situation he held under the Phillack Board of Health. That plea, it would, of course, be for the defendant to seek to establish by evidence if he thought proper. —The learned Counsel then briefly referred to the evidence he proposed to adduce in support of the plaintiff’s professional character; and then proceeded to call witnesses. John Luke Peter, solicitor, and Clerk to the Redruth Board of Guardians, remembered receiving from the Secretary of the General Board of Health a fac simile copy of a letter. (This was admitted to be the letter written by the defendant, on the 29th October, under the signature of H.E. Edwards). After receipt of that letter, the Redruth Board of Guardians appointed a committee, consisting of the Rev. W. Hawkesley, Rev. W. Gillbee, and Mr. James Paull, to inquire into it. They did inquire and reported to the board of guardians. Mr. Vawdrey was appointed a surgeon of the Redruth Union in 1843, and still continued to hold that office.— Cross-examined: On the 25th of June, the Redruth Board of Guardians appointed a committee, consisting of the three guardians for Phillack parish, to act with the local board of health. Messrs. Hawkesley, Gillbee and Paull were members of the Redruth Board of Guardians. Was present at the investigation conducted by them on the 17th of November. They founded their inquiry partly on Mr. Webber’s letter in the Cornwall Gazette, and partly on Dr. Millett’s letter. The inquiry was limited to the manner in which the medical men had performed their duties during the cholera. It was not an open inquiry; no one was allowed to be present besides the person under examination, and witness himself as clerk. Reporters attended for the public press; but the Committee did not feel at liberty to admit them. On the 16th of November, witness received a letter from the defendant, dated the 15th, and wrote the answer now produced. Witness laid the letter of the 15th before the Board. Mr. Millett attended the Committee’s investigation. The Committee drew up a report in writing.—Mr. CROWDER required the production the Report in evidence; but, after argument, the Court held it to be inadmissible.—By the Court. Believed that the 29th of October, the cholera had almost ceased in Hayle. It was known, the day before the Committee’s inquiry, that Mr. Millett was the writer of the letter signed H.E. Edwards. John Rosewarne, a farmer living at Nanspusko, in the parish of Phillack. I was one of the Guardians of Phillack, and was appointed one of three as a committee by the Redruth Union. We appointed 26 persons to act as a Board of Health at Phillack. Those 26 persons were influential persons in the neighbourhood. They were appointed, I think, on the 27th of June. At that time there was no cholera there. The first intimation of approach of cholera there was in the early part of August. As soon as there was decided cholera we met to appoint medical officers; Mr. Vawdrey and Mr. Lye were unanimously appointed. That was the 6th August. I have known Mr. Vawdrey as long as I can recollect any one in the neighbourhood. He has been a practitioner at Hayle 12 or 14 years. The cholera raged very bad; and continued throughout August and part of September. During that time Mr. Vawdrey was active. Had opportunities of witnessing the conduct of the medical men; we were quite satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Vawdrey and Mr. Lye. The cholera had ceased before the 29th of October. During the whole of that time, I never heard that Mr. Vawdrey was the scorn of the neighbourhood. He was a person of whom I always entertained a high opinion as a professional man; and I heard the same from other parties.—Cross-examined by Mr. Rowe. There are large factories at Hayle and the population is principally a labouring population. The local Board of Health had not met before the appointment of the sub-committee of Guardians, of which I was a member.—The witness here named some respectable tradesmen and farmers who were not on the Board. Mr. Pool, the manager of Copper-house factory, and his two sons and his nephew were on the Board. After the cholera had ceased, I heard Mr. Edwards, one of the Board of Health, express regret that more medical men had not been appointed; but I don’t recollect his making any proposition to that effect at a meeting in my presence. The principal shopkeepers and innkeepers were on the committee. I saw how the poor were supplied. Various persons supplied the poor with blankets and drapery. Brandy was supplied by the person who was nearest and could supply quickest; that was our rule; I don’t know who did supply.—I never saw or heard of any circular sent out about Hayle from the Board, that no person should be relieved without a ticket from Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye. I know there were written orders from other persons, which were attended to by the Board: there was an order from Dr. Witherington; I think I may say there never was any application refused. I think there were several relieved, without orders from Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye. I have never heard that the labouring classes in the factories have expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Vawdrey; I never heard it expressed by any one. I live about 3 miles from Harvey’s factory. I had not opportunities of hearing the opinions expressed by the labourers at Harvey’s.—By Mr. Crowder: I and others were constituted a Board of Health for the parish of Phillack. The Harveys are in St. Erth. We wished to have every respectable person we could to assist; but many tried to get off, and refused. There was a subscription entered into among us, on the day of the appointment of the surgeons. I think there was upwards of 20l. subscribed in the room at that time. The 26 persons I have named as forming the local board of health were among the principal tradesmen and shopkeepers of the place. I do not know of any order given to favour any particular tradesmen; we never dreamt of such a thing; everything the poor wanted they had granted without any prejudice or party feeling to anyone. John Pool by Mr. M. Smith. I am the managing partner of the Cornish Copper Company at Hayle; they employ about 3 or 400 people. I was a member of the Board of Health for the parish of Phillack. I acted as chairman on some occasions. I have lived in the neighbourhood about 40 years. I have known Mr. Vawdrey since he has practised in Hayle. He has been my family medical man. During the cholera, he was most indefatigable in his duties, and we had every reason to be satisfied; I knew that personally; I witnessed his conduct. We were so satisfied that we gave him a testimonial. Certainly he is not the scorn of the neighbourhood. As far as I know, he has the good opinion of the neighbourhood. I have communication with all classes there. I know Dr. Millett; he has been in practice in the neighbourhood a few years. He has lived near Mr. Vawdrey—within a quarter of a mile.—Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn. Mr. Vawdrey has attended my family upwards of 14 years. Before the committee of guardians joined us, there had been a board appointed for the removal of nuisances; that was in June. The first cholera cases were in the latter end of July or beginning of August; then we appointed the Board of Health. That board was the same board as had existed for the removal of nuisances, with the addition of the guardians, and I believe some others. We appointed the medical gentlemen on the 6th or 7th August.—I don’t recollect Mr. Edwards making a proposition for additional medical staff; but I think he mentioned to me at a Board Meeting that it would be desirable. I told him that if the cholera did not extend, I thought we had sufficient medical gentlemen.—Mr. Vawdrey has not attended my family in any surgical case. He does not attend the men at our factory, they are attended by Mr. Millett of Penzance.—I don’t know whether Mr. Millett the defendant practises for remuneration; there is no name, as such, at his residence. I know in a case of accident at the Railway, he demanded a bill from the Railway Company.—It is the practice at our factory for the men to subscribe weekly and have a club doctor.—I know Jacob Luke; he was attended by Mr. Vawdrey, for a broken leg; he was not a cripple afterwards; he performed his labour, but perhaps not to the same extent as before; he was in our employ for years afterwards as a corn-meter; he was before that a porter. He is now dead; he died of cholera.—A man called Polkinhorne in our employment had a broken leg and was under Mr. Vawdrey’s care; he has performed his labor ever since, and I believe, in the same capacity, as a porter—The population of our parish of Phillack is from 4 to 5000; generally a labouring population. I believe Mr. Vawdrey has the confidence of that class of population. He attends the Harvey’s factory. It was in November that we voted Mr. Vawdrey the testimonial.—I was examined at the inquiry before the Commissioners on the 17th November.—By Mr. Smith. Mr. Hawkesley and Mr. Paull came the second time; that was merely a meeting at the Churchyard. The first day the inquiry lasted 5 or 6 hours; there were a great many witnesses examined. Messrs. Harvey have about an equal number of men with ourselves in employ.—The cholera was confined to two villages, Ventonleague and Guilford—about half-a-mile from Hayle. Mr. Angove is in very limited practice now; he is rather infirm; not from age, I think; it is a delicate point to say from what (laughter). I don’t know the extent of Dr. Witherington’s practice; he has I believe, an advertisement of some length in his window. Jacob Luke did his work as a corn meter, without a crutch, for years; the work is filling carts and measuring corn. Polkinhorne still continues to work as a porter. Robert Hurt Pike, by Mr. Smith. I am the manager of the Hayle Railway and have been so for six years. I live at , and am frequently at Hayle. I have known Mr. Vawdrey for the last six years; he has occasionally attended the men connected with the Railway in sickness, and also in cases of accident on the line; cases of broken limbs. From what I have seen of him I am satisfied with him. He is not the scorn of the neighborhood, quite the contrary; he has the good opinion of the neighborhood. In one case of crushed arm of a child who had trespassed on the line and was knocked down, I had an opportunity of witnessing his surgical skill, and was perfectly satisfied. Dr. Millett attended one case of accident on the railway, and sent his hill of 24 guineas for it. It was not a long attendance on his part. He made it a railway case, until we sent our railway surgeon. We paid the bill.—Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn. The boy who was struck down was called Sampson. His life and limbs were saved; and it was the wonder of the neighborhood. He received very severe injury, being knocked down by the buffer of the engine. It was about three years ago that Dr. Millett attended a case of accident. A train broke away on the inclined plane and a female jumped out and received injury. Dr. Millett kept me in constant alarm that the woman would lose her life; I sent our railway surgeon, Dr. Gurney, of Camborne, and he said there was no concussion of the brain as Dr. Millett had stated. By Mr. Crowder. Our men have frequently called in Mr. Vawdrey, when our surgeon has not been near; I have heard them express their confidence in him. The boy Sampson was crushed very bad, and life was despaired of. He was under care for 3 months, and I took a warm interest in the case because I did not know what might be the liabilities of the Company; and, from that observation, I form a favorable opinion of Mr. Vawdrey. William Hosken, by Mr. Crowder.—I am a miller, and was a member of the Board of Health. I have lived in the place upwards of 30 years; I succeeded my father in business there 23 years ago. I have known Mr. Vawdrey since he has been in practice in that neighborhood; I believe he has the good opinion of the neighborhood, he has my implicit confidence, I believe I owe him my life to him. He attended me for a week. I should say he is very far from being the scorn of the neighborhood. Before Mr. Vawdrey attended me, Mr. Millett attended me. By Mr. Cockburn. Mr. Vawdrey attended me in May last year for a week; Mr. Millett had attended me in the April previous. I was the first of my family that Mr. Vawdrey attended. Mr. Millett had before that for four or five years, attended members of my family; he never took money of me; I have asked him and he declined, saying that he did not practise for money. James Tregenza, by Mr. M. Smith. I am a miner, and work underground. I have known Mr. Vawdrey for 15 years, as a surgeon. He has attended me, and performed a very serious operation on me; I was satisfied with his treatment of me. He bears a very good character in the neighbourhood as a surgeon.—Cross-examined by Mr. Rowe. I live in St. Erth parish, about a mile from Hayle. No other doctor attended me on that occasion after Mr. Vawdrey. Some days afterwards I had a gathering, and Mr. Millett attended me. The injury for which Mr. Vawdrey attended me was strangulated rupture, in consequence of accident in the mine. Before I had left bed, Mr. Millett came and lanced a gathering in the groin. Mr. Vawdrey was not home at the time, and as I could not bear the pain, Mr. Millett came. Mr. Vawdrey attended me after that. I did not pay Mr. Millett; he did not ask me for payment. Mr. Vawdrey attends others in St. Erth besides me. The people speak very well of Mr. Vawdrey; and I do highly myself. I have heard many patients talk about him. In coming and going for coal, I do among Harvey’s men; they say Mr. Vawdrey is a gentleman (laughter), I never heard that he was called ‘Butcher Vawdrey’ nor anything of the sort.—By Mr. Crowder. At the time of the operation on me Mr. Vawdrey and Mr. Lye were there; it was several days before the gathering came. I saw him the next day, and he has continued to attend me since, when I have wanted him. Abraham Richards by Mr. Crowder. I have worked at Copper House Factory for 25 years; and have worked in Ventonleague; I live there; the cholera was very bad there. I had two children very bad in it. I have known Mr. Vawdrey ever since he had been in practice there. He attended my children very regular there two or three times a day. He cut off my leg, about 6 inches from the thigh joint. From all I have had to do with him, if anything was the matter with me or my family, he is the first man I should send for.—Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn. It is three years next Midsummer that my leg was cut off. My children were a fortnight ill, before they got to go about; Mr. Vawdrey and Mr. Lye attended regularly. I had sent for Mr. Vawdrey as parish doctor, when my leg was taken off, and he could not pay me better attention if I had paid him a guinea an hour. My knee was bad 16 years; I was attended by different persons. Mr. Millett of Hayle attended me a several weeks; he charged me nothing. There was a humour in the knee bone, and they could not cure it; and at last Mr. Vawdrey took it off.—By Mr. Crowder. Mr. Hookman of Penzance attended me first; then Mr. Millett, and then Mr. Vawdrey. I walked to Hayle in 15 days after my leg was taken off; and to Mr. Vawdrey’s house, a mile and quarter, on the 16th day. Rev. John Punnett, by Mr. Smith. I am a vicar of St. Erth, and have been so nearly 16 years. I have known Mr. Vawdrey during the whole of that time. He has on all occasions attended my family. I have extensively become acquainted with his practice among other classes, from my constant habit of visiting. From that experience, I have the very highest opinion both of his private worth and professional ability. As far as I know, the opinion of those persons whom he has attended has been decidedly favourable. I cannot call to my recollection any circumstance in connection with Mr. Vawdrey, either personally or professionally, which, by the most remote latitude of construction, can be said to have made him the scorn of the neighbourhood. As far as I know, he has the general good opinion of the neighbourhood. He has attended one of the partners of Messrs. Harveys. He attended the wife of Mr. Nicholas Harvey. He is now in Germany, I believe.—Cross- examined by Mr. Cockburn. I am on terms of intimacy with Mr. Vawdrey. Our families visit. He has generally attended my family as apothecary; but in one case it was so complicated, that I have a difficulty in saying whether it was surgical or medical. With regard to poor persons, the cases in which I have observed Mr. Vawdrey’s practice have been very numerous. There was a case of a man called Gilbert—one of Messrs. Harvey’s workmen—in which I think Mr. Vawdrey showed great skill; it was an extreme case of malignant fever. The only surgical case I have known him in was that of Tregenza who has been examined. I have heard of Messrs. Harvey’s men having signed a memorial requesting that Mr. Vawdrey should not be their surgeon; but such a memorial would not prove him to be the scorn of the neighbourhood. Even supposing that a professional man were actually convicted of want of professional ability, I should not suppose that that would make him the scorn of the neighbourhood. From my knowledge of Mr. Vawdrey during the period referred to, he was decidedly not the scorn of the neighborhood. Richard Lanyon, surgeon, examined by Mr. Crowder. I have been in practice at Camborne about 25 years; and have become very much acquainted with the neighbourhood of Hayle, and also professionally with Mr. Vawdrey. I have met him professionally. I practice (sic) as surgeon and general practitioner; I have met Mr. Vawdrey in both those branches. I consider him to be decidedly a person of skill; I believe he is generally considered so. I have very extensive practice—surgical particularly. In my opinion of Mr. Vawdrey I include surgical as well as medical practice.—Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn. I have met Mr. Vawdrey more than three times a year on surgical cases. We are in the habit of attending some mines jointly; I have met Mr. Vawdrey in consultation on Mr. Punnett himself, some few months since; that was a medical case.—By Mr. Crowder. I have met Mr. Vawdrey in private practice as well as in mine cases. Walter Yonge, examined by Mr. M. Smith. I have practised in St. Ives 35 years as a general practitioner. I have known Mr. Vawdrey some years. I have met him on several occasions in course of my private practice, in consultation, and I have had conversations with him, on surgery and medicine.—I have a very favorable opinion of him. I think he is a man who possesses acquirements and competency above the average of his medical brethren. As far as I know the opinion of the neighbourhood, he has the good opinion of those persons who know him.—Cross-examined. I have very little practice at Hayle. I have never met Mr. Vawdrey on surgical cases. I have met him altogether seven or eight times. I have not much personal means of knowing what is said of Mr. Vawdrey at Hayle. Richard Moyle examined by Mr. Crowder.—I am a surgeon at Penzance, and have been a general practitioner for 40 years. I have frequently met Mr. Vawdrey in surgical, medical and midwifery cases. I have thus met him for seven or eight years.—I have the highest possible estimation of his professional judgment— in all cases, surgical as well as medical. I do not go much to Hayle; but frequently in the neighbourhood his professional character is highly spoken of in all cases.—Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn. In the cases in which I have met him, he has been called in on one or two cases of mine, and I have been called in to seven or eight of his. Six or seven of the whole number were surgical. I was called in to a case of his at Phillack; it was a case of large carbuncle in the back; the man died; he was past cure when I saw him. One other case was Blight of St. Erth, a case of fever; he died of the fever. There was a very difficult case of midwifery a short time since; we saved the woman—the child died in a few days.—There was a case of very severely lacerated foot and leg, from accident in a mine, in which I was called in; the man had been ill a fortnight when I was called in; I have been in attendance on him three weeks. Mr. Vawdrey is a surgeon of the man’s mine; and I am a surgeon of his club. The man is going on well.—I have seen several of Mr. Vawdrey’s cases—surgical cases—lately. This last week, I have seen 10 or 12 of his surgical cases at Hayle, for the purpose of giving evidence here.—We have attended a case of removing cancerous breast together; I performed the operation.—By Mr. Crowder—In meeting Mr. Vawdrey, sometimes I have been called in and sometimes he. The cases I have met him on have been sufficient to enable me to form a competent opinion of him. In my last consultation with him, we were together for 20 hours—it was a case of midwifery; if he had shown ignorance or unskilfulness, I must have perceived it. It is only in cases of difficulty that we have called in each other. Samuel Hocking, examined by Mr. M. Smith. I am a surgeon at St. Ives, and have practised there nearly 19 years. In the course of my practice, I have had opportunities of forming an opinion of Mr. Vawdrey. I have met him only in surgical cases. I think he is a very competent surgeon, and one who has had an education superior to that of the common run of surgeons. He has, theoretically and practically, a very good knowledge of his profession. I saw a case some years ago with him in Phillack parish; I have seen another case lately with him in Lelant; and have recently been in attendance with him in St. Erth. These three cases lead me to form the opinion that he treated them properly, and I have no reason to suppose that the people did not consider themselves properly treated.—Cross-examined. The case at Phillack was one of railway injury. An arm had been amputated before I saw the patient; and there was severe inflammation of the back which was followed by gangrene and sloughing, and the man died. The stump, after amputation, looked well. The Lelant case was one of sloughing of the perineum from disease of the rectum; the patient recovered. I did not witness any operation in this case; but I believe there must have been one before. The St. Erth case was one of injury to the knee joint; I saw the case with Mr. Vawdrey at his request; the only operation that had been performed was an opening of an abscess. In those cases, I think he did as well as any man could do by them.—By Mr. Crowder. In the case where there had been amputation, the case seemed to have been a very severe one. Dr. Barham examined by Mr. Crowder. I am a physician in considerable practice in Truro. I have known the plaintiff professionally for above 10 years, and have met him professionally during that time—perhaps in half a dozen cases altogether. They were chiefly medical cases; there was a little surgery mixed up with two of them. In those cases I have been able to form a judgment of his skill in his profession; and my judgment is that he was above the average in natural capacity and acquired knowledge, and that he was a well-informed, skilful practitioner. Some of the cases on which I met him were difficult and such as to develop the skill of the practitioner. I have had written communications with Mr. Vawdrey with reference to those cases.— Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn. He has himself suggested treatment, and has mentioned the treatment he has pursued; and when I have prescribed, he has mentioned the effect of the prescriptions. One of the cases was of a delicate nature to a lady, and involved some surgery. Two of the other cases were of consumptive disease of long standing. One of them also involved some surgical treatment, and I saw and communicated with Mr. Vawdrey on it for years. There was one case of suspected consumption, which recovered; and, in the case of consumptive patient that died, there was a long course of treatment before death. In my judgment, the course of treatment pursued was the proper course. My treatment was followed; but it was given from consultation and communication with the medical practitioner. Edward Hancorne, secretary of the Phillack Board of Health, stated that there were altogether from 235 to 250 cases of cholera and diarrhoea. Of those there were 91 of actual cholera. The number of deaths reported to witness was about 40—from 40 to 47. There were no reports except from Mr. Vawdrey and Lye. I live in Hayle; I cannot say there were any cases of cholera not attended to by Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr. COCKBURN then addressed the jury for the defence. In denial of the motive imputed to the defendant for writing the alleged libel, the learned counsel mentioned that the defendant did not practise the medical profession, with a view to gain. The solitary exception to this was the case in which he charged the Railway Company. The defendant’s real motives were to be found in the circumstances out of which this affair had originated. Mr. Cockburn then adverted to the formation of the Local Board of Health at Phillack, and deprecated the determination come to, not to avail themselves of the services of all the medical officers in the place who might be disposed to cooperate in checking the dire calamity and in relieving those who were subject to its visitations. He thought it was an unwise course in that Board to confine themselves to two medical practitioners, to whom alone persons desirous of obtaining gratuitous relief were to apply. That course was unwise, because, as was well known, it was in the beginning of an attack of cholera that remedial measures were likely to be effectual. And, where there was a population of several thousands, and cholera cases became numerous, it was very desirable to have all the medical assistance that could possibly be procured. It was also of very great importance, in cholera beyond all other diseases, that the patient should have the attendance of the medical practitioner in whom he had much confidence. Now, it was the poorer classes of society who were most subject to cholera; and, in Hayle, among that class of persons, Dr. Witherington had a far greater number of patients, and had more the confidence of that class of persons, than any other gentleman in the place; and there was a very great desire that he should be added to the medical staff. But the Board persisted in limiting their appointment to two medical gentlemen; and there was an order of the Board that only the persons who brought certificates from Messrs. Vawdrey & Lye should be relieved. After some time, a letter was published in the Cornwall Gazette newspaper, written by Mr. Webber, a schoolmaster of respectability at Hayle, who took a most active part in measures rendered necessary by the calamity that then visited the place—who made the greatest personal exertions for the relief of the poor people who were afflicted by cholera, and to bury their dead—even at the risk of his own life, and when scarcely any would come forward to assist. The letter was published in the Cornwall Gazette on the 26th of October. It was said on the other side that the cholera had ceased at that time. No doubt it had comparatively subsided; but it still existed in many parts of , and no one could say that it would not revive again in Hayle in an aggravated form. That letter of Mr. Webber’s was calculated to excite the warmest feelings in the mind of any man possessed of the common feelings of humanity. (The letter referred to, as published in the Cornwall Gazette of the 26th Oct., 1849, was here read in full to the jury). Before the appearance of that letter, Mr. Millett had taken no steps in the matter; but as soon as that letter was published, he put himself in communication with Mr. Webber, and the result was a conviction in his mind that the matters complained of in that letter called imperiously for inquiry; and Mr. Millett addressed a letter—not to a county newspaper having an extensive circulation in the particular neighbourhood—not to a local Board of Guardians, or to a local Board of Health, but to a Board sitting in London, among whom Mr. Vawdrey’s name and fame would not receive the slightest damage. The complaint also, was not made against the medical gentlemen, (except in so far as they were inevitably introduced) but against the local Board of Health. Any man had a right to entertain and to express his own views as to the conduct of a public Board; and if he thought the principles it adopted were not the best, he had a right to appeal to the constitutional authority. The learned Counsel contended that there was no ground for assuming that the defendant wrote his letter to the General Board of Health for the purpose of destroying a brother practitioner. The learned Counsel also contended that the letter was a privileged communication, being addressed to the constitutional authority on a matter in which the writer, as one of the local public, had an interest. He admitted that if Mr. Millett, at the time he wrote the letter, knew it to be false, he would not be entitled to the plea of privileged communication. This point, said the learned Counsel, would bring him to the painful duty of calling in question the practice of Mr. Vawdrey. But first, he would notice the fact that the letter from Mr. Millett to the General Board of Health, was an anonymous, or rather a pseudonymous communication. No doubt it would have been better if Mr. Millett had written it in his own name; but he supposed that if he wrote in his own name, as a medical practitioner, the Board in London would treat the matter as one of mere rivalry between two practitioners. His only object was that inquiry should be instituted into the statement in Mr. Webber’s letter; and as soon as it was notified that an inquiry was ordered, Mr. Millett immediately, on the 15th Nov., wrote a letter to the Clerk of the Redruth Union, avowing himself the writer of the letter signed H.E. Edwards, and stating that he was ready to attend the inquiry and give all the information in his power. The Learned Counsel proceeded to deprecate the mode in which the inquiry on the 17th of November was conducted; the Committee of Inquiry, he observed, were three members of the Redruth Board of Guardians, sitting in judgment on another committee of the same body,—they sat with closed doors, and without affording opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, on whose evidence they formed their report.—The learned Counsel then reviewed much of the evidence for the plaintiff; and, after contending that the words in the alleged libel “scorn of the neighbourhood” must be taken in connection with the rest of the letter, proceeded to state the nature of the evidence for the defence, and which he contended would be found to justify Mr. Millett in complaining that, in the emergency of cholera, the medical attendance on the poor should have been limited to two gentlemen—Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye, when there were others in the neighbourhood who ought to have been allowed to exercise their professional skill. Thomas Bryant, by Mr. Rowe. I am registrar of births and deaths for the parish of Phillack. I was there when the cholera broke out last year. I remember a Board of Health being established there. I was invited to attend the meetings. I have lived at Hayle about 19 or 20 years. I think I am well acquainted with the working population there and their habits. I remember Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye being appointed the medical gentlemen under the Board of Health. I was among the people of Hayle about that time. What I heard out of doors, was as to the necessity of increasing the medical staff. I heard various reports about Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye. I deeply regretted to hear some opprobrious epithets. One of the epithets was that of a “butcher,” and when I heard it, I had an impression that it was applied to Mr. Vawdrey; I heard one time, the words “there goes the butcher.” I attended some of the meetings of the board, when Mr. Edwards made a proposition for an increase of the staff; that proposition fell to the ground for want of a seconder. Mr. Edwards said he considered if there was an increase, it would give greater satisfaction to the neighbourhood. Dr. Witherington had considerable practice during the cholera. There was an order of the board by which relief was denied, unless by orders from Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye. Circulars to that effect were posted about. William Edwards examined by Mr. Karslake. I live at Hayle, and am an agent in the employ of Messrs. Sandys, Carne, and Vivian; Mr. Pool is the managing man in that firm. I was at Hayle when the cholera broke out, in the beginning of August. I was nominated on the Board of Health, and attended the board sometimes. I suggested to the chairman, Mr. Pool, that it might be better to extend the staff as an indulgence to the poor. I think Mr. Pool said they had full confidence in the staff; and I thought therefore my opinion was wrong. I think I made a formal proposal afterwards for the increase of the medical staff; Mr. Vawdrey was present; I don’t recollect his saying anything with reference to it. Charles Webber, examined by Mr. Rowe.—I am a schoolmaster at Hayle; I wrote the letter in the Cornwall Gazette of the 26th of October, 1849. At the time of the cholera last year, there was among the lower classes a general dissatisfaction as to the appointment of Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye, and no one else. Dr. Witherington was extensively employed at that time in practising among the cholera patients. A great many cases occurred, and there had been 10 deaths before the medical staff was appointed. I then took to visiting these cholera cases myself. I remember seeing a circular posted at Hayle as to the parties who would be entitled to relief. I saw the circulars posted, and in different people’s windows also. In consequence of what I saw, and after I began to visit the sick, I communicated with some members of the Board. Before I wrote this letter in the Cornwall Gazette, I made inquiries into the facts embodied in it; and I wrote that letter according to the facts I ascertained. After I had published this letter, I saw Mr. Millett on the day in which the newspaper containing the letter was received, and talked about it with him. He asked me if the letter was true. I gave him the names of certain parties alluded to in the letter. I saw him again on the following day. In about a week, I had a further conversation with him. In November there was a meeting for inquiry at the Commercial hotel at Hayle. I was called in; Mr. Millett was also there. It was a private meeting, we were sent out of the room, and called in one by one to be examined. I have lived in Hayle 35 years. I am well acquainted with the labouring population at Hayle. Mr. Vawdrey has been held in public contempt among that class of people; I have heard him called “a butcher”—“manslaughter”—“cure one and kill thirty”. “When Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye were returning in their gig from the infected districts, people would say “there go the butchers.”—Cross-examined by Mr. Crowder. I took an active part at the time of the cholera. I began to interfere about the latter end of June or beginning of July. There were 10 died previously to the formation of the medical staff. I began to interfere when the first four died. I did not request the Board to appoint a medical staff; I told Mr. Hoskins, of Luggans, that something ought to be done. I never spoke to Dr. Witherington to assist me; I have seen him coming out of houses where I have been going in, but I never went with him nor sent for him. I know Mr. Ford the druggist. I entered into an arrangement with him, and got the town crier to go round and make known that any persons having their bowels disordered, might go to Mr. Ford’s and be supplied with medicine gratis. That was previous to the formation of the board. Mr. Ford told me that the medicine had been very successful. I recollect a man dying, and my going before the coroner on account of it. The coroner gave me credit for my exertions, but said it was dangerous for me to meddle with medicine; and he cautioned Mr. Ford. It was not an inquest; there was no jury; but only an inquiry made by the coroner. Mr. Vawdrey was present. I am on very good terms with Mr. Vawdrey, and would use every effort day or night to serve him. On this point and some circumstances in connection with it, the cross-examination was continued for a considerable time. The cross examination was also carried on at considerable length with reference to the letter in the Cornwall Gazette—the inquiry on the 17th of November—and some other circumstances connected therewith. John Williams examined by Mr. Karslake. I am an engine fitter, in the employ of Messrs. Harvey of Hayle. They employ a great number of hands there. They have two clubs: in which we pay a penny a week to the Doctor. I was at Messrs. Harvey’s in 1844; Mr. Vawdrey was at that time the surgeon of our club; he has continued so down to the present time. A paper was got up by the men with reference to Mr. Vawdrey. It was put into my possession when it was signed. I burned it, sometime within the last six months, or twelve months, with other waste papers. In 1844, there was a great ill feeling among the men in my shop that the medical men did not pay proper attention to them. I saw the petition; it contained more than the majority of the men’s names; they petitioned Messrs. Harvey and Co., stating they could not place confidence in the medical gentlemen placed over them. Some hundreds signed that petition; not much less than 300 workmen in Harvey’s employ. I took the petition from shop to shop to get signatures. I sent it to Messrs. Harvey; they took it in and told me they had taken a copy of it. Mr. Vawdrey was still retained in the employ as medical man. This was in 1844. From that time to the time the cholera broke out, there was no great feeling towards Mr. Vawdrey; but the men were afraid to speak. There was not a very pleasant feeling towards him. I have heard him called a “butcher” and a “midwife”—“There goes one that kills thirty and cures one.”—Cross examined by Mr. Smith. I will swear there were more than 250 signatures to the petition; There might have been 100 boys under 20 who signed it. I will not swear whether there were not 50 boys under 15 who signed it. There was a very slight inquiry, by the directions of Messrs. Harvey, into the complaints against Mr. Vawdrey. The foreman of each shop was called up. Mr. Whitford was Messrs. Harvey’s lawyer; he inquired into it.—By Mr. Cockburn. Those persons who signed were all in Messrs. Harvey’s employ; and they all had to contribute to the club, whether men or boys.—By the Judge. In 1844, Mr. Vawdrey was I believe, the only doctor of the club; he continues there now. None of the men were turned off for signing this paper. The court rose at six o’clock, and adjourned to the next morning. NISI PRIUS, Wednesday, March 27. VAWDRY v. MILLETT.—The examination of witnesses for the defendant was resumed this morning, and continued until 9 o’clock in the evening, when an adjournment took place to the following morning, and it was considered probable that the case would last throughout Thursday. Considerable interest appears to be felt as regards the result of the trial; but the evidence has been generally of a wearisome character to the public at large, although occasionally presenting points of interest to gentlemen of the medical profession. The following were the witnesses examined on Wednesday: Thomas Foss, a foreman of one of Messrs. Harvey’s workshops at Hayle. James Hambly, another foreman in Messrs. Harvey’s establishment. Daniel Roberts, a mason, in the employ of Messrs. Harvey. Thomas Jones, farmer, of Phillack. Oliver Hoskins, master pattern-maker at Harvey’s foundry. Richard Couch, surgeon, of Penzance. John Wippell, surgeon of the South Devon and East Cornwall Hospital, and a consulting surgeon. John Paddon, surgeon and general practitioner at Truro. Sampson Bamfield, miner of Ludgvan. Frederick Clarke, lecturer on Anatomy and Assistant Surgeon at St. Thomas’s Hospital James Bamfield, forgeman at Messrs. Harvey’s foundry. Elizabeth Bamfield, wife of last witness. William Polkinhorne, a porter in the employ of Messrs. Sandys, Carne and Vivian. Naomi Strickland, wife of David Strickland, sawyer at Phillack. Thomas Potter, hammer-man and fire-man, at Messrs. Harvey’s foundry. John Luke, in Messrs. Harvey’s employ. Elizabeth Harris, aunt of last witness. Elizabeth Sampson, widow, of Hayle. The testimony of the witnesses from Oliver Hoskins inclusive to the end, concerned surgical and medical cases which had been under the plaintiff’s care; the general course of examination being that the witnesses from the neighbourhood related the circumstances of the cases; and then, on each case, the medical gentlemen, Dr. Paddon, Mr. Wippell, and Mr. Clarke, and in one instance, Mr. Couch, gave their opinions of the treatment of those cases. In most of the cases, the medical witnesses had examined the patients previous to coming into Court. CROWN COURT (Before Mr. Justice Erle). TUESDAY, MARCH 26. ROBERT ROBERTS, 65, pleaded GUILTY of stealing at Penryn, on the 2nd of March, a cake, the property of George Vivian. Prisoner said he took the cake in consequence of hunger, he had not tasted anything for two days. Sentence, One Fortnight’s Imprisonment. WILLIAM BARNETT, 13, pleaded GUILTY of a burglary at Redruth, by having removed a shutter, forced open a tin plate fence, and thrust his hand into the shop window of Richard Richards, with intent to steal his property. The learned Judge, taking into consideration that the prisoner had been already six months in prison, sentenced him further to Three Months Imprisonment. He also cautioned him that if brought again and convicted of a similar offence, he would most likely be transported. WILLIAM LEE, 30 and WILLIAM WEEKLY, 34, were indicted for burglariously stealing from the dwelling- house of John Solomon, at Penryn, a pair of trousers, a pair of boots, and eight silver spoons. The prisoners were also charged with feloniously receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Cole for prosecution, and Mr. Collier for defence of the prisoner Lee. Prosecutor is a druggist at Penryn. On Christmas eve his servant fastened up the house. In the morning she called him, he went down stairs and found his bureau had been broken open, and a pair of boots and a pair of trousers taken away. He missed also five tea-spoons, three table-spoons, eleven shillings, a waistcoat, and a small quantity of spirits. The window of the sitting-room, on the ground floor, was sufficiently open to admit a man; when prosecutor went to bed at half-past twelve that window was closed. The papers in the bureau were taken out and scattered in confusion; other things were also disturbed. A carving knife was taken from the drawers under the bureau from among other knives, and was found in the morning placed to stand with the handle upward on the ledge of the drawer. Prosecutor observed also that the kitchen poker had been placed to rest against the door leading into the back kitchen. Elizabeth Jane Isaacs, servant with Mr. Solomon, proved these several circumstances. The statement by Mr. Cole, for the prosecution was, that the carving knife and poker were taken out by the burglars with the intentions of doing dangerous work if they had been disturbed. It appeared from further evidence that the prisoner Lee was in the tap-room of the Royal Talbot Hotel, at Lostwithiel, on the 28th of December, and offered to sell the boots to William Husband. He, however, did not want them, and the boots were eventually sold to a man called Bartlett for 10s.—Francis Manuel, a miner at Lostwithiel, stated that on the 26th of December, he bought a pair of trousers of Lee, at Lostwithiel. Lee was shown to have slept at the lodging house of Elizabeth Wolff, at Penryn, on the night of the 23rd of December, and in the evening of the 24th he was seen by constable Bunny, of Penryn, about a hundred yards from prosecutor’s house.—Joseph Edwards said he was a jeweller and silversmith at Truro. On the 3rd of January prisoner Weekly came to his shop, and offered for sale some broken silver. In consequence of what witness had heard, he gave information to the police, and Weekly was taken into custody by policeman Hare.—Mr. Collier, for the defence, contended that the charge of burglary had not been made out, and that there was no ground for the inference that violence was intended by means of the poker and carving knife. Although the boots and trousers were sold by Lee, he submitted that the evidence was insufficient to show that he had stolen them, they might have passed through other hands. The prisoner Weekly, in his defence, said he had the silver of Lee at Truro, who offered to exchange it with him for two umbrellas. Weekly, who is a razor-grinder, attempted to prove an alibi. The learned Judge carefully summed up, and in the course of his remarks commended Mr. Edwards for his conduct on the occasion. The jury found Lee GUILTY of housebreaking, and Weekly GUILTY of receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen. A former conviction for felony was proved against Lee, under the assumed name of William Rundell. Lee was sentenced to be transported for fifteen years; Weekly was ordered to be imprisoned for nine months, with hard labour. WILLIAM PRESTON, 25, was indicted for a burglary, in the house of William Budge, at Callington, and stealing therefrom a number of gold and silver watches, and other articles. A second count charged the prisoner with feloniously receiving the articles, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Maynard conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Slade defended the prisoner. Mr. Budge is a watchmaker, &c., at Callington. On the night of the 28th of October, 1848, his house and shop were shut up as usual; but the next morning, between six and seven, he was alarmed by a person called Prout, who told him that his shop was broken open. He came down and found that a pane of glass in the shop window had been broken, and that a number of articles had been stolen from the shop, including from eighteen to twenty-two gold, silver, and metal watches, two flute-cases, a number of watch keys, musical-box, &c. Mr. Budge went to and gave information to the police, but at that time was unsuccessful in gaining any trace of the thieves. However, on the 18th of November, having received some information, he procured a warrant to search the house where the prisoner lodged at Plymouth. He went to Plymouth with a Callington policeman named Henwood. He there had the assistance of the police superintendent and inspector, and of a policeman called Bloye, who lodged with Mrs. Coode, in High Street, Plymouth, the same house where prisoner and his wife lodged. In the part of Mrs. Coode’s house which prisoner occupied, a variety of articles were found which had been stolen from Mr. Budge, including the musical box, flute box, a number of keys, chains, and seals, watchmaker’s tools, &c., and two centre-bits, which policeman Bloye said was an instrument used by burglars. These articles were concealed under the flooring. The prisoner absconded, and though many journeys were made in search of him, he was not found by the constables till November, 1849, when he was apprehended in Jersey by a constable called Bullen. Prisoner was then taken into custody, had a seaman’s certificate in his pocket, and passed in Jersey under the name of Sidley. It was stated in evidence by Robert Rendall that on the evening of the 28th of October, 1848, (when the robbery was committed), he saw prisoner at Callington. A pawnbroker at Plymouth, named Woolff, stated that on the 13th of November following the robbery a man pledged a watch at his shop; the man was in sailor’s garb, and he believed it was the prisoner at the bar, though he would not swear it positively. Mrs. Coode’s evidence was to the effect that before the time of the robbery, prisoner’s wife on paying her weekly rent, said her husband was out of employ, but afterwards she appeared to have plenty of money, she paid the rent regularly, paid for mending her brother’s shoes, and seemed to dress better than before. It appeared that three other persons had previously been indicted for this same robbery; one of them, George Oliver, pleaded guilty, but the others were acquitted. This man Oliver, had been in prison for the last twelve months for the offence, and was now called to give evidence. He stated that he had met with a man named Preston in Plymouth, and being out of work they went to Callington. Oliver said that during the night he broke into the prosecutor’s house and took the property; he afterwards overtook the man called Preston, on his road out of Callington; he told him that he had committed a robbery, and the man said he ought not to have done it, but he afterwards received part of the things; he was now much altered; but Mrs. Coode, on being recalled, stated that Oliver had been in the habit of visiting prisoner at his lodgings.—Mr. Slade made an ingenious speech in defence of the prisoner; but he was found guilty of the Burglary without any hesitation on the part of the jury, and was sentenced to transportation for fifteen years.—Another indictment against the prisoner was not proceeded with, which was for having burglariously broken into the shop of Josiah Wadge at Callington, on the night of the 28th of October, 1848, and for stealing a time-piece, thirty-six watch-chains, and other articles. JOHN BORRIDGE, 15, was charged with a burglary in the house of Nicholas Broad, in the parish of St. Keyne. The door of the house was locked about half-past ten on the 26th of January, when the prosecutor, who is a farmer, was from home. He came home about half-past eleven, and in the interim, before his arrival, it appeared the house had been entered, there having been taken a pasty, piece of bacon, loaf of bread, cake, and a pair of boots. The prisoner had been in the Liskeard Union-house from the 6th of December, but he went out on the morning of the day that the robbery was committed, and returned the day after wearing a pair of boots, though when he left the work-house he wore shoes. Prisoner had lived with the prosecutor as a servant before he went to the union; and when charged by constable Dawe, of Liskeard, with the robbery, prisoner said he had nothing to do with anything but the boots; if anything else was gone, the other man, who was a tall man with a smock frock and cap on, took it. Verdict, GUILTY.—Twelve Months’ Hard Labour. WILLIAM CHIPMAN was charged with stealing 90 feet of timber, the property of George Baker, and another count charging him with receiving it, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Lopes for the prosecutors, and Mr. Collier for the prisoner. Messrs. Baker, the prosecutors, are the contractors for the government steam docks now in course of erection at Plymouth. For that erection a sea wall has to be built and piles driven, and as the wall is being finished, the piles are removed and placed in Keyham Lake. There is no evidence of the exact time when the timber was stolen; but on the 19th March it was seen in the possession of prisoner by Mr. S. Hart; prisoner was then at Mr. Hart’s sawpit at Wilcove, and with an apprentice of Mr. Treleaven, a builder, he was sawing a piece of balk with a cross-cut saw. This was about seven o’clock in the morning, and on seeing Mr. Hart, prisoner asked him whether he would allow him to saw a piece of wood at his pit. Mr. Hart gave permission, and afterwards prisoner had more timber brought to the pit. Mr. Hart’s suspicion was excited, in consequence of which he questioned prisoner, and afterwards informed Mr. Hillas, the engineer and superintendant (sic) of the works, who identified some of the timber. Prisoner who had been in the employ of Messrs. Baker, and previously bore a good character, gave different accounts of his getting the property. Mr. Collier made a very good defence of the prisoner, and after considerable deliberation, the jury found him GUILTY of receiving, knowing the timber to have been stolen. They recommended him to the merciful consideration of the court on account of his good character. Sentence, Six Months’ Hard Labour. JOHN MOCK, 18, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 22nd of January, two bundles of straw, the property of Joseph Kneebone.—One week to hard labour. RICHARD WEBB, 49, was charged with stealing on the 25th of January, at the parish of Mylor, a cock, the property of James Dunstan.—GUILTY. One month’s hard labour. JOSEPH RAWLING, 23, stealing at St. Columb, on the 7th of March, some potatoes, the property of John Grigg, landlord of the King’s Arms.—GUILTY, six weeks hard labour. JACOB SINCOCK, 24, was found GUILTY of sealing, at the parish of Wendron, a hat, the property of William Wicks, another miner. One month’s hard labour. MARY JANE FOWLER, 16, was charged with stealing, on the 6th of January, at Liskeard, a cotton umbrella, the property of Robert Bartlett. Verdict, GUILTY; and a former conviction was proved against her.—Sentence, four month’s hard labour. NO BILLS.—The Grand Jury ignored the bill against ELIZABETH HENDERSON, charged with stealing two faggots of wood from W.H. Whiting, of Bodmin. Also against RICHARD HOOPER, charged with stealing a leg of mutton from Richard Hoskin, of St. Breock. Also against JAMES TREVARTON, charged with the manslaughter of Robert May at Veryan. This prisoner however, was put on trial on the coroner’s inquisition. Also the bill was ignored against THOMAS GOULD, for putting in bodily fear and danger of his life, Henry Angwin, at Lawhitton; but the prisoner was tried on an indictment of assault. The court rose at half-past six, at which time the Grand Jury had one bill remaining for consideration; which they afterwards returned at the Judge’s lodings (sic), and were discharged. WEDNESDAY, March, 27. Mr. Justice ERLE took his seat on the bench at nine o’clock. THE ROBBERY AT TREGULLOW.—EDWARD BURROWS, 24 was indicted for the burglary in the dwelling- house of Mr. William Williams, in the parish of Gwennap, on the 14th of July, 1849, and for stealing therefrom a silver teapot, jug, sauce tureen, sugar basin, and various other articles of plate. Mr. GREENWOOD and Mr. STOCK appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. SLADE defended the prisoner. Mr. GREENWOOD stated the circumstances of the case at considerable length, showing that the prisoner had come from Plymouth with two other men shortly before the burglary was committed; that they went to Penzance and lodged there; that the prisoner left Penzance on the evening before the burglary, and was seen by different persons near Tregullow-house on Saturday evening, the 14th of July, the burglary being committed on the same night; that on Sunday forenoon, prisoner returned to Penzance apparently much fatigued, and was afterwards seen at Truro, and going on the old Bodmin road with another man. That man, named Squires, was also indicted for the offence, but was admitted at the trial as Queen’s evidence against Burrows. Considerable interest was manifested in the case, the details of which will appear from the following evidence. The first witness was Mr. William Williams, who said, I reside at Tregullow house, in the parish of Gwennap, which is rather more than three miles from Redruth, and seven miles from Truro. The house is about a third of a mile south of the high road, and it is visible from the road. The distance from Camborne is seven miles, and from Penzance about twenty miles. I and my family went to bed on Saturday night, the 14th of July, very soon after ten o’clock. My house at the time was in its ordinary state. I rose next morning at six o’clock, and went out at the front door; observed some plate on my lawn scattered about at a short distance from the gravel road. Cross-examined—Did not see any footmarks outside—did not look for any. (The counsel for the prosecution, in opening the case, said Mr. Williams when he saw the plate on the lawn, thought it might have just been placed there for some purpose by the butler, and therefore made no inquiries about it.)— John Beer, butler to Mr. Williams, said the plate was kept in locked cupboards; he locked the pantry door about ten o’clock on the night of the 14th of July. Had occasion to draw a tumbler of beer for Mr. Richard Williams, and having put the pantry key in the kitchen, when he came back he forgot to take it up again. When he came down about half-past six in the morning, knowing himself to be the first servant up, it rather surprised him to see the back door open. Went to the pantry, and saw the things in a confused state, with many articles of plate on the bench. The locks of the cupboards had been forced, and only a few articles were left in the cupboards. Witness recollected that Mr. Williams was out, and therefore went to Mr. Richard Williams’s room, and gave him information of what had occurred. He then went to Mr. Williams, who was walking in the plantation, and told him what had happened. Witness afterwards went into the different rooms on the ground floor, and found that the window of the study had been forced, and some articles stolen from the library. The bolt of the window sash had been forced; at the bottom of the window outside, there was a mark of a screw-turner or chisel, and the bar inside had been lifted by putting the hand between the shutters. The drawer of the table in the study had been forced open, and two writing desks had been taken from the study and were found out of doors. Witness produced several of the stolen articles which had since been found, and which he identified as the property of Mr. Williams. (Some of the articles were bent, and the counsel for the prosecution remarked that some of the things found on the lawn were broken, the thief having apparently broken them in order to ascertain the silver from the plated, with the view of selecting the former). Mr. Beer also produced a silver wine strainer and milk jug which he found in plantation, besides other articles. On Monday, the 16th of July, some covers and large waiters were found in the plantation on Mr. Williams’s grounds, about 150 yards from the carriage drive, the plantation extending out to the road. Cross-examined—Should think the robbery was not committed by a person acquainted with the premises; there was a drawer in the pantry containing small articles, silver spoons and forks, which were left behind, and he thought a person acquainted with the place would have taken them. His opinion was that the robber tried every other room on the ground floor before he went to the pantry.— Wm. Woolcock lives at St. Erme, and is a carrier. On Wednesday, the 11th July, went from Trespin, in St. Erme to a mine near Redruth, with a waggon and horses. Saw prisoner about a mile from Chacewater; two other persons were with him, John Squires being one of them. Burrows asked witness to give them a lift, and they got into the waggon. When passing near Tregullow House, Burrows said it was the finest house he had seen since he had been in Cornwall. Squires said, “Yes, Mr. Williams lives there, he is a very rich gentleman.” Burrows said they were going to Penzance in search of work, and that they came from the other side of Plymouth. They rode on to the top of Redruth town, and then walked down the hill; they had two small bundles, and went on the road to Penzance.—Elizabeth Williams lives at Penzance, and knows John Squires.—Saw him on Wednesday, the 11th day of July; he came with two other men to witness’s house; one of these men was prisoner Burrows, they came in the evening and Squires asked for a bed. He said he and the other men had worked together as masons for four years. They slept at witness’s house; they had two pocket handkerchiefs, one light, the other blue; they remained at witness’s house till Friday evening about seven o’clock, when Burrows left; he said he was going out for a bit of “spree” as far as Camborne. He asked Squires to lend him a shilling, which he did, and he also took with him the two handkerchiefs. Between eleven and twelve on Sunday morning Burrows came back; he seemed much tired, had some dinner, went to bed, and did not come down again till next morning. Before he went to bed he had some water to wash his feet. He came down between seven and eight on Monday morning; witness heard them talking; they seemed on very bad terms; they seemed to be teasing the other man Wilson; heard Wilson say “he could do for them, he could clap them fast,” and like that, but she did not know the meaning of what was said. On Tuesday morning they left the house; Wilson went first between seven and eight, and Squires afterward; they had no more clothes than they were dressed in. Squires went out with slippers on, and said he should come back; Burrows said he was waiting for him; neither of these paid for their lodgings. William Goss keeps the Lion Inn at St. Day, about half-a-mile from Tregullow-house. Burrows was at my house on Saturday evening the 14th of July, between four and five (the night of the robbery), he had three glasses of beer, and left between six and seven.—Mary Ann Goss, wife of last witness, gave evidence to the same effect.—Mark Moyle, a miner of Kenwyn parish, on Saturday, 14th of July, was going up Tregullow-lane, north of Tregullow- house, it goes round the house and out to the tramroad. Saw prisoner about two hundred yards from Tregullow-house about eight in the evening; came back and saw him again about fifty or sixty yards from where I saw him first; he came to a turn in the road, I was then fifteen or sixteen yards from him, (three feet yards) and when I got round the turn I missed him; he could not have gone on the lane, but must have got over the hedge into the grove. Cross-examined—The plantation hedge was about four feet high, the hedge on the other side of the road was about the same, Burrows might have got in that side.