sign in sign up
<<
Home , Angarrack, Arthur Tatham, Assizes, Boduel, Castle Horneck, Crantock

1852 Quarter Sessions and Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes ...... 26 3. Easter Sessions ...... 68 4. Midsummer Sessions ...... 75 5. Summer Assizes ...... 91 6. Michaelmas Sessions...... 113

Royal Cornwall Gazette 9 January 1852

1. Epiphany Sessions

These Sessions were opened on Tuesday last before the following magistrates— J. King Lethbridge, Esq., chairman Sir W. L. Salusbury Trelawny, Bart. , Esq. Lord Vivian R. Gully Bennet, Esq. The Hon. G. M. Fortescue W. Peter Kempe, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart N. Kendall, jun., Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. F.J. Hext, Esq. T.J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. T.G. Graham, Esq. H. Willyams, Esq., M.P. E. Coode, jun., Esq. W. Hext, Esq. W. Braddon, Esq. J. Gwatkin, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq. D.P. Hobyln, Esq. E. Archer, Esq. H.P. Rawlings, Esq. C.G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. T.R. Avery, Esq. J.S. Enys, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. H. Thomson, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. J. Thomas H. Peter, Esq. Rev. Roger Bird. W. Carpenter Rowe, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. Sedley Bastard Marke, Esq., of Treludeth, in the parish of , qualified as a magistrate; and the Rev. Richard Byrn Kinsman, took the oaths on appointment to the living of . The following gentlemen were sworn on the :— Messrs. Silas Hiscutt Liddell, , foreman; John Bray, St. Austell; John Cardell, junr., St. Columb Minor; William Clark, St. Ewe; Richard Coomb, Bodmin, W. Cowling, Gorran; Thomas Grose, St. Austell; William Grose, St. Kew; William Guy, St. Austell; Warwick Guy, junr., Endellion; Nicholas Hawke, St. Kew; Richard Lean Hawken, sen., ; John Harney Hick, Egloshayle; Joseph Hicks, St. Columb Major; R. Julyan, St. Ewe; Hart Key, St. Breock; John Lovering, St. Austell; John Mudge, Bodmin; Edmund Norway, Egloshayle; Thomas Olver, St. ; Samuel Symons, St. Columb Minor; Charles Thomas, Gorran; John Tremain, jun., St. Columb Major. The following gentlemen also answered to their names: Messrs. Richard Trethewy, St. Mabyn; William Truscott, St. Columb Major; George Wright, Bodmin; Samuel Yelland, St. Austell; Frederick Chapple, Bodmin. After the Queen’s Proclamation had been read, the CHAIRMAN delivered his Charge to the Grand Jury: (Not transcribed). ’ BILLS. – (Not transcribed). GOVERNOR’S REPORT. – (Not transcribed). BRIDGES. – (Not transcribed). PROPOSED ALTERATION OF THE COURTS.—Mr. PETER brought forward the motion, of which he had given notice at the Michaelmas Sessions, for the interposition of a box for Reporters between the Counsel-box and the Jury-box, in both Courts of Justice at Bodmin. To this proposed alteration, several others had been added by the Gaol Committee; and we give the whole, seriatim, as moved by Mr. Peter:—1st. The raising the jury box twelve inches in the , and in both Courts the sides of the boxes above the heads of the jurors, so as to prevent their hearing conversations, remarks, and voices of persons without, other than those of the Judge, Counsel, and witnesses; and so as to prevent, as much as possible, distraction of their attention from the matter in hand before the Court. 2nd. To shorten the eastern end of the Counsel Table in the Crown Court, and the western end of that in the Court, and to appropriate the empty spaces so made to two boxes for Reporters, with a view to the accommodation of these gentlemen—to the preventing idle spectators or interested persons sitting immediately under the jury, and so distracting their attention and confusing their memories, in long trials,—also to hindering any remarks being made to the jurors without these remarks being heard by all persons professionally engaged in the matter before the court. 3rd. To make the Counsel tables more narrow on the southern sides of the Courts to the extent of nine inches in order to give more room to attornies with their papers, behind their Counsel. 4th. To raise the seats of the Chairmen in both Courts, by nine inches. 5th. To take means to bring witnesses into the Crown Court, by an entrance along the northern and eastern wall, by a door in the north-eastern comer of the Court. 6th. To take means to bring in prisoners to the docks direct from the cells below. 7th. To get cast-iron rosettes with appliances for ventilation. The estimated expense of the whole of these proposed alterations was about 92l. On the motion of Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, seconded by the Hon. G. M. FORTESCUE, it was resolved that the recommendations be printed and circulated with the agenda for the next Sessions.—Mr. PETER gave notice that at the next Sessions he would move for a grant not exceeding 100l. for effecting the proposed alterations. COUNTY ASYLUM. Mr. KENDALL gave notice that at the next Sessions he would more for a grant not exceeding £1000 for building wash-houses and drying-houses at the asylum. He adduced the opinions of the medical officer and the Superintendent of the asylum that these buildings were necessary for the health of the Establishment, where every week were washed as many as 300 pair of sheets and 100 blankets. Mr. Kendall stated that so great had been the increase of female patients that the room for them was becoming limited. Although, two years ago, additional accommodation for 45 female patients was built, yet now there was only room for 17. In building the proposed wash-houses and dry-houses, accommodation would at the same time be provided for 25 female patients; and this would save £600 which would otherwise ere long have to be spent for that purpose; so that that sum might be placed as a set-off against the grant for which he now gave notice. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. MARY ANN HARRIS, 19, pleaded GUILTY of stealing between the 9th and 22nd of November last, at , a pair of stays, the property of Jane Trebilcock. (Sentence: three months hard labour.) JANE CHYNOWETH, 16, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 8th of November, at the parish of Probus, three sovereigns, the property of William Nicholls. (Sentence: three months hard labour.) JOHN MAY, 16, charged with having on the 23rd of December last, stolen a gold locket, the property of Joseph Edwards and Edward Edwards, of Duke-street, . Mr. STOKES conducted the prosecution.— Joseph Edwards stated that he keeps a silversmith’s shop, and about 4 o’clock in the afternoon of the 23rd of December, he sold a gold locket to a lady, and gave it in charge to his son Edward Edwards, who stated that he took the locket from his father for the purpose of putting hair in it; he placed it on his work bench in the shop, and, having occasion to be absent for about 10 minutes, on his return he found that the locket was gone.—There was no evidence of the prisoner being seen near the premises; but the following evidence was given against him. James Fitzsimmons, police constable of Truro, stated that on the day named, in consequence of information from Mr. Edwards, he made inquiries at the silversmith’s shops in Truro, and, from information given him by Mr. Harris, silversmith, went to a man called Francis Lance, who delivered him the locket which he (Fitzsimmons) had had in his possession since, and now produced.—Nanny Richards, who lives with her father, Francis Lance, stated that she saw prisoner there in the evening of 23rd December; he took out a locket and showed to the children; and she, thinking it was only a child’s plaything, gave him 2d. for it, and afterwards gave it up to her father.—Francis Lance confirmed the evidence of the last witness, and stated that he gave the locket to Fitzsimmons.— Fitzsimmons produced the locket, which was identified by both Joseph and Edward Edwards, by means of their private marks.—The jury took some ten minutes to consider, and to the evident surprize (sic) of most persons who heard the trial, found the prisoner NOT GUILTY. MATTHEW RICH, 30, charged with having, on the 16th of October, at the parish of , feloniously stolen a quantity of apples, the property of Henry Harris Carveth.—The witnesses against the prisoner were the prosecutor, in whose orchard the felony was committed, and the constable, Francis Organ. The prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrate was put in, after proof of the magistrate’s signature given by the constable. In it the prisoner said he was sorry he had gone into the orchard; he knew he had no business there; he begged Mr. Carveth’s , and if he would forgive him, he would never go there again.—GUILTY. (Sentence: one month hard labour.) JOHN DYER, 66, charged with having, on the 3rd of December, at the parish of , stolen two shirts, a bed-sheet, and an apron, the property of William Marshall.—He was also charged with stealing, on the same day, a child’s robe and waistband, the property of John Chapman, also at Lanivet.—In both cases, the clothes had been put out to dry, left during the , and missed the following morning early. The prisoner was not seen near the premises, but between 8 and 9 on the morning of the 4th of December, he was at the house of Edward Williams, in about two miles and a half from Lanivet village, and left a bag in charge of Williams’s wife. The bag was subsequently examined, first by Williams and his wife, and afterwards, in the presence of Mr. Marshall’s servant and Mrs. Chapman, and in it were found the various articles alleged to have been stolen.—The CHAIRMAN, as he had done in the case of John May, directed the Jury as to the accountability of a prisoner for property found in his possession shortly after it had been stolen; and, in the present case, the jury returned a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: on two indictments, two months hard labour.) JOHN HARRIS, 20, pleaded guilty of having, on or about the month of October, a gun, the property of the Rev. J.W. Hawkesley, his master.—The prosecutor recommended him to the mercy of the Court; on the ground, we understood, of previous good character. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) MARY JANE CELLY, 16, charged with stealing on the 1st of November, at the parish of Mevagissey, stolen (sic) a shawl, the property of Benjamin Hawken, grocer and draper.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Stokes the defence:—Benjamin Hawken stated that on the first of November, the prisoner came to his shop and looked at some shawls and asked to be allowed to take some home for her mistress to see. She took away three in her basket. Shortly after she left the shop, he missed a shawl and noted the description of it in his day-book. On the 7th of November, the three shawls were returned, without the missing one. He then went to the house of Mrs. Thomas, prisoner’s employer, and told her that he suspected the girl had taken something from his shop. Mrs. Thomas said there was a shawl upstairs which the girl had found. She went up stairs and fetched it down; it was the same description of shawl that witness had missed, witness then gave information to the Constable.—Francis Organ, constable of Mevagissey, stated that on Saturday, Nov. 8th. he went to Mrs. Thomas’s house, and demanded the shawl from Mrs. Thomas, and she took him into the parlour and there showed him a shawl; and prisoner said “It is mine; I found it out in the road.” He asked her to go with him to Mevagissey to see Mr. Hawken, and allow him to take the shawl with him; and she consented to do so. —Witness now produced the shawl in court. – Miss Rawlings, an assistant at Mr. Hawken’s shop, proved that the prisoner came there and asked her for three shawls, and witness gave her three to take to her mistress. Witness observed to the prisoner that she had not any paper about the shawls; and prisoner said she did not want any. Witness then took the shawls out of the basket; and under the three, she saw the stolen shawl and took it out; and afterwards that same shawl was missed. The shawl produced by the constable Organ, was identified by the prosecutor; and the jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: four months hard labour.) BARTLETT PASCOE, 30 and MARTHA ABBOTT, 34, charged with feloniously assaulting William Richards, of St. Austell, and stealing from his person, 27 shillings and two pence, the property of the said William Richards.—Mr. Shilson for the prosecution; Mr. Stokes for the defence.—The prosecutor, a foreman of labourers on the St. Austell parish roads, stated that, on Friday afternoon on the 31st October, he paid the men at the St. Austell Town Hall, and, a little after six o’clock, was going to his home in St. Morvan, having 27 shillings and two pence in a canvass bag in his left trowsers pocket. Just after he had passed the Globe Inn, the female prisoner came from the causeway towards him and asked him if he was going to give her a glass. He said “no,” and walked on; she walking by his left side and once or twice attempting to take hold of his arm, which he drew away. He stepped up on the causeway, and she did the same, and asked him to go back and give her three-penny-worth. He refused, and she then turned and went away with another woman. Then three men came forth and closed him against the wall while the women walked away towards the town. One of these three men was the prisoner Pascoe. Prosecutor afterwards got away and went to the police constables Sambells and Westlake; and then went with Sambells to the St. Mewan Inn on the Truro road. Sambells went into the Inn, and prosecutor remained outside, and saw the prisoner Pascoe coming up the road towards St. Austell. Prosecutor told Sambells of this, and they went on together and overtook the prisoner on the top of the hill near the Quakers’ Burying Ground. They went on together to the four turnings, and then Pascoe went down the road, and prosecutor and Sambells stopped. Prosecutor next saw the male prisoner near the Old Bridge, with Sambells, and walked on by them as far as the Globe, and heard prisoner ask Sambells to go into the Globe and have something to drink. Sambells said, “you go in and I will follow.” The prisoner did not go in there, but went to the General Wolfe; and the constables Westlake and Sambells went in after him. Prosecutor there saw the prisoner Pascoe and gave him in custody, and immediately saw the female prisoner standing by the door, and gave her also in custody.—In cross-examination, the prosecutor stated that neither of the men put his hand in his pocket, and that he did not feel the woman’s hand there. He missed his purse exactly as the three men came up, but did not know whether or not it was before one of the men put his hand on his collar to hold him against the wall. Neither of the men touched his pocket. While he was standing on the causeway, the other woman was only two or three yards off. He admitted too that on the evening in question, some other persons were placed in custody; but he added that the only man he charged was the prisoner Pascoe.—Thomas Sambells, policeman, stated that, after going with Richards to the St. Mewan Inn, he saw Pascoe coming up the hill, as if from Truro to St. Austell; he was walking leisurely; witness walked between him and Richards. Witness told Richards to go on the new road, while he (witness) went on the old road. Pascoe turned down the old road, and witness heard him ask of a man at the quarry, the way into town. Witness walked on, and the man came out at a gate into the road with a candle, and witness being on the St. Austell side of the gate, saw Pascoe turn away in the direction of Truro. The man said to him, “why that’s not the way.” Witness then turned off with Pascoe, and said to him “Well, Bart, how long have you been here? He replied, “I have only now come from Truro.” They walked on together to the General Wolfe, and Pascoe said, “Do you know me?” Witness replied “I know you very well.”.” Pascoe wanted him to go into the Globe to drink, but witness went on to the General Wolfe, where Pascoe ordered a noggin of gin, and then Westlake came in, and shortly afterwards, Pascoe and the woman were apprehended—In cross-examination, Sambells said he took in custody, that same evening, four other men, but Richards only spoke positively of Pascoe and the female prisoner.—Westlake, another policeman of St. Austell, confirmed the evidence of last witness, and added that on his saying that he would get a woman to search the female prisoner, she said it was no use to search her—that she did not rob the man; it was Cock’s woman who robbed him. Witness know Cock and his woman; he had not been able to find either of them.—William Frederick Congdon, of St. Austell, proved that on Friday, the 31st of October, he travelled from Launceston to St. Austell by the Times coach, and saw the prisoner Pascoe and another man get on the coach at Bodmin and leave it at the Globe hotel, St. Austell. Witness also got off the coach at the Globe, and as he left the hotel, saw at the corner of the street, the prisoner and a woman talking. That was about 6 o’clock in the evening.—The jury found both prisoners Guilty of stealing from the person. (Sentence: Each eight months hard labour) The Court then rose. SECOND COURT. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) POULTRY STEALING.—ELISHA MICHELL, 24, and JEREMIAH BENNETT, 44, were charged with breaking and entering an outbuilding, and stealing on the night of Saturday, December 6th, at Cargoll, in the parish of (east), a number of fowls and five ducks, the property of Thomas and Henry Rowe. Mr. HOCKIN, for the prosecution, called Thomas Rowe who carries on Cargoll farm with Henry Rowe. On Sunday morning, the 7th of December, he was told by his servant that his fowls had been stolen; about thirty fowls, and five ducks were carried off. The lock of the fowl-house had been wrenched, and taken away. Witness observed foot-marks, one of a remarkable shoe, having seven rows of hob nails, and in one of the rows some nails wanting. He traced the footsteps (which just out of the fowl-house were covered with ashes), to within a quarter of a mile of the prisoner Michell’s house. He then went for constable Jeffery, and they continued the tracing to within six or seven yards of Michell’s house. They found Michell at home; the constable examined his shoes with a rule, and compared them with the foot- marks, and they corresponded exactly. The constable went up stairs to search, and while there prisoner’s wife said to witness, “Don’t don’t, my dear man.” Then turning to prisoner, she said, “this is all through drink.” He said, it is; if I had not been drunk I should not have done it. He also said to witness, “I never did such a thing before last night; I will give you anything you may expect to make it up.” He further said he saw three or four men running up across the field, and witness’s dog after them, and that he followed and picked up the four fowls they had dropped in the field. He said, after I came into the road, I wished I had not done it.” Witness and the constable then went to the other prisoner (Bennett’s) house, and before Bennett was taken into custody, witness saw him take an axe and rip off the heel-tap from his shoe.—William Searle constable of Newlyn, on searching Bennett’s house on Sunday, the 7th of December, found under the stairs a fowl not picked; went up stairs and found three fowls and a duck in a broad-mouthed pitcher apparently put away for salting. Witness also found a jar with entrails of fowl in Bennett’s house.—Samuel Jeffery, another constable, on going to Michell’s house, proposed to search it, but Michell objected to his doing so unless he had a warrant. Witness said he thought he had a right to search if there was a strong suspicion; Michell then said, you may do it if you like. On searching, witness found in a bed, placed under a quilt, a dish containing three backs of fowls covered up, and a piece of pudding and some cabbage in a dish, and a little further under the clothes there was a hot pie, not cut; on taking off the top there were some legs of fowls and apples in the pie. Witness also found two fowls in a chest, and in a lower room a large round dish full of portions of fowls, and in the oven there were nine pasties partly dressed; witness lifted the cover of one, and saw either fowl or duck in it. In a pot on the fire, there was a very large fowl, and Mr. Rowe looking in, said, “there’s our cock.”— Another witness, Anthony Michell, said that from information he went into Bennett’s garden on the Monday, having his father’s servant with him. Seeing some fresh earth he directed the servant to dig, and they took up 7 heads of fowls, two legs, a wing, and a head of a duck.—William Oxenham said he saw the prisoners at the Hawkins’s Arms together on Saturday evening, the 6th of December; this was about half-a-mile from Messrs. Rowe’s farm; on their way home they would pass by the farm. CROSS- EXAMINED—A good many people were in the public house on the Saturday night, Bennett is a miner, and Michell a mine carpenter.—Susan Michell said she saw Michell go into Bennett’s house on the Sunday morning, December 7th, and afterwards come out with something under his arm. Two other witnesses swore that one or two of the remains of fowls found were those of the Messrs. Rowe’s property.—Mr. SHILSON made a very ingenious defence in behalf of the prisoners, and the jury were some time in consultation; at length they gave a verdict of GUILTY against both prisoners. On this some person in the Court called out “that’s right,” and was rebuked by the chairman for his improper conduct. (Sentence: each six months hard labour) JOHN DIXON, 27, was charged with stealing, on the 21st of October, a silver watch, the property of Francis Vivian. Prosecutor is a tailor, and had been working in , but was returning to his native county, when at , near , he met with the prisoner, who accompanied him to , and slept with him at Mr. Hendy’s lodging-house. Prosecutor went to bed about two hours before the prisoner, and placed his trousers, with the watch in the fob, under the pillow. In the morning prisoner was up first; prosecutor, on rising, missed his watch, which was afterwards found in prisoner’s possession at Lanivet. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: four months hard labour.) RICHARD RICHARDS, 16, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 22nd of July, at the parish of Mylor, a coat, the property of William Sarah. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) JOHN COLLICOTT, 33, was charged with stealing a coat, on the 29th of October, belonging to John Randall, of Truro, pipe-maker. Prosecutor was at the Prince’s Arms, , on the evening in question; prisoner was also there and took the opportunity of carrying off the coat. The landlord, Mr. Hockin, went after him, and found him in St. Lawrence fair, with the coat in his possession. Verdict, GUILTY. A former conviction for felony in 1846 was proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: twelve months hard labour.) JAMES CHAPEL, 12, was charged with stealing, about the 6th of December, at Redruth, a musical box, the property of Wm. Seymour, of Birmingham, licensed traveler. Verdict, GUILTY, but recommended to mercy. A witness spoke to the prisoner’s previous good character. (Sentence: to be once whipped.) The Court then rose. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7. (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq., Chairman.) JOHN WESCOTT, 25, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 30th of December, at the parish of Liskeard, three pieces of bacon, the property of John Haine. (Sentence: one calendar month hard labour.) PETER INCH, 18, and JOHN DYER, were found GUILTY of stealing two geese, the property of Thomas Martyn, of Rock, in St. Minver; but by Mr. G. Collins, on behalf of the prosecutor, were recommended to mercy. (Sentence: Peter INCH: three months hard labour.) (John DYER was previously sentenced to two months hard labour.) JOHN TINKUM, 24, was found guilty of stealing on the 22nd of November, at Penryn, 4 lbs. weight of potatoes, the property of Alexander Reynolds. (Sentence: four months hard labour.) ELLEN CUNDY, 20, was found GUILTY of stealing money from Isaac Reeman, at St. Austell; and MARY ANN TREMAIN, 21, of receiving part of the same, knowing it to have been stolen. The prosecutor is a soldier who has been recruiting in St. Austell. The CHAIRMAN disallowed his expenses saying, if you get intoxicated and expose yourself to this kind of plunder, you must not expect to receive any countenance from this court. (Sentence: each three months hard labour) JOHN FLINN, jun., 20 charged with stealing at Truro, a silk handkerchief, the property of Richard Robins, was found guilty, and a previous conviction for felony in June, 1848, was proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: seven years transportation.) ARTHUR DOIDGE, 32, pleaded guilty of stealing on the 19th of December, two pigs’ cheeks, the property of William Bate. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) RICHARD LANGDON, 19, pleaded guilty of stealing at , three fowls belonging to Francis Pearce, on the 26th of October last. (Sentence: four months hard labour.) SAMUEL SOUTHWARD, 41, was charged with stealing, on the 17th of September, at Falmouth, a number of casks, the property of William Carne, Esq. Mr. T. COMMINS conducted the prosecution. Mr. Jordan, clerk to Mr. Carne, who is a merchant at Falmouth, proved the loss of the casks from a store, the lock of which had been wrenched open, and afterwards finding the missing casks at Mr. Williams’s stores, and at Mr. Hayman’s Market Inn. Another witness saw prisoner remove a brandy hogshead from Mr. Carne’s stores and convey it to the door of Mr. Williams’s cellars. Mr. Williams bought the casks of prisoner whom he had known as a porter on the quay, and who said he had them on shipboard for his labor. William Hayman gave similar evidence. Prisoner was found GUILTY, and a former conviction for stealing a blanket in 1844 was proved against him. (Sentence: seven years transportation.) COUNTY BUSINESS. William Sloggatt, Esq., of , took the oaths as a magistrate. LORD VIVIAN gave notice that he should move at the next sessions, that the wall at the end of the hall be heightened six feet. The CHAIRMAN hoped the magistrates would take care in future that their clerks transmit the bail cases to Mr. Everest. At the present sessions there were many cases which had not been communicated to him, and consequently did not appear on the calendar. It was desirable that they should see by the calendar the amount of business to be transacted; in addressing the jury he might otherwise say there was a light calendar, when in fact, from the number of missions, it might (sic) an unusually heavy one. TRIALS RESUMED. ELIZABETH MACLEAN, 26, was indicted for stealing from the person of John Harper, a half-sovereign. Mr. CHILDS prosecuted, and Mr. SHILSON defended the prisoner. Prosecutor is a miller, and was at Launceston on the 17th of November, at the Cornish Inn. He lost his purse and half a sovereign, which loss he discovered after he left the inn. He gave a description of a woman to whom he had been speaking. Policeman Sambells apprehended prisoner from Harper’s description, and he swore positively to her before the committing magistrates, and as there was reason to believe, truly. But he now prevaricated grossly, saying that he believed she was not the woman. The CHAIRMAN directed the jury to acquit the prisoner, and after consulting with the bench, told Harper his conduct had been exceedingly disgraceful, and the court had hesitated as to whether they should not send him to gaol to be indicted for willful and corrupt perjury. They should disallow his expenses. JANE WALLIS was acquitted of a charge of stealing a knife, belonging to F.H. Colwill, of Broadoak. CATHERINE STEPHENS pleaded GUILTY of having, on the 15th Dec., unlawfully attempted to break into the dwelling-house of Joseph Cass, of St. Winnow. She confessed also to a previous conviction for felony in Oct. last. (Sentence: six months hard labour.) JOSIAH WILLIAMS, 14, was found GUILTY of stealing a half-crown, the property of William Rank, a grocer at Bodmin, and a former conviction of felony in March last was proved against him. (Sentence: seven years transportation.) STEALING BARLEY FOR HORSES. – THOMAS MOORE, 25, and STEPHEN COLLINS, 17, were charged with having, on the 27th of December, stolen a quantity of barley, the property of Thomas Stanlake. Mr. CHILDS appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. SHILSON for the prisoners. The prosecutor is a farmer, at Trebargie, in the parish of Liskeard, and the prisoners were his servants. Prosecutor has five horses, and the prisoners had to look after four of them. Finding that barley was given to his horses, he charged his servants on the 27th of December with taking it from the granary, and they admitted it. He measured what remained in the granary, and found that about five bushels had been taken.—Mr. SHILSON, for the defence, submitted that the prisoners had evidently not taken the barley with any felonious intention; they took it for the purpose of giving to their master’s horses.—The Chairman thought there was no pretence for saying that any part of the barley was taken for the prisoner’s use, but that they took it for their master’s horses. Still, the Judges had decided that such a taking was a felony, for servants had no right to take corn in this way, even though the master may allow an insufficient quantity. The jury found both prisoners GUILTY, but recommended them to mercy. (Sentence: each one week hard labour) JOHN JULLIAN was indicted for assaulting and beating Samuel Hill, a constable of St. Breock, whilst in the execution of his duty; in a second count, he was charged with unlawfully and maliciously cutting and wounding Samuel Hill; and in a third count he was charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm. The jury, however, after deliberating about a quarter of an hour, returned a verdict, GUILTY of common assault. (Sentence: three months hard labour.) The Grand Jury were discharged this evening. The CHAIRMAN said, I have to thank you, in the name of the county, for the prompt attention you have given to the business before you.—The court rose about half-past seven o’clock. NO BILLS.—The Grand Jury ignored the following bills:—Against WILLIAM MERRIFIELD & GEORGE LIDDICOAT, charged with stealing bacon from James Retallick, of St. Wenn; against HENRY NICHOLLS, charged with maliciously cutting and wounding Richard Nicolls, of Mylor; and the bill against GEORGE SAMPSON, on a charge by Mr. Avery, of Boscastle. WILLIAM MATTHEW, of , who had preferred a bill against Thomas Ranks, failed to appear, with his witnesses John Chappel and Edward Eddy. They were called three times in court, the preliminary form to their recognizances being entreated. SECOND COURT. Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. WILLIAM SMITH, charged with stealing at the parish of , on the 31st of May, 1849, an iron gin and chain, the property of Edward Archer, Esq.—Mr. Peter of Launceston, conducted the prosecution; Mr. Darke the defence.—It appeared that Mr. Archer’s keeper, William Haynes, set three gins in Trekellan Brake, on Lewannick Downs, for the purpose of catching vermin; and on the following morning he found that the stakes to which they had been fixed had been removed. The gins and chains were marked E.A., on the back, but in a manner not easily observable. The gins having been missed as long ago as May, 1849, it appears that in September last, Haynes, the keeper, was at Doney’s blacksmith’s shop, at Congdon’s shop, in the parish of Northill, and there saw a gin which he immediately recognized as the property of his master—Mr. Archer; and he took possession of it. The tracing of the property to the smith’s shop was as follows:—About Easter 1850, the prisoner sold the gin to a young man called John Peter, who kept it for about 1½ year, and then sold it to a farm-servant named Richard Sleep, who took it to the smith’s shop for repair. There was also evidence that in May 1850 the prisoner vaunted that, notwithstanding Mr. Archer’s keepers, he could catch all the hares on Lewannick Down; and said he had sold one of Mr. Archer’s gins for a quart of beer.—For the defence, considerable doubt as to the proof of identity of the gin was elicited in cross examination of the prosecutor’s witnesses; a good character of the prisoner was given, in respect of honesty; and it was shown that the prisoner’s vaunt of catching all the hares on Lewannick Down was made when he had been drinking, and to one of Mr. Archer’s keeper’s assistants, and it was urged that this was mere joke at the expense of the keepers.—At the close of the case for the prosecution, the Court directed an ACQUITTAL. The evidence adduced showed that a period of full 10 months had elapsed from the time the property was lost, until the prisoner was at all shown to be connected with it; and therefore, he ought not to be called on to account for his possession of it. JOHN RICHARDS, the younger, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 29th of November last, at the parish of , two gallons of apples and one sack, the property of William .—The prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy, and a good character was put in from his previous employer. (Sentence: three months hard labour.) A REMARKABLE CASE OF STRONG SWEARING.—ELIZABETH OATES, a respectable looking widow of a small farmer of St. Just, was charged with stealing, on the 13th of October, a silver watch and chain, the property of Michael Harvey, a miner of St. Just-in-.—Mr. DARKE conducted the prosecution; Mr. STOKES the defence.—It appeared that, on the death of her husband, the prisoner was left with one child, and in possession of the house in which she was living at the time of the alleged felony in moderately comfortable circumstances; but the trustees under her husband’s will, for some reasons best known to themselves, put Michael Harvey and his wife in charge of the house, to live with Mrs. Oates; and violent disagreements between Mrs. Oates and Mrs. Harvey were the consequence.—Sarah Harvey, wife of the prosecutor, gave her evidence in an extraordinary way, especially under cross- examination, interlarding her testimony with violent asseverations that she was speaking truth, if she was at death’s door in the day of judgment. She was several times reproved by the Chairman, who told her that the solemnity of the oath was quite sufficient to impress her with a serious regard for truth.— She stated that her husband had a silver watch, which used to be kept hung up at a dresser in the kitchen. She saw it hanging there about 7 o’clock in the evening of the 13th of October; she put her husband’s supper at the fire at that time, and then, after sitting down a few minutes in the kitchen, went out of the house for a few minutes to a hedge across the road for some stockings, leaving no one in the house but Elizabeth Oates, and three children in bed. Her son Michael was not in the house at the time. As she was returning into the kitchen, she saw a candle light at the window, and looking across the road into the kitchen, saw the prisoner come out of the dairy into the kitchen, put her hand up to the crook of the dresser and take down the watch. Prisoner went from the kitchen into the back kitchen, and witness followed her into the back-kitchen. Prisoner went into the dairy behind the back-kitchen, and then came out again with her child on her shoulders, and up stairs. Prisoner was in the habit of going in and out of the kitchen in the same way as witness did. As witness passed through the kitchen, she saw that the watch was gone from the dresser, and at first went to search for it in the dairy, thinking the prisoner had put it there. Not finding it, witness went to prisoner’s bed-room and said to her, “Where is the watch you have taken from the dresser?” Prisoner said, “I have not taken it.” Witness replied, “You have; I saw you.” She then (said the witness) began to blackguard me, made use of a great oath, and threatened what she would do if I did not go down stairs. About a fortnight or three weeks afterwards, I went before the magistrates and made the charge against the prisoner. I have not seen the watch since, and I do not know where the watch is now. I have heard that my son Michael has found it.—Cross-examined:—This woman (the prisoner) did not like my living there in the same house with her; there was never no place there; she always said she would do me an injury for coming there. I said, if I cannot have the whole house, I will not have part of it; but until that we may as well live in peace; but Job himself could not live in peace with her, and I am not Job’s wife (laughter). She many times attempted to take the watch off and dash it on pieces; she said “what business has that watch got there?” and would have lashed it into rags many times. She used to be grieved to see it hang there; I suppose because she used to have one of her husband’s own there. I was 7 or 8 yards from the window outside when I saw her take the watch from the dresser; but I swear I saw her lift her hand to the crook and take down the watch. I did not give her a good beating for taking the watch; I did beat her in the forenoon of the same day because she would not allow me to wash in the kitchen. Then, the enemy was busy; the enemy was in me; ‘twas time for the enemy to be in me at that time. (laughter. Mr. Stokes— Oh, I suppose you think it needful now and then to have the assistance of the enemy?). I gave her a good thrashing; I struck her and she struck me; as I am much longer in the arms than she is, I beat her (laughter). I did not give her as much as she could bear; I had mercy; perhaps the enemy left me then. She did not threaten to have me up before the magistrates for beating her. I went for a warrant the next morning; I had told her if she would return the watch I would overlook it, but otherwise I must go for a warrant. She said “you may go to the enemy for your watch.” She was mad; like a two-legged bear.—At the time I was before the magistrates I did not know that my son had found the watch; I did not know it till several days afterwards. If I had known it, the case would not have been as it was. If I should now close my eyes in death, I have not seen the watch since. I think I know William Stevens, a miner of St. Just; and I know a man called Philip Hicks, of St. Just. I remember being at the Wellington Inn, in St. Just, with my husband and seeing them there; but I did not think of it then; because Prophets will arise; God’s witnesses will arise; I’ll tell the truth for or against me because I must by and by depart from this world. Philip Hicks asked my man if we had found the watch we had lost; I believe I said we have not seen it nor know anything about it since it was gone. Hicks did not ask me “do you know who has got it or did you see who took it?” I did not say to him that I did not see any one take it, but that I thought the woman in the house took it. I swear I did not say so, nor any words like it. Hicks said “you don’t know who took the watch;” and I said, “we do know who took the watch, but we have not seen it since. I did not tell him who took it. I can prove that man to be a liar, I did not say to Hicks that I had given the woman one big beating and if it was to do again, I would give her another, I swear I did not say anything of the kind. My husband did not say that I had better leave the woman alone; nothing like it. I don’t know that man had five words to say to me. My son Michael is 17 years old. I am living in the house still with the prisoner; we have lived there peaceable lately; there is no enemy at work there now; Job has been reigning within. Michael Harvey the younger. I am son of the last witness. I recollect my father having a watch which I was in the habit of carrying some times for weeks together. I heard about the watch being lost; I was living home at the time. I next saw the watch out against the hedge about 20 yards from the house; this was one morning before I went to work; took it up, put it in my pocket, and carried it with me to my work; I kept the watch and did not say anything to father or mother about it. I first mentioned it to a boy, James Roberts, who worked at the same mine with me. That was three or four days after I found it. I took the watch to my work, and used to leave her at the Bal, in the leavings house. Roberts worked there with me, and saw the watch there. I left her there a brave while. I don’t know where the watch is now. I left her there at the mine one night, a brave many days after I found her, and when I came next morning, she was gone. I have not seen her since.