—Hannah Kicell, of Gwennap, saw prisoner on Saturday, 14th July, about 8 o’clock in the evening at the north gate leading into the lawn before Tregullow house, where cattle are let in. He was leaning over the gate.—Cross-examined.— Had never seen Burrows before. Abraham Snow, a miner of Gwennap, saw Burrows on the evening of Wednesday, the 18th of July, at Truro, between 7 and 8 o’clock in the evening. Had known Burrows before; Squires was standing at a short distance from him. Burrows said, “I and my mate have been west as far as Penzance, to see for work, and now we are about to return to Plymouth again.” Squires then came forward and touched Burrows on the shoulder, and said, “come mate, it is time for us to start.” Burrows then inquired the north road to Bodmin, and I directed him, but when they left me they went in the westerly direction.— Josepha Peters kept the turnpike gate going out to Truro towards Michell on the Bodmin old road, about a quarter of a mile from Truro. On Wednesday, the 18th of July, saw two men walk through the gateway, Burrows was one, Squires the other. Burrows had two bundles, one in a blue handkerchief with some red about it; the bundles appeared to be heavy. Squires had a canvas bag, which appeared heavy; they were going towards Michell. Trespin is on that road. It was then about half-past nine o’clock at night.—Cross- examined—Have said I thought I saw them pass on the previous Monday evening, did not say I was positive.—James Broad, blacksmith at St. Erme, was going home from Truro, on the night of Wednesday, the 18th of July, in company of Samuel Gill. At eleven o’clock at night about a quarter of a mile before coming to Trespin Head, saw a man trying to catch a horse, and speaking in an under tone; went to the gate of the field, and saw horses running, and a person running amongst them; he could not catch either of them, and came towards the gate; we went towards the hedge; he “rashly” opened the gate, and then went again after the horses. I and Gill returned to the gate, and another man called Roberts came up. We thought we heard something in the lane below, and when I returned they showed me two bundles they had found by the gate; we took them to Gill’s lodgings at Trespin, examined and found silver plate in them, the bundles were tied in 2 handkerchiefs; had heard of the robbery, and gave the bundles the same night into constable Rickard’s possession. On the following Wednesday (a week after) witness went with Rickard to Mr. Cayzer’s wheat field, about 350 paces from the gate of the field where the bundles were found. An adjoining field belonging to Mr. Knight was in oats. In the wheat field were traces as if a man had been trampling there. The man who was trying to catch the horse was about the size of prisoner, but witness could not see his features. Thomas Roberts lives at St. Erme, was on the way to Trespin between half-past eleven and twelve o’clock on Wednesday night the 18th of July; came up to James Broad and Samuel Gill. Had lost tea from his pocket, saw something white, but that was a stone, and I did not pick it up. Afterwards found two bundles in handkerchiefs outside the field gate; went with Gill to his lodging and found plate in the bundles. On the following Monday morning, made a further search with Gill; in Cayzer’s wheat field found a bag containing plate. Cross-examined.—It was a “darkish” night; had only drank one pint of beer that night. Found the bundles behind the gate where Gill had stopped, the gate was half open. Re-examined.—Found also a pair of slippers.—Edward Rickard, constable of St. Erme, deposed to receiving the articles from Gill, Broad, and Roberts, delivered them to Mr. Veer, Mr. Williams’s butler.—Jonathan Bawden, constable of Gwennap, found two writing desks in Mr. Williams’s shrubbery, both were broken open.—John West, miner at St. Erme on Wednesday the 15th of July was going from East Wheal Rose mine to Trespin; met Burrows about the six mile stone from Truro. Burrows asked whether some silver had not been stolen from Mr. Williams’s, at Scorrier? Witness said he believed there was. Burrows said the guard of the coach told him some had been found about four miles this side of Truro, near Trespin. Witness said it was not so; said that because he thought Burrows knew something about it; had never seen him before. Witness deposed to further inquiries prisoner made as to whether people had been taken in custody or not. They went on to Trespin together.— Elizabeth Woolcock, of Trespin, on Wednesday, the 25th of July, saw a man between 8 and 9 o’clock at night in an out field belonging to Mr. Knight. The person was walking about in the corn; witness called out, “I will tell Mr. Knight, for you are in the corn.” As soon as he heard her, he looked towards her and ran away and got over the hedges. Burrows was that man; saw him next morning in custody.—James Tamblyn, constable of , apprehended Burrows on the 26th of July, at Basset’s Inn, Michell; found on him a knife; his trousers were wet and dirty at the bottom, his boots looking as if he had been walking through corn or grass.—Mr. Frederick Martin Williams, son of Mr. Williams of Tregullow; was not at home at the time of the robbery; the knife produced is mine; I put it in a small desk in the study; the desk was locked; I had the key, and placed it in a drawer, which was also locked; the desk produced is mine. Cross-examined—I locked the desk on the previous January, when I went to Ireland; I was home about a week before the robbery for a few days, but did not then unlock the desk.—James Tregonning, clerk to Messrs. Williams, of Scorrier, had sharpened the penknife produced for Mr. Frederick Williams.—Mrs. Peters recalled, stated that the handkerchiefs and sack produced were like those she saw in possession of Burrows and Squire when they passed the turnpike gate.—Mrs. Williams, of Penzance, believed the handkerchiefs were those she saw in the possession of prisoners when they lodged at her house; the slippers found in the field were like those Squires had at Penzance.—John Veal, constable of Gwennap, had charge of Burrows on Sunday, the 29th of July. Witness detailed a conversation he had with Burrows, who on some pretence got the constable to go with him into the yard. Witness said, when he got into the yard two or three steps, he sprang away before me and ran off. I ran after him on the road to Poldice; he attempted to go over a hedge and I then caught him and brought him back to the inn.—John Squires, the accomplice of Burrows, who was admitted as Queen’s evidence, was next called, and said—I come now from Bodmin gaol; left Plymouth with Burrows on the 9th of July, went to Looe with a sailor, then to Truro, and thence through Redruth and Camborne to Penzance. Between Truro and Redruth we rode in a man’s waggon; got to Penzance on Wednesday evening, and lodged at Mrs. Williams’s. Burrows left on Friday night about seven, as he said, to go home, because he could get no work at Penzance. About nine on Sunday morning, witness saw Burrows again on Chyandour bridge; Burrows said he was hungry, and going on to Penzance he asked witness if he would help to carry some bundles to Plymouth; after some time witness consented to go with the bundles, for which Burrows promised to give him 10l. On Sunday night they slept at Mrs. Williams’s; was there till Tuesday morning, when the sailor went away to Breage. Burrows and witness went on through Camborne and Redruth towards Truro. On the Truro side of Tregullow, Burrows went over the hedge for a couple of bundles; he was absent about a quarter of an hour, and on coming back said they were gone; he then went over the edge (sic) again; I was on the road about half-an-hour, and then went on towards Truro; he overtook me, and said he would take me to a place where was a bag and two bundles. He did so; the bag and handkerchiefs produced are of the same kind. I took the bag and he took the bundles; we went across some “bottoms,” and lodged the bag and bundles in a field not far from Kenwyn Church, after which we came back to Truro. Stopped there the day, went out in the evening and Burrows talked with a young man. Burrows and witness had three or four pints of beer, then went to the field for the bundles, and went across the country to the road towards Trespin. Before coming there Burrows said he was tired, and would go into a field to catch a horse. Witness went on to near Trespin; then waited and finding Burrows did not come on, he placed the bag he was carrying in a corn-field. He then went on through the night towards Bodmin; did not see Burrows till the next day at two o’clock, at Bodmin; witness stopped at Bodmin a night or two, but Burrows went on to Plymouth and on Monday morning saw a man called Bundle at Plymouth. At Bodmin, Burrows wanted witness to go back to where he put the bundles, but witness said he should have nothing more to do with the matter. Witness told Burrows where he placed the bundles as well as he could describe the place.—Cross-examined—Did not think anything about the matter when he was offered £10 for carrying the bundles; when the bundles were first brought from the field he did not know what they contained, but he knew soon after; did not know that it had been come by dishonestly, should not have taken the job if he had thought so (laughter). He should not flinch from telling everything; had not received the 10l. from Burrows. The witness was Cross-examined at length by Mr. Collier; he said there was no falling out between them at Penzance; did not know why he was put in prison, for he was no scholar (laughter). Had seen the knife produced in Burrow’s possessian (sic) last Whitsnntide (sic); he told me he bought it at Eldad; he had it there I know. Re-examined—That is the knife, I can almost be sworn to it; don’t know that I ever had it in my hand; do not remember having passed through any turnpike gate before coming to Trespin, but went across the country; was never over that part of the country before; did not leave Penzance in slippers, but wore shoes; the slippers produced are like those I wore at Penzance.—Mr. Collier then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, making use of every circumstance in his favour (sic) that he could possibly adduce. He said the evidence of an accomplice must be received with great caution, and the jury could place no confidence in Squires, who must have told an untruth when he said he had no idea when he engaged to help to carry the bag and bundles, that the contents of them had been dishonestly obtained. There were undoubtedly other circumstances pointing to suspicion against the prisoner; but all those circumstances were consistent with his not having committed the robbery, or with his receiving some of the property knowing it to have been stolen. The only article found in his possession was what was said to be Mr. Frederick Williams’s penknife, and the contradiction to that on the part of Squires was very singular. After he had further commented on the circumstances of the case, the learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury immediately returned the prisoner GUILTY. He was then sentenced to be Transported for Fifteen Years. The trial lasted about six hours. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.—JAMES TREVARTON, 23, was charged on the Coroner’s inquisition with feloniously killing and slaying Robert May, of Veryan. Mr. STOCK for the prosecution, and Mr. SLADE for the prisoner. Mr. STOCK said a bill of indictment had been preferred, which had been ignored by the grand jury, but on the part of the prosecution he had thought it his duty to bring the case before the court on the Coroner’s inquisition, in order that the guilt or innocence of the prisoner might be established. It appeared from the evidence that the deceased, Robert May, was an old man, upwards of seventy years of age. On last New-year’s day he was going towards his home, and was met in a field called Crane’s meadow, by a man called John Randle. Crane’s meadow is situate between Veryan church-town and Ruan. John Rundle spoke to May, who was then apparently in perfect health, this being between five and six in the evening. May was seen a short time after in the same field, and not far from the same place, by a witness named James Hockin, who found him in a state which he first attributed to drunkenness, but which was afterwards found to be insensibility arising from a dreadful injury he had received. He was assisted to his home, and on the 3rd of January was attended by Edward Prynn, surgeon, at Veryan. Mr. Prynn found that May had received a very severe concussion of the left temple; there was a fracture of the temporal and parietal bones; and when called to him, his pulse was almost imperceptible. There was great dilatation of the pupil of the eye, which was almost insensible to the light; and Mr. Prynn came to the conclusion that there was congestion and concussion, and internal haemorrhage (sic) of the brain. He repeatedly attempted to speak, but the medical attendant could not understand what he said. On the following Monday evening, or Tuesday morning, he died. Mr. Prynn made a post mortem examination, and found that deceased’s skull was fractured two thirds across its base; the injuries were sufficient to produce death; he should think they were caused by a very severe blow from a blunt instrument of considerable weight; if caused by a fall it must have been from a very high place on a stone or hard substance. There were also slight bruises on deceased’s left side and arm. The evidence as sought to be applied to the prisoner was to the following effect:—On New-year’s day a party of men were drinking at Tank’s beer-house, in Ruan; they were James Rundell, a carpenter, his brother, John Rundell, another carpenter named Snell, and the prisoner James Trevarton. They left the house about six in the evening, as was stated by James Rundell, though it appeared that the time was not clearly ascertained. The parties were somewhat intoxicated, excepting that James Rundell stated himself to have been sober. In going from the public house towards Veryan, their road lay through fields, of which Crane’s meadow was one, James Rundell and the prisoner were carrying a quarter of pork, and John Rundell was carrying two guns, Snell having previously parted from them. Near Crane’s meadow, John Rundell fell behind the rest of the party, and the prisoner went back to see if he was coming. When he went back to John Rundell, he offered to carry one of the guns, which Rundell gave over to him, and then went on with the pork, and rested with it at the bottom of Cranes meadow till his brother overtook him. The prisoner did not come for four or five minutes after, and when he came the gun he had been carrying was broken. There was no quarrelling or blows heard. When the old man was on his sick bed, he told his relations and others, that a man who came down the hill struck him dreadfully, and kicked him; but he never said that Trevarton was the man, nor did it appear that there was any ill feeling between the parties. One witness said he heard the old man mention the work “gun”, on one occasion; but the counsel for the defence submitted that it was an incoherent expression wrongly interpreted by the witness, who had previously heard that Trevarton was accused of the offence. Besides the above a number of minute circumstances were deposed to. The chief reliance by the counsel for the prisoner was on a statement of John Rundell, from which it appeared that Trevarton told him when they were in a field before they came to Crane’s meadow, that he had broken the gun; consequently it must have been before he could have met with the deceased. It appeared also that Trevarton on hearing that he was accused, appeared anxious to have the matter cleared up, and went to the old man’s bed room with the other parties, and the deceased made no accusation against him. The prisoner also received a good character from two of the witnesses.—The learned JUDGE, in summing up, said the crime by whomsoever committed, was of a very aggravated nature; if manslaughter, it was so aggravated as almost to amount to murder. The transaction was of a dark and mysterious nature, and cogent evidence must be required to fix the guilt on the prisoner. There was nothing to fix the exact time when the blow was given; and it was possible that prisoner might have passed old May, and the blow have been struck by another person who came by afterwards. —After some consultation the jury gave a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The Court rose shortly before eight. THIRD COURT, WEDNESDAY, March 27. (Before Mr. BUTT, Q.C.) JOHN MELHUISH, 40, charged with stealing two watch cases, the property of John Ede, shopkeeper at Camelford, on the 9th of February. It appeared that between 9 and 10 o’clock in the evening, prosecutor’s wife heard a noise, and thought her husband had returned; on looking out she saw a man—the prisoner, not far from the shop, and on going into the shop saw that the window was broken, and two watch cases and a piece of chain gone. Mrs. Ede hereupon got her sister to watch, and followed the prisoner. The watch cases found on the prisoner were produced by Policeman Fitzgerald, and identified by the prosecutor, who also proved that he had seen the cases in his window on the morning of 9th February.—GUILTY.—Twelve months’ hard labour. DAVID PASCOE, 26, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 6th of March, one fowl, the property of Theophilus James, innkeeper at Budock.—Twelve months’ hard labor. WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER, 24, was ACQUITTED of stealing three geese, and seven ducks, on the 11th of January, the property of Philippa Perry, at Uny Lelant. FRANCIS GREET, 19, found GUILTY of stealing two yards of tarpauling (sic) the property of John Eustice of St. Gluvias, was sentenced to three months’ hard labor. JOHN WHITFORD, 44, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 1st of March, at Redruth market, a quantity of beef and veal, the property of John Colliver, butcher of .—Six months’ hard labour. JOSEPH COCKING, 44, charged with stealing a piece of white batten deal timber, the property of Edward Stoneman, carpenter at Pool, was found GUILTY.—He was also convicted of stealing a yellow pine plank, the property of John Rough, a carpenter at Pool. The prisoner received a good character from the prosecutors. He was sentenced to three months hard labor for each offence; the terms of imprisonment concurrent. THOMAS SMITH, 19, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 26th of February, seven dishes, eight basins, three bowls and other articles, the property of his master Edward Burton, of Bodmin, earthenware dealer.— Nine months’ hard labour. ANN GRIMES, 37, found GUILTY of stealing a pair of women’s shoes, the property of William Moore of Redruth, was sentenced to four months hard labour. ELIZABETH DOWRICK, 24, charged with stealing from her master, Charles Emanuel Pearse of Bodmin, a flasket wrapper, and various other articles, was found GUILTY.—She was also charged, together with HONOR COUCH, 48, and ANN COUCH, 22, with felonies by receiving a variety of stolen articles. Sentences:—Dowrick and Honor Couch, Eighteen months hard labour each; and Ann Couch, Twelve months hard labour. ANN JEFFERY, 17, found GUILTY of stealing from the person of Nicholas Symons miner, at Liskeard, One sovereign, five shillings and six pence; was sentenced to Six months hard labour. MARY GRENFELL, GUILTY of stealing a goose, the property of Joel James of Sancreed.—Three months hard labour. RICHARD HOOPER, 20, charged with assaulting Mary Williams, on the highway from Callington to Tavistock, with intent to violate her person, and with stealing from her, three half-pence; was acquitted of the robbery and found GUILTY of assault. Sentence:—Six months hard labour. JAMES PHILLIPS, 22, was found GUILTY of assaulting and putting in bodily fear and danger of his life, John Knuckey at Gwennap and stealing 10 shillings from his person. Sentence:—Eighteen months hard labour. THURSDAY.—John Shirman, 29, was convicted of a criminal outrage on Mary Thomas, aged 55, and sentenced to transportation for life. NISI PRIUS, Wednesday, March 27. VAWDRY v. MILLETT.—At the opening of the court this morning, the examination of witnesses for the defence was resumed:— Thomas Foss stated that he was a foreman of one of Messrs. Harvey’s shops, and had worked there above 19 years. Soon after Mr. Vawdrey was appointed surgeon for the men there, there was some dissatisfaction with him, and, as time went on, complaints increased. After that there was a petition signed among the men; witness also signed it. Should think there were about 200 signatures when it was presented; the names were written in a circle. The petition asked the Messrs. Harvey to appoint another surgeon. After the petition had been signed and sent in, some of the foremen were requested to attend on the Messrs. Harvey. Witness did so, and mentioned some instances of complaint that had been made out-of-doors. Nothing was done. Witness still paid to the sick club; but employed and paid another surgeon for himself and family. Never had the least difference with Mr. Vawdrey, and respected him as a gentleman. Within the last three or four years, had heard men say they had been over to the great butcher, and that the great butcher had done so and so. That was very common.—Cross-examined. Frequently heard people complaining, where Mr. Vawdrey had attended; there might be some without reason perhaps; but a great many with reason too. There was an examination before Mr. Whitford the lawyer, and Mr. Harvey himself, and nearly all the foremen were present.—By the Court. The number of men at Messrs. Harvey’s who paid to the club was very variable, from 400 to 800 or 1000. Could not tell what number there was in 1844. James Hamley had been a foreman at Messrs. Harvey’s for 10 years, and paid to the Doctors’ Club. Was in the factory at the time of the petition, and signed it. Had been attended by Mr. Vawdrey and Mr. Lye in consequence of his paying to this club. Mr. Vawdrey had discontinued attending him for six years. Witness was ill, and Mr. Vawdrey said his wife was to go to him two or three times a day to say how he was. Witness’s wife thought that Mr. Vawdrey ought to come to him, and witness thought the same. Witness employed another medical man, although he paid to the club. Believed that the working people disapproved of Mr. Vawdrey as a medical man. Had heard expressions used towards him, the same as had been already stated in court.—Cross-examined. When the men were called before Mr. Harvey, witness made the same statement that he had made now. His complaint was in the bowels; did not know what it was. Daniel Roberts, a mason, had worked for a great many years, for the Messrs. Harvey. Paid to the club. Mr. Vawdrey had attended him. Witness had since employed and paid other medical men, because Mr. Vawdrey would not give him medicine for the complaint about which witness applied to him. It was a complaint in the kidneys. Went to Mr. Vawdrey, who gave him medicine which witness took for three weeks, but derived no benefit from it, and was obliged to go to another person. Mr. Millett gave witness a prescription, and charged nothing for it. Witness sent to Penzance and had the prescription made up. Was afterwards hurt in the factory, and applied to Mr. Vawdrey, who put a bit of sticking plaster over his eye and on his chin; this healed the wound and witness went to work in a day or two. Afterwards, witness went to Mr. Vawdrey and told him he had his old complaint come on again, and that he had a prescription from a doctor, which had done him good. Did not tell him it was from Mr. Millett, but asked him for some medicine according to it. Mr. Vawdrey would not look at it, but gave him some medicine which witness took, but it did him no good. Witness was obliged to apply to his prescription again, and that cured him. The working classes in Hayle did not speak much in Mr. Vawdrey’s praise. About the time the cholera was prevailing, witness heard them calling him the great butcher; they said, when he passed, “there goes the great butcher.” Had heard that more than 50 times. Knew that Mr. Vawdrey and Mr. Lye were the two doctors appointed to look after the cholera cases. Scarcely heard any one speak in his favour. Thomas Jones, a farmer, living in Phillack, remembered the cholera breaking out at Hayle, and that Mr. Vawdrey and Mr. Lye were appointed the doctors to look after the sick. The people were not satisfied with them. Had heard in the parish complaints that more doctors were not appointed, and had heard some of the working classes speak against Mr. Vawdrey as a doctor. The people said that Mr. Vawdrey used to give mercury pills and that the patients were soon dead afterwards. When people lost their friends, they would speak slighting of the doctor. From this stage of the proceedings, there followed the examination of witnesses on surgical and medical cases which had been under the plaintiff’s care. This portion of the case was so lengthy and minute, and consisted so largely of details of surgical and medical opinions and practice, that our limits would not allow of our publishing the evidence on the cases in full; and, without doing so, we might possibly do unintentional injustice to one side or the other or, perhaps, to both. We may add, too, that, to the general reader the details of such evidence would be uninteresting, if not, in some parts, disgusting; while, further, it could, in many parts, be scarcely rendered intelligible by mere narration, apart from the opportunity afforded to the jurors, of ocular inspection of the patients’ wounded limbs. We must therefore, confine the remainder of our report to a brief notice of the nature of the several cases brought under consideration. They were as follow:— Oliver Hoskings, a master pattern-maker, at Harveys’ foundry, in December 1848 fell into a pit about 20 inches deep, and pitching on his right arm, suffered dislocation of the shoulder into the arm pit.—In reducing the dislocation, the plaintiff used a set of pulleys procured from the factory, such as were suited to lift about two tons; they were used to put large pieces of iron in the turning-lathe.—The witness stated that he still suffered pain in his arm and hand,—that he had lost the use of his hand, and that his fingers were contracted. He could not now lift his arm above half way to his head. His arm went smaller than the other; but he believed it was now coming back a little to its size.—He could not earn as much as he did before the accident, and his wages had been reduced. He had a good deal of writing to do, and was obliged to do it with his left hand. Before the accident he used to draw a good deal for models.—The surgical witnesses examined on this case were Mr. Couch, of Penzance, to whom the patient applied, about 7 months after his arm had been set by Mr. Vawdrey; Mr. John Wippell, surgeon at the South Devon and East Cornwall Hospital; and Dr. Paddon, of Truro. Sampson Bamfield, now a miner in Ludgvan, and formerly a labourer in the employ of Messrs. Harvey. About three years ago, while engaged with two other men in lifting a heavy casting by means of a crane, the weight was too much for them, and the other two men let go without giving sufficient notice. On their letting go, the handle which Bamfield held, flew back and he fell to the ground. By this accident, his right hand was turned back and the main bone of the arm was broken just above the wrist.—In cross-examination, this witness stated that he went to work within three months after the accident; he now worked in Reeth Consols as an underground man, digging out and wheeling ore, and going up and down ladders.—On re-examination he said on this point, that he had not the same strength as before the accident, and his work was now more difficult to him. He could not bring his arm round, unless he turned his whole body, and he could not twist anything.—He could not lift with his arm stretched out.—In addition to Mr. Wippell and Dr. Paddon, Mr. Frederick Clarke, lecturer on anatomy, and assistant surgeon at St. Thomas’s Hospital, was examined on this case; and some or all of these gentlemen were examined in each of the following cases. James Bamfield, a forgeman in the employ of Messrs. Harvey, was examined touching the treatment of his son Edwin Bamfield, who died last November; and who, about 6 years ago, and when about 10 years old, was run over by a cart heavily laden with stone, and suffered fracture of the thigh, severe laceration of the hand, and fracture of the collar-bone. After the removal of the bandages, about 3 or 4 weeks after the accident, the thigh was 1¾ inches shorter than the other, the foot was turned about 4 inches outward; the thigh also had a lump on the outside. The collar-bone was the same as when it was broke—a little bit coming out of the skin. More than 6 weeks afterwards, after recovering from hooping-cough and fever, he began to swell right over the lump and down to the knee, and abscesses formed under the lump. These abscesses continued nearly 4 years. The boy remained a cripple, and died in Nov. last. The witness added to his other evidence that in his shop, hardly any one gave Mr. Vawdrey a good name; about the time of the cholera, people were dissatisfied with him and said he was performing no cures; they were dissatisfied when he was appointed medical officer under the Board of Health. People generally called him “butcher”.—Elizabeth Bamfield, wife of the last witness, also gave evidence in this case; and added that among the working classes at Hayle there was an unpleasant feeling towards Mr. Vawdrey, and they were dissatisfied when he was appointed under the Board of Health. She also stated that Mr. Vawdrey had never asked for payment of his bill for attending her son. William Polkinhorne, a porter in the employ of Messrs. Sandys, Carne, and Vivian, nearly 7 years ago had his left leg broke just below the calf, by the falling of a large piece of timber. It was a comminuted fracture. He stated that he could not do the laborious work which he used to do before; he used to carry coals; now he weighed them. Mr. Vawdrey sent him in a bill, which he did not pay, and Mr. Vawdrey had not asked for it since.—On cross-examination, he admitted that he told Mr. Vawdrey that he was poor, and after that Mr. Vawdrey did not ask him any more for payment of the bill. Naomi Strickland, wife of David Strickland, sawyer, of Phillack, was examined concerning her daughter, a little girl who was taken ill last summer in choleraic diarrhoea and was attended by Messrs. Vawdrey and Lye as medical officers under the Board of Health. It appeared that the treatment they pursued was by giving mercury-powders, which were continued after appearance of a bluish black spot on the child’s lip and after salivation. Eventually several teeth and their sockets, and a piece of the lower jaw-bone, worked out, and a portion of the lower lip was consumed. The child was shown in court. She presented a most painful spectacle. She was given some cake to eat; and it appeared that she could not open her mouth, but was obliged to cram her food through openings caused by the lost teeth, and then to work it into her mouth with her tongue.—The witness stated that this case of her child was known throughout the neighbourhood among the working people, and was a good deal talked about. She did not hear much about Mr. Vawdrey as a celebrated man; some spoke against him when he was appointed medical man at the time of the cholera. Thomas Potter, hammer-man and fire-man, six years ago, broke his left leg, just above the ancle (sic), by the falling of a piece of iron. His leg was now weak, lame, short, and turned out, and he had pain in the outer ancle. At the end of six weeks from the accident, he got out and used two crutches for some weeks; then one crutch, and a stick. For years before he broke his leg he had a bruise on the same ancle, from the falling of a piece of hot iron. He could not now follow up his employment as he used to do; he was not so strong as he was before the accident. At the time of the cholera, the boys would say “there’s such a one dead—the butcher has been at work to night.” Had also heard the men say so. The general feeling among the men was that if they had done away with Mr. Vawdrey and had another doctor there would have been better peace in the shop. He himself had no reason to complain of Mr. Vawdrey, who gave him excellent attendance. John Luke, in the employ of Messrs. Harvey, was examined concerning an accident to his father, Jacob Luke, who was a porter in the employ of the Cornish Copper Company, and died last year of cholera. This was a case of fractured leg, close to the ancle. The accident happened in 1841.—Elizabeth Harris, sister of the deceased Jacob Luke, was also examined.—The patient got out of bed in seven or eight weeks. His foot was then turned on one side; on the inside of his ancle there was a lump and on the outside a hollow, and he had a shoe made to keep up his foot on that side. He could not carry coal or roll ores to a vessel, as he did before the accident. After a while, the calf of his leg wasted away, and that continued to his death. He continued to work for Mr. Pool; but could never walk without a stick after he got about. Elizabeth Sampson, widow, at Hayle, was examined concerning the treatment of her boy, about 9 years old, who, in October, 1848, was struck down by a railway carriage, breaking his arm, and severely lacerating its integuments from elbow to wrist. The boy also suffered lock-jaw for some weeks.—On cross-examination, the witness said she was very grateful for what Mr. Vawdrey had done to the child; at first he did not know that the arm could be saved. The arm now could not be raised above the level of the breast. THURSDAY, March 28. John Perry, porter in Messrs. Harvey’s employ, stated that about three years ago, while he was working at Foundry Cliff, a large block of stone fell and broke his leg and the ancle-bone. It was a case of simple fracture. He stated that Mr. Vawdrey came in ten minutes after the accident, and afterwards gave him very good attendance. His foot was now turned outward, and his leg was shorter than the other. He could not carry such loads as he did before. Some of his family had the cholera at Guildford; Mr. Vawdrey attended them and they recovered. Alfred Nicholls, a labourer in employ at Messrs. Harvey’s foundry, about three years ago, met with the accident of running into a hot iron-casting, and burnt both feet very badly. The toes were now all turned up, in consequence, as appeared, of the muscles of the sole of the feet having been destroyed, or of the contraction of the upper integuments. The complaint was that no effort had been made by the application of splints to straighten the toes. John Goodman, clerk at Messrs. Harvey’s, gave evidence concerning an accident which happened, about six years ago, to a cousin of his at St. Erth; whereby be broke his leg, which, after cure by Mr. Vawdrey, was shorter that the other. This was much talked of among their men. The feeling among the men towards Mr. Vawdrey was not at all favourable. The cases which had now been brought before the Court, he had heard talked of among them, and some of the results very much complained of. Had heard the men apply opprobrious epithets to him. The people were dissatisfied at his appointment in the time of cholera.—At the time when the round robin was signed in 1844, there were probably about 4 or 500, including boys, who were paying to the doctor’s club. Mr. CROWDER then addressed the jury in reply. He began by saying that the evidence on the cases, on which they had been so long engaged, was such as might have been brought forward in an action against the plaintiff for gross neglect of professional duty. But this was not the cause of the present action. The learned gentleman then recalled attention to the case as laid before the jury in his opening, and, then, after some observations on the plea of privileged communication, reviewed the private character and professional career of the plaintiff, contending that he was shown by the evidence to be a skilful practitioner, attentive and kind to his patients, and indefatigable in his attendance during the time of cholera.—On the plea of privileged communication, Mr. Crowder proceeded further to observe that, where any publication was, on the face of it, injurious to another person, the onus lay with the party publishing to show that he had some justification which would rebut the presumption of malice. Referring to the date of the defendant’s letter, on the 29th of October, after the cholera was gone, Mr. Crowder contended that the letter could have had no other than a malicious purpose; for, from the appointment of the medical officers on the 6th of August, no attempt or application was made to remove Mr. Vawdrey. And, throughout the duration of the cholera, there was not a single fact to justify, in the slightest degree, the defendant’s letter. His learned friend, Mr. Cockburn, said that the defendant had not volunteered his letter until something had been done previously; and he referred to the letter written by Charles Webber, and which was enclosed, with the defendant’s letter, to the Board of Health in London. But he (Mr. Crowder) contended that the letter of Mr. Webber’s had no just or reasonable bearing on the subsequent part of the libel. Webber’s letter contained no syllable about Mr. Vawdrey; it was simply an attack on the Board of Health, in the course of which he stated that he had asked them to throw open the Medical Staff and not confine it to two surgeons. His learned friend also said that the object of the defendant’s letter was to attack the Board, and that the attack on the plaintiff was only collateral. But it was not the less an attack, because collateral; and it was difficult to imagine why a gentleman desirous of the public weal alone, and having no malicious motive, should sign that letter in another name rather than his own. Mr. Crowder then read and commented on the different portions of the libel, and contended that it was not in the slightest degree a privileged communication; the argument that there was an intention to call the attention of the Board in London to the state of things at Hayle, was merely used to conceal the malice of the defendant. With reference to Mr. Cockburn’s explanation of the defendant’s using the signature H.E. Edwards, Mr. Crowder asked how the Board in London were to suppose a rivalry between Mr. Vawdrey and Mr. Millett, when Mr. Millett was not in practice and need not have signed as a professional man. All the board had to do was to send a copy of the letter, in order to investigation. This they did. A copy came down; a fac simile was sent for; and it was not until after the arrival of that fac simile and just on the eve of the inquiry at Hayle on the 17th November, that Mr. Millett acknowledged that the letter was in his handwriting. Mr. Millett must have known the general esteem in which Mr. Vawdrey was held, and no man knew better than Mr. Millett that Mr. Vawdrey was not the scorn of the neighbourhood. It was not for the plaintiff to show the motive to malice in a libel; it was sufficient in this case, to show that the defendant said, untruly, what he knew was untrue—that the plaintiff was the scorn of the neighbourhood.—Mr. Crowder next referred to the evidence in justification which had been adduced in defence; and which was grounded on cases of alleged gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff in his professional practice. He denied that the coarse epithets which it was said had been applied to the plaintiff were intended to apply to his private character or professional conduct; not a single witness had impugned Mr. Vawdrey’s kind-heartedness. It was true that in Messrs. Harvey’s establishment, where the numbers varied from 400 to 800 persons, there was in 1844 a round robin signed by 150 persons at the utmost, stating that they were dissatisfied with Mr. Vawdrey. But, assuming that in a populous district—in the neighbourhood of mines, many of which Mr. Vawdrey attended, and in the neighbourhood of the Cornish Copper Foundry—in a district where the population of the same class as that at Harvey’s Foundry was great— assuming that there was a dissatisfaction towards Mr. Vawdrey in Messrs. Harvey’s foundry, in one corner of Hayle, and that not affected by the cholera—and supposing too there were occasional taunting and the use of vulgar expressions, was this to be put forth as proof of the assertion that the plaintiff was the scorn of the neighbourhood? The utmost the evidence amounted to was that he was the scorn of a portion of that one factory. With further reference to the round robin in 1844, for the removal of Mr. Vawdrey, Mr. Crowder observed that the Messrs. Harvey were perfectly respectable people—men not desirous of having on their establishment an incompetent practitioner, and who acted on their conviction of his competency, by employing him in their own families. On receipt of the petition in 1844, Messrs. Harvey instituted an inquiry; Mr. Whitford the attorney and Mr. Harvey himself were present; the men were called before them, their complaints heard and investigated, and the result was that Mr. Vawdrey was continued as the Foundry Doctor; and that at a time when the very best means of inquiry existed and the complaints were fresh.—The learned counsel proceeded again to comment on the evidence for the defendant; and with reference to the cases on which surgical opinions had been given, observed that in this action, medical cases would have been more important than surgical. The defendant had however found and put on the record 10 cases out of the number which in the plaintiff’s practice of 14 years, he must have attended, in a neighbourhood where there were factories and mines, in which cases of accidents must have been considerable, and during the whole of that practice no action had ever been brought against him for negligence. The learned counsel stated to the jury that each of the 10 cases must be such as would justify a verdict against the plaintiff if an action had been brought against him for gross negligence as a practitioner. Throughout the 10 cases, they had nothing but speculative opinions; not a single medical man had been called who saw the case immediately after it occurred, and who could have spoken of its circumstances. The patients themselves were persons who, from their station in life, could not give a sufficient account of the cases to enable any one to come to a determination upon them now. The evidence of the medical men, he contended, was speculative, on insufficient data; and it was most unfair to judge Mr. Vawdrey by speculative opinions of men who had not sufficient evidence of facts before them.—In conclusion of his address, which lasted upwards of four hours and a half, the learned counsel, on the question of damages, said the plaintiff had been driven to that court to seek a remedy. As a man continuing his practice for the support of himself and family, it was necessary that he should lay the whole matter before a jury. That had now been done; and, if the defendant had failed in his pleas, it was for the jury to say what damages the plaintiff ought to receive for the purpose of setting him right and for continuing to him that reputation which he had earned and had so long enjoyed. The action was not brought for damages to be put into the pocket of the plaintiff; but that the jury should mark their sense of the position and conduct and character of Mr. Vawdrey, and to that extent alone did he seek damages at their hands. At a quarter to 3, the learned Judge began to sum up the case to the jury. His lordship began by saying that the action presented two questions, and two questions only, for consideration—those questions arising on the two pleas which the defendant had put on the record:—the first plea being one of “not guilty,” and the second plea alleging, in substance, that the matters contained in the letter were true. With regard to the first plea, it was not denied that on the 29th October, the defendant did write and transmit a letter under the feigned name of Edwards, and addressed to the Secretary of the Board of Health, London. It was also not denied that, in point of law, that act was a publication of the letter, and that the letter so addressed was a letter calumnious to the plaintiff. But then the defendant, on that first plea, claimed to submit another proposition, viz.—that although he did in fact write that letter, yet that it was written under such circumstances, with such entire good faith, and with such absence of malice as to entitle him to defend himself under the plea of not guilty.—In the second plea, the defendant alleged that the matters stated by him in the letter were, in substance, true—that the plaintiff had been guilty of various acts of mal-practice, such as would render him an improper person to be appointed a medical officer under a Board of Health, and that by reason of those various acts of mal-practice he had become the scorn of the persons living in the neighborhood. His lordship went on to say that with regard to the first plea, which alleged that the letter was written under circumstances which invested it with a character of privity, he should state that the law held every letter which derogated from a person’s good fame to be, prima facie, malicious. But that legal inference of malice might be rebutted, in various ways—one of which was under the plea that the letter complained of was a privileged communication. In the present case, his lordship said, if the jury should think that there was evidence that the letter in question was a communication made by a resident of Hayle, at a time when there was a good reason for making it with regard to the public interests,—that that communication was made by a person residing on the spot, having an interest in the subject—that it was made at such a time as to show that it was intended to call attention to the necessity of taking measures for the better defending of the population of that place from the visitation of cholera—and, if it were made without malice to the plaintiff; if all these circumstances should concur, then the case was within the plea of privileged communication, even although the statements in the letter should not all be proved true, supposing that they were honestly made under the belief that they were true. But even if the occasion and circumstances in which the letter was written were such as to make it a privileged communication, yet if there was reason to believe that it was intended to damage the character of the plaintiff, then, in that case, it was no privileged at all and could not rebut the legal inference of malice.—With regard to the fact of the letter being signed in a false name, although he was not prepared to lay it down as matter of law that no letter could be privileged which was so signed, yet, he might venture to say, without contradiction, that this was the very first case in which a letter with a false name was asserted to be a bonȃ fide communication entitled to privilege. His lordship also observed that, to his mind, the feigned signature was a very strong feature in this case and afforded a very important clue to the other circumstances of the letter.—With regard to the time when the letter was written, his lordship said, if it had been written at a time when the cholera was raging, one could conceive that a degree of haste and incaution in the composition of the letter might have been excused. But, it was not only in evidence that the cholera had at that time ceased, or at all events was waning away, but it was rather singular that the letter of Webber’s in the Royal Cornwall Gazette, which the defendant sent with his own letter, was headed “The recent Epidemic at Hayle.” That letter was published three days before the defendant sent his letter; so that the defendant adopted the letter of a person who spoke of the cholera as a thing that was past, and although the time was not conclusive on this matter, yet it was an important circumstance in considering the defendant’s motives. His lordship also observed that he could not help thinking that the words in the letter—“I know not and care not what steps may be taken in the matter”—were very important, because the only ground on which the letter could be privileged was that it was intended that some steps should be taken in the matter; if nothing was to come of the letter, there could be no good motive in sending it. The letter was sent to the Board in London; and of course, with the intention that a copy of it should be sent down to Hayle; for it should be idle to suppose that it was intended that the letter should be placed aside in the Repository of the Board in London—Then came the question, said his Lordship, whether it was intended that the letter should operate so as to induce a proper inquiry, or was there that ill-will which was alleged, and which would prevent the letter from being shielded by the plea of privilege. Now he could not conceive any good motive in any man writing a letter in a feigned name. The writer of this letter made serious imputations on the clergyman of the parish, on the board of health, and on the medical men; and signed the letter in the name of Edwards. His lordship did not know, although the initials were not the same, whether that was done with the intention of passing off for the Mr. Edwards who was a member of the board and who entertained views somewhat similar to Mr. Millett’s own, as to the extension of the staff of medical officers. Although Mr. Millett was not one who practised for money, it was possible that he might have felt personal annoyance in not having his services called in, and that he was not included in the Board; and there could have been no objection to his sending his complaint in that respect to London, if he had done so at a proper time, in a proper way, and in his own name. But his lordship could not conceive any circumstances in which a gentleman, seeking to make an accusation against another or to draw attention to a public grievance, should not come forward in his own name; and he could not think that the excuse offered for the defendant, in this respect, by his Counsel, was at all satisfactory.—If nothing but a copy of the letter had been sent down from London, there would have been no proof of who was the writer, and thus an object of a clandestine character would have been effected under the false name. His lordship contrasted this conduct with that of Mr. Webber, who openly signed his name to the letter which he published.—His lordship next proceeded to comment on the language of defendant’s letter. Instead of saying that the medical gentlemen were not sufficient and that the staff ought to be increased, he said the medical gentlemen were the scorn of the neighbourhood, and yet had been appointed by the Board, to hold such responsible offices. It would be for the jury to say whether that was the language of a person actuated purely by motives for the public good. It was no excuse for him to say that his main object was to attack the Board, and that it was merely incidentally that he attacked the medical gentlemen.—But the plaintiff alleged that the statements concerning him in the letter were false and that the defendant must have known them to be so, and that therefore the claim of privilege could not be maintained. On this point evidence was called to show that so far from Mr. Vawdrey’s being the scorn of the neighbourhood, he was held in high esteem, and that although there might be difference of opinion as to his merits, and especially as to his attentions to the club at Harvey’s factory, yet that the words complained of in defendant’s letter were an entire misdescription of him, and that the defendant who had lived for years in the neighborhood, must have known that they were a misdescription.—His lordship here reviewed and commented on the evidence on this point. Incidentally, his lordship said that he did not understand that, if one gentleman undertook to say of another that he was “the scorn of the neighborhood,” that he meant of any one class of persons in distinction from others; he thought that “the scorn of the neighbourhood” meant the scorn of persons of all classes of society and not of any one particular class. The epithets “butcher, &c.,” said to have been applied by some of the working classes to Mr. Vawdrey, the learned judge considered to be really nothing more than common slang—a mere coarse way of speaking of the medical profession.— Concerning the evidence of dissatisfaction on the part of the workmen at Harvey’s Foundry, towards Mr. Vawdrey, the learned judge remarked that it was six years ago since the petition for the gentleman’s removal from the situation of the club-doctor, was signed—that it was not signed by a majority of the workmen, and that the feeling of dissatisfaction was not participated in by the employers, who, after an inquiry into the complaints of the workmen, conducted by a legal gentleman (Mr. Whitford), did not see fit to remove Mr. Vawdrey. The learned judge then went through the remainder of the evidence on the first plea, observing in conclusion that on a question of privileged communication, there were two things to be considered—1st, the occasion on which it was written; 2ndly, the spirit in which it was written. As to the occasion, his lordship thought that any inhabitant of Hayle would have been privileged in making, honestly, a communication to the Board of Health in London, for the purpose of leading to an inquiry. But, if the jury should be of opinion, either from the terms of the letter itself, or from the time and circumstances in which it was written, or from the fact of its being written in a false name, that, it was not an honest, bonȃ fide communication, made for the public good, but that it was written to gratify ill-will and ill-feeling, then, however important the occasion might be, the privilege failed and the plaintiff would be entitled to the verdict on the 1st issue. If, however, they should think that the occasion which would justify such a communication was prolonged up to the date of the letter, and that the letter was honestly written, then there would be a verdict for the defendant on that issue.—Proceeding to sum up on the second plea, his lordship said that in order to support it, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff was “the scorn of the neighbourhood,” and not merely that he (the defendant) thought so. Unless the jury found that the plaintiff was held in general disesteem or disrespect, then the plaintiff would be entitled to the verdict on that issue. They then came to the question, which was of more importance to the plaintiff in this case; it was also important to the defendant—both with regard to damages and costs, and also with regard to the question whether he had made an unfounded communication. His lordship then read from the libel the sentence beginning “Unreduced dislocated shoulders;” the language of which was very justly interpreted in the plea itself as meaning that there were in existence such unreduced dislocated shoulders and crooked limbs as had become beacons to the public judgment, and ought as such to have prevented the board from appointing the plaintiff to a responsible office. It was not necessary that the defendant should prove all the 10 cases of mal-practice which he had alleged against the medical officers. But it was necessary that he should prove so much, and such instances, as in the judgment of the jury ought to have been beacons to induce the Board of Health to abstain from appointing plaintiff one of its medical officers. The cases adduced were surgical; whereas the alleged disqualification of the plaintiff, in respect of treatment of cholera, must have been medical. But the reason for adducing surgical cases on the part of the defendant, was that his letter to the Board in London, referred to surgical blunders. The cases ranged over a considerable period of time—the earliest being nine years ago; and the jury would have a right to consider that circumstance in applying their judgment to the consideration of the cases. It had been stated that the only data they had to rely upon as to the facts of those cases, was the statements of the sufferers themselves, or of friends who attended them in their illness, and that they were persons very likely to be misled by appearances—especially in times of sickness; and that the best surgical evidence in the world would be valueless unless they could rely on the facts on which it was based. With the exception of Mr. Couch, there was only one surgical gentleman who had seen any of these cases. But there were some of the cases which did not depend on the statements of the sufferers or their friends; because, the medical witnesses, having examined the limbs of the patients at the present time, stated that they could thence infer what the treatment had been, and what the result would have been provided the cases had been treated in a different way.—His lordship then at great length, summed up, (in parts fully and in other parts substantially) the evidence in the 10 cases, seriatim, which had been brought forward by the defendant.—His lordship directed the jury that it was not required of them to see that the plaintiff had used the very best, and the latest and most approved practice of surgery; the question was whether he had been guilty of gross neglect, such as in each case would subject him to a civil action. It would not be reasonable to say that in a science which was in a state of perpetual progress, a man should be subject to a civil action because he had not adopted the latest improvements.—Concluding the summing up on the second plea his lordship said the question was whether all—and if not all, whether any—of the cases of alleged malpractice had been proved. If none of them were proved, then the plaintiff would be entitled to succeed on such part of the evidence. If any were proved, then the jury would have to say whether there was enough proved to support the allegation in the plea. If all were proved, probably the jury would think that they would support the allegation that those unreduced dislocated shoulders and crooked limbs ought to have been a beacon of warning not to employ the plaintiff in the responsible situation of medical officer under the Board of Health. If the jury found that any number—more or less—of the cases were proved, it would be for them to determine whether they supported the allegation. If they found that the evidence justified the designation of the plaintiff as the scorn of the neighbourhood, then the defendant would be entitled to the verdict on the second plea. If they thought that the plaintiff was not the scorn of the neighbourhood, and that a sufficient number of cases had not been proved to support the allegation concerning “unreduced dislocated shoulders, &c.” then the verdict on that plea would be for the plaintiff.—If they should think that the defendant was not justified in writing this letter in the first place, then the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict on the whole record. But if they found for the defendant on the first plea, they would still have to find on the other plea, because it was very important in point of character and also in respect of costs. If they found for the plaintiff on both points of the record, then would arise the question of damages. On this point his lordship observed that the libel was not sent out to the whole world in newspaper; it was sent to a select body and came down again to Hayle. When some inquiry took place, the defendant was called on to apologize; he refused to do so, and in a very uncourteous way, simply saying that it was a pity so much time should have been wasted. After that, he could not expect but that the plaintiff should proceed to further measures. The summing up, which lasted 4½ hours, was concluded at about a quarter-past-seven.—The jury then retired, and, in about three quarters of an hour proceeded to the judge’s lodgings and returned a verdict for Plaintiff; one shilling damages. The Judge we understand, took time to consider whether he would certify for costs. CROWN COURT.—THURSDAY, March 28. The trials were proceeded with in this court before Mr. Justice Erle. JAMES HOLMAN, 16, was charged with a criminal offence, against the order of nature, on the 9th of November last, at the parish of Philleigh.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY. SENDING THREATENING LETTERS.—JOSEPH HENDY, 65, was indicted for feloniously sending a threatening letter to William Thomas, at the parish of Mullion on the 27th of July last, threatening to burn his house and outbuildings. There were other counts in the indictment, varying the charge against the prisoner. There was also another indictment against the prisoner, for threatening to burn the property of William Thomas. To each of these, Mr. SLADE, the prisoner’s counsel, had put in a demurrer, and the subject came before the court on preceding evening. The learned JUDGE then said,—Before the demurrers are received, I may state that I have turned my attention to this matter, and have formed an opinion in which I am fortified by the opinion of a very eminent Judge (the late chief justice of the Common Pleas), that the right of the prisoner, in cases of felony, to plead over after judgment against him, is not known to the law. It was a subject matter of discretion with the courts of law to allow it, when there was judgment to be passed affecting the life of a prisoner; but when it is no longer a question affecting the life of a prisoner, it appears to me wholly inexpedient uniformly to allow a prisoner to plead over after a demurrer has been decided against him. I am perfectly clear that there is an earnest desire that justice should be administered in these courts according to the real rights of parties, and not be put aside by semblances, or immaterial forms. The party who chooses to demur must, therefore, stand to all the consequences. Wherever there are frivolous proceedings appearing on demurrer, I shall pass judgment against the prisoner and sentence him, and leave him to get rid of that by a writ of error. The reasonable course is to try by jury as to whether there is any foundation for the charge in point of fact, and then let the prisoner see whether he can defeat the verdict by motion in arrest of judgment, or writ of error. —Mr. SLADE said his intention was simply to save time, as there were objections to the indictments which might be urged in arrest of judgment. His client was not in a position to go for a writ of error, and with his Lordship’s consent he would withdraw the demurrers.—In consequence of this decision, the case came before the jury for trial; counsel for the prosecution, Mr. MOODY and Mr. COLERIDGE—attorneys, Messrs. GRYLLS and HILL; counsel for the prisoner, Mr. SLADE and Mr. COLLIER; attorney, Mr. PLOMER. Mr. MOODY stated the case to the jury. The charge was not that of setting fire to a dwelling-house and out-buildings, but sending a letter threatening to commit the offence. The legislature had very properly made the crime not of the same magnitude as when the prisoner set fire to the house himself; but the offence was very close upon that crime. The setting fire to premises had been a capital offence, and was still, when there were persons in the house set fire to; with regard to the present offence, with which the prisoner was charged, it was by statute subject to transportation for life. He congratulated them, that up to the transactions which would be detailed in this case, there had been, he believed, no act of incendiarism in this county; but they would hear, that previously to the sending of this threatening letter, a house had been actually burnt down, and he thought it must occur to their minds that it was burnt down intentionally. He would now show them how the charge of sending this threatening letter was brought home to the prisoner. The prosecutor, Mr. Thomas, is the owner and occupier of considerable property in the parish of Mullion, and the prisoner was also a person of consideration in that parish. Prosecutor lives on property of his own, with a house and out-buildings; he had also an estate called Trembell in his occupation; where a fire had recently taken place. He had also an estate called Colroger, which was in the occupation of another person who had given notice to leave that farm at the time when the transaction charged in the indictment took place. Prosecutor had issued advertisements for letting Colroger, and it appeared that prisoner took great interest to prevent its being let to prosecutor’s nephew, prisoner’s own son having tendered for the farm. Prosecutor at this time was in great alarm because of the fire at Trembell, which he attributed to incendiarism. About this period prisoner called on prosecutor and learnt from him that he was about to let Colroger to his nephew, on which prisoner seemed angry, and used the expression that he had never had any hay or corn burnt. A few days after this, prosecutor received by post the threatening letter in question; and the following was the manner in which it was traced to the prisoner. On the 23rd of last August, prisoner called at the Constantine post-office, where he made some inquiry as to the time when a letter would get to Helston, which the postmistress answered and then he asked for two stamps, which she supplied. But before putting the letters into the box, she took notice of the directions, which the prisoner observed, and immediately was very urgent in wanting to have the letters back again. She refused, telling him they were now the property of the Postmaster General. Those letters were addressed to the prosecutor, and to his brother, Mr. Joseph Thomas, both living at Mullion. Now it appeared that a letter to reach Mullion from Constantine, first went to Falmouth and then to Helston; and it would be shown that the prisoner afterwards watched for the postman who had to deliver letters at Mullion, and endeavored, though without effect, to get from him the two letters addressed to the Messrs. Thomas. The following is a copy of the letter received through the post by the prosecutor, Mr. William Thomas:— “SIR.—This is to inform you that you are better not Let your farm to any of your family—if you do you will sufer as before, you know how feelt the other day. “A Caution Friend.” The learned Counsel proceeded—It was obvious that this letter taken singly made no mention of fire; but the meaning of the expression, “how feelt the other day,” was to be gathered from the fact that there had been previously been a fire on Mr. Thomas’s premises, and that in consequence of it he felt great anxiety and alarm. The conversations by prisoner with prosecutor and prosecutor’s wife would also have to be taken into consideration: He should likewise offer in evidence the letter addressed to prosecutor’s brother, if his lordship should consider it admissible; he should also offer another letter sent to prosecutor three or four days after the one he had read, with the view of giving all possible explanation of the first received letter. Mr. MOODY was then about to put in the written evidence, taken before a magistrate, of Mrs. Loveday Nicholas Pollard, the postmistress at Constantine; for which purpose he called Mr. George Trenerry, surgeon at Penryn, who stated that he had been in attendance on Mrs. Pollard, who, on the previous Friday was suffering from inflammation of the lungs, and in his opinion was too ill to travel to Bodmin. Mr. Frederick Hill, solicitor, Helston, (prosecutor’s attorney) was examined, and stated that Mrs. Pollard’s evidence was taken before a magistrate, in the presence of the accused and his attorney, Mr. Plomer. All the facts were taken down which in the judgment of the magistrate (Mr. John Peter) were considered important, and the depositions were afterwards read over in the presence of prisoner, and his attorney, and no objections were made. Mr. Hill said he recollected that Mr. Plomer cross-examined every witness, and therefore he believed he cross-examined Mrs. Pollard, but he could not now remember any particular fact on which she was cross- examined.—Prisoner’s counsel objected to the reception of Mrs. Pollard’s written evidence, on the ground that there was no cross-examination in the deposition returned,—if cross-examination had taken place, it was not written down and stated as cross-examination; the deposition was therefore inadmissible, as not fulfilling the intent of the statute. If necessary, they could call Mr. Plomer to show either that he asked questions, the answers of which were not taken down, or that parts of the answers of the witness were not put down. They represented the inconvenience of a witness not appearing in court to be cross examined, and said the whole of the cross-examination ought to be set out when the witness was too ill to appear, for it might then give a different complexion to the case. They denied that the magistrate had any power of discretion for omitting any part of the cross-examination.—The learned JUDGE was of opinion that the requisites of the statute had been complied with; the party was examined in the presence of the accused and his legal adviser, who had full opportunity to cross-examine; the examination was taken down and read over in the presence of the parties, and signed by the justice. As to the taking down of every word, if that were necessary, every question and answer would have to be taken in its terms; but they knew that the practice was to make up a narrative composed of the questions and answers, and to guard against error, the law ordered that the whole should be read over in the presence of the witness and of the party accused, presuming that if either were dissatisfied he would direct the attention of the magistrate to it, and have removed any reasonable ground for discontent. The matter in question might be found on the deposition, without its being stated formally that it came out on cross-examination. But with questions of convenience or inconvenience he had nothing to do; his duty was to see that the preliminaries of the law had been complied with; and in conducting criminal trials, it was essential that the definite rules should be known.— Mrs. Loveday Nicholas Pollard’s evidence was then read as follows:—I am the postmistress at Constantine church-town. On Thursday morning, the 23rd of August, Joseph Hendy, the prisoner, called at the post-office, and asked what time the letters left by post for Falmouth. I told him, at half-past six in the morning. He asked what time they would be in Helston, and if they would be in time for the morning delivery. I told him I was not exactly sure—that the coach left Falmouth about half-past nine. He said he thought that would be too late. I then left him and went into my house. He asked me at the door if anyone sold her Majesty’s stamps. I said, “yes, I sell them.” He asked for two, which I gave him. He produced two letters, and put them on the table, and then put on the stamps. I took up the letters and put them into the letter box. I observed to whom they were addressed; one was addressed to Mr. William Thomas of Mullion, and the other to Mr. Joseph Thomas, of Mullion. Immediately after I put the letters into the box, the prisoner said, “I wish them letters.” I said, “I cannot let them go, they are the Postmaster-General’s.” He said, “why had you not told me so,” and he added that he would not for £10 or 20l. (I do not know which sum he named) have left the letters. I said, “I gave you the stamps at the door, you ought not to have entered.” He appeared agitated and heated, and said he had been many miles; he had a horse with him, which he fastened to the door. I told him, if the letters were of great importance, he might write others. The prisoner answered, “I cannot.” I asked him for the money for the stamps. He said he had no small change, but when on horseback he handed me sixpence, and I gave him the change. I am quite certain that the prisoner is the man. (Signed, Loveday N. Pollard.—Before me, John Peter).—Mr. MOODY was about to put in a letter written to prisoner’s brother, Mr. Joseph Thomas; but prisoner’s counsel objected, on the ground that the letter was the subject of another indictment against the prisoner, and was not addressed to the prosecutor. Mr. MOODY then withdrew the letter, saying he did not intend to use it at present. He then called the prosecutor, Mr. William Thomas, who said.—I live at Mullion, and have property there on which I reside; there are out-houses besides the dwelling-house on that property. I occupy another estate called Trembell; and have also another place called Colroger. In August last, Colroger was in the occupation of Mr. Joseph Thomas, as tenant, who had given me notice that he should quit. That Mr. Joseph Thomas is no relation to me. I issued advertisements for another tenant, and Mr. Edwards, of Helston, was authorized to let the estate for me; it was to have been let last Michaelmas. About the 27th of July last, the dwelling-house and adjoining out-house on Trembell estate were burnt down. A week after the 11th of August, I agreed to let Colroger estate to my nephew. Prisoner is a farmer at Mullion, living about half a mile from me; my brother, Joseph Thomas, also lives at Mullion, at a place called Trebetha. Prisoner called on me two or three days after the 11th of August, when the tenders were out for Colroger estate. He came to me in a field and asked whether I had fixed on a person to have the estate. I told him it was not exactly fixed, but I believed my nephew would have it. He seemed to be displeased, and on going away said, “I never had any hay or corn burnt in my field.” After the fire at Trembell, I and my family were very much alarmed; my wife could not rest in bed for a month; we had watchers set on account of that fire. On the 25th of August, I received the letter now produced. (The letter was that read by Mr. Moody in his opening speech; it bore the Constantine, Falmouth, and Helston postmarks, the two latter dated August 24, 1849.) Witness said the letter was brought by a postman to my house; I also received another letter on the 28th of August. (Mr. Moody here read the letter, received on the 25th of August, and asked the prosecutor what he considered was the meaning of the words in it, “if you do you will suffer as before.” Defendant’s Counsel objected to this question, but the learned Judge decided that the answer to it would be admissible). The witness then said, he considered the meaning of the words was that there would be more burning; in consequence, he continued, I and my family continued our precautions; we were much alarmed, and got a policeman down from London. The matter was talked about in the parish. On my property at Colroger there were also buildings; I had the use of the barn there occasionally. Cross-examined—Had the use of the barn by permission of the tenant. Prisoner is a respectable man; I have had no quarrel with him; we have both served as parish officers; during the past fourteen years he has served as churchwarden, overseer, and waywarden, and he has been a poor-law guardian. He has always been an odd man, not like other people generally are,—could not guess what he would do next. Before he was had up on this charge, there was a committee formed in the district to investigate the cause of the fires. Since he has been in gaol, there have been more fires in the parish, and I have had another threatening letter. Have seen the prisoner’s hand- writing; do not think the letter I received on the 25th of August was in his hand-writing. My brother has had some hay and corn burnt, and when prisoner said to me in the field, “I never had any hay or corn burnt,” I understood him to convey that I should have some burnt if I let the farm to my nephew. My brother’s hay and corn were burnt some years before.—Agnes Thomas, wife of prosecutor, said prisoner came to her house a few days after the tenders were out for letting the farm. He asked for my husband; I said he was not at home. He said his business was to know the reason that no one had been written to as being chosen tenant of Colroger farm, and he asked if I knew that my husband had made choice of anyone? I told him I thought my husband’s brother and my husband would agree for my husband’s nephew to take it. He said he thought those threats that were out the other day would prevent him from taking it. I said I thought that would not prevent Mr. Thomas from taking the farm. I also said, “Mr. Hendy, it is a very awful thing, what can I think of this?” I was very much alarmed, and said, it was a very strange thing to me that we should be surrounded by persons who would do their neighbours injury. Mr. Hendy said, “it may be a nearer neighbour than you are aware of.” I said, “Mr. Hendy, you ought to be one of the committee, and you would be likely to find out the person.” He said the committee were too private about it, that they ought to be trying to search it out; then he added, if Mr. Thomas did not take it, he thought there would not be an end of this yet. Cross-examined.—I was so much alarmed that I never went to bed for a month till day opened. Mr. COLERIDGE here read the letter received by Mr. Thomas on the 25th August, and asked witness what she thought was the meaning of the words, “if you do you will suffer as before.” Witness replied, we had suffered before by fire from having Trembell burnt, and I thought we should again suffer the same; don’t know that the prisoner was interested in Trembell; we frequently have said that we thought Colroger would be burnt. Joseph Thomas, brother of William Thomas, lives at Trebetha, in Mullion; received the letter produced, by post, on the 29th of August; was aware that my son was trying to take Colroger.—William John Collins, clerk of the subdivision of parishes commission, lived at Constantine last summer; my father keeps an inn there; have known the prisoner for many years; on the 23rd of August saw him, at my father’s house; he asked for some gin and water, and afterwards asked me what time letters which were put into Constantine post-office that afternoon would reach Helston? I said on Friday, the following evening. Shortly after that he told me he had been to Constantine post-office with some letters, and had asked the post-mistress if he could have them back again; he also asked if he could withdraw letters. I told him no, that when deposited, they were the property of the persons addresses. He seemed agitated, and said he wished he had put the letters into Gweek post-office. Letter put into Constantine post-office would go to Falmouth, and then return to Helston before reaching Mullion.—Thomas Hill, a carpenter at Constantine, knows prisoner; saw him at Constantine on the 23rd of August, at a quarter after four, at the post-office talking to the post-mistress; he was holding a horse by the bridle.—Thomas Gundry, schoolmaster of Mawgan, was employed on the 25th of August last year, as a messenger for the post office, and carried letters that day from Helston to Mullion. Half-a-mile from Helston, prisoner came running after me and throwing up his hand. I walked back to meet him. He asked if I had any letters for the Thomas’s of Mullion. I answered “yes.” He said, “let me have them, will you?” I looked in his face smilingly, and said, “no, that is more than my commission is worth.” He said, “a person has desired me to ask for them of you, shall I have them?” I said “no, I can’t give them up.” He then said “don’t mention it to any person.” I answered, “I will not.” He then added, two imperfect and to me quite unintelligible sentences. (Laughter.) Mr. MOODY—Well, what were they like? Witness—the words were “hear more about it; it won’t do for any one of the family to have it.” We then shook hands and parted. On the Monday morning following, I again saw him, and recollect he said something regarding my keeping silent as he asked me on the Saturday. I do not recollect his words. I had two letters for the Messrs. Thomas, and delivered them both. Cross-examined by Mr. SLADE—What made you tell of this after you promised to be silent? Witness—I knew that Colroger estate was occasioning some mischief, and when Mr. Hendy asked me for other persons’ letters, it struck me that they might be tenders for the estate, which he wanted to destroy, and that I need not expose him; but when bye and bye I came to understand they were threatening letters, my promise gave way to my public duty.—Mr. Thomas H. Edwards said he was an auctioneer and agent at Helston; was employed in August last year by Mr. Thomas, the prosecutor, to advertise Colroger estate to let. The son of prisoner tendered for that estate; he came to my office, and after talking about the farm, asked me to write a tender for it, which I did, and he signed it. (The tender was here read, offering a yearly rent of 100l. for Colroger tenement and premises). Witness further deposed,—prisoner afterwards called at my office, and said “my boy has put in a tender for Colroger;” and he asked me had the person been selected. Some days after that he again came to my house, and used very similar words, and asked also to this effect,— did I think Joseph Thomas would have it?—This was the whole of the evidence for the prosecution. Mr. MOODY now said he did not propose to read the letter sent to prosecutor’s brother, but only to read the directions on it, in order to confirm the evidence of the post mistress that those were the two letters which were sent. The Judge held this to be admissible evidence. The direction was then read, “Mr. Joseph Thomas, Trebetha, Mullion,” and the post-mark was the same as on the letter received by prosecutor. Mr. SLADE then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, stating that to find him guilty, they must be satisfied, in the first place, that he wilfully and knowingly sent the letter; and secondly, that it was a letter threatening to burn or destroy the house, out-houses, &c., of the prosecutor. Although his client had done an exceedingly foolish and wicked act, of which he ought to be thoroughly ashamed, he had not done that which would bring him within the penal consequences of the act of parliament. It was proved by the prosecutor that the prisoner was a man of extremely eccentric habits, and that they were good friends. It was not pretended that this man had set fire to any premises, or that any previous letter was written by him. It was quite clear that some others were really the parties who were injuring their neighbours by committing arson on their property, sending letters to frighten them, because after this old man was locked up in gaol, a threatening letter was sent and another fire took place. In the present case, it appeared that a fire had taken place on one of Mr. Thomas’s estates, and that a committee was appointed to investigate the matter. Colroger estate was advertised, and prisoner hears it was to be let to Mr. Thomas’s nephew. He knows there had been fires, and threatening letters sent, and in one of those eccentricities of which they had heard, and which he (Mr. Slade) hoped he was now frightened about, and ashamed of, he says, “won’t I give old Thomas a start,—won’t I frighten him?” and then he sends the letter. But there was nothing in it threatening to burn or destroy his house, outhouses, or anything else. The jury ought in fairness to put the same construction on it that it bears on its face, and could any of them say that that letter contained a threat to burn or destroy? He would show them how strictly the judges require the prosecutor to prove that the threat was either upon the face of the instrument, or was necessarily implied by it. He then cited two cases, one a threat to burn a house, the other, writing a threatening letter for the purpose of extorting money. In both cases, he said, there were conviction, but it was afterwards decided that those convictions were wrong. There was, however, a difference of opinion amongst the judges with regard to those cases, and this went to show that among the most highly intelligent, educated, and practised of the community, the judges of the land, there was often very considerable doubt as to the fair and real meaning of a letter. Surely, then, amongst the present jury, there must be very considerable doubt as to the fair meaning of the letter read to them that day; and that being so, they knew the merciful rule of our law, that in all cases of doubt, a prisoner was entitled to the benefit of that doubt. He contended also that the prisoner had not wilfully sent the letter. The absence of the postmistress that day was a hardship upon the prisoner. It was only of late years that any written testimony could be received. Important facts were often elicited by counsel on cross-examination, of which advantage the prisoner was now deprived; and even if the cross examination, as elicited by Mr. Plomer, had been put down, they would not have had the advantage of it. But it was clear that the prisoner did not wilfully send the letters. The postmistress says he asked for stamps, which she gave him,—that he then put the letters on the table, and put on the stamps. He was here dealing with the post-mistress as a vendor of stamps, and what right had she to take the letters up and put them into the letter-box? He did not put them into the post-office, and was a man to be made liable to this most penal act of Parliament in consequence of the unauthorised act of another person? He did not give her the letters to put into the post, he placed them on the table,—he might have repented of what he had written, and have destroyed them. The sending was clearly against his will, for he said immediately afterwards, “I wish those letters; I would not for ten or twenty pounds have left those letters.” Now it was no harm to write a threatening letter, if a man did not send it; it was in that the offence consisted; and when they found letters forced through a post-office against a man’s will, how could they say that he “knowingly and wilfully” sent them? He afterwards wanted to have the letters from Gundry, which also showed that he had no real desire that they should go to frighten Mr. Thomas. The real crime was altogether inconsistent with the position of the man, and his intimacy with the prisoner and his family. In all such cases character was of great importance, and even if the sending were intended, he now thought the jury must be satisfied that the thing was not done by way of a wicked threat, but by way of a foolish spree or lark to frighten the prosecutor.—Mr. Collier then called William Rail, farmer, who said he had known prisoner for more than fifty years, and he had always borne a high character.—Mr. Matthew Rowe, farmer, had known Mr. Hendy upwards of twenty years; he was always a respectable, honest man; witness had been a poor-law guardian with him for many years.—Mr. Shepherd had known Mr. Hendy more than twenty-two years; he had always been of good character, a respectable man, a good master, and a good parish officer.—The learned JUDGE summed up, observing that the offence charged was not a very usual one, but it was of very serious magnitude. The law had made it of such magnitude to prevent the very ill consequences which it appeared resulted in this case, when such extreme anxiety and alarm were occasioned to the prosecutor and his family. The first question was, whether the prisoner intended to send the letters. On the one side it was said he never intended for them to go; and the other it was said that the postmistress having observed the directions, he wished to have them back again, that he might not be traced as the sender. To judge of the prisoner’s intention to send the letters, the jury should consider what had occurred previous to that time; the fact that Colroger was to be vacant at the following Michaelmas, and that prisoner’s son had tendered for that farm; that Trembell had been burnt, and that conversation had taken place before the 23rd of August between the prisoner and the prosecutor and his wife, when he used language which would certainly be the reverse of allaying their fears. On the evidence they would say whether the prisoner intended, when he put the letters on the table, to send them by the post, for if so he wilfully sent those letters, though he might afterwards have repented of the act. The next question was, did the prisoner, by that letter, threaten to burn and destroy the house and outhouses of the prosecutor? He (the learned Judge) was of opinion that the language of the letter was to be taken in the meaning the prisoner intended by it to convey to the mind of the prosecutor; and in order to gather that meaning, the jury must consider the events and conversations that had previously taken place, as stated in evidence. The learned Judge also commented on other points urged in the defence, and with reference to the statement that prisoner was an eccentric man, he observed that from his filling parish offices, it was evident that he was well acquainted with the transactions of this life.—The jury then considered their verdict, and in about ten minutes returned the prisoner GUILTY. JOSEPH HENDY, the same prisoner, was then indicted for feloniously sending a letter to William Thomas on the 27th of August last, at the parish of Mullion, threatening to burn and destroy his house, out-houses and barns. Mr. MOODY said the present charge would be clear of the difficulties of the last; he should prove beyond dispute that the letter was sent by the prisoner, and intended to be so; and in this case there could be no doubt as to the meaning of that letter. It was as follows:— “Sir, this is to Let you know that you will not be forgaten, with in one six months, your boeath Places will be in one blase if you carries into afect respecting the Leting of your plase to the Person that you intends to. “A Casious Friend.” This letter was addressed to “Mr. Wm. Thomas, Church-town Mullion,” and prosecutor and his wife being called, said they understood by it, when it was received, that the place they lived at, and the Colroger property, would be burnt, and they took precautions accordingly. The way in which the letter was traced to the prisoner was as follows:—In the afternoon of Monday, the 27th of August last, James Hill, a carpenter, of Constantine, was sawing alongside the road near the Half-way House between Falmouth and Helston. The prisoner rode up, and asked if there was any post there? Hill said he did not know, the mail came by there every day, but Mr. Simmons the landlord at the Half-way House could tell him. Mr. Simmons was then standing at his door, and the prisoner rode across to him, and after a few questions, said he had a letter to send. The landlord said he would send it on his paying him a penny to give to the mail-cart driver. Prisoner then said he should now go no further, and he dismounted at the door, and gave Mr. Simmons the letter. The landlord put the letter in his bar window, until the mail-cart came up; he observed the directions, and to the best of his belief it was the letter now produced in court.—William Hawke, the mail-cart driver, deposed that he received a letter from Mr. Simmons on the 27th of August, with instructions to put it into the Helston post-office, and that he did so.—Charles Drew, who was assisting at the Helston post-office, stated that he received the letter from Hawke, and stamped it with the stamp of that day (27th of August, and the prosecutor received it on the 28th). Neither Hawke nor Drew, however, could positively swear to the letter; but the JUDGE remarked that if Mr. Simmons could recognize the letter, it fixed it as coming from the prisoner, and it had the Helston post-mark when it was received by Mr. Thomas on the 28th of August.— Mr. SLADE offered no defence, and the prisoner was immediately found GUILTY.—The learned JUDGE in the course of passing sentence said,—The crime of which you have been found guilty is one of very great magnitude, and if committed for the purpose of private profit,—if you inflected such misery on your neighbour for the purpose of gaining some small advantage for yourself, no man will regret that you are made an example of, to deter others from such guilt. It is my duty, as far as I can, to protect the peaceable subjects of this realm from such terrible visitations as you inflicted on this prosecutor, when you endeavoured to intimidate him from exercising his rightful power over his own property. It appears that others are taking the same course as yourself; if they are brought to justice, they will be made bitterly to repent of their guilt, and they will now have the example of your punishment before them. I order you, Joseph Hendy, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life.—The prisoner was then removed from the bar, exclaiming that he had done nothing with a bad design. There was another indictment against the same prisoner, which was not proceeded with. It was for feloniously sending to Joseph Thomas a letter, threatening to burn his stacks of hay and corn. CHARGE OF FORGERY.—WILLIAM GENDALL, 53, was indicted for unlawfully and fraudulently forging a writing purporting to be signed by John Bennetts, a certificate of having a quantity of tin for sale, with intent to defraud Samuel Borlase. There were other counts varying the mode of stating the charge against the prisoner. Mr. STOCK for the prosecution, and Mr. SLADE for the defence. The Council for the prosecution said the charge was for a misdemeanour at common law, as the instrument did not come within the description of documents the forgery of which was made penal by statute. He then stated the case, and called as witnesses, Mr. John Bennetts, land and mine agent, acting for Mr. Borlase; Mr. James Bawden, managing agent for Messrs. Williams and Harvey, smelters at Trethellan, near Truro; Mr. Wellington, agent for Messrs. Bolitho, at Chyandour smelting-house; Mr. Francis Harvey, agent for Messrs. Bolitho, at Angarrack smelting-house; and Thomas Gendall, miner. The following appeared to be the circumstances of the case. Mr. Samuel Borlase, of Castle Horneck, near Penzance, is the owner of property in the parish of Morvah, on which there is a tin mine called Morvah Bal. Mr. John Bennetts, as agent for Mr. Borlase, gave the prisoner and other men, Thomas and Anthony Gendall, a parole license, in June last, to work the mine. Mr. Borlase, as proprietor of the freehold, is entitled to one-half of the dues, and as boundowner he as forty ninety-sixths of the bound dues. Mr. John Scobell and Mr. Josiah John Luntley are also boundowners, the dues being one-fifteenth. On the 23rd of October, prisoner told Mr. Bennetts that he had carried the stuff to Bosiggan stamps; he expected he should go to the smelting-house in three or four weeks, and he asked Mr. Bennetts to give him a blank certificate, which would save the trouble of calling at Mr. B.’s house, and he would fill in the number of cwts. himself. The object of the certificate is to prevent fraud in the payment of dues. The lords endeavour to protect themselves, and to secure the full amount of their dues, by insisting that the persons to whom they grant licenses to work what are termed “free sets,” shall give notice to the agent of the property of the amount of tin they have for sale, by which his attention is directed to the matter, and the dues are paid when the tin is sold. It is also a rule amongst the smelters not to buy of this class of workers, unless they have a certificate from the agent of the property by which smelters protect themselves from buying tin which there is no right to sell, and on which the seller would escape paying dues. When therefore applied to by the prisoner for a blank certificate, Mr. Bennetts refused; but on the 26th of November, prisoner sent his wife, and Mr. Bennetts gave her a certificate, as follows:— St. Just, Nov. 26, 1849. This is to certify, that the bearer, William Gendall, has about fourteen or fifteen hundred of tin for sale from Morvah Bal, having liberty from the lord to work the same. JOHN BENNETTS, Agent. The above was the genuine certificate; the forged one was as follows:— St. Just, Nov. 26, 1849 This is to certify, that the bearer, William Gendall, has about ten hundred of tin for sale from Morvah Bal, having liberty from the lord to work the same. JOHN BENNETTS, Agent. It appeared that on Tuesday the 27th of November, the prisoner was at Truro, and at Messrs. Williams and Harvey’s smelting-house at Trethellen, near Truro, he presented the forged certificate, and sold about ten cwt. of tin for which he was paid by the agent, Mr. Bawden, who gave him a tin bill. Mr. Bawden’s suspicions were however excited, because the prisoner had come from so long a distance, and had passed by other smelting houses on the way. He therefore communicated the circumstance, and Mr. Wellington, of the Chyandour smelting house, was written to on the subject by Mr. Michell, agent of Messrs. Bolitho at the smelting house at Truro. At Mr. Bennett’s request, Mr. Wellington wrote to Mr. Bawden, and received a reply on the subject, and the agent of the Angarrack smelting house, Mr. Francis Harvey, was also communicated with. It appeared from the evidence that after the tin stuff was dressed at the stamps from time to time, the prisoner would take some of it to his own house, until there was a quantity collected to carry to the smelting-house. Prisoner’s partners were his relatives, and as he had supplied the money for tools and the expenses of going on with the concern, they did not look very closely after him, so that he had opportunities of appropriating ore to himself, unknown to his partners. He said nothing to them of his transaction at Truro, and things went on until the 8th of December, when having collected a quantity of tin, the three partners took it to Angarrack smelting-house for sale. Prisoner there produced to Mr. Francis Harvey the genuine certificate he had received some time before from Mr. Bennetts; and the quantity nearly corresponded with that named in the certificate, about 15 cwt. But here the prisoner’s course was stopped. The tin was weighed, but Mr. Harvey declined to settle for it, telling prisoner to call at Chyandour smelting- house for that purpose. He did so, and was there told that Bennetts requested he should not be paid the money until he (Mr. Bennetts) was present. This was on Saturday, the 8th of December, and prisoner was directed to call again at the smelting-house on the following Monday. On the Sunday, he went to Mr. Bennetts and requested him to come next day to the smelting-house, and get the money paid for the tin; but as the learned Judge remarked, he did not then tell Mr. Bennetts that he had previously been to Truro and sold tin with a false certificate in his name. It appeared, however, that Gendall, having heard something of the matter, went to prisoner’s house and asked him if he had sold tin at Truro; prisoner then said he had, but he did not intend to defraud any person, he should pay his partners and also the dues. On the Monday, prisoner met Mr. Bennetts at the Chyandour Smelting-house, when, in consequence of the communication and documents sent from the Truro Smelting-house, the prisoner’s transaction at Truro was brought home to him. His own account of it was that he went to Truro intending to sell with the genuine certificate which he had from Mr. Bennetts, but on arriving there, he found he had left it behind, and that he then drew a certificate in Mr. Bennett’s name to sell the 10 cwt. of tin, in order to get money to pay for his lodgings at the King’s Head, and to carry him home; he said he had no intention to defraud any person; but should have paid all. But the learned JUDGE remarked, that if such had been his intention he would have told Mr. Bennetts and his partners of what he had done, on the first opportunity, whereas he never said anything about the matter until he was found out. Prisoner’s partner (Thomas Gendall) having said in his evidence that he did not believe prisoner intended any fraud towards his partners, the learned Judge put it to the jury whether they considered prisoner had any intention to defraud the lord’s and boundowners’ dues.—Verdict, GUILTY. The learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, said he feared that frauds of this description were sometimes practised by others and everything must be done to stop such proceedings. For the misdemeanor, he sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned for six months. WILLIAM BEST was indicted for having feloniously assaulted Mary Jane Rowe, with intent, &c., on the 3rd of Aug. A second count charged the prisoner with a common assault. Mr. HUGHES conducted the prosecution; Mr. MOODY, the defence. The prosecutrix is a little girl under twelve years of age, the daughter of William Rowe, a labourer in the parish of . The husband and wife were in the habit of going out to daily labour, and in their absence the prisoner would sometimes come into the house, and according to the evidence of the girl, conduct himself improperly towards her, until one day he was seen by the mother, who had remained at home in consequence of her daughter’s complaints. Witnesses were called to give the prisoner a good character. Verdict, GUILTY of common assault. Sentence, nine months imprisonment. CHARLES HARRIS and NANCY TONKIN, whose sentences had been deferred, were then placed at the bar. Nancy Tonkin had been convicted of stealing candles from Mr. Thomas Hichens, of St. Austell, but was recommended to mercy by the prosecutor, and now received a sentence of four months’ hard labour. With regard to Harris, the Judge said he had taken his previous goo character into consideration, and also what he had heard respecting him. Sentence, one week’s hard labour. The jury were discharged and the court rose. THIRD COURT. (Before G.M. Butt, Esq., Q.C.) WEDNESDAY, March 27. GEORGE COOMBE, being indicted for stealing, on the 19th March, 1860 (sic), a pair of kerseymere trowsers, the property of John Bassett, of St. Columb Major, upon arraignment, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to four calendar months imprisonment with hard labour. JOHN LEY, indicted for stealing on the 16th March, at St. Blazey, one pair of shoes, the property of Wm. Keam, shoemaker, also pleaded GUILTY, and the like sentence was passed. THURSDAY, March 28. SINGULAR CASE.—JOSEPH LANGMAID was charged with stealing a piece of doeskin cloth, a pair of shoes and silk neckerchief, the property of Anna Maria Longmaid. Mr. COLE for the prosecution, opened the case in very pathetic terms, stating the injury to which Miss Longmaid had been exposed, and the outrage her feeling had sustained by the conduct of her former lover. He then called the prosecutrix, who stated that she was a young woman living in the parish of St. Neot, with her father, and that the prisoner had been lodging at their house for about a month. The prisoner had paid his addresses to her, and they were to have been married on the previous Sunday; he told her that the banns had been put in about three weeks before. She had bought a pair of shoes of Mr. West, shoemaker, and afterwards showed them to the prisoner, telling him that they were for her husband when she was married. The Sunday after that, he borrowed them and wore them to church, but afterwards had them cleaned and placed in the back-kitchen window. Her sister had given her a silk handkerchief, and she had bought some doeskin cloth for 17s. 6d., which she showed to the prisoner, and told him it was for her husband’s trousers when they were married. The handkerchief and cloth were put in her box, which was kept in the prisoner’s bedroom, and not locked; prisoner had clothes at one end of the same box; because he had no box of his own. When the witness and her mother were absent one day, prisoner left the house and went to Plymouth. She went after him, and met him in the street, and asked him why he left in such a manner, and whether he had not taken her doeskin, shoes, and handkerchief? He said he had. She said, “how dare you take those things away when you know they are not yours? He said she should have them back again, but that he should never return, he should go for a soldier. He was afterwards taken into custody.—Maria Longmaid, the mother of prosecutrix, said prisoner was about to be married to her daughter, and she and her daughter went at prisoner’s request to Liskeard, to get the wedding ring. When she came home, prisoner had left the house, and left in the window of his room a written paper to the following effect:—“Saturday, and I am now bound for Wales, and I shall never see your face again; what you have got for my sake, if it is a boy call it after me; if it is a girl, call it what you please, and call me your false-hearted Joseph Langmaid—for A.M. Longmaid.” The witness said her husband had ordered her to burn this paper, and she had done so after showing it to other persons. Other witnesses were examined, and the prisoner was found GUILTY.—Sentence, twelve months’ imprisonment. WILLIAM LANGMAN, was indicted for stealing a quantity of potatoes, the property of Edward and Richard Peter.—Mr. Edward Peter, one of the prosecutors, stated that he was a farmer of Linkinghorne, that he kept his potatoes in a cave thatched within and without; that about the middle of February last it was discovered that the cave had been opened and about two bushels of the potatoes taken away. The marks of many footsteps appeared around and near the cave, and in one of them was observed a striking peculiarity in the arrangement of the nails in the shoe by which it had been made. Suspicion having been entertained against the prisoner, a warrant was obtained, and this witness, with a constable, proceeded to his house. They were refused admittance, though the prisoner was at home; he declared they should not come in until the morning. They therefore remained outside many hours, but observed through a crevice of the door, the prisoner busily engaged in making a fire & burning something, and a strong smell of burning potatoes was soon perceived. Admittance into the house was at last obtained, when a quantity of ashes and half-burnt potatoes were discovered—the potatoes were of the same kind as those lost from the prosecutor’s cave. Prisoner was then taken into custody and his shoes taken off—one of them was afterwards compared with the print or footstep near the cave before-mentioned, and found to correspond exactly with it in all respects.—Thomas Retallick, the constable of Linkinghorne, apprehended the prisoner; he now produced the shoes, pointed out the peculiar marks, and confirmed the testimony of the last witness. The prisoner was ably defended by Mr. HUGHES, but the jury found him GUILTY, and the Court sentenced him to six months imprisonment with hard labour. WILLIAM HENRY PHILP was indicted for burglary in the house of Thomas William Maddox, at Launceston, between the hours of 9 o’clock of the night of the 3rd, and six in the morning of the 4th of September, 1849, and stealing a cash box containing 5l. in gold and 2l. 10s. in silver, with some papers of minor importance, the property of the prosecutor, T.W. Maddox.—The prosecutor, Mr. T.W. Maddox, is a respectable bookseller and printer, residing at Launceston, and the prisoner had been his apprentice, and at the time of the robbery was in his employ, but did not sleep in his house.—The case, in the opening of Counsel, Mr. KARSLAKE, and the examination of many witnesses describing particularly the situation of Mr. Maddox’s house and of the property stolen, occupied several hours.—The prisoner was well defended by Mr. HUGHES, but upon the testimony of Mr. Maddox, the prosecutor; William Cudlip, a boy who found the box in a river by Launceston; William Congdon, an apprentice of the prosecutor; Eliza Floyd, his maid servant; William Slea, his errand boy; Michael Stodden, a leather cutter of Launceston; John Oke, tailor, John Brooming, constable; and John James Lampen of Launceston; the crime charged in the indictment was at length satisfactorily proved upon the prisoner, and he was sentenced to ten years transportation. THOMAS GOULD, was indicted for highway-robbery.—Mr. HUGHES appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr. COLE for the prisoner.—Prosecutor in a basket maker, residing at Launceston, and on the day mentioned in the indictment, had gone to Lifton, and received there a small sum of money amounting to 1l. 7s. 10d. On his return home he was knocked down by two men, one of whom he afterwards recognized, near Poulson- bridge, and was robbed of half-a crown. To establish these facts the prosecutor Henry Angwin, James Clemence, Wm. Medland, John Higgs, the constable, and John Bullen, were examined; but, the jury considering that the prisoner had not been sufficiently identified, pronounced a verdict of ACQUITTAL. AMELIA OLIVER, charged with robbery on the 24th of January last, from the person of James Dyer. Prosecutor is a miner of Roche, and the prisoner a person of loose character. The parties, it appeared, had been drinking together at various public houses in St. Austell on the day in question, and the prosecutor himself admitted that he was not “proper sober” when the robbery happened. —He produced the constable and one other witness in support of his case, but the prisoner, who was defended by Mr. Cole, was ACQUITTED. JANE BARNES the younger, indicted for having on the 12th of February, 1850, at the parish of St. Erth, unlawfully endeavoured to conceal the birth of her female child by secretly disposing of the dead body of the said child. The witnesses in support of this prosecution were Wm. Trance, a gardener, at Hayle, Ann King, a female residing near the prisoner, and Mr. George Vawdrey, the surgeon of Hayle; upon whose testimony the unfortunate case being considered to be sufficiently made out, the prisoner was found GUILTY, and sentenced to three calendar months imprisonment with hard labour. THOMAS MACDONALD, indicted for having on the 9th day of November, 1849, at Penryn unlawfully assaulted Elizabeth Jane Nicholl, a girl under the age of ten years, with intent then and there feloniously carnally to know and abuse the said Elizabeth Jane Nicholl. This case was completely made out by evidence of the prosecutrix, an intelligent little girl of 9 years of age, Jane Nicholl, her mother, Thomas Spargo, a person residing near Penryn, and Mr. Trenerry, a surgeon of Penryn.—The ruffianly prisoner, a man of 47 years of age, was not defended by counsel, but cross-examined the prosecutrix and witnesses himself with all the marks of brutality apparently incident to his nature, at great length, without however, in any degree shaking the credibility of any of them, and the jury, without any hesitation, pronounced him GUILTY.—The JUDGE, after designating the case as revolting to humanity, appeared to regret that he could only pass upon the culprit the severest sentence provided by law, which is that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two years. JANE MENNEER, indicted for keeping a common ill governed and disorderly house at Wadebridge, in the parish of St. Breock.—The charge in this case was sustained by the testimony of four respectable witnesses; and the prisoner, who was not defended, seemed not to deny it, alleging only that it was her first offence.— Verdict, GUILTY.—Sentence, three calendar months imprisonment.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 12 April 1850

3. Easter Sessions

These Sessions were open on Tuesday last, at Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— J.K. LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman. Hon. G.M. Fortescue. F.J. Hext, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. R.G. Bennet, Esq. Sir J.S. Graves Sawle, Bart. S. Borlase, Esq. J.H. Tremayne, Esq. E. Stephens, Esq. G.W.F. Gregor, Esq. W. Braddon, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. W.P. Kempe, Esq. J.S. Enys, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. T. Graham, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. E. Archer, Esq. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. C. Prideaux Brune, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. N. Kendall, Esq. Rev. W. Molesworth. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. W. Williams, Esq. Rev. G.H. Somerset. The Rev. R. Bird, of Lanteglos by Camelford, qualified as a magistrate; and the Reverend Charles Henry Hoskin took the oaths on appointment to the vicarage of Cubert. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury: —Messrs. R. Carveth, St. Austell, foreman; S. Allen, Mevagissey; W. Brown, Bodmin; T. Clarke, Bodmin; J. Crossman, St. Mewan; J. Dalley, St. Austell; H.R. Gatley, St. Erme; J. Gaved, junr., St. Austell; T. Geach, St. Austell; J.C. Grose, Bodmin; T. Henwood, St. Teath; H. Hosken, St. Teath; W. James, Merther; W. Kimber, St. Austell; E.H. Liddell, Bodmin; F. Mably, St. Minver; T. Martin, Egloshayle; N. Norway, Lanhydrock; J. Pascoe, Bodmin; E. Pearce, St. Austell; J. Polkinhorne, St. Blazey; F. Stevens, St. Ewe; W. Thomas, St. Austell. After the Queen’s proclamation for the encouragement of virtue had been read, the CHAIRMAN delivered the following [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. —not transcribed] The Grand Jury then retired to their room. COUNTY ASYLUM REPORTS The following annual reports were read by the CHAIRMAN:— REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE OF THE LUNATIC ASYLUM.—The Visiting Committee of the County Lunatic Asylum, beg to present their annual report to the magistrates assembled at the Easter Quarter Sessions.—They are happy to say they continue to have every reason to be satisfied with the Medical and Domestic Superintendents; the energies of both have, in the past year, been called into action, during the prevalence of many severe and fatal attacks of dysentery among the patients.—Though many most successful and gratifying cases of cure have occurred during the last year, and some beyond the most sanguine hope, the committee cannot but again impress on the county the evil that arises from the neglect of sending in the Pauper Lunatics in the early stages of attack.—This neglect is attended with most serious consequences, and obtains so largely notwithstanding the earnest appeals so constantly made, that it is to be hoped the legislature will adopt more stringent measures to prevent a practice which tends materially to increase cases of confirmed lunacy.—The narrow policy of the ratepayers is the base of this evil, and the dread of giving offence deters too many, of those who are legally bound to give early notice, from strictly discharging their duty.—The committee turn from this painful part of their report to the more pleasing one of stating that the new buildings are quite finished, and they hope the accommodation now afforded will meet the wants of the county for a very long period.—The new male wards are very cheerful and commodious, fully satisfy the visitors, and meet with the entire approbation of the Lunacy Commissioners (as will appear by their report appended); and it is but bare justice to the architect, Mr. Wightwick, to state that owing to his judicious plan and careful estimates, the accommodation for patients has been effected at about £40 per head, a sum, according to returns from other asylums, very far below the general cost—in many instances more than 50 per cent.—The committee have the satisfaction of stating that the entire cost of the new buildings is within a few pounds of the estimate and the sum granted by the county.—The old kitchen garden and the garden of the domestic superintendent and matron have from necessity been destroyed to make room for the new buildings, offices, and female airing grounds. The committee have consequently been compelled to enclose about 5 acres of land recently purchased for garden and airing ground combined; and although this hardly meets the wishes of the Commissioners, still the committee are satisfied with the increased security and employment it affords for the male patients. N. KENDALL, Chairman. MEDICAL REPORT OF THE ASYLUM, FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31ST DECEMBER, 1849.—The Medical Superintendent has the honor (sic) to submit to the committee of Visitors the Report of the County Asylum for the past year, which shews the number of admissions to have been 70, all applications having been received. The new building for pauper patients has been completed, and is found to be warm, commodious, and well ventilated. Males. Females There remained in the establishment 31st Dec., 1848 94 94 Admitted during 1849 …………………………………………….. 36 34 Total under care during this year ……………………………. ______258 There have been discharged, recovered …………………. 16 6 Ditto ditto relieved …………………….. 4 4 Died ………………………………………………………………………… 18 12 Total discharged and dead ……………………………………… ______60 Remaining under care Dec. 31, 1849—198; of whom 14 males and 9 females were private patients. A considerable majority of the admitted cases were of an unfavourable nature as regards the prospect of recovery, eight having been epileptic, three paralytic, four idiotic; and in nineteen other cases insanity had existed a year and upwards, and was, therefore, probably confirmed.—The history of the cases discharged as recorded, further proves that the prospect of cure is generally limited to such as are placed under treatment at an early period of the attack.—Although the establishment has providentially enjoyed an immunity from cholera, yet the past year has been characterized by a severe visitation of dysentery, which made its appearance in April, and did not wholly cease until November. During this period, 27 marked cases occurred, besides 15 of diarrhoea. Most of the patients attacked had long been the subjects of insanity, and had already seriously suffered in health from its debilitating influences. Several were the subjects of epilepsy, a complication which has always been found to aggravate the severity and danger of any accidentally super- added disease. Eight patients died of the acute dysenteric seizure; in three other already declining cases it tended to hasten a fatal termination, and in another case, that of an epileptic, it developed disease of the brain which proved fatal three months after the dysenteric affection had been effeetually (sic) controlled.— The mortality of the year has therefore been seriously augmented by this visitation, which probably had its origin in atmospheric influence, together with some degree of crowding previously to the occupation of the new building; but the latter inconvenience was soon counteracted by hastening forwards the furnishing and airing the new apartments. Free ventilation, purification by the solution of the chloride of zinc, cleansing one of the wells and the drains were, further, the chief means adopted for combating the evil, and these measures probably assisted greatly to check its extension. It may be remarked that the dietary was good and sufficient, and did not require any addition or alteration in the establishment generally. The conviction to which the medical superintendent has been led by the experience of the epidemic is that in public establishments in which a large number of persons are massed together, all arrangements for warmth, bathing, and the general hygienic management of the inmates, should be promoted upon the same liberal principle which the committee has been disposed to adopt. D. F. TYERMAN, Medical Superintendent. March 26, 1850 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN LUNACY.—The CHAIRMAN read the following Report:— Bodmin County Asylum, 27th Oct., 1849 Since the last visit of the Commissioners to this Asylum on the 30th of October, 1848, 64 new patients have been admitted; 26 have been discharged, and 33 have died from various causes. At present the Asylum contains 190 patients, of whom 13 males and 9 females are private and 78 males and 90 females are pauper patients. We have personally examined the whole of them today. They were, in general, very tranquil, and no one was under mechanical restraint or in seclusion. Indeed, it appears by the register that restraint of any kind is very rarely resorted to. The patients are now, on the whole, in good bodily health, and 22 of both classes are registered as under medical treatment.—About the months of April and May, epidemic dysentery made its appearance in the Asylum, and 8 cases proved fatal; in several other cases also, death was hastened by dysentery returning upon other disease.—We have gone over the whole establishment and inspected the clothing and bedding, all of which was clean and in a very satisfactory condition.—The new buildings are now finished, and occupied by pauper male patients. A new kitchen has also been erected, and all the building operations are now completed.—The buildings appear to be finished in the best manner, and the various galleries, day rooms and dormitories have good means of ventilation and are well warmed. Some of the smaller airing courts have been enlarged, but the means of outdoor exercises are still somewhat deficient, and we are glad to hear that the land to the westward of the Asylum is likely to be purchased by the visiting justices.—The gallery (ward I), alluded to by the Commissioners, is being altered as suggested.—On an average, about 40 men and 50 women are regularly employed in and about the Asylum.—Prayers are read on Sunday by the Chaplain, and nearly two-thirds of the patients are in the habit of attending.—On the whole the establishment is in a very satisfactory state. W. G. CAMPBELL) Commissioners in J. R. HUME, M.D.) Lunacy. —On the motion of Mr. SAWLE, seconded by Mr. KENDALL, Mr. Brune was appointed a member of the visiting committee of the Asylum, in place of the late Captain Collins of Trewardale. —Mr. GILBERT inquired whether the asylum was supplied with provisions by tender. He observed that the rate at which the pauper lunatics were provisioned had not diminished, although the prices of provisions were much lower than they had been.—Mr. KENDALL, in reply, stated that for four years the committee had been improving the dietary at the Asylum, and the results in respect of health and cures had been so satisfactory that they felt they were fully justified in carrying into effect the recommendations in this respect of the medical superintendent. As regards tenders, the committee had resolved to adopt that plan in future. Some years ago, however, they got tenders, but they were all much above the market price of the day; and, up to the present time, owing to the good management of the superintendent, they had succeeded in buying corn at a much lower rate, on purchasing large quantities, than the general price, with only one exception. Two years and a half ago, when corn was at 45s., the committee paid but 27s.; and at this time they were paying but 18s. a Cornish bushel. But, rather than there should be any question, or possibility of mistake, the committee had resolved to obtain contracts in future. —Mr. GILBERT said he was much obliged for the satisfactory answer given. —From the statement of Income and Expenditure of the Asylum, from the 1st of January, 1849, to the 1st of January, 1850, we collect the following facts. Among the receipts there was received for maintenance of private patients, 829l. 5s. 10d. For maintenance of pauper patients, from unions and parishes in counties and boroughs contributing to the asylum, 2593l. 1s. For pauper patients, from boroughs not contributing, 412l. From other counties not contributing, 74l. 4s. For criminal and vagrant pauper lunatics, 84l. 8s. Among the payments, we find there were:— For Salaries and wages £605 0 0 For attendants 439 17 1 Cost of provisions 2099 13 9 Medicine, wine, and spirits 44 9 0 Clothing 245 11 4 Bedding and furniture 143 3 8 Garden and farm expenses 37 1 10½ Funerals 38 15 0 Miscellaneous 122 17 4½ The total of receipts was 4076l. 5s. 1d., including 81l. 2s. 9d., cash at bankers at the beginning of 1849.— The total expenditure for the year 3776l. 9s. 1d.