—Cross-examined:—On the 13th of October, the day when the watch was missed, I reached home about 6 o’clock in the evening; took my supper, and went to a neighbour’s house—old Tom Davey’s. Before I went there, a few minutes after six I saw the watch hanging at the dresser.—When I came back from Tom Davey’s, about 8 o’clock, I heard mother say the watch was gone, and that the woman (prisoner) had taken her. I had not had the watch that day. I found her three days afterwards; I went to a hedge for a certain purpose, and pulling up a lock of grass, found the watch under it. I did not tell father or mother that I had found the watch. I swear I never showed the watch to Wm. Stevens, a tin-dresser at Wheal Cole. William Stevens did not ask me how I came to have a watch of that kind; he did not ask me where I got the watch, nor whose watch it was; he did not say anything to me about the watch. I swear Wm. Stevens did NOT speak to me at all about the watch. I did not tell him it was my father’s watch. Stevens did not tell me that there was a flaw on the face of the watch, and that she ought to have a new dial plate. I was at the mine from day to day in November; I swear I had no conversation with William Stevens, in November, about the watch. Stevens never at any time said to me, “Michael, this is a bad job for you to have the watch in your own keeping, and know it at the same time that Elizabeth Oates is condemned for it. I recollect that I did say to Stevens that it would never never have been found out but for the boy Roberts. I did not say to Stevens that I had the watch a fortnight, and that no one knew anything about it; I did not say that if I could put my hand on Roberts I would drown him in the river, and that I owed him 5s., but now would not pay him. Stevens did not say to me that it was a wicked thing of me to keep the watch and not to say anything to the magistrates about it. Stevens asked me who was the first one that said anything about the watch; and I said if it had not been for Roberts, it would not have been found out.—Mr. Stokes—Do you remember saying to me just now that you never spoke to Stevens at all about the watch?—Witness—I told you I never showed him the watch.—Mr. Stokes—Did you not also tell me that you had never talked to Stevens about the watch, nor he to you?—Witness—Did I? I don’t know that I did.”—The CHAIRMAN here read from his notes—William Stevens never did say anything at all to me about the watch.— Examination resumed—I showed Roberts the watch, the same day that I found her in the hedge; three or four days after the watch was stolen. I used to leave the watch of nights on a nail in the leavings house, because I did not like to carry it home, for fear I should have a hiding for not bringing her home before. One Saturday afternoon, I let Roberts have the watch, and he kept her till the Monday morning, and then gave her back to me. I did not tell Roberts where I found the watch, nor yet that she belonged to my father. I never told Roberts that I bought her of a boy called William Eddy Boyns. I did not tell my father or mother about the watch, when they came back from going before the magistrates. For the defence, Mr. STOKES addressed the jury. He spoke of the improbability, from the prisoner’s circumstances, of her committing such a robbery, and next asserted that it was apparently impossible that Mrs. Harvey could have seen, as she had sworn, Mrs. Oates take down the watch from the dresser, at the distance stated. But, beyond this, Mr. Stokes said he should prove, by most creditable and credible witnesses, that the evidence of Mrs. Harvey was, at least, not to be relied on, and that the extraordinary evidence of her son Michael was wholly undeserving of credit. He also intimated the probability that Michael Harvey, the son, was the actual felon; and strongly insisted on the violent ill- feeling proved to exist in the mind of Mrs. Harvey towards Mrs. Oates, and on the former’s expressed determination to get her out of the house. Mr. Stokes called the following witnesses:— James Roberts, a lad aged 14 years, (the witness referred to in the evidence of Michael Harvey) stated that Michael Harvey first showed him the watch about a week before Saturday the 25th October, on which day he let him have the watch till the following Monday. Michael used to keep the watch in his pocket, and sometimes, but very seldom, hang it up. I never saw him hang it up to leave it at the mine at night. When I first saw the watch, I asked him whose it was; and he said he had bought it of William Boyns Eddy. It was a silver watch, and the dial was broken. Cross-examined.—I heard something about the going before the magistrates, but I did not tell any thing about my having seen the watch in his possession, until George Williams, the prisoner’s brother asked me if I knew any thing about the watch. When he let me have the watch on the Saturday, he told me it was because he did not like to carry it home, for fear his father should see it.—William Eddy Boyns (the same boy whom last witness called Boyns Eddy) stated that he never sold, gave, or lent a watch to Michael Harvey, and that he never had any conversation with him about a watch. William Stevens, tin-dresser at Wheal Cole, stated that the witness Michael Harvey worked there in October. About two days after the proceedings before the magistrates concerning the prisoner, I saw a watch in his possession. He came down by my workings at tin-dressing, and one of the girls there asked a man what o’clock it was; when Michael Harvey took out a watch from his pocket and gave the time of day. I said to him, “I never knew you had a watch before; “ and he said it was his father’s watch. I looked at the watch and said it ought to have a new dial plate; it had a flow in it. I next saw him after I had heard that the prisoner had been taken before the magistrates. I said to him, “Tis a very hard job that you have the watch in your possession and Betsy Oates is condemned for stealing the watch.” He said “If it had not been for that boy Roberts, it never would have been found out; I had it a fortnight, and no one did not know nothing about it.” He also said, if he could put his hand upon the boy Roberts, he would drown him in the river, and, ‘I owe him five shillings, but he shall never have it.’—This witness also gave the prisoner a very good character. Philip Hicks, who gave portions of his important evidence in a very confused manner, said—I live in St. Just and am a tin-dresser at Wheal Cole. On the 18th October, I was at the Wellington Inn, St. Just, and saw Mrs. Harvey and her husband there; it was about 8 o’clock on a Saturday evening. She said to us she had got a watch stolen. I said to her ‘did she know who had got it? She said “no” no more than she thought it was the woman of the house; I gave her one big beating, and if it was to do again, I would give her another.’ Michael, her husband said to her ‘you had better leave the woman alone.—This witness then said – I think I have left one word out; I asked her, “did she know who had got it, and did she see any person take it?” I am quite clear I asked her if she did see any body take it.—The witness who had known the prisoner nearly 20 years, gave her a good character as a quiet honest woman. William Michell, (a lad 17 years old) a miner at Wheal Cole, was at the Wellington Inn on the occasion referred to by the last witness, and confirmed his testimony. John Pollard, farmer, of St. Just, gave the prisoner a good character, having known her 15 years. Mr. DARKE addressed the Jury in reply; and, after a careful summing up by the Chairman, the jury in less than three minutes returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL. The verdict was received with clapping of hands, in which some gentlemen in the Grand Jury joined. They were reproved by the Chairman. Sir Colman Rashleigh immediately ordered the witnesses Sarah and Michael Harvey, to be held in custody while he went to consult the senior Chairman, Mr. Lethbridge.—On his return, Sir Colman Rashleigh addressing the two witnesses said:—Sarah and Michael Harvey, the Court detained you while consulting Mr. Lethbridge whether we should not commit you in order to be prosecuted for perjury. That you, Michael Harvey, have committed willful and corrupt perjury in that box there can be no doubt. And I very much fear that your mother also has done the same. I would have it known by all persons who come to this court, that we have the power to commit at once and to order prosecution for perjury at the next Assizes. As we think there would be some difficulty in proving the case, we shall not do so on this occasion. I have also just heard that you (Michael) are of weak intellect; and that circumstance has weighed with the Court. If you have sufficient intellect to know right from wrong, you must know you committed an awful crime in this Court—one of the worst crimes that a human being can be guilty of. I advise you when you go home, to be more careful how you behave in the future. The witnesses were then discharged; but Michael’s expenses were not allowed. JOHN BURLEY, was ACQUITTED of stealing a pair of stockings from Wm. Cradock, of St. Clements, Truro, on the 1st July.—The main point urged in defence by Mr. STOKES was the length of time—nearly 4 months—which elapsed between the time of the property being lost, and the prisoner’s being proved to be in possession of it. The prisoner also received a good character from Mrs. Tiddy, and from Mr. Richard Robins, shop-keeper of Truro. WILLIAM RICKARD, 17, pleaded GUILTY on two indictments—one charging him with stealing, on or about the 1st of December, from the sloop Catherine of , a gun, the property of Mr. Richard J. E. Symons, of , and the other charging him with stealing, from the said sloop, two books, the property of Mr. Wm. Marshall Knapp, of Wadebridge. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) JOHN PELLOW, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 1st of January, at the parish of Budock, 42 lbs. of rope, the property of John Stephens the elder, and John Stephens the younger. (Sentence: three months hard labour.) CHARLES PALMER 20, a recruit was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 13th of December, at Bodmin, a silver tea spoon, the property of Mary Ann Kent, widow, landlady of the Inn. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) JANE PASCOE, wife of William Pascoe, of Redruth, labourer, charged with stealing, an (sic) the 10th of November a walking stick, the property of Thomas James, of Saint Day. The felony was committed at a sale by auction, at the King’s Arms, Redruth. The stick had been placed near a table, by the prosecutor, while he picked together some articles he had bought; and on his return to the spot, he found that his stick was missing. He followed Mrs. Pascoe into the street. She was carrying away some articles she also had bought, and had under her cloak the stick in question. The stick was of a very peculiar kind, and the prosecutor said he gave 1l. for it in the island of Cuba. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: one month hard labour.) WILLIAM CAHILL, 20 was found GUILTY of uttering counterfeit half-crowns at Mr. William Henwood’s, grocer’s shop in Redruth, on the 11th November; and at Mr. Hawkes, at the Golden Lion, Penryn, on the 19th of November. There was also proved against him a previous utterance of a counterfeit shilling to Mrs. Francis, at a grocer’s shop in Mabe.—Guilty in all the counts of the indictment. Mr. Hockin conducted the prosecution. (Sentence: eight months hard labour) JAMES DAVEY, the younger, 14 pleaded GUILTY of obtaining under false pretences, at Penryn, from William Stephens, the sum of five shillings, the property of Sampson Stephens.—Mr. HOCKIN, who appeared for the prosecution, said the prosecutor begged to recommend the prisoner to mercy, believing that he had been induced by other persons to commit the offence. (Sentence: one week hard labour.) ALFRED REYNOLDS, 14, pleaded GUILTY to the charge of having, on the 22nd of December, at Redruth, opened an aperture in the roof of a warehouse the property of Thomas Nicholl the younger, and unlawfully entering the same with intent to steal therefrom. (Sentence: six months hard labour.) MARY ANN STRIKE, 27, pleaded GUILTY to two indictments—one for having obtained from Henry Hayman at Launceston, by a false pretence, a bonnet, a yard of ribbon, three yards of flannel and a pair of hose, with intent to defraud; and the other for obtaining from Thomas Nicholas Vosher of Launceston, by false pretence, a quantity of Saxony, Lining and Calico. (Sentence: four months hard labour.) The Court then rose. THURSDAY, JANUARY 8. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) JOSEPH and ELIZABETH SMITH were indicted for keeping a disorderly house in the parish of St. Mary Magdalene, Launceston. Mr. CHILDS (for Mr. Darke) conducted the prosecution, and Mr. PETERS appeared for the defendants. George Higgs deposed that he and defendants live in Bray’s Court, Fore- street, Launceston, and that he had frequently seen common prostitutes going up and coming down the steps leading to Smith’s room. He had also seen men going up and down there both by day and night. Witness had frequently heard singing and dancing in the room, and had seen liquor carried there, and from time to time there had been disturbances in the room to the great annoyance of the neighbours. He gave some particulars of a disturbance that occurred there about a month ago, when the policeman was obliged to be sent for. He said he had given notice to the overseers respecting this place as a public nuisance, and the magistrates ordered the present prosecution.—Mrs. Higgs, who has a room in the same house, underneath Smith’s, also deposed to the disturbances in Smith’s apartment and the disreputable characters who went there. Smith, the husband, is a carrier, and is a good deal absent from home; the noises in his house were generally when he was absent, but sometimes when he was home, though to a much less degree. The drinking and swearing and noise sometimes continued all night, and witness had had to call to them when they had been dancing and singing at unseasonable hours.—John May, who had a room adjoining Smith’s, had been obliged to remove his children from that room that they might not overhear the expressions of the bad characters who frequented Smith’s house.— Benjamin Sambell, policeman of Launceston, also gave evidence respecting the disturbances at Smith’s, and said it was a reputed house of ill fame.—Mr. PETERS, in behalf of the prisoners, said the evidence only went to establish that there had been singing and dancing carried on in the house, which was not to be objected to as a means of amusement. The husband was generally absent, and therefore not answerable for what took place without his knowledge, though he contended that there was no adequate evidence to show a disorderly house.—The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said the jury could scarcely doubt, after hearing the evidence, that this was a house of ill fame, and the question was whether the male prisoner had not a guilty knowledge of what was carried on so as to render him equally culpable with his wife. The jury returned both prisoners GUILTY. (Sentence: each four months hard labour) The jury were then discharged. ______(Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq.) MATTHEW TRESIZE, 30, charged with having, on the 18th of October, at the borough of Launceston, unlawfully obtained from Richard Gerry, by a false pretence, three shillings, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Richard Gerry. The circumstances in which the case originated occurred at a drinking and dancing party at a public-house in Launceston, and the pretence alleged to have been made by the prisoner was, that the mistress of the house had a sovereign of his in her charge, by which pretence he obtained three shillings from the prosecutor. On the hearing of the case it appeared that at the time of the occurrence, both the prosecutor and the prisoner were pretty far gone in liquor; and the prosecutor was now unable to swear distinctly whether the prisoner said “the mistress of the house” or the mistress of my house—the latter expression of course not sustaining the charge of false pretence.—The CHAIRMAN directed a verdict of NOT GUILTY; and said the case was another proof of what he had observed on Tuesday—that many cases in which offences were brought before the Court, were consequent on drunkenness. The result, in the present case, would be a lesson to both parties. The jury were then discharged. APPEALS. , appellant; Mr. Hockin and Mr. Shilson. ST. COLUMB MINOR, respondent; Mr. Darke and Mr. G.B. Collins. An appeal against an order for the removal of Kitty Morris, wife of Philip Morris, and her children. Mr. HOCKIN stated, that in this case arrangements had been made for the admission of all the facts. The order appealed against was made on the 28th August last; and six weeks previous to that time the pauper’s husband was in prison under a conviction for felony; he was discharged at the end of October and returned immediately to his wife and children at , in the parish of St. Columb Minor, and had remained there since with his wife and children; having, during his imprisonment, always had an intention of returning to them as soon as discharged from prison. A prima facie settlement of the pauper in respondent parish was admitted, but the appellant’s case was that the order ought to be quashed on the ground that the pauper was not removeable. And that point involved two questions — 1st. whether a temporary imprisonment of the pauper’s husband for felony constituted a break of residence; and 2nd., whether, if there were a break of residence, this order ought not to be quashed on the ground that the wife and children were irremovable. With regard to the 1st point, it was contended that a temporary imprisonment for felony, followed by the circumstances admitted in this case did not constitute a break of residence. After observing that the statute applicable to the present case – 9th and 10th Vict., cap. 66 – was passes solely for the protection of the poor against removals from their friends and employers to distant and strange places, Mr. Hockin cited King v. Llanelly, 20 Journal, p. 179, decided in May last, to show that a temporary absence with an animus revertendi, would not suffice to effect a break of residence; but there must be a complete disruption. The learned advocate next cited Queen v. Holbeck 4, New Sessions Cases, p. 501, as overruling a previous case of Queen v. Salford and as deciding that imprisonment is no breach of residence; and he asserted that it was wholly unimportant for what cause the imprisonment took place. The case of Queen v. Holbeck decided that imprisonment for any lower offence than felony did not constitute a break of residence. It was true that in the case now before the Court, the imprisonment had been for felony; but he strongly insisted on the injustice of extending punishment for felony beyond that inflicted by the criminal law, and especially urged the cruelty of punishing the innocent wife and children for the acts of a felon.—With regard to the 2nd point in the case, Mr. Hockin observed that this order was made for the removal of the wife and children, the husband at this time living with them; and therefore, if the order were confirmed it could not legally be executed, since the law would not allow the separation of the husband from his wife and children. His friends on the other side might argue that it did not follow, because the order could not be executed, that therefore it should be quashed; but he submitted that their worships would not place in the hands of parish officers the power of executing such an order at their discretion. The case of the Queen v. St. Mary Whitechapel, New Sessions Cases, vol. 3, p. 267, which turned on the statute 9 and 10 Vict. Cap 66, overruled a previous case Queen v. Glossop, and decided that irremovability was a good ground of appeal, and the order in that case was quashed. In the present case, the order for removal of the wife and children, obtained during the husband’s imprisonment, was rendered incapable of being legally executed by the husband’s return; and it would be most dangerous to entrust parish officers with the power of committing an injustice against which the husband would, practically, have no remedy. On both the grounds he had stated, he submitted that their worships ought to quash the order. Mr. SHILSON, on the same side, contended that there was no case which decided that imprisonment, for whatever cause, constituted a break of residence; and he could see no distinction between imprisonment for misdemeanor and imprisonment for felony; because in either case the party imprisoned was prevented by operation of law from returning to his parish.—Mr. Shilson referred to the cases—Queen v. Salford, Queen v. Pott Shrigley and Queen v. Holbeck; and also cited Queen v. Stogumber, in which it was held that imprisonment for misdemeanor did not constitute a breach of residence; and he argued that the decision was equally applicable to imprisonment for felony, where, as in the present case, the wife had not been deserted by the husband. The Queen v. Marylebone, 20, Law Journal, p. 173, also decided that the temporary absence of the husband, with intention to return, did not constitute desertion, and therefore the wife was irremovable.—With reference to the second point, Mr. Shilson observed that in the Queen v. Whitechapel, the order was valid when made, but subsequently, the passing of the statute 9 and 10 Vict. Cap. 66, rendered the pauper irremoveable , and the Court of Queen’s Bench held that such irremovability was a ground of appeal against the order. So, in the present case, the order when made was valid, but the subsequent return of the husband rendered the wife and children irremovable; and, on the authority of Archbold, the order might be appealed against now, as well as if it had been illegally executed. The grievance existed by reason of the order, and it would be monstrous to confirm an order which could not be executed. If the imprisonment of the pauper was a break of residence, then the appellants ought now to get a fresh order for the removal of the husband, wife and children. Mr. DARKE affirmed that the cases already decided by the Court of Queen’s Bench clearly established the principle that imprisonment, either for misdemeanour or felony, was a disruption of the settlement. That was most conclusively decided in Queen v. Salford. But in the Queen v. Stogumber, the husband was imprisoned in the same parish as the wife resided in, and it was therefore held that there was no severance of them, and that consortium between them might still be assumed. He agreed with Mr. Hockin that the act 9 and 10 Vict. cap. 66, was passed for the protection of the poor; its object was that where the pauper had had industrial residence for 5 years in a parish, and had thereby conferred a benefit on that parish, that by that parish he should be relieved; but then there was a proviso that a term of imprisonment should not be reckoned, because during that term there had been no industrial residence, and consequently, no benefit conferred by the pauper on that parish. And that principle was established by the Queen v. Salford. In the case of Queen v. St. Mary Whitechapel, the husband had gone to sea, intending to return, and had sent home money to his wife, yet the Bench held that he had deserted his wife and family, and that consequently there was a break of residence. But the language of the case of Queen v. Pott Shrigley was more definite. In that case it was argued that, inasmuch as the wife had been 5 years in the parish without break of residence, the husband’s break of residence was not to affect her; but the Court decided that it did, and that where the husband was removeable, the wife also was removeable; and then, incidentally, it was argued whether imprisonment was a break of residence; and Lord Denman held that a long imprisonment for felony, misdemeanor, or any criminal offence, was a break of residence. There was no distinction as to felony or misdemeanor; in either case to the party was prevented returning to his parish by operation of law. That was also the broad principle of the decision in Queen v. Halifax.—But the case of Queen v. Holbeck was not one of conviction, either for misdemeanor or felony; but merely an imprisonment for a few days, for non-payment of a small fine for getting drunk, and the man might at any moment have been released on payment of the fine, and have returned to his wife and family. But the ground of Lord Denman’s decision that the imprisonment in that case was not a break of residence was that it would be a practice open to grave abuse, if overseers and churchwardens, who were by law the proper parties to proceed against a party for drunkenness, had it in their power to cause a break of residence of a man in their parish by getting him imprisoned for a short time for drunkenness. In Queen v. Caldicot, 4 New Sessions Cases, p. 691, there was only an absence of a few hours under an order of removal; and Lord Campbell said there was a period of time during which the pauper ceased to reside in the removing parish and during which he had not power to return to it; and the duration of that period was considered immaterial.—On the two clear cases he (Mr. Darke) had referred to, and which were unaffected by the argument or the decision in Queen v. Holbeck, he contended that the imprisonment in the present case was a decided break of residence.—On the second point taken by his friend Mr. Hockin, that the order of removal in the present case could not now be executed, Mr. Darke asserted that the original order of removal was good and might have been executed in 21 days from its date, but for the notice of appeal, which the appellants gave, in the expectation, he presumed, of getting the man back again. Their worships could only now inquire whether the original order was good or bad; and could not inquire into any state of facts between the order and the appeal. There was a broad distinction between the case of Whitechapel and the present; in the case of Whitechapel, there was never a moment in which the order could have been legally executed; but in the present case, the respondents were in a position to execute their order at the end of 21 days from its date. Another distinction was that in the case of Whitechapel the appeal was against the removal, and not against the order; whereas, in this case, there had been no removal, and the appeal was against an order which it was admitted was good at the time it was made.—Mr. Darke, in conclusion, pressed for a confirmation of the order of removal, and evidence of settlement, although most probably it would not be executed; and he cited Queen v. Glossop as warranting his application. The Court confirmed the order; £5 costs; £1 maintenance. Mr. HOCKIN applied for a case, on the first point, and on the other also; but the Court declined to grant it. IMPORTANT TO MINING PARISHES. THOMAS ROXBERRY AND OTHERS, appellants: Mr. Shilson and Mr. Anstis. OVERSEERS AND CHURCHWARDENS OF , respondents; Mr. Hockin, Mr. Darke, and Mr. Pedler.—Mr. SHILSON stated that this was an appeal by Thomas Roxberry, Charles Payne and other co-adventurers in Marke Valley mine, against the overseers and churchwardens of the parish of Linkinhorne, in respect of an assessment for the relief of the poor made on the 20th November, 1851. The description of the property rated was—dwelling-house, counting-house, stables, carpenters’ and smiths’ shops, material houses, crushing and stamping mills, sheds, dressing-floors, changing-house, water courses, &c. The estimated rental was 37l. 10s; rateable value, 30l; rate at 10d. in the £, = 1l. 5s. The tenants had objected that they were not liable to the rating; and, it was for the respondents to begin. Mr. HOCKIN then said, this was a case which was of considerable importance to the county at large. Their worships were quite aware that mines are exempt from rating; and the only produce which a parish could now receive from a mine was a rating on that portion of the ore which passed into the hands of the lord of the mine, when he chose to receive it in kind; and not otherwise. And those cases in which the lord received in kind were becoming fewer daily. The result was that parishes were greatly burdened by the large population created by mines, without receiving any direct benefit from them.— The question now sought to be brought before their worships was, how far the exemption of mines from rateability was to go—what limit was to be placed on this immunity. The question was one of such importance that the opinion of the Poor Law Board had been taken on it, and their opinion was that works of this nature might and ought to be rated; and it was with the view of establishing that point that the rate now in question had been made. His friends on the other side, on behalf of the mines, said that they ought not to be rated. The rate was made, not on the mine itself, but on those workings on the surface used for the mine; and the question was, whether or not those surface operation, surface buildings, and surface matters on which the rate was made, were or were not part of the mine itself. That was, he apprehended, the whole question. Because, though the mine itself was exempt, the exemption was not a personal privilege extending to the miner; the miner had many privileges, but he had not, as a miner, that privilege of exemption from rating.—Then came the question—what was the definition of a min? In the case now before the court, the rate was made on matters which no one could contend were part of the mine; it was made on the dwelling-house of the mine agent, on the machinery for crushing ores, on the carpenters’ shop, the smiths’ shop, on the warehouses where materials were kept, on the sheds where the miners change their clothes, on watercourses, &c. These were matters in respect of which he presumed his friends would not contend that they ought not to be rated. But he supposed his friends would say there were other items on which they ought not to be rated. The point for their worships to decide now was whether those works formed part of the mine itself. The respondents contended that the mine itself was confined to the underground workings and such workings on the surface as were absolutely necessary for the working of the underground workings— such surface works as were so necessary that the mine could not be worked without them. He did not suppose that his friends would contend that every thing on the surface, within the limits of the mine, was exempt. If so, then every person connected with a mine might build his house and have his farm within the limits of the mine, and be exempt from rating. He did not know if his friends meant to argue that they were exempted in respect of every house and works that was necessary for making ores merchantable. If so, they might make the ores merchantable off the mine, as well as on it, and they might say that if they chose to break their ores a mile from the mine, that place would be exempt. He apprehended that could not be contended for a moment. At that rate they might go still further and say that all processes connected with ore were exempt; and still further, it would follow that persons who made it up in the shape of goods—that every kind of process connected with ore, directly or indirectly, mediately or ultimately, was to be exempted altogether. He did not see how his friends could stop short of that. But a line must be drawn somewhere; and they (the respondents) drew the line; they said that the moment the ore had been raised out of the mine, that moment the mine, as regarded rating, ceased to be a mine. In reference to the question of rating, it was necessary to guard against the ordinary use of the term “mine,” which was applied to the whole sett. The question was, what was the real technical application of the term mine, with regard to rating. He thought some light was thrown on the question what was the legal meaning of the term mine, as regarded rating, by the case Queen v. Sedgley, Burns p. 167. In that case the question was whether certain lime-stone works were to be rated; and the parties objected that the works were in fact a mine. The proof was that they were worked 40 or 50 yards below the surface of the ground, by means of large excavations, pit shafts and engines, in the same way as mines of coal or other minerals. In the decision of that case, Lord Tenterden said, “we are of opinion that this property is rateable; I take it to be established that the expression ‘coal mines and other mines’ in the 43rd of Elizabeth, has the effect of excluding all other mines,”—and his lordship added “the only question remaining is whether the property in lime stone is property in a lime stone mine. The description of the manner in which the lime stone is raised, by sinking shafts perpendicularly on the strata, and working with the necessary provision for raising to the surface by machinery, is an exact description of the present mode of mining.”—In another case, Queen v. Dunsford, in which Queen v. Sedgley was referred to, Lord Denman said “The Queen v. Sedgley is quite in point; the principle now is, that the mode of getting, and not the nature of the article, constitutes mine or no mine.”—If then, continued Mr. Hockin, the mode of getting, and not the nature of the article, constituted the question of mine or no mine, the fair inference was that the term mine, with regard to rating, had reference to underground workings. But, still further, the engine, which was essentially necessary to the underground workings, was also for the purpose of rating, part of the mine. In point of law, for the purpose of rating, the mine was the seeking for ore underground; and if they could get copper, by working in quarries, he apprehended that would not be a mine; if they worked on the surface and from the surface without underground workings, he apprehended that would be no mine. The King v. Bilston, 5 Barnewall and Alderson, the case on which the Poor-law Board had come to the conclusion to which he had adverted, was the case of an appeal against a rate. In that case there was an engine and pit, erected by the appellants, and used solely for the purpose of drawing water from the mine; and, underground, there was a railroad for the purpose of conveying ores to the shaft; and the principle established in that case was, that if there was any machinery which was of no other use but to raise ores in the mine, underground, and bring it to surface, that machinery was part and parcel of the mine; and he (Mr. Hockin) submitted that therein they had a definite line drawn to enable them to come to a conclusion as to what was or was not, in point of law, a mine, for the purpose of rating; and he also submitted that no other definite line could be drawn. They could not be governed by the limits of the sett; a house might be built within the limits of the sett—the miners might all live on the mine, and a farm might be carried on there. A counting-house was very convenient for a mine, but not at all necessary for the purpose of extracting ore and bringing it to the surface. So, with regard to dressing floors, where workmen broke the ores—the first process for rendering them marketable—if his friend said that these were exempt, they must go another step; and smelting-houses and stamping mills, perhaps two or three miles off the mine, must be exempt too. He (Mr. Hockin) contended that neither dressing floors, stamping mills, smelting houses, nor any other ultimate process to which the ore might be subjected, was in any respect essential to a mine. The whole of those processes might be carried on by a distinct company; and he had no question that in the early stages of mining, the whole of those processes were so carried on. With regard to tin mines they knew that the old custom was for the miners to divide their tin in a bowl, and each man took his own share and sold it where he liked for the purpose of being smelted. It was only within late years that that process had been altered. Instead of the practice which formerly prevailed, for the miner to extract the ore from the earth and the merchant or some other person to make it merchantable, it had now become the practice for miners to be, generally speaking, dressers of ores. Stamping mills were consequently common to all mines, and were found to be convenient. Probably the time was not far distant when miners would also have their own smelting-houses as well as stamping-mills, and become merchants as well as miners. But still the mine solely was exempt, and if the miner chose to take upon himself a different character and to become a dresser of ore, he was not therefore entitled to the privilege of exemption from paying rates. The King v. Bilston was the only case which bore directly on the question. He had no doubt that the reason why the question had not received a solemn decision before now, was because of the gradual alteration that had taken place in the conduct of mines. Formerly the profession of a miner was confined to the raising ores; but gradually this practice had been altered, and miners took upon themselves the process of making ores merchantable; but parishes had abstained from making rates on them, in consequence of the old notion having prevailed that a mine was not rateable, and from their not understanding the legal definition of a mine. Mr. SAWLE:—Do you say that material houses are not necessary to the working of a mine? Mr. HOCKIN should say that material houses were not necessary for the working of a mine. A mine might be worked as effectively—he did not say as conveniently—if the material house were not in the hands of the miners. Suppose the case of a miner ceasing to have his own material house; instead of bringing his own materials and housing them on the mine, he would go to a merchant and buy of him and carry the materials on the mine as wanted. Therefore, however convenient and advantageous to the miner, material houses were not so necessary as to be, in point of law, within the definition of the mine itself. And that observation appeared to him distinctly to apply to every one of the items in the present appeal. The King v. Bilston was decided solely on the ground that the engine was necessary to the mine—that the mine could not be worked without it—and that it was not used for any other purpose. Now it could not be said that any one of the items in the present case was necessary. With regard to the process of rendering ores merchantable, Mr. Hockin went on to contend, further, that in order to be exempt, not only must the machinery and surface workings be necessary to the mine, but also that they must be physically connected with the underground workings. The distinction he drew was this. A railroad underground was necessary to the mine and physically connected with it; but a railroad on the surface though physically connected with the mine, was not necessary to the mine; it would facilitate removal of ores, but the ores might be removed otherwise; they might be carried off by hand as well as by railroad; it would be a question of expense. He contended that necessity was one test; and that the other test was that there should be actual physical connection with the underground workings. In King v. Bilston the railroad was underground, and was allowed to be part of the mine because it was physically connected with the underground workings. It was on these points he rested his case. It was of considerable importance that it should be decided, in order that it might be known in future what rates to make. Mr. CARPENTER ROWE.