CORONERS’ BILLS.—The following bills for the past quarter were passed:— Mr. Hamley, for 40 inquests £159 16 11 Mr. Carlyon, for 40 141 0 11 Mr. Hichens, for 25 82 6 5 383 4 3 The bills for the corresponding quarter last year, were:— Mr. Hamley £114 4 9 Mr. Carlyon 92 18 10 Mr. Hichens 82 11 3 289 14 10

GAOL REPORTS —The Visiting Justices reported the continuance of their complete satisfaction with the management of the House of Correction in all its departments. GAOL EXPENSES, for the past quarter:— Subsistence £206 9 2 Clothing 33 4 6 Bedding 37 9 0 Fuel 11 11 0 Sundries 65 8 1½ Salaries 289 16 0 Pensioned Warder 5 0 0 Paid prisoners on discharge 7 4 0 Expenses at assizes & sessions 29 14 0 Removal of convicts 20 9 6 Female singers 1 0 0 Whipping 0 10 0 To Bodmin town council towards fire-engines 2 2 0 Incidental expenses 0 3 9 Current expenses 710 1 1½ Repairs 18 7 8 Total 728 8 9½ Hall expenses 21l. 1s. 11½; being a larger sum than usual, in consequence of arrangements to increase the warmth of the Nisi Prius Court. —The comparative statement showed that at the corresponding sessions last year there were 10 prisoners for trial; there were now 20, including six rioters, and three for uttering base coin. —The GOVERNOR’S REPORT stated that nothing material had occurred since the last report. The prisoners were generally orderly and healthy, and the hospitals had been for some time unoccupied. The buildings, with the exception of some roofs, were generally in good repair. IMPRISONMENT OF QUICK.—Mr. KENDALL said he was requested, by the visiting magistrates, to make one or two remarks on the case of Quick, which had been referred to by Mr. Justice Erle. The committee thought it was due to themselves that the public should know how the matter stood. Quick was committed by Mr. Le Grice and Mr. Graham, for two years, for breach of the peace. After a time, the length of punishment seemed so extraordinarily long that the visiting magistrates’ attention was called to it by Mr. Everest, and the visiting committee put themselves in communication with the committing magistrates. They also sanctioned a petition on the part of Quick, to the Secretary of State; and it was due to the committing magistrates to add that after a correspondence with the Secretary of State, the answer was that he saw no reason to interfere with the committal by the magistrates. The visiting magistrates did not know what the correspondence was; but that was the answer. They did their best, as visitors, to inquire into it; and the result of inquiry was that the Secretary of State took it up, and the end was, that the prisoner remained where he is now. But the case had not escaped the observation of the visiting magistrates. The CHAIRMAN. What said the individuals whose peace had been disturbed? Were they consenting parties? Mr. KENDALL said he believed the man was very violent, and that it was a very aggravated case; he had threatened murder. One thing was very singular:—The committee saw a letter from the professional man, who said that if Quick would apologize and promise to be peaceable, they would not require heavy bail, and would release him. Under the Governor’s direction, the man wrote a letter; and nothing had been heard of it; he (Mr. Kendall) thought it possible that it had been forgotten. But the visiting committee had scarcely been in the gaol but that case had been under their consideration, so impressed had they been with it. Mr. TREMAYNE. Would there be any objection to renew the correspondence with the Secretary of State, now that Mr. Justice Erle has, ex cathedrâ, given his opinion? Mr. KENDALL. The committee are anxious to do any thing they can. The CHAIRMAN. I recollect a man who was continued in gaol from Sessions to Sessions, for want of sureties in a breach of the peace against his sister. The sister appeared again and again, till at last she consented to withdraw opposition, and not until then did we let him go. I think he was in gaol nine months, if not twelve. Mr. EVEREST. Yes Sir. But in the case of Quick, when he was the first time brought here, he was discharged. Mr. TREMAYNE. Would there be any objection on the part of the visiting committee to renew communications with the Secretary of State, calling his attention to Mr. Justice Erle’s charge? Mr. KENDALL. No objection on the part of the Committee; but perhaps we may first communicate with the committing magistrates. The Times article was very strong; but of that we should have taken no notice but that it was based on Mr. Justice Erle’s remarks. That makes it a very different matter.

BRIDGES. —The Report from Mr. Moorman, surveyor of the Western District, was limited to a notice of Carnon Bridge, which was inspected by him and a Committee of Magistrates, on the 15th of March last.—The Report of that Committee was read, and also a letter from Mr. Whitburn, an agent of the Perran Company. It appears that, for the prevention of the flooding of the Causeway which was complained of at the Epiphany Sessions, Mr. Whitburn constructed two sluices of six feet each, in addition to two former ones of 8 feet each. The effect was that the deposit of sand and mud under the bridge was lowered 9 inches in 1½ hour; and there appeared to be no doubt that those new works would prove effectual to the preventing of floods over the bridge. Mr. Pease, surveyor for the eastern division, required one levy; and obtained orders for payments of small sums for repairs and alterations at Looe Bridge, Stratton Bridge, Dunmeer Bridge, and Sowden’s Bridge. Mr. Pease stated that all the expenses caused by the destruction of bridges on the Camel two years ago were no finished. The amounts paid on this account were, 1721l. 14s. 8d. last year, and 847l. this year. INSPECTORS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—Sir COLEMAN RASHLEIGH, on behalf of the Finance Committee, mentioned a claim by Mr. Elias Liddell, one of the Inspectors of weights and measures, for an allowance of 30s. a day for his expenses in visiting the different market-towns of this district. It appeared that the inspectors consider that by their contracts they are bound only to stamp weights and measures brought to them—that the duty of visiting the different towns was subsequently appointed and must be paid extra. After consultation with Mr. Serjeant, the inspector for the Launceston District, who had been allowed half of the fees received by him, for his visits, the same mode of payment was held to be applicable to all inspectors. —On the application of the Rev. VYELL VYVYAN, the Bridge Surveyor for the Western District was directed to inspect and report on the state of Ruthern Bridge,—the object being the formation of a causeway in order to prevent accidents from the frequent passing of sand-carts. —The CLERK OF THE PEACE informed the court that Mr. Plyming, the contractor for the conveyance of prisoners from Truro to Bodmin, had given notice that he means to give up his contract at the next sessions. TRIALS OF PRISONERS DAVID MURLEY, 50, was found Guilty of stealing on the 4th of April, six fowls, the property of Mr. James Bosustow, a farmer, at Paul. (Sentence: three months hard labour) JOSEPH HORE, 43, was tried on two different indictments charging him with stealing poles and fagot wood, the property of Nicholas Mayle, at Treharrick Wood, in St. Teath; where the prisoner was employed by the prosecutor as a woodman. He was ACQUITTED on each charge. JAMES WILLATON HARRIS, 17, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a blue jacket, the property of Isaac Symons, at . He also confessed to having been previously convicted of felony and imprisonment for two months. (Sentence: six months hard labour, with one fortnight solitary) THOMAS JACKSON, 18, pleaded GUILTY of stealing at Dernicombe, in Broadoak a jar of honey and articles of clothing, the property of Mr. Nicholas Davey. He also pleaded GUILTY of stealing a watch, the property of Thomas Tregenza at St. Austell; and further confessed to having been convicted of felony in July, 1849, under the name of Thomas Stevens the younger. (Sentence: ten years transportation) JOHN HOSKING, 33, was found GUILTY of stealing at Ludgvan, a quantity of barley and straw the property of James Polgreen. (Sentence: four months hard labour) HENRY JOLL, 37, was found GUILTY of stealing a piece of butt leather, the property of his master, Joshua Thomas, a shoemaker, at . (Sentence: one fortnight hard labour) WILLIAM GOODMAN, 46, pleaded GUILTY of stealing at St. Erth, in the parish of St. Stephens, a hen fowl, the property of William Vosper. (Sentence: three months hard labour) RICHARD GORMAN, 30, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a coat and handkerchief, the property of Thomas Robinson, at Tywardreath. (Sentence: one month hard labour) JOHN POMERY, 22, found GUILTY of stealing a shovel, the property of Simon Skinner, at . (Sentence: one month hard labour) JOHN TONKIN, 25, charged with stealing at Perranzabuloe, a shirt, pair of trowsers, silk neckerchief, and ball of twine, the property of Lucy Tippett, with whom he had lodged; he left the lodgings without payment.—GUILTY. A previous conviction was proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: twelve months hard labour, one fortnight solitary) WEDNESDAY, April 10. JOHN TAYLOR, ABRAHAM STATTON, JAMES BRAY, GEORGE BROWN, WILLIAM SKINNER, and THOMAS SWEET, severally indicted for a riot and assault, at St. Teath, pleaded Guilty; and Mr. SHILSON, on the part of the prosecution, addressed the Court, expressing a hope that as the parties had admitted the offence charged, the Court would pass a lenient sentence. The CHAIRMAN, addressing the prisoners, said the circumstances of the case were now unknown to the Court; but if, as was probable, the circumstances were of a riotous and tumultuous character, he hoped they would not again be guilty of any acts of the kind. The sentence of the Court was that they be fined one shilling, and then discharged. JOHN MOYLE, 25, EDWARD WILLIAMS, 39, GEORGE TREWHELA, 27, charged with having on the 17th of February, and 2nd of March last, at the parishes of St. Agnes and Gwennap, uttered false or counterfeit coin.—Mr. Hockin appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—There were three counts. The first for uttering a counterfeit shilling to William Chynoweth, on the 17th February; the second for uttering a counterfeit shilling on the 2nd March to Mary Symons; and the third for uttering a counterfeit shilling, on the 17th February, to William Chynoweth.—It appeared that in the afternoon of Sunday, the 17th of February, the three prisoners went to Chynoweth’s, an innkeeper at St. Agnes, and had beer, spirits and cake, amounting to 2s.; they left about 6 o’clock, when Moyle and Trewhela each paid Chynoweth a shilling. In about 20 minutes, he examined them by candle light, and found them to be bad, and afterwards gave them to Nicholas Bryant, a constable of St. Agnes. In the course of the same visit to Chynoweth’s, Trewhela paid his wife a counterfeit sixpence, which was also handed to the constable, who produced the shillings and sixpence in court. There was no doubt of their being counterfeit.—In the evening of the 2nd March, between 10 and 11 o’clock the prisoners went to Bawden’s public-house, in the parish of Gwennap, about two miles from Chynoweth’s. They had a quart of beer, which they drank at the back door, and Moyle paid Mrs. Bawden a shilling which she gave to her husband, who found it was bad and taxed Moyle with it. He said that he had taken it that day of a butcher at St. Day, and that he would pay Bawden a good one. He then went on with Bawden, and about 20 or 30 yards distant, they found Williams and Trewhela, and Moyle said to them that the shilling he had taken that day of the butcher was bad. Williams then put his hand in his pocket, and took out nearly a handful of silver from which he gave Bawden a good sixpence, and Bawden returned change.— On the same evening, at a late hour, the prisoners were at a public house in St. Day, kept by Honor Symons, and Moyle came into the passage and asked for a quart of beer, which a grand-daughter of Mrs. Symons took to them in the passage, and they drank it at the door. One of the men paid the little girl with a shilling and received sixpence and twopence change. They then had another quart, for which Williams paid a shilling, and received eight pence change. They then went away, and immediately thereupon, Mrs. Symons discovered that both shillings were bad. She afterwards gave them to Harper, a constable, who produced them in Court, and they were examined by Mrs. Symons. She, however, could not positively say which it was had been paid by Williams.—Mr. Broad, silversmith, of Bodmin, proved that all the coins produced were counterfeit—made of Britannia metal, with a portion of zinc, to stiffen them. They were of a clumsy make; and, apparently, from two different designs—one lot made in a die, and the others in a stamp. The sixpence also was of very bad metal, and, apparently, from a die.—Mr. Shilson, addressing the jury for the defence, urged that the evidence adduced could only warrant the consideration of the count which alleged the utterance to Chynoweth on the 17th of February; and on this point, the learned advocate suggested doubts as to proof of guilty knowledge.—The jury found all the prisoners guilty on each count. (Sentence, each: six months hard labour) WILLIAM THOMAS, 22, pleaded GUILTY, of assaulting William Hart, a constable of St. Austell, in the execution of his duty. (Sentence: three months hard labour) The Jury were then discharged. —The Reverend John Kingdon took the oaths on appointment to the rectory of Michaelstow.—The Reverend William John Alban took the oaths on appointment to the vicarage of Mevagissey. The Court then passed sentence on the prisoners. MATHEW RICH, 29, committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards his widowed mother, Mary Rich, of the parish of Mevagissey. The mother did not appear against him, and, consequently, he was admonished and discharged. APPEALS. COLAN appellant; St. COLUMB MAJOR respondent. Mr. SHILSON moved an appeal against an order for the removal of Mary Ann Robins, otherwise Trebilcock, from St. Columb Major to Colan.—On consent by Mr. DARKE the order was quashed generally, with common costs. COLAN appellant; St. COLUMB MAJOR respondent. Mr. DARKE moved to confirm an order for the removal of William Robins, otherwise Trebilcock, from St. Columb Major to Colan.—With Mr. SHILSON’S consent, the order was confirmed, without costs or maintenance. BREAGE appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Hill. REDRUTH respondent; Mr. Darke and Mr. Hockin. This was an appeal against an order for the removal of Catherine Rogers and family from the parish of Redruth to the parish of Breage.—Mr. DARKE, admitting the service of notice and grounds of removal, objected that the appeal could not be entered into, inasmuch as since the passing of the Act 11 and 12 Vic. cap. 31, which required notice of appeal to be given within 21 days of the notice of chargeability, there was no power in the Court to enter and respite this appeal. In this case the order of removal was dated the 20th of November, and served shortly afterwards, and within 21 days from the date of service of order, namely, on the 22nd of December, 1849, notice of appeal was given, and that it was intended to prosecute and try the appeal at the next general quarter sessions. Instead, however, of trying the appeal at January sessions, the appellants entered and respited; and now the question was, whether the appellants had power to do that after the 11 and 12 Vic., cap. 31.—Mr. SHILSON said, without entering on the argument as to the bearing of the act 11 and 12 Victoria, it was clearly inapplicable in the present case, inasmuch as the notice of appeal having been dated the 22nd of December and the following sessions held on the 3rd of January, there was not the necessary 14 days notice.—Mr. DARKE then withdrew his objection, and proceeded to state the nature of the settlement relied on by the respondents. One of those grounds was that Catherine Rogers was the widow of Francis Rogers the son of Joseph and Philippa Rogers; and the settlement of Catherine Rogers and family was a derivative one though (sic) her deceased husband, from his father Joseph Rogers, who was born in Breage. Mr. Darke submitted that that prima facie case was not denied in the grounds of appeal, and therefore, it was for the appellants to rebut that prima facie settlement by proof of another settlement. In their grounds of appeal they denied generally that there was a legal settlement in Breage, because Philippa Rogers, the mother of Francis Rogers, had gained a maiden settlement, by hiring and service, in three different parishes. Mr. Darke urged that it had been frequently decided that, when as in this case, there were general grounds of appeal, and also particular grounds, the appellants could not rely on their general grounds.—The Court held (after argument on both sides) that the birth settlement was not sufficiently traversed in the grounds of appeal.—Mr. SHILSON then proceeded to state the appellants’ case, which was that of settlement by hiring and service by Philippa Rogers (mother of pauper’s husband), first, when 14 years old, with James Rogers, carpenter, of St. Agnes; then with John Michell, spirit merchant, at Gwennap; and afterwards, when about 19 years old, with Walter Bray, at the White Hart Inn, now the De dunstanville Arms, at Redruth.—Philippa Rogers, aged 75 years, was then examined in support of the appellants’ case.— Mr. DARKE commented on the infirmity of memory in the witness, and proposed to disprove her statements as to important dates and circumstances in the case; and called Charles Uren, 61 years old, who stated that in 1794, (the year in which she said she was in service with Walter Bray, at the White Hart Inn) his father, William Uren, was in occupation of that house.—The COURT was of opinion that the last settlement set up by appellants had not been made out.—Order confirmed. ST. TUDY, appellant; Mr. Darke. HAMLET OF ST. THOMAS, respondent; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Pattison. Mr. DARKE moved to enter and respite this appeal, on the ground, that although notice of appeal had been given, it was unaccompanied by grounds of appeal; the case was therefore within the provisions of the act 9, George 1st, and the respite was not barred by the 11th and 12th of Victoria.—Mr. SHILSON objected to the respite, contending that, under the 11th and 12th Victoria, the appellants were bound to proceed to trial after they had given notice. Even though they had omitted to send their grounds of appeal, it could not be said that reasonable notice had not been given; the notice might be said to be imperfect, but still it was a notice to appeal.—Mr. DARKE replied that it had been a common practice with the Court before the recent statute, to give a respite when notice had not been followed up by the grounds of appeal; and in the present case, he submitted there was nothing to alter that practice.—The CHAIRMAN said that the Court was not disposed at present to alter its practice; the appeal would therefore be respited. PENBERTHY appellant; Mr. Darke. GUNDRY respondent; Mr. Shilson. This was an appeal by William Penberthy, captain of stamps at Wheal Margaret mine, in Uny Lelant, against an order for the maintenance of the bastard child of Mary Ann Gundry, a young woman, who was employed occasionally at the stamps, and occasionally by the appellant’s wife, in his dwelling-house, which was close by the stamps.—After examination of the respondent, and of the father and mother and a young female, the evidence corroborative of the principal witness was deemed insufficient; and, without calling the appellant’s witnesses in contradiction, the Court quashed the order. THURSDAY, April 11. THOMAS RICKARD AVERY, appellant.—ROBERT ROBINSON LANGFORD, respondent.—Mr. Shilson, Mr. Hockin, and Mr. Pattison for appellant; Mr. Darke and Mr. Rowe for respondent.—This was an appeal, under the 6th and 7th William 4th, against a decision of Mr. Lethbridge and Mr. Chilcott, magistrates in petty sessions, on an appeal by Mr. Langford against a poor rate for the parish of Forrabury, made on the 12th September, 1849. The sole question at issue appeared to be as to the relative values of the appellant’s and respondent’s premises; but it was said to be probable that the case would occupy the court for two days.— (Sir Colman Rashleigh sat as chairman, in consequence of the decision appealed against having been made, in part, by Mr. Lethbridge). [ROYAL CORNWALL GAZETTE—19 April 1850 —LOCAL INTELLIGENCE] Cornwall Easter Sessions.—Avery, appellant; Langford, respondent.—This appeal, the hearing of which, as we stated in our last number, commenced on Thursday morning, occupied the court until 7 o'clock of the evening of that day, and from 9 until 3 o'clock on Friday. It was wholly void of matters of public interest, and merely involved the valuation of 10 different tenements and a quay belonging to the appellant, and of six tenements belonging to the respondent,—all in the town of Boscastle. A great many surveyors and other witnesses were examined; and, finally, the Court confirmed the order of petty sessions, with 10l. costs.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 5 and 12 July 1850

4. Midsummer Sessions These sessions were opened on Tuesday last before the following magistrates:—

J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman Sir W. L. S. Trelawny, Bart R. Gully Bennet, Esq. The Hon. G. M. Fortescue J. Lyne, Esq. J. Hearle Tremayne, Esq. E. Stephens, Esq. G.W.F. Gregor, Esq. H. Thomson, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. T. White Graham, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. W.P. Kemp, Esq. J.S. Enys, Esq. H.P. Rawlings, Esq. J. Gwatkin, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. Rev. R. Gerveys Grylls. R. Graves Polwhele, Esq. Rev. J. Bird. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. T. R. Avery of Boscastle qualified as a magistrate:— The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury. Messrs W. Petherick, St. Austell, foreman; W. Benny, Colan; T. Cleave, St. Breock, S. P. Dennis, Falmouth; W. F. Geake, St. Columb Major; N. Gerrans, Probus; R. Goodfellow, Budock; J. Grigg, St. Columb Minor; G. Hellyar, St. Columb Major; J. Henwood, St. Columb Minor; J. Kendall, Probus; J. Magor, Colan; W. Mayne, Constantine; W. Oatey, St. Breock; G. Reed, Budock; J. Rowe, St. Columb Major; E. Sharp, Kenwyn; T. Treloar, Kenwyn; R. Tremeer, St. Columb Minor; J. Tresawna, Probus; N.T. Wakem, St. Clement; J. West, St. Breock; H. Williams, Kenwyn. After the reading of the Queen’s proclamation, the CHAIRMAN proceeded to charge the Grand Jury:[not transcribed] VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The Visiting Justices reported that the gaol and bridewell were in their usual clean and excellent order, and the discipline of the different wards had never been better observed. They regretted the decay in the roofs and part of the walls, but were unwilling to incur any expenses not actually forced upon them, until some definite arrangement was come to as to the enlargement of the building. The number of prisoners was comparatively small; but still too large to allow a proper classification. The Rev. R. G. GRYLLS said he had been requested to ask the Bench to increase the number of Visiting Justices. In consequence of the absence of some distant magistrates, the duties fell almost entirely on Capt. Hext and himself; they were quite ready to continue their services, but, said Mr. Grylls, non sumus quales fuimus. He would therefore beg to propose that Mr. Brune and Capt. Thomson be added to the Visiting Magistrates.—While on his legs he wished to allude to a letter which had lately appeared in the West Briton signed “Vindex.” He should not have taken notice of that letter but that it had led to correspondence with the Secretary for the Home Department. It complained of the treatment of two prisoners named Tregeagle and Whiston. He wished that the writer had communicated with the Visiting Justices; he would then have felt satisfied that there was no ground for complaint. Those prisoners were never treated harshly, and they never complained—at least to the magistrates or the Governor; they had never been subject to any regulations but those made by the magistrates in Quarter Sessions and sanctioned by Sir George Grey. The motion for the addition of Mr. Brune and Capt. Thomson to the Visiting Magistrates, was seconded by Mr. SAWLE, and carried unanimously. [CORONER’S BILLS.—not transcribed] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The governor reported favourably as to the number of prisoners in custody and as to their general orderly conduct. Nothing had occurred in the prison since the last sessions to call for any special remark. The rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with. The buildings, with the exception of some roofs, were generally in good repair. The comparative statement of prisoners in gaol at the present time and at the corresponding sessions last year showed a total of 40 at the present time, and 43 last year. [GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE QUARTER—not transcribed] BRIDGES.—Mr. MOORMAN, surveyor for the Western Division, reported that, in pursuance of directions received at the last Sessions, he had inspected the road way of Ruthern Bridge, and found that the road was considerably overflowed both above and below the bridge and about 4 or 5 feet high, for the purpose of conveying the water of some stream-works. It was his opinion that nothing but the removal of the dam was required to place the bridge and road way in a proper state.—After Mr. Moorman’s exhibition of a plan and explanation to the Magistrates, it was resolved, on the motion of Mr. TREMAYNE, seconded by Mr. STEPHENS, that the magistrates for the hundreds of Trigg and East Pydar be a committee to inspect the bridge, with Mr. Moorman’s report and if they coincide with that report, to request the Clerk of the Peace to write to the proprietors of the stream-works requiring the removal of the dam. Mr. PEASE reported that an application had been made to him for the removal of a bank of the Fowey river immediately below Glynn Bridge, which bank, it was alleged, turned the current of the stream, so that land was washed away in consequence. Whether this matter was for the county or the proprietor of the land to attend to, he was not prepared to say.—Mr. Pease gave notice of one levy. [CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS—not transcribed] [PRINTING LISTS OF VOTERS—not transcribed] [PETTY SESSIONAL MEETINGS IN EAST PYDAR—not transcribed] [INSPECTORS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES—not transcribed] TRIALS OF PRISONERS ABEL REBOUSE, 49, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a bundle of hay, the property of Edward Stephens, Esq. of Trewornan in St. Minver (Sentence: one month hard labour) WILLIAM BEST, 40 pleaded GUILTY, on three several indictments, of stealing ducks, the property of John Runnalls, James Byers and James Runnalls, all of Bodmin (Sentence: six months hard labour) RICHARD DENNIS, 35, was ACQUITTED of stealing at St. Stephens by Launceston, some eggs and potatoes the property of his master, William Medland, a farmer. RICHARD ALLEN, 40, was ACQUITTED of stealing at St. Mabyn, two fagots of wood, the property of John Pinch, at Hay Wood. MARY JAMES, 30, was found GUILTY on a charge of having entered a field in the occupation of Moses May, a carrier of , and milked one of his cows and feloniously stolen a quantity of milk, the property of the said Moses May. (Sentence: two months hard labour) CHARLES HOWARD, 11 was found GUILTY of stealing 22 lbs. of lead, the property of Robert Were Fox and Alfred Fox, representatives of the late Mrs. Elizabeth Fox, of Bank House, Falmouth. The lead was cut from a cistern in the kitchen of Bank-house, the person who entered the kitchen having entered by the window, which had been opened, apparently with some thin instrument. The prisoner offered the stolen lead, on the 16th of April, for sale at the shop of Mr. Gilbert, ship-chandler at Falmouth; but John Snell, an assistant of Mr. Gilbert’s, prudently retained the lead for the purpose of inquiry; and this led to the apprehension of the prisoner. The prisoner was found guilty; but the chairman intimated his opinion that some older and stronger person must have been concerned in the robbery. (Sentence: to be once whipped and discharged) GEORGE HAMBLY, charged with stealing on the 20th of Jun, one gallon of wheat, the property of Mary Selina Menhennick, widow, occupying a farm at Burneire, in the parish of Egloshayle. The charge was clearly substantiated by the testimony of the prosecutrix, of Mr. Bartholomew Daniell, who assisted in the management of her farm; Richard Menhennick, a workman in her employ; and Francis Cleave, a constable; and by a rather important admission made by the prisoner in his statement before the committing magistrates. GUILTY. (Sentence: three months hard labour) RICHARD RICHARDS, 23, charged with having stolen, on the 10th of April, at the parish of Kea, one shirt, the property of Paul Eva, a miner. The prisoner was found GUILTY.—There was another indictment against him for stealing a shirt and a neck cloth, the property of William Carlyon, farmer, of Kea; but this indictment was not pressed. (Sentence: three months hard labour) WILLIAM WOOLCOCK, the younger, 18, was charged with having on the 19th of May, stolen, at the parish of Kea, a woollen scarf, two cotton shirts and various other articles of clothing, the property of Thomas Tinney, a sailor, on board the schooner William, lying off Woodberry, in . It appeared that on Whitsunday, the 19th of May, the prosecutor left all his clothes in the forecastle, and on returning to the vessel next morning, found them all missing. Evan Phillips, a comrade of the prosecutor’s was on board till about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, at which time the articles in the cabin and forecastle were all right, and he left a ladder on the hatch over the forecastle. While he was on board, the prisoner and a young man called Netting were going down the river in a boat, and came on board the William and borrowed a sail, which Phillips told them to return when they had done with it. William Short, a shoemaker of Truro, was going down the river in a boat, and about half-past three in the afternoon, saw the prisoner and Netting on board the William. Netting has since absconded.—About three weeks since, Henry Rossiter saw the scarf lying open on prisoner’s father’s table, and bought it of prisoner for a shilling; the prisoner telling him that he had it of Netting.—It appeared in defence, that from half-past three in the afternoon of Whitsunday until between 11 and 12 at night, the prisoner and prosecutor were together drinking; and, under all the circumstances of the case, Mr. HOCKIN contended, for the prisoner, that he ought not to be called on account for his possession of the scarf, the only article produced—that the robbery might have been committed by Netting or some other person, and that the scarf might have passed through a dozen hands before it reached prisoner—that it was highly improbable that the prisoner would have gone on board to commit a robbery at mid-day, the only available time for the act being between two and half-past three in the day, —and that the appearance of prisoner and Netting on board the William, as spoken to by the witness Short, was fairly accounted for by their having to return the sail which they had borrowed.—The CHAIRMAN put the case to the jury as one of considerable doubt, and the jury returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL. JAMES MOOR, 26, found GUILTY of stealing, at the parish of Kenwyn, nine ducks, the property of Agnes Barrett.—A previous conviction for stealing fowls was proved against the prisoner. Wednesday, July 3. (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq.) JOSEPH WHITTA, 21, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 17th June, at Truro, one waistcoat, the property of John Cullis. (Sentence: two months hard labour) ELIZABETH PROUSE, 25, was charged with stealing on the 1st May, at Truro, two shawls, the property of Edward Holywood, licensed hawker. It appeared that Holywood exhibited his good to prisoner and her husband on the day in question at the house of a Mrs. Warne, in St. Dominic-street, where prisoner and her husband lived. The husband offered 1l. for a shawl which prosecutor accepted, but the money not being forthcoming, he tied up his bundle again, and being in liquor, went upstairs to sleep, and after three or four hours, returned to his lodgings as the Turk’s Head. On the 4th of May he found, on examining his bundle, that two shawls were missing. On the afternoon of May 1st prisoner took two new shawls to Mr. James, pawnbroker, and pledged them for six shillings, and on the 4th she redeemed them, and took them to the prosecutor at Mrs. Warne’s house, where he had been making enquiries, and gave them to him. She was given in charge to the constable, on which she made various admissions and inconsistent statements. An objection was taken to prisoner’s liability, as acting under the coercion of her husband, but the Court overruled it, upon which Mr. Childs, who appeared for the prisoner, addressed the jury on the merits of the case, dwelling especially on the absence of material witnesses who ought to have been called in support of the prosecution. The jury acquitted the prisoner. HENRY ELLERY, 28, charged with stealing a quantity of apples and three fagots of wood, the property of Henry Thomas, farmer, of Lanivet. The evidence was very clear, and included several confessions by the prisoner. GUILTY. (Sentence: three months hard labour) WALTER KEAST, 16, and JOHN LANGDON, 16, were charged with stealing ten fathoms of rope, the property of James Clarke, dairyman, of Truro. The rope was stolen from one of two cow-houses in a field in the prosecutor’s occupation, in the parish of Kenwyn.—The rope was sold by the boys, on the 25th May, to William Phillips Matthews, a marine store dealer at Truro, who bought it without asking them any particular questions, and gave them a halfpenny per lb. for it. In reply to questions from the Chairman, Matthews said he did not think it necessary to ask any particular questions, as he had no mistrust in them; the boys were both shoemakers.—The Chairman intimated some surprise that Mr. Matthews did not think it strange that two boys, shoemakers, should have such a quantity of rope for sale.—The jury found both prisoners GUILTY. The court ordered that Matthew’s expenses as witness should not be allowed.—“This”, said the Chairman, “will teach you marine store dealers to be a little more cautious”. (Sentence (each): two months hard labour) THOMAS CANN, 17, was charged with stealing, on the 27th of April, at Truro, one fustian coat, the property of John Bridgman, draper and clothes’-dealer. The charge was clearly proved by the evidence of Henry Newton, (an intelligent young lad), Joel Blamey Mitchell, an assistant in Mr. Bridgeman’s shop, and Thomas Davey, policeman.—The prisoner, probably one of the gang of lads who are constantly prowling about the town and neighbourhood of Truro, engaged in felonious depredations, was seen by Newton, on the evening of the day named, to unhang the coat from Mr. Bridgeman’s shop door and walk off with it under his arm. Newton very properly gave immediate information to an assistant in the shop, and also ran to the police- station. After some scuffling and contention with Mitchell, the prisoner confessed that he had stolen the coat, but refused to give it up.—He was found GUILTY. (Sentence: six months hard labour, including one month solitary) ROBERT PEARDON, 40, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 29th of March, at St. Stephens by Launceston, five ducks and two drakes, the property of Robert Johns, farmer. (Sentence: six months hard labour) JAMES HOLMAN, the younger, 25, was charged with stealing from Wheal Benny mine, in the parish of , a quantity of zinc pipes. The case was at most one of strong suspicion. Three years ago a quantity of zinc air pipes, 7 feet long and 3 inches in diameter, were laid down at the mine. Some of these were taken up last February, 28 feet of the quantity were missing, and three pipes corresponding in material and size were found in possession of the prisoner, who had access to the spot where the missing pipes were placed, and had been seen about the place. Mr. Darke for the prisoner contended that there was no case to answer; but the Bench left the question to the jury, who gave a verdict of ACQUITTAL. JOHN HOTTEN, 18, charged with having, on the 14th of June, stolen from the person of Philip Rudd, divers sums of money, amounting to nearly £13, the monies of the said Philip Rudd.—The prosecutor was a mariner, of the schooner Providence. In the evening of the 14th of June, he saw the prisoner at the Globe public-house in St. Austell, stayed there till about half-past 11, when he went towards Charlestown, in company with the prisoner, who offered to show him the road thither. Went to a lime-kiln, where there were ten or a dozen men and women, and had some beer. Hotten asked him for sixpence to buy some more beer, which he gave him; and, he was sure that at that time, all his other money was safe in his pocket. They sat down together, and, after a while, Rudd fell asleep, and slept for about half an hour. When he awoke, Hotten was gone and all his money also.—The remaining evidence showed that on the 15th of June, the prisoner and various ways, was seen to be flush of sovereigns and other money, and also that his mother, who occupied a room in the parish poor-house at Fowey, bought for him a new suit of clothes. GUILTY of stealing from the person.—A previous conviction was proved against the prisoner, at the Midsummer Sessions, 1849, for stealing from the person of a farmer named Hawke, at St. Austell. For that offence he had suffered nine months imprisonment. (Sentence: second conviction, transported for 10 years) FRANCIS TREBILCOCK, 37, was charged with having, on the 30th of May, stolen about five gallons of oats, barley, beans, and bran, the property of John Stephens, of the Red Lion Inn, in Redruth. The prosecutor kept horses, and among them three that worked in the Fairy Omnibus between Redruth and Truro. The robbery was effected at night. The prisoner also kept horses, and, up to nine years since, had lived for several years in the prosecutor’s employ, and was well acquainted with the stables and premises.—The case occupied some considerable time in hearing. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY. (Sentence: six months hard labour) SILAS LIDDICOAT, 51, charged with having on the 12th of April, at the parish of Roche, feloniously broken and entered the dwelling-house of George Inch, and stolen therefrom three hams, two pieces of bacon, half a cheek of pork, and one bag, the property of George Inch.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Hocken the defence.—The prosecutor was a small farmer living at a place called Brintege, in the parish of Roche; and the prisoner was a near neighbour of respectable appearance. The alleged robbery took place during the absence of the prosecutor, with his wife, and only child, at St. Austell market. On their return in the evening, it was found that the house had been entered, apparently for forcing the staple of the lock. In the morning before they started, the prisoner made particular inquiries of the prosecutor whether he was going to market and if his wife was going with him, and what time they should be back. On the morning after the robbery, prosecutor got up about five o’clock, and saw prisoner standing alongside of his outhouse. Prosecutor, without then making known his suspicion, went for a search-warrant, and on Sunday morning went with a constable and two other men to the prisoner’s house; and in a chest in his outhouse, they found the various articles of mean, except one piece of bacon, which had been lost.—There was also some evidence of shoe-marks seen near the premises of the prosecutor, which were found to correspond with prisoner’s shoes.—One of the witnesses, who assisted the constable in the search, added that, after that, he asked the prisoner how he came to break into his neighbour’s house; and he said “the Devil was in me very strong.” This witness, however, admitted that he had previously held out something like inducement to confession, and the CHAIRMAN said the evidence must be excluded. For the defence, Mr. HOCKIN addressed the jury, who found a verdict of “GUILTY of breaking and entering and stealing.” (Sentence: six months hard labour) WILLIAM JOHNS, charged with stealing on the 6th of May, at St. Breock, two fagots of furze, was ACQUITTED. The following bills were ignored: —Walter Peast (sic), and John Langdon, for stealing 50 fathoms of rope; and John Stevens. The indictment against Thomas Hicks and William Clift for a riot and assault in the parish of St. Cleer, was not prosecuted. SECOND COURT. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq.) WEDNESDAY, JULY 3. RICHARD GORMAN, 32, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 24th of October, at the parish of St. Cleather, a fustian jacket, the property of William Boundy. Prisoner also pleaded GUILTY of stealing a cloth waistcoat, belonging to John Hawker, of St. Cleather. The same prisoner pleaded GUILTY to a third indictment, for stealing in March last, at Stokeclimsland, a pair of drawers and a pair of trousers, the property of John Oates. (Sentence: six months hard labour) JAMES TREGONING, 22, pleaded GUILTY of breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Horrol, in Luxulian, on the 13th of June, and stealing therefrom two pieces of bread, the property of John Horrol. (Sentence: six months hard labour) WILLIAM BUTTERS, 26, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 24th of May, at the parish of Liskeard, a duck, the property of Francis Olver. (Sentence: two months hard labour) THOMAS BUNNEY, 51, was found GUILTY of stealing at Liskeard, in May last, a quilt, the property of Robert Knapp. (Sentence: one month hard labour) MARY CHAMPION was found guilty of stealing, on the 29th of June, one pound weight of veal, a pound of beef, and two pounds of lamb, the property of John Penny. (Sentence: three months hard labour) JAMES ROWSE, 24, was indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Joseph Bath, and stealing several articles of wearing apparel. Mr. Childs conducted the case, Prosecutor in a labourer living at East Antony, and went to his work on the morning of the 6th of April. His wife also left house about nine o’clock and locked the door. On returning at twelve, she found that the staple of the door had been drawn, and that a pair of trousers, waistcoat, stockings, and boots had been stolen. Her husband afterwards (on the same day) met with the prisoner at Plymouth. He was then wearing the articles, but his story was that he had bought them for 10s. of another man. Verdict, GUILTY of stealing. (Sentence: three months hard labour) DANIEL MAUNDER, charged with stealing an oak stick, was ACQUITTED. WILLIAM EMMETT, 14, was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Trick, jun., of Stokeclimsland, and stealing seven and a half sovereigns. Mr. Darke for the prosecution, and Mr. Stokes for the prisoner. The house was entered and the robbery committed on Sunday evening, the 10th of February, whilst Mr. Trick and his family were at chapel. In the course of the trial a question arose as to the reception of evidence. The prisoner, when in custody, make some statements to John Bennett, a constable of South Petherwin, which implicated another party, on which the constable said to prisoner, “I would not take the whole blame on my own back, if there are any other parties I would tell the truth, it will be the better for you.” Mr. Stokes for the prisoner, submitted that whatever passed after this must be excluded from evidence, as the constable had held out an inducement to the prisoner, to make a statement.—Mr. Darke said the constable’s words had reference to the connexion of others with the robbery; he contended that prisoner’s statement was receiveable (sic) if it did not implicate other parties.—Mr. STOKES replied that whether the statement made by the prisoner implicated other parties of not, was immaterial. There was an inducement by the constable to the prisoner to say something by which he would be benefitted; the law did not allow that there should be any such inducement, and the evidence could not be given.—The COURT decided that any further statements of the prisoner to the constable could not be gone into. Other witnesses were then called in support of the prosecution, after which Mr. STOKES addressed the jury for the prisoner, and called witnesses to show that prisoner was at his father’s house at the time the robbery was committed. He also called a witness to speak to the good character of the lad.—Mr. DARKE replied on the whole case.— The CHAIRMAN, in the course of summing up the case, remarked that the judges had held that a constable was bound to receive anything a prisoner might choose to tell, but not to cross-examine him to get out statement unfavourable to himself. The jury, after some deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of concealing. But the CHAIRMAN told them that verdict could not be received under the present indictment; if they could not find the prisoner guilty of housebreaking or of stealing, they must acquit him. The jury then gave a verdict of NOT GUILTY. HENRY HODGE, 27, was charged with stealing, on the 7th of April, at Alternun, a quantity of turves, the property of Henry Harris.—GUILTY. (Sentence: one month hard labour) THOMAS BONE, 53, was found GUILTY of stealing at Camelford, on the 20th of April a piece of beef suet, the property of James Bate, buther (sic). (Sentence: one month hard labour) JOB MAUNDER, 35, was charged with stealing, on the 20th of June, from the dwelling-house of William Harris, in the parish of St. Ive, a bolster, brass tap, a receipt for rent, and an almanac.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY. The court rose about seven o’clock. THURSDAY, July 4. (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq.) THOMAS HUGO, a farmer, was charged with having, on the 13th of May, stole at the parish of St. Austell, three milch cows and a yearling, the property of Thomas Hugo, dairyman and cattle dealer. The prisoner is an uncle of the prosecutor. The defence set up by the prisoner was that he and the prosecutor were in a partnership. Mr. Darke appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Stokes for the defence. The case was likely to occupy the Court for some hours. SECOND COURT JOHN SMITH, 36, was charged with stealing, on the 26th of May, a duck, the property of Henry Martin, innkeeper.—GUILTY. (Sentence: three months hard labour) THURSDAY, July 4. (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq.) THOMAS HUGO, was charged with having on the 13th of May, at the parish of St. Austell, feloniously stolen three milch cows and a yearling heifer, the property of Thomas Hugo, cattle-dealer.—Mr. DARKE for prosecution; Mr. STOKES for the defence.—The case was a peculiar one, and from the particularity of examination necessary, occupied the Court until 6 o’clock in the evening. The prisoner is an uncle of the prosecutor, and nearly all the witnesses for the prosecution were relatives of the parties. The prosecutor had for some time rented fields in the neighborhood of St. Austell and carried on a dairy in addition to his occupation as a cattle dealer. On Sunday the 12th of May prosecutor was absent from his home; but late in the evening of that day, his wife, who attended to the milking and meating the cows, saw the three milch cows and the yearling safe in the field. Between 5 and 6 o’clock the following morning, she again went to the field, and found they were missing. Search was made, and the cattle were traced to the Ship Inn, in Truro, where the prisoner was taken in custody, and the prosecutor, who returned from Plymouth on the Monday and joined in the search, identified his cattle. The prisoner’s defence was, and continued to be, that he took the bullocks and felt himself justified in so doing—that he had a right to them, in consequence of some money being owed him by his nephews who were in partnership with the prosecutor. For the prosecution, it was alleged that between the prosecutor and three other relatives, not including the prisoner, there had been a partnership, for buying and selling cattle, which was terminated on the 10th Sept., 1849; but that the three cows and yearling were never the property of the partnership, they having been bought by the prosecutor long subsequent to the 10th of September. It was contended that there was no reasonable pretence of right in the prisoner to take the property in question, and therefore he was according to the law, guilty of felony. Ann Hugo, wife of prosecutor, stated that on Sunday the 12th of May, they had three milch cows and a yearling in some fields which they had rented of Mr. Parsons for two years. One of the cows was bought in November last, and the two others in Jan. last; the yearling was bought at Bristol in July last. At half past 8 in the evening of Sunday the 12th of May, she saw the cows safe in the fields, and one of the gates was locked. On Monday morning she went to the fields about ½ past 5 and saw that the gate had been unhanged, and that the three cows and yearling were gone. She traced bullocks’ tracks up the lane leading towards Truro, and gave information to William Henry Hugo, a brother of her husband. Her husband had gone to attend Plymouth market, and did not return till the Monday afternoon. No one but her husband had any interest in these cows. She always managed the dairy, received the moneys, and accounted to no one but her husband.—Cross-examined. Prisoner’s cattle were never kept in those fields; but once, when he bought a horse, her husband allowed him to keep it there for a short time. Prisoner was out of the country for many years; her husband had no money of prisoner, when he returned to this country. In November 1849, prisoner took away two other cows, one night. William Henry Hugo lived at St. Austell. Was a brother of prosecutor and nephew of prisoner. On Monday, 13th of May, went on to Truro in search of the missing cows and yearling. At Truro saw Payne, the police inspector, and from conversation with him, went back to St. Austell, and informed the prosecutor, who returned from Plymouth about six o’clock that evening.—During part of last year, I was concerned with prisoner in buying and selling cattle. I began with him about June, and was with him for 3 or 4 months. When I joined him, my cousin Joseph Hugo was with him. My father Charles Hugo joined us afterwards, but my father only dealt in pigs. The last dealing we had with the prisoner was at Helston fair in September 1849. My father had left us some time before that. We had some dispute about cattle at Helston fair, and we had nothing to do with prisoner afterwards. Daring the whole of the time I have spoken, my brother Thomas, the prosecutor, had nothing whatever to do with the partnership; we had nothing to do with the ground that he rented, nor with his cows. Cross-examined.—Prisoner went away, about 6 or 7 years ago, to go to America. Before that time, he had had no dealings with me or the prosecutor. The first time I saw him after his return was at Helston Whitsun-fair. He told me he had some money. I went into partnership with him in July last year, at Probus fair. At Helston harvest fair we sold off all the cattle we had between us, and have had no dealings together since. I heard of prisoner’s taking some of the prosecutor’s cattle in November to Redruth; he also took away some pigs to Hayle in April or May last. I was at Hayle when they were stopped by the prisoner, and there was a trial about the pigs at Redruth County Court, between prosecutor and prisoner. (The witness was asked what was the judgment of the Court; but, no objection taken, this question was no permitted. The proper evidence, it was alleged, was the record of the Court). My brother, the prosecutor, drove away the pigs, after the trial. When I was partner with the prisoner, we never kept cows at the prosecutor’s. Thomas Hugo, the prosecutor, was next examined. He corroborated parts of the previous testimony, and went on to say that in the evening of Monday the 13th of May, he went to Truro and obtained a warrant, on which the prisoner was apprehended at Mr. Sander’s keel-alley, at the Ship inn. I pointed out the prisoner to the St. Austell policeman, who apprehended him and he was taken to St. Austell. At the Ship inn premises, I saw the cows, and I thought I heard the yearling bleat, in a shed; but Mr. and Mrs. Sanders would not allow me to search the premises. I heard the yearling bleat, and I ran towards the noise and said ‘I’ll swear that’s my yearling.’ I then looked in through the window where the other bullocks were, and could swear to one that I had bought of Mr. Croggan. I have had no partnership transactions with the prisoner since his return from America, and have not divided any profits with him. During the time that he was in partnership with my brothers, I had nothing whatever to do with him. His money had nothing to do with the purchase of cattle. At Redruth County Court I brought an action against the prisoner for detaining my pigs. The prisoner then said we were parties all together. Cross-examined.—It was the day after the search at Truro that I went on to Redruth County Court. Prisoner was tried for 10l. damages, and I could not get it; he declared that he had a right in the pigs, and I declared that he had not. He stopped the pigs on the day of Tregony fair, 6 or 7 weeks before Christmas. In November he took some bullocks of mine out of a field that belonged to my brother William Henry, my cousin Joseph, and prisoner. He drove the bullocks to his brother-in-law’s house at Redruth, and I got a warrant against him from Mr. Stephen Davey, the magistrate. Prisoner said we were all partners together, and Mr. Davey said, if it was a partnership job he could not settle it. The cattle were then sold in the street. I denied the sale, and said they belonged to me, but the sale went on. The cattle were knocked down to Mr. john Trestrail’s son, who did not have them; and then the cattle were sold the same night by prisoner to his brother-in-law at Redruth. I did not proceed against him; it was no use to sue him, as he had not property.—At Helston harvest fair, in 1849, I was in Oliver Hocking’s booth. Prisoner and William Henry Hugo had some bullocks there and sold some to a man called John George. Afterwards, in Oliver Hocking’s dinner-room, George asked me “whom shall I pay?” I said “it does not make any odds; they belong together.” I did not say “we are all partners together.”—Re-examined. I did not receive the money for the bullocks sold at Helston fair. Not a penny for bullocks sold by that partnership ever came into my hands. The pigs detained by prisoner had been sent by me, by train, for Hayle, for the Bristol market. William Henry, one of the prisoner’s partners, was going to Bristol by the same packet. Prisoner, and George Hicks (his brother-in-law) and Tregoning the constable, went down to Hayle by the same train. Prisoner said he stopped the pigs, believing them to be William Henry’s. I told him Chigwin had bought them from me. Prisoner did not then say that he was partner with me. When it was found that the pigs were mine, they were given up to me, and I sent them on to Bristol the next day, where they were sold on my account. The action at Redruth was for damages for detaining the pigs. It was about a week after that the prisoner took five bullocks, belonging to me, out of fields in the occupation of persons who were formerly partners with him. Those five bullocks cost me 35l., by the time I had them down from Taunton where I bought them. John Westlake, policeman of St. Austell. On Monday, the 13th of May, I went to the police station at Truro, with a warrant to apprehend the prisoner. I found him at the Ship Inn, and read the warrant to him. He said he did take the bullocks and sold them to Mr. Sanders, and that they were his property. He said that he and his nephews were partners—that he had taken some bullocks before and should do so again, because they owed him some money. Joseph Hugo, a nephew of the prisoner. Soon after his return from America, I joined him in buying and selling bullocks together. After that, in July, William Henry joined us; and we three went on together buying and selling bullocks, till the 10th of September at Helston fair, where we sold our last lot together; we had no dealings together afterwards. In November, the prosecutor had some bullocks in a field, the grass of which belonged to William Henry, prisoner, and myself. Before the taking of those bullocks by the prisoner, he never claimed any partnership with the prosecutor. I was at Redruth when he was charged with stealing those bullocks, and that was the first time I ever heard about any partnership with the prosecutor. Nicholls, the auctioneer, who said those five bullocks, said, in the hearing of the prisoner, that he (the prisoner) had employed him to sell. I heard the prosecutor deny the sale.—I was afterwards at the Ship Inn, in Truro, with the prisoner and Charles Hugo. William Henry was not there. We made up our account; each party took out his advance of capital, and that left 12l. profit, which he could not divide because William Henry was not present. The prisoner took the 12l. from the table. Prosecutor had nothing to do with it; but I saw him afterwards in the same house. I have no money in my hands belonging to the prisoner, and I am not aware that the prosecutor has; I am not in debt to the prisoner. There was always been a variance and opposition in trade between prisoner and prosecutor; they were not on speaking terms, and I believe one would take the advantage of the other if he could. I don’t know that I ever quarreled with the prisoner. Mr. STOKES then addressed the jury for the defence. He urged that whatever other offence the prisoner had been guilty of in seeking to recover the value of money which he believed to be due to him, the evidence would not substantiate a charge of felony. The act committed by him was no done by stealth, but so that all the world might ultimately know of it; for, on his arrival at Truro with the bullocks, he went to the police inspector and informed him of what he had done and where the cattle were, and that he would be ready and any time when called on, to account for his conduct. It would be seen too, that, on the prisoner’s return from America, it was his money which made the capital of the partnership; and it would be proved that the prosecutor had again and again said he was a partner with the prisoner. It would further be proved that the prosecutor assented to the sale of the five bullocks at Redruth, and at that time stated the he was a partner with the prisoner; although afterwards he certainly did deny the sale. No indictment or action was brought against the prisoner on account of those five bullocks; nothing was done but going before the magistrate who dismissed the case as it was a partnership affair. These circumstances all showed that there must have been some dealings between the prosecutor and the prisoner which the prosecutor did not choose to admit. At the time of the sale in November, the prisoner distinctly said he would continue to take bullocks until he was paid. Then he took the pigs, and in May last, took the bullocks which formed the subject of the present indictment. It was clear that in thus acting, he was not committing felony; and it was monstrous that he should be brought here on a criminal charge merely because, as the prosecutor said, he was not worth suing for damages in an action of trespass or trover. John Trestrail.—I live at Redruth and am a cattle dealer. I was at Helston September fair. John George bought two bullocks of prisoner and William Henry Hugo. Prisoner put the bullocks up to Oliver Hocking’s house. After that, John George came into Hocking’s booth on the Green and asked William Henry Hugo and prosecutor “When must I pay?” Prosecutor said “it makes no difference; pay me, or William Henry, or uncle Thomas, it is all one; we are compartners.”—I was at Redruth when the sale of five bullocks by auction took place. Nicholls the auctioneer and several people were present. I heard the prosecutor at that time say “Uncle Thomas, you take these bullocks and sell them, and make as much as you can of them, and take the money as part payment; and I will write to my father in Bristol and to William Henry and they shall come down and we will settle whats between us.” I also heard the prosecutor say afterwards to prisoner that if, after that time he would not stop taking cattle, he (the prosecutor) would deny the sale. Prisoner said he would keep on till he had the remainder part of his money.—Cross-examined. In Hocking’s booth at Helston fair, the prosecutor did not say to George “you may pay either one of them; for they are all alike.” I am certain that he said “you may pay either me, or William Henry, or uncle Thomas, for we are all in partnership.” Before Mr. Davey, the magistrate at Redruth, the prosecutor denied all partnership with the prisoner. It was the prisoner who directed Nicholls to sell the five bullocks. After the conditions of sale were read, the prosecutor denied the sale, because the prisoner said he would not give up taking bullocks. William Nicholls, of Redruth, constable and auctioneer. In November last, I sold five bullocks at Redruth. Both prosecutor and prisoner employed me to sell. The sale took place in the afternoon. I had been sent for to the New Inn and there saw prisoner and prosecutor. I made some inquiries, and prosecutor authorized me to sell and pay the proceeds to the prisoner. I heard prisoner say to prosecutor, “Unless you come to a settlement I shall continue to take cattle until I am paid.” On that, when I had read the conditions of sale, prosecutor said, “I deny the sale, they are stolen bullocks.” There were 38 to 40 persons present. The sale went on. There were four biddings, and the bullocks were knocked down to Nicholas Trestrail (son of the last witness) for 22 or 23l. I was paid my commission. Prosecutor and prisoner appeared to be pleasant together & drank together until the prisoner said he should continue to take bullocks until there was a settlement.— Cross-examined. Prosecutor alone gave me authority to sell; he afterward withdrew that authority, but I proceeded with the sale. Neither prosecutor nor prisoner said anything to me as to the value of the bullocks. I should think they were sold at a fair price. I first saw the prosecutor at Kistler’s Inn, about 1½ hour before the sale; I believe none of the Hugo’s were present except the prisoner and prosecutor; I am sure William Henry was not there.—Re-examined. After the sale, prosecutor and prisoner sat down and drank some bottled ale. Charles Tregoning, policeman of Redruth. I remember when the five bullocks were sold in November. It was before Mr. Davey, with the prisoner and prosecutor. We went to Harveys public house where the bullocks were locked up. The bullocks were given up to prisoner; and I heard the prosecutor say to him “don’t give away the bullocks’ sell them and make the most you can of them, and I will send to Bristol to my father and brother, and we will arrange the matter between us.” The prosecutor said that some years since there was 30l. between them. Then the prisoner said, “only arrange the matter between us, and I’ll sacrifice that £30 or even 50l.” Prisoner also said “I brought home 140l from America; they have had my cattle and left me with only fifteen pence in my pocket.” They then went to Kistler’s public house, and Nicholls came there. George Hicks, a brother-in-law of the prisoner. I am a constable of Redruth. I saw the prosecutor and prisoner before Mr. Davey the magistrate, in November, and afterwards saw them together at Elisha Harris’s Inn. Prisoner said he had taken away the bullocks and would sell them. Prosecutor said “Uncle, don’t give them away; make the most you can of them and put the money in your pocket, and I’ll write to father and brother, and all that’s between us shall be righted.” Prisoner said “you have left me with 15 pence in my pocket out of £135. Prosecutor said, “what there is between us shall be righted.” The day after Helston September fair, I saw prosecutor in Kistler’s public house. He asked me if I had seen Uncle Thomas for the day. I said “no.” Prosecutor said “I thought he had been at your house. I believe his is gone to St. Austell; he left three bullocks there; but when he comes there, I will have his finger in his eye (laughter). I sold those bullocks before I went to Helston, I have got all the Californian money in my pocket.” I said “you don’t mean to turn the man out naked? I know when he came home he had 150l.” Prosecutor said, “Uncle, sit down; we are going to have a leg of mutton and something to drink, and California shall pay for all” (laughter). Cross- examined. I believe prosecutor and prisoner were partners after the prisoner’s return from America. William Henry was at Kistler’s when prosecutor asked me if I had seen Uncle Thomas for the day. They have lately quarreled with the prisoner; but they were intimate with him when he first returned from America. Anthony Kistler, innkeeper at Redruth. I saw prosecutor and prisoner frequently at my house during last year; they were there on Whit-monday evening, 1849. The prosecutor paid all in the course of that night and the following day. Sometimes the prisoner would pay all the reckoning, and sometimes the prosecutor would pay all. I took them to be as one. The day after Helston harvest-fair, prisoner was at my house, and prosecutor the day after. The prosecutor said “we have done him.” He asked “where is Californian Tom?” I said, “who do you mean?” He said, “why uncle Tom.” I said, I can’t tell; I saw him last night; he went away this morning.” Prosecutor said, “I know where he is gone; he is gone to St. Austell about the bullocks; but he is gone with a finger in his eye; I have sold the bullocks, and have got all the Californian in my pockets; and he may go to California again or to the Union if he likes.” I said to him, “you ought to settle with him.” He said, “don’t you interfere; we are customers; uncle Tom has got no money, and we shall be your customers.” The next day I saw prosecutor again; and William Henry said “we will pay the money and make all right; Uncle Tom has none.” Prosecutor said to William Henry, “you have no money; I’ll lend you some.” They then paid among them.—Cross-examined. They don’t come to my house not as they used to do. Uncle Tom comes occasionally. He is no connection of mine, more the others are. John Boskeen, cattle dealer. I have known the prosecutor and prisoner for several years. At Truro Whitsun Fair, 1849, I saw the prisoner buying a horse of a man called Uren. There was a difference of 10 shillings between them in bargaining; and prosecutor & William Henry Hugo said, “cut the difference in two, and we will have the horse.” William Henry rode the horse. Prisoner bought the horse and paid for it. I was at Helston Harvest Fair last year. Prosecutor called me into Oliver Hocking’s booth and told me to put his Uncle Tom away and give him something to drink in another booth, and he (prosecutor) would pay me afterwards. He said he would sell the bullocks and have the money, and give me something to drink for getting Uncle Tom out of the way into another booth. Elizabeth Sanders, of the Ship Inn, Truro. In the course of last year, I saw the prisoner and prosecutor often at my house. I have a field adjoining the house for keeping bullocks in. Joseph Hugo came to ask if I would take in some pigs; he said the pigs belonged to all the partners. The prosecutor and prisoner both came to my house afterwards. I made out one bill for both, which the prosecutor paid. On one occasion I saw prisoner and prosecutor and Joseph and William Henry Hugo, divide 12l. 10s. among them in my house. This was in August last. In May last, on a Monday, prisoner came to my house between 7 and 8 o’clock in the morning, and brought three cows and a heifer. Sanders took charge of them and put them in the field in which there are sheds. Paine, the police inspector, came to my house between 8 and 9 o’clock in the morning. Prisoner remained at my house during the day. In the evening, the prosecutor came and brought a policeman, and Payne. They apprehended the prisoner, and wanted to take out the bullocks, but I would not let them do so on a mere verbal message. Prosecutor said he had applied to Mr. Shilson, who told him to take the cattle wherever he could find them.—Cross-examined. I refused to give up the cattle, after Sanders had purchased them. I saw no danger in buying of one more than another. £23 was paid for the lot. I gave the money to Sanders to pay for them. Mr. Payne was present when the money was paid. I think the money was paid before the prosecutor claimed the cattle. Joseph Hugo was there.—The 12l. 10s. that I spoke of was divided in four parcels on the table; Joseph William Henry, prisoner, and prosecutor were there at the time.—I was paid my bill independent of the cattle account. Neither Sanders nor I have given up the cattle to the prosecutor. George Paine, inspector of police, at Truro. I saw the prisoner at Truro between 6 and 7 o’clock in the morning of the 13th May. He came to me at my house. He had no bullocks with him then. He gave me some information, in consequence of which I went to the Ship Inn and there the prisoner showed me three cows and a yearling heifer, and he told me where he to them and for what purpose. He said he took the bullocks from the prosecutor’s field at midnight, because of some money owing to him. I told him there might be a warrant against him, and he had better not go out of the way. He said he would not go out of the way, and told me where I should find him. Afterwards, a St. Austell policeman called on me and I took him to the Ship Inn; the St. Austell policeman read the warrant to the prisoner, and wished also to take the cattle. I witnessed the payment of some money by Mr. and Mrs. Sanders to the prisoner for the cattle.—Cross-examined. With such a warrant as the St. Austell policeman held, I should have taken the cattle. I offered to assist him if he thought right to take the cattle; but he did not. Prisoner was a total stranger to me. After the examination of one witness called in contradiction of the witness Boskeen, but whose evidence proved rather explanatory that contradictory, Mr. DARKE replied. The learned CHAIRMAN then carefully summed up; and the jury after about five minutes consultation returned a verdict, “NOT GUILTY”.—The announcement of the verdict was received with considerable applause by persons in the gallery. PASCOE BROWN, 23, committed by one of the justices of Lostwithiel, for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards John Symons. There was no appearance against the prisoner, and the CHAIRMAN, after admonishing and cautioning him as to his future conduct, ordered him discharged. JAMES HOCKIN, 38, charged with being an incorrigible rogue. He was committed by the Mayor of Bodmin on the 10th of June. Mr. J.B. COLLINS now referred to the Vagrancy Act under which the prisoner was committed, and called William Hawke and James Lampier, a constable, of whom the prisoner had been begging. Prisoner told a false story of his having been ill three months in the gaol of a fever. Lampier told him he must leave the town, but afterwards finding him lying against a wall and pretending he was dying, he took him into custody. William Bray assisted, and the prisoner knocked him on the elbow, and tried to kick him. When he got near the prison, he pretended to fall down in hysterics. And was obliged to be carried into the lockup.—Mr. Everest, governor of the gaol, proved that prisoner was in his custody as a rogue and vagabond in June, 1843, when he was committed to hard labour for six weeks. He had altogether been in Mr. Everest’s custody 10 times. At St. Austell, the prisoner had assumed the character of a black man, but unluckily for him, Mr. Everest said, there was a hole in his trousers which discovered that his skin was white. He was by no means of weak intellect. On being called on for his defence, prisoner said it was very hard to be committed twice for the same thing.—CHAIRMAN—You have been in here 19 times.—PRISONER—“I should not have come here, if I had not been brought by force” (laughter).—He was then ordered to be committed to hard labour for two months, and during that time to be once privately whipped. (Sentence: second conviction, five months hard labour) The Jury were then discharged. SECOND COURT. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq.) SOLOMON ILES, 19, was charged with stealing a waistcoat, the property of Richard Roscorla, of Bodmin. Mr. COMMINS conducted the case of the prosecution. It appeared from the evidence, that the prisoner and another man slept at prosecutor’s house on the nights of the 14th and 15th of May. There were two waistcoats and one silk handkerchief hanging up near the bed in which prisoner slept. He and the other man left the house on the 16th of May, and, two or three hours afterwards, the waistcoat and handkerchief were missed. Constable Lampshire went in pursuit of the parties to Truro, where he saw the prisoner, and noticed him take possession of a carpet bag. He watched him to lodgings, and asked if that was his carpet bag. He said yes. The constable then told him of the charge against him. Prisoner said that he bought the waistcoat of a pockmarked man, a traveler; he opened the bad willingly, and the constable found in it the waistcoat produced in court. The prisoner caused some laughter by making young Roscorla try on the waistcoat in court; he said he had bought the waistcoat for three shillings. A very good character was given the prisoner by Mr. George Thompson, accountant, of Kingswood, near Bristol, who had known prisoner from a child, and had had him in his employ for three or four years. Some written testimonials to prisoner’s previous good character from respectable parties, were also handed in. The CHAIRMAN having summed up, the jury inquired whether the man at prosecutor’s house in company with prisoner, was pock-marked. Mrs. Roscorla said he was not. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: three months hard labour) SAMUEL HOSKIN, was found guilty of stealing two fowls, the property of Thomas Rickards, of Redruth. Second conviction. (Sentence: second conviction, five months hard labour) HENRY HODGE, 27 (who on the previous day had been convicted of stealing turves) was now charged with assaulting Henry Bullen, a constable, whilst in the execution of his duty. A second count charge the prisoner with a common assault. Mr. CHILDS for the prosecution. On the 14th of April, constable Bullen, of Callington, went in company with his son, and a man called Henwood, in search of the prisoner. They came up with him on Hingston Down, between Callington and Launceston. There were with the prisoner his wife and a man called Harris. Bullen said to prisoner, “I apprehend you in the Queen’s name for stealing turves,” and told him he must go with him to Callington. Prisoner refused, on which the constable took him by the collar, and told Henwood to take him on the other side. Prisoner asked for his authority, and Bullen took out his stuff. Prisoner then called out to Harris, the other man in his company, “look sharp,” on which Harris threw a bundle off his back, and took out a large stick. Bullen told prisoner he understood he had escaped six or seven times from other parties, and he should handcuff him to make sure of him. A desperate struggle then ensued for about a quarter of an hour. Harris swore that the first person that tried to put handcuffs on Hodge, he would knock his brains out. Hodge stuck Bullen several times over the arm to make him let go his hold, at the same time calling out to Harris to keep off Bullen’s son and he would manage the others. At last he tripped up Bullen, and while he was on the ground kicked him on the chin, leaving a mark which prosecutor showed to the jury. He also kicked prosecutor on the right leg; prosecutor had handed a staff to his son, but finding the determination of the prisoner to get away, he struck him with the handcuffs. Prisoner said in court that when he asked prosecutor for his authority, the latter immediately took out the handcuffs and struck him on the forehead; but this the constable denied; he said he never struck prisoner until he had first been struck by him. The parties had their clothes a good deal torn in the struggle; and it appeared that the prisoner’s wife assisted by striking those who had hold of her husband, with her pattens or a stick. Henwood received a scratch on the side of his face from her, and at last prisoner’s coat slipped off he got away and the others could not overtake him. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, told the jury they must ground their verdict on the first count of the indictment, or acquit the prisoner. He also observed that a constable was bound to use sufficient force to apprehend a prisoner and keep him in safe custody; but if he used unnecessary violence he would be doing wrong himself. Verdict, guilty of assaulting the constable whilst in the execution of his duty. (Sentence: two months hard labour) The jury were then discharged. Sampson Hawes, 61, was committed on the 29th April last, by the Sheriff of the County, to await the decision of the justices in Quarter Sessions for not appearing at the sessions held on the 29th of October, 1847, to give evidence against James Brown in a case of felony, as by recognizance before Mr. Brune, he undertook: On the prisoner being placed at the bar, the Chairman said the Court was about to deal leniently with him, because they had not had before them for some time an offence of this kind. But it should be known that the Court would not allow recognizances to be treated lightly. Parties must not think that because of their poverty (when no money could be had from them) they should only be subjected to a short imprisonment on failing to appear against a prisoner, who might thereby escape justice. The Court would take the circumstances into consideration, and such persons might not be discharged as the Court was now about to discharge the prisoner. Harris was then ordered to be released from custody. APPEALS. RYALL, appellant; Mr. Hockin. STOKECLIMSLAND, respondent; Mr. Darke and Mr. Brimacomb. This was an appeal by Mr. John Ryall, of Alston, in the parish of Stokeclimsland, against a rate made for that parish, on the 4th of April of 9d. in the £. The grounds of appeal were because 167 persons had been omitted from the rating, who ought to have been rated; and because, as appellant alleged, he was rated in an unfair proportion in comparison with some other persons.—Mr. DARKE, for the parish, would argue that the rate should be quashed, without costs.—Mr. HOCKIN, on the other side, submitted that more than common costs should be given in a case of this kind. One of appellant’s objections was that 167 persons had been omitted from the rating. Even assuming that these omissions had resulted from neglect, and from no other cause, his client was justified in asking for exemplary costs, in order to show churchwardens and overseers that they must not in this manner neglect their duties. But appellant also objected to the fairness of the rate, his object being to obtain a fair valuation, and on this ground he submitted that costs should be given to show parish officers that they must be more careful to properly discharge their duties.—Mr. DARKE, in reply, entered into a detailed statement of what had taken place in the parish with regard to the rating. A valuation was made in 1832 or 1833 by surveyors appointed by the parish. Very shortly afterwards, there was a discussion amongst the parishioners, as to whether the whole of the cottagers should be included in the rating; a great deal of trouble had been found to arise from including them, a considerable number being often discharged from paying rates, by the Petty Sessions. On this account a formal resolution was passed that only a certain class of cottagers, namely, those who had orchards, should be rated, whilst the others should be omitted from the rating.—Mr. SAWLE observed that this course was perfectly illegal. Mr. DARKE said there was no doubt of that, and, consequently, as soon as it was objected to by any of the parishioners that these 167 persons had been omitted, it was incumbent on the overseers to rate them—they ought even to have done it of themselves. From 1833, however, these cottagers had been omitted down to the present time. In 1845 the appellant himself was overseer, and went round and rated property which had been recently enclosed, adding a class of property which he thought ought to be included in the rate, and he then omitted the very parties of whose omission he now complained. Since 1845, the very class that Mr. Ryall then omitted were continued to be omitted. The present overseers were appointed on the 2nd of last April. Previous to that, on the 9th of March, notice was given of a contribution of 149l., which was necessary to be paid by the parish to the Union on the 13th of April. On April 4th, notice of appeal against the rating, on the ground of the omission of cottager’s houses, was served on the overseers. The overseers had then this union contribution pressing on them for payment; it was utterly impossible for them to have called in surveyors and made a new valuation—there was not time for that. But they did not treat with indifference the notice of appeal given. They called a vestry on the 7th of June, to be held on the 15th (before the next rate was made) “for considering the valuation on which the poor-rate was founded, and the propriety of making certain alterations therein, and, if need be, of newly rating the parish.” The appellant, Mr. Ryall, was served with a notice to attend that vestry, but he declined to do so. Most of the leading men of the parish attended the vestry, and a resolution was passed for making a valuation as soon as possible; it was also resolved that the Poor Law Commissioners should be applied to with the view of having a valuer sent down. But, about this time, another call had been made on the parish for 169l., dated the 9th of June, and payable to the Union on the 15th of July. A new rate was then made, which was un-appealed against; in consequence of the notice of appeal they had received, the overseers then rated all the property which they conceived to be rateable, though of course they could not be bound as to the exact value. They had sent to the Poor Law Commissioners on the 26th of June, but sufficient time had not elapsed for proceedings to be taken in consequence, yet, notwithstanding all that had been done by his fellow-parishioners, Mr. Ryall thought it necessary, on the 12th of June, to go to the great expense of serving 200 notices of appeal. He submitted that, after having received notice, on the 10th of June, of the vestry convened for resolving on a new valuation, Mr. Ryall ought to have been satisfied with the course pursued, particularly after what he had himself done in 1845; he ought to have waited to see the result, instead of going to the subsequent expense; and he had no right now to call on the parish to pay his costs.— Mr. HOCKIN submitted that the overseers had not immediately done all that they might have done after the discussions that had taken place. and after service of the notice of appeal on the 4th of April. The vestry meeting was held on the 13th of June, and the last day for service of notices of appeal was the 15th; appellant should not have waited until after the 13th before he served his 200 notices. He thought the sessions should show to parish officers that they could not omit in this manner any persons they thought fit from the rating.— The COURT, after some consideration, said they saw nothing in the present case which should lead them to impose more than the ordinary costs of 5l. BEST, appellant; Mr. DARKE and Mr. CHILDS.—KEARNE, respondent; Mr. HOCKIN.—This was an appeal against an order in bastardy made on James Best, of the parish of St. Veep, for the support of the illegitimate child of Mary Kearne.—Order confirmed; costs 5l. GUNPOWDER APPLICATION.—An application was made by Mr. James Chatten, of Tuckingmill, for a license to erect a magazine for keeping unlimited quantities of gunpowder at a place in the parish of Gwithian, called Upton’s Towan, otherwise, Towan, and known as the Great Gwithian sand banks. Mr. HOCKIN and Mr. ROSCORLA appeared in support of the application; Mr. DARKE and Mr. STOKES opposed it. Mr. HOCKIN said the applicant was a civil engineer, residing at Tuckingmill, and the object of the application was to enable him to open a magazine, in order that gunpowder manufacturers out of the county might send their powder into his county of the purpose of supplying the mines. There was at present but one powder manufactory in the western division of this county, and one in the eastern; and there were no magazines in the county, except in the immediate neighbourhood of the manufactures in question. It was true there were two other magazines in the west, for which the court had granted licenses; but no gunpowder was kept in those magazines, and one of them was now used as a barn. They all knew that the mines in the west were very numerous. Within a circle of ten miles of the spot applied for he believed there were one hundred and fifty mines, which consumed some four tons of powder per month, and others various quantities down to half a ton per month. By the law not more than 300 lbs. of gunpowder could be kept on a mine, but the inconvenience of keeping only that quantity was so great, that he believed, almost without exception, the law was broken by the managers of mines in this county. It was often urged that when a law was almost universally broken without calling down the reprobation of the public, that seemed to be a sufficient ground for the alteration of the law. He now asked the court to assist the applicant legally to do away with the inconvenience which was at present felt, and to enable him to afford a fair supply to the county at the price which competition always produces. He would mention one strong instance of the inconvenience which had existed. Mr. Brunton, a civil engineer of Tuckingmill, was a manufacturer of safety-fuse; some time ago he required powder, and wrote to Messrs. Sampson and Co. in the west, requesting a supply. He received no answer, and for that reason went down and saw the managing partner, to whom he said, “I want gunpowder, why don’t you supply me?” The answer was, “we really have so many orders, we cannot supply all customers, —if we supply you we shall offend others.” He (Mr. Hocking) would not undertake to say whether the meaning was “we have no powder but what is already bespoken, and if we supply you we shall offend others,” or that the meaning was, “we have friends of our own who manufacture safety-fuse, and if we supply you, we shall offend them.” At all events it must be taken that Messrs. Sampson had not the means of fully supplying the wants of the county, and if so, the cause of that deficiency ought to be removed. He was told there was a large depot in Wales, from which powder could be landed at Hayle, and carried with safety and expedition to the spot now applied for. The magazine would be by no means dangerous; it would be necessarily be built firmly and closely; it would be used for storing gunpowder kept in barrels, and there were no powder mills within a dozen or fifteen miles to produce an explosion. They had been told in that court that there was a magazine within a few yards of the public hall at Exeter, and another within 150 yards of the railway station at Plymouth, but the fact was that no person had ever heard of a magazine exploding, it was the place of manufacture where explosions took place. It was impossible in this county to have a magazine which was not somewhat near a road or house, because the county was thickly studded with roads and houses. The place applied for was in the midst of a towan or large accumulation of sand, and nothing growing on it but rushes and short grass, affording very insufficient pasture. It was situate more than a quarter of a mile from any building, the nearest being appropriated to arsenic works, which had been erected in this locality because it was considered that there no cultivation would be attempted. He then argued that there would be no danger to those arsenic works from the contiguity of the powder magazine, because in the manufacture of arsenic, coke was used which produced no spark or flame; and because it was necessary to build those works with very high stacks, in order to have cool air in the flues. He submitted that the place was perfectly unobjectionable, and that if the application were granted, it would be a benefit to the county. —Mr. DARKE, in opposition to the application stated that it was objected to by the lord of the soil, by the owner of the royalty for mining purposes, the Rev. W. Hocking, and by the lessee of the surface, Mr. Stephens. The owner of the royalty objected because a mine had been worked close by the spot which, though now suspended, might again be worked; and on the part of the lessee, Mr. Stephens, who had been granted a lease of the premises for fourteen years, by Mr. Veale, of Penzance, Mr. Darke put in a letter, from which it appeared that he had given his consent to Mr. Roscorla for the erection of the building, on the understanding that it was to be a storehouse for mining purposes, containing coals and timber; but now understanding that the building was to be for a powder magazine, he objected to its erection on the premises.—The CHAIRMAN said his feeling had always been that the spot of ground applied for must be obtained of the respective owners of the property. After a short consideration, the Court refused the application, (the Chairman observed) because the lessee of the property had not consented; whether the owner of the minerals consented or not, it was not, therefore, necessary to decide. LICENCE FOR A GUNPOWDER MAGAZINE IN THE PARISH OF GULVAL.—An application was then made on behalf of Mr. William Norton of Penzance, dealer in powder, for license to erect and have a magazine for the deposit of a quantity of gunpowder at a place called Higher Field, part of the tenement of Bosoljack, in the parish of Gulval. Mr. Hockin, Mr. Roscorla, and Mr. R. Millett appeared in support of the application.—It was opposed by Mr. Darke and Mr. Stokes, on behalf of Mr. Hodge, owner of the fee of the tenement in question, subject to a lease for lives of a very small part, about 3 acres, on which it proposed to build the proposed magazine. The application was also opposed on behalf of the vestry of the parish of Gulval, and of the Guardians of the Penzance Union, who considered that the proposed magazine would endanger the safety of the Union House.—In support of the application Mr. HOCKIN stated that the applicant had the consent of the occupier of the soil who held it under a lease for lives of which two were unexpired. The site, he urged, was unobjectionable, being upon very high ground—about 300 feet above the sea-level—and surrounded by the extensive waste land. There was a farm house near, in the occupation of the lessee of the ground, who had given his consent. Mr. Hockin added that this application was for a magazine and not a mill, and that such a thing was not known as a magazine exploding. On Mr. Darke’s stating that he had a petition from 200 parishioners of Gulval against the proposed magazine, Mr. Hockin said that there was but little value to be attached to such petitions; he had no doubt that if Mr. Darke were to send round his clerk next week, with a petition to Bonaparte not to land here, he would get as many signatures as he liked (laughter).—Mr. ROSCORLA stated that he had a memorial in favor of the proposed magazine.—Service of the notices required by Act of Parliament having been proved by Edwin Stephen Boynes, a clerk of Mr. Roscorla’s,—Mr. John Berryman, the lessee of the tenement of which the field applied for was part, was examined in support of the application. He stated that the nearest residence was a cottage occupied by John Williams, who was willing that the magazine should be granted. There were 10 dwelling-houses—cottages—within a quarter of a mile; the occupants were all in favor of the magazine. The spot is more than 2 miles in a straight line from Penzance, and more than half-a-mile from the Union House. The Union House is on another hill, with a valley between it and the hill on which the magazine is proposed to be erected. The Union House hill is not so high as the proposed site for the magazine. Madron church-town is about the quarters of a mile distant from the spot; it is in sight from the spot, but on lower ground.—The witness was questioned minutely as to various villages, residences, and roadways near the spot, and added that he had heard there was in the parish of Gulval, a general objection to the proposed magazine.—James Chatton, surveyor and engineer, gave evidence on the plan exhibited by the applicant, and which he had prepared.—On cross-examination, he gave his opinion that if 10 tons were to be exploded at the proposed site, there would be no damage to the churches of Gulval and Madron, nor to the Union House, nor the mansion-houses near, nor to the village of Madron.—John James, a mine agent for upwards of 26 years, and an adventurer in 14 or 15 mines, considered that the proposed site was a good one for such a building. He stated that West of Hayle there are from 50 to 60 mines, some of large quantities of powder for their immediate use, in small powder houses, in many cases not more than about 100 yards from the account-house. The two powder magazines belonging to the Kennal Vale Company, at Trye, and near Balleswidden, are each about 5 miles from Penzance; are very near the road from Penzance to St. Just, and there are about 20 houses very close to the one at Trye. The traffic on the road between Penzance and St. Just is as 100 to one compared with that on the road near the site now applied for. He knew of no other magazine nearer than Ponsanooth—which also belonged to the Kennal Vale Company. It was his opinion that the public would be benefitted if there was another magazine in the West, belonging to other parties; he should like to see a little competition in gunpowder, as there was in every other article consumed in mines. Since this application had been talked about, the Kennal Vale Company had reduce (sic) their price 2l. per ton; and since the notices had been out, they had announced that they intend to make a further reduction. Those mines in the west get supplied from Ponsanooth, which is about 30 miles from St. Just; the powder is conveyed in wagons over the public roads, through Redruth, Camborne, Hayle, Penzance and the intermediate villages, to St. Just. Had heard of as much as 10 tons being on one mine at a time; but had not known, himself, of more than 2 tons. Cross-examined.—Was not of the same opinion as the last witness, that if 10 tons were to explode at the proposed site, it would not endanger the churches and union house; he should not like to see it tried. The danger would not be so great as might be thought, because the site is so high. If five tons were to explode, he could not say whether or not it would be dangerous to Madron Church-town; perhaps it might shake the town a bit and break a few panes of glass; but he did not think it would do any great injury. Should think that Mr. Hodge’s houses at Bosoljack might be knocked down by an explosion of 5 tons.—There were two magazines already near Trye, belonging to the Kennal Vale Company; perhaps Mr. Lanyon would rather send down the powder from Ponsanooth than be at the expense of other establishments in the West. Had not said that a magazine in Gulval was the best place to supply the St. Just mines. The magazines already in St. Just were better situated than this in Gulval; but the places in St. Just were already taken by other parties. There would be two magazines, in Gulval, when the proposed one should be erected. It was not only necessary to accommodate the St. Just mines; but also those of the St. Ives and Hayle district. Powder kept at Gulval need not be taken through Penzance, nor St. Just; it could be conveyed through Morvah and other downs, north of Penzance. Had not heard that the price of blasting powder in London was now 41l. per ton; nor that the London Gunpowder Association was coming down to get a place in order to compel Mr. Lanyon to bring up his price to 40l. Had not heard that because Mr. Lanyon the other day in London, refused to raise his price, the London Association had determined to come down into the west. Did not know where Mr. Norton would be supplied from; supposed he would import. A magazine limited to 5 tons would be a benefit to the mines of the west if they could have the powder at a less price that at present. Five tons would be about two days consumption of all the mines in the district. A London company, to supply the whole district must, in that case, ship five tones every other day. It might be landed at the Mount.—Re-examined by Mr. R. Millett.—There was a shipping company having vessels running twice a month between Penzance and London; and there was also a shipping company between London and Penryn. There were a great many coasting vessels sailing between Wales and Penzance, Hayle, and St. Ives. By means of those vessels, the whole of the mines in the western district could be amply supplied, with vessels bringing only 5 tons at a time.—Mr. DARKE then addressed the Bench. He asserted, in the first place, that it was no question for their worships, whether a powder magazine was likely or not to explode; or whether it was or was not less likely to explode than mills; the Legislature had not left that in their discretion. The Legislature had assumed the possibility of magazines exploding; and, so assuming, had enacted that such a site should be selected as should be unobjectionable in the event of explosion. In the present case, the parish church was little more than half-a-mile from the proposed site; within three-quarters of a mile there were more than 500 inhabitants; the Union-house was only 10 chains beyond the half-mile—the limit laid down by Act of Parliament; and the last witness himself said he feared that an explosion of 5 tons the windows would be broken in Madron Church-town, and that Mr. Hodge’s house might be knocked down. In this county, they had recently heard of the results of an explosion of only 3 tons of gunpowder, at Herodsfoot; that explosion was felt like the shock of an earthquake at Lostwithiel, 9 miles off, and it opened one of the doors of the Bodmin gaol. Would their Worships, then, under such circumstances, take upon themselves the responsibility of granting a license for the proposed site, in the teeth, too, of a solemn resolution and remonstrance of the Guardians of the Union, who considered that the Union-house would be in danger in case of an explosion? He felt assured that their worships would not grant a license for an unlimited quantity, after the evidence that had been given of the probable effects of an explosion of 5 tons; and, if the quantity were to be limited to 5 tons, he contended that the license would not benefit the public of the district. Even supposing that gunpowder in such small quantities were to be imported, and supplied from the proposed magazine, he held that in a short time, it would be as likely to lead to coalition with the Kennal Vale Company, as to competition,—as likely to raise the price of gunpowder as to lower it. Gunpowder, in consequence of its danger to the public, was commodity that must be always subject to restriction; and if instead of two parties supplying it in the County, there were three allowed, the profit must be increased, or they could not all live. He believed that was the opinion of many persons connected with mines. But the Bench had nothing to do with the results to the London Association, or the Kennal Vale Company, or the Herodsfoot Company; its duty was to protect the public; and in this view he contended it was not necessary to have a magazine at the site proposed, within 2½ miles of the town of Penzance, for the accommodation of mines at St. Just, 10 miles off, where the gunpowder might be landed without the necessity of being brought to this site; whereas, according to the mode of supply that would be necessary if this application were granted, vessels would be constantly coming into the port with 5 tons of powder on board. Mr. Darke next averted to the alleged hardship inflicted on Mr. Hodge, the owner of the fee of the site in question; and asserted that the instant the proposed magazine should be built on the spot of ground held of him on lease by Mr. Berryman, it would constitute in the absence of all special restriction in the lease, a waste, of which the landlord might take advantage and enter on his land immediately. He though, therefore, the Bench ought to take care to protect Mr. Hodge in this matter. In reply to the observation that it was not likely a magazine would explode, Mr. Darke spoke of the reckless state in which miners as a body sometimes were; in case of any depression, what threats were not heard? Only the other day, at North Pool, there was a shaft set fire to, and the key hole of the magazine was found with lucifer matches in it. In the present case, the site was close by a road, at a place to which an incendiary might go with greatest impunity. Were their Worships, then, ready to take upon themselves the responsibility of an explosion, either by accident or by intention, and all for the sake of keeping a supply of five tons of gunpowder. He left it to their Worships to balance against this amount of accommodation to the mines, the probable risk to the public. The magistrates then retired for consultation; and on their return, the CHAIRMAN said:—In proceeding as we have before done, we shall grant this license with a limit of 10 tons. —The proceedings of the Session were concluded by the making of an order for the alteration of a road leading from Bude, in the parish of Stratton, along the cliffs to Widemouth Down, in the parish of Poundstock.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette August 2, 1850