—Do you contend that the whole operation of a mine, as far as rating is concerned, cease when the ore is brought to grass? Mr. HOCKIN.—Yes. Mr. DARKE.—That is our point. Mr. HOCKIN observed that the case of Queen v. Baptist Mill Company threw some light on the point. That case established the principle of which ores were rateable. The principle of that decision was that the ore was raised by the labour of the adventurers; when raised, the lord was entitled to one-fourth; until raised, the lord might be considered as working with the adventurers in raising the ore; but when raised, the lord’s share of the ore ceased to be part of the mine and became land; and it was to be rated when it came to the lord, but not before.—Mr. Hockin concluded by saying that he confidently relied on the difficulty of drawing any other line that that which he had drawn, as regards rating. He submitted that, for the purpose of rating, they could draw no other line but that the surface workings, in order to be exempt, must be both necessary to and physically connected with the underground workings. The moment the ore was raised, the operations of the mine, within the meaning of the statute and for the purpose of rating, ceased altogether. Mr. DARKE then proceeded to introduce the evidence in the case. It was agreed to omit, in the consideration of the case, the first two items in the rate—these items consisted of two dwelling-houses which were admitted to be rateable, but the appellants denied that these houses were in their occupation.—It was admitted that the appellants were the occupiers of all the other premises—that the rate had been regularly made except in so far as appeared in the terms of the appeal—and that it had been allowed and published. The rate-book was also admitted, with the entry of the appellants’ names, and their rating. Mr. Robert Coad, of Liskeard, surveyor, was then examined by Mr. Darke. He stated that he had lately made a valuation of certain buildings and other erections in Marke Valley mine, and gave, seriatim, the gross value, rateable value, and rate of each item; making the total gross value, £36 10s 0d., and the total rateable value, £29 4s 0d.; and the rate £1 4s 7d. He stated that the water-course within the sett was used to turn the water-wheel of the crushing machine, and also for other purposes, such as washing ores; and of the various buildings he said that none of them had any physical connection with the shaft or underground workings; and that it would be possible to carry on the operations of the mine—so far as related to the mere raising of ore from underground to surface—without such buildings. It would be possible for one set of adventurers to raise the ore, and for another set to make it merchantable; but it was almost invariably the case that the same adventurers carried on all the operations. Cross- examined—Never knew of miners being so divided into sections. Part of the water course was used for condensing the water of the stream-engine for bringing up ore and rubbish from under-ground. The water-course was not used for any purpose not in connection with the mine. All the buildings and other things that he had given the valuation of, were used entirely under the direction of the adventurers, and were necessary for the operations of the mine, and were not used for any other purpose. It was possible to work the mine without them; because the ores and other things might be carried to a distance off the mine; but it was not very likely that would be done. All the buildings and erections named were within the sett.—Re-examined:—Supposing a “mine,” in the legal acceptation of the term, meant simply the raising ores from underground to surface, then he should not call those buildings a part of the mine. In the vulgar acceptation of the word “mine,” Mark Valley Mine meant all within the limits of the sett; and it was in that sense that he said all those building and erections were necessary to the mine.—By Mr. Carpenter Rowe:—According to the practice of good mining in this County, those buildings, floors, and so on were placed as close as possible to the shaft, as a matter of economy. That consideration of economy entered largely into the question whether a mine could be carried on profitably or not. If the operations referred to were carried on at a distance, it was probable that many mines would be stopped. Mr. DARKE then addressed the Bench. He first directed attention to the statute of Elizabeth, cap. 43, by which it was enacted that the rate was to me made on every occupier of houses, lands or coal mines. The decisions on that statute amounted, in principle, to this:—of course an occupier of a mine was an occupier of land and would have been rateable under the first words of that statute; but the Courts had decided that inasmuch as coal mines were mentioned in the statute, all other mines were intended to be excluded from its operation, and consequently, to be exempt from rating. But the question they had now to consider was—what was the definition of a mine? Because, if the adventurers, in respect of the items mentioned in the rate, were not occupiers of a mine, then they were rateable; for they were not exempt as miners. Except in the King v. Bilston, there was not a single decision on the point he had mentioned in respect of adventurers. But he could show that the landlord was rateable for dues which he had reserved to himself. In the Queen v. Todd, there was an actual demise of a mine, on condition that a certain proportion of the ore, spalled and made merchantable, was to be rendered to the lord; and the Court held that the landlord, in respect of that proportion, was rateable, as the occupier of land after the mining operations had ceased. In the case of Crease v. Sawle, and in another case, Sir W. Follett put it strongly that the landlord never granted the whole mine, but merely gave to the adventurers license to search, reserving to himself part of the ore; and then Sir W. Follett argued that if that reservation of part of the ore made him occupier of land, he was occupier of the land underground and was exempt, together with the miner. But in Queen v. Todd, that distinction was entirely exploded. There, the landlord never had anything under ground; and it was not the ore as raised to the surface that he had occupation of, but the ore made merchantable afterwards; and the Court said he was an occupier of land and rateable for it. The landlord became rateable after all mining operations had ceased. And that was the distinction made in the early cases. In Queen v. Baptist Mill Company, 1 Maule and Selwyn, p. 116, Lord Ellenborough held that the lord was rateable and not the adventurers, because the mine was exempted; the whole of the ore was raised by the adventurers, and when raised, the lord was entitled to a certain portion of it; until the ore was raised, the lord might be considered as working with and by the adventurers; but when raised, there was a share which redounded to the lord; and that share, so redounding to the lord, after all mining operations had ceased, the Court held to be land within the meaning of the statute. Mr. CARPENTER ROWE adverted to the case of Rowe v. Brenton, and asked Mr. Darke—when do you say ore becomes a chattel? Mr. DARKE said, beyond all doubt, in Queen v. Todd, the ore was a chattel; it had not only been separated from the soil, but the earth had been washed off, and it had been made marketable; it was a chattel, but it was a chattel rateable under the word ‘occupier of land’—it was not realty, but it was a chattel. Lord Ellenborough speaking of the strict legal sense, said, “though it is a chattel and not realty, yet it may fairly be construed as land, under the meaning of the statute of Elizabeth, which says that the occupier of land shall be rateable.” And one of the other Judges went on to say—it remains to be seen what construction is to be put on the words “occupiers of land,” in order to determine whether a party who is in receipt of a considerable revenue without any risk, is to be rateable; and in determining this we are not bound to follow the strict definition of the word land in every possible mode, through all the consequences of realty and personalty, or to decide whether it would enable a party to maintain an action of trespass; it was considered that the lord who received a stipulated part of the profits of a mine was an occupier, jointly with the adventurers. The only distinction between the occupation of the adventurers and the occupation of the lord, was after the ore had been raised to the surface. Lord Ellenborough held that while the ore is below the surface, the lord is working with the adventurers and is not rateable; but after it had been raised to the surface, the lord becomes occupier of the ore raised, and therefore is liable.—In some early cases, it was decided that the test of risk was a test of rating; but that principle was exploded in Crease v. Sawle. In arguing that mines were to be exempt, it was urged that they ought to be, because of the very great risk, which was more than in coal mines. That might have been a reason why it should have been intended to exempt other than coal mines, but it could not be a test as to whether a mine was rateable property. After the ores had been brought to surface, the adventurers were occupiers without risk. But he did not think that was of importance; because it was not a test of rateability. The broad question was, what was the meaning of the word “mine” which was said to be excepted in the statute? The cases of the Court of Queen’s Bench had decided it to mean the occupation of that which was in process of being raised by underground exertions. The case which his friend had cited, of a lime stone quarry, was extremely strong on the same view. He recollected a case in which a bed of lime stone was worked open, as a quarry, at one end where it came to the surface, and was held to be rateable there; but at the other end, the bed was lower, and was worked as a mine by means of shafts and levels underground, and there it was held to be not rateable. It was therefore quite clear that the substance was no test of rateability. If copper were raised at the surface from a quarry, it would be rateable. Rateability did not depend on the nature of the stuff raised; but simply on the question whether it was raised through a shaft or at an open cutting. It was the shaft that constituted the mine. He had gone through the whole of the cases with the greatest care, and could not find a single instance in which the lord was rateable except when his occupation was held to be an occupation of land according to the meaning of the statute; and that, after all the operations of the mine had ceased. Every dealing with the ore after that, was a dealing with land; all the authorities agreed that the mine was merely the going underground and getting the ore up.—The King v. Bilston decided beyond all doubt, that the steam-engine is part of the mine and cannot be rated. But, if their worships looked to that case, they would see that that was because the engine was physically connected with the underground operations of the mine; it was held to be positively part of the shaft, and therefore exempt. The occupation of the shaft was the occupation of a mine, and the engine was held to be part of the shaft: the shaft would be useless without it.—The water course was one of the items sought to be rated in the present case. The main use of that water course was to drive a crushing machine; and, if his argument was good, it was quite clear that the purpose of that crushing machine was to deal with the ore after it had been raised, and therefore its occupation was not an occupation of the mine. Part of the water was applied to condense the steam of the engine; and it had not been attempted to rate the steam-engine. For his friend to avail himself of the exception from rating, that the water course should be exclusively used for the mine; if he occupied one thing that was used for two purposes, one of which was such as would render occupation rateable, then clearly that article was rateable; if he chose to apply it to another purpose that was not rateable, that did not make him exempt.—Then take the counting-house; that could not be said to be in the same position as, in King v. Bilston, the pumping engine was—as physically connected with what the law had decided to be a mine. There was no connection between the counting-house and the engine shaft; and, therefore, the counting-house could not be in occupation as an adjunct of the mine. Dressing-floors also could have nothing to do with the occupation of the mine; if he were correct as to what a mine was. As regards the blacksmiths’ shop and tools, his friend might raise another argument as to them, but with equal fallacy. In what way could the blacksmiths’ shop be said to be connected with the shaft? It was not physically connected—that was quite clear; nor was it part of the shaft, as the engine was. His friend said that the men sharpened their tools there to work with down in the mine. But, undoubtedly, the adventurers might employ a blacksmith on the other side of the road, off the mine; and that blacksmith night bring his tools to the mine weekly to do the necessary work. There was no physical connection between the blacksmiths’ shop and the shaft; and the same argument applied to the carpenters’ shop and the changing house. It was no answer to say that it was convenient for the adventurers to have these places; it must be shown that the occupier of a mine must necessarily occupy a changing house, &c., and so on. It was precisely the same as to the powder-house. It could not be said that a powder-house was necessary for bringing up the ore from the mine. Why must the adventurer occupy a powder-house? He might say to Mr. Lanyon of Kennal Vale, you build a magazine here, and I will take my powder from you.—If their worships should consider a mine to be nothing more than the shaft, and those things which the Courts had considered, in defining what a mine was, then there was no necessary connection with any of these items which he had now mentioned.—As to amount, the two first items in the rate (dwelling houses) had been taken off, and the amount now was 29l. 4s. Mr. SHILSON addressed the Bench for the appellants. It appeared to him that the very simple question they had to try had been unnecessarily enlarged. The simple question here was whether those buildings, in respect of which the appeal had been made, were of use in the working of the mine; and Mr. Coad said they were not only of use, but essentially necessary; and there was no man in the county who did not know that every one of those things was essentially necessary for the working of a mine. If that were so, then every part of the mine was exempt under the statute. In the King v. Bilston there was a very fair test put by Justice Bailey. He said—suppose a conveyance or lease of this mine, with the machinery, to be made, it is clear that the engine would have passed to the grantee or lessee, and therefore the engine must be considered part and parcel of the mine, and was, as well as the mine itself, exempt from poor rates.—Look to what took place when a man began to work a mine. After obtaining a sett, the first thing he did, generally speaking, was to get a sort of counting house for paying the men and for the meetings on account days. If the mine was set to work, there was a blacksmiths’ shop for sharpening tools, and a carpenters’ shop, to enable the men to carry on their operations. Sometimes the mine was worked by a water wheel, and sometimes by an engine. But all these buildings and this machinery was erected before the shaft could be made; they were all necessary to the making of the shaft, and were the very first processes necessary to the working the mine. Then there were the stamping mills, dressing-floors, and other places necessary for the operations of the mine; if they were used for the mining operations, and for no other purpose, it was clear that they were exempt. The whole of the items in the present case, including the water-course, were within the sett; they were all used for the purposes of the mine and for no other purpose, and were all essentially necessary for it. It seemed to him that his friend might as well contend that the engine was rateable, as any of those things. His friend said, his definition of a mine was, what was necessary for raising ores to the surface, and he added, that the mine ceased when the ore was once raised. But there must be previously, a counting-house, and a blacksmiths’ shop for the men to sharpen their tools. The case which his friend put—of employing a blacksmith outside the sett, did not apply. That blacksmiths’ shop clearly would not be exempt from rating; because the blacksmith was the occupier of it and not the adventurers. The question was, whether the adventurers thought it necessary for their convenience, to have a blacksmiths’ shop on the mine. They did; and had one, as well as a carpenters’ shop. They also, for the same reason, went to the expense of bringing in water on the mine and of erecting a water-wheel. Mr. Coad said that all these things were necessary for the purposes of the mine; and they needed not his testimony to that fact. And if they were necessary for the purposes of the mine, then they were exempt from rateability, under the statute of Elizabeth. But his friends on the other side had put the question—suppose the ores were carried from off the mine to another place to be broken, would that place be exempt from rateability? If the ores were broken within the sett, that would be part of the mine; but if they were carried to any other place, it was different; they did not constitute a mine at that place, and that place would be rateable. This case appeared to be an attempt by a side-wind, to rate mines. This was not the first time that attempt had been made. At the Easter Sessions 1848, there was a similar attempt on the part of the overseers of the parish of ; they rated the railroad of Iron Mine, and Messrs. Taylor and others appealed against that rate; and their Worships held that such was clearly a case in which the railroad was not rateable. That case was decided at the Easter Sessions 1848, and there had been no attempt to disturb the decision. In that case the rating was on 970 fathoms of railroad, used for conveying the ores, after being made merchantable, from the mine to the shipping port. The overseers rated the railroad, on the ground that it was not part of the mine, but the bench held that it was part, and therefore exempt under the statute of Elizabeth. That case was much stronger for the respondents than the case now before the Court; yet all that portion of the railroad which was within the sett was held to be rateable. In the present case, all the buildings rated were necessary before the mine came into operation, and must be continued for the necessary operations of the mine. The mining operations could not be carried on without the water-course. At Consols the value of the water course was 1,200l. per annum for carrying on the mine; the water-power was the most valuable part of the mine; and it might as well be said that that was rateable. If steam power was not rateable, why was water power, used for the operations of a mine, to be made rateable? The man who worked a mine did so in that way which was the cheaper and the more convenient to him. If he could find water power, that was cheaper and he used it; if not, he was obliged to have a steam engine. He would take that which was nearest, most convenient, and least expensive; and one was not to be rated, any more than the other. Lord Vivian. The water is used in the shaft, for raising the ore. Mr. Shilson. The water was raised from the mines by water power and also by steam power. And so also water power and the steam engine were used for raising ore. In King v. Bilston, Holroyd J. put that point; he said the engine would have been burdensome to the adventurers except for the uses of the mine, and it was used for no other purpose. And so it was with every one of the buildings in the present appeal. As regarded the land, irrespective of the mine, there was not one of those items but would be a burden. That was another test.—It appeared to him there could be no question in the case. The buildings had been proved to be essentially necessary. They were part and parcel of the mine; and being so, they were exempt from rateability. If the Court were to hold otherwise, where was the distinction to be drawn? Suppose the mine were limited to the shaft and the underground workings, casting off all those other buildings, how was the mine to be carried on? How were the miners to change their clothes; how were their tools to be sharpened; where were the horses working whims or bringing coals and timber to be placed? In short, how was the mine to be worked? Was not that a sufficient test to ascertain if those things were necessary to the existence of the mine? Destroy the dressing floors and all those things, and how could the operations be carried on? If his friend’s position were correct, they were not part of the mine. But if they were part of the mine, they were not rateable. That was a test which Bailey J. took in King v. Bilston; he said, the engine is of use in the operation of the mine, in drawing off the water. The other test put by him was—suppose a lease of that mine to be granted with the machinery, would not the carpenter’s shop, blacksmith’s shop, counting-house, and all the other things go with the mine? No lawyer would doubt that if the adventurers of Marke Valley Mine were to assign the sett to any other party, every building on that sett and the materials and all that belonged to the mine, would pass with it. Holroyd J. put that test in the case of King v. Bilston. According to his friend’s own showing, the engine was part of the mine. Mr. DARKE.—The shaft is part of the mine; and the engine is part of the shaft. Mr. CARPENTER ROWE.—Suppose you were not to dress the ore there, but were to bring the ore up in a bucket, and cart it out on the grass, is the spot on which you deposit the ore rateable or not? Is it part of the mine or not? It is not the shaft. LORD VIVIAN.—Is that surface land on which the ore is placed, rateable or not? Mr. SHILSON.—Clearly not; because it was necessary for the mine. His friend said that the moment the ore was brought up from the shaft, there was an end of the mine. But what were they to do with the ore? Was it to be blown away? It was impossible to carry on any of those operations of the mine, either before or after the completion of the shaft, without those conveniences to which the present case applied. The estate was rated; it was only the mine that was exempted from rateabilitly and whatever was necessary for the operations of the mine. If his friend could have shown that these buildings and conveniences were used for other purposes that those of the mine, or that they were not necessary for the purposes of the mine, then they would be rateable. But inasmuch as it had been proved by the respondents’ own witness that every building was not only of use, but essentially necessary, he (Mr. Shilson) contended they were exempt. He was so satisfied with the case his friend had laid before the Court, that he would not call the witnesses he had present. The Magistrates then retired for consultation.—On their return, the CHAIRMAN said:—The decision of the Court is, that the rate be amended by striking out the rating of the appellants.—Ordinary costs. Mr. HOCKIN said the case was one of so much importance to the county that he was instructed to ask for a case upon it. He did so with the more confidence, because of the opinion of the Poor Law Commissioners, which he had already adverted to, and which he would now read.—Mr. Hockin then read the following documents:— Parish of Linkinhorne, Liskeard Union. To the Poor Law Board. Gentlemen, As overseer of the above parish, and being about to make a rate for the relief of the poor, I beg to submit to you the following statement on the mines which were the subject of a former communication. There are connected with these mines—First, steam engines for pumping the water. Second—a steam whim on the one, and a whim worked by water on the other. Third—each has a grinding or crushing machine, and stamping mill driven by water. Fourth—each a blacksmith’s shop and carpenter’s shop, occupied by men employed by the Captains, at monthly wages. Fifth—various other buildings, such as counting-houses, store-houses, changing-houses, &c. Sixth—a considerable quantity of land, taken up with conveniences for dressing the copper, &c. for the market; several of these erections are at some distance from the mines, for convenience of water, &c. It is understood that in the present state of the law the mines cannot be legally rated; and as the dues payable to the landlord have been converted into a money payment for the purpose of avoiding the rates, this money rent is also exempted. I am therefore desired by the parishioners to enquire if the buildings &c. above described or any of them are in your opinion liable to poor rate; and if any parts are liable, please to state what number may be rated. An answer to the above at your earliest convenience will greatly oblige. Your obedient servant, JOHN DINGLE. Poor Law Board, House, 14th May, 1851. Sir,—I am directed by the Poor Law Board to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th ult., enquiring as to the rateability of certain property, in connexion with the mines, in the parish of Linkinhorne; and to state in reply, that according to the decision in R. v. Bilston (5B. and C. 851) the steam-engines and whims are not rateable to the poor rate; but the engines and mills for crushing the ore, the blacksmith’s and the carpenter’s shops, the counting-houses and other houses, and the land occupied for dressing the copper, all appear to the Board, according to your statement, to be rateable. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, COURTENAY, Secretary.

To Mr. John Dingle, Darley, near Liskeard, Cornwall. The Court granted a case. _____

THOMAS CROSS and OTHERS, appellants. OVERSEERS and CHURCHWARDENS of LINKINHORNE, respondents.—Advocates and Attorneys the same, respectively, as in the preceding case.—The present was an appeal by Thomas Cross, Esq., and others, co-adventurers in Wheal Phoenix mine against the same rate as in the previous appeal. The property rated was—counting-house, stables, material houses, carpenters’ and smiths’ shops, changing-houses, sheds, stamping and crushing mills, dressing floors, water courses, &c.—Gross estimated rental ?-0l.; rateable value 40l.; rate at 10d. in the pound, ?-l 13s. 4d. It had been pre-arranged that the decision in this case, should be the same as that in the preceding to which, mutatis mutandis, it was precisely similar.—It was therefore ordered, on the motion of Mr. Shilson (Mr. Hockin consenting) that the rate be amended by striking out the names of the appellants.— Case granted. St. GENNYS, appellant; Mr. DARKE and Mr. ROWE. ALTERNUN, respondent; Mr. SHILSON and Mr. WHITE. Appeal against an order for removal of the wife and 2 children of William Stacey. Mr. DARKE moved an adjournment of the appeal in consequence of the absence of a material witness, Ann Prout? of . It appeared from the affidavits in support of the motion, that it was suspected that the witness had been concealed to prevent her giving evidence; and it further appeared that suspicion of committing this act rested on the parish of , which would be prejudicially affected by the witness’s testimony, inasmuch as she would have proved a birth settlement of the pauper’s husband in that parish.—Mr. SHILSON objected to the adjournment, mainly on the ground that his most important witness was a man 86 years old.—Eventually it was agreed that the appeal should be heard before the Launceston Bench of Justices, on the 21st inst., and that if the aged witness should die meanwhile, or become mentally incompetent to give evidence, his depositions before the removing magistrates should be admitted in evidence. FRIDAY, JANUARY 9. SENTENCES OF PRISONERS.

[See individual cases above] In the course of passing the sentences, the CHAIRMAN warned farm servants that if they took barley belonging to their masters, even for the purpose of feeding their masters’ horses, they were guilty of felony. The Chairman also spoke of the increase in the offence of poultry-stealing, and intimated the determination of the Bench to resort to severe punishments in order to repress it; as had been necessary some years since. This concluded the business of the sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 2 April 1852

2. Lent Assizes The opening of these assizes which had been appointed for Wednesday the 24th of March, was delayed until the following day, in consequence of a heavy amount of business in the Nisi Prius Court at . [Remainder of paragraph and following paragraph not transcribed.] CROWN COURT. The business of this Court commenced on Friday morning at half-past nine o’clock, before Mr. Justice Erle. The calendar contained the names of fifty five prisoners. The following magistrates were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Sir W.L.S. Trelawny, Bart., Foreman. Hon G.M. Fortescue S. Davey, Esq. T.J.A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. J. Gwatkin, Esq. G.W.F. Gregor, Esq. R.G. Polwhele, Esq. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. W. Braddon, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. E. Morshead, Esq. Nicholas Kendall, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. Francis Rodd, Esq. C. Prideaux Brune, Esq. E. Archer, Esq. W.D. Horndon, Esq. R. Johns, Esq. J.B. Messenger, Esq. Thomas Pearse, Esq. T.G. Graham, Esq. W.P. Kempe, Esq. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. In addition to the above magistrates forming the Grand Jury, Mr. T.R. Avery answered to his name. The following Mayors answered to their names:—The Mayors of Bodmin, Camelford, Falmouth, St. Ives, Launceston, Lostwithiel, Truro, Penryn, and the Portreeve of St. Germans. The County Coroners, Mr. Hamley and Mr. Hichens, answered in court; the third , Mr. John , it was stated, was engaged in holding an inquest. The Royal proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, the learned Judge gave the following [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY – not transcribed] TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JOHN HICKS, a lad of thirteen years of age, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, at , on the 25th of February, two five pound notes, the property of John Merchant; in another count the notes were laid as the property of Edward Elsop.—The learned Judge said, you stand convicted of this crime on your own confession. From your early age I presume it is your first offence, and I hope you will take warning. Sentence, two months hard labour. POACHING CASE.—WILLIAM SCOBLE was indicted for feloniously cutting and wounding Charles Michell in the head and left arm, with intent to resist his lawful apprehension. A second count charged the prisoner with intent to maim and disable; and a third with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. Mr. STOCK appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. MAYNARD for the prisoner. Mr. Stock stated the case, and called Charles Michell, who said, I am a labourer of the parish of . I work for Lord Falmouth, who has preserves in Lamorran, and has a wood there called Lamorran wood. I have been in the habit of assisting the head-keeper, Wright, in watching Lord Falmouth’s preserves. On the 9th of January last, he called on me to go with him to watch in Lamorran wood. We started a little before four o’clock in the morning. After we had been in the wood about half an hour, we heard a gun fired in the wood, a little off from the water side. After that, about half-past five, we saw a boat. I continued watching with Wright by the wood, and we heard a great many reports of guns fired in the wood. After that we went down to where the boat was, and waited about three quarters of an hour. We then saw Scoble and another man come out of the wood, it being a moonlight night, and I had known Scoble before. On their coming out we went towards them, and I saw Scoble had pheasants in one hand and a stick in the other. The keeper put his gun down and covered it with leaves. The man who was with Scoble presented his gun at us, and told us to mind. The keeper, Wright, then took up his gun and went towards him; and he told the man to put down his gun and went forth and collared him. He would not put down his gun, and I ran forth to take it out of his hands. Scoble ran into the water, and dropped the pheasants in the water; he then ran to me, and we collared each other. We got on the ground, and then Scoble rose up and ran to the boat to put her away. I ran to the other part of the boat and laid hold of it. He then took the oar, and began to smash away over my arm and head. I hauled away the oar from him; then he took a larger oar, and struck me on the arm and head several times, and knocked me on the ground. He broke my arm in two places, and cut my head in four places. I fell, and when down, he repeated the blows over my head. Wright told him to be quiet, and told me, if he did not be quiet, to take up the gun and fire at him. I went to the gun, but could not lift it, as my arm was broken. He then struck me over the head again with the oar, and I lost my senses altogether.—On Cross-examination witness said, when I hauled away the oar I struck him with a stick; he had struck me with the oar before that. I am sure I did not level the gun at the prisoner; I crawled on my hands and knees to take up Wright’s gun, but could not lift it. Henry Wright, gamekeeper to Lord Falmouth, said Charles Michell had been in the habit of assisting to watch for poachers, and had been with him all winter. He corroborated the last witness in several particulars, but said there were three men who came out from the wood; the third was some distance behind the other two, and went back again into the wood. The man who had the gun was Thomas Cleer; he and Scoble came on side by side. Cleer presented his gun at us; I stepped back, took up my gun, walked towards him and told him to put down his gun. He took his gun from his shoulder and held it down in his hand. I put my gun on the beach and collared him, and we had a long struggle. I observed nothing more of Scoble and Michell for two or three minutes; I then saw Scoble striking Michell with the oar several times. I called out, “Scoble, be quiet, you will murder the man.” I saw Michell pull the oar from him, and strike him a slight blow with a small stick. Scoble then took the large oar from the boat, and struck Michell over the head, which knocked him reeling on his hands and knees. He repeated his blows, and I told Michell if he would not be quiet, to fire at him. He made a motion, but could not left up the gun. Scoble then struck him another blow with the oar, and knocked him senseless. Scoble then ran and picked up my gun and carried it into the boat. I let go Cleer and went to assist Michell, and Cleer got away; he and Scoble got into the boat, cut the painter, and shoved off, carrying away my gun. I went to the assistance of Michell, and found him staggering like a drunken man. He could not stand, and streams of blood were flowing from his head over his face and clothes. There was a warrant against Cleer, but he absconded. Cross-examined – The prisoner works occasionally in the boats, and at oyster dredging and such things. My gun was a double-barrelled gun, and loaded with common-sized shot; I did not cock my gun when Cleer presented his at me. Witness then produced the oar, which was broken across the man’s head; he said it was not broken by striking on the gunwale of the boat, or the ground. Mr. Thomas Truran, surgeon, of Truro, was called to attend Michell on the morning of the 9th of January, and found him sitting near the fire by the side of the table, and apparently weak. He had received four cuts in the head, and his arm was fractured. The wounds were such as might have been made by a cutting instrument; I should say they might have been produced by the blade of an oar. Two of the wounds were two inches long, and of the other two, one was less than that extent, and the other more; they divided the skin through its entire thickness. I attributed his weakness to the probable loss of blood, but I did not apprehend any danger. I continued to attend at his residence for five weeks, and have attended him up to the present time; his arm still remains weak, and he has not the usual use of it. Mr. MAYNARD addressed the jury for the prisoner. He said the prisoner was charged with unlawfully and feloniously cutting and wounding Michell, with intent to resist his lawful apprehension; that in another count he was charged with cutting and wounding with intent to disable; and in another, with intent to inflict some grievous bodily harm. The two last counts could not be sustained, because, as he contended, there was no evidence to show that prisoner had a malicious intention to inflict the injuries described; he did not intend to exceed anything beyond what he conceived was necessary for his own defence. If that be so, the attention of the jury must be confined to the one count for resisting a lawful apprehension. But he contended that the apprehension attempted was not a lawful apprehension. The prisoner had pheasants in his hand but there was no proof that he had been into the wood for the purpose; he was not found on the land (which was necessary under the statute), nor under circumstances which would render his apprehension legal. Moreover, in point of fact, he was not resisting apprehension at all; what he was resisting was prosecutor’s attempt to pull away the boat from him; and it was not until prosecutor struck him with the stick, that prisoner in his own defence, struck prosecutor with the large oar. He asked the jury whether any other man would not have acted in the same way? It was also inconsistent with a lawful apprehension that game-keepers should attack with guns or sticks, for then the poachers might lawfully resist such attacks. In this case the man had been seduced to this business without thought or reflection, and without intending to do any serious evil; he was a man with a wife and family, and he implored the jury to give the case their merciful consideration. The learned JUDGE, in summing up, said if the jury saw reason to find the prisoner guilty of wounding with intent to prevent his lawful apprehension, it appeared to him he was also guilty of wounding with intent to maim and disable. The statute which has been referred to, enacted, that if any person shall enter upon land by night, for the purpose of taking or destroying game, he is guilty of offence within that statute; “and where any person shall be found upon land committing such offence, it shall be lawful for the keeper or his assistants, to apprehend the person so offending.” The question then was, whether the prisoner was found on land by night for the purpose of taking game. The definition of night by the statute was an hour after sun-set and an hour before sun-rise, and this transaction took place within that period. As to their being on land, they were seen to come out of the wood, which could not be unless they had been in the wood. Their guns had been heard firing there, and it was for the jury to say whether those persons had been in the wood for taking game. If so, it was lawful for the gamekeeper or his assistant to apprehend the parties; and he (the Judge) did not see how the keeper could have exercised more forbearance in doing so, for he first left his own gun behind, and only went back to take it up when the other presented his gun at him. Looking at the evidence, he did not see how it could be said the keeper or his assistant had used any intemperate violence. The jury found a verdict, GUILTY of resisting lawful apprehension. Mr. Maynard then handed to the Judge a document on behalf of the prisoner. In passing sentence, the learned judge said it is a crime of great magnitude, for if you (the prisoner) are out taking the game of another, it is an offence against property and a breach of the law. But that is not what you are standing to answer for; you are standing to answer for resisting by lawless and dangerous violence those who are doing their duty according to the law. When such a crime was proved, he should feel it his duty to award a sentence of transportation; but in the present case he should make an exception, the prisoner’s character, except with regard to game, being a good one, and the prosecutor stating that a signal example was not required in his case. He trusted the prisoner, for the sake of his happiness in life, would abandon such practices; and he then passed sentence to Twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. THOMAS ALLEN, 46, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 12th of February, two pieces of rope, the property of William Baynard, merchant, Truro. The Judge said, you have been already imprisoned nine weeks; I order you to be further imprisoned and kept to hard labour for three weeks. THOMAS and JAMES LIDDICOAT, were charged with stealing, on the night of the 3rd of March, a number of fowls, the property of Richard and George Neal, of St. Wenn. Prosecutors had ten of their fowls stolen, and the evidence on which prisoners were convicted was circumstantial, consisting of tracings of shoe-marks, and the heads and legs found in prisoners’ garden. Sentence, Thomas Liddicoat (who had been before convicted), six months’ hard labour; James Liddicoat, four months’ hard labour. STABBING.