5. Summer Assizes On Thursday evening, about six o'clock, the judges on the Western Circuit—the Hon. Sir John Taylor Coleridge, Knight, one of the justices of our Lady the Queen assigned to hold pleas before the Queen herself, and Russell Gurney, Esq., one of the counsel of our Lady the Queen—arrived at Bodmin, from Dorchester, via Exeter and Plymouth. At about a mile from Bodmin, their lordships were met by the High Sheriff, William Daubuz, Esq., in his state carriage, into which their lordships entered, and were escorted by the usual official retinue to their lodgings at the Mayoralty-house, and thence to the Crown Court, where their lordships opened commission. At 10 o'clock on Friday morning, their lordships attended divine service, which was attended by a numerous congregation. [….] CROWN COURT. At 12 o'clock, Mr. Justice Coleridge took his seat in the Crown Court. The calendar presented the names of 24 prisoners for trial—not an inconsiderable number, when we remember that the Quarter Sessions, a few weeks since, disposed of nearly 30 convictions. The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury:— Sir W. L. S. TRELAWNY, Bart., foreman; Hon. G. M. Fortescue, F. Howell, Esq. Sir J. S. Graves Sawle, Bart. H. Prynn Andrew, Esq. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. W. D. Horndon, Esq. Gordon W. F. Gregor, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. E. Collins, Esq. J. Batten, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq. W. Peel, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. J. Lyne, Esq. C. Glynn Prideaux Brune, Esq. T. Pearse, Esq. R. Graves Polwhele, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. J. Gwatkin, Esq. W. P. Kempe, Esq. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. F. J. Hext, Esq. The only other magistrate who answered was the Rev. R. Gerveys Grylls. The Mayors and Coroners were then called, and her Majesty's Proclamation read; after which the learned Judge delivered the following [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY—not transcribed] TRIAL (sic) OF PRISONERS. GEORGE PASCOE, aged 33, pleaded guilty, on two indictments, of stealing a pair of boots, the property of George Edwards; and two bundles of straw, the property of Henry Pellow, at the parish of .— Sentence, two months hard labour for the first offence; and one month for the second. RICHARD BARTLETT, the younger, 26; STEPHEN HUDDY, 30; and JAMES ATKINS, 26, were charged with having stolen, on the 2nd of July last, at the parish of St. Clement, three grates, the property of George Simmons the younger and Thomas Whitford, executors under the will of Edmund Turner, Esq., deceased.— Bartlett pleaded GUILTY; but Mr. Coleridge had been retained for him, and, in the course of the trial, elicited some evidence in his favor as to his character for honesty, though he had been, for a year or two, drinking, idle, and wild.—The other prisoners were undefended.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution.—Richard Bray stated that he occupied land at Trennick and had had the care of the dwelling-house, (which was unoccupied) since February last, by direction of Mr. Simmons. On Sunday evening, the 30th of June, he saw the premises safe. On the following Tuesday, he found that one of the windows, which had been battened up, was broken out, and that four grates had been removed from their places, three of which had been taken off the premises; the fourth, which was broken in taking out, was left behind. Some lead was also stolen from the under part of a pump in the farm yard.—Nathaniel Gatley, a lad working at Trennick, about one o'clock on Monday the 1st of July, saw Bartlett and Huddy going towards Trennick carrying a bag; and about 5 o'clock the same afternoon, saw all three prisoners about a ¼ of a mile from Trennick in the direction from that place towards Truro: they had three grates in a wheelbarrow; the grates were not covered over, and he believed one of them was the same as was now produced in court. They had no bag with them at that time.— Thomas Wroath, whitesmith at Truro, stated that on the 1st of July, Bartlett and Atkins came to his shop with some old grates, which Bartlett asked him to buy; Bartlett asked 7s. 6d. for them, but witness bought them for 5s. Witness asked where they got the grates; and Bartlett answered that they belonged to a man who had no further use for them, and he wanted to turn them into money.—Wm. Woolcock, a policeman, produced the grates, which he received of Wroath on the 4th July, They were identified by Mr. Bray; and Mr. George Simmons, solicitor, proved that they were the property of himself and Mr. Whitford, as executors of the late Mr. Turner.—The jury found both Huddy and Atkins guilty.—Another indictment against all three prisoners for stealing the lead referred to, was not pressed.—Mr. Simmons thought it right to inform the Court that Bartlett's parents are honest and respectable people.—Sentence, Six months hard labour each. WILLIAM GIBSON, 21 pleaded guilty of having on the 3rd of May, at the parish of Launcells, maliciously and feloniously set fire to a stack of hay, the property of William Sandrey.—Sentence, ten years transportation. ELIZA VIVIAN, 20, pleaded guilty of stealing, on the 5th of July, at the parish of St. Gluvias, a brooch and a pair of stockings, the property of Margaret Clemence, widow, innkeeper. The prisoner's appearance and demeanour were those of a respectable young woman; and it proved, on the learned Judge's being induced to make inquiries, that she belonged to a respectable family at Camborne, but was evidently of weak intellect, and had given her father much anxiety by rambling away to Penryn, where she committed the felony with which she was now charged. When called on to plead, she did so in a simpering manner more fitted for the chit-chat of a family party than for the situation in which she stood, and altogether displayed great mental imbecility.—Mr. BEVAN, counsel for the prosecution, recommended her to the merciful consideration of the Court; and the learned JUDGE, after receiving evidence of her character from Mr. Edwards, a farmer, and — Braddick, policeman of Camborne, and after making careful inquiries respecting her of her father, who promised to take care of her after her imprisonment, sentenced her to one month hard labor, and ordered that she should be kept free from all chance of contamination by other prisoners. GEORGE BROWN, 45, (also known as "Cockney George',) was charged with having, on the 15th of January, feloniously broken and entered the shop of Thomas Symons, at Praze, in the parish of Crowan, and stolen therefrom 6 dozen of knives and forks, and some butchers' knives, several pieces of Orleans, and Coburg cloth, and various other articles, the property of the said Thomas Symons.—Mr. COLERIDGE conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended by counsel, but showed no slight tact in his own cross- examination of witnesses, and in the general conduct of his defence.—Thomas Stevens Symons, son of the prosecutor, stated that on the 15th January, about 9 o'clock in the evening he locked his father's shop, and put the key in his pocket. The shop, which was not connected with the dwelling-house, was situated on the ground floor fronting the high way, and above it was a ware-room. About half-past 7 next morning, he found that the desk in the shop had been broken open, the premises having been entered by cutting a hole in the door of the ware-room above; from which room to the shop below there was a communication by stair-case. When he came into the shop in the morning, he found that a port-folio had been removed, the desk broken open and a quantity of copper money taken away, and from the shelves there had been taken away about 6 or 8 dozen knives and forks, about 5 or 6 pieces of Orleans, 2 or 3 pieces of Coburg, and some stay-laces, tobacco and other articles. About a fortnight afterward, he went to Treviskey, in the parish of Veryan, and there identified some of the property in the possession of Mr. John Julyan, Mrs. Nicholls, Mr. John Gay, and Mr. Dungey of Port Holland.—Elizabeth Tippet, of Camborne, lived next door to a lodging-house kept by a woman named Christian Harvey, where prisoner lodged. He left there on the Friday before the robbery and came back about 10 o'clock on the following Tuesday night, when there were two men with him. When they came in, Mrs. Harvey sent witness away. Mrs Harvey has since left the place.—John Gay of Treviskey, in Veryan, saw prisoner there with two other persons on the 17th of January; they had with them knives and forks and some Coburg cloth. Witness bought half a dozen knives and forks of one of the men—not of the prisoner; but all three men came to the village together. Had since given up the knives and forks to the policeman Armitage.—Julian, was at Treviskey in Veryan on the 17th January, and bought some cloth at 4d. per yard. Prisoner and two other men were in the village together.—Thomas Dungey, of Port Holland, in Veryan, stated that on the 17th of January, a man came to his house with knives and forks and butchers' knives, two or three dozen. He bought a butcher's knife. While he was dealing, the prisoner came in and said to the other man "go out; I'll sell the knife." He took the knife from the other man. Witness bought the knife of prisoner for 9d., and afterwards gave it to Armitage the policeman.—Henry Armitage, a police officer at St. Ives, attended the examination of prisoner. On the 12th June, he received the property now produced. The part of an Orleans dress he received from Mr. Julian; the butcher's knife from Thomas Dungey, six knives and forks from John Gay; and six knives from Mary Nicholls.—Mr. Symons identified the Orleans; the piece taken was about fourteen yards long. The butcher's knife was taken from the shop, and he produced a similar knife from the shop.—Mary Nicholls. I live at Treviskey; my mother keeps a shop there. On the 17th of January last I saw a man come into the shop. Elizabeth Davis was in the shop. The man had Coburg, and Orleans. E. Davis bought 6 yards of the Orleans. It was like the piece now produced. The man went out and I saw him in company with two others.—Prisoner was one of them. Prisoner and the other man came into the kitchen. They offered to sell knives and forks. Mother bought of the other man 6 knives and forks. Prisoner was by at the time.—l gave the knives and forks to Armitage. The Orleans was 6 yards one piece, and 8 yards the other. Elizabeth Davis made the 6 yards into a dress. The dress produced is the same. Verdict, GUILTY.— A previous conviction was proved against the prisoner, in the year 1832, for stealing a silk handkerchief and linen apron.—He was now sentenced to ten years transportation. HARRIET GOODMAN, 17, and CHARLES GOODMAN, 11, charged with having on the night of the 17th of June at Falmouth, entered the dwelling-house of Joshua Williams, confectioner, with intent to commit a felony, and that so being in the house, with the intent aforesaid, they did about the hour of eleven, in the night of the same day, feloniously and burglariously break out of the said dwelling-house.—Mr. BEVAN conducted the prosecution.—The prosecutor stated that at half-past 10 o'clock in the night of the 17th of June, he locked his shop door and went to bed. Between 12 and one in the morning, he came down stairs, and found the shop-door open, the show glasses all empty, and the goods brought into the middle of the shop. The glasses which had been in the window when he went to bed, were hid at the bottom of the shop. The door had been unlocked; there was no appearance of violence. The boy was in his employ for a week or two about Christmas last.—Margaret Williams, wife of prosecutor, stated that it was after 12 when she went to bed on the night of the 17th June. She barred the street door and locked the shop door, leaving the key in the lock. About half an hour afterwards she came down and discovered that the sweetmeats had been taken out of the show-glasses, and in the passage were two pairs of boots, which she locked up, and called her husband. When he came down stairs, he went to the shop, and found that the shop door and street door were open; the shop door opens into the passage. Her husband gave the boots to the constable the next morning in her presence.—Albert Dupree, of Falmouth, had frequently seen the prisoners; and between 11 and 12 at night of the 17th of June, saw them running, without shoes, about 4 houses distant from prosecutor's shop.—Edward Bennett, constable of Falmouth, produced the boots, which he received of prosecutor on the 11th of June. Saw the prisoners about two hours afterwards at Falmouth, and showed them the boots; the girl said her father had bought them in Bristol, and the boy said his were made at Falmouth.—Verdict, both GUILTY. A previous conviction was proved against the girl.—Sentences:—Harriet Goodman 18 months h. I.; Charles Goodman, 6 months h. l. THOMAS SEYMOUR, 21, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 23rd of July, at the parish of Kenwyn, from the person of Stephen Tippet, one silk handkerchief, the property of the said Stephen Tippet.—Sentence, Eight months hard labour. JAMES ARMOUR, 33, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 2nd of July, at Gwennap, a jacket, the property of James Tregoning; and was sentenced to four months hard labour. BENJAMIN HOCKING, 20, charged with having on the 1st of June, at Camborne, stabbed Stephen Prideaux, police officer, with intent to maim, disfigure, and disable him.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; Mr. Collier the defence.—Stephen Prideaux stated that between 4 and 5 in the afternoon of Saturday, the 1st of June, he was called to Matthews's public-house, and there found Hocking falling out with Mr. Ware, the overseer, and challenging him to fight, and offering to fight any man in the county. Witness begged him to go home quietly to his wife and family, on which he laid hold of witness by the collar and kicked him as if he was going to kick his legs off. Prideaux then got out his staff, and after some little time, succeeded in throwing Hocking on the ground. He then got the staff out of the constable's hands, and used it severely on his shins. Prideaux again regained his staff, and broke it about Hocking. The staff was a small one, not more than ¼lb., and was cracked. He then got Hocking outside, and called people to assist, in the Queen's name, but no one came. At length Mr. Eddy and Mr. Gurney assisted, and Hocking was taken to his home; but, in about 5 minutes, he came up again, holding up a dagger, and saying, "Now Prideaux, my dagger against thy staff; my life against thy life;" and he tried three or four times to stab Prideaux, who, however, was able to defend himself, by means of another staff which had been provided for him. He struck Hocking a back blow on the side of his head, and then lost his staff. On this, Hocking pushed towards him with his dagger, and Prideaux as he slewed aside felt something in his side. Hocking was, at the time, naked except having trousers on. Prideaux laid hold of him and threw him on his back on the ground, and took the dagger from him and gave it to a man called Hall; and, afterwards, holding Hocking by the hair of his head, and assisted by two men named Noble and Goldsworthy, took him to the lock-up house; and about one o'clock called to see him and asked him how he could behave so; he said he intended to have killed him or any other person that interfered with him. On the Monday, two days after the assault, witness on examining his belt which he wore over his shirt, found a hole in it, and also through his coat, trousers, drawers, and shirt; and, on going to Mr. Gurney to consult him about a bad leg, found that he had received a slight stab in the side.—On Cross- examination, Prideaux said the prisoner never stabbed him anywhere else but in this one place. In the lock- up, he said to me, "you tried to kill me, and I tried to kill you." He said, too, I had cut his head. I did not hear him say, "I was mad; I tried to kill you, and you to kill me." I will not swear that he did not say so; but I did not hear him. I did not strike him with all my force; I would take every blow I gave him, for half a crown, any time. He bit six pieces off my fists at the same time.—Confirmatory evidence was given by Richard Golsworthy, and Thomas Holman, and Stephen Eddy, a constable, who produced the weapon, a formidable, though rudely made dagger, apparently made out of a bread file, and having a sharp, tapering point.—Mr. Gurney, surgeon, who examined Prideaux on the Friday after the assault, proved that about two or three inches from the navel there was a small scab, the result of dried blood from a wound in the skin. The skin must have been cut; any pointed instrument might have made such a wound. It had not penetrated more than the sixteenth of an inch. The wound was about an eighth of an inch long, and not more than a line in breadth. From the appearance of the wound, it could not have been inflicted more than a few days. The wound was in a dangerous part; had the instrument penetrated into the body, it might have gone into one of the large intestines.—The cross-examination of Stephen Eddy, the constable, brought out the fact that apparently the prisoner had been drinking a great deal, and this point was strongly urged by Mr. COLLIER, in defence, against the charge of intent to maim, &c.—The jury found the prisoner GUILTY OF COMMON ASSAULT; and he was sentenced to 12 months hard labour. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Russell Gurney, Esq., Q.C.) This court was opened at twelve o'clock. The following was the cause list:— Plaintiff’s Defendant’s Attorney. Plaintiff. Defendant. Attorney. Rooper and Co… Exch….Spry, Knt…………………..v. Bray……………………..Prom ..Wallis. John, Rodd, & Co. C.O….The Queen [S.J.] ………v. Spry, Knight………….Indt …..Stokes. Stokes ……………Ex…………Tabb………………………..v. Hilborne………………Prom …Cole. Gurney and Co……Ex…….Philp (withdrawn)…….v. Philp……………………Debt ….Moon. SPRY v. BRAY.—Mr. CROWDER and Mr. M. SMITH for plaintiff. The action was brought to recover 20l. on a promissory note, made by defendant and indorsed to plaintiff. Defendant, in his pleadings, denied making the note, and denied the indorsement; he also pleaded a set-off, and that he had not made the promise. Defendant, however, made no appearance in defence; consequently the case was proved by calling Mr. George Bray (employed in the Legacy duty office, Somerset House) who was the attesting witness, and saw defendant sign the note; and Mr. White, clerk to Rooper and Co., solicitors, London (plaintiff's attorneys) who proved the handwriting of Mr. P. P. Smith. The note was dated 10th of June, 1843, and was a promise to pay Mr. P. P. Smith, or order on demand, 20l. with interest; and the note was endorsed and made payable to Sir Samuel Spry by Mr. Smith.—Mr. M. SMITH said plaintiff was willing to take 7 years' interest, amounting to 7l., and a verdict was given for plaintiff, damages 27l. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—TABB v. HILLBORNE.—As this was a case that was expected to afford considerable amusement, the court was greatly crowded, a large majority of the audience being ladies, who of course seemed to feel much interest in the proceedings. The counsel for the plaintiff were Mr. CROWDER and Mr. MAYNARD—attorney, Mr. STOKES; counsel for the defendant, Mr. COLLIER—attorney, Mr. COLE.— Mr. MAYNARD opened the pleadings. In this case Miss Caroline Tabb was the plaintiff, and Mr. Edward Hillborne, the defendant. Plaintiff's declaration was, that in consideration she had promised to marry the defendant he had promised to marry her, and that she was ready and willing to marry the defendant, but that he had broken that promise and married another lady. Defendant had pleaded first, that he had not promised; secondly, that she was not willing and ready to marry; and thirdly, that the plaintiff had exonerated him from his promise. To this her replication was, that after the exoneration and discharge the engagement was renewed, and on this issue was joined.—Mr. CROWDER stated the case to the jury. He appeared before them on the present occasion as counsel for the plaintiff, Miss Caroline Tabb, who sought for compensation, by their verdict, for the very grievous injury which she had sustained in the loss of her happiness, and in the destruction of her future prospects in life by the heartless, selfish, and most cruel conduct of the defendant. She complained in this action, that the defendant having engaged her affections, and having faithfully promised to make her his wife, after continuing the intercourse for more than a period of twelve months, that he had broken all his most sacred vows and violated his plighted faith,—that he had married another woman, and cast her off exposed to the scorn of the world. He (Mr. Crowder) need scarcely say that a case of this description required their most serious attention; and he should lay before them shortly her tale of misery, for misery undoubtedly it was, circumstanced as she had been and was now by the conduct of the defendant towards her. The plaintiff was one of eight children of Mr. Tabb, who was an innkeeper at Gwennap; he died some years ago, and his wife was dead also. Their children were four sons and four daughters; the daughters had a small competency which enabled them to live, as he believed three of them did together, in a cottage at St. Day; and another daughter lived with one of the brothers who was married. Another brother, Mr. Thomas Tabb, keeps the Talbot Hotel, at Lostwithiel, where he had been resident from 1847 and '48 to the present time. The defendant, Mr. Edward Hillborne, resides at Lostwithiel, where he had at no very distant period set on business as a chemist and druggist. His father was a person of some consideration, being the collector of inland revenue for the western district of Cornwall. He had set up the defendant in business as a chemist and druggist, and it was apparently becoming a thriving business shortly after he became acquainted with the plaintiff. Their acquaintance commenced in the early part of 1848, at a time when Miss Caroline Tabb paid a visit to her brother at the Talbot Hotel at Lostwithiel. Mr. Thomas Tabb's wife was very unwell, and Miss Caroline's visit was for the purpose of assisting in the duties of the hotel. Mr. Edward Hillborne, the defendant, was in the habit of frequenting the hotel, where he met Miss Caroline Tabb, and after a short time an attachment sprung up between them. The courtship was carried on during the period of her stay, and he made her an offer of marriage, which was accepted. They were engaged prior to July, 1848, when he believed some misunderstanding took place between Mrs. Tabb and the defendant, and there was some attempt to break off the engagement. He mentioned this because there was a curious plea on the record that if he promised to marry, she had exonerated him from that promise. The misunderstanding was about some letter that was written—a matter that was soon at an end; the parties renewed their intimacy, which became more strong and firm than before, and a most positive engagement was entered into between the defendant and plaintiff. Now during the time of her stay at the hotel, of course no letters passed between them; he was in the daily habit of seeing her on the most intimate terms, and was her acknowledged lover. This continued down to the time of her returning to her place of residence at Gwennap. She was also in the habit of sometimes visiting another brother, Mr. John Tabb, who lives at Lamerhooe, near Tavistock. He should call the attention of the jury to some of the letters which passed from defendant to the plaintiff during the period of her absence from Lostwithiel. They would perceive the terms of affection in which he wrote to her, and in which he continued to write to her down to within a week or two before he broke off his engagement by one of the most cruel, most heartless letters perhaps that ever was penned. The previous letters, however, were most of them very much in the style of lovers' letters, with a great deal of such language as when read excites a smile. But they show that his attachment was reciprocated, and that he was firm in his intention at that time of making her his wife, which he had also stated to one of his sisters. The letters he was about to read were written by him to her when she was away from Lostwithiel, and no doubt such communications took place as might be expected from both parties when about to be married. He writes thus from Lostwithiel, on the 29th of October, 1848:— MY DEAR CAROLINE,—You cannot conceive the pleasure I derive on receiving a few lines from one who has my heart, if not my hand, who occupies my whole thoughts and ever will. Carry, dear Carry, what would I not give to be by your side when you receive this, to have one kiss (laughter). I assure you I feel quite mopish; although so short a time since we last saw each other, appears to me like so many months. Eight o'clock now has no charms for me, neither will it until you return, which I trust will not be long. Miss T. talks of going home in the course of three or four weeks. Mrs. T., I understand, is gradually recovering her strength; it appears she had been talking to Tom, and that accounts for his being in such a poor temper on our arrival. Sister Elizabeth says if she has anything to say to her, she is off, but so far has found her very agreeable. I am glad to hear you enjoy yourself—l trust the change will prove beneficial to your health. I only wish I could be with you. I've no news of any moment to communicate. I hope to hear from you soon. I've gummed the edges of the envelope, so that it cannot be opened without destroying it altogether (laughter). Give my love to your brother, and respects to Billy, and "Believe me to remain, "Yours till death, "EDWARD HILLBORNE." Mr. CROWDER said the above letter was addressed to Miss Caroline Tabb, Lamherhooe, and the "sister Elizabeth" referred to in it was one of Miss Caroline Tabb's sisters, whom defendant sometimes so called, and sometimes "sister Lizzy." The letter ended "believe me to remain yours till death," and of course those were terms suitable to his feelings, though they lasted but for a short period. The next letter was the following:— "Lostwithiel, Nov. 7th, 1848. "MY DEAR CAROLINE,—Ever anxious to correspond with you, the beloved of my soul, (laughter) it is with unfeigned pleasure that I now inform you, that if wind and weather permitting, I intend to drive sister (Miss Tabb's sister) up on Sunday next, who for one is not afraid to trust herself with me. How long, dear Carry, the time will appear to me from this till Sunday! (Laughter). I trust we shall have fine weather; how great the disappointment on my part if not the case. I am happy to hear you enjoy yourself, and that your general health is better. I fully expected you would have been home by the 13th, but was informed to the contrary. * * * Everything goes on with me agreeably, and prosperous as I can reasonably expect; the only trouble I have is that of being absent from you whose charming society I always appreciate, and when once we are united nothing can render me willing to relinquish even for one moment. No, dear Carry, believe me each week which has elapsed since we last saw each other has only contributed to render me still more sensible of that treasure I shall one day possess, and what will be my own exquisite happiness in having one for whom nothing can ever diminish the ardency of my love. Give my kind love to your brother Billy, and accept a thousand kisses for yourself (roars of laughter). "Your ever affectionate and faithful lover, " EDWARD HILLBORNE." The next letter he should read was the following:— "Lostwithiel, November 12, 1848. “MY DEAR CAROLINE,—We reached home at 12 o'clock; sister Lizzy waited up for us; they wished me very much to go in and have something to eat, but I refused, being tired, and well knowing the dear dear creature, the one I love best in this world, was not there,—if she had, no refusal would have escaped my lips! On how I wish dear Carry, we were one! Believe me dearest, that during your absence I cannot partake of any real enjoyment, because all I do is alloyed by the knowledge that my heart's beloved is not near me. My whole employment is now to look forward to that happy hour when we shall be united, in doing which I draw the most delightful scenes of future bliss (laughter). Indeed my affection for you I can never sufficiently express were I to live an age, and each moment of my life (which shall always be) devoted to your service, it would not suffice. Oh I am sure we shall be so happy; the more I see of you the more I love you. The time will come, I trust, when nothing shall detain me for one moment from the society of her I love, and whose heaven is the enjoyment of your smiles (great laughter). Render my kindest remembrance to your brother, and love to William, and preserve the image of him who adores you in his heart. "Believe, me dear dear Carry, ever yours, "EDWARD HILLBORNE." Mr. CROWDER said such letters as these when read in a court of justice always excited a smile. But here was a young woman who had been for some time on terms of intimacy with a man who was about to make her his wife, and was constantly assuring her of his attachment and love; and if she reciprocated this feeling she must have felt the deepest agony when the tone of his letters became altered, when instead of her being his "only treasure," and finding "heaven in her company," he, after having professed this strong attachment, paid court to, and married another. Several other letters in the same style and strain he need not trouble them with; he would next read one from the defendant on the 4th of December, 1848:— "MY DEAR CAROLINE,—l duly received yours of the 29th. I am now going to give you a scolding myself for inserting in my letter to me ‘that if I had made any comment on the subject, it would only have shown the anxiety that l was ever ready to hear from you.' You know, dear Carry, I've already told you that to receive a line from the one I love best on this side of heaven ever conveyed the purest feelings of unaffected happiness to my bosom. Do you suppose, dear Caroline, that it is only on the receipt of a letter from you I think on you? Believe me, dearest, my heart and my thoughts are ever with you, and nothing but death will deprive you of them, for I think no one " 'Should for more love pretend " ‘Than they have hearts In store, “ ‘True love begun shall never end, " ‘Love one and love no more.' (Laughter.) This, Mr. CROWDER supposed was poetry. The rest of the letter, he said, spoke of going to a ball and other little circumstances of chit-chat, and it all ended, "Believe me, dear Carry, to remain ever yours, "EDWARD." On the 2nd of February defendant writes:— "MY DEAR, DEAR CARRY,—You do not suppose for a moment that I would place any credence in what Mrs. T. might say of me or any of your family. I know she is a very deceitful woman. I am well aware that she has made many remarks about me, but let us drop this unpleasant tale, notwithstanding her unkind remarks, dear Carry, we shall be happy yet. * * * * I often, very often, think of you dear Carry, and the more I do so the more I love you, and long for the time to come when we shall enjoy each other's society uninterrupted; then shall I be truly happy. I am much obliged to you for correcting me when erring in anything, you will confer a favor by doing so. There is a little excuse, dear Caroline, you must know I am in L. O. V. E. (Loud laughter). Remember me kindly to your dear sisters, and trusting this will find you all in enjoyment of good health, "Believe me to remain, dear, dear Carry, ever yours, "EDWARD HILLBORNE." Then there followed this letter on the 12th of February, 1849. "MY DEAR CAROLINE,—You say if you were a better correspondent, I should share a greater portion of your time. I trust you will never after this, dear Carry, let that for one moment be a hindrance, for dear, dear Carry, I would rather (believe me) read a few lines from you than any one living. I would say more on this subject, but feel assured dear Carry must know my feelings long before this. Lizzy and me have had some fine fun with a commercial by the name of Taylor—travels for a London drug-house; you must know him, he mistook Lizzy for you, told her he wished us every happiness, and hoped he should be allowed to stand god-father (laughter). I immediately said that if agreeable to the lady I had not the slightest objection, he should present it with a silver cup and a guinea in the bottom. I assure you we carried on the joke in fine style, Mr. and Mrs. Tom being gone to bed. * * * I generally kiss sister Lizzy for you every night, but she always threatens to tell you of it. I told her I was sure Carry would not take the least notice of my kissing a sister. Carry knows (if not I do) which I would rather kiss. (Laughter.) How are your lips, for I shan't know when to stop when I come down. (Roars of laughter.) I must now conclude with kind love to sisters, with a thousand kisses for yourself and "Believe me, dear, dear Carry, ever yours, "EDWARD HILLBORNE." In another letter on the 23rd of February, he says:— “My DEAR, DEAR CARRY,—Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be with you on Sunday. I can assure you l am as impatient to see you as ever you are me, and although absent you are never forgotten by me. You wish to know when l am coming down; if alls well I intend driving Lizzy down tomorrow week in my dog-cart if I can get in it, and the weather proves favourable, which I shall not forget to pray for, as I am longing to see my dear dear Carry. I want to go to Lerrin on the coming Sunday to get an account which is owed to me paid if possible, that being the only day I can conveniently leave the shop. You ask me what I think of Mrs. John Tabb. I am going to give you my candid opinion (of course it is only between ourselves, dear Carry), she may be a very agreeable person, but she would not be the one I should choose for a wife; I would rather have my Carry than fifty such ones. * * * A lady told me she thought you and me something alike, especially about the eyes. * * "Believe me, ever yours, dear, dear Carry, "EDWARD HILLBORNE." P.S.—Love to sister, and excuse all imperfections." His next letter was dated— “Lostwithiel, 2nd March, 1849. "MY DEAR DEAR CAROLINE,—The weather being so unfavourable and the distance so awkward, you will not, I am sure, expect me on the coming Sunday, but have fully made up my mind, if alive, to see you on Sunday fortnight, rain or snow shall not prevent me. I do not know how I shall come, but come l am determined. I will wait no longer. You see, dear Carry, if I leave this by Tally-ho on the Saturday evening, I shall not be in Truro before twelve that night; of course that would be too late for me to proceed to St. Day well. I should leave Truro on Sunday morning for St. Day, and leave there again that evening, so as to go by the same conveyance on Monday at a quarter-past five o'clock, so you see, dear Caroline, I should have very little time to be with you. I think the best thing will be for me to hire a horse here and leave by six o'clock. I shall then be able to come right on to St. Day, and be there by ten o'clock that night, and leave early on Monday morning. What think you of it? I shall think of you on Sunday, dear dear Carry, and although I shall not be present with you, my heart will, for it is an old saying, and a true one, 'where the treasure is there will the heart be also' (laughter). I have sent you a small present, which I trust will arrive safe, and believe me you receive it from one who loves you as he loves his own life, and longs for that happy period to arrive when we shall meet to part no more. I must now conclude with my kind love to your sisters, and accept the same yourself. "Believe me to remain, “For ever, ever yours, “EDWARD HILLBORNE." "P.S. I will write you a longer letter next time. I often, very often think of you in the evenings. What would I not give to be with you this night to have one kiss—one, no fifty (laughter.)—Yours, ever yours, EDWARD." Mr. CROWDER said the defendant was continually promising about this time to go to Gwennap to see her, and yet continually putting off the fulfilment of his promise, with the excuse that the weather prevented him, or some other cause. The next letter he writes was as follows:— "Lostwithiel, March 16th, 1849. "MY DEAR, DEAR CAROLINE.—You will no doubt think me as bad as Lizzy after promising so many times, but I can assure you circumstances have occurred which will preclude me the unfeigned pleasure of seeing you this week, and for which I will give you a full explanation on my visit to St. Day, which will be on Wednesday, the 24th. Believe me, dear Caroline, I do not intend to give you or cause you the slightest inconvenience, by not informing you how or when I was coming. No, no, I have too much regard for you even to hurt a hair of your head, but my wish was that when I did come to be treated as one of your own family, and I beg to state that you will not make the slightest difference for me when I do come, for if I thought so, you would make me very uncomfortable, and not only that, but I should be very reluctant to revisit you again. I intend riding on horseback, as then I shall be able to remain till the very last moment with her who is dearer to me than any one living, and if I fail in doing so (wet or dry) believe me not again dear dear Caroline. I gave Lizzy a good scolding for not having written you before. * * * I spent last Sunday afternoon with T. B. at the Talbot. He wished to know of me when I was coming down. I told him on Saturday, as I fully intended doing so, and am vexed to think I cannot, the weather being so fine. He was joking me before Tom and all of them, and says he is determined to stand godfather to the first, and also expressed a wish to give you away; he had quite enough to say I can assure you (laughter). I must now conclude in the hopes of hearing from you soon, and believe me ever to remain ever yours, "EDWARD HILLBORNE." “N.B:—Please to give my kind love to your sisters, and accept the same from him who adores you.—E.H. The next letter was dated Lostwithiel, April 4, 1849. “MY DEAR, DEAR CARRY,—You no doubt think me very remiss in not having written you before, sister Lizzy having left here so shortly. I've had nothing to write about; you already know, or ought to know by this time my sentiments; therefore her recent departure from the city of Lostwithiel must plead an excuse. * * * I must now conclude, l am afraid as it is l am too late for the post; would have left it until tomorrow, but l am afraid I shall get your displeasure. I hope you will be able to read this scrawl, for my pen is horrid,—will write you a long letter next week. Please give my love to all, and tell Lizzy that I have not forgotten her injunctions, and “Believe me, dear, dear Carry, ever yours, “EDWARD." Up to this time, said Mr. CROWDER, his letters had continued very warm and affectionate in their terms, but though he constantly promised, he never went to see her until after the match was altogether broken off. Sometimes he said the bad weather prevented him, and when it was fine, he happened to have an engagement. In May, the tone and style of the writer had become much changed; instead of “yours till death," or "ever yours, dearest, dearest Caroline” he wrote her a letter on the 9th of May, ending "yours truly.” On this, she wrote to him, expressing much surprise, and the following was his answer:— “Lostwithiel, May 9, 1849. “MY DEAR, DEAR CAROLINE.—You alarm yourself without any cause. I am not aware of anything I said in my letter to you that should make you unhappy; I merely stated I had something to communicate which I did not, for certain reasons, wish to pen. With regard to my coming down on Sunday next you must not expect me, but, if the weather prove favourable, I will endeavor (sic) to do so on Saturday week. Believe me, dear Carry, I love you as much as ever I did, but at present I am far from well. Your brother John, with Mrs. T., came down on Saturday last, and returned on the following Monday; he brought down the case of squirrels, for which you will please to accept my very sincere thanks, and you shall receive in return for them, the first time I see you, how many kisses shall I say? I will tell you then. * * * You must excuse this short epistle, as I really, having no news to communicate, know not what to write about. Trusting this will find you all in the enjoyment of good health, with kind love to all, believe me to remain, "Dear Carry, yours truly, EDWARD HILBORNE." This letter, observed Mr. CROWDER, was concluded "yours truly," and though the last letter he wrote to her ended " yours affectionately," which was somewhat better than " yours truly," yet it was evident that his affection was considerably "cooled" towards her. On the 17th of May he writes, again promising to see her:— "CAROLINE, DEAR CAROLINE.—You will not, of course, expect me this week, the weather proving so unfavourable. I can assure you we have had nothing but wet every day since Saturday last. I will come as soon as ever the weather proves favourable; it would be very uncomfortable for me to ride so many miles in wet weather." He then goes on to tell her, said Mr. CROWDER, about Wombwell's menagerie and other things not very interesting to a young lady when in such a distressed state of mind as the plaintiff was in on account of the defendant's conduct towards her. On the 25th of May, he again writes to put off his visit:— "CAROLINE, DEAR CAROLINE,—I now write to inform you that I shall not be able to see you this week—will write you a long letter on Tuesday, and trust on the Saturday evening to have the pleasure of seeing you." He did not, however, go to see her, and from this time there was no letter from him any way remarkable till the 19th of June. Then, without having any interview with her, or giving any explanation of his conduct, he at last sends her this letter:— "Lostwithiel, June 19, 1849. "MADAM,—From several circumstances which have taken place, I very much regret the course I've pursued, and feel assured that our union would be productive of mutual misery, and having seen my father here on the 14th, I find that my friends are entirely averse to it, and as I am wholly dependent on him, it would be impolitic on my part to run counter to his views. Consequently I must decline any further correspondence with you. “I am, Madam; " Your very obedient servant, " EDWARD HILLBORNE. "Miss Caroline Tabb. " N.B.—With respect to the presents that have been exchanged between us, I should not wish them to be returned. Your letters I will either send to you, or destroy as you may deem fit.—E. H." Mr. CROWDER continued—Now, gentlemen, what do you think of such a transaction as this—of an engagement which had continued for the period of a year, when without the slightest complaint against this young lady, who had conducted herself from beginning to end with all modesty and propriety, without any other intimation than that he had seen his father, and that it was impolitic to continue their connexion, he in the most heartless manner declined to have any further correspondence with her. A more heartless, selfish, and cruel letter than that last written by the defendant, it was impossible to conceive, especially after an attachment which had existed so long, and which a woman could not relinquish at a moment's notice. Such a course pursued by the defendant, a woman's heart, when deeply engaged, must at the time feel most deeply. There was also every reason to believe, that at the very time he wrote this letter he was paying attention to another young lady, to whom he was married in less than three months afterwards. At what time his courtship with this young lady began, Miss Caroline Tabb had no knowledge, because she was at a distance from Lostwithiel, and had no conception, after all his protestations of affection for her, that he would act towards her in such an unmanly, cruel, hard hearted manner. Defendant was a young man of twenty-seven or twenty-eight, and Miss Tabb was about twenty-four or twenty-five. They were suitable to each other in every respect, as regarded their age and position in life, and before he wrote this last letter about his father's objections, she had not the slightest idea that his family were averse to their union. She had no reason to think that at his time of life he was unable to fulfil the engagement he had undertaken. He had made her presents, amongst other things, a bottle of oil, with this written on it, "Mrs. Edward Hillborne, junior." (Laughter.) Defendant had pleaded that she had exonerated him from the engagement, but even if this had been so at one time, it was clear from his letters written subsequently, that the engagement had been renewed. The only question then was the amount of damages the jury should give, and in regard to these he could see no circumstances of mitigation. Defendant's only excuse could be, that after having won this young lady's affections, he trifled with them for a year, and then changed his mind because he saw another young lady whom he liked better. Miss Caroline Tabb being at a distance he keeps up a correspondence with her, but at the same time transfers his affections to a Miss Mortimer. There was not one single excuse for his conduct, for not a syllable could be said against the conduct, character, or fair fame of the plaintiff. The jury would therefore find such damages as they thought her entitled to receive. It was impossible to over-rate the injury to her feelings; her parents were dead, she had been deprived of their protection for a long period, and was living with her sisters when this seeming opportunity was afforded her of settling for life. She was therefore entitled to damages for the loss she had sustained merely in a worldly point of view. But in addition to this they must consider that after her affections had been deeply engaged by this young man, he had cast her off for another, and not only outraged her feelings, but exposed her no doubt to the scorn of those who must have known of their engagement, and would suppose there was something more than came out, some reason for the treatment she had received. They would take all these things into consideration when they gave their verdict. The position of defendant's father had already been mentioned, and with regard to defendant, though he had not been long at Lostwithiel, he was carrying on a thriving business there. They would take into consideration the injury she had sustained, and the manner in which it had been inflicted, and doubtless would do justice to the plaintiff. The following witnesses were then called:— Miss Elizabeth Tabb, examined by Mr. MAYNARD. I am sister of the plaintiff, Miss Caroline Tabb; her age is about 25. My father, who has been dead many years, kept two inns; my brother, Mr. Thomas Tabb, keeps the Talbot Inn, at Lostwithiel. I remember plaintiff going to stay with my brother at the Talbot Hotel, about the end of 1847; she went there again about the beginning of April, 1848, and stayed for several months. I saw defendant for the first time when he came to my brother John's, who is a mine agent at Lamherooe. He then came to see my sister, and was very attentive. I have seen defendant frequently at the Talbot, in the family part of the house, in the sitting-room; have had conversations with him about my sister, and he always spoke of her in terms of the warmest regard; he told me one evening that if she deceived him he would shoot himself (laughter).) He said I was to visit him and my sister on the following winter at his house. On the 11th of March, I had an interview with him in the parlour of the Talbot; he then said he should marry Carry before the year was out; he treated me very kindly, and called me Sister Lizzy. I have taken presents from him to her, a brooch and writing desk; and he also gave her a watch. I saw a bottle of hair-oil in his possession with "Mrs. E. Hillborne, jun." written on it. His father is collector of excise; there is no other druggist's shop in Lostwithiel besides defendant's; he has told me he was getting on very nicely and had a prosperous business. When my sister received his last letter, she was quite struck with astonishment, and was very poorly for some time. My sister appeared attached to him, and he seemed very devoted to her. The engagement was agreeable to our family, and he was received as her intended husband. The marriage of Mr. Hillborne with his present wife took place, I believe, in September, 1849. Cross-examined by Mr. Collier—My brother Thomas kept an inn at Bodmin before he went to Lostwithiel; my sister Caroline visited him there. She was not acting as barmaid at Lostwithiel; she was assisting in the bar whilst Mrs. Tabb was ill; she gave out spirits I suppose when they were required. The inn at Carharrack was my father's house; my sister did not act as a servant there; she was then at school. Defendant succeeded Mr. Belling, a surgeon, at Lostwithiel; when he drove my sister to Lamherooe he was very attentive. Mr. COLLIER—How do you judge of his being attentive?—Witness. I know it from his letters, and from what he told me. Oh, very well,—did he ever go so far as to kiss you? (laughter.) No answer from the witness. Surely you can answer that question, there is no harm in it you know—you can tell me in confidence—was he ever so attentive to you in a brotherly way? (no answer). Do you decline to answer that question?—Witness—I do. Very well,—was your sister ever before engaged to anybody else?—I don't remember. What, don't you remember one way or the other?—I can't tell about my sister's engagements. Do you know a certain Mr. Atkins; of Bristol, did you ever hear your sister say anything about that engagement?—l don't know anything about him. Have you not heard from your sister (there’s no harm in it you know) that she was engaged to Mr. Atkins?—I can't recal (sic) it to memory. Will you swear that you have not heard it?—l will not swear anything about it. Do you recollect anything of a gentleman of Bodmin, an attorney’s clerk, to whom she was engaged?—No. Did you ever hear anything of a Mr. Burrows?—She does not know him. What made you smile when I spoke of Mr. Burrows?—To think such a thing was fabricated; she was not friendly with such a person. Then you know the person I alluded to?—No, I do not. Then how can you tell that your sister was not friendly with him?—Because I know she was not in Bodmin long enough. Was she not in the habit of coming there at your brother’s, and acting as barmaid?—No, she did not. At the election in 1847, did she not serve out liquor to the electors?—No, she was not barmaid. I am instructed to ask you another question about Mr. Atkins—Don't you know that wedding dresses were made?—He has nothing to do with this affair, I come to talk about Hillborne, not Atkins. Who is Atkins?—l don't know. Yes you do, and can tell the jury, there is no harm in that—did you ever see him? I have seen a gentleman of the name of Atkins, a commercial traveller, an elderly gentleman, and a married man. But I am speaking of his son?—I don't know anything about it. Don’t you know that wedding dresses were prepared?—I do not. Re-examined—When my sister visited at Lostwithiel, she did what Mrs. Tabb would have done if she had been well, and she never had any pay for her services. I live with my uncle; Caroline and my two other sisters have lived in a cottage at Gwennap since my father’s death. Miss Eliza Tabb, examined by Mr. Crowder.—My sister Caroline lives with me at the cottage. I have been at Talbot at Lostwithiel, and there became acquainted with the defendant; he used to come every evening into the family sitting room, and appeared very attentive to my sister. I learnt from him what his intentions were towards her; I told him one evening I heard he was a flirt, and he wanted to know who told me so. I said I hoped he was honourable. He said he had been the same as other young men, he had walked with other young ladies, but never saw one that would fall to his lot before he saw Carry. He keeps a respectable shop, and then appeared to conduct himself well. He gave my sister presents, gave her a gold watch and chain when she left Lostwithiel; he also gave her a bottle of oil (the bottle was here produced, and created some amusement by its being a pint bottle; the label was "Hair oil, Mr. E. Hillborne, jun., chemist,—for Mrs. E. Hillborne, jun.") Witness continued—when my sister received his last letter on the 19th of June, it appeared to affect her very much for some time; I saw the letter as soon as it was received. Have seen defendant's father when he came to the Talbot on business.—Cross-examined—Nothing was said in his father's presence about this engagement that I know of. I cannot tell who began the courtship—the young man I believe; people were not in the habit of coming into the sitting-room at the hotel, excepting a friend they might have there. Mr. COLLIER—Do you know your sister had been engaged before?—Witness.—That has nothing to do with it—it is no matter whether she was or not. Will you undertake to say you have not heard she was engaged before?—That has nothing to do with it. The JUDGE—You must answer the question—did you know from your sister that she was engaged before? Witness—Well, she was engaged, and she broke it off. Mr. COLLIER—Who was the gentleman? Witness—Mr. Atkins. Then you do know him?— Yes, and I know his father: we have been there visiting. Did your sister, the last witness, know of it?—I can't say, she never was at Bristol. Did Mr. Hillborne ever kiss you as well as your sister Elizabeth?—That is a question I shall not answer (laughter). I don't mean a kiss to keep for yourself, but to pass on? (laughter). Witness—She is not accustomed to kisses passing on. Oh, she keeps them herself—very right (laughter). Re- examined by Mr. CROWDER—Has your sister conducted herself as a proper modest person, without any improprieties?—Yes, she has. (Mr. COLLIER said he charged no improprieties) When did she break off with Mr. Atkins?—Five or six years ago; she was very young then. Witness further said her father had been dead eighteen years. Mr. Philip Blamey, woolstapler, resides at Gwennap, and is acquainted with plaintiff and defendant; plaintiff is a distant relation of mine; I was at the Talbot at Lostwithiel in the year 1848; went to Liskeard, and defendant took a seat in the gig with me. Whilst on the journey and talking over different matters, defendant said an engagement had taken place between him and Miss Caroline Tabb, and he spoke of her in the highest terms. I congratulated him on it; I had known the lady from her infancy, and went to school with her brothers. I have seen plaintiff and Mr. Hillborne together; his behaviour was very respectful and kind, what one might expect from a lover. I went with plaintiff and defendant to Lamerhooe in a chaise in 1848, and on that occasion defendant was very kind and attentive towards her. Mr. Bennett was called to prove the handwriting of Mr. Hiilborne's letters, which were produced in evidence. Mr. Burrow, of Bodmin, gave evidence. He heard that his name had been mentioned in the Court, and had come to make a statement. The story about plaintiff's engagement with him was quite unfounded; his name had been used in a very unwarrantable way. Cross-examined.—He never saw any flirtation on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. COLLIER then addressed the jury for the defendant. He said the learned counsel on the other side had made a clever speech, but it was a standing speech on his part, he had used it half a dozen times on the circuit already. They always heard from him of the lady's prospects being blighted, of her being a delicate confiding being, and the gentleman being a monster of all cruelty. But the fact was that the object of all such cases was money; whatever the injury to feeling might be, he never knew a case of this description in which money was not ready to be accepted. It was true there were cases of such aggravated character that a jury would be satisfied in giving severe damages. There were cases in which a man was shown to have deliberately introduced himself into a family for the purpose of first obtaining the affections of a young, innocent, and confiding girl, and then abandoning her; which was sometimes aggravated by the defendant taking advantage of the confidence reposed in him for effecting the ruin of her to whom he was engaged. This was not one of those aggravated cases, and they had failed to show that it called for damages from a jury. He was not instructed to throw any imputation on Miss Caroline Tabb, or to expose in Court any of her letters. Most ridiculous were the letters of every man who was in love, but no doubt they would believe him in saying that he could produce letters from the lady which were quite as ridiculous. But it was not his business to inflict on her any unnecessary pain; he only requested that the jury would take a dispassionate view of the case. They might have understood from the speech of his learned friend that Miss Caroline Tabb's first affections had been won by the defendant; but in point of fact she did not appear to have plighted to him her first affections. Miss Caroline Tabb (though there had been some difficulty in extracting it) seemed to have been somewhat in the public line all her life. Her parents kept a public house, and her brother once kept a public house at Bodmin, and now at Lostwithiel, where she had been in the habit of assisting. Now a young lady who was in the habit of attending at the bar of a public house was not precisely the flower which blushes unseen in the valleys—she lives in an atmosphere not particularly favorable (sic) to the growth of sentiment and romance. The plaintiff was not a young girl whose affections were first obtained & possessed by the defendant. The case would also have a very different aspect if Miss Tabb was the party first to make the advances, and not the defendant. He did not say that if a woman makes love to a man, and he was induced to plight to her his vows, that he was afterwards entitled to break his promise; but at all events he would therefore be entitled to the consideration of the jury in regard to damages. No evidence had been given of the manner in which this intimacy was commenced. The only persons who could have shown that were Mr. and Mrs. Tabb, who kept the Talbot Hotel, but those parties the plaintiff had avoided calling. If they had been called it would have appeared to the jury whether this young man, who came as a stranger to Lostwithiel, was not in the habit of coming to the inn after his shop was closed to drink a glass of grog, and whether she did not then make a dead set at him (laughter)—whether she did not pretend to be violently in love with him, and induce him to go on with the courtship till the engagement took place. Yet, however important it was, they had omitted to call any witnesses from whom the commencement of this flirtation and courtship might be ascertained. She no doubt thought him a very eligible match, though she was deceived, for he was sorry to tell them his client was a poor man. It was all very well for Miss Caroline Tabb to say the gentleman proposed to her, but there were ways of proposing without putting the actual words, as they knew very well (laughter). The jury had also observed the manner in which the witnesses gave their evidence; it was clear that they had come there as part of the family determined to make up a case to put damages into the pocket of the plaintiff—a course of proceeding which certainly ought not to put a favorable aspect on the case. With regard to the evidence, it was too slight to ground a case for heavy damages, and as to the letters, they were just such as every man writes who takes a fancy to a young lady. The vanity of the females was talked of, but he believed there was more vanity in the male sex. He had heard it said by no indifferent judges of human nature that almost any woman might marry almost any man, if she had an opportunity to press her suit and was persevering in it. To find that a woman was in love with him was almost too much for any young man of two and twenty; he did not believe any young man of two and twenty in the kingdom could resist the attractions of a pretty-looking bar-maid if she went on long enough with him (laughter). But the delusion would not last long, nor had it in this case. Mr. Hillborne was induced to fall in love with this young woman. He was courted, and afterwards wrote letters about "heavenly bliss," “eternal happiness," "love till death," and all those expressions which are used at such times; but when the lady was gone for a short time and ceased to exercise her fascinations, then he comes to his sober senses. He then finds that he runs a chance of an ill-assorted union, of misery for life for both of them. And what was a young man to do under such circumstances? He knew no position more trying—the worst course a man could pursue would be to marry a woman he had ceased to be attached to, and found was not congenial to him. Could it be said that an ill-assorted union should take place, the misery of which would only end with life? After reading some remarks of Chief Justice Wilde on this subject, he observed that he could quite understand why the family of the Tabbs never said anything about the engagement to Mr. Hillborne, sen., when he came to the Hotel,—it was because they knew he would object to it. Finding that the union would not be favourable to his happiness, and that he should incur the displeasure of his father, the defendant at last wrote her the letter which the learned counsel on the other side had commented on with such a storm of indignation. It seemed to him, however, to have been a very proper letter under the circumstances, when he awoke from the intoxication which the flattery of this young lady had thrown him into, and when he had determined to set matters right and take a certain course. Though there was no absolute promise of marriage, he was not instructed to say there was not that relation between them which might constitute a contract. But they must consider all the circumstances—the evidence withheld as to the manner in which the acquaintance commenced; the manner in which the family were determined to screw as much money as possible out of this young man, who was struggling in a laborious profession; the fact that this young lady had not been really damaged, that her first affections had not been obtained and betrayed, and that she was nothing the worse for what had occurred. They must consider also that it was better for her to remain single than to be ill-assorted with a man dissimilar from her in regard to his position in life, his superior education, and probably his temperament,—when they took all these circumstances into consideration, he thought the presents the defendant had given her, and merely nominal damages would be sufficient to satisfy the justice of the case for all the injury she had sustained. The learned JUDGE, in summing up, said it was admitted that there was no defence in law to the action, but that the promise was made and broken, and the whole question therefore was as to the amount of damages. It did not appear in evidence that there was that difference either in the position or the education of the parties, as should lead the jury to suppose that if the defendant had fulfilled his promise, it would have been an ill-assorted or unhappy marriage. It was suggested that she had first courted the defendant, but there was no evidence to support that suggestion. It was said that Mr. and Mrs. Tabb ought to have been called to show how the courtship originated; but it appeared from the letters that some difference had existed between the plaintiff and her brother or brother's wife, which might account for their not being called. It was said that the defendant only found out in June that the match would be disagreeable to his friends, and that he then listened to their remonstrances and broke it off; but it could hardly be supposed that this engagement should have existed so long without being discovered, and if disagreeable to his friends he must have found out that before; he could therefore hardly allege that as an excuse for his breach of promise. It was also said he was the victim of his own vanity, but if so, who was the party that should suffer? The jury would look at the position of the parties, and at their conduct during the engagement, and at the time of the breach of the engagement, and would say what they thought a fair, reasonable, and ample amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for the injury to her feelings, or to her position in society, by the breach of this engagement.—After about ten minutes' consideration, the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £40. THE QUEEN v. Sir S. T. SPRY, Knt.—Counsel for the prosecution—Mr. Collier and Mr. Karslake; attorney, Mr Darke. Counsel for the defendant—Mr. Crowder and Mr. Montague Smith; attorney, Mr. Stokes. The following gentlemen were sworn a special jury:—Mr. Francis Parkyn, Mr. Wm. Martyn, Mr. John Best, Mr. Richard Bennett, Mr. Thomas Corfield, Mr. John Hocken, Mr. John Elliott, Mr. Elias Martin, Mr. Wm. Nicholas, Mr. Joel Blamey, Mr. Richard Lean Hocken, Mr. Robert Nicholls. Mr. KARSLAKE opened the pleadings:—This is an indictment against Sir Samuel Spry, Knight, for an assault committed on John Taylor Brown. Mr. COLLIER then addressed the jury as follows:—It is with deep and unfeigned regret that I feel myself called on to state a criminal charge against a gentleman of high station in this county, and who not very long since assisted her Majesty’s judges in this very court in the administration of justice. The prosecutor of this indictment is Mr. John Taylor Brown, the editor of the West Briton newspaper. Mr. Brown, instead of pursuing the course which was open to him of suing Sir Samuel Spry for damages, has thought it more becoming his position to take this mode of proceeding, and indict him criminally for an assault, by which no individual gain can accrue to himself, but by which public justice may be more effectually protected. The circumstances of the actual assault you have to consider are very few and simple. But perhaps it may be well for me to state briefly some circumstances that occurred before, for the purpose of explaining what took place between Sir Samuel Spry and Mr. Brown on the occasion to which I shall have to call attention when the assault is alleged to have taken place. On the 12th of February, in this year, a Protection meeting, as it was called, was held in this county, over which Sir Samuel Spry presided as High Sheriff. Mr. Pendarves, the respected member for one division of this county, being unable to attend that meeting, wrote a letter to Sir Samuel Spry explaining the cause that prevented his attending, and also stating his sentiments at some length on the subject on which the meeting was held. I don't think it necessary to read that letter; but it is here, and you shall have it if my learned friend requires it. I think it enough for my purpose to state that such a letter was written. Part only of that letter was read at the meeting; and on the 18th of February, Mr. Pendarves wrote a letter to the Editor of the West Briton complaining that a portion only of his letter had been read at the meeting, and that the portion which was read unfairly represented his sentiments. We have nothing to do in the present case as to whether the impression on Mr. Pendarves's mind was right or wrong, or whether as regarded Sir Samuel Spry, that impression was unfair or not. I merely state that Mr. Pendarves considered himself aggrieved that a portion only of his letter had been read, and that the rest, which he considered a material portion, was omitted. On this Sir Samuel Spry wrote a letter to the Editor of the Cornwall Gazette—another paper well known in this county, on the 6th of March, 1850; that letter was in these terms. I should say that the letter which had been first published in the West Briton was also published in the Cornwall Gazette.—Mr. Collier then road the following letter:— To the Editor of the Royal Cornwall Gazette. Sir, I observe in your paper of last week a letter from Mr. Pendarves, charging me with want of courtesy, and injustice, because I did not read in full his letter to me, relative to his non attendance at the last County Meeting; and insinuating that the omission was made for some undefined reasons. Permit me in reply to remind the Hon. M.P., that when he brings unfounded charges against another, he should take care not to make them so applicable to himself. Most persons I think, will agree with me, that the more gentlemanly and courteous line of conduct would have been, for him to have written to me, and I should most readily have complied with his wish, by giving to the public, without any curtailment, his valuable epistle, containing such sympathy for the distress of his Agricultural Constituents. Mr. Pendarves asserts that his was the only one not read at length. I beg to state, in answer to this assumption, that some of the letters were not read at all—that of the Rev. Canon Rogers, for example, with many others, expressing opinions quite as valuable and interesting to the County as those of the Hon M.P., though of an opposite character. If there be blame, it rests with the Under-Sheriff, who from the number of letters received, and the evident impatience of the Meeting at hearing so many, in the exercise of a sound discretion, curtailed some, and omitted others, without any reference to party. Having disposed of the charge against myself, I cannot help saying that there is a reason why, upon public grounds, the hon. member has no right to complain. If he had been so very desirous that his constituents should not be left in ignorance of his sentiments, he should have taken care to attend the meeting, and explain his views in person, instead of sending a letter with an echo of Lord J. Russell's and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches on the Address. Though perhaps Lord J. Russell and his tottering government could not afford to lose, even for one night, the vote of such a thick-and-thin supporter as the hon. member has been for the last twenty-five-years:—or perhaps the hon. member himself was glad to avail himself of his Parliamentary duties as a plea for absence, that he might escape the troublesome and provoking questions likely to have been put to him at the meeting. Be this however as it may, I can only declare, that had the hon. member attended the meeting, I should, as its chairman, have done my best to obtain for him a fair and full hearing as I endeavoured to do for every speaker without distinction of party. In conclusion, I think it right again to declare, that all letters were given to the under-sheriff, to read, and to be dealt with, as he should see fit. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, S. T. SPRY. The West Briton and Cornwall Gazette are both published on the same evening in the week. I understand that this letter addressed by Sir S. Spry to the Cornwall Gazette was forwarded to the West Briton on a printed slip to be inserted in the West Briton; and in the West Briton appeared the following article under the head of "Notices to Correspondents," and which I will read to you: A strange piece of impertinence with the signature of "S. T. Spry," has found its way to our office. It professes to be a reply to the letter of Mr. Pendarves, which appeared in our columns a fortnight ago complaining, with so much justice, of the omission, on the part of those concerned in getting up the late county meeting, to read the most material part of his letter stating his reasons for not taking part in the proceedings on that occasion. But the only explanation given is that some other letters were also unread, and that of a certain country clergyman is given as an example, just as if there could be any analogy between the interest felt in knowing what Canon Rogers thought about protection and the opinion of one of the Representatives of Cornwall, one of the oldest and most esteemed of our country gentlemen. The communication which has been sent us, however, is written with so much of the spirit of an insolent "partizan," (sic) that it is difficult to believe it to be the production of a man holding the office of High Sheriff. The meanness and paltry spirit of the writer may be judged of from the fact that he actually attempts to throw the blame of the omission on the Under Sheriff. "If there be blame," he says, "it rests with the Under Sheriff;" and as if this was not explicit enough, he recurs to the subject a few lines after, and adds, “I think it right to declare that all letters were given to the Under Sheriff" to read, and to be dealt with as he should see fit." Now, gentlemen, you will hear that on the afternoon after this notice was published in the West Briton, Sir S. Spry came to the printing office of that paper, accompanied by Mr. Stokes, a solicitor of Truro, who then acted for him; and you will hear from those who were in that office, that Sir S. Spry appeared in a very excited state—that he paced up and down—that he had a horsewhip on his person, I believe in his pocket—which he subsequently took out; and he appeared altogether in a state of considerable excitement. They offered at the printing-office, to send for the Editor, who was not there, but lodged in the town. Sir Samuel Spry and Mr. Stokes went, saying they would call again; but before the messenger could arrive at the Editor's lodgings, Sir S. Spry and Mr. Stokes had arrived there, and you will hear from Mr. Brown that he came into his apartment in a highly excited state, down a horsewhip on the table, and demanded whether he intended to retract or apologise for the insertion of the paragraph in the West Briton that day. The Editor said he could not do so, and, at the same time said, that if the letter had been sent by Sir S. Spry, he should have felt it his duty to insert it; but, coming in the way it did, on a slip from another paper, he did not think it right to do so. I believe that is a matter of etiquette between Editors. Having explained this, the rest you will hear much better from the witnesses than from myself. It ended in Sir S. Spry's seizing the Editor by the collar & laying his horse-whip on him. The Editor is very unequal to contend with Sir S. Spry in physical strength; but he did his best to protect himself, and very likely he did strike Sir Samuel Spry. But it ended in Sir Samuel Spry overturning the chairs, and in his getting the better off. That is really the transaction to which it is my painful duty to call your attention. On the part of my learned friend, I hardly know what will be contended. I am sure he will not contend before a jury of this country that any provocation, real or supposed, is enough to justify an assault, especially by a person in a station of life in which every man is supposed to know that obedience is necessary to the law. I don't know whether it is meant to contend that Sir Samuel Spry committed no assault—(l apprehend it would be entirely idle to contend that)—or that the Editor committed the first assault. I will not trouble you with many observations; but I will only say that Sir Samuel Spry was the first to seek out the Editor, and that he clearly was in an excited state, with a whip in his hand. You will not think it possible that the Editor was the man to begin the assault. You will have also the evidence of Mr. Brown, which, I think you will feel bound to believe; and you will hear other witnesses. I don't know if I am addressing gentlemen who take in one paper or the other, or who have this or that opinion on protection. We have nothing to do with free-trade or protection; we have nothing to do with the opinions of Mr. Pendarves on the one side or of Sir Samuel Spry on the other, except as illustrating what took place on this occasion. The one simple question is whether Sir S. Spry did or did not commit the assault on the Editor. You will hear the evidence on that point, and I fear it can lead but to one result. William Beth Morriss, examined by Mr. Karslake:—I am in the employ of Mr. Heard, the manager of the West Briton at Truro. In March last, I remember Sir Samuel Spry coming to the office with Mr. Stokes, solicitor. He came there between 11 and 12 o'clock. Sir Samuel Spry asked for Mr. Heard, the publisher of the paper. I took Sir Samuel Spry up to the other end of the shop where Mr. Edward Heard was at the desk. Sir Samuel Spry asked Mr. Edward Heard, who was the author of some remarks that appeared in the West Briton the night before, concerning him. Mr. Edward Heard said he had nothing to do with the paper—that it was under the management of the Editor who was not then present in the house, but if Sir Samuel pleased, he would send for him. Mr. Edward Heard is not the manager of the paper; it is his brother who is the manager of the paper. He asked Sir Samuel if he would wait, or if the Editor should call on him. Sir Samuel agreed to call again in about 20 minutes, that being the time that Mr. Edward Heard said the Editor should be there. I saw somebody sent to Mr. Brown. After this conversation, Sir Samuel Spry and Mr. Stokes left the shop. Sir Samuel Spry appeared greatly excited when he came to the shop; he appeared excited when he was talking. He had a horsewhip in his pocket, or at least the end of it was in his pocket. He had a round jacket on. He had no horse with him. Sir Samuel Spry is a man of considerable strength, I should think, from his size.—Cross-examined by Mr. Crowder:—He came with his jacket on, and the hand with his whip was in one pocket. I did not notice if he had boots on. I see Sir Samuel frequently on horseback. I have never seen him but once before that I know of with a horsewhip. I do not attend to the business of the printing at all; I don't know any thing about it. Mr. Heard is the manager of the paper. I have nothing to do with it. I have never been in the printing office; I don't know how they manage with slips and so on.—Re-examined. I had once before seen Sir Samuel Spry walking with a whip.—Mr. Crowder: Was he then walking after an editor? (laughter). Thomas Elihu Vincent, examined by Mr. Collier:—I am in the employ of Mr. Heard at his printing office. I was on the premises on the afternoon of the 8th of March; I don't remember seeing Sir Samuel Spry about the premises that afternoon. I was at my own house about half past 12 o'clock. I saw Sir Samuel Spry, in my garden, with Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes inquired for Mr. Brown. Sir Samuel stood just inside the gate, and Mr. Stokes came to the door and inquired where Mr. Brown lived. Sir Samuel stood about five or six feet behind him. I observed that Sir Samuel had a whip with him. He appeared to be in a very excited state and flourished his whip while he was standing in the garden. He moved two or three paces forth and back. My wife pointed out to him where Mr. Brown lived.—Cross-examined by Mr. M. Smith:—You say that he was in a very excited state; what made you think so? He was walking up and down, and appeared very much agitated; he was walking up and down, holding his whip in his hand. Was Mr. Stokes in an excited state?—I did not take notice of Mr. Stokes. When he asked for Mr. Brown, did he ask in an excited manner, or in his ordinary calm manner?—He asked where Mr. Brown lived; I did not observe anything particular in Mr Stokes. Did Sir Samuel say anything at all?—No; merely Mr. Stokes. Have you anything to do with printing the paper?—Yes. Is it usual for you and the Cornwall Gazette to exchange printed slips without sending messages?—Yes, Sir, sometimes. And they to you in the same way?—Yes; but when we send there is always word sent who it comes from. And when they send to you, is it with some message?—Sometimes; not always. Where a letter appears signed by the person himself, that message is unnecessary?—If there is no name sent with it, it is very often sent back to know who it came from. Were you in the office when a slip came across from the Cornwall Gazette with a letter from Sir Samuel Spry?—It is very likely, but I don't remember seeing it. Don't you remember a printed slip being sent across from the Cornwall Gazette to your office?—No. Did you see the printed slip?—No. You have never seen it?—I have not. Is it your business to attend to the setting up the paper?—Yes. To whom are these printed slips delivered?—To Mr. John Macfarlane Heard. Is the course in the office for him to hand them over to Mr Brown the Editor?—Yes. Re-examined. Did what you have described—the manner he used his whip—produce any impression on you?—Yes; I saw Sir Samuel was in a passion; and when Mr. Stokes inquired for Mr. Brown, I knew they were going for him; and had I been dressed, as I was not, being unwell, I should have gone to Mr. Brown. You don't remember any thing about this particular slip?—No, Sir. You were ill, you say?—I was on the Friday; but I was at the office all the week. John Taylor Brown, examined by Mr. Karslake;—I am the Editor of the West Briton newspaper. On Friday, the 8th of March, I recollect Sir Samuel Spry calling at my lodgings—between 12 and one I should think. Mr. Stokes was with him at the time. They were shown into my room and I joined them there shortly afterwards. Sir Samuel asked if I intended to contradict a paragraph that appeared in the paper of that day; and he asked at the same time who the author was. I said that I had no intention of contradicting it, and I told him that I was the author. He then complained of my not having inserted his letter. I said that if he wished the letter inserted, he ought to have sent it to me with a request to that effect. I explained to him the way in which the letter had come to me. I stated to him that the letter had come from the Cornwall Gazette office, in the form of a printed slip, addressed not to me, but headed 'To the Editor of the Cornwall Gazette,' and without any message either written or verbal. I stated that, as my understanding of the way in which the letter came. It did not come directly into my hands: I received it through Mr. Heard. After I had told him the way I received the letter, I told him that I considered his letter impertinent, and that even on that ground I should have objected to insert it, and that as it had appeared in the Cornwall Gazette, as to any remarks I had made on it, the public might judge fairly between us, and I did not see that any injustice had been done him. He complained as to my having done him injustice by publishing remarks on his letter and not publishing the letter itself. In reply to that, I said it had been published in the Cornwall Gazette, and that the public might judge between us. The Cornwall Gazette was published on the same day as the West Briton. This conversation took place between us on the 8th. It is the custom to date the papers on the 8th, and issue them on the evening before. There was a good deal of conversation; I cannot recall the particulars; but Sir Samuel became very angry and excited, and talked loud and in a bullying style. I remember his saying, "you have called me mean, Sir; won't you retract that?" I said I would not. Sir Samuel, when he first came in, I don’t think he appeared to be very much excited; but he appeared to be very much excited afterwards. There was a whip lying on the table; it was a riding switch or jockey-whip, as it is called. I presume he brought it with him. Immediately (my impression is that it was immediately) after l had said I would not retract, he lifted the whip from the table and raised his hand in this style—(Mr. B. exhibited the mode)—and took hold of me by the arm or collar, I am not sure which, and came down with the whip, I think on the collar of my coat. I immediately seized the whip; and after some little struggle, wrested it out of his hands, and after I had got the whip from him, he got me at a disadvantage and got my head in here—(Mr. B. showed that his head was under Sir Samuel's arm—"in chancery" as Mr. Crowder laughingly observed)—and struck me with his fist several blows on the head. I continued to struggle with him some time. Mr. Stokes ultimately came between us and separated us; he took hold of Sir Samuel and kept him back from me. l was slightly scratched on the brow. Sir Samuel afterwards left the room with Mr. Stokes. Cross-examined by Mr. Crowder.—You are sure you got a scratch?—Yes, I saw it in the glass. You wrenched the whip from him?—Yes; I did. Then you struck him, I believe?—Yes. And then he got you 'in chancery'? (laughter)—Yes. Well, you got out of chancery pretty cheaply at all events (laughter.) When you got this slip, did not Mr. Heard convey to you the message he had received?—He told me there was no message sent. It is a very common thing to hand slips from one paper to another?—I believe it is. I suppose you had no conception that a letter signed by Sir Samuel Spry was a letter he had written—that it was from him? You thought it was a forgery, I dare say?—No; of course I had no doubt that it came from him; I did not know whether it was written by him; I had some doubts of that; but I had no doubt it came from him. Oh I see; you mean whether he could write it? (laughter.) – I had no doubt in my own mind that it came from him. So, you gave him two reasons for your not inserting it; 1st, that it came without a message; and 2ndly, that it was of that description that you would not have inserted it if it had come in the usual way?—Yes. Did not Sir Samuel ask you then to insert it in your paper?—No. Just attend, Mr. Brown; he asked you in the first instance to contradict those remarks you had made; did he not afterwards speak about your not having inserted his letter, and request you to insert it?—No; I have not the slightest recollection of his saying anything of the kind; he complained of its not having been inserted; but he never, as far as my recollection serves me, asked me to insert it; I don't recollect that any request of the kind was made to me. You thought it was quite just to put the remarks in one paper and the letter in another; so that one person might read the letter and another person the remarks?—Yes, certainly, just as I might make remarks on an article in the Times without publishing that article. And that was your reason for not inserting it?—That I consider a conclusive reason. And what was the other? an in-conclusive reason?—That is for you to determine. Is that the way you usually treat correspondents? —If a controversy takes place in a paper and a letter is sent to me the tone of which I dislike, I certainly would decline to insert it. If a letter is sent you then, which you dislike, you decline to insert it, but you make your comments?—Yes. That is your practice?—That is the practice of all newspapers. But you have to speak of number one; is it the practice of your paper? —It is quite a common thing to find severe remarks made in "notes to correspondents;" that is common with all papers. But this was a longish note to correspondents; is that usual to have a notice so long as that?—Why, occasionally. When first Sir Samuel Spry came in, I understand the first thing he spoke to you about was to ask you to contradict that, and he complained I suppose at the same time, of your not having inserted his letter?—Yes. Then, you say, afterwards he got excited; was that after you told him you thought his letter was impertinent?—No; it was before that; in fact, I have my doubt if he heard my remark; he was excited at the time; I could not get a word in so as to be heard. Perhaps you said it so low as he should not hear it?—No. Did you say it so loud that he should hear it?—Quite. Then he did hear it?—I cannot tell. Did he not raise his whip then?—No. Was it upon the word mean that he got excited?—Yes. Then he stood the word impertinent quietly?—I do not say quietly. He was excited at the time. Where was Mr. Stokes?—Sir Samuel was standing on one side of the hall; I was standing here, and Mr. Stokes there, (as at the corners of a triangle). Was Mr. Stokes excited?—No; I did not observe that he was. Mr. Stokes’s politics, I believe, agree with those of the West Briton?—l believe they do. I believe as soon as the whip was seized, Mr. Stokes tried to part you?—There was some interval took place; a struggle took place—there was some considerable struggle. Did Mr. Stokes look on to see the fight out?—Yes, he looked on. Why, he is a lawyer; men don't generally take a lawyer to see them fight?—l should think there were two or three minutes elapsed. Two or three minutes! Do you know what two or three minutes are? Why you might fight several rounds in that time, and get into Chancery too (laughter). When the whip was first raised, you raised your hand?— No; it was after the whip was raised and after it had fallen. Did you clench or double your hand?—I shut it on the whip. But before you got the whip, perhaps in a little excitement, did you not immediately shut your hand?—I am not conscious that I did; I opened my hand and closed it on the whip. There was a blow or two struck on the collar of my coat at the back. There may have been two or three blows or more on each side; two or three pairs of blows?—Yes. Re-examined:—ls it so that you caught the whip after you had been struck two or three times?—Yes. Have you any doubt whatever as to which party struck the first blow?—None in the world. You have been asked about Mr. Stokes; did Mr. Stokes become the solicitor for Sir Samuel Spry about that time?—I am not aware. Then Mr. Stokes saw the fight go on for some little time?—I said two or three minutes; but I cannot tell to a moment. But the chairs and tables were turned over?—Yes; there was a struggle all around the table and then back again. Do you remember Mr. Stokes's saying any thing?—l remember his saying, 'Sir Samuel, you are far wrong,' or some expression of that sort. Now about the insertion of letters; I need scarcely say that an Editor exercises his discretion as to the insertion of what letters he thinks proper?—Yes. And you put in Notices to Correspondents—sometimes long, sometimes short?—Yes. This Cornwall Gazette is published on the same day as your paper and in the same town?—Yes. By Mr. Crowder:—The county meeting was on the 12th of February; had you a full account of that meeting in your paper?—Yes. Sir Samuel Spry was the chairman?—Yes. I don't know if you had reporters there?—We had our ordinary reporter there. And Sir Samuel's conduct was impartial in the chair; I believe that was your own account of it?—I don't remember what account was given of it; I can't say. You wrote it; you may refresh your memory from your own paper (handing a paper to the witness).—Mr. Brown: I don't know what part of the paper you refer to. There is a vote of thanks?—Mr. Brown read from the paper that a vote of thanks to Sir Samuel Spry for his able and impartial conduct in the chair, was carried unanimously. By Mr. Collier:—You were not at the meeting yourself? I was not. What my learned friend alludes to is that a vote of thanks was given at the meeting?—Yes; no opinion given by the paper. I was only going to ask you about the mode in which you conduct your paper; you say you sometimes insert notices to correspondents, of different lengths?—Yes. Do you make a difference in considering whether you insert a letter or not, whether it comes from the person who writes it, or from another paper?— I make a point that in every case the name be sent, in confidence. That, to protect yourselves?—Yes: just so. I understand you to say that this letter was merely sent from another paper without any message at all?— Exactly; I did not understand, and I told him so, that I did not even know that he wished it to be inserted. I suppose you two Editors, in the same town, insert paragraphs sent from each other?—Yes. Does that apply to ordinary paragraphs, or to letters?—It is an unusual thing with letters; paragraphs are sometimes sent, and not unusually advertisements, I understand. Joseph Harvey examined by Mr. Collier.—I was in the shop of the West Briton on the 8th of March. I am in the employ of Mr. Heard. I remember Sir Samuel Spry coming; he had a whip with him. I was sent by Mr. Heard to the Editor, Mr. Brown; and I went there. When I got to his lodgings I knocked at the door, and just as I knocked at the door, I heard some person say "no such thing." With that the servant came to the door, and I asked if Mr. Brown was in. She said "yes, he is engaged with Sir Samuel Spry." I looked in at the window; I saw Mr. Stokes; he was saying "for God's sake, don't Sir Samuel." That he said two or three times. Sir Samuel Spry had his back towards me, with his whip raised, apparently cutting Mr. Brown over the forehead. Cross-examined by Mr. Crowder:—Did he cut deeply into his forehead?—I can't say; his back was towards me. You say you heard Mr. Stokes saying "for God's sake, don't, Sir Samuel?"—Yes. The window was shut, I believe?—It was open, to the best of my knowledge. Mary Lowry, examined by Mr. Karslake:—I live at Truro. Mr. Brown has apartments in my house. I recollect Sir Samuel Spry coming there to see him in March last. I did not open the door to Sir Samuel, and did not see him come in. After he had come in, I heard something pass. As soon as Mr. Brown entered, I heard them talking very loud for some few minutes. The door was closed when he entered. I heard loud talking, and in a very short time a scuffle and great noise. The furniture was knocking about, and I felt much alarmed. I should think this lasted about 4 or 5 minutes. After that, Mr. Brown came out of the room, and I observed his forehead; his forehead was scourged very much, and was blue. After that, Sir Samuel Spry left the room, and Mr. Stokes followed him. I heard Mr. Stokes say as they left the room, "I wish you had not done that, Sir." It was in a low tone, but distinct enough for me to hear him. John Macfarlane Heard, examined by Mr. Karslake:—I am manager of the West Briton. The practice regarding those slips spoken of is that all matters understood to be exchangeable matters, such as inquests and matters occurring every week, are sent without notice being written on them, or message sent with them. But with such things as advertisements or letters, written orders or verbal messages are required. The usual practice is that with a letter—such for instance as the slip referred to, signed S. T. Spry—if I were going to send it to the Cornwall Gazette, I should erase the words "West Briton” and substitute Cornwall Gazette, and as well send word from whom it was received with a request that it be inserted. That was done with Mr. Pendarves's letter, sent the fortnight previous. In this case of Sir S. Spry's letter, nothing was sent besides the slip; it was not, I believe, accompanied with any message. I did not receive any message. It was sent in a very unusual way. Cross-examined by Mr. Crowder:—By whom was it delivered to you?—By one of the Cornwall Gazette men. It was not delivered to me. The slip was not delivered to you?—No, certainly not. My place is in my office. The slip was delivered to one of the young men in the establishment; which I don’t know. The young man delivered no message to me. Re-examined:—Would it have been the duty of the clerk, or young man in the shop, if there had been a message to deliver it to you?—It would have been their duty. Mr. CROWDER then addressed the jury for the defence:—Gentlemen of the jury, I very much regret, with my learned friend, that this matter should be brought into this court, before 12 special jurymen to try. My learned friend regretted deeply that he should have the painful duty of laying this case before you. I say nothing particular as to any painful duty in the case; but I regret that such a trumpery case should be brought before you. My learned friend amused me much by his taking credit for his clients not bringing an action for damages. I should like to know what damages they would ever have got, looking to the insult given to Sir Samuel Spry.—My learned friend should have told you this, with respect to an indictment—that if you indict a man and there has been the slightest finger laid on him without a finger having been laid on the other person by him, he is guilty on that indictment; no provocation in words is sufficient justification for laying a single finger on a man. For instance, a man may be called a liar, impertinent, and mean, or anything else to excite his anger or indignation, yet if he lays his hand on the party, he is guilty of a breach of the law. The object here is to have Sir Samuel Spry brought before this county, and indicted as a person guilty of a breach of the law. My learned friend said, as High Sheriff he was performing his duty in this county not long since. That is very true. There is no question that Mr. Brown has had his revenge. He has had up the name of Sir Samuel Spry. At the last assizes there was an indictment preferred for assault; and now there is a trial for a breach of the peace. That will quite satisfy the Editor of the West Briton. I think it is not quite fair that I should let the matter drop here. I do think attention should be called to the occasion of the squabbling and struggle that took place. All that Sir Samuel Spry wishes is that the matter should be fairly understood in the county; and, if he has been, in a moment of irritation, guilty of a breach of the law, it will be your duty to find him guilty, and it will be for the Court of Queen's Bench to take the matter into consideration and see what the law would assign in the way of punishment. You will recollect there was a public meeting held, at which Sir Samuel Spry was chairman, by virtue of his office of High Sheriff. I presume that it appeared to that meeting that there was no impropriety of conduct—no partiality, on his part. It is very true it is usual to pass a vote of approbation for a person's able and impartial conduct in the chair; but if a man had been guilty of partiality, there would be some persons to object to the passing of that vote. Sir Samuel Spry was there in his capacity of High Sheriff. The Under Sheriff of course was there also. A number of gentlemen who are unable, from their other avocations, to attend these meetings, send letters, and, if they are persons of respectability and station in the county, these letters are usually read as an excuse for their not being present. It appears there were a great number of letters on this occasion, and that one coming from Mr. Pendarves (a highly respected gentleman) was among the letters read by the Under Sheriff; a good many of them not being read; Canon Rogers's was not read; Mr. Pendarves's was not read in full. I don't complain, whatever Sir S. Spry may think, of Mr. Pendarves supposing there had been some suppression. Mr. Pendarves was not at the meeting, and had no reporter there; but Mr. Brown had those there on whom he could rely for taking an accurate note of the proceedings. Therefore Mr. Pendarves might have thought there was something apparently partial; and he wrote a letter, which was published in the West Briton, in which he charged that there had been an omission of reading part of his letter, and that that portion might have been explanatory of the other portion. With respect to Mr. Pendarves, whether he was correct or not, we have nothing to do with. But Sir S. Spry writes a letter in which he wishes the public to know what his conduct was with reference to the supposed suppression of part of Mr. Pendarves's letter. He writes that letter in order that it might be circulated as widely as possible. It certainly was not a small charge to make against a person occupying the position of High Sheriff presiding over a great county meeting, that he was guilty of partiality— especially with reference to an opponent. Mr. Pendarves having thought fit to publish his letter in the West Briton, Sir S. Spry wished to have a counter-publication, or at all events, a representation of what the facts were. Up to this time then there is nothing wrong in Sir Samuel Spry's conduct. That letter he wished circulated in the two important papers in the county, published at Truro—the Cornwall Gazette and West Briton. These papers are of different political views. Accordingly he sends his letter to the Cornwall Gazette, and he wished it to be published also in the West Briton. As far as Sir Samuel Spry believed, wishing it to be inserted in the West Briton, it would get there in ordinary course. Instead of sending the manuscript, those two papers are on those friendly terms, though adverse papers, they send it on a slip; where one receives a letter, it sends a slip with a message, if necessary—if the letter does not speak for itself, and then it is inserted in the other paper. On this occasion, this letter of Sir S. Spry's was sent to the Cornwall Gazette, and intended also for the West Briton, that those persons should have it who had had a view of Mr. Pendarves's letter in that paper. You will see whether this letter is properly deserving of the extraordinary remarks that Mr. Brown thought it his duty as Editor to make on it. That letter begins thus:— Sir, I observe in your paper of last week a letter from Mr. Pendarves charging me with want of courtesy and injustice, because I did not read in full his letter to me, relative to his non-attendance at the last County Meeting; and insinuating that the omission was made for some undefined reasons. Permit me in reply to remind the Hon M.P., that when he brings unfounded charges against another, he should take care not to make them so applicable to himself. Most persons I think, will agree with me, that the more gentlemanly and courteous line of conduct would have been, for him to have written to me. Sir Samuel Spry thought, between himself and Mr. Pendarves, that the sending a letter immediately to the paper was hardly the thing—was not exactly the course he should have adopted; but that he should rather have written to him. He says— I should most readily have complied with his wish, by giving to the public, without any curtailment, his valuable epistle, containing such sympathy for the distress of his Agricultural Constituents. You must allow for their different political views. Mr. Pendarves is on one side on a question of very great importance at the present time, and Sir Samuel Spry is on the other. Then he says— "Mr. Pendarves asserts that his was the only one not read at length. I beg to state, in answer to this assumption, that some of the letters were not read at all—that of the Rev. Canon Rogers, for example, with many others, expressing opinions quite as valuable and interesting to the county as those of the hon. M.P., though of an opposite character. If there be blame, it rests with the Under-Sheriff who, from the number of letters received, and the evident impatience of the meeting at hearing so many, in the exercise of a sound discretion, curtailed some, and omitted others, without reference to party." It was really important that Sir Samuel Spry, who had been supposed by a gentleman in Mr. Pendarves’s station to have lent himself in any way to curtail improperly any letter he had sent—that he should have had the means of telling his own story, that it was done by the Under-Sheriff without reference to party. Many of you know that persons get impatient at long letters being read. Mr. Pendarves's was rather a long letter. That was what Sir S. Spry wished to have circulated in the county. Then he goes on; and this is really a matter between himself and Mr. Pendarves— (Mr. Crowder then read the remainder of Sir Samuel Spry's letter, as we have given it in Mr. Collier's speech). This letter was sent and was published in the Cornwall Gazette. Why was it not published in the West Briton? It was not published by Mr. Brown; but this was published in lieu of it. Sir Samuel Spry expects to find his letter in both papers; instead of which he finds this— "A strange piece of impertinence, with the signature of "S. T. Spry," has found its way to our office." Do you believe that is bona fide—that Mr. Brown, the editor, thinks that some document, he did not know how, had found its way to his office? They have called Mr. Heard who says that he received no message. He did not receive the slip at all. He was not the person to whom the slip was given. One of his young people received the slip. If the person to whom the slip was given had been called, then you would have ascertained if there was a message given or not. Here is a charge made by Mr. Pendarves referring to Sir S. Spry's conduct at a great public meeting. Sir S. Spry sends a document; the letter comes to the office with Sir Samuel Spry's name as a signature; and yet it is pretended by Mr. Brown that he did not know how it got there or whom it came from. Mr. Brown says he did not get a message; and Mr. Heard says he did not get a message; and then, Mr. Brown says, he writes this. But, you find, when he is questioned about it, he says his best reason is that he should not have inserted it because it was impertinent. He said he had no doubt that it came from Sir Samuel Spry, and he knew that the object was to have it inserted in the West Briton. But, instead of doing that, he puts in this notice. It will be for you to judge where the impertinence lies:— "The communication which has been sent us, however, is written with so much of the spirit of an insolent "partizan," This is rather strong language. "that it is difficult to believe it to be the production of a man holding the office of High Sheriff." Then we come again:— "The meanness and paltry spirit of the writer may be judged of from the fact that he actually attempts to throw the blame of the omission on the Under Sheriff. "If there be blame," he says "it rests with the Under Sheriff;" and as if this was not explicit enough, he recurs to the subject a few lines after, and adds, “I think it right to declare that all letters were given to the Under Sheriff” to read, and to be dealt with as he should see fit.” He puts in this Notice to Correspondents. So that somebody sent this slip that happened to have the name of Sir Samuel Spry; he chooses to call it a strange piece of impertinence and then he characterizes it in these very strong terms, particularly referring to ungentlemanly feeling and the spirit of a partisan. Do you think that is correct or not? I must ask this—do you think that calculated to wound the feelings of a person in the position of Sir Samuel Spry? He thought he had been exceedingly ill-treated by the Editor to whom he had sent a letter, and who might make strong comments on the letter if he had published it. But he chooses not to publish it at all, and yet makes his comment. And his reason is, because it was published in another paper. Perhaps a great many people take in both papers; but a great many take in only one according to their opinions. Most people, I believe, adhere to that paper that speaks generally their sentiments. And so, he would have this published to all the world who read the West Briton, and he considered it quite sufficient justice to let them read the letter in the other paper, if they thought proper to go and buy the other paper. With the views that Sir Samuel Spry had, he goes to Mr. Stokes, a solicitor, known to many of you—not at all a man to excite others; he walks with him to get an explanation from Mr. Brown. Then, in order to show there was some premeditated design on the part of Sir S. Spry to inflict punishment on Mr. Brown, it is said he goes fortified with a horse-whip. One of the witnesses said 'I had seen him once before with a horsewhip.' Sir S. Spry is a gentleman who has a great deal to do with horses. But at that time, Mr. Stokes could not have had the slightest idea of his going to horsewhip any man. Mr. Stokes is his attorney. It is the very last thing, if you wanted to commit a breach of the peace, to say to your attorney 'come along with me; l am going to horsewhip a man.' It is not like taking a surgeon to see how far he could go, and how much bleeding he could bear, (laughter). Why, the law will not allow you to touch him at all. I apprehend that he did not go with the premeditated purpose. He took his own attorney with him for the purpose of getting an explanation. He did not believe that Mr. Brown would not insert his letter, and also insert some contradiction of the extraordinary language which he put in that paper. Then he goes with Mr. Stokes. You have two or three witnesses who speak of the great excitement he was in—that he was walking up and down and switched his whip. Did he say any thing? He said not one word. It seems that that excitement must have gradually subsided before he called on Mr. Brown; for Mr. Brown says he was not excited when he called at first. A witness says he was excited when he called at Mr. Heard's; and some other man says he was excited when he saw him. But all that is merely idle. They went to Mr. Brown. Then Sir Samuel Spry asks for an explanation. He does not horsewhip the man immediately. He seeks explanation. What sort of explanation does he get? Instead of any explanation, he gets additional insult, additional indignity, additional strong terms used. No doubt on that occasion there arises a scuffle, and there arises from the scuffle, a scratch. There is a scratch, because it is proved by two witnesses; they are not content with the evidence of Mr. Brown, but they call the nurse (laughter). There is no doubt about the striking with that jockey switch as it is called, and that there was a scratch afterwards. I cannot help thinking there are very few men who, if they had had a switch with them, could have avoided using it under such circumstances. There is some language—there are words which, though in point of law they justify nothing, yet in the ordinary course of life, they make a man very much inclined to do an act of that sort; but still that is no satisfaction in point of law. Sir Samuel Spry complained of his letter not being inserted; he began by asking him to contradict that paragraph. Mr. Brown said he should not; and there is not one word in that interview of the least soothing or conciliatory character on the part of Mr. Brown, but directly the reverse. He says he wrote it and that he would not contradict it at all. He says ‘I explained to him that the letter had come on a printed slip without a message.' That was no reason at all; he knew it came from Sir Samuel Spry and that it was intended to be inserted in the West Briton. Then he told him, 'I consider this letter impertinent, and on that ground I should not have inserted it, if it had come in the most regular manner.' On that, Sir S. Spry, who had appeared very much excited when he was walking before Mr. Heard's, never touched him. Then he goes on. Sir S. Spry says, ‘at all events you have charged me with being mean, and that is what I shall not allow.' Sir S. Spry, so far from going with a premeditated intention, tries to get an explanation. Sir S. Spry tries to avoid any thing more than getting a contradiction or retractation of the terms used against him. Mr. Brown said he would not. On that he says, 'he took me by the collar; I felt the whip raised; I put my hand up; the whip did fall once or twice on my collar.' But that did not hurt him. Then there was a struggle, and a scratch given him on the forehead, and two or three pair of blows on each side. He said it lasted two or three minutes; but it must have been seconds, for Mr. Stokes immediately interposed, and there was an end of this affray. That is the whole affair, on which it has been deemed of sufficient importance to the ends of justice that 12 gentlemen of this county should be impannelled, and that a gentleman who was High Sheriff in a former year should be indicted for a violation of the laws of the country. According to the evidence, I believe the fact was, that being irritated as he was by the constant determination—the dogged manner in which Mr. Brown determined that he would not retract one word, Sir S. Spry seized the whip that was on the table and did strike a blow; Mr Stokes interfered and there the affray ended. I think if Mr Brown had been well-advised, he might have considered that that conduct was justifiable. Although they were political opponents, I think it would have been more fair if the letter had been inserted, and then he might have made his comments on it. But, when he made comments on the letter and refused to insert that letter, that was unfair. That was what Sir S. Spry complained of. Mr. Brown stood on the rights of his editorship; he would not contradict or retract; and Sir Samuel Spry, in a hasty moment, was induced to commit the assault. It is fit that I should make known this statement as to the assault. I believe as to the verdict there is not much for you to consider; you will hear from his lordship that if he struck him without any assault or any attempt on the part of Mr. Brown, then, in point of law, a verdict of guilty must pass. THE LEARNED JUDGE then briefly summed up. Nothing is more correct than what has been stated by Counsel, that no amount of provocation in words or writing will justify an assault. The simple question is whether an assault has been committed by the defendant on the person of Mr. Brown. The evidence on that point seems to be conclusive. No question is raised, on cross-examination, as to the correctness of the evidence given by Mr. Brown; and if that evidence be correct, there can be no question of the assault by Sir Samuel Spry; and, that being so, the verdict of guilty must pass. The Jury returned a verdict of GUILTY. This being the last of the civil business, the Court proceeded to try the following criminal case:— JOHN DONEY, 44, was charged with having, on the 16th of July, at the parish of St. Cleer, stolen a quantity of hay, the property of John Honey. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. The Court then rose. (Before Mr. Justice Coleridge). SATURDAY, July 27. WILLIAM GIBSON, 21, who had pleaded GUILTY of having on the 3rd of May set fire to a stack of hay, the property of Wm. Saundrey, in the parish of Launcells, was brought up to receive sentence. The learned Judge impressively addressed the prisoner, pointing out the enormity of the offence. He did not know that this county had been much disgraced by crimes of this kind; but when incendiarism gets into the county, it generally spreads like an infectious disease; therefore crimes of this description must be put down at once— people must be made to know that such offences cannot be committed without exposing the criminal to severe punishment. After then representing the hardships attending transportation as a punishment, the learned Judge sentenced the prisoner to be transported for ten years. ROBERT HOOD, otherwise HOWARD, 61, was indicted for feloniously ravishing Elizabeth Ann Warmington, at Penryn, on the 18th of May last. The offence was clearly proved, the little girl on whom the outrage was committed being about eleven years old.—Sentence, twenty years' transportation. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.—THOMAS BAKER, the younger, was indicted, and also charged on the Coroner's inquisition, with killing and slaying William Coles. Mr. COLE for the prosecution, and Mr. COLLIER for the prisoner. The witnesses called for the prosecution were W. Uglow, farmer at Week St. Mary, W. Spry, W. Fry, Mr. Tooke?, surgeon, and a woman called Veal. It appeared that on the 27th of last May (being fair day at Week St. Mary) a number of persons were drinking at the New Inn, in that place. Prisoner and the deceased man Coles were amongst the number, both being somewhat intoxicated, the prisoner particularly so. Prisoner was very quarrelsome and challenging others to fight. Deceased was sitting in the kitchen in a very quiet manner. Prisoner at first seemed friendly with deceased, but afterwards in his drunkenness he wanted him to fight, asking deceased if he were a man for him? Coles said, "yes, I don't care for you, or all the Bakers in the parish." Coles, however, did not get up to fight, but continued sitting quietly on his chair. Prisoner asked, "shall I strike you?" and Coles said, "you may if you like." Prisoner then struck him once or twice, not very hard, as the blow did not knock him off the chair; prisoner continued sitting there, but presently fell off bleeding at the mouth, and was a dead man from an attack of apoplexy. The counsel for the prosecution endeavoured to show that one of the blows was struck on the jugular vein, and was the cause of death; that if the man was predisposed to apoplexy its attack was hastened by the blow, and the prisoner was guilty of manslaughter. On the other hand, counsel for the prisoner argued that deceased being constitutionally disposed to apoplexy, had increased the danger of its coming on by drinking to excess, at a time when by an unfortunate occurrence he received a slight blow, which, however, had nothing to do with his death, because he would have died at that time and in that way if no blow had been given. There was considerable difference between the witnesses as to the part of the body on which deceased received the blow. The surgical evidence having been given, the learned Judge told the jury that unless they were clearly of opinion that the blow had something to do with the death of the deceased, they must acquit the prisoner of the charge of manslaughter, but they might find him guilty of assault. Verdict, GUILTY OF ASSAULT.— Sentence, Three months' hard labour. GEORGE SMITH, 27, was indicted for obtaining from Luke Warne Mitchell, at thimble-rig, a sovereign and half-sovereign; another count charged him with obtaining the same under false pretences; a third count charged the conspiring with another person to obtain the money. A similar indictment was laid against the prisoner for obtaining money from Edward Dunstone. It was stated that the prisoner was apprehended and with two other confederates was to have been tried at the last summer assizes. Prisoner, however, escaped from custody before his trial; the others were tried and acquitted on account of a fault in the indictment. Prisoner was now found GUILTY, and sentenced to be transported for Seven Years. The jury was then discharged. SATURDAY, July 27. (Before Mr. Russell Gurney, Q.C.) JOHN SCOWN, 35, THOMAS DARCH, 30, and HENRY DARCH, 20, were charged with having feloniously broken and entered a certain building, at the parish of Stratton, on the 22d of July, and stolen therefrom a quantity of wheat and a peck measure, the property of Richard Cotton, farmer.—Scown pleaded GUILTY, alleging that he was driven to it by starvation; he also pleaded guilty of having been previously convicted of felony.—The charge against the Darches was proved by the evidence of the prosecutor, who, having lost quantities of corn, kept watch of his stable and corn-loft, with two men, on the night of the 21st July; and by the evidence of Goddard the policeman of Stratton, who, in addition to statements more particularly affecting the present case, stated that he found in Thomas Darch's house, as many as 37 keys of different sorts; and it was proved that the stable leading to the corn-loft was opened by means of a key applied to the padlock.—The jury found both Darches GUILTY. A previous conviction was proved against Thomas.—The sentences passed were as follow:—Scown, twelve months hard labor (sic); Thomas Darch, seven years transportation; and Henry Darch, six months hard labor. GRACE WORDEN PASCOE, 13, was found GUILTY of stealing some pieces of bacon, on the 13th of July, at Guinea Port, in the parish of St. Breock, from her master, Mr. Edward Edwards.—Two months hard labor. WILLIAM LEE, 35, found GUILTY of stealing, on the 7th of July, two fagots of wood, the property of John Every, farmer, at Axford, in the parish of St. Mellion.—Sentence, three months hard labor.—It came out in the course of the trial that the prosecutor had offered a reward of 10 shillings to a man whom he employed to watch, for the detection of the suspected thief. The learned Judge strongly expressed his disapproval of such a course, as offering a great temptation to the person to whom it was offered, to get up a charge against some party or other. SAMUEL ELLIS, 30, charged with having, on the night of the 16th of July, broken and entered a stable, belonging to Thomas Treweeke Golding, at Golding's Hotel, Callington, and stolen therefrom two grey coats, one suit of black clothes, a hat, a silk handkerchief, a pair of gloves, and a scarf or comfortable, the property of John Hatch Box, one of Mr. Golding's post-boys; and a pair of trousers, the property of Nicholl Nicholls, another of the post-boys.—The stolen articles were pawned at Mr. Endon's pawn-shop in Ordnance-street, Devonport, on the 17th of July; and the prisoner was also apprehended in Devonport. When he was taken to the stationhouse in that town, he cried and said he ought to be transported for robbing young Box, who had behaved very kind to him.—GUILTY.—Nine months hard labour. CHARLES PROWSE, 22, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 20th of June, a lamb, the property of William Nicholls, farmer, at Trenethick, in the parish of Madron.—Sentence, twelve months hard labour. —There was only one bill ignored by the Grand Jury—that against Jane Menneer for stealing money from the person of Nicholas Rush of Michaelstow. —The Jury were then discharged. —In the evening, the Judges proceeded to Boconnoc, the seat of the Hon. G. M. Fortescue; and would proceed thence into Devonshire on Monday.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 18 October 1850