—THOMAS HENRY CURNOW, 15, was indicted for feloniously stabbing and wounding Wm. Gribble in the right side, with intent to disable him; and another count charged with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Holdsworth appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Cole for the prisoner.— William Gribble, (a boy) stated that on the 12th of February, he was working at Wheal Speed, in the parish of Uny , and was sent on an errand by Thomas Dunstan. On returning, he was met by the other boy, who came up to him, took a knife out of his pocket, and said, “Now, I shall not play with you any longer, I will stab you;” he then stabbed prosecutor in the side. Gribble said the only difference he had had with the prisoner was about a month before, when prisoner was beating his little brother.—On the part of prisoner, a schoolmaster, called Bryant, deposed that prisoner was somewhat weak of intellect, and was frequently beaten by other boys. The learned JUDGE said, the charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm was a felony; but the jury were at liberty to find guilty of unlawfully wounding, which was a misdemeanour.—Prisoner was found GUILTY of the latter offence.— Sentence deferred. JOHN ROBERTS, 23, was charged with stealing from a house called Rosecadgill, a quantity of brass and metal, the property of Mr. Samuel Borlase, of .—Mr. Prideaux, for the prosecution, called witnesses from whose evidence it appeared that the house in question was unoccupied; that on the 11th Feb., John Fox, of , who rents the farm on which the house is situate, went by the place and observed that all was safe and right, but on again passing it on the 12th Feb., he found the gate open, and, going in, he saw one of the windows open. The house had been despoiled of locks, bells, rims of grates, and other brass work. This was on the 13th of February, and it appeared that on the 12th of February, the prisoner sold a quantity of broken brass to Joseph Wilson, storekeeper to Mr. Lavin, marine store dealer, . Prisoner said he got the brass of a man three miles from , on the Helston road. On the following morning, he offered Wilson more brass for sale, but the latter told prisoner he did not like the look of it, and refused to purchase it; prisoner then took it away with him. The brass was afterwards given by Mr. Wilson to policeman Owles. When prisoner sold the brass, he said his name was Wilson. Verdict, GUILTY.—THREE MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR. SAMUEL PLYMIN, 20, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 1st of February, a piece of steel, the property of Stephen Pawley Cock, ironmonger, Truro. Sentence, THREE MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR. RICHARD STEVENS, 49, was charged with stealing railway iron, about the 30th of January, the property of Messrs. W. and A.W. Ritson, railway contractors. Mr. HOLDSWORTH, for the prosecution, called witnesses, from whose statement it appeared that the iron was taken from Messrs. Ritsons’s yard at . An agent of Messrs. Harvey and Co., called James Hamley, purchased 2 cwt. 1 qr. 18 lbs. of iron of William Stanley, on the 30th of last January. He gave information of this to Mr. Ritson, and handed the iron over to Westmacott, a constable employed by Messrs. Ritson to look after their property. In consequence of what Stanley told him, Westmacott went to prisoner Stevens, accompanied by Stanley, and prisoner then acknowledged that he had sold the iron produced to Stanley. When he bought it, Stanley said it was in prisoner’s garden, in a pit with some water, and a board over it. Mr. Lough, foreman in Messrs. Ritson’s yard, identified the iron, as being the pedestal for a waggon. Prisoner, in his defence, said he had been an old servant under Pascoe Grenfell and Company for 30 years; that he did not put the iron in the pit, and it was not covered over to hide it; but that there was a way through his garden for lodgers and others, any one of whom might have placed the iron there, and that he told Stanley, as he was in the way of collecting old iron he might have it. The learned JUDGE having summed up, the prisoner was found GUILTY. The JUDGE said it was a sad affair for him at his time of life; as he had been already in prison two months, he sentenced him to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for one month more. ISAAC BEHENNA, 24, was charged with entering the dwelling house of Edward Johns, and stealing a quantity of beef and pork. Prosecutor is a butcher of the parish of . On the 16th of February he had some salted beef and pork in his back kitchen, adjoining the dwelling-house. He shut the door that evening and went to bed, but did not recollect whether he locked the door. Next morning (Saturday) it was found the meat had been stolen; the quantity was above four-score weight. Having had information, a search warrant, was obtained, and prosecutor, with Merrifield, a constable, and Lewarne, a blacksmith, went to prisoner’s house, where part of the beef and pork was found in two earthen pans, and the remainder concealed in a bed-tie. A bag belonging to prosecutor was also found in prisoner’s house.—Lewarne was called and gave evidence that, on Friday night he was in his blacksmith’s shop about 12 o’clock; it was a bright moonlight; he heard a footstep, and looking outside he saw Isaac Behenna, who was then going towards , where prosecutor lives. Verdict, GUILTY; five months hard labour. MATTHEW BAWDEN, 18, and WILLIAM MORTON, 17, were found GUILTY of stealing a pair of clogs and two pair of pumps, on the 31st of January, the property of Jacob Corin Edwards, ironmonger, Truro. Sentence, each three months hard labour. RICHARD JOHNS, 62, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 6th of January, a trunk and 1l. 17s., the property of John Saunders, of . He also pleaded GUILTY of stealing four sovereigns, two half- sovereigns, and six-pence, belonging to Thomas Goldsworthy, of Calstock. The prisoner likewise pleaded GUILTY to a charge of having been four times before convicted. The JUDGE said, you have persevered in crime to this extent, and now must be removed from the country. I take into consideration your advanced state of life, and order you to be transported beyond the seas for ten years. FREDERICK BOX, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, at Penryn, on the 10th of March, two gallons of barley meal, the property of Sampson Stephens, his master. Mr. Cole, for the prosecution, and Mr. Stephens wished to give the prisoner a good character up to the present offence, and to recommend him to mercy.—One month’s hard labour. THOMAS VIANT, 19, was found GUILTY of stealing some sheaves of oats from a mowhay at , in the parish of Redruth, the property of Samuel Lean, innkeeper. The jury, in returning their verdict of guilty, said they also found great fault with a man called Chipman; for receiving the oats in the straw. A former conviction was proved against the prisoner, for stealing turnips in 1847. In passing sentence, the learned JUDGE said he agreed with the jury in thinking that the prisoner had been used, in some degree, as the instrument of another person.—Sentence, two months hard labour. CASE OF STABBING.—WILLIAM GRIBBLE, 23, was indicted for cutting and wounding John Williams on the right hand, with intent to maim him; and in another count he has (sic) charged with doing him grievous bodily harm. Mr. Prideaux conducted the prosecution. Williams’s statement was, that on Saturday night, the 8th of October last, about eleven o’clock, he was in the market-place at , with three other men, Pascoe, Bennetts, and Sampson Michell. They saw prisoner standing there with two women, and it further appeared from the evidence that prosecutor said something which prisoner resented, and came fencing up against him. He made a blow at prosecutor’s face, who held up his hand, and prisoner then thrust a blade of some sharp instrument into his hand. His had was much cut, and bled very much; he went to Mr. Gurney, surgeon, who attended to the injury, but one finger was now useless to him. Mext (sic) morning an open knife was found on the ground by Joseph Johns of Camborne, near the spot where the scuffle took place between the parties. Mr. Gurney, surgeon, stated that the cut was an inch and a half in length, and he feared prosecutor’s hand was permanently injured. Prisoner, in defence said, he was standing with his wife and anther married woman, when the offensive expression was used towards him by the prosecutor; he also said that Williams gave him a slap by the side of the head, but this prosecutor denied.—The learned JUDGE put it to the jury, in summing up, whether, from the nature of the cutting, they would find prisoner guilty of an intent to do grievous bodily harm, or of the minor offence of unlawfully wounding. Even if Williams had struck the prisoner, no man (the learned Judge said) would be justified in returning a blow with the use of a cutting instrument. Verdict, GUILTY of unlawfully stabbing and wounding. Another indictment was then preferred against the same prisoner, for stabbing and wounding William Pascoe in the neck, left shoulder, and forehead. This was connected with the former offence, Pascoe being one of the parties in company with Williams when Gribble cut his hand. Pascoe then jumped in between the parties, and told Gribble he should not put upon a stranger. On this Gribble stabbed Pascoe in the shoulder, “hitched” him in the head, pulled him round the market-square, and stabbed him also in the neck and temple. Pascoe was under Mr. Gurney’s care between three and four weeks, and his neck was now stiffened by the wound in it. Mr. Gurney gave evidence that the wound in Pascoe’s neck was an inch and a half in length and an inch in depth; and in the shoulder the wound was an inch and a half long, and admitted his finger up to the second joint. From the position of these wounds, however, they were not dangerous. In his defence, prisoner called John Evans, who said he saw Gribble and another man on the ground together. The navvies were upon Gribble, and one of them struck a blow and said, “you b----, that is into you.” The jury found the prisoner GUILTY of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. In passing sentence, the learned JUDGE said it was the duty of those entrusted with the administration of criminal justice, to impress on all the danger of resorting to weapons which might inflict wounds from which a man might suffer throughout life. Whatever was the provocation, it was no excuse for the prisoner resorting to the use of a deadly weapon in this most ferocious and cruel manner. He then sentenced the prisoner to be transported beyond the seas for seven years. EDWIN TREVORAH, 20, was indicted for stealing 40l. from the dwelling-house of William Cargoth Grylls, of Redruth. Mr. COLE, for the prosecution, called witnesses, from whose evidence it appeared that Mr. Grylls is an innkeeper at Redruth, and that on the 17th January, prisoner was at his house until after eleven o’clock at night. Between eight and nine o’clock, prosecutor observed him to be in a very excited state, and on asking him what was the matter, he said his brother had died in Australia, and he feared it would case the death of his mother, with whom he lived. After prisoner had left the public- house, it was found by prosecutor that a desk of his up-stairs had been broken open, and a 5l. note of the Union Bank at Helston, and 35l. in gold and silver had been stolen. A marling-spike which prisoner had left in the house, was fitted to the desk which had been broken open, and policeman having been sent for, he and prosecutor went to the house of prisoner’s mother, who gave them leave to search the house. In prisoner’s bed-room there was found 20s. worth of silver in paper, as prosecutor had wrapped it up, and on turning down the mattrass, the policeman found the five-pound note prosecutor had lost. Whilst they were searching, prisoner jumped to the looking-glass, and took two razors from the drawer. The policeman took one of the razors from him, immediately after which prisoner said, “Here it goes, and all for Elizabeth,” and cut his throat with the other razor. He was going to make a second cut, when prosecutor seized his hand and prevented the act; and Mr. Harris, surgeon, being sent for, attended to the wound, which was a serious one. The policeman found altogether in the house where prisoner lived, £13 18s. 11½d., and prisoner said all the money found belonged to Mr. Grylls, and that was all he took. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY. The Judge asked Mr. Harris if he thought there was anything in the constitution of the prisoner through which he committed the desperate act of cutting his throat, or was it from excitement through liquor? Mr. Harris replied that he thought it was from excitement of liquor, and excitement through the policeman coming in.—The prisoner was sentenced to six months’ hard labour. The Grand Jury were discharged this evening. The learned Judge said—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, it is my duty to tell you than all you have to do has been performed, and I have to thank you, on the part of the country, for the duties you have so discharged. NO BILLS.—The Grand Jury ignored the bill against William Craddock, jun., charged with setting fire to a mow of wheat, the property of Richard Willcocks, of Egloshayle. Also the bill against Thomas Tucker, charged with stealing a pole from Robert Northey, of Clether; and against Jane Pellew, charged with concealing the birth of her male infant. The Court was adjourned at seven o’clock. ______NISI PRIUS COURT. FRIDAY, March 26. Mr. Justice Talfourd took his seat in this Court at nine o’clock. The following was the CAUSE LIST. Plaintiff's Defendant's Attornies. Plaintiff. Defendant. Action. Attornies. Gill Doe dem Trevanion and another S.J. Lamb Ejt. Chilcott. Millett Doe dem Halse v. Laskey Ejt. Coode & Brown. Hodge & Hockin Garby v. Harris Tres. Coode & Son. Jones, Blaxland Doe dem Hocking v. Baragwanarth Ejt. Roscorla and Jones Pattison & White Doe dem Cock v. Congdon Ejt. Same Doe dem Avery S.J. v. Langford Ejt. Peter Same Same S.J. v. Same Ejt. Same (Wade, tenant) Same Same S.J. v. Same Ejt. Same (Bellamy, tenant) Same Avery S.J. v. Langford Tres. Same Roscorla Osborn and another v. Berryman Prom. Millett & Borlase Rogers & Son Nile v. Thomas Tres. Peter Collins Pearce v. Hawken & another Prom. Braddon & Dennis Pedler Tooker v. Croker Tres. Child & Peter Plomer Roskruge v. Caddy & another Rep. Passingham Same Same v. Same Rep. Same DOE DEM. HALSE v. MALACHI LASKEY.—This was an undefended action of ejectment, in which the defendant was duly called thrice to confess lease, entry, and ouster, and John Doe was also called to come forth or lose his writ of nisi prius. DOE DEM. HOCKING v. MICHAEL BARAGWANATH, WILLIAM TREDINNICK, and JOHN TREDINNICK. This was also an undefended action of ejectment. A SINGULAR CASE OF ASSAULT.—GARBY v. HARRIS.—Mr. Crowder, Q.C., and Mr. M. Smith for plaintiff; Mr. Slade, Q.C. and Mr. Collier for defendant.—In this case Mr. John Garby of Redruth was plaintiff; and Mr. George Harris, of the same place, defendant.—The declaration stated that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff, threw him on the ground, and there committed very great violence on him. The defendant pleaded first, that he was not guilty; and secondly, that the plaintiff first assaulted him, and that he committed the assault charged in defence.—Witnesses on both sides were ordered out of Court. Mr. CROWDER then proceeded to state the case to the jury. He said the plaintiff and defendant were persons moving in a respectable position in life, and living in Redruth; where the plaintiff had had property, some of which had been mortgaged to the defendant, and there was some misunderstanding between them as to the manner in which this property was dealt with; one consequence of which was, that for about two years pervious to the transaction now complained of, the parties did not speak to each other. The plaintiff had lately filled the situation of book-keeper at Wheal Trefusis mine, which was about a quarter of a mile from his residence; and he was in the habit of going there daily in the morning, and returning in the evening, and in so doing went across certain fields which he had known and used for 30 years. Shortly before the transaction which formed the subject of the present action, the defendant had let part of his property, including those fields, to a person named Golsworthy, who considered there was no right of passage across the fields, and began to build up a fence to prevent the plaintiff passing, which fence the plaintiff pulled down. On this Golsworthy made complaint to the defendant Harris, who thereupon expressed a determination to inflict some punishment on Garby if he continued to pass through the field; although he (Harris) had never before made any objection to Garby’s passing that way.—The learned counsel, having stated the above facts as forming the origin of the assault complained of, proceeded to detail the particulars of the transaction, as they will appear in the evidence; and insisted that they proved a planned and premeditated assault of a very severe character, and that, for the purposes of this action, it was perfectly unnecessary to consider any question of right between the parties.—He then proceeded to call witnesses:— John Garby, examined by Mr. Montague Smith.—I am the plaintiff in this action, and reside in Redruth. In July last I was living about 250 yards from Trefusis mine, where I was book-keeper. I had lived in that house for the last 9 years; I had that with some other property which had been mortgaged to defendant. I had occasion to go to the mine frequently, and in doing so went across some fields occupied by a person called Golsworthy. Harris is by trade a watchmaker, and has, I believe, been collector of the parish rates. There was a public path across those fields; I had often met Harris there, and he never interfered with my going across. For the last two years I have not been on good terms with Harris. The path over which I walked led into the old Redruth road, and there had been an iron gate leading into the road; that had lately been removed, and a stone fence erected in its place. I had broken down that fence, and it was built up again; and I again broke it down. The last time I broke it down was the Monday before the third of July; I had seen Golsworthy with two men erecting the hedge, and I told him I would pull it down. On Thursday, the 3rd of July, I was going across the path to the mine. Some gates had been gas-tarred there, very early on the previous Monday morning. When I had proceeded some way towards the mine on Thursday morning, I heard a gun fired when I was about 180 yards from my house. I turned round and observed a man with a gun in his hand, and the smoke rising immediately. That man was Matthew Lander; he was standing near by my house; he lived next door to me. I walked on and passed through the gate, from which I was distant about 6 or 7 paces when I heard the gun fired. Then I got into another field which was in barley. In that field was a large granite boulder near the hedge; I heard some rustling there, and turning round, saw some person apparently struggling to get up, and throwing off some weeds and other things that concealed him. That person was George Harris, the defendant. He said, “you Garby, get away.” I said “I shall not.” Having said that, I was walking on, when I received a blow in the back of my head, and I felt something on my shoulder which was apparently a man’s hand. The blow on the head was with some hard substance; it knocked me down, and stunned me. When I became sensible, I was lying on my back, and Harris was kneeling on my breast with his two knees and tarring my face from a large kettle. Lander, who had fired the gun, was standing near. Lander said, “choke the fellow.” Harris had a brush and he forced it into my eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears, twisting the brush round. I had a stick under my arm. After getting some of the tar out of my eyes, I saw a boy standing on a hedge, eight or nine feet off, and I said to him “boy, what’s your name?” On that, Lander said to the boy, “If you are not gone, we will serve you worse than that scoundrel there.” – I did not use my stick once. It was a stick which I had carried for some time. When Harris and Lander threatened the boy that if he told his name they would serve him worse than I had been served, I called out ‘murder;’ and Harris and Lander said you may sing out murder, but no one will come to your assistance; we are all right.” Harris still remained with his two knees on my breast, forcing the coal tar down my throat and breast, and breaking my shirt collar and clothes. He put his hand in the tar and rubbed it violently all over my head, mixed with grit and gravel. Captain Williams, of Trefusis mine, came to my assistance, with another person called Paynter. When these came up, Harris and Lander were still there—Harris kneeling upon me. Williams reproached Harris that he was attempting to murder me. Harris said, “I have told him he should not come this way;” and went on with his tarring me. Williams pulled Harris from me, and after that I was taken to the account-house of Trefusis Mine. When I got there, they laid me on chairs, and sent for Mr. Richards, a surgeon, whose apprentice came. When the apprentice came, he was so alarmed, that he ran after another medical man, Mr. Vincent Mitchell, who directed some person to endeavour to clean me of the tar. A man called Huddy was appointed to clean me, and he endeavoured to do so with hot water; I dare say it took three hours at least to clean me. I was taken home and put into bed. I suffered the utmost torture; the skin of my face came off, I felt so much nausea and urging all the night, that I was almost dead with exhaustion and weakness. The next day I vomited a very black fluid, and in doing so, I thought I should have burst a blood-vessel. Mr. Mitchell attended me on the Thursday and Friday, and then Mr. Richards attended me for more than a fortnight, and nine leeches were applied to my eyes. I have not recovered my sight at the present moment, as it used to be; I feel it at night very painful, and cannot see to read or write at night more than two or three lines at most. I was also bruised about the body and the back part of my head; and on my left side there were contusions for more than a fortnight. My clothes were entirely spoiled.—Cross-examined—I pulled down the hedge because it was a public pathway; and I told Goldsworthy (sic) that I would pull it down as often as he built it up. I was not angry when I pulled down the hedge; and when I spoke to Goldsworthy, he took it quietly, and said, “as we are strangers, we need not quarrel about it.” When the tarring was going on, I did not attempt to struggle with Harris; he is a powerful man; I took it very quiet, from necessity; I did not attempt to use my stick; I could not. The quantity of tar was so great that he rubbed it over me; I was rolled in it. I cannot tell how long it lasted, to two or three minutes; it was less than a quarter of an hour I should think. When I first saw him and he told me to go back, I did not say to him “you be d—d;”, the only word I said was, “I shan’t.” He had never before that warned me off that ground. I meet Harris occasionally, but have not spoken to him for two years. The cause of the quarrel was his ill treatment of me in respect of some pecuniary matters. He held a mortgage of property of mine, and refused to give up a balance which he held of mine. I wished to sue him for it, but my attorneys advised me that I could not; I never spoke to him afterwards, and I considered him to be one of my greatest enemies. Re-examined—There had been a sale under the mortgage, and there was a balance which I claimed beyond what the defendant paid me. My attorneys, Messrs. Hodge and Hockin, advised me that I could not proceed against him except by filing a bill in Chancery.—The stick remained under my left arm until Lander or his boy pulled it out from under me. The kettle would hold about a gallon of tar, and the whole of that was applied over me. Patience James, a few days before the morning of the 3rd July, was milking cows for Goldsworthy. Harris was gas-tarring the railings of Goldsworthy’s house; and Miss Goldsworthy said in Harris’s presence that Garby that morning had gone through the field again, and torn down the hedge. Harris said, “The next time I catch him there I will gas-tar him.” William Merritt, a miner, stated that about 10 o’clock of the 3rd July, he met defendant, who had an old dirty dress on, and a tar kettle in his hand. I asked him how he had got such a dress as that on. Harris said “I put on this dress for the purpose of catching the “old black” that has been trespassing on my ground; and I have catched him, and I threw him down and covered him over with tar, and fouched it into his mouth. There was tar at that time about Harris’s dress. William Williams, underground captain at Wheal Trefusis, stated that when he came to the spot on the 3rd of July, he saw Garby lying on the ground and Harris on him across his chest. Harris had then nothing in his hand, but I saw a crock of gas-tar near. When I came forth, Garby said to me, “Captain Williams, I am almost murdered.” I said to Harris, “Rise up; are you going to kill the man?” He said to me, “I have denied his coming this way.” I said, “If Garby has trespassed, why don’t you take him before a magistrate? and not wilfully murder the man on the road.” At this time, Harris was lying on Garby. Then Paynter came from the account-house, and Lander and his son were near by Garby. Garby appeared to be in much distress and much injured; and there was gas tar over his face. I think Harris rose up of his own accord. When I saw Garby there in such a state, I said to Lander “Are you not ashamed to stand there and see a man so cruelly treated?” He said in reply to me, “Take him away yourself, you are more accustomed to gas tar than I am.” I then assisted Garby to the account-house; he was barely able to walk; he was taken up stairs and placed on chairs. I could not see a bit of clean skin on his face; not a hat on the table here is blacker than his face was, and his hair was all matted together in one flake, and his shirt and flannel were quite black with gas tar. He appeared to suffer a great deal in his eyes, which were running with water a great deal. His clothes were entirely destroyed. I told a man called Huddy to clean him; they were two or three hours washing and cleansing him, and during that time he appeared to be in a state of great suffering. Afterwards I helped him to his home. Cross-examined.—When I came to the spot, Harris was uppermost, but he was not doing any thing. Harris said he would not get up till Garby gave up his stick. There was no struggle at that time. About three or four minutes after I got there, Garby got up. The tar kettle was about six or eight feet off. I walked over the pathway daily for 15 months to Midsummer, 1851, and was never denied. Re-examined.—When I walked that way I frequently saw Harris and talked to him. At that time Harris farmed the ground himself; there was nothing said about the road till after Goldsworthy took the ground. Henry Huddy, miner at Wheal Trefusis, on the morning of the 3rd of July, heard a gun fired about ten minutes before Garby came on the mine. I afterwards saw Garby come to the mine with Capt. Williams, and after he had been seen by Doctor Michell in the account-house. I washed him with hot water for upwards of three hours; he had tar in his hair, ears, eyes, and mouth, and down as far as his wait-band. He complained of pain in the back of his head. I afterwards assisted him to his own house. William Richards, (surgeon).—I am surgeon of Wheal Trefusis Mine. On the 3rd of July a message was sent to me, but, as I was just leaving my house, I sent my apprentice. I saw Mr. Garby early on the morning of the 4th July; I found him in bed, with both his eyes very much inflamed; the skin of his face, neck, and chest, was abraded and excoriated. Such injury might occur from gas tar or any strong embrocation. At that time he had been washed and pretty well cleaned. There was something in a basin, which his sister told me he had just ejected from his stomach. The room altogether was smelling of gas tar. I ordered 9 leeches to be applied to his eyes. There was danger to the eye itself; inflammation was still existing in the eye, such as would follow from the application of any strong stimulant. I found it necessary to keep him quiet and his eyes cool, in a dark room. I attended him three or four days. The inflammation gradually subsided, but his sight was injured so that he could not bear the light, and we were obliged to keep the room darkened. I attended him three or four days continuously, and I saw him frequently after that at my own house. His weakness of sight consequent on inflammation, continued for some time, and I believe to some extent it continues still. It is possible that some weakness may remain always. At all events, for some time there would be, at night, a weakness and inability to read and write as before. I should think, from the component parts of gas tar that it is one of the most nauseous things that can be; but I never tested it (laughter). Mr. SLADE then addressed the Jury for the defence. After adverting to alleged discrepancies in the plaintiff’s evidence, he said he did not deny that the plaintiff received rough usage, but stated that his conduct richly deserved it. He would call the defendant, and it would be for the Jury to say to which of the two parties they gave credit, for they would be placed in direct and positive contradiction to each other. He denied that there was any path across the field, and stated that Goldsworthy had complained several times to Harris of the trespass, and threatened to give up the field if the trespass was not stopped. George Harris, the defendant:—I live in Redruth, and have for 20 years collected the rates. I looked after some ground between Garby’s residence and Trefusis Mine, belonging to my son who is in Australia. The field is in the occupation of Goldsworthy, and I have given directions to him to give Garby notice not to trespass there. I have seen the hedge pulled down, and I have sent persons many times to build it up. Two or three days before the 3rd of July I had been tarring some gates in that field; I had only partly done it, and I left the tar pot in the field, about 10 or 20 paces from the gate. On Thursday the 3rd of July, I went there to go on with tarring of the gates; I went there about 9 o’clock. When I came within an adjoining field I saw Garby passing across the tram road, and I ran up across a neighbour’s field to speak to him. Before I got forth to the gates, Garby had got into my corn field. I went up to him and said “Garby, why is it you trespass on this ground so; you must not go this way.” He said, “You be d—d, I will go this way when I like; I am going to the mine.” I said “I have seen Captain Thomas Richards, the manager of the mine, and he told me he would make a special appointment to see that you should not go that way.” Garby said, “That be d—d; that has nothing at all to do with it; I will go here when I like.” I said he should not. He was gaining on me, and I stepped before him and stopped him. He then held up a large stick—4 or 5 inches in circumference – in his right hand, before me. I instantly took him by the collar with my left hand to prevent his striking me. He then began to kick me about the legs, and I threw him down. We both struggled, and when we were down, he began to kick me on the legs. It so happened that we fell where the tar kettle was that I had left two or three days before, and my right knee went into it. The kettle would hold two or three quarts. Garby was then lying on his left side; he took up the kettle with his right hand, as I was lying on him, and struck me two or three times on my thigh. Before he did that, we had had a contention for the stick which was lying on his left side. I wrested the tar kettle from him, and in doing so, the tar poured out on both of us. I threw the kettle away into the ditch; and then we began to pay away tar on each other. I did not begin to pay away on him until he had struck me two or three times with the kettle. I had the advantage of him because I was on him; but I was paid over very bad, so that I was obliged to go home and throw away all my clothes, even to my drawers and flannel; he rubbed it into my skin; and I rubbed away on his head, (laughter) and we were like two black men. The first person that came up was a boy called Lander. I had heard a report: but whether it was of a gun or at the mine, I did not know. It was not a signal to me, and I did not know who fired it. When Capt. Williams came to the spot, he said “why, don’t kill the man;” and he told Lander to take me away; but Lander replied:—“you take him away yourself, I am only a looker on as well as you.” Garby said he would not give up the stick, and I said until he did so he should not get up. I wrested the stick from him, and held it back to some person who took it from me. As soon as the stick was got from him, I got up instantly. Cross-examined.—I did not put any tar into his eyes, ears, nose or mouth. I did rub it about his head, but did not put any within the circle of his face. I believe there was some on his face; I don’t know who put it there; perhaps it was done after we left, or it may have run down from his head. I had on the clothes that I wear every day. I did not get up out of the ditch when I first met him; I am not aware that there was any large stone in the ditch. I ran across the barley from the adjoining field to meet Garby, and was in his presence and had spoken to him before I heard the report; I did not know whether it was of a gun or from the mine. There was no way at all through the corn; he might have gone along by the ditch. I had not seen Garby lately before the 3rd of July going across the field; if I had I should have denied him. I tarred the remainder of the gates a week or fortnight after the 3rd of July, when I got more tar.—I did not strike Garby in the back part of the head. I do not know who upset the tar-pot; but I believe it was Garby; he was undermost. It is very possible I did use the brush about Garby’s head, but I do not know that I did; I did my best to pay him over, and put several handfuls of the tar about his head. I put in on his head with my right hand, and rubbed it in well (laughter). When I went to the field that morning, it was for no other purpose than to tar the gates, and I found the tar pot in the same place where I had left it some days before.—I was not at any time behind Garby; I was either before him or upon him. I had not lifted my hand against him before he raised his stick. Matthew Lander, the younger, stated that on the morning in question, he saw, at a distance of about 100 yards, two men fighting on the ground, but did not then know who they were. He called to his father, who told him to go to the spot, and in about a minute came himself. When witness came to the men, they were both on the ground, daubed with tar, but they were doing nothing. The tar-pot was about 8 paces off. There was a struggle about a stick. Cross-examined.—Both were covered with tar, but Garby most. He had none round his face when witness first saw him; there was some on his chin, but none about his mouth or eyes. Before the struggle was over, Garby’s face was all covered, and Harris was on him. By the Court. I had heard a gun fired; but don’t know who fired it nor from what direction. William Lander the elder (father of last witness.)—I remember my son calling me on the morning of the 3rd of July, and when I went to the spot, I saw Harris and Garby on the ground—Garby under; there was a tussle about a stick. Harris asked me to take away the stick from him, and I attempted twice to do so, but Garby would not give it up; and Harris said if Garby would not give it up, he would not let him rise. I saw them daubing each other with tar; they had then no more tar to use than what was about their persons; the tar pot and brush were at least six yards off. At length the stick was got away, and Garby was let to rise up immediately. I fired a gun that morning; I had had my gun loaded several days to shoot a hawk that had destroyed my poultry; but I was under an engagement to go with a shooting party, and therefore I discharged by gun to get it clean. I did not fire as a signal to Harris or to any one. Cross-examined.