6. Michaelmas Sessions

These Sessions were opened on Tuesday the 15th inst.,, before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., chairman; Sir W. L. S. Trelawny, Bart. H. Thomson, Esq. The Right Hon. the Earl of Falmouth Augustus Smith, Esq. Sir C. Lemon, Bart., M.P. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Sir J. S. Graves Sawle, Bart. E. Stephens, Esq. Sir S. T. Spry, Knight J. Coryton Roberts, Esq. J. Hearle Tremayne, Esq. D. P. Hoblyn, Esq. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq., M.P. T. J. H. Peter, Esq. T. J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. R. Johns, Esq. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. W. P. Kempe, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. R. Spry, Esq. E. Archer, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan F. Rodd, Esq. --— R. G. Grylls J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. --— T. Pascoe J. S. Enys, Esq. --— W. Molesworth St. Aubyn C. G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. --— R. Buller F. Glanville, Esq. --— A. Tatham F. J. Hext, Esq. --— J. Bird D. P. Le Grice, Esq. --— R. S. Bree In the course of the usual preliminary business of the Court, the CHAIRMAN again complained of Jury Lists not being returned in proper time by the high constables; observing that the legality of those lists might be affected by their not being presented within the time prescribed by Act of Parliament. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Messrs. G. Tallack, St. Austell, foreman; R. Arthur, Creed; J. Bennetts, Mylor; R. Best, St. Columb Major; W. Brown, St. Austell; J. Bull Budock; G. Canning, St. Anthony in Roseland; J. Cardell, St. Columb Major; J. Chapman, Probus; R. Doble, Probus; G. Furneaux, Penryn; W. Huddy, Probus; S. R. Jago, Mevagissey; W. Jago, St. Austell; R. Kendall, Mawgan in Pydar; S. Lawry, St. Anthony in Roseland; W. Lewis, Budock; R. Littleton, Lanlivery; W. Michell, Gwennap; J. Moyle, Kea; H. O. Olivey, Mylor; T. Thomas, Mawgan in Pydar; T. Tremain, St. Merryn. After the reading of the Queen’s Proclamation for the encouragement of virtue, the CHAIRMAN delivered his Charge to the Grand Jury:—[not transcribed] VISITING JUSTICES' REPORT.—The visiting Justices had much pleasure in stating to the Sessions, that the Gaol and Bridewell continued in their usual good order, and that the prisoners were orderly, and in good health.—Although the number of prisoners was decreased, the visiting Justices still found that the Governor of the Gaol had great difficulty in classifying the prisoners, so as to prevent the old offender from contaminating the man who was committed for his first offence.—This report was signed by C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq., C. G Prideaux Brune, Esq., and F. J. Hext, Esq. SURGEON'S ANNUAL REPORT.—Joseph Hamley, Esq., surgeon, reported that the prisoners had been generally healthy since his last report; a very few cases of serious illness having occurred, and only one case of death—that of Mary Robinson who was in a very diseased state when admitted. There was at present, one patient in the Male Infirmary, and one in the Female Infirmary, both now in a state of convalescence. The following was the number of cases since the last report:— Males. Females. Slight Indisposition 105 30 Infirmary Cases 14 5 Criminal Lunatics — 1 Deaths — 1 Greatest number at one time 7 5 CHAPLAIN'S REPORT.—The following was the annual report presented by the Rev. N. Kendall, chaplain to the Gaol:— Gentlemen, I have the honour of submitting to your notice my annual report of the moral and religious information of prisoners committed to your Gaol and House of Correction, during the past year, ending October 8, 1850. I have much satisfaction in being able to state, that the number of committals this year is less than that of 1849 by 220. I annex tables to this report, viz:—No. 1, shewing the moral education of prisoners received during the year; No. 2, their religious information; No 3, the particulars of 67 re-committals; No. 4, the offences for which they have been committed; No. 5, the number of prisoners in each of the years ending Oct. 8th, 1848, 1849, and 1850; No 6, the native places of prisoners received during the past year.—The prisoners generally evince much desire for instruction, and the progress they make in learning fully satisfies me that the instruction they receive may, under God's blessing, be the means of causing many of them to lead better lives. The schoolmaster continues to give much satisfaction, although unable, owing to the multiplicity of his duties as Clerk to the Prison, to devote as much time as is requisite to the business of the school. I feel it my bounden duty to state, that I find the congregating of prisoners to be a most pernicious plan, detrimental both to their moral and religious condition. Boys of a tender age are obliged to be associated with men of the most depraved characters, and soon become, by means of this association, familiar with every species of vice and immorality.—The Sunday and daily service has been duly performed, and the Holy Sacrament administered four times a year. The prisoners are assembled constantly for religious instruction, and I have regularly visited every prisoner confined under sentence and for prison offences in the solitary cells. I continue to receive every assistance I may require from our excellent Governor, and from the subordinate officers. I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, NICHOLAS KENDALL, Chaplain. Bodmin, October 15, 1850. [Abstracts from the tables above referred to by the chaplain not transcribed] [CORONER'S BILLS.—not transcribed] BRIDGES.—Mr. Moorman, surveyor for the Western district, reported that the magistrates appointed at the last sessions to inspect the state of Ruthern Bridge, had made that inspection, and would present their statement at these sessions.—The Rev. Vyell Vyvyan handed in the report of the inspecting magistrates, who stated, that by the raising of a dam the whole course of the river had been diverted for the use of some stream works, and in consequence the river had been ponded at a certain part. The Justices did not apprehend any danger to the bridge from this dam at present, unless an embankment of a more permanent nature were constructed. They recommended the County to rebuild a few yards of the Eastern parapet, to make the eastern approach to the bridge more easy.—In consequence of this report, it was moved by Mr. Enys and seconded by Mr. BENNET, that it be left to the magistrates of the two divisions to arrange with the Contractor and the parish of Withiel, for the repairs of the east wall of this bridge; to ascertain also the portion that should be paid by the contractor, and that by the parish, and what, if any portion, should be paid by the County.—This resolution was carried. —Mr. Pease, surveyor for the Eastern division, reported some small payments for Bridge repairs. He also complained that it was the practice of some persons to deposit heaps of dirt by the side of the roads and in the water tables within the County right. As persons thus offending were liable to be fined, he had directed the Bridge Contractors to summon before the magistrates all who did not desist from so acting.—The Chairman observed, that such persons ought certainly to be summoned before the magistrates of the Division wherein the offence was committed. GOVERNOR'S REPORT.—The Governor of the Gaol had much pleasure in referring to the present condition of the prison, not only as regarded the number of prisoners in custody, but also as to their general orderly conduct. He had no doubt that the Chaplain and the Surgeon of the prison would give equally favourable reports of their respective departments. But, notwithstanding this favourable state of things, he continued to feel the necessity of separate confinement, in order to prevent moral contamination and permanently to benefit the prisoners.—A certificate was appended, that the rules and regulations of the prison had been as far as practicable, complied with, and that the buildings of the prison, with the exception of some of the roofs, were generally in good repair. The CHAIRMAN next read the following Comparative Statement of prisoners in custody at the Michaelmas Sessions in 1849 and 1850:— 1849. —Felons in custody 20 do. on bail 4 Misdemeanants in custody 2 For assaults in custody 1 For breach of the peace 1 28 1850. —Felons in custody 22 do. on bail 4 Misdemeanants in custody 1 do. on bail 1 28 [GAOL EXPENSES for the past quarter—Not transcribed] MAINTENANCE OF SMUGGLERS.—Mr. SAWLE wished to mention a matter which came under the notice of the magistrates when they were inspecting the gaol account. It appeared that the expenses of prisoners sent to the gaol for offences against the Customs were repaid to the County by the Customs Department, with the exception of 4l. odd, which they stated applied to prisoners who were able to maintain themselves. That opinion appeared to be founded on a letter from the Customs Officer at Falmouth, to the effect that he believed a prisoner committed for smuggling was able to maintain himself, on which the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury deducted 4l. odd from the bill for maintenance. This seemed rather extraordinary, for it could not be expected that the Governor of the prison should go about the County to ascertain whether or not certain prisoners could maintain themselves, and it seemed hard that the rate- payers should have to maintain Crown prisoners merely on the statement of a Collector of Customs, that he believed, or understood, that a certain prisoner was able to maintain himself. In fact there was actually an order of the Secretary of the State that convicted prisoners were not to maintain themselves in gaol, and smugglers were convicted prisoners. The Visiting Justices had written to the Lords Commissioners, and received the laconic reply that they had had the statement from the Collector; and therefore they declined to pay. He was afraid they could not decline to receive these parties into the gaol, or to maintain them; the Governor, on saying to those men "I understand you can maintain yourselves,” immediately receives the reply, " we have not got one shilling.”—Mr. Everest then handed in one of the certificates to the effect that James Easton had been convicted in 100l. for smuggling—that in default of payment he had been committed to the County Gaol, “and in our opinion he is in circumstances to maintain himself under confinement." Custom-house Falmouth, 5th April 1845; signed by Mr. Foot, the late Collector and Mr. Hearle, Comptroller.—Mr. Sawle observed that the Certificate merely stated their opinion that the man could maintain himself; he understood there was now a man in Court who actually knew that some of the parties to whom the certificates applied, could not maintain themselves. He (Mr. Sawle) thought the fair way would be for the Customs to pay the maintenance bill, and afterwards to recover it from the parties themselves. Mr. TREMAYNE moved that the visiting justices be recommended to apply to the Secretary of State on the subject, which was seconded by Mr. SAWLE, and carried nem. con. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.—The Clerk Peace's bill for this purpose, under the Act 6th Victoria, amounted to 39l. 7s. 9d., being somewhat less, the Chairman observed than the bill of the corresponding quarter of last year. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—The CHAIRMAN stated that there were inspectors of weights and measures to be appointed in the place of Mr. John Sargent for the Launceston district, and Mr W. Porchas for the Penzance district; and he believed the Clerk had a great number of testimonials.—After considerable discussion as to the most convenient mode of procedure, it was arranged that as many of the magistrates as thought proper might form an open committee in the Nisi Prius Hall, for the purpose of examining the numerous testimonials in behalf of the several candidates, of whom there were no fewer than 14 for the Launceston district, and 27 for the Penzance district.—After some considerable time, during which the trials of the three first prisoners were proceeded with, the Committee of Magistrates returned into Court, and Mr. Sawle stated that they had examined the various testimonials in respect of the Launceston district, and reported the following names as having received most satisfactory testimonials:—Mr. Thos. Shearm, land surveyor, of Launceston; Mr. John Hoskin, engineer, of Redruth; Mr. J. B. Bate, of ; Mr. Samuel Grigg, of , farmer; Mr. G. M. Gifford, of Newport by Launceston, insurance agent & land surveyor; Mr. J. T. Pearce, of Launceston; Mr. Isaac Elford, of Liskeard; Mr. J. Geach, of Truro; Mr. R. Easterbrook, of St. Stephens in Branwell ; and Mr. Thomas Wills, farmer, of Egloshayle.—The following candidates were then proposed and seconded:—Mr. Thomas Shearm, proposed by Capt. Thompson, and seconded by Capt. Morshead; Mr. G. M. Gifford, proposed by Mr. Archer, seconded by Mr. Rodd; Mr. T. Wills, by Mr. Stephens, and Sir J. S. G. Sawle, Bart.; Mr. S. Grigg, by the Rev. R. Buller and Mr. Robartes; Mr. J T. Pearce, by Sir W. Trelawny and the Rev. J. Bird.—The following were the results of the show of hands:— For Mr. T. Shearm 3 Mr. Gifford 15 Mr. Wills 4 Mr. Grigg 2 Mr. Pearce 2 On the motion of Mr. ARCHER, seconded by Mr. RODD, Mr. Gifford was then appointed Inspector for the Launceston district; on which announcement, he returned thanks to the Bench. The Committee of Magistrates then retired to examine the testimonials of candidates for the inspectorship of weights and measures in the Penzance district :—At a late hour, they reported, through their chairman, Mr. Sawle, that the testimonials of the following candidates were extremely good:—Mr. T. Roberts, Liskeard; Mr. W. Johns, Truro; Mr. John James, Falmouth; Mr. Elias Gundry, ; Mr. A. Purchas, Penzance; Mr. E. Bellringer, Truro; Mr. J. Friggins, Gulval ; Mr. T. Symons, Veryan; Mr. John Permewan, Penzance ; Mr. S. Lawry, St. Stephens in Branwell ; Mr. R. Trevorrow, Redruth ; Mr. James Bosustow, Paul; Mr. H. Jane, Truro.— Mr. Alfred Purchas, watchmaker, of Penzance, son of the late inspector for that district, was then proposed by the Rev. T. Pascoe, and seconded by Mr. D. P. Le Grice.—No other candidate was proposed; and Mr. Alfred Purchas was declared duly elected. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JAMES THOMAS, 35, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 21st of August a silver watch, the property of Walter Thomas. (Sentence: Three months’ hard labour) WILLIAM TURNER, 18, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 4th of October, at Egloshayle, a calico shirt, the property of Thomas Kendall. (Sentence: Three months’ hard labour) JOSEPH ORCHARD, 31, found GUILTY of stealing on the 8th of September, at the parish of St. Martin in Meneage, two tame rabbits, the property of Mr. William Martin. (Sentence: Four months’ hard labour) PATRICK CARNEY, 19, was charged with having on the 19th of August, at St. Austell, stolen two lengths of broad cloth, a length of Irish, a shawl, and a wrapper, the goods and chattels of William Phillips, draper.— Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Stokes the defence. The case was somewhat peculiar, and involved the consideration of the question of intention—felonious or otherwise—at the time when the prisoner obtained possession of the goods. It appeared, that on the morning of the 19th of August, the prisoner, who was in the habit of selling drapery goods about the country, and had often been supplied by the prosecutor with goods for that purpose, came to the prosecutor at his shop and said he wanted some goods to show to some persons at Wrestling-green, and at Charlestown. The prosecutor accordingly let him have two lengths of broad-cloth, a length of Irish, a shawl, and a wrapper to put the goods in; on condition that if the goods were not sold, they were to be returned in the evening of that day. On one of the pieces of broad-cloth, the prosecutor, not knowing its length, placed his private mark, in the presence of prisoner, at the end of 4¼ yards, beyond which mark he was not to sell. The prisoner had not returned any of the goods, nor paid the money; and prosecutor did not see him again after the 19th of August, until the following Monday in custody of a policeman.—On cross-examination, the prosecutor stated that the prisoner took the shawl on his own account for the purpose of exchanging; he also stated that he had often had dealings with the prisoner, letting him have goods to sell, and had always, before the 19th of August, found that he honestly returned the goods or paid the money for them. According to the arrangement on the 19th of August, the wrapper was to be returned; but it was worth only sixpence, and prosecutor would not have cared about the loss of that. John Westlake constable, apprehended the prisoner at Tavistock. Prisoner said he had had the goods of Phillips, and had sold them and had the money; he also said that on the morning of the 19th of August, he went from Phillips's as far as Holmbush, and there waited for the Bus, which past (sic) there at quarter before 11, and went on by it to Plymouth.—For the defence, the good character given of the prisoner by prosecutor, was strongly put to the jury, as concurring with other circumstances in the case to show that at the time the prisoner obtained possession of the goods, he had no felonious intent to convert them to his own use; and it was contended that, in point of law, the prisoner could not be found guilty unless such felonious intent at that time was clearly proved.—It was contended, on prisoner's behalf, by Mr. Stokes, that the utmost which the facts of the case proved was, that the prisoner had obtained goods for sale, for which he was still accountable to the prosecutor: but that there was no felony.—The CHAIRMAN put to the jury the point raised, on behalf of prisoner on the question of intent, directing them to give the prisoner the benefit of any doubt in this respect.—The jury, however, found a verdict of guilty.—The prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy, on account of his previous good character, and because he had a wife in delicate health wholly dependent on him. (Sentence: Two months’ hard labour) JOHN GUEST, 18, indicted for beastiality (sic), alleged to have been committed in the parish of , was acquitted; but the Chairman warned him that he had had a narrow escape. JAMES SNELL, 20, pleaded guilty of having, on the 12th of September, feloniously broken and entered the dwelling house of William Mules, in the parish of Warbstow, and stolen therefrom one dish, the property of the said William Mules.—The prisoner (one of Witheridge in the county of Devon) also confessed to having been convicted of felony at the Castle of Exeter on the 16th of March 1850. (Sentence: Ten years’ transportation) THOMAS BUNT, of St. Dennis, farmer, and HEZEKIAH BUNT, of St. Columb Major, labourer, were charged with stealing on the 26th of September, a heifer, the property of Thomas Woodward of St. Columb Major, farmer.—Mr. G. B. Collins conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Shilson the defence. The case, as stated for the prosecution was, that in August last, Hezekiah Bunt being distressed for want of money, having been distrained on for tithes, applied to the prosecutor to borrow the sum of 2l. 5s., offering to leave the heifer in question as a pledge. The prosecutor declined to accede to this proposition, and ultimately it was agreed, that instead of Hezekiah Bunt's borrowing the sum of 2l. 5s. 0d. on the security of the heifer, the prosecutor should purchase the heifer for 2l. 5s. 0d., with an understanding that if the prisoner should be able to raise the sum of 2l. 7s. 6d. within three weeks, the prosecutor should re-sell the heifer to Bunt for that sum. The prisoner did not redeem the heifer at the appointed time, and, consequently, the prosecutor considered the heifer to be his and kept her till the 24th of September,—about a fortnight beyond the time agreed on. On that day, the prisoner came to demand the heifer; but prosecutor refused to give her up. On the 26th, the two prisoners came to the prosecutor’s yard, and after some parley with prosecutor and his wife, drove away the heifer, which the prosecutor had not since able to find, although diligent search had been made.—After a lengthy examination of the prosecutor, his wife, and another witness, Mr. Shilson addressed the jury for the defence, and adduced proof that the heifer was left in prosecutor's charge as a security for the money lent by him, and that by the prosecutor’s acts and expressions in communication with the prisoners, it was clear that the opportunity of redeeming the heifer was open to Hezekiah Bunt, and that, previous to his driving away the heifer, he offered the prosecutor 21. 10s. 0d., which the latter refused to take.—The Chairman, on bearing evidence to this effect, directed a verdict of AcqAittal (sic). WEDNESDAY, Oct. 16. Before J. K. Lethbridge, Esq. WILLIAM BOUCHER, pleaded guilty, on two several indictments, of stealing on the 29th of July, at Budock, 2 pairs of boots, one pair of boot fronts, one pair of upper leathers of boots, one pound weight of leather, and one pair of shoes, the property of William Bowden; and of stealing on the 26th of July, at Falmouth, a pair of trowsers, the property of Richard Libby.—The prisoner also confessed to three previous convictions of felony—two of them were for stealing articles of clothing, and the third, in 1844, for breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Christian Treglown at Pool, and stealing therefrom a sugar-tongs and other articles of plate, the property of Alfred Treglown. (Sentence: Fourteen years’ transportation) JOHN SLEEP, pleaded guilty of stealing, in June last, at the parish of Northill, one pair of cord trowsers, the property of Samuel Hawke. (Sentence: Three months’ hard labour) CHARLES RICHARDS NANKERVIS, 21, charged with stealing, on 6th of August, at the parish of St. Austell, a coat, waistcoat, pair of trowsers, blue flannel shirt, and a pair of braces, the property of John Hortmen Rawe.—Prosecutor and prisoner were both sailors on board the Ranger, which was lying at Charlestown on the 6th of August. Prosecutor, in the evening, went into St. Austell, leaving the vessel in charge of the prisoner, and his clothes, partly in his chest and partly on his hammock. On his return to the vessel in the same evening, he found his clothes missing, and the prisoner was gone. The next day he saw his clothes in charge of the policeman.—Thomas Samuels, policeman of St. Austell, stated that, at 3 o clock in the morning of the 7th August, he saw prisoner walking with a bag in his hand, and asked him what he had there; he answered that it was his own clothes. The policeman told him he should apprehend him on suspicion of stealing part of it. He then did apprehend him and took charge of the clothes which he had in his possession since. When giving prisoner his dinner while in custody, he cried and, said he did not know what induced him to do it.—In his statement before the committing Magistrate, he said he was tempted to take the clothes and could not rest till he had done so.—The various articles were identified by the prosecutor by marks; one of which was a motto on the waistcoat, "remember the giver," worked by a young woman.—Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: Three months’ hard labour) Wm. DUNSTAN, 19, and THOMAS SYMONS, 19, charged with stealing on the 7th of October, at St. Gluvias, one duck, the property of William Reed Rowe.—On the day named, a young woman called Ann Weekes, with a little girl named Jane Pearce, was in the road near the prosecutor's house, carrying blackberries and saw prisoners standing by a stile which led through one field to prosecutor's house. She passed down the road, and stopping to rest, looked round and saw Symons beating the head of a whitish duck against the corner of Mr. Rowe's brewery. Dunstan was standing at a little distance from Symons. After Symons had beaten the head of the duck, he put it on the hedge or in a hole. The girls then informed a Mr. Henry Bennetts who went to the spot they had mentioned and found a duck, nearly white, and that had just been killed. He afterwards went to Mr. Rowe's plantation to watch, and saw Symons come in to the field over the stile; there were more than twenty ducks in the field, and Symons threw something at them. William Frederick Rogers, who went with Bennetts to watch, but who placed himself in a different position, saw Dunstan carrying a white cloth parcel, and going towards Penryn, Rogers followed him at about 15 yards distance, and saw him turn aside to a gate, and on his coming away from it he had no parcel. Rogers then went to the gate with Bennett and found the parcel, which contained a whitish duck, which he delivered to Edwards the constable; who produced it in court, and it was identified by the prosecutor who stated that he had lately lost upwards of 30 ducks.—Both GUILTY. (Sentence (each): Four months’ hard labour) CATHERINE HARRIS, 26, charged with stealing on the 14th of September, at Camborne, 20 lbs. of potatoes, the property of John Barry. (Mary Ann Johns had been indicted with Harris, but pleaded guilty)—After hearing the evidence, there appeared to be an error in the indictment as to the laying of the property; and a verdict of Acquittal was directed. The case against the prisoner was somewhat weak in other respects. (Sentence (Mary Ann Johns): One month hard labour) RICHARD DAVEY, 21, charged with attempting to commit a rape on Jane Smethern, single woman, at the parish of South Petherwin, on the 17th of June.—There was a second count for common assault.—Mr. White conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—The prosecutrix, about 17 years of age, was the daughter of Samuel Smethern, who lives at Holloway Cross Gate in the parish of South Petherwin, and keeps that turnpike gate and also Plasha Cross Gate. The prisoner lived in the parish of Lewannick, not far from Holloway Cross Gate. The prosecutrix, who lived mostly at Plasha Cross Gate was in the habit of being either there or at Holloway Cross Gate, as her father required. On Monday the 17th of June she was at Holloway Cross Gate. In the afternoon, a Mr. Westlake was in the house, and while he was there she went out to pick up some sticks for the fire. On her return into the house, Mr. Westlake had left and the prisoner had come in. She proceeded to break the stick, and while she was so engaged, he caught her round the waist, threw her on a floor near the window, and for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour endeavoured to commit the offence alleged in the indictment; the prosecutrix resisting and screeching murder. Meanwhile the father of the prosecutrix came in and found the parties in the position intimated. The prosecutrix told her father that she had called murder two or three times; and the prisoner begged the father's pardon, and hoped he would forgive him.—There was no house within hearing at Holloway Cross, but there were two roads leading by. The prosecutrix was ill afterwards, and attended by a surgeon, and, consequently, did not make her complaint to a magistrate for about two months after the occurrence.—ln cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that she had lived in Bodmin before going to Plasha Cross to live, and that the prisoner had frequently come in at Plasha Cross when she was there, but the 17th of June was the first occasion of his coming to Holloway Cross Gate.—The prosecutrix was cross-examined very minutely with the view of showing previous acquaintance and familiarities with the prisoner, and her consent to the prisoner's conduct on the 17th of June. There were also questions put with a view to show improper intimacy with other young men. The prosecutrix, however, was very firm in her denials of all such imputations.—Samuel Southern, father of the prosecutrix, stated that he was returning to Holloway Cross, about 6 o'clock in the evening, and, at 60 or 70 yards distance heard the sound of a voice, which, on approaching within 40 paces, he heard was his daughter's. She was screeching, "be quiet, be off, lev me go." Witness, when he came into the house, saw his daughter and Davey on the floor, in a position which could leave no doubt of the attempt having been made by prisoner, but they did not see him till he spoke. Witness said to Davey he would punish him. The girl said she had screeched murder 2 or 3 times. Davey begged witness to forgive him, but witness refused. A woman called Mary Deacon passing on the road, he called her in, and begged her to walk to Plasha Cross with his daughter.—Jane Smethern, wife of last witness and mother of the prosecutrix, stated that her daughter on returning to Plasha Cross in the evening appeared to be in a state of great excitement. Next morning, she examined her daughter; the only mark she observed was the bruise of a finger on the arm.— Philip Wadge, smith, stated that the prisoner came to his shop near Plasha Cross in the evening of the 17th of June, and in course of conversation, said it was a bad job, that he should have to go before the magistrates—that he had been up with Smethern's maid, and old Sam had come in and caught him. In cross- examination, Wadge said he had been expecting such a thing for some time, as Davey had followed the maid pretty much.—Mr. Shilson addressed the jury for the defence, and called the following witnesses:—Mary Beacon stated that on the day in question, she was travelling on the road to Five Lanes, when she called in by Samuel Smethern to the Holloway Cross Gate. Prisoner and prosecutrix were there. Heard prisoner ask her if he was more in fault than she was. Did not see that she was in a different state from what she was at other times; witness was in the habit of seeing her at the Toll-house two or three times a week; neither her dress nor hair was in the least disturbed. Witness, Davey, and prosecutrix all left the house together. The girl had requested her father not to have anything to do in it. As they were going on the road together, conversation passed between prisoner and prosecutrix. Davey asked her if she had any ill will towards him; she said, no; and he replied, " Jane, I owe you none." He then asked her if she did not think she was in fault as much as he was; sometimes she would answer and say no; at other times she would not speak. Something was said too about going before a magistrate; prosecutrix said to Davey that if her father did make her go before a magistrate, she would not say anything against him. When they came to Kelly's public-house on the road, witness being fatigued, said she could drink a glass of beer. Davey said if she would go in, she should have it. Witness declined to go in; and Davey and Jane Smethern said they would rather have cider. They did not drink, because witness would not go into the house. They then went on to Plasha Cross, and there Davey and Jane Smethern shook hands and parted, wishing each other good night. Witness went on with prosecutrix towards her mother's house; she said she would rather go back to Bodmin than go into her mother's house. Davey and Jane Smethern appeared very comfortable when they parted, and had not an angry word all the way.—William Dennis, lived at Trebrant Gate, in Alternun, about a mile from Plasha Cross. On a Sunday in the latter end of February, he went to Plasha Cross to meet his son, who was to return that day from Plymouth. Davey was there in the toll-house with the prosecutrix, and no one else. Witness asked the girl's leave to wait there for his son; she pointed to a chair in the window, and witness sat there for two hours. Prisoner and prosecutrix were there all the time; she sat on Davey's knee, and after getting up to take a toll at the gate, came back and sat again on Davey's knee, without invitation.—ln summing up, the Chairman said there could be no doubt of the attempt having been made; the only question was as to the girl's consent, on which the jury were entitled to draw inferences from the girl's previous and subsequent conduct; though it was still due to the prosecutrix to say that, notwithstanding the permission of previous or subsequent familiarities, it was possible she did not consent to the act of the prisoner charged in the indictment.—The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty. JOHN JANE, 42, was charged with having, on the 8th of January, 1849, at the parish of Liskeard, wilfully and feloniously killed one sheep, the property of John Button, farmer, with intent to steal part of the carcase.— Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence.—The offence was alleged to have been committed in the early part of January 1849; the reason why the prisoner had not been sooner brought to trial was that be had absconded, and was not apprehended until July last, in Plymouth, when he was so ill that he could not then be brought to trial.—It appeared that the prosecutor occupied Cadespott farm in the parish of Liskeard, and on the morning of the 8th of January, 1849, missed one sheep out of a flock of 57. Some portions of a sheep were subsequently found in a ditch of the field; and afterwards, on suspicion of the prisoner, his house was searched, and various parts of a sheep found, the most important of which as bearing on the present indictment was a part of the neck,—the bone and skin of which corresponded with what was found in the prosecutor's field. Portions of a sheep were also found in prisoner's garden, at Colwyn, near Liskeard; and, on the whole, nearly all the bones of a sheep were discovered, and put together at the Red Lion in Dubwalls. Thomas Pomery proved that in conversation with the prisoner, on the 14th January, he told him that he knew that he (prisoner) killed the sheep, and could tell him what he cut it up with.— Prisoner said, "you must be an impudent fellow, for you must have looked in at my window." Prisoner also said he should not have begun it, but Henry Lobb begun it—that Mr. Batten had put Lobb in the court, and Lobb said he would have a sheep of him to make up for it. Pomery told prisoner that he should make Mr. Batten acquainted with it; on which prisoner “cut”, and did not come back again till he was brought back by Dawe the constable.—Lobb had also absconded, and had not been apprehended.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: Twelve months’ hard labour) JOHN TINK was charged with having, in the month of May, stolen an iron plough-beam, the property of Daniel Box Vosper, of Davidstowe.—Mr. Morgan conducted the prosecution; Mr. PETERS the defence.—The prosecutor was a young farmer residing in the parish of Davidstow (sic), and also occupying a tenement called Polyphant near Hex Mill in the parish of Lewannick. On that tenement, in May last, he had an iron plough which he had received from his father some few years since; his father having purchased it many years since of a Mr. Jollow. He last saw the plough on Polyphant tenement, on the 20th of May last, and missed it on the Saturday following. On the 31st of May, according to the prosecutor's evidence, he was riding on horseback through Lewannick village; and, stopping to talk with some one in front of the prisoner's blacksmith's shop, he there saw a double plough-beam lying on the ground, and alighting and entering the shop, in order, as he said, to wait there for his father, he was satisfied that the plough-beam was his, and forbad the prisoner working any more upon it. Prosecutor’s father in a short time passed by in a cart, and on being called into the shop, he also stated that he could swear to the plough-beam as being the one which he had parted with to his son. On this, and by the father's directions, the prosecutor went to Mr. Archer, a magistrate, and not finding that gentleman at home, gave the prisoner and the plough-beam in charge of a constable.—The defence was mainly, that since the prisoner had been held to bail, pieces of a plough-beam had been found under a hedge and in a stream, which pieces, it was sworn by Mr. Jollow and his servant, John Botters, formed the plough-beam that had been sold by Mr. Jollow to Mr. H. Vosper, the prosecutor's father. It was also sworn, in defence, that a coulter-hole in the beam produced in prisoner’s shop on the twenty-third of May, was in fact worked on the fourteenth of May, prior to the prosecutor's alleged loss.— On these and other subordinate points, a vast deal of very conflicting evidence was given, and the case occupied the Court for about six hours. The result was a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The Court rose at half-past 9. BILLS IGNORED.—Jane Smith and Mark Plint charged with having, on the 10th of August, at the borough of Launceston, stolen from the person of John Gregory, three half-sovereigns, one half-crown, and a purse, the property of the said John Gregory.—Elizabeth Symons, charged with stealing, on the 5th of October, at St. Kew, two fagots of wood, the property of William Tom. —The Grand Jury found a true bill against Thomas Garland, of Perranarworthal, gentleman, for a nuisance. This indictment we understand, concerns some arsenic works; the prosecutor being Mr. Richard Thomas. —The Rev. Russell Howell took the oaths this day, on appointment to the vicarage of Saint Veep. SECOND COURT. Wednesday, October 16. (Before C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq.) FRANCIS LADNER, 18, was found Guilty of stealing, at the parish of Madron, on the 31st of July, a blanket, the property of Nicholas Trahair. Prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy, on the ground that his family were respectable, and that he had never before heard of anything against him. (Sentence: Two month’s hard labour) ANN PLACE, 39, was charged with stealing at Truro, from the person of Wm Fidock, jun., a silk handkerchief. Mr. Gilbert Hamley prosecuted. William Fidock stated that he was at the Queen's Head, Truro, on the night of the 25th of September; he saw the prisoner there rather intoxicated. There was a noise between the tap- girl and the prisoner; they were trying to get prisoner out of the house, and in doing so, he saw his handkerchief projecting from a part of prisoner's dress. In consequence of what he said, Nicholls, the constable, who happened to be present, took the woman into custody. Prosecutor said he knew the handkerchief was in his pocket only a few minutes before. Constable Nicholls said he went into the Queen's Head whilst his horses were feeding, on his coming from Summercourt fair. Hearing very loud talking, his attention was called to the tap-room. The prisoner was intoxicated; the tap-girl was demand threepence of her, and she refused to pay it. The tap-girl wanted to get her out, and Mrs. Gundry also begged her to go. She refused, and witness being a constable, was called on to put her out. She then caught the tap-girl by the hair, and held her till a large lump arose in her head. Witness was about putting her out when prosecutor saw his handkerchief projecting from her dress.—Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: Four months’ hard labour) ANN HOLLY, 44, THOMAS HOLLY, 27, RICHARD BRAY, 24, WILLIAM BONE, 35, and BRIDGET MILES, 56, were charged with stealing money from the person of James Medland. Mr. Darke stated the case for the prosecution, and then called James Medland, who said he was at Marhamchurch fair, on the 12th of August. He had between 3l. and 4l. in a canvass purse in his coat breast pocket. About 10 o'clock at night he was at the bottom of the town, near a public house kept by Mr. Rogers; he was then going homewards. He saw the prisoners, Bridget Miles and Ann Holly, standing together a few yards from him. Bridget Miles came up and accosted him. Ann Holly then came forward and took his purse from his pocket. He caught her by the shawl, on which Thomas Holly came up and struck him on the arm; Bray and Bone were just behind Holly. On being struck, prisoner cried out "murder." The blow caused him to loose his hold of the woman, who then ran away. He went to follow her, on which his heels were tripped up by Bray, and he again cried "murder." They all ran away except Bone; he told Bone he was one of those who had helped to rob him; Bone said he was not, and went with prosecutor (without leading him) to the King's Arms. Prosecutor said when he came down the down, Bone, Bray, and Holly, were standing together; he did not see Bone in conversation with the women, nor did Bone strike him.—It appeared that the other four prisoners were afterwards taken into custody by policeman Goddard; prosecutor gave descriptions of them to the policeman, where (sic) were found to be correct. At first Goddard thought from prosecutor's description of one of the men, that a man called Hicks had assisted in the robbery, but afterwards he found that the same description applied to Thomas Holly, whom he took into custody, and the prosecutor identified him as one of the party.—Mr. Stokes stated he appeared for the prisoner Bone; Mr. Darke, however, said that on the evidence given, he should not press the case against Bone. Mr. Morgan appeared for the prisoners Thomas and Ann Holly. He cross-examined the prosecutor and the policeman, and then addressed the jury contending that the identity of the prisoners (though sworn to by the prosecutor) had not been sufficiently made out to lead to a verdict of guilty. The jury found all the prisoners Guilty with the exception of Bone, whom they acquitted. (Sentences: (Ann Holly) Imprisoned till the rising of the court; (Thomas Holly, Richard Bray, Bridget Miles) Eight months’ hard labour) JOHN MARTIN, 14, pleaded guilty of stealing, on the 6th of September, at Lanteglos by Camelford, a clarionet (sic), belonging to John Maunder. (Sentence: One month hard labour) JOHN CLIFTON WILLIAMS was charged with stealing forty pounds weight of feathers and a bag, the property of Jane Lucas. Mr. Darke for the prosecution, and Mr. Morgan for the prisoner. The feathers were alleged to have been stolen at Launceston market on the 15th of August. The defence was that the prisoner had taken them by mistake with another lot of feathers of thirty pounds, which he had purchased of Mrs. Allen. Witnesses were called who gave the prisoner an excellent character; but the jury found him Guilty. (Sentence: Two months’ hard labour) RICHARD TIPPET, 27, was indicted for breaking and entering the house of Henry Holl, and stealing therefrom apples, flour, bacon, and other articles. Mr. Shilson for the prosecution, called Henry Holl, who stated that he was a farmer in the parish of Advent. On Saturday night, the 21st of September, before going to bed, he carried a pan of milk to the dairy, and then saw that all was right. On coming down next morning, prosecutor's jacket, which had been left hanging before the fire, had been taken away, flour and bread had been stolen from the room adjoining the dairy, and a pair of shoes were also missed. Prisoner had worked for prosecutor nine days during the harvest, and had left the Thursday night before the Saturday night on which the robbery was committed; prisoner used to take his meat in the kitchen when working for prosecutor. Having suspicion of him, prosecutor gave information to constable Fitzgerald, who apprehended the prisoner on the same Sunday that the robbery was discovered. Prisoner had a bundle on his back, and in it were several of the articles that had been stolen. Prisoner told the constable that no more had been taken than was found in the bundle. Prosecutor's jacket was placed elsewhere; but the lining of it was found around the floor in the bundle. Prisoner now told the jury that he had the contents of the bundle from a man whom he overtook between Camelford and Stratton. Prosecutor's wife also gave evidence in the case. The Chairman, in summing up, said there was no evidence of the breaking and entering, but it was open to the jury to consider the evidence of stealing. The jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty. A former conviction was proved against the prisoner, who at the Assizes in July 1849, was found guilty and sentenced to one year's imprisonment, for breaking, entering, and stealing from the house of William Olver, of St. Columb Major. There was now another indictment against the prisoner, for breaking and entering the house of William Tippet, at St. Columb Major, on the 5th of September last, and stealing a coat, waistcoat, and other articles. On this indictment no evidence was offered. (Sentence: Ten years’ transportation) SUSANNAH WATERS, 25, was indicted for keeping a disorderly house in Calenick-street, Truro. Mr. Darke for the prosecution, said he should show the house was a disorderly one, and then it was only necessary, under the act of Parliament, to prove that she was the mistress of the house, to render her liable to punishment. Wm. Staples, policeman, gave evidence as to the characters frequenting the house; he had been obliged to order men away from the door, who had been congregating together and making a disturbance; he had also had frequent complaints from the inhabitants near the house; but he had never heard such a disturbance in the house that he had been obliged to go inside. Mr. Stokes defended the prisoner, and cross-examined Staples, who said prisoner acknowledged before the committing magistrate that she took the house of Tuck. She left the house and went to Plymouth when she found a warrant was out against her. Mr. Stokes—Do you not know that this prosecution is without the sanction of the parish— that the vestry have opposed this prosecution? Witness—l have heard they have called a vestry about it since, trying to do away with the prosecution; Mr. Carne, the assistant overseer of the parish, on finding that there was a magistrate's warrant against Waters, had her sent away. Re-examined—Previous to the issuing of the warrant, there had been no notice from the parish not to prosecute. The warrant was obtained on the information of witness and the inspector of police: they were two house-holders of the parish, and power was given by the act of Parliament to two householders to give information, in such cases.—Mr. Stokes— And then there is a reward of 10l. for each of you? Mr. Drake (through the Court)—There have been other prosecutions, have you ever claimed the reward from the parish of 10l. each? Witness Never; we have laid the information as police-officers and as householders. Mr. Stokes—And you have no idea or expectation of having the reward in this case of 10l. each? Witness (hesitating)—This is an aggravated case. The other witnesses for the prosecution were Thomas Curtis, living at New-mills, James Fitzsimmons, policeman, Sophia Sholl and Edwin James, both of whom live near the defendant’s house. Mr. Stokes contended the evidence did not bear out that the house was a disorderly one; that disturbances took place therein to the annoyance of the people in the neighbourhood (sic). The Chairman said it must be made out under the indictment, that the house was a common nuisance to the public. Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: Four months’ hard labour) WILLIAM ORCHARD and JOHN ORCHARD, jun., of St. Keverne, were indicted for riotously and tumultuously assembling on the 27th of July, and with assaulting and beating James Vane. In a second count they were charged with a common assault. Mr. Shilson prosecuted, and Mr. Stokes defended the prisoners. It appeared from the evidence of prosecutor that John Orchard, the father of the prisoners, occupies Trevouthan estate in St. Keverne, the property of Mr. Carteret Ellis. The prosecutor is a bailiff living in Penzance, and was employed on the 22nd July to levy a distress on Trevouthan farm for 100l. rent. He took two cows, two heifers, two steers, two mares, and three donkeys. These were impounded on Trevouthan estate by day, but placed in a fold belonging to John Roberts, another farmer, by night. One of the steers was taken away by some person, after which the cattle for safety were put into Mr. Robert's out-houses by night; the doors were barred, and the gate of the yard secured with a chain round a moor-stone post, and a padlock. On the night of the 27th of July, about 10 o'clock, the bailiff saw men passing and repassing; after that about twenty men came and forced the gate; some of them had their faces blackened, and some had sticks. The bailiff asked what they were about?—they would let him know, they would pin him. He told Hocking, his assistant, to go and bring his pistols on which stones were thrown, and he was compelled to retreat. He and Hocking went into the house from fear, and he afterwards, from the dairy window, saw the men driving away the cattle, the prisoners being amongst those who were the most active. On driving off the cattle, the men made a great noise, "hurrah, boys, hurry them along."—After the evidence was given, Mr. Stokes addressed the jury for the prisoners, and then called witnesses. The first witness stated that the prisoners were in their father's house from half-past 10 till near 11; it was moonlight but not very light. Two preventive officers stated that they met a party of men driving cattle from the direction of Trevouthan with their faces blackened and otherwise disguised; that the night was so dark it was impossible for any one to identify the parties. They endeavoured to discover who the parties were, but could not; they had known the prisoner many years; none of the parties had short jackets on, as stated by the prosecutor. The jury after about an hour’s deliberation acquitted the prisoners.

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