—The shooting party was to take place the next Wednesday. There was never any quarrel between Garby and me; his sister who lives with him had had me before the magistrates. She had thrown filthy water over me, and I threw some lamp-black on her. The magistrates dismissed the case, and Garby, or his sister, had to pay the costs. When the two men were on the ground, Garby’s face was very black; I don’t think I could see a bit of white skin on his face. Harris had one cheek be-daubed. Paynter took the stick from Garby. By Mr. COLLIER. – I have not the least ill-feeling towards Mr. Garby or his sister. I did not think it worthwhile to interfere in the struggle; it did not appear to be a very serious matter. I was not surprised at it. Mr. GROWDER replied; after which the learned JUDGE carefully summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, £5 damages. Application was afterwards made to the Judge to certify for costs. His lordship immediately granted the application, observing that it was a very proper case for such a certificate. PEARCE v. HAWKEN AND ANOTHER.—Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH stated that in this case Miss Elizabeth Pearce had brought an action against Mrs. Margaret Hawken and Mr. Henry Hawken, representatives of Thos. Hawken, deceased, to recover a sum of money which Miss Pearce had paid to the use of the two defendants. The defendants had not denied the debt, but they pleaded they had fully administered all the effects of the deceased except this and another debt of 100l., and that they had no assets wherewith to pay this debt; whereas the plaintiff believed there were, sufficient assets. The circumstances of the case were that the deceased Thomas Hawken, going into business, he applied to a Mrs. Glaister to borrow 100l. Mrs. Glaister said if he could get any one to join him in a promissory note, she would lend it. Miss Pearce, Hawken’s aunt, consented, and joined Hawken in the promissory note. After Hawken’s death, Mrs. Glaister wanted her money, and obtained 162l. 10s. as principal and interest from Miss Pearce; and that sum Miss Pearce sought now to receive(?) from Hawken’s executors. He should prove the debt, and that the proceeds of the sale of the deceased Hawken’s stock realized fully sufficient to pay the debt claimed. John Hockin, farmer, of Camelford, proved that his daughter, Mrs. Glaister, lent the sum of 150l. to the late Thomas Hawken, on a joint promissory note of Hawken and his aunt, Miss Pearce. (The promissory note was then put in and read). Richard Burt, clerk to Mr. King, attorney, of Camelford, proved that Mr. Kin was employed by Mrs. Glaister to call on Miss Pearce for payment of principal and interest on the promissory note in question, and that Miss Pearce, about the middle of October, paid the sum of 162l. 10s. in discharge of the note.—Charles Pearse, auctioneer, of Bodmin, stated that Mr. Thomas Hawken died in July last year. Witness was employed subsequently by Mrs. Hawken and Mr. Henry Hawken to sell his effects. The sale took place on the 4th and 5th September last; the sum realized by the sale was 490l. 12s. 1d.—Verdict for the plaintiff, 162l. 10s. 0d. OSBORNE AND ANOTHER v. BERRYMAN.—Mr. COLLIER for plaintiff; Mr. M. SMITH for defendant.— This was an action brought by the executors of the late Matthew Osborne of , against the executrix of the late David Berryman, of the same parish to recover the principal sum of 320l. and interest. It appeared that the deceased Osborne and Berryman, the original parties were(?) represented by the respective executors and executrix, had lived on terms of intimacy and friendship and died within a short interval of each other in April 1847; David Berryman having died two or three weeks before his friend and relation Mathew Osborne. The action was brought to recover on four promissory notes bearing date a very long time ago. The first was dated March 26, 1810, for 100l.(?), the second on the 25th of March 1812 for 82l, the third, Sept. 29th, 1816, for 100l.; and the last December 11th, 1816, for 38l.; all the bills being payable on demand and bearing interest at 5 per cent.—To the plaintiff’s demand, the defendant had pleaded three answers:—1st that the testator, David Berryman, never made these notes at all (a defence which now was relinquished); 2ndly, that the note had been all paid; and thirdly, that the claims were barred by the Statute of Limitations.—The case occupied a considerable time, but was of not great interest except to the parties concerned.—The Jury found a Verdict for Plaintiff on all the issues.—Damages, 405l. NILE v. THOMAS. Mr. Slade, Q.C. and Mr. Collier(?) For plaintiff; Mr. Crowder Q.C. and Mr. M. Smith for defendant.—In this case, the plaintiff was Richard Nile, of Redruth, builder; and the defendant, Mr. Martin Thomas of the same place. The action was brought to (recover?) damages for an assault; and the defendant pleaded—first, that he did not commit the assault; and secondly, that the plaintiff committed the first assault.—There was not only strong conflict of testimony between the witnesses on the two sides; but almost wholly distinct cases were set up by the plaintiff and defendant, as will be seen from their various(?) statements.—The assault was alleged to have been committed on the 16th July last, and originated in a dispute (as to?) right to a part of a dung pit.—The plaintiff, Richard Nile, stated that he bought of a Mrs. Scovern a house and premises including a plot that had been a dung pit.—(Capt.?) Richards is lessee of the adjoining plot, under Lord (Clinton?), and began to build a wall over the pit; which I pulled down; and this took place more than once. I had four men in my employ, named Martin, Chave, Gladdon, and Chegwidden. I gave directions to them to erect a (shed?) over the dung pit, and I went with them for that purpose between 4 and 5 o’clock on the 16th July. Shortly after we got there, I saw defendant, who lives close by, come out of the house with only his trousers and shirt on. He said “what are you about? You are taking away my property.” He then went back into his house and came out again with slippers(?) and a hat on, and an axe in his hand; he went forth to beat down the boarding we were putting up. I told him he should not do that. He said he would be d---d if I did not stand back he would strike my brains out, and he struck at my head with the axe. The axe struck(?) the side of my hat and fell down very severely on my shoulder. After that he lifted it a second time. I held up my hand and caught the handle of the axe; it sprained my thumb. It was a severe blow, but I met it before it had fallen far. He attempted to strike me a third time. I fenced off the blow with a piece of wood, and struck his hat off. A few minutes after that he attempted to strike me again, and Martin pushed towards me(?) and then he fell down. He got up again quickly and (lifted?) the axe again; he took me by the collar with his left hand, and lifted the axe with his right. I took hold of his hand with my right hand, and we fell back over the partition on the dung. He said, now I have (got?) you I be d----d if I don’t knock your brains out. I (cried?) “murder”. Then a man called came forth and pulled him away. I had before this sent Chegwidden and Martin for a policeman. Medlyn held the axe till the policeman came, and then it was given up to the policeman. When we were down I had hold of his right arm in (falling?). He touched my neck-cloth after we got up, just (after?) the axe was taken from him; he tried to choke me, and pulled out the bosom of my shirt, and a piece of flannel round my neck. The first bruise on my shoulder was a very severe one. The second blow sprained my thumb so that I was not able to use it for some time. During the whole of this affair the conduct of the defendant was most brutal. The axe was not a square poll axe, it was an axe for cutting wood; he did not strike with the cutting part of the axe, but with the blunt part. He had some dung in part of the pit. The defendant afterwards, before we parted(?), boasted that the men must have been like trees to ?---- him to take down the partition. The defendant is a (tall?) powerful man; taller than I am. The witnesses in corroboration of plaintiff’s evidence of support of his case were, Henry Gladdon, John Chave, William Chegwidden, Thomas Martin, and John Medlyn. The defence was that the defendant, being rightly (entitled?) to the pit, did no more that was necessary for (assertion?) of that right, and in so doing had been very seriously ill-treated by the plaintiff and his men; and that he (levelled?) no attack whatever on the plaintiff. His statement was as follows:— Martin Thomas.—I am a farmer living at Redruth. Early in the morning of the 16th July, I was disturbed by some hammering and went down partly dressed. I (saw?) Nile and four of his men putting up a wooden partition over my dung pit to enclose it with his. I had occupied that pit since my mother’s death three years ago; I am tenant of it under Capt. Richards. When I came (out?), I said to Nile “What are you doing there?” He said it was no business of mine. I told him it was my property there, and he should not enclose it. I went forth to (take?) down the partition, and he came forward, put his (hand?) against my breast and pushed me off. I endeavoured ?--- to get forward to the partition. One of his men (then?) came behind me, tripped me up on the stony road, (throwing?) me on my back. Nile came forward, took me by the leg and dragged me along, for two or three yards. I (got?) up and said the partition should not stand on my property, and I attempted again to go forth to take it down; when one of his workmen (Chave) came forth and struck me in the side with a hammer. After that blow, I (went?) into my house and brought out a coal-hammer; I (went?) forth to the partition and broke in a board (or two?) of it. Nile then came forward, and with a piece of wood began to beat me over the neck and shoulders. Medlyn who was standing by, called to Nile; “knock him down, knock him down; never (mind?) the law.” Nile struck me several blows with the (board?). I never struck Nile any blow with the hammer, I never attempted it. I never aimed any blow at him. (If I had?) wished to do so, I could have knocked him down; but I never aimed a blow at him and never intended it. He kept on striking me, and then I clenched him to (prevent him?). We took hold of each other, and both fell over ?--- in on the dung pit; Nile still having hold of me. Medlyn ran forth, caught hold of me by the back and shook me very much. I had the hammer still in my hand, but made no use of it; at that time I could (not get?) released to do so. Tregoning the constable came, and took the hatchet away. I still said the boarding should not stay up; and I went forth and tore off a piece (with my?) hand. Nile came again to me, and threw to me (on my?) back. We then scuffled again till Tregoning ?---. I received injuries in the pan-bone of my knee; I was obliged to go to a doctor to get something for it, and was lame for some time afterwards. Defendant’s corroborative witnesses were, William (Hollow?), and (his wife), Mrs. Hollow, John Dawe and his (wife?), and Arthur Karkeek and his wife. The Jury found their Verdict for the defendant. It was nearly 10 o’clock, when the Court rose. ______CROWN COURT, SATURDAY. Before Mr. Justice ERLE. ADMIRALTY PROSECUTION.—ALFRED RATE, THOMAS BISSETT, 22, and WILLIAM FERRELL, were charged with having on the 15th of February feloniously stolen 95 lbs. of rope from Her Majesty’s (ship?) “Argus”, the property of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. The felony was alleged to have been committed in Hamoaze(?) within the borough of and liberty of the (river?) Tamar.—Rate pleaded guilty, and was admitted as witness(?) against the two other prisoners.—Mr. Crowder, and Mr. Poulden conducted the prosecution.—The prisoners(?) were undefended.—It appeared that Rate was a seaman on board the Argus, which had lately come down south(?) from Portsmouth, and the other two prisoners (were?) watermen plying at Hamoaze. About 8 o’clock in the evening of Sunday the 15th of February, the three men(?), with another man, were at the Swan public house in Devonport, and after asking the landlord for (trust for?) some beer, they said they were going to a steamer at Hamoaze and they would be back shortly to pay for the beer. Between 8 and 9 o’clock the same evening, they (were proved?) to have been at the Argus, and evidence in (support?) of the charge of felony there was given by numerous witnesses—seamen and marines—and by Rate, the (approver?). This last witness stated that he was drinking at the Swan Inn on the Sunday evening; Bissett and (Ferrell?) asked him if he was going aboard the Argus; he said he was; they asked him to put some rope in the boat; (after a little?) while, he consented; and they took him off (to the?) Argus. Verdict, BOTH GUILTY.—Sentences:—Ferrell, 12 months h.l.; Bissett, 9 do; Rate, 3 do. JAMES VINCENT, 27, charged with having burglariously entered the dwelling house of Anne Nankivell, of Ruan Lanyhorne, innkeeper, on the night of the 31st of October, or morning of the 1st November, and stolen a large quantity of drapery (goods?), the property of David Burns of St. Austell, then in possession of John Nisbett.—John Nisbett, of St. (Austell?) was in the employ of David Burns to sell drapery (---?) goods for him, and on the 31st October was at Ruan Lanyhorne Church Town; he slept that night at the (public house?) kept by Anne Nankivell; and went to between 10(?) and 11 leaving his pack in the parlour.—Mrs. (Nankivell?) proved that when she went to bed that night, at ?-- o’clock, she saw the windows and doors all safe; in the morning found a square of glass broken in the window, the window unfastened, and the pack (gone from?) the parlour.—Several other witnesses were (called to prove?), as they did satisfactorily, that the house was burglariously entered that night; but there was (no evidence?) to bring home this charge to the prisoner.—?--- Johns, servant of Mr. Gwatkin of Parc Behan, (was out with?) his master and another —Mr. Kempe—(shooting?). As he was beating in the wood, and got near ?---, he observed a little path as if had been beaten (by the treading?) of several persons, and a little farther on, (he found a?) pack concealed; he called to Mr. Kempe, and (they took?) the pack up into the wheel road in the wood. (This was on?) the 16th of December, and the place was about a mile off from the church town—Thomas ---?, hind(?) to the Rev. Mr. Slight, rector of Ruan, (proved that?) he carried the pack from the wood to Mr. (Slight?). About a fortnight before that, he saw the (prisoner near?) the wood, and the prisoner told him he was (going to?) Penkivel wood to work.—Mary Ann Rowe, a (young woman?) living at Ruan, stated that on a Sunday, ?--- weeks after the robbery, prisoner came to her (with a?) bundle which he said contained stuff for a (?---- which?) he was going to have made up; but, on (putting her hand?) into the bundle, she found that it contained (?--- and?) white stripe twill. Thomas Crews, boatman, proved that on the 16th December, he went to (the house of?) Mr. Slight, and received a pack which he gave (to policeman?) Fitzsimmons. Francis Osborne, tailor, of (Truro?), on the 24th of November, received some different (articles from?) the prisoner, who asked him to make him a top-coat(?); witness measured it and found it was not (enough for a?) top coat; on which prisoner said, “never (mind, make?) what coat it will; I did not buy it.” Witness (asked him?) his name, he hesitated and then gave his name as (---?) Williams. He then left the stuff, and witness (made up the?)---coat, which, on the 16th of December, he (gave to the?) constable. Thomas Rowe, labourer at Ruan, (stated that he?) knew the prisoner very well and that he (never went?) by the name of Williams.—James Fitzsimmons, policeman of Truro, stated that some day previous (to the 16th?) of December, he went to Mr. Osborne’s the (tailor and?) received from him a coat, which he now produced. On the same day, he apprehended prisoner at Ruan, (and received?) a pack sent to him by Mr. Slight. Witness (told the prisoner?) that he had left a coat at Mr. Osborne’s (under a?) fictitious name. Going on the road afterwards, (prisoner said?) he would not lie under the blame, but would (tell the truth?). (The coat and bundle were then produced.), also a bundle of corresponding articles from (?- -- stock?).—Osborne identified the coat, and stated (that the lining?)—a blue and white jean—was very unusual (?----). Mary Ann Rowe proved that this lining (was very much?) like the striped stuff she had seen in the (bundle?). The prisoner’s statement before the magistrates was put in and read, and he subsequently made his defence to the jury to the same effect—that on the Sunday before he took the cloth to Truro to be made up, he saw Thomas Rowe, in the wood, near Mr. Slight’s, on Park-apple road; and after some conversation, Rowe offered to sell him cloth which he had with him for a coat. Rowe asked 1l. for it, and prisoner agreed to take it, and paid 10s. in part at once. Rowe said “you need not say any thing about it;” and prisoner replied “not at all; that is all right.” Prisoner stated that he took the cloth to Mr. Osborne’s and his reason for giving a false name, was, that he feared he should be taken up for some shooting affair.—The witness Rowe was recalled at prisoner’s request, and examined by him. Rowe positively stated that he did not meet prisoner as stated, in the wood. Knew nothing about the coat, and had no conversation with him about it, till he came into his house at the time mentioned by Mary Ann Rowe, his daughter. Rowe added that on the Sunday on which prisoner said he had met him in the wood, he (prisoner) was in bed all day.—The prisoner received a character for honesty from Mr. Nankivell, a farmer, and Mr. Garland. He had been in the employ of Mr. Nankivell and his father for some years, down to two years since.—Verdict—Guilty of feloniously receiving stolen goods. Sentence, four months hard labour. VIOLENT ASSAULT.—THOMAS HENDERSON, 32, charged with having, on the 23rd of January, feloniously cut and wounded John Scovern, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.—Catherine Burke, single woman, stated that she lived in the house of Isaac Hodge, at Redruth, and got her living by needlework. On Friday, the 23rd January, she was at her lodgings with Elizabeth Hill and Thomas Henderson. Prisoner came in between 9 and 10 o’clock, and asked for lodgings for himself and his wife, and Mrs. Hodge said she had no room, but he might sit by the fire; he did so and talked to John Scovern, and wanted him to fight or wrestle with him; which Scovern would not.—Henderson then asked Mrs. Hodge for his sixpence that he had paid for lodgings, which she gave him, and he left the house. As he went out, he smashed some cloam, and when he was outside, he smashed in some glass of the window. I went to the door and Mrs. Hodge ran out. A short time after I had been there, I saw Scovern and Henderson scuffling, and heard Scovern cry murder. I went forth to part them; and the prisoner raised his arm, and I felt a very sharp instrument across my arm, and immediately afterwards on my finger.— John Scovern—I live at , and was at the house of Jane Hodge, my sister. As the prisoner left the house, as spoken to by the last witness, he caught up a basin and threw it at a young woman called Harriet Philips, and afterwards smashed in the window. I went out to see what was the matter, and my sister also ran out. I ran after the prisoner and charged him with breaking in my sister’s windows. He caught hold of me, and we both fell down; I fell on my side, and cried murder. I felt blood running a stream into my mouth. Mr. Abbott came to my assistance. I felt a very sharp instrument on my face, down over my forehead and nose. I had two wounds; I was in bed two days, and was ill more than a fortnight.—Henry Harris, surgeon, was called to attend Scovern on the night in question. He had two wounds, which must have been produced by some very sharp instrument, because the edges of the wounds were very clean. The wound over the forehead was nearly into the bone. The other wound was across the nose; it laid open the nasal artery, which bled profusely. He attended Scovern a fortnight or three weeks.—James Johns, miner, of Redruth, saw Scovern bleeding, and made search for the instrument that had produced the wound. Found a razor, in a dark part of the street, about 120 yards from where the fight took place. At the time I found the razor, there was blood on it.—John Hodge produced the razor, given him by the last witness. I was shown a place, just before Mr. Abbotts, about 20 yards from Hodge’s, where there was a pool of blood; and a few feet from the pool, I found part of a razor-case; I also saw the other part of the case found lower down the street. The razor will fit this case. Joseph Abbott—I heard cries of murder from Scovern, and saw Scovern and prisoner scuffling just outside my front door. When the scuffle was over, I saw prisoner run away in the direction where the razor was found.—Verdict, GUILTY. Sentence, transportation for seven years. CHARLES NORMINGTON, 23, charged with stealing on or about the 16th of March, from the Counting- house of West Par Consols Mine, in the parish of St. Blazey, 32 lbs. of candles, the property of the adventurers in the said mine. A second count charged felonious receiving. Mr. Archer conducted the prosecution.—Thomas Floyd, an agent at the mine, about the end of February visited the account house to assist another agent in valuing the materials, and went into the store-house, which is inside the account-house, with no other entrance but through the account-house. At that time, there were in the candle-chest 16 dozen and 6 lbs. of candles. On the 19th March, I was there again, and found the store- house door open, and the lock in pieces; the lock of the candle chest was also broken; I called to Mr. John Williams, another agent, and we found 13 dozen and 10 lbs. of candles in the chest. I then found that the skip of the account-house door had been forced. In the account-house there was a piece of a ladder staple, with which the entry might have been made. John Williams, also an agent at the mine, proved that with his son, he examined the candle chest on the 11th of March, and left it locked. From that time to the 19th of March I had not parted with the key of that chest; no person else had a key. After the discovery of the robbery, I went to several shopkeepers and others to make inquiries; Mr. Rosevear, of the Holmbush Inn, told me that two lbs. of candles had been brought to him; which candles he produced to me.—John Rosevear, landlord of the Holmbush Inn, stated that prisoner came there on the evening of the 17th of March, and had four pints of beer, for which he paid two lbs. of candles. It is not an unusual thing for miners to bring candles in payment for beer.—I took the candles of the prisoner, and observed that the wicks were of a dark colour, and that the candles were rather shorter than mine candles are usually.—(The candles being produced, Mr. Williams stated that he believed them to be the same sort as those at the mine)—Mary Nicholls was passing near the mine, about mid- day of Friday the 12th of March; and, going to pick up some sticks near the gate, she heard a crushing, as if some timber was breaking. She then went on the mine as far as the coal-yard, and saw the prisoner go over the hedge. When she first saw him he was standing before the account-house door.—The case for the prosecution had concluded, and the learned judge had commenced summing up, when a young woman in the court, named Rebecca Esterbrook, called out:—“I found the candles.”—She was allowed to be sworn and examined by the prisoner; and she then stated that between 10 and 11 o’clock on the morning of the 17th of March, she was in a path field between St. Blazey and Tregrehane, and there found two lbs. of candles; the first person she met after this was Normington, who said he wanted a pint of beer, and she gave him the candles to pay for it. She observed they were mouldy.—Verdict, Guilty of feloniously receiving.—Sentence, Twelve Months’ hard labour. THOMAS DATSON, 17, charged with having, on the 7th of February, at Penryn, stolen from the person of Joseph Denley, a marine store dealer of Devonport, a canvass bag, containing 3 sovereigns, one half sovereign, one half crown, three shillings and one six-pence, and a pocket knife.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; Mr. Hughes the defence.—The prosecutor visited Penryn on business in February last, and unfortunately got intoxicated, in bad company, at a public-house, and got robbed. The evidence against the prisoner was that he was seen in company with prosecutor; and two other persons—the son of the beer-shop keeper and another—saw him put his hand in prosecutor’s pocket and take thence a bag from which Denley had, a few minutes previously, drawn a sovereign to pay for beer. Prisoner then got the prosecutor to leave the house. When prisoner was searched, two knives were found upon him, one of which was identified as being the prosecutor’s, and the same he had had in his pocket that evening. During the time the prisoner was being searched, the constable perceived a bag of rags lying by, on proceeding to search which, prisoner’s mother said “here is a knife.” The constable, however, persisted in continuing the investigation and found among the rags, a box containing three sovereigns, a half sovereign, and 15s. 6d, in silver. GUILTY.—Sentence, Four Months’ hard labour. JOHN HARRIS, 21, charged with stealing, on the 14th of March, a pair of boots, two coats, and a frock, the property of Thomas Pearce Vivian, mariner, belonging to the ship Queen Victoria, at that time lying at the quay, at Penryn.—Mr. Rogers conducted the prosecution.—There was another charge on the same indictment, of stealing on the same day, a cloth waistcoat and a knife, the property of George Rule, also a mariner on board the Queen Victoria.—Verdict, GUILTY. A previous conviction was proved against the prisoner for stealing a waistcoat and shoes, from a person called Willoughby.—Sentence:— Twelve months hard labour. BIGAMY.—HENRY NORTHEY, 27, charged with having feloniously married one Catherine Stevens; his former wife, Elizabeth Northey, being alive.—Mr. HUGHES conducted the prosecution.—He stated that the case was a very simple one. About 7 years since, the prisoner, a miner, married his first wife, named Elizabeth Weekes, at Redruth, and they lived together for some years as man and wife. About twelve months since, they separated, and he went to St. Blazey, where he married Catherine Stevens. The second wife had been subpoenaed but did not appear. Mary Weekes, mother of Elizabeth Weekes, stated that she witnessed her daughter’s marriage to prisoner about 7 years ago, at the Superintendent Registrar’s office, Redruth. After they were married, they lived together, as man and wife for some time. She saw her daughter about 4 weeks since. Cross-examined by prisoner.—My daughter has lived with a man called John Golsworthy—I suppose as his wife. But you had behaved to my daughter very bad, and blackguardly.—Charles Rundell, assistant overseer, produced from the Redruth Registry office, a certificate of Northey’s marriage in 1845 to Elizabeth Weekes, aged 21.—Edward Merifield, parish clerk of St. Blazey, proved that on the 6th of September last, prisoner put in banns of marriage with Elizabeth Stevens. The banns were published on the 7th, 14th, and 21st of September, and they were married on the 5th October. When he put in the banns, he said he was a single man.—The certificate of this marriage was put in, on which it appeared the woman was called Catherine Stevens; and a certificate of the banns was also put in.—The prisoner, in defence, said, with much apparent emotion:—I own I was married to Elizabeth Weekes, but she proved to be a very bad woman to me. I caught her in bed with another man, and she left me on that account, and I have only seen her once since; she was then living with a man called John Goldsworthy, and had done so for the last 4 years.—Verdict, GUILTY.—The learned judge deferred sentence, for the purpose of making inquiry into the circumstances in which the offence was committed. There appeared to be no doubt that the first wife lived as the wife of another man; but there was a question whether she or the prisoner gave cause for the separation. VIOLENT ASSAULT.—JOANNA BUNT, 39, RICHARD BUNT, 12, and MARY ANN BUNT, 15, were charged with having, on the 7th of March last, unlawfully assaulted and beaten Samuel Farrow, of the parish of St. Dennis, inflicting upon him grievous bodily harm by breaking both his arms.—Mr. PETER conducted the prosecution; Mr. ROGERS the defence.—The prisoners were the wife and children of Thomas Bunt, who had taken a principal part in the assault but had not yet been apprehended.—Samuel Farrow, labourer:—On Sunday the 7th of March, I was in charge of some oats which had been distrained at Thomas Bunt’s mowhay. About 7 o’clock that morning, I left the mowhay, and went out into the village to wash my face and hands. As I returned to go to the mowhay, Joanna Bunt came and struck me with a pike, and her son and daughter struck me with sticks. Thomas Bunt struck me with a shovel over the head, and then Mrs. Bunt again struck me over the left shoulder. Then a third time, Thomas Bunt came to me again: I raised my hand to fend the blow, and he broke my arm. I was then knocked down by one of the party, and received several blows while I was on the ground. On getting up, I saw Thomas Bunt making another blow at me with the shovel; I put my other arm and he broke that also. I went into the Union-house on Thursday afterwards.—Cross-examined.—Mr. John Vercoe, constable of St. Dennis, put me in possession. I had no warrant; but I had given a paper to Bunt on the Saturday evening.—James Kent, a labourer living near the Bunts’ mowhay, saw Farrow wash his hands at the watering and return to the mowhay. He gave corroborative evidence on the subject of the assault; he stated, however, that the boy did not strike, but tried to make the others desist.—Henry Coombe, another labourer, witnessed the assault from his window. He saw Thomas Bunt strike Farrow with a shovel, and heard Joanna Bunt call out, “That’s right; heave to ‘en.”—Thomas Glascott Vawdrey, surgeon, of St. Austell. On Thursday, the 11th of March, I was called to see Farrow in the Union Workhouse. He stated he had received severe injury, and complained of his arms. I first examined his left arm and found a fracture of one of the bones—the ulna—about the middle, and the fractured part was displaced. I found a fracture in the corresponding part of the ulna of the other arm, but there the fractured part was not displaced; indicating that there had been less force. There was a slight mark on the forehead, but not requiring any attention. These were the only injuries he complained of. The injuries on the arms must have resulted from very severe blows, because the arms were very muscular.—For the defence, Mr. ROGERS, admitting that Thomas Bunt, who was not before the court, had committed a violent assault, asserted there was no proof of any serious assault by the prisoners. The assault, originated by the wife, and was consequent on Farrow’s going to the mowhay by a way to which he had no right to go, while there was a public way by which he might have gone; on seeing which the wife attempted to put him out with a pick, with which she happened to be taking up some wood.—The learned JUDGE, in summing up, directed the jury that the law applicable to the case was, that the act of any one of the party was the act of all.— Verdict, ALL GUILTY.—Sentences:—Joanna Bunt, twelve months hard labour; Richard Bunt, four days imprisonment; Mary Ann Bunt, four days imprisonment. PERJURY.—HANNIBAL LYNE JOHNS, indicted for committing willful and corrupt perjury at the Falmouth on the 6th of December last.—Mr. Karslake and Mr. Rowley appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. Collier for the defence.—In opening the case Mr. Karslake stated that, the defendant was a farrier living at ; and in the of 1851, he was at Penryn fair and saw a person named Thomas Bolt, a hind of Mr. Freeman, granite contractor, at ; and after some conversation, it was agreed that Johns was to go to the farm of which Bolt had care, to castrate a colt. He did not go to the farm till late in the evening of the 13th of May, and Bolt then refused to allow him to perform the operation. On the following morning he performed the operation. Nothing was said as to the price to be paid for the job; but, on John’s asking the same day, for payment, Bolt offered him, at first, 3s., and afterwards 5s.; but John’s refused to take less than a guinea; in a day or two afterwards he threatened to put Bolt in the County Court, and in process of time he did so, for the sum of £1 16s. 0d.; and, in order to support his claim, he stated that Bolt had agreed to give him a guinea for the operation, on his (Johns’s) undertaking to risk the colt, as it was called.—that is, that if the colt died or broke his legs within 10 days from the time of operation, he (Johns) would pay 16l. to Bolt. Johns swore at the County Court that that agreement was entered into, and also that he made no application for payment until after the expiration of the 10 days.—The learned Counsel stated that these statement sworn to by Johns were false, and it was in respect of them that the Judge of the County Court had thought it fit to order the present prosecution for perjury. Henry Orlando Bullmore, clerk of the Falmouth County Court, produced the records of the proceedings in the action Johns v. Bolt. The case was heard on the 6th December last, when judgment was given for defendant, and Johns was committed to Bodmin gaol for want of sureties, to answer an indictment for perjury. Mr. Bullmore stated:—I was present at the trial. The action was for the recovery of 1l. 16s.,— viz, 1l. 1s., the charge for gelding, and 15s. for three visits to the colt. The Judge asked Johns if that was a usual charge. He replied that he charged sometimes more, sometimes less; and he then entered into a history of his being employed, in the following words, as near as I can remember; - I met Bolt at the last Penryn fair, and Bolt said he had a colt to cut and asked me if I did such jobs; and I said yes. Bolt afterwards asked me whether I risked colts; I said I did risk colts if people paid my charge.—He then gave further evidence as to the time appointed for performing the operation—the 13th of May.—After the witnesses for the defence had been called (continued Mr. Bullmore), the Judge, seeing how the thing was likely to turn, requested me to take a note of what occurred. The Judge then recalled Johns and asked him the following questions:— Did you perform the operation on the colt on the 14th of May last? Answer—yes. Did you on that day demand payment of Bolt, or of any one else, of 5s., 2s. 6d., or any other sum, for the operation? Johns answered—No; I did not make any demand before the 10 days were up. Did you tell Michael Bawden that you had castrated 18 colts on that day? Answer—I did not tell Michael Bawden that I had thrown 18 colts that day. He was then asked by the court concerning the risk. He replied—when I was standing at the head of the horse, I agreed to pay 16l. if the horse died. He was next asked by the court, whether he told Michael Bawden on the evening of the 13th, the day before the operation, that he expected to receive 5s. for the job. He said, I never said no such thing. The Judge asked him, whether he had had any conversation with Jenkins, and whether he had told Jenkins that he had not made any bargain for the colt? His answer was, that he never said a word about the matter to Jenkins. On cross-examination, Mr. Bullmore stated that in the County Court proceedings, the plea was a general issue. The debt was denied; but at the hearing, a tender was pleaded by Mr. Bamfield (the defendant’s attorney) and 5s. was paid into court. Samuel Bamfield, attorney for Bolt at the County Court, stated that the account given by Mr. Bullmore was in substance and effect, the testimony given by Johns. Thomas Bolt, the prosecutor.—I reside at Constantine. In May last I saw prisoner on the 12th of May, at Penryn fair, in the street, and told him I had a colt which I wanted to have castrated, and asked him if he could do it. He said yes, and asked where I lived. I said, at Main. He said, I cannot come this week. I told him to name his own time. Afterwards, he said “I can come to-morrow evening at 6 o’clock.” I said “very well.” Not a word was said at that conversation about risking the colt; he never named any risk, or sum of money, or any thing of the kind; he did not say a word about paying 16l. if the colt died within 10 days. He came to the farm about 9 o’clock in the evening of the 13th of May. I asked him “how are you so late?” He said “I have thrown 18 colts to-day”; and that he did not wish to castrate my colt then unless I wished it, but would call the next morning. He agreed to come the next morning about 7 o’clock. He did come that morning, and after he had operated on the colt, he left the farm, and returned in about 2 hours; I was then in a field near the house sowing carrot seed, and a man named Edye was with me. I said, “what have I to pay you? what is your charge?” He said, “I shall charge Squire Freeman the same as other gentlemen, and that is a guinea.” I said “A guinea! I never paid more than half a crown in my life; and I have made enquiries and find that that is the regular charge in this neighbourhood.” I said, “I intend to give you three shillings; two shillings and sixpence for the operation, and sixpence as you have had no refreshment in the house.” He said he would not take less than a guinea, which was his usual charge. I then called Edye, to see five shillings in my hand. I took out the money and said “now I offer you five shillings; will you take that?” He refused that, and began to threaten law. There were several words passed of a threatening nature.—About two or three days after, he came again, to say that he should be glad if I would pay him as he was about to leave for Fowey the next day. I again offered him the five shillings, and he refused to take it.—He made a demand on me the third time on the 23rd of May at Redruth; that was the ninth day after the operation. I refused to pay him. I have seen the defendant many times since that third demand. I saw him on the 23rd February. I called him over away from a party, and asked him how he came to go into the court with such pretences. He said he should never have done it had it not been for Grigg. I then said “how could you have said that there was any thing named at Penryn, about risk?” He said he scarcely knew what he was about in Court, or what he said. I then told him what I and he said at Penryn, as I have stated here; and I told him what he had said in Court. He said there was no agreement made at Penryn, but he thought there was something said on the carrot-field hedge. I told him what did pass on the carrot-field hedge as I have stated to day; and he appeared perfectly satisfied. Michael Bawden.—I am a labourer in Mr. Bolt’s employ on the farm. On the evening of the 13th of May, Johns came to the farm, and master asked him how he came so late. He said “I did not come to do the work; I have thrown 18 colts to-day, and I have come now to say that I will come at four o’clock in the morning.” I asked him what he charged a colt. He said, according as he could make a bargain. I asked him what he was going to ask for ours. He said he had not agreed, but he expected he should have five shillings. A few days after that, he came to the farm; I said, “Johns, I suppose you are going in for your money.” He said “no; I should have had my money the other day, if it had not been for you d-----d blackguards telling your master what the price was in this country. William Jenkins—I am a farmer living in the parish of Constantine. On the 14th of May, I saw the prisoner, and had conversation with him, as I walked with him from Mr. Bolt’s farm to mine. I asked him had he agreed with Mr. Bolt about price. He said “no.” I said, “what are you going to charge him?” He said, “a guinea.” “Never, to be sure,” I said. He said, “Oh, yes I shall, ‘tis Squire Freeman’s account.” He did not say a word about an agreement to risk the colt. I should think the value of the colt was about £6.—Cross-examined—I have known the prisoner some time; I cannot say whether or not he is joked about being half-witted. Stephen Edye, a labourer on Mr. Freeman’s farm. I recollect Johns coming into a field on the 14th May, where I was with Mr. Bolt. Mr. Bolt said, “You are come after your cash; how much shall I pay you?” He said, “I shall charge Squire Freeman a guinea.” Mr. Bolt said “I am surprised at that; I find 2s. 6d is the usual charge; I will give you 2s. 6d. for the work, and sixpence for taking no refreshment in the house.” Johns still asked for a guinea. Mr. Bolt then offered him five shillings. Johns refused, and threatened law, and took out a paper to show what he had received from some other gentlemen. I saw him leave the farm with Jenkins. Thomas Bolt, recalled by Mr. Collier.—I never said to Mr. Savage, that Johns guaranteed to pay 15l. if the colt died or broke his leg within 10 days. I never knew Mr. Savage before the County Court day; Mr. Savage then said that he had heard me say to some one, he did not know who, that Johns had agreed to pay 15l. Mrs. Eliza Bolt, wife of prosecutor:—On the 14th of May, Johns came in and asked me to give him something to drink. I asked him if he had seen Bolt. He said yes. I asked him if he had settled with him. He said “no, my charge is a guinea, and he will not pay me.” He then said he would have him in the County Court next week. Benjamin Pascoe, farmer. – On the 14th of May, Johns came to my house, and told me he had been up at Bolt’s and had a great dispute, and that Bolt would not pay him for castrating the colt. He said, “what do you think he offered me? Five shillings.”—I said “I never gave more than half a crown in my life.” He said “my demand is a guinea.” This was the day when the operation was performed. I never heard him say a word about risking. John Medlyn stated that on the 14th May last, Johns castrated a colt for him, and said his charge was from five shillings to a guinea, but he should charge him (Medlyn) five shillings. He did not say a word about his risking the colt. Mr. COLLIER for the defence, first submitted some technical objections, to the Court; and then addressed the Jury, commenting on alleged improbabilities in the evidence, and stating that the material allegations were not supported by two witnesses, as the law required in indictments for perjury. The learned JUDGE summed up, observing that the various charges, or assignments of perjury contained in the indictment, resolved themselves into two main questions—viz., whether the agreement was made to risk the colt; and whether Johns made a demand for payment within 10 days after the operation. If the Jury were of the opinion that there was no agreement to risk the colt, and that he did demand payment within 10 days, then that which he swore in the County Court was false; and it would be for the jury to consider whether it was wilfully false. The jury then returned a verdict of Guilty. The judge deferred sentence till Monday morning. ZACHARIAH JOHNS, 27, charged with having on the 3rd of August last, at the parish of Calstock, violently and feloniously assaulted Susanna Rundle, and with having, against her will, feloniously ravished and carnally known her.—Mr. Carter conducted the prosecution; Mr. Collier the defence.—The prosecutrix, a young woman, stated that she lived at Tavistock, in service with a Mrs. Dyer, and on Sunday the 3rd of August, she went to Calstock, with a Mrs. Hext of Tavistock, to see her daughter Catherine Edey, who was living in service. After taking tea, prosecutrix with Catherine Edey and two little boys walked out to go to Calstock church yard to see a grave. After they had got a little way out of town, Catherine Edey and the two little boys ran away, and prosecutrix still walked on alone towards the church yard. This was about 6 o’clock in the evening. She soon met with the prisoner, who said to her “will you go with me?” She said, “I don’t want to go with you.” She was then in the lane. He took hold of her and dragged her into a field; having before that struck her with his fist and made her nose bleed.— The prosecutrix detailed circumstances which could leave no doubt that the prisoner completed his purpose; but, after cross-examination, and the examination of other witnesses, the jury returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL. The Court did not rise until 10 o’clock. ______NISI PRIUS, SATURDAY, March 27. TOOKER v. CROKER.—Mr. Slade and Mr. Lopes appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Serjeant Kinglake and Mr. M. Smith for the defendant. This was an action of trespass. The declaration stated that defendant had broken and entered three closes of plaintiff’s land, and cut down certain trees. Defendant pleaded, first, not guilty; second, that the closes were not the closes of the plaintiff; third, that the closes were the freehold of the defendant; and fourth, that the closes were the soil and freehold of one Laundry. Mr. Slade stated the case, from which it appeared that the question at issue was, whether a small spot of land on which trees were growing, was the soil and freehold of the plaintiff or those under whom he claimed; or whether it belonged to defendant, or those under whom he claimed. Plaintiff, Mr. Nicholas Tooker, is the occupier of an estate called , which he had rented under the late Mr. James Lyne, of Liskeard, and since then under the trustees of Mr. Lyne’s will. There is a highway leading from Boscent-cross to , and branching from this is the private road, which leads to the spot of land in dispute, by the side of the road. There were three trees growing on the spot in question, and it was in reference to these that the trespass was alleged to have been committed in December last. The tenant of Mr. Lyne, Nicholas Tooker, was then interfered with by Mrs. Croker, when he was scraping the road near the trees. Mr. Croker and Mr. Lyne then came up, and there was a dispute between them, as to their respective rights. On the same day Mr. Lyne told Tooker to go for a carpenter; he did so, and cut down two of the trees. Defendant then sent to Moon’s for an axe; Moon’s men came down, and Croker took up plaintiff’s axe and flung it away. This interference constituted the alleged trespass, for which nominal damages were sought, the object being mainly to try the right to the spot in question. The local position of the spot was considered by the learned Judge to be an important element in the case. At the upper part of the lane, on the one side, the land was the property of Mr. Lyne, and on the other that of Mr. Croker. This continued so down to Mr. Croker’s house, where the lane takes a sharp turn down the hill, and passes between land on both sides the property of Mr. Lyne, after which it continues down to where Mr. Croker’s land is again the boundary. The bank where the trees grew was by the side of that part of the lane where the land on each side belonged to Mr. Lyne; so that although in other parts of the lane, the parties had each a claim from the side where his land was the boundary, to the centre of the lane, yet at this part where the trees were growing, it was submitted by plaintiff’s counsel the legal presumption was that the lane was there wholly plaintiff’s, in consequence of the land on both sides being Mr. Lyne’s. The learned Judge said, that would be so if it were a public turnpike or parish road, but the present case was different, and the legal presumption did not arise. But though there might not be this presumption at , he agreed there was the presumption of common sense, that that part of the lane belonged to the party who owned the land on both sides; and though this did not necessarily follow, yet it required strong acts of ownership by another party to set aside the probabilities that that part of the lane belonged to plaintiff. Evidence was given by a number of witnesses to show acts of ownership exercised by Mr. Lyne’s tenants, and also on the other side to show acts of ownership by Mr. Croker and his tenants. The history of the property was traced for between forty and fifty years, and evidence given respecting gates and premises, and user of the lane by turning cattle into it, by preventing other parties from coming there, by lowering the road, by collecting dung in the lane, &c. Particulars of this nature were deposed to by the witnesses for plaintiff and defendant. The most important witness for defendant was a man called Knight, who spoke of one occasion when Mr. Lyne told him it was Croker’s lane, and that his (Mr. Lyne’s) tenant had only a right of way through it; and that about 17 years ago, witness (being then Mr. Croker’s tenant) took from the bank on which these trees were growing, 50 or 60 loads of earth, and carried it on Mr. Croker’s land. Defendant’s claim was to the whole of the lane, stating that it was of extreme importance as giving access to his property; but to this it was replied on the part of plaintiff, that there was no desire to deprive him of a right of way through the lane. The trial lasted about five hours, and the learned JUDGE having lucidly summed up, the jury after a short deliberation, gave a verdict for defendant. [It is understood that Mr. Crowder had been retained for the plaintiff some time before the assizes, but on receiving his brief in the evening of the Commission day, the learned Counsel expressed a desire to be released from the retainer in consequence of some communication which had been made to him on behalf of the defendant who had professed himself to be one of his political adherents in Liskeard. The learned Counsel’s wishes were of course complied with]. DOE DEM. AVERY v. LANGFORD.—(Special Jury.)—The special jury were Mr. Francis Parkyn, foreman, Mr. M.T. Hichens, Mr. Alfred Fox, Mr. D.P. Le Grice, Mr. Thomas Winter, Mr. Jeremiah Reynalds, Mr. Joseph Polkinhorne, Mr. R.S. Oliver, Mr. Elias Dunsterville, and three of the petty juryman, Messrs. R. Carvosso, James Marshall, and John Pellow. The witnesses on both sides were ordered to leave the court till called on. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Collier and Mr. Karslake; for the defendant, Mr. Serjeant Kinglake and Mr. Maynard. Mr. Karslake opened the pleadings, stating that this was an action of ejectment, by Mr. T.R. Avery, to recover possession of certain premises in the parishes of Minster and Forrabury. Mr. Crowder then stated the circumstances of the case. This was an action brought by Mr. Thomas Rickard Avery, a merchant of Boscastle, to recover from the defendant possession of a small portion of land in the parishes of Minster and Forrabury, on which there are several buildings. Mr. Avery claimed this property as a reversioner of a lease granted in 1787, for ninety-nine years, determinable on lives. This lease was granted by Sir Jonathan Phillips and Miss Amy, Sir Jonathan having married one of Miss Amy’s and the two sisters being co-heiresses. The lease of certain property was granted by these parties to Mr. Richard Kingdon, for ninety-nine years, with a reversion, determinable on the lives of Richard Kingdon Frost and Margery Kingdon Frost; and the last of these lives, Margery Kingdon Frost, who had become Mrs. Hill, died on the 22nd of April, 1851. The land having been demised, by this lease of the 18th of June, 1787, to Mr. Richard Kingdon, it afterwards came into the possession of Miss Kingdon, who carried on a mercantile business at Boscastle. Mr. Avery had become the reversioner of the property granted under the lease; in 1824, he purchased an undivided quarter of the reversion of Mr. Francis; in 1842 he purchased another quarter of Mr. Benoak; and in 1844, he purchased the remaining half of the reversion of Mr. Phillips, the heir of Sir Jonathan Phillips. When, therefore, on the 22nd of April, 1851, the last life died, the property fell to Mr. Avery as the reversioner, who now brought this action to recover a strip of land which he alleged was part of the property included in the lease of 1787. The situation of that piece of land was as follows. A stream called the Valency river runs from a building called Cellar to Boscastle bridge. This stream runs nearly east and west. On the south of it there is a piece of land called the Marsh, and on the north there was formerly a bank or hedge called “elder hedge,” running nearly the whole way from Bristol cellar to Boscastle bridge. There is a small piece of land between “elder hedge” and the river, on which there are now erected the houses of Mr. Wade and Mr. Bellamy, and the coal-shed and coal-yard of Mr. Langford, the defendant, with courtlages to those buildings. In the lease of 1787 the deed specified the lower meadow and marsh, without defining limits or boundaries. The marsh on the south side of the Valency had fallen to Mr. Avery as the reversioner under the lease; but plaintiff now claimed also the piece of ground to the north of the Valency, between that stream and the place of the “elder hedge,” which waste ground had in the lapse of years since the granting of the lease in 1787, been built upon by the defendant and others. In confirmation of plaintiff’s allegation that the marsh extended to the north side of the river to where the elder hedge formerly stood, Mr. Crowder said he should prove that there was a gate between the end of the hedge and Bristol cellars wall, and through that gate was the only way to drive cattle into the marsh by their crossing the river; it was therefore to be presumed that that was originally the marsh gate. There is now a wall built along by the river, and the place is much changed; but should plaintiff not be able to prove his right to the whole extent of the piece of land between the river and the place where the elder hedge formerly stood, then (said Mr. Crowder) plaintiff would claim a smaller piece of land on that same side of the river. The stream, he should prove, had been diverted and thrown further south than it formerly was, when the lease was granted in 1787, and therefore plaintiff would claim to the extent of that encroachment on the marsh south of the river. Mr. Crowder further said that a meadow higher up on the north side of the river, had been given up to the plaintiff under the lease and he did not know how to view this but as an admission that the triangular spot now claimed on the north side of the river, was also included in the lease. The lease of 1787 was then put in, and a number of witnesses were called in support of plaintiff’s case, some of them old women between seventy and eighty years of age, who spoke of the former state of the land now claimed, and its boundaries, the turning cattle in there, the building of houses, &c. Through the crowded state of our columns, we cannot go into the details of evidence in the case. Besides the other witnesses, Mr. Avery and his sister gave evidence. Mr. Avery said he was always of opinion that the marsh extended to both sides of the river, and he had seen the houses from time to time built on the north side. He said when he bought a quarter of the reversion in 1824, he did not then investigate the matter, and did not know the marsh was then part of his purchase; the deed of the part he purchased consisted of lands in Boscastle, Minster, and Forrabury. He said he knew by repute that defendant, in 1832, became the purchaser of property of which the land now claimed formed a part. He was asked if he did not recommend defendant to buy it, and replied that he had a conversation with him previous to the sale. Plaintiff said he did not advise Mr. Langford to purchase the property, and had never seen the description of it before (the handbill offering the property for sale being produced). He said he did not tell Mr. Langford that the description was all right, so far as he knew; and that he did not attend the sale in 1832, or that he did not recollect it. There was a proposal from defendant to refer the matter in dispute, but he refused, as he had not spoken to Mr. Langford for seven years, and the last reference he had with him arising out of a law-suit, lasted five years, he considered, through the litigiousness of defendant. Plaintiff was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, and amongst other questions was asked whether the property in question was not under mortgage, or whether he had not paid off that mortgage since the commencement of this action. (If this question had been answered affirmatively, it would have put an end to the suit, as showing that plaintiff had not the legal estate at the time of filing the declaration). Mr. CROWDER objected to the question, on the grounds that deeds should be produced. Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE replied that now the parties to a suit might be examined, when put in the witness box they should give evidence according to the rules affecting witnesses generally.—The learned Judge decided against the view of Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, who then requested that a note should be taken of the point, which was one that had not yet been decided by the courts. Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE was so hoarse and so much indisposed that he could not address the jury for defendant, and was obliged to leave the court before the trial was over. The duty therefore devolved on the junior counsel, Mr. Maynard, who first objected that the premises claimed were not sufficiently set out in the particulars of demand, and also that there was no case to go to the jury. Both these objections were overruled, and Mr. Maynard then addressed the jury. He alluded to the differences which had taken place between Mr. Avery and Mr. Langford, and said the present action was intended as an instrument of oppression as regarded the defendant. That defendant had offered to refer the case, and if decided against him to give up possession in twenty-one days, but this proposition was refused by the plaintiff. The case for the defendant was, that the land now claimed by plaintiff under the lease of 1787 was not in fact included in that lease; but that Miss Kingdon took under certain other leases, the land being originally the property of Lord Radnor, and which passed subsequently to a gentleman named Rashleigh. That in the year 1793, the reversions of these other leases (which had up to that time been reversions under Lord Radnor and his successors) were purchased by Mr. Richard Kingdon, then passed to a gentleman named Frost, and by him and a Mr. Coode, to whom the property had been mortgaged, they were in 1832 conveyed to Mr. Langford. It was under this purchase of 1832 that defendant now claimed the freehold of the premises in dispute, the property embraced in that conveyance being described in the deed as waste land lying next adjoining the road from Boscastle bridge to Pilley on the right. There was no pretence for saying that this was “marsh;” it had none of the characters of a marsh, but was the ground originally embraced in Lord Radnor’s property, which had been subject to the old leases mentioned, and was purchased by Mr. Langford in 1832. The learned counsel said he should also show, by evidence, that it was ascertained by Mr. Langford from the plaintiff, and from Frank Francis, of whom the plaintiff purchased one quarter of the reversion in 1824 (and by whose admissions plaintiff must be bound) that the property now in question was the freehold of Richard Kingdon and Miss Kingdon. It was described in the particulars of sale, when the property was sold in 1832, as being the freehold of Miss Kingdon; and that sale Mr. Jennings the auctioneer, would show, Mr. Avery attended, and bid 1800l. for the property. Of course he would not have made that bidding without having seen the description of the property as being freehold. Not only that, but plaintiff was consulted by Mr. Langford at the time, and said he believed the description in the bill was accurate. Miss Kingdon also, in her lifetime, had pointed out what was leasehold and what freehold of her property, which agreed with what was now stated by the defendant. Mr. Sloggatt being then Miss Kingdon’s tenant, laid out 400l. or 500l. on this waste in question, for which he was allowed by Miss Kingdon, and could it be supposed she would lay out money in this way on a leasehold, with the life then at an advanced age? Mr. Sloggatt was also erecting a brew-house close up to the Bristol cellar, on which Miss Kingdon said, you are going too far; you must not make use of the Bristol-cellar, for that is leasehold; my freehold only extends as far as the Bristol-cellar. The action depended on the construction of the word “marsh” used in the lease, under which plaintiff claimed. He contended that the boundary of the marsh on the north had always been the ; and that nothing could be inferred from cattle having been formerly driven into the marsh by the gate at the end of the elder hedge, and then going across the stream, for the property being all occupied by Miss Kingdon, her cattle might be driven anywhere upon it. The marsh in the lease was so undefined, that Mr. Avery had said in his evidence there might be other portions of contiguous land, to which it might be applicable, and for which he might bring actions. The conduct of the plaintiff and those under whom he claimed should also be regarded; for though living close at hand, and seeing the buildings going on, they had never come forward and said, “you are building on leaseholds, do you know you are throwing you money away.” After remarking on the manner of plaintiff in the witness-box as not being calculated to give weight to his evidence, Mr. Maynard noticed the claim to the smaller piece of land, on the plea that the river had been diverted; but as the proprietor on each side a river had the ownership to the centre of the stream, this lesser claim could not be substantiated unless it were shown that the river had been diverted to the extent of at least half its breadth. The deeds in support of the defendant’s claim to the freehold were then put in, and several witnesses were examined, including Mr. Sloggett, 78 years of age, Mr. Jennings, auctioneer, Mr. Langford, the defendant, and others, in support of the statements made by the learned counsel in his address to the jury. After this evidence had been given, Mr. CROWDER replied, contending that the deeds produced by defendant made no reference whatever to the piece of land now claimed, and the defendant’s witnesses even tended to support the case of plaintiff. He said he would abandon that part of the claim which referred to the diversion of the river. The learned JUDGE commenced summing up the case about midnight. He said the question was one of title to the whole of that triangular piece of land which had been described, and which was now in the possession of defendant and other tenants against whom different ejectments had been brought; but no doubt Mr. Langford was the real defendant also in the other two actions. The question to decide was, whether that piece of land belongs to the plaintiff on a reversion expectant, or whether it is the soil and freehold of the defendant, derived from a purchase he made of a lady called Kingdon. The decision of this question would depend on the application the jury would make of the word “marsh,” which was to be found in the lease the reversion of which the plaintiff had purchased; and as the person entitled to the soil would have the buildings erected thereon, they must not suffer their attention to be distracted from the legal consideration of the case by statements of the money laid out and improvements made on the premises. He said there was always difficulty in ascertaining the rights of a reversioner after so long a period had elapsed, and when changes had taken place in the property; and in this case the difficulty was increased by the premises having been for many years in the possession of a lady who had the freehold of some lands in that locality, as well as the leasehold of the estate, the reversion of which had been purchased by Mr. Avery. Acts of ownership, therefore, by Miss Kingdon were of no weight; and alterations and improvements were of equivocal import, for there might sometimes be reasons for laying out a considerable sum of money even on leasehold property; or being a lady, she might not be very clear as to the boundaries of her leasehold and freehold property. The learned JUDGE then remarked on the wording of the deeds put in on both sides, and on the evidence of the witnesses at considerable length, his summing up occupying about one hour. The jury deliberated for some time in their box, and then retired from the court at about half-past one o’clock, and were locked up until half- past ten on Sunday morning before they could agree to their verdict, which was then given for the plaintiff. ______THIRD COURT. – SATURDAY, March 27. (Before Mr. Butt. Q.C.) THOMAS WILLIAM TRAYS, 24, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 26th of February, at Polbathick, in St. Germans, a Dutch cheese, the property of Septimus Crocker. A former conviction was found against the prisoner, who was sentenced to four months’ hard labour. ROBERT THOMAS was charged with stealing, on the 26th of January, a sheaf of reed, from Caleb Lord, a fishmonger at Mevagissey, who had the reed in a fish cellar. Verdict, GUILTY, but recommended to mercy.—Two weeks hard labour. JOHN SMITH, 25, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 17th of January, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalene, a razor belonging to George Higgs. Sentence, two months’ hard labour. WILLIAM HARRIS, 22, and JOHN RICHARDS, 24, were found GUILTY of stealing a shirt, on the 17th of January, the property of Joseph Paul, of . Harris was sentenced to three months, and Richards to two months’ hard labour. ELIZABETH MILLS, 28, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 13th of March, at the parish of Falmouth, a cotton gown, the property of Susan Hender. Sentence two months’ hard labour. JOHN , 11, was found GUILTY of stealing, at Madron, two hammers, an iron drill, two pieces of serpentine, and a zinc pattern, the property of Mr. Organ and others. Verdict, GUILTY, but recommended by the jury to mercy.—One fortnight’s hard labour. MARY STACEY, 36, was charged with obtaining, by false pretences, a silver watch from William Trick, watchmaker, Stratton. It appeared that James Colwell, a labourer, brought prosecutor a watch to repair, and on the 7th of November, a woman called for it, saying she had been sent by Colwell, who would pay for it. The difficult matter to prove was the identity of the prisoner as being the woman who called for the watch. The jury were not satisfied that this identity had been fully made out, and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. MARY BURRELL, 35, was indicted for stealing various articles of wearing apparel from the dwelling house of W.E. Commins, of Calstock. The prisoner was in the service of prosecutor, and after she had left the house with her boxes, the articles in question were missed from Mrs. Commins’s bed-room; and afterwards in another house some property was found in her boxes. Verdict, GUILTY.—Twelve months’ hard labour. ROBERT PRYNN, 17, pleaded GUILTY, of stealing two quarts of rum from John Knight, of Liskeard. There was another indictment against him for stealing a half-sovereign from Robert Peters, of . Sentence, three months hard labour. ASSAULT.—JOHN MACKENZIE, 24, was indicted for assaulting Henry Kidd, overseer, and Thomas Hill, constable, of Lostwithiel, in the execution of their respective duties. Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution.—Henry Kidd said, I am a schoolmaster and assistant overseer of Lostwithiel. On the 14th of March, prisoner applied for relief; I refused it, as being against the orders of the Board of Guardians. He said he would not go away; he swore a great deal, and said if I did not give him relief, he would give me six inches of cold steel, and would have blood. I then went for a constable, and when on the road prisoner said, I might go, but he would give me this (having a knife in his hand,) before he went to bed that night. The constables Parkyn and Hill came, and said to prisoner, “What are you doing here?” to which he made no reply. Prisoner then aimed with the knife in his hand at Hill, and would probably have struck him had not Parkyn took his arm and pulled him away, by which the blow was evaded. Constable Parkyn being apprehensive of what would happen, offered to buy the knife, which prisoner sold for sixpence, and as soon as Parkyn had the knife in his possession, Hill took the man into custody. The knife was produced, about twelve inches in length. Constables Hill and Parkyn also gave evidence, and the prisoner was found GUILTY. Sentence, twelve months hard labour. JOHN PRIOR, MARY ANN GARD, and MARY ANN FORD were charged with stealing wearing apparel, the property of Mr. Claudius Hawker, of Boscastle, solicitor. The prisoner Ford pleaded GUILTY. The clothes were stolen from a place where they were put to dry. The other prisoners being also found GUILTY, Prior was sentenced to four months; Mary Ann Gard to twelve months; and Ford to two months hard labour. The Court then rose. ______CROWN COURT. MONDAY, MARCH 29. STABBING CASE.—The learned Judge passed sentence on Thomas Henry Curnow, who had been convicted of stabbing. His lordship said, what has passed at those assizes had induced me to transport every person who has been convicted of using a deadly weapon. You will be the only exception; in your case I have considered the circumstances of mitigation, and I order you to be Imprisoned and kept at hard labour for Six Months. BIGAMY.—Henry Northey, who had been convicted of bigamy, was next sentenced. The learned JUDGE said, I have been inquiring into your case, and find there are some matters which may tend to palliate your offence. If I had found that without cause you had ill-used your first wife, and then deceived your second with false pretences of your being unmarried, your sentence would be very different. I order you to be Imprisoned and kept at hard labour for Six Calendar Months.) PERJURY IN COUNTY COURT.—Hannibal Lyne Johns having been placed at the bar, the learned Judge passed sentence as follows:—You have been convicted of the crime of perjury, and any one who watches the proceedings of a court of justice, and who is aware of the number of cases brought before the county court judges, must know that it is an offence of great public importance. You fabricate the claim, and then you fabricate false evidence in support of it; and when that guilt is clearly proved, it is the duty of those who administer criminal justice in this country to visit such and offence severely. I am bound to make an example in your case; I have looked at what has been said of your not having intellect so as to be perfectly responsible; but I feel convinced you have abundant intellect to plan that which is bad as well as to choose that which is good. The sentence is, that you be transported for seven years. ADMINISTERING DRUGS TO PROCURE MISCARRIAGE.—WILLIAM HAMLYN PASCOE, a surgeon, aged 50, was indicted for feloniously administering to Catherine Nicholls, on the 11th July, a certain noxious drug called savin, with intent to procure miscarriage. Mr. Stock conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Rogers the defence. Mr. Stock stated that Catherine Nicholls is the daughter of a saddler residing at Probus, and that the prisoner lived in the village of . Catherine Nicholls, in consequence of illness, could not attend, but her deposition before magistrates would be put in as evidence. He said the prisoner gave her a mixture first on the 8th of July, which was not calculated to produce abortion, though many persons, and even some medical men of not much knowledge, conceived it was calculated to produce that effect. But as to the prescription the prisoner gave Miss Nicholls at his second visit on the 11th July, he believed there could be no doubt that it was intended to procure abortion. And there was this remarkable fact, that the name of the patient and of the medical man was omitted from this second prescription, no doubt with a view to secrecy. That Catherine Nicholls was a consenting party in the case, was of no consequence; all that the jury had to be satisfied of was, that a certain noxious drug had been administered; and secondly, that it was administered with intent to produce miscarriage. Mr. STOCK then called the following witnesses: - Catherine Hockin.—I live at Newquay, and know Catherine Nicholls, who lives at Probus, about fourteen miles from Newquay. In the beginning of last June, Catherine Nicholls came to lodge at my house in Newquay; she remained in my house five weeks and two days. The last week she lodged in my house early in July, she was visited by Mr. Pascoe. I do not know whether she sent for him or not. She complained to him of palpitation of the heart and liver complaint. Mr. Pascoe sounded her, and said her heart beat very strong. She said she was not well, and had been in that state for three months; it was a periodical illness. He examined her breast. He then asked if he should speak to her, and was alone with her two minutes. He afterwards wrote a prescription for her, and took it with him. On the following day (Wednesday) medicine was sent to her. I had no suspicion before of Miss Nicholls, but seeing him examine her breast, I asked him when he came again on Friday, whether he had any suspicion of Miss Nicholls being in the family way. He either said “not at all,” or “I don’t know.” This was before Miss Nicholls came into the room; she then came in, and my child being troublesome I left; they were together about a quarter of an hour. I afterwards supplied him with pen, ink, and paper, and he wrote a prescription; and my husband took it to Mr. Michell’s, druggist, at Newquay. The medicine was brought for her on Saturday morning about eleven o’clock. I did not see her take any of it, but she took out the cork, and I perceived the smell. She left my house the next day (Sunday;) it was Probus feast, and her father came and fetched her. I had told Miss Nicholls on Saturday, after the medicine came, that she must go home. I told her this in consequence of my suspicions being raised by Mr. Pascoe examining her breast. On Cross-examination witness said she only saw Miss Nicholls opening the front of the dress; she did not know whether Mr. Pascoe saw her breast. George Hockin, husband of last witness, recollected the first time Mr. Pascoe came to his house. Miss Nicholls afterwards gave witness a prescription, and he took it to Mr. Michell’s, a druggist at Newquay. Charles Llewellyn, apprentice to Mr. Michell, druggist. On Friday July the 11th, Mr. Hockin brought me a prescription. (Prescription handed to witness). This is like what was brought to me, but I cannot swear to it, I did not take particular notice of it. I do not exactly know Mr. Pascoe’s handwriting, I have been in the habit of making up prescriptions by him; his handwriting is different at different times; I believe this to be his writing. I left the prescription on the shop counter when I closed the shop. Cross-examined. The prescription was left in the shop all night; I did not see it made up. Re-examined—When I came back in the morning, Mr. Michell and I were first in the shop; Mr. Michell took up the prescription from the counter. By the JUDGE—There was but one prescription left on the counter when I shut the shop, and in the morning this prescription was where I left it the night before. No person could go into the shop but Mr. Michell and myself; no other person unless Mr. Michell was with him. I do not remember receiving any other prescription on that Friday. After a prescription is made up, we sometimes send it with the medicine and sometimes keep it, and sometimes copy it. James Michell, druggist at Newquay:—I recollect, on the 8th of July, the prisoner Pascoe came to my shop, and wrote a prescription there for Miss Nicholls of Probus. He told me to send it to George Hockin’s, and I made it up and sent it next morning. I copied that prescription and kept the original, which I filed, and afterwards gave it to policeman Coombs. This is the prescription now produced, (numbered 174). On the morning of Saturday the 12th of July, I went to my shop; Llewellyn had opened the shop half an hour before. A prescription was on the counter, and Llewellyn said it was brought by George Hockin the night before. I made it up after breakfast. This is the prescription now produced, No. 179; I filed it and delivered it to Coombe, the policeman. A little girl came for the medicine; I gave it to her in a small bottle and she took it away. The second prescription I made up is used for several things, for cattle diseases, for menstruation, and for procuring abortion. Cross-examined—The quantity in this prescription is half an ounce of oil of savin, and friar’s balsam six drachms. By the JUDGE—I am not aware what quantities are used for cattle diseases and other purposes. By Mr. ROGERS—Defendant lives at Cubert, about four miles from Newquay. I do not know what amount of practice he has; his practice is chiefly about St. Agnes. I went to breakfast before I had made up the prescription (No. 179), and left it on the counter. I could see into the shop from the room in which I took my breakfast; but could not see the dispensing part of the shop, where the prescription was. Three or four customers came in whilst I was at breakfast, or there might have been more; I went out to them myself. I was about three-quarters of an hour at breakfast. I had had the oil of savin in my shop about a month. I labelled the prescription— twelve drops three times a day in water with sugar. I keep the file on which I place prescriptions hanging up in the shop. Re-examined—I took the prescription up in my hand before breakfast; it was the same as was afterwards made up after breakfast. I cannot say whether the quantity (12 drops three times a day), would be dangerous or not. (The prescriptions, Nos. 174 and 179, were then read by the officer of the court). Mary Ann Carhivick, (a girl of 13) said she was sent by Miss Nicholls twice to Mr. Michell’s shop for physic; first on a Wednesday, and afterwards on a Saturday; she carried the bottles to Miss Nicholls. Emanuel Anthony said—Mr. Pascoe attended me last August for being unwell. I saw a young woman at Mr. Pascoe’s house. I do not know Miss Nicholls, and do not know she was that young woman. I remember the coroner’s inquest being held on a body found in the church-yard; it might have been a week or a fortnight before that, that I saw the young woman at Mr. Pascoe’s house. Cross-examined—I live about 100 paces from Mr. Pascoe; he has a large practice; I went to him because he is our mine doctor. Jane Butson, who lives at Cubert, said, I have seen Miss Catherine Nicholls going into Mr. Pascoe’s house. I remember the coroner’s inquest on the body found in the church-yard; it might have been a fortnight or three weeks before that, that I saw Miss Nicholls go into Mr. Pascoe’s. I saw Miss Nicholls leave Cubert on the 20th of August. William Eastlake—I am sexton of Cubert parish, and know Mr. Pascoe. He gave me orders to come to his house; I did so, and saw him. There was a little parcel handed over to me, it being then about nine o’clock in the evening. Mr. Pascoe handed the parcel to me, and ordered me to take it to the church- yard and bury it. I did not know what was inside of it; outside there was a handkerchief. I buried it on the south side of the church,—dug a hole and covered it over. This might have been a few days before the coroner’s inquest, as well as I can recollect. Cross-examined—I had not been in the habit of burying similar parcels. Mary Scobell, of Cubert, said—The coroner’s inquest was held on a Tuesday. On the Saturday before, I saw Eastlake at Mr. Pascoe’s door with something under his coat, and afterwards saw him on the church-yard stile. Next day (Sunday) I was in the church-yard, and seeing a turf cut on the south side of the church, I took it up and found a bundle underneath, containing some heavy substance. I went for another woman, Betsy Glasson, who came and opened the bundle it contained a female child, apparently not a full grown child.—Cross-examined—I never saw a prematurely born child before this. When I saw Eastlake on the church-yard stile, it was a very good light, and I gave him the time of the night; he did not seem to try to escape observation. Henry Coombe – I am constable of St. Columb Major, about eleven miles from Cubert. I took Mr. Pascoe into custody on the 29th of August, and read the warrant to him, which contained a charge of administering drugs to procure miscarriage. I found him at a beer-house in the parish of Cubert. I told him he had better be careful as to what he answered, for it might be used in evidence against him. (Witness then read the following from a paper, which he said he wrote down at the time in prisoner’s presence). After hearing the warrant, Mr. Pascoe said—I will explain to the gentlemen all about it when I come before them. He said, as to the child, I do not know whether it was a boy or a child (sic); I did not examine it, neither was I present when it was born. The child was given to the sexton in the general way, and as for the medicines, I never procured any, for I am only a consulting surgeon; Miss Nicholls had her medicines of Michell, a chemist of Newquay, where you can get my prescriptions. The only thing that would criminate me is, that I did not make it publicly known. I told Billy Eastlake he was to come and take it away, and get it interred, but I did not know whether it was a boy or a child; and the reason, he said, he did not make it publicly known was because he did not like to throw any slander on the girl, but rather than get himself into trouble he would divulge the whole. This (said the witness) was all that passed. I have received a bottle from Catherine Nicholls (No. 174 prescription,) and the prescriptions from Mr. Michell. William Moorman—I am a surgeon in practice at St. Columb Major, and have been practising for more that twenty-one years. The prescription produced (No. 174), consists of eight ounces of compound iron mixture, one large spoonful to be repeated twice a day. That is applicable to some affections of the heart, and to some conditions of the female system where certain conditions are suspended, and as a tonic in other cases. Given in large doses, it would not, in my opinion be injurious in cases of pregnancy. It is not a medicine calculated to procure abortion of miscarriage. Some ignorant people have believed it can produce that effect, and some medical men have even supposed it, but in my opinion it would produce no such effect. The other prescription, No. 196, consisting of oil of savin and friar’s balsam, would not be fitted for a disease of the heart or liver. It has been used for diseases of the womb in old practice; it is not used now, but is generally discountenanced by the profession, on account of its being a severe and dangerous irritant, as being a very severe medicine and purgative. It is popularly known as a means for producing miscarriage. The three doses a day (36 drops) would convey about 14 drops of oil of savin, and used in that quantity, I am of opinion this medicine would produce the peculiar effects of savin, such as irritation, or purging, or inflammation probably of the large intestines, and as a consequence of that, miscarriage might take place. By the JUDGE—In your judgment would a man of competent knowledge prescribe that in such quantities except for abortion? Witness—I think a man of competent knowledge would not. Mr. Stock—Looking at the nature of the thing, and the quantity, is it such as a man ought to prescribe for any proper purpose? Witness—I think not, medically, or for any legitimate purpose. The JUDGE—Then in your opinion such quantities would indicate want of skill in a medical man who prescribed, unless his purpose was abortion? Witness—It would, my lord, unless the object was abortion. Examination continued—Death has occurred from the use of savin, but I do not think given in this quantity for a short time it would produce death. Salts taken in conjunction with it would tend to keep up the irritation, and make miscarriage more probable. On the prescription, No. 179, there is no name of the patient or medical man. On prescription, No. 174, it is written for M. Nicholls, but it is not signed, as is usually done, by a medical man. I very seldom write prescriptions in a chemist’s shop; if I did so I might not write my initials to it; but if I write a prescription in my own house, I should put my name, and the name of the patient; that is the practice. Cross-examined.—I have known prescriptions not signed. The two prescriptions produced are in the same writing. Savin is more likely to produce death in an advanced stage of pregnancy that at an earlier period. A person taking this drug might be capable of taking a journey the day after the birth; she would not be so capable of taking the journey after an abortive drug. I know there is a book called, Hooper’s Medical Dictionary; I do not use it myself, but have known it used by medical men; it is not in general use; I consider it an old-fashioned book. I am not aware that in Hooper’s Medical Dictionary there is a prescription of the amount of savin and friar’s balsam to be used in diseases of the womb. The examination of a woman’s breast would indicate pregnancy, if the breast were seen by the surgeon. It has happened that a woman has had many indications of pregnancy, and yet she has not been pregnant. I do not think a medical man of less practice than myself and less skilled, would be likely in the present day to use this drug as an emmenagogue. I do not think a medical man of any education even in a remote part, would be ignorant of the cautions given against the use of this drug. Re-examined—Even in the old practice, I do not think so large a quantity of savin would be used. There are cases in which disturbed menstruation has been removed by savin; I think it may have that effect, but I have never used it or known it used. Frequent inspection would not be necessary in cases of diseases of the heart and liver, or interrupted menstruation; if the object were to produce abortion, there would be frequent examinations. By Mr. Rogers—Miscarriage might take place between the sixth and seventh months without having taking (sic) a drug to cause abortion. Robert James, surgeon at , said he saw Catherine Nicholls at her father’s house on the previous evening. She was unable to travel, from debility. Cross-examined—She has disease of the heart, an old affection, with pericarditis, and palpitation of the heart; when she is excited, her breathing becomes oppressed. The cause which prevented her coming to Bodmin was extreme debility, rendering her liable to faintness. Witness said he had been attending her for the last 12 days. He had also attended her in June last before she went to Newquay. (Mr. Rogers, prisoner’s counsel, here said it was of extreme importance that Catherine Nicholls should be present, & asked if his lordship were satisfied, on the evidence of this one medical witness, that she could not possibly attend. The JUDGE then asked Mr. James, if this young woman had been willing to come, and no one had asked you any question about it, and you found she was going to set out this morning, would you have interfered, and told her parents it would be dangerous to their daughter’s life? Mr. James replied that he should have told them so. The learned Judge then decided that the deposition of Catherine Nicholls, taken before the magistrates, should be read and received as evidence. Catherine Nicholls stated—I was at Newquay at lodgings about six weeks ago; I was unwell and consulted Mr. Pascoe as my medical man. He came to see me at my lodgings at Mrs. Hockin’s. I told him I had a complaint of the heart and liver. He examined my heart and gave me a prescription. I did not see him write it out, but he said he would send me medicine. I received a bottle of medicine from Mr. Michell’s, the druggist at Newquay, next morning. I took the greater part of it, and left the rest at my lodgings. Mr. Pascoe visited me again a few days after; I had taken the most of the medicine by that time. The second time he came he examined me again; he examined my heart, and wrote out another prescription for me, and desired me to take it to Mr. Michell, the druggist. I sent it by George Hockin, and received the medicine next morning. I don’t know exactly when it was. I took all the second bottle of medicine. I left Newquay and took the second drops at home; I took 12 drops three times a day; I took it in hot water; and it was of a darkish colour, and smelling rather strong, but did not taste strong. After taking the medicine, I thought I was better. That bottle lasted me some time; I took it regularly every day, and when it was finished I went again to see Mr. Pascoe. He gave me some pills, and I went home again and took them all. After that I went again to Mr. Pascoe, and went out there to stay; I left there on Thursday week, (the depositions were dated the 30th of August, 1851), having stayed there from the Tuesday week before. While staying at Mr. Pascoe’s house, he gave me no other medicine than salts; and he examined me several times. (The above was the material part of the deposition). When before the magistrates the witness was asked questions by Mr. Pascoe; and in reply to one of these she said,—“I never told Mr. Pascoe that anything more was the matter with me than disease of the heart and liver.” Mr. ROGERS then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He was not there to say that Mr. Pascoe stood at the top of his profession, but he had a considerable practice, and had endeavoured to carry it out with honesty and integrity. Still it must be considered that he lived in a remote place, and had not received his medical education at a recent period. He (the learned counsel) had mentioned a book, Hooper’s Medical Dictionary, which unfortunately he had not been able to get, but which was still used by many; in that book, he believed savin was recommended, and even Mr. Moorman said it had been used as an emmenagogue. What were the circumstances of this case? Miss Nicholls was under the treatment of Mr. James, but it was at length thought desirable that she should go to the sea-side and have the attendance of Mr. Pascoe. She says in her deposition she told Mr. Pascoe she was suffering from disease of the heart and liver, and whilst she was at Mrs. Hockin’s he treated her for that disease. He first gave her medicine which Mr. Moorman acknowledged was not calculated to procure abortion. And as to the second prescription containing savin, Mr. Moorman admitted that that had been used for menstrual interruption, from which she was also suffering. There was, however, no proof that the second prescription made up in the shop was that made up by Mr. Pascoe; it had been left about in the shop, and there was nothing to identify it as Mr. Pascoe’s. But even supposing that the second prescription was Mr. Pascoe’s, there was nothing to convict him of any crime. Mr. Pascoe wished to state through him (the counsel), that the prescription he wrote was from a book which he had always used and looked upon as a correct book of prescriptions, and that the prescription was there for the very complaint from which the young woman was suffering. He submitted that Mr. Pascoe had acted quite innocently in this matter; and it was a great misfortune for him that Miss Nicholls was not present, that she might have been placed in the witness box, and have told them how she had deceived Mr. Pascoe with regard to her pregnancy. She was the better enabled to deceive him, in consequence of her having a dangerous disease affecting her, and being the daughter of a respectable man, Mr. Pascoe had no idea of her pregnancy. There was no evidence that he examined her breasts; Mrs. Hockin said she opened the front part of her dress, but that was doubtless to enable Mr. Pascoe to discern the nature of the palpitation of the heart. And even if he had examined, it was admitted by Mr. Moorman, and was a well-known fact, that medical men may be mistaken as to pregnancy. There was only her own statement in her depositions that she had taken the second bottle of medicine, and the jury should receive those depositions with more caution, when unsupported, than if she had appeared in the witness-box to be examined. But even if she took the whole of it, that tended to show it was not a noxious drug, because a considerable time elapsed afterwards before her miscarriage. She went back to Cubert, and asked Mr. Pascoe’s servant to be allowed to sleep in the house, and Mr. Pascoe consented to it. Then as to his giving her salts, what harm could there be in that? He contended that there was no guilty knowledge or felonious intent on the part of Mr. Pascoe; the most to be said against him was, that he was an unskilled man not to have known the condition of the young woman. Something had been said about attempted secrecy, but he could state that he had seen prescriptions by consulting surgeons of the highest class, without their signatures attached, and when a man was writing for an apothecary who knew his handwriting, as Mr. Michell did Mr. Pascoe’s, what object could there be in signing his name. There was also no secrecy in getting rid of the birth, it being a good light when the sexton took away the child. Mr. Pascoe had first treated his patient for the diseases of which she complained, but she having the misfortune to give birth to a child, he endeavoured to help her to get rid of it. But if he had had a felonious intent, he would have had the prescription written out in some other handwriting, and would have had the sexton take the body at midnight; also he would not have run the risk of endangering her life in an advanced state of pregnancy, if he had known she had been in that state. He contended that looking at all the circumstances of the case, the jury could not find the prisoner guilty of administering drugs with the intent to procure abortion. The learned Judge, in summing up the case, said, the jury must be satisfied, first, that the prisoner administered the drug; and secondly, that he did so for the purpose of procuring miscarriage. It was a crime of high magnitude indeed, and he made that remark because, in proportion to the magnitude of guilty, they should require clearness of evidence in regard to it. He then remarked on the evidence, stating that if the jury believed the second prescription containing savin was written by the prisoner, they had then the young woman’s deposition that she had taken the whole of it, and Mr. Moorman’s evidence that it is of a noxious nature and likely to procure miscarriage. If they were not satisfied that the prisoner administered the drug, there would be an end of the charge against him; but if they believed he did administer it, then arose the very grave question, and one which to his mind was open to more doubt than the other—did the prisoner administer that savin for the purpose of procuring miscarriage? To convict of this, they must first be satisfied that he either knew she was pregnant, or believed her to be pregnant. He did not think it likely that Catherine Nicholls would say to him she was pregnant, and wished him to procure abortion; yet persons wishing to commit that crime might communicate without using the precise language. Still she states in her deposition that she told Mr. Pascoe she had a complaint of the heart and liver; and that he examined her heart and gave her a prescription. It was not to be assumed that she told him more than this when they were alone, or that he found she was pregnant. But after this he wrote a prescription, which according to Mr. Moorman, if he was a man of competent skill, he must have known would answer no beneficial purpose, and would answer only the purpose of procuring miscarriage. Mr. Moorman seemed to be a respectable medical practitioner, and there was no ground for imputing to him any bad motive, but his evidence only bore fully against the prisoner, if the jury were satisfied that he was a man of competent skill in the medical profession; because they found that savin was formerly used in cases of suspended menstruation, but that no man of competent skill, according to the present education of medical men, would use it. It was popularly known, said Mr. Moorman, as the means of producing miscarriage.—The learned JUDGE then remarked further on the evidence of the surgeon, and said it might be, from the time that elapsed before the birth, that the savin did not produce the miscarriage; because she went home, took the medicine, came back again, took some pills, went home, came back again, took some doses of salts, and then came the birth. But the jury were to look at all the circumstances, and say whether they thought there was the intent to procure miscarriage by administering this noxious drug. He examined her breasts, to what extent they could not tell; he spoke to her two minutes on one occasion, privately, and a quarter of an hour before he wrote the last prescription, she took the whole of that medicine, and afterwards the pills and salts; she came again, the child was born, and was disposed of in that mysterious manner. Looking at all the circumstances they would give their verdict accordingly. The jury retired from the court, and were absent about an hour and forty minutes. They then returned and pronounced a verdict of GUILTY. The JUDGE said, William Hamlyn Pascoe, you stand convicted, after a careful trial, of a crime of this great magnitude, and the evidence which has satisfied the jury of your guilt in this particular founds me in the supposition that this is not the first offence of the kind of which you have been guilty. I order you to be transported beyond the seas for the term of ten years. WILLIAM PRIOR, WILLIAM BONE, and WILLIAM TREWIN, had been indicted for a riot on the 2nd of July last. Prior and Trewin pleaded not guilty; and Mr. Collier pleaded the same for Bone, who was too ill to attend. The learned JUDGE said, gentlemen of the jury, in this case there is no evidence offered in support of the prosecution; and it is your duty to say the three defendants are not guilty. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. ASSAULT.—FERDINAND JOSEPH PONSET, a Spanish sailor, eighteen years of age, was indicted for assaulting Samuel Gill, a constable of Falmouth, whilst in the execution of his duty. The prisoner, who was arraigned through the medium of an interpreter, pleaded not guilty. Samuel Gill, constable, of Falmouth, said he was on duty on Saturday night, 11th of January, and heard a great noise near the Quaker’s chapel. I went there, and heard the prisoner say in English, “I’ll kill the b— police.” I saw him brandishing something in his hand; I walked towards him, and he said, “By God, I’ll kill you;” he had a knife in his hand, with which he made a plunge at me, but I parried the blow with my staff. He came the second time, and struck at me; I again parried the blow, and he came against me the third time in the same way. I struck him and he staggered against the wall, and I grappled with him and threw him to the ground; he struck at at (sic) me and the knife entered my waistcoat. A man called Johns then took away the knife. Prisoner was taken into custody and locked up; when in the “lock-up” he tried to bite and kick.—William Johns, boots at the Pilot-boat Inn, and T.R. Whitford, a constable, also gave evidence.—Mr. Stock addressed the jury in behalf of the prisoner, stating that by his advice the prisoner had forborne to insist on his privilege of having a jury composed of half foreigners; but on this account he would not receive the less merciful consideration at their hands. He reminded them that the prisoner came from a country where the knife is much more frequently resorted to than amongst Englishmen, and where the offence is much less thought of than in this country. He submitted that prisoner did not know it was a constable he was assaulting, and that he had been severely punished by constable Gill, who might have been a little more mild in his treatment. Verdict, GUILTY of common assault.—Sentence, Six days’ imprisonment. This concluded the criminal business of the assize. ______NISI PRIUS. – MONDAY, March 29. (Before Mr. Justice Erle). ROSKRUGE v. CADDY and ANOTHER. – Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE and Mr. M. SMITH; for the defendant, Mr. COLLIER and Mr. MAYNARD. (Mr. Serjeant Kinglake being engaged in the other court, Mr. Smith alone appeared for plaintiff). This was an action of replevin which had been removed by certiorari from the County Court of Helston. Mr. M. SMITH opened the case. Plaintiff complained that defendant had wrongfully distrained his goods and chattels. Defendant avowed the distress, and alleged that plaintiff held the close on which the distress was taken, as tenant to him in virtue of a demise, at the yearly rent of 80l., and because that was due he distrained. Plaintiff’s replication was, that there was no such demise at all at the rent of 80l., and that no such rent was due. The facts were briefly these:—Mr. Caddy, a gentleman of Falmouth, had let an estate called Kestle, in the parish of , to the defendant, at Michaelmas, 1849, under a written agreement, which was as follows:— Falmouth, 24th September, 1849. “I hereby agree to accept James Roskruge as my tenant on the estate of Kestlewartha and Polhore for a term of seven years from the 29th day of September instant, being for the first year at a rate of £80, the following years to be dependent on the rise and fall of the price of corn.” The above agreement was void in law as a lease for 7 years, but defendant entered on the estate and held as a tenant from year to year. Up to the present time, however, he had only paid Mr. Caddy 30l. as rent, and he still holds possession of the estate. In July last, he gave Mr. Caddy verbal notice that he should quit the estate the following Michaelmas. As a tenancy from year to year had been created, plaintiff had no right to put an end to it by a three months’ notice. But Mr. Caddy told him he might quit if he desired it, and on plaintiff showing him a statement of his incomings and outgoings, Mr. Caddy said he would reduce the rent to 70l. But Roskruge would not agree to this; he said he wanted to go to America, and would allow the next tenant to come in and give him the usual facilities. The estate was then let by tender to Mr. , but plaintiff changed his mind, and would not allow Pengelly to come into possession. He had paid no more rent than the £30 before mentioned, and Mr. Caddy (as he stated in evidence), believing Roskruge was about to leave, and having been told by him on a former occasion that he owed 150l. to his late landlord, Sir Richard Vyvyan—put in a distress for 28l. (arrears of first year’s rent to Michaelmas, 1849, after deductions for payments), and 60l., the 3 quarters rent to Michaelmas, 1851—altogether 88l. But the , without defendant’s instructions, illegally seized beasts of the plough, and these having been sold, an action was brought by Roskruge against his landlord, in the Helston County Court, on the ground of this illegal sale, and of an excessive distraint. The verdict passed for plaintiff, and defendant had to pay back the 28l. with costs. The question now to be decided was, whether any amount of the rent which had been distrained for was due up to Michaelmas last. Evidence was given of the facts, and after hearing the arguments of counsel, the learned Judge held that there was no evidence of any agreement after the first year for any certain amount of rent; the only agreement being that the rent should be 80l. for the first year, and for the following years to be dependent on the rise and fall of the price of corn; therefore the rent not being fixed by certain standard in the second year, it was not to be recovered by distress. But as to the arrears of the first year’s rent, 28l., that sum having been received back again by the action in the county court, his lordship directed the jury to find for the defendant for that amount, with leave to plaintiff to move to set aside the verdict.—Verdict accordingly. ______NISI PRIUS COURT, Monday, March 29. (Before Mr. Justice Talfourd). DOE DEM TREVANION AND ANOTHER v. LAMBE. Mr. Crowder, Q.C., Mr. Butt, and Mr. Prideaux for plaintiff; Serjeant Kinglake, Mr. M. Smith, and Mr. Karslake, for defendant.—Attorneys:—Mr. Gill, of London, for plaintiff; Mr. Chilcott, of Truro, and Messrs. Coode, Brown and Co., of London, for defendant. The following gentlemen were sworn as the Special Jury:—W. Morshead, Esq., T.G. Graham, Esq., Francis Parkyn; Esq., Charles Budge, Esq., C.H.T. Hawkins, Esq., N. Kendall, Esq., C.G.P. Brune, Esq., Morrish Wilton, Esq., W.H. Tapson, Esq., R. Barrett, Esq., R.G. Dimond, Esq., Francis Moyse, Esq. Mr. Prideaux having opened the pleadings, Mr. CROWDER stated that this was an action of ejectment to recover a moiety of 320 acres of land, situate in the parish of St. Austell, and within the manor of . The plaintiff, John Charles Bettesworth Trevanion, was the representative of an ancient Cornish family, who had possessed considerable property in this County. The defendant, Henry Lambe, was a gentleman, formerly in the profession of the law, and who possessed considerable property near St. Austell, including certain ancient tenements in the neighbourhood of the land now sought to be recovered by the plaintiff. According to history, in former days the manor of Treverbyn was a single undivided manor; but at some time prior to the reign of Henry the 8th, the manor was held by co-heiresses; and one portion of it became transferred to the , in whose hands it had remained ever since; while the other moiety descended through the Trevanion family, to the present plaintiff. At the time of the division of the manor, it assumed the names of Treverbyn Courtenay, and Treverbyn Trevanion; and that was done with respect to this manor which was common in many manors of Cornwall that had been divided in parcenery,—the parceners held the demesne lands severally, while the waste lands had been held by parceners jointly, or in joint tenancy by those who held under them. That was the reason why the plaintiff claimed only a moiety of this land; because he claimed to hold in commonalty with the Duchy.—Respecting the title of John Charles Bettesworth Trevanion, it would be found that John Trevanion Purnell Bettesworth Trevanion, the father of the present Mr. Trevanion, married in 1801; and by his marriage settlement, the lands of Treverbyn Trevanion were settled on himself for life, with remainder to his son in tail. In 1840, the late Mr. Trevanion died, and the whole of the estate came into the hands of the present plaintiff. That was the title under which he now claimed.—Mr. Crowder went on to say that the gentlemen of the jury were doubtless well aware of the nature of tin bounds—that all wastrel land in this county was subject to be tin bounded by persons who chose to work for tin and who placed their bounds on particular portions of wastrel land, which in early times were fit for nothing else. They then worked for tin in the best manner they could, paying to the lord of the manor a portion of the produce—called his “dish.”—The learned gentleman next proceeded to speak of the distinction between the Duchy assessionable manors and its annexed manors. In the reign of Henry the 8th, there was an Act by which several manors were annexed to the Duchy; the manor in question was one of these annexed manors; and from the time of Henry the 8th, one moiety of it, as had been already observed, had been held by the Duchy, while the other moiety was the property of the Trevanions. In this manor of Treverbyn, was a considerable quantity of waste land—as much as 1,700 or 1,800 acres. From early times, much of this waste land had been worked in various ways for tin; the Trevanion family and the Duchy dividing the tolls between them.—Mr. Crowder then handed to the jury a map of the manor, in which all the waste land, a moiety of which was now sought to be recovered, was coloured red; there being four uncoloured portions representing certain ancient tenements unquestionably the property of Mr. Lambe, the defendant. Toward the west was an old free tenement, called Carnsmerry, or Carn-rosemary; it was a tenement which had always paid a high-rent, and that high-rent had always in all time been received by the plaintiff and his ancestors; that piece of land consisted of about 20 acres, and was entirely surrounded by part of the waste land now in question. The high-rents of that tenement had been received by the Trevanions exclusively, because it was part of the demesne lands held by the Trevanions undivided. Then eastward of Carnsmerry was another tenement of Mr. Lambe’s, called Rosevear, consisting of 80 acres; and that also had from all time paid high-rent in the same way. South-west of Rosevear was a small tenement, the property of Mr. Lambe, consisting of 4 acres, called Hallivet, and which had never paid any high-rent at all. Then, rather more to the eastward and southward was the fourth tenement, called Rosevean, containing about 40 acres. Mr. Lambe claimed that the portion of the manor now in question belonged to him as part and parcel of the four tenements which had been mentioned. For instance, Mr. Lambe said that Carnsmerry was the ancient tenement, and that a great part of the land around was part and parcel of that ancient tenement, having, somehow or other, been added to and connected with it. The plaintiff, on the contrary, affirmed that this surrounding portion had been waste from all time, and therefore was as much the lord of the manor’s as any other waste in the manor. Until of late years, there was no produce from these wastes but some rough grass and turves used for fuel, and tin obtained from steam and other works; until the clay works had been established within the last 20 or 30 years. There were no trees on the wastes.—Mr. Lambe’s claim was considerable; inasmuch as, in respect of his four tenements comprising altogether 104 acres, he claimed an addition of about 350 acres. The plaintiff, however, claimed a moiety of only 320 acres, because, in respect of about 30 acres of the original waste, there had been enclosures by encroachment, at a period too far back for the Trevanions to recover. But with regard to the 320 acres to which the present claim applied, there could be no objection by reason of any statute of period of limitation.—Mr. Crowder next stated that he believed the whole of the coloured portion of the map—(the waste now in question)—was under tin-bounds. Near Carnsmerry particularly, was a well-known mine called Beam Mine, which had been worked from the earliest times, and it would be shown that in respect of the tin raised in that mine, dues had always been paid, one moiety to the Duchy, and the other moiety to the Trevanions. Those Duchy mines had been out on lease; and in all those mines, it would be shown that the Trevanion’s toller and agent did from time to time take a moiety of the tin tolls, in respect of Trevanion’s royalty, and also the high-rents in respect of the free tenements.—It was not until somewhere about 1820 that clay pits were opened in this part. Of course, as the lord of the manor was entitled to the soil, the pits could not be opened without his consent, and he would be entitled to receive part of the proceeds according to any arrangement that might be made. During part of the time when the Duchy rights were out on lease, many of those rights were considerably neglected; and from circumstances in the case it would be perceived that the Trevanion’s rights were also very likely to have been neglected; encroachments would be made from time to time, and, from want of attention, the Trevanion rights were very much in danger of being lost. The late Mr. Trevanion lived at Carhayes Castle, near Mevagissey, and between 1820 and 1830 got into considerable difficulties; he became obliged to quit the country and remained in Belgium for a considerable time, during which he creditors filed a bill in Chancery, and meanwhile, the whole of his affairs got into a very wrangled state. The late Mr. Trevanion remained in Belgium till his death in 1840. The present Mr. Trevanion was also in Belgium at that time, and, did not return to this country till 1848.—During this time, and when the clay works began to be opened, various enclosures were made by encroachment, including those by Mr. Lambe; but in respect of none of these would the Statute of Limitations be found to operate against Mr. Trevanion, because there was a life estate in the elder Trevanion until 1840, and the period of 12 years that had since elapsed was no impediment to the recovery of the property to the present Trevanion. If due attention had been paid to the property, in all probability notice of the encroachments would have been taken, and actions of ejectment brought.—But from the earliest times, dues had continued to be paid to the Trevanions; while the tenants had the ordinary rights of common—such as pasture and turbary. If there had been trees on the common, there might have been evidence of the cutting them down for the use of, and yielding profit to, the lord of the soil; but no such evidence could be offered in the present case, because there had never been any trees on the common.—If he should prove the facts he had stated, he should have established a prima facie case to substantiate the plaintiff’s claim; and he believed it could not be shown by any deed or conveyance that any of the wastes in question had been parted with, except as affecting the moiety which had been held by the Duchy, and which could not in the slightest degree operate on the Trevanion’s moiety. It appeared that about 1826, there was a spot found at Goonbarrow which appeared likely to yield clay, and application was made by a person to the agent of Mr. Trevanion for this spot. After the grant had been made, and the working had been carried on some time, Mr. Lambe made a claim in respect of it, which claim the person working did not choose to accede to, and he went out and remained out, and did not exercise the right vested in him by Mr. Trevanion. After that time, the place remained unworked for 2 or 3 years, when Mr. Trevanion did an act which was worthy consideration; he let that ground in 1829 or ’30, at Goonbarrow, to a person who took it from him and worked the pit, paying Mr. Trevanion the dues arranged between them. In 1830, however, it was given out that Mr. Trevanion had sold the waste now in question to Mr. Lambe; but he (Mr. Crowder) defied the defendants to produce any document to show that there had been a conveyance to Mr. Lambe of Goonbarrow or any one of the wastes adjoining Mr. Lambe’s four tenements. But about that time (in 1829) the high-rents of three of Mr. Lambe’s tenements were disposed of to Mr. Lambe by Mr. Trevanion; but the disposal of those high-rents had nothing whatever to do with the soil of the waste lands, the royalties of which had remained in Trevanion down to the present day. But, between Mr. Lambe and the Duchy, a negociation (sic) took place, which in 1850, terminated in a sale to Mr. Lambe by the Duchy of its interest in the waste lands, for the sum of £1800.—Mr. Crowder read portions of the deed of sale, and observed that, while it did not in the slightest degree affect the Trevanion moiety, it was important as showing that at that time Mr. Lambe paid £1,800 for what, according to his present case, was his own. Mr. Lambe did not now claim, as deriving any right from the Duchy, but on the ground that the waste land in question was in some way annexed to his ancient tenements; but that claim could not be established except by documentary evidence or by some act of ownership against the lord. The deed of 1850 was conclusive against Mr. Lambe’s claim down to that time.—Mr. Crowder next proceeded to advert to what he believed would constitute the ground of defence. He believed it would be found that the tenants who had right of common over the waste in question, had, for their own convenience, entered into arrangement among themselves, by which each tenant limited his exercise of the right of common to the immediate neighbourhood of his tenement. But it was clear that no legal rights could be affected by such arrangement between the tenants; no such divisions of the waste or limiting of portions of the waste, could in the slightest degree affect the right of the lord. It would appear that Mr. Lambe had enclosed some portions of the waste, and had opened clay works and taken profits therefrom, against Mr. Trevanion. It was for the recovery of his rights in this respect that the present action was brought.—In conclusion, Mr. Crowder said that if any thing were wanted to be conclusive against Mr. Lambe, it would be, that in one of the mines on the waste—Wheal Anna—in which Mr. Lambe was a bounder, in making arrangement for granting a sett, he took his dues as bounder, distinct from the dues which Mr. Trevanion and the Duchy took as owners of the soil. Evidence was then adduced, including a lengthy examination of the following witnesses:—Mr. J.W. Colenso, of Lostwithiel; Mr. Martin Kenworthy, formerly a shareholder in Rocks Mine; Mr. J. Gummow, surveyor, of St. Austell; Mr. Thomas Coode, solicitor, of St. Austell; Mr. C.V. Bridgeman of Tavistock, formerly an adventurer in Wheal Anna; Mr. Robert Coad, surveyor, of Liskeard; Mr. W. Nicholls, who had acted as toller for the Trevanions; Mr. W.S. Kempe, solicitor, of , who in 1839 was appointed by the , receiver of the Trevanion property; Mr. W. Harris, formerly toller for the Duchy; Philip Harris, Henry Harris, John Hoare, of Roscorla, in Treverbyn manor; and Mr. Thomas Thriscutt, clay merchant, of St. Austell. Among the documentary evidence, was one that excited some interest—an examined copy from the Rolls of the Duchy of Cornwall, of a Parliamentary Survey, of the Manor of Treverbyn, in the time of the Commonwealth, in which the manor was described as “parcel of the possessions of Charles Stuart, late Duke of Cornwall, but now settled in trustees for the use of the Commonwealth.” The document bore date 1650. Serjeant KINGLAKE then addressed the jury for the defence. His learned friend Mr. Crowder had but partly explained to them the real point at issue between the parties. That question undoubtedly was whether the property coloured red in the map was, as to one moiety, the property of Mr. Trevanion; or whether or not the whole of that property, consisting of the tenement in question, was the fee-simple and freehold of Mr. Lambe, the defendant, subject at all times to payment of certain tin tolls due on the tin-bounded land on those tenements. After observing that the evidence adduced for the plaintiff would be quite consistent with the case for the defendant, the learned Serjeant made some observations explanatory of the origin and nature of tin bounds, and then stated that the custom originally attached to the owner of the soil, without reference to his being lord of the manor or not; and there was nothing in that custom which would prevent the lord of the soil parting with any portion of his property, subject to that right. And the defendant’s case was that in ancient times, these tenements of Carnsmerry, Rosevear and Rosevean, had passed from those who were the original owners to Mr. Lambe’s ancestors, as freehold tenements subject to payment of tin bounds on any bounded portions of the land. His learned friend had adduced a great quantity of evidence with reference to those tenements, for the purpose of proving that from Beam mine, and some stream works on those tenements, tin toll had been paid—a moiety to Trevanion, and a moiety to the Duchy—and that therefore the soil did not belong to Mr. Lambe. But it was a principle of law established by solemn decision, that the lord may retain tin mines, under the soil, and yet that there may be another person, holder of the freehold, subject to reservation of tin toll in the lord’s favor. (Curtis v. Daniel, 10 East, p. 273). The case clearly denoted what appeared manifest and undisputed in the present case—that the lord of the manor might be entitled to the toll tin in that part of those tenements which heretofore was tin bound, while it was perfectly consistent with the right of the lord, that Mr. Lambe and his ancestors should have been owners of the whole of these tenements, subject to the toll of tin in tin bound lands. And in that case it was further held that the question—whether lands were waste, had nothing to do with the matter—that rough, waste, unenclosed lands might just as well be part of a freehold tenement as the enclosed part; and therefore, in deciding the present case, they must not be influenced by any consideration whether the land was ancient enclosed land, or rough and unenclosed. The question was whether the tenements, within certain defined boundaries, were the defendant’s freehold. His friend Mr. Crowder said, referring first to Carnsmerry tenement, that the only portion of that tenement to which the defendant was entitled was about twenty acres, and that the other portion was the property of the Lord of the Manor. The answer was that Mr. Lambe and his ancestors had for years past been owners of Carnsmerry, Rosevear, Rosevean, and Hallivet tenements; each of which had its ancient boundaries, denoting and separating one from the other. The learned Serjeant then handed to the jury his map of the premises, in which the Carnsmerry tenement, instead of being confined to the white portion his friend had said was all the defendant was entitled to, was denoted by a red line; and the defendant’s case was that he and his ancestors had enjoyed not only the small portion marked by the white, but the whole of the tenements as marked pink, within the boundaries here accurately marked. His friend Mr. Crowder said, that the defendant’s right was limited to what he called the old enclosed land; but, in fact, that right extended, in the case of each tenement, over enclosed and unenclosed land, to ancient and well defined boundaries, within which it would be proved that Mr. Lambe and his ancestors had exercised various acts of ownership. Mr. Lambe was not, as his learned friend had said, the claimant in this case—he stood there as the possessor of land which his predecessors and himself had been in possession of and exercised rights of ownership on, without notice, claim or interference whatever with these rights, until the present time. His learned friend said he must admit that there had been a good deal of encroachment on this land, but he explained that by saying that the rights of the duchy had been neglected by a lessee. The evidence, however, shewed that both the Trevanion’s and the Duchy’s moieties had been most watchfully attended to. The position of the parties in this case being such as it was, it was for the plaintiff to prove by acts of ownership or otherwise that he was entitled to this property; but, so far from having done so, the evidence adduced for the plaintiff was most pregnant and forcible in support of the defendant’s case, showing, as the evidence did, that the plaintiff’s agents had been most careful in obtaining from the defendant, dues in respect of the tin and clay mines in the neighbourhood; whilst over the extensive clay works now in question, they had made no claim. The learned Serjeant then reviewed and commented on the plaintiff’s evidence; and having done so, proceeded to state that on the part of the defendant, he should establish that what was called the old enclosed land, instead of being confined to eighteen or twenty acres, as his friend had represented, was some 36 acres,—that from time immemorial, enclosures had been added—and that there had been a continuous system of enclosure from the earliest period that recollection could go back to, down to the present time. Surrounding the old enclosures, there had been from time of old, waste grounds, and that waste had been enclosed from the earliest times, from time to time, according to the convenience and will of the freeholders—the Lambes. Of course, a person in the possession of waste land was not bound to enclose it all at once. If the waste extended over the space stated by his learned friend, then the very first field enclosed by the Lambes was a usurpation, and the continued enclosures were so many encroachments from the earliest times down to the present moment, in the face of the Duchy and of the Trevanions, without any steps being taken to prevent these encroachments. This remark applied to all the tenements; and it would be found that enclosures had been made up to the utmost extent of the manor, while they had never gone beyond that limit.—The next act of ownership on the part of Mr. Lambe was the leasing of his unenclosed lands on every one of his four tenements; and leases would be produced in proof of those acts of ownership.—It would be further proved that over those parts of the property that were subject to tin bounds. Mr. Lambe had been in the uninterrupted enjoyment of houses which he had built on various parts of it, and which houses formed part of the property leased to his tenants.—The next point urged by the learned Serjeant was that for the last twenty-five years, Mr. Lambe had had an undisturbed and undisputed user (sic) of the clay lands, exercising thereupon most distinct acts of ownership, bringing up from the bowels of the earth the most valuable part of the property. It would be proved in respect of the leased tenements, that the respective tenants had each been confined within the boundaries of his tenement, except as regarded their use of a portion of the manor which was an acknowledged waste of the manor, open to all the tenants in common. Another fact in proof of Mr. Lambe’s ownership would be that he had granted setts of tin mines on parts not tin- bound, and had received the dues therefrom. So that while the lord of the manor was acknowledged to be entitled to tin dues over the tin bound land, the defendant had granted setts and received dues on the land that was not tin bound. It would further be proved that Mr. Lambe had let stamping mills on tin bound waste, and received the rents from them. They had heard about Beam Mine being worked by adventurers, one of whom was Mr. Rashleigh. Now it would be proved that there was a payment by the lessees of Bream Mine, of 2s. 6d. a year for turf cut in Carnsmerry, through a long series of years; while no doubt, as his learned friend had said, tin tolls had been paid to the Duchy and Trevanion in respect of that mine, which clearly was tin bound property.—These were the substantial acts by which Mr. Lambe’s ownership would be established. He now came to a part of the case to which he called their serious attention. It was in 1825 that Mr. Lambe’s attention was called to the expediency of opening and working clay works on his premises; and about 1829 some suggestion was made to him by Mr. Trevanion that he (Trevanion) was entitled to something in respect of those works. There was a proposal that they should share half and half; but Mr. Lambe resisted it and maintained that the tenements were his freehold. But there was before him the prospect of a long dispute, and the property was a very valuable one. He never entertained the slightest doubt that he was entitled to the freehold of the four tenements; but there was a high rent of 8s. 7d. due to Mr. Trevanion on part of the estate; and he said the Mr. Trevanion ‘the property is mine, but rather than have any dispute with you, I will give you 400l. and you shall convey to me whatever you suppose is your right’; and a deed dated February 2, 1829, was executed for that purpose, Mr. Lambe however, constantly protesting against any invasion of his freehold rights.—(Mr. Crowder, interrupting, denied that that deed conveyed the land.)—Serjeant Kinglake insisted, on the contrary, that the deed conveyed, and was meant to convey the whole of the property; and stated that annexed to the deal was a map, the boundaries of which corresponded with the outer boundaries of the map which had been submitted to the jury. Having thus explained the payment of 400l. by Mr. Lambe to Mr. Trevanion, the learned Serjeant went on to explain the circumstances of his payment of 1800l. to the Duchy. The clay works having been opened in 1825, the Duchy took no step till 1828(?). Having heard that Mr. Lambe had paid a sum of money to Mr. Trevanion, the Duchy considered that they also were entitled to something. The filed a bill in the Court of Chancery; and Mr. Lambe put in an answer, setting out his right as they were now brought forward in this case. On this, the Duchy dropped their information. But the gentlemen of the jury were probably aware that if the Duchy succeeds in litigation against a party, that defeated party has to pay costs; but, if the Duchy is defeated, the Duchy does not pay costs.—The Duchy paused a little, and then filed a second information on precisely the same matter; a second answer was put in; the Duchy a second time, dropped their information; and Mr. Lambe had to pay his own costs. A third information was filed; and Mr. Lambe, thus finding his head in the lion’s mouth, says he must make some terms with this devouring animal. The Duchy had laid out about £1,800 in their own costs; and Mr. Lambe, in order to get them to stop their proceedings, agreed to pay £1,800—he, however, continuing to protest against the invasion of his rights. The learned Serjeant then reverted to Mr. Crowder’s assertion that the deed of February, 1829 from Mr. Trevanion to Mr. Lambe did not convey land; and observed that with the exception of a quit rent of 8s. 7d., and the tin toll which was expressly reserved, there was nothing else that Mr. Trevanion could sell and for all but the land, £20 would be a liberal consideration. In conclusion the learned Serjeant said that he should establish that, although the original tenement might not have had upon it more than a small amount of enclosed land, yet that, in point of fact, the defendant’s tenements did contain all within the boundaries shown on the map, though a portion was enclosed and a portion was waste; and this would be shown by the acts of ownership he had referred to, in respect of each of the tenements; these tenements had been the freehold property of Mr. Lambe and his ancestors, subject to the tin-toll payable on the tin bound land. A considerable quantity of documentary evidence was then put in, consisting of nearly 40 leases and setts in the tenements of Carnsmerry, Rosevear, and Rosevean, and one of the tenement of Hallivet, in 1836. – The foundation of the documentary evidence was a lease of Rosevear, the centre tenement, dated 1715; which described the boundaries of that tenement and made it abut on the other(?) three tenements, and thereby giving parts of their boundaries. The Court rose at 8 o’clock. TUESDAY, March 30. This morning, the evidence in defence was resumed by the putting in of the deed of conveyance from Trevanion to Lambe, dated February, 1829. Discussion was renewed on the question whether or not that deed conveyed the land in the several tenements, as well as the manorial rights with reservation of tin dues.—The learned JUDGE held(?) that the deed did not convey the land; but stated that if(?) the verdict should pass for the plaintiff, he would give the defendant leave to move to enter verdict for defendant, on that point; for undoubtedly, if that deed could be understood to convey the land, there could be no further question as to Mr. Lambe’s right. The oral testimony in the defendant’s case was given by—Mr. Richard Carveth, surveyor, of St. Austell (who proved, among other things that the old enclosed portion of the four tenements, amounted to 182 acres; while the remainder was 323 acres);—Mr. E. Coode clerk of the peace; Mr. W. Swaffield, formerly a clerk in Messrs. Coode’s office; Messrs. William Hore, Joseph Rowe, Samuel Roberts, Robert Hore, John Williams, John Co---?, Richard West, Mary Warwick, James Coombe, Benjamin Hore the younger, and John Hore, lessee of Hallivet; Mr. John Pascoe, captain of Goonbarrow claywork; Mr. Thomas Bray, of Rosevean claywork; Mr. W. Luke, of Charlestown(?); Mr. W. Yelland, of St. Austell; Mr. John Ver---?; Mr. Shilson, solicitor; and Mr. John Brown, of London?, attorney for Mr. Lambe. At a quarter to six, Mr. Crowder began his reply(?) which occupied nearly 3½ hours. He repeated that adverse(?) possession by Mr. Lambe for 12 years since the (death of?) the elder Trevanion could not affect the title of his (son, the?) tenant in tail; and therefore the jury would have to consider the question to whom did the property belong (at an?) antecedent period; and on this point the learned Counsel remarked that there was no proof of any act of ownership by Mr. Lambe prior to 1815. The learned Counsel again(?) adverted to the copy of the Parliamentary survey in the time of Oliver Cromwell, as furnishing distinct evidence of the boundaries of the manor, and that those limits Included “Great Beam” mine, in Carnsmerry, which was mentioned as being “in the commons” where the tenants had rights of common.—Mr. Lambe was a tenant of that(?) manor, and had paid high rent for Carnsmerry (which(?) was a freehold with conventionary rent) to the Trevanions down to 1829. The question was, what constituted Mr. Lambe’s freehold tenement. He (Mr. Crowder) contended that it comprised no more than what was marked white on the maps, and that Mr. Lambe had no right to claim in addition the surrounding land, the whole of which was, in 1815, perfectly unenclosed, and as much waste of the manor as any other portion of its waste. It was a solecism(?) to assert that Mr. Lambe had a right of common over(?) his own land. Mr. Crowder observed on the absence of evidence of any title- deed in Mr. Lambe in support of (his?) claim to the tenements and wastes; and went on to state(?) that the plaintiff’s case was, that Mr. Lambe had four (?) small tenements, and that the tenants of the manor were accustomed to use their rights of common separately from each other; and, when this had been going on for many years, in 1815 Mr. Lambe began to let out his waste, bit by bit, and thus had encroached on the Trevanion property. But the question was, had he any right to do so before 1802 and 1815? If he had not, he certainly did acquire any such right in the latter year.—Mr. Crowder also(?) commented on the documentary evidence put in by the defendant, observing that it included nothing but leases(?) and did not show by what means the defendant got possession of the property.—The learned Counsel next adverted(?) to the deed of Feb, 1829, from the elder Trevanion to Mr. Lambe, commenting on the circumstances under which it(?) had been made, and repeating his confident opinion that it did not convey, and was not meant to convey, the land(?) nor any thing more than incorporeal hereditaments; that the deed was important for the plaintiff as showing(?) that the commons and wastes were not the tenements themselves, but something that had been added to the tenements. Mr. Crowder also stated that in the body of the deed, Hallivet was not mentioned; although it was delineated on the map attached to the deed.—The learned Counsel next referred to the conveyance to Mr. Lambe from the Duchy, in 1850, as affording proof that Mr. Lambe could not at that time have been in possession of the tenements in question, and which(?) he now claimed as his own freehold. In reply to the observations made by Serjeant Kinglake on the conduct of the Duchy in filling three informations on the same matter against Mr. Lambe, Mr. Crowder explained that the second and third informations were rendered necessary,—the former in consequence of the death of William the 4th—and the latter, in consequence of the birth of a Prince of and Duke of Cornwall; and, all(?) the information having been dropped, he would (make an ?-----) to that effect, unless the defendant would put in ?----, the information and answer and proceedings ?----. The learned JUDGE summed up, and in conclusion, requested(?) the jury to let their verdict pass generally for plaintiff or defendant, in respect of Carnsmerry, Rosevear, and Rosevean; but to give their attention separately as to Hallivet,—the evidence with regard to that portion being of a different character from that which related to the three other portions. The jury retired at 11 o’clock; and in about half an hour, proceeded to the Judge’s lodgings, and returned a verdict for Defendant, in respect of all four tenements. This concluded the business of the Assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 9 April 1852

3. Easter Sessions

These sessions opened on Tuesday, the 6th inst., before the following Magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman. Sir W. L. Trelawny, Bart. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. Lord Vivian. F. Rodd, Esq. The Hon. G. M. Fortescue. F. Howell, Esq. Sir Column Rashleigh, Bart. T. Hext, Esq. Sir J. S. Graves Sawle, Bart. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq., M.P. J. Thomas H. Peters, Esq. T. J. A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Gordon W. F. Gregor, Esq. R . Gully Bennet, Esq. J. S. Enys, Esq. H. Thomson, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq. E. Stephens, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. Rev. R. G. Grylls. C. G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. The following gentlemen qualified as magistrates:— Jedediah Stephens Tucker, Esq., of Castle. Richard Davey, Esq., of Redruth. Richard Foster, Esq., of Castle. Rev. Samuel Symonds, of . The Rev. Henry Peter Gurney took the oaths, on his appointment to the vicarage of Tregony. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. John Puckey, foreman; Mr. John Andrew, St. Merryn; Mr. John Brendon, ; Mr. Charles , Menheniot; Mr. Thomas Bishop, jun., Tintagel; Mr. Baker Bants, St. Austell; Mr. John Colmer, Callington; Mr. William Henwood, Callington; Mr. Thomas Hooper, Menheniot; Mr. Francis Henwood, Tintagel; Mr. Henry Higman, St. Austell; Mr. George Hellyar, St. Merryn; Mr. Thomas Julyan, Creed; Mr. William , Menheniot; Mr. Thomas Martin, Gwennap; Mr. John Northey, St. Clether; Mr. R. Parsons, Menheniot; Mr. Hender Pearce, Padstow; Mr. William Salter, St. Clement; Mr. Josiah Stevens, Probus; Mr. William Trethewy, Probus; Mr. William Tremain, St. Merryn; Mr. Richard Tredwen, Padstow. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— Mr. W. Wade, Tintagel; Mr. W. West, St. Blazey; Mr. N. Whitley, St. Clement; and Mr. John West, St. Breock. After the Queen's Proclamation had been read, the CHAIRMAN delivered the following [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY - not transcribed] The grand jury then retired, and in a short time returned a true bill on the only indictment submitted to teem (sic), and were discharged, with the thanks of the county for their services. THE COUNTY ASYLUM.—ANNUAL REPORTS. VISITING JUSTICES' REPORT.—The Visiting Committee of the County Lunatic Asylum, in making their report, beg to state that nothing has occurred during the year that calls for any particular notice, if they except the admissions of many very old and incurable patients, who, the committee have every reason to suspect, have been kept at home from false motives of economy, contrary to the law and much to the discomfort and prejudice of the poor sufferers. In the cases of mania of recent standing, the cures have been frequent and most satisfactory. It is not too much to infer that many patients, now confimed (sic) lunatics, might have been long ere this restored to their friends, had the former been humanely and judiciously sent to the County Asylum at an early stage of the malady. the Committee much regret to call on the County for any further sum in aid of the Building Fund, but as the comfort and health of the patients make it necessary that a new washing house, dying house, and dying apparatus should be erected, the sum of £1000 is required for the same. MEDICAL REPORT FOR 1851.—The Medical Superintendent has the honour to report the admission during the year of 74 cases, a large majority of which, viz., 43, were, either from their hopeless complications or long duration, incurable; seven having been associated with apoplexy, eight with general paralysis, three with hopeless visceral disorder, four with idiocy; and in twenty-one others the disease was confirmed from its duration varying from one to many years. Males. Fem. Total. There remained on the 31st Dec., 1850 ………… 112 118 230 Admitted in 1851 ………………………………………….. 35 39 _74 Total under care during the year ……………….. 304 Discharged, recovered ……………………………………. 5 34 39 “ relieved ……………………………………….. 7 20 27 Total discharged and died ……………………………. _73 Remaining under care, Dec. 31 , 1851 …………….. 231 of whom 15 males and 8 females were private patients. The recoveries, amounting to 39, have exceeded the usual average and were chiefly obtained from the cases previously admitted; but at this date several others admitted last year have recovered and have been discharged.—The proportion of incurable to curable cases admitted during the last eleven years has been nearly equal, the incurable slightly preponderating. Of those not hopelessly complicated and admitted in the early stage of the disease, 77½ per cent, have recovered, a fact sufficiently proving the importance of sending cases for treatment without unnecessary delay. The mortality has slightly exceeded that of the previous year, the excess being chiefly attributable to the complication of many cases on their admission, with a hopeless form of paralysis, of which ten died. Three died of epilepsy, associated, in two cases with paralysis; six of atrophy, and decay of age; the issue in one case having been hastened by fracture of the thigh-bone, the result of an accidental fall,—one of cancer; two of consumption; three of dysentery; one of fever (admitted in a dying state); and one by suicide, a male patient who during his long residence in the asylum of 13 years had never before exhibited a suicidal propensity.—Generally speaking, the house is healthy; but the advanced age, and weakly and decaying state of many of the inmates, leads to the inference of a large future mortality. DANIEL FLETCHER TYERMAN, April 6th, 1852. Medical Superintendant. The CHAIRMAN then read some extracts from the annual accounts of the Asylum, giving the weekly average of several items of expenditure. It appears that the average total cost per week of each lunatic is 6s. 8d.—In reply to questions from Mr. Gilbert, Mr. KENDALL, a member of the Committee of the Lunatic Asylum, stated that the average, 6s. 8d., included the superior lunatics and that the charge for pauper lunatics did not exceed six shillings per week. [CORONERS’ BILLS.—not transcribed] GAOL REPORTS.—The governor reported the favorable state of the prison, both as regards the number and behaviour of the prisoners; but, notwithstanding, he continued strongly impressed with the necessity of separate confinement as the only effectual means of guarding against the demoralizing effects of the present system. The governor also certified that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been as far as practicable, complied with, and that the buildings of the prison, with the exception oi some of the roofs, which continued in a very bad state, were generally in very good order. [GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE QUARTER.—not transcribed] BRIDGES.—Mr. Moorman, surveyor of the Western District, presented his report, which stated that the Earl of Falmouth was desirous of making an improvement, at his own expense, of the road at the eastern end of Bridge, agreeably to a sketch now laid before the Court. The CHAIRMAN read a letter on the subject, dated the 6th of February, and signed by Mr. Foulkes, the Earl of Falmouth's steward:—It stated that a tenement at Tresillian that abutted on the turnpike road had lately fallen in hand to the Earl of Falmouth; and, as his lordship was about to make some improvements there, it had occurred to Mr. Foulkes that by a very slight mutual exchange, a considerable improvement of the road might be effected. Mr. Foulkes therefore proposed that a narrow slip of road, about two feet wide, should be added to the tenement in question, and that Lord Falmouth should give up a projecting corner just beyond the county stone, by which alteration the road would have a regular and easy sweep. Mr. Hickes, the trustees' surveyor, quite approved the suggestion. Mr. Foulkes added that he should be glad of an immediate reply, as he was about to execute a new lease of the tenement for lives. Mr. MOORMAN explained to the Bench, by a plan, the nature of the proposed improvement. Mr. BENNET then moved that the standing orders which require notice of application be suspended.— This motion was unanimously agreed to; as was also permission to make the proposed alteration. Mr. PEASE, surveyor of the eastern division, reported some small repairs, and received grants in payment for them—at Notter, Glynn, Tresarret, , and Annal bridges. Concerning Trussel bridge, Mr. Pease suggested that a committee of magistrates of the district should inspect the walls erected there by the Liskeard Turnpike Trust, and report at the next Sessions whether those walls were originally so substantially built that the county ought now to be called on to repair them.—After some conversation on the subject, in which the chairman, the Rev. R. Buller, and Mr. Sawle took part, it was agreed to request the magistrates of the Hundreds of East and West to make the proposed inspection. In respect of Lostwithiel bridge Mr. KENDALL stated that between the Waywardens' right and that of the County, there had been left unrepaired for some time, about 40 feet of roadway. It appeared that when the county contractor undertook the repair of the bridge road, this 40 feet was believed to belong to Lostwithiel to repair; but it had since been found out that it belonged to the county, and Lostwithiel refused to repair it.—It was agreed, on the proposition of Mr. Kendall, that Mr. Pease be directed to employ the contractor to repair this 40 feet of road additional to his contract, and to report what would be fair remuneration for it. At Kenworthy-water it appeared that there are two bridges—one belonging to the county and the other to the parish; and the road between them is liable to be flooded with very slight rain. The parish were willing to raise the road belonging to them, if the county would raise the remainder between the two bridges.—On the motion of the CHAIRMAN, a recommendation to this effect by Mr. Pease was adopted; the cost not to exceed 15l. LOOE BRIDGE.—The Rev. R. BULLER rose to give notice of an application for 2500l. for the purpose of rebuilding Looe Bridge. He did not add the approaches; because he believed that by an Act of Parliament, the approaches of new bridges were not to fall on the county, but on the parish. Before he submitted his notice, he should like to state two or three things that would have a tendency to disarm all opposition. They had been opposed by the Admiralty on former occasions; but now, he was happy to say, he had before him a plan for a new bridge sent by the Admiralty. He made application to the Admiralty, and they were kind enough to send down their own engineer. He could not, however, help saying a word here in justice to their own County Surveyor. When Mr. Ball, the Admiralty engineer, came down, he made his plan for Looe Bridge; but he (Mr. Buller) thought it very desirable that Mr. Pease also should go to the spot. Mr. Ball's plan was estimated to cost 6800l.; but after interviews with Mr. Pease and suggestions from him regarding the size of the arches and other matters, the estimate was reduced to 3201l. (hear). He was happy to say that the Looe Harbour Commissioners, with the assistance of their neighbour Mr. Buller, had promised 1000l. towards it; which with the proposed sum from the county, would give £3200 for the bridge, and £300 for the approaches. Mr. Buller had also been so very kind as to say they might make the approaches through Polvellan, wherever they thought proper (hear).—He must add one word to go forth to the world. He was quite aware of the agricultural distress at the present time. He spoke from memory, but he believed he spoke correctly when he said that the farmer who rented £100 would find his rates increased only sixpence by the proposed grant; so that he hoped he should not be told that they were going to add to the agricultural distress. He would then give notice of application for £2500 to be borrowed on the security of the County Rates, and to be repaid in 14 years, according 'to the provisions of the Act 4 and 5 Victoria, cap 49; for the purpose of rebuilding the bridge at Looe; £2500 being a sum exceeding one-fourth of the annual assessment of the annual assessment of the County, and Looe bridge being a bridge which the county was obliged to repair. He also begged leave to move the re-appointment of the old Looe-bridge Committee, with the addition of Lord Vivian, Mr. Howell, and Mr. Foster; with power to add to their number, and 5 to be a quorum. (The members of the old Committee were:—Mr. Lethbridge, Hon. G. M. Fortescue, Mr. Pearse, Mr J.C. Roberts, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Rodd, Capt. Hext, Mr. Trelawny, Rev. T. Pascoe, Mr. Archer, Mr. G. Gurney, Mr. Gilbert, and the Rev. R. Buller. In reply to questions from the Hon. G. M. Fortescue, Mr. BULLER said the Admiralty had not given a single penny towards the proposed bridge; they had, however, given him the plan, for which he felt much obliged. TREBANT WATER.—The Rev. R. BULLER stated that the inhabitants of gave notice that they were about to build a bridge at Trebant Water, in that parish, and they applied that the Bridge Surveyor for the Eastern Division might be allowed to superintend its erection, in order that if it were erected to his satisfaction, it might be made a county bridge.—Mr. Buller submitted a motion to the Bench in accordance with the application of his parishioners; and it was stated by that gentleman, and by Mr. Pease, that the site of the proposed bridge was on the high road from Fowey to Liskeard, and also on a cross-road from Fowey to Lostwithiel, and was a place of considerable general traffic.—Mr. Fortescue also spoke of the desirableness of erecting a bridge at the site named.—Some conversation took place between the Chairman, Lord Vivian and Mr. Buller, as to the requirements of the Act 43 Geo. 3rd, cap. 29, sec. 5, with reference to the present application; and eventually it was resolved that Mr. Pease be directed to superintend the erection of the bridge under the directions of the Bridge Act; Mr. Carew suggesting that in order to avoid precedent, it should be noted that in this case the Surveyor was examined. SEATON BRIDGE.—Mr. Howell gave notice of an application for £70 for re-building this bridge, which connects the parishes of St. Germans and Morval, and the divisions of East and West; and moved that Mr. Pease be directed to prepare plans and estimate.—Granted. —Mr. Pease applied for four bridge rates. BRIDGE.—Mr. GULLY BENNET was happy to say that the precedent he should now follow would be that of the Earl of Falmouth; for it was not his intention to ask the county for a single penny for the proposed alteration of Trevemper bridge. The notice he gave at the last sessions was to the effect that he should ask for leave to the Mining Company to divest the channel of the , and form a reservoir on the south side of Trevemper Bridge, with flood-gates, and to make a new arch at the western end; the whole to be done under the superintendence of Mr. Pease. The object of the present application was purely commercial. Mr. Wm. Martin, a very respectable merchant, had a quay on the seaward side of Trevemper Bridge, and had found that the navigation of the estuary of the Gannel had become considerably obstructed by an accumulation of silt and mud flowing from the East Wheal Rose mine during the last few years. Mr. Martin had made representations to the mine to have the nuisance abated, and failing in that means of carrying out his object, he had been obliged to make a representation to the Admiralty, who now insisted that the channel should be to a certain extent cleared. Trevemper Bridge was situated at the head of an estuary which had been navigable for barges; but, in consequence of this deposit of silt and mud, it was now only navigable at the very highest spring tides, and that with considerable difficulty, and at a serious expense to Mr. Martin. He believed he might say that Mr. Martin's expenditure had not been less than 100l. a year for the last three years, to keep the channel clear about the quays. The East Wheal Rose Company were now willing to carry out certain alterations for the removal of this nuisance. The deposit of slime and mud during the last 11 years, under the arch of Trevemper Bridge had been to the depth of 2 feet 8 inches; and in about 30 years, if the accumulation continued in the same ratio, there would be no arch left. Therefore, this was not an affair in which Mr. Martin and the East Wheal Rose Company were alone interested; but it was one in which the county, if not at present, would in a very few years be most seriously affected. It might be asked why the East Wheal Rose Company had made no catch-pits near the mine to keep back the slime and mud. The reason was, that they had not been able to obtain land applicable to the purpose; and they were therefore obliged to have recourse to the proposed alteration of Trevemper Bridge. He believed he might venture to say that the alteration would not in any way deteriorate the county property; on the contrary he believed the County would ultimately be greatly benefitted by its being carried out.—Mr. BENNET concluded by moving that permission be granted to the East Wheal Rose Mining Company to divert at their own expense, the channel of the river, and to form a reservoir on the south side, with flood-gates, and to make an arch at the western end of the bridge; and that the whole be done under the superintendence of Mr. Pease, the County Surveyor. Mr. RODD seconded the motion; and after examination of the plans, explained by Mr. Pease, the Bench granted the application. LUNATIC ASYLUM.—Mr. KENDALL, on the part of the Committee of the County Lunatic Asylum applied, agreeably to his notice at the Epiphany Sessions, for a sum not exceeding £1000 for the erection of drying-houses, wash-houses, and drying apparatus at the Asylum. Though the sum might appear large, he should tell the magistrates that the Committee had taken the utmost care to keep down the estimate to as low a scale as possible. At first they had a survey, and an estimate amounting to 1700l.; they sent this back, and now had an estimate which would enable them through means of their own, to get up the proposed erections, with the assistance of 1,000l. from the County. As the committee were asking a large sum, it was right that he should state exactly how they stood, in order that the county might know they were strict economists. For the accommodation of the first 100 patients, the committee expended 16,000l; in providing accommodation for 200 more, they expended 10,000l., of which the Committee contributed 2,000l. In addition to that, the Committee had expended within the last two years 600l.; and they had to thank Mr. Robartes for 100l. besides. The present drying-rooms were now wholly insufficient; they were made for 150 patients, and they were now put to sad straits to get the clothes dried. They had the opinion of the medical man that the attacks of dysentery at the asylum, now and then, were owing to the insufficient resources for getting the clothes properly dry. All must admit, therefore, the necessity of doing something. The question was, whether it could be done for less than £1000. He feared not. Mr. Kendall mentioned that the asylum now contained room for 309 patients, leaving room for 16 more, male and female. In about a year and a half, it would probably be necessary to provide additional room; and, if they built the proposed wash-house, they should be able, at a very moderate expense, to apply the room now used for a wash-house, to the accommodation of about 24 additional patients; and it had been found that the average cost of providing accommodation for patients was about £40 per head.—Mr. Kendall added that Mr. Hicks had sent to Mr. Damant, (architect) to ask him if he could in any way reduce the costs; and he had now tried his hand a second time, and the present plan was without ornament and he believed it would be very effectual. The cost of the apparatus would be about 400l.; in the last few years great improvements have been made in drying machines and in ventilation, and the Committee of this asylum were anxious not to be behind their neighbors. Mr. ROBARTES, as one of the Asylum Committee, bore testimony to the necessity of having some improved method of drying clothes; but thought it possible that the proposed improvement might be effected for a less sum than had been named. In reply to the Rev. R. G. Grylls, Mr. KENDALL stated that the proposed plan was an improvement on that in use at the gaol; and, to give an idea of the necessity of the alteration, he stated that at the asylum there were as many as 300 wet blankets at a time, and 300 sheets a week. Mr. ENYS perfectly agreed in the necessity of the improvement; but as the Committee had already reduced the estimated cost from 1700l. to 1000l., he thought it possible that the second plan might be reduced, 300l. at least, in the walls; there were a great many twists and turns in this second plan, that were not economical. Mr. KENDALL said he should be most happy if Mr. Enys would assist the committee; and Mr. ENYS assented to do so. Lord VIVIAN said he should be happy to second Mr. Kendall's motion, for this simple reason—that, having on more than one occasion since he came into the county visited the asylum, he could bear testimony to the admirable management there; he thought it was exceedingly creditable to the committee, and that the county ought to place the utmost confidence in them. Mr. SAWLE concurred in the opinion that the proposed works are absolutely necessary. The CHAIRMAN put the motion, which was carried unanimously. Mr. SAWLE then stated that Sir Colman Rashleigh, being sheriff, was disabled from acting as one of the visiting magistrates of the asylum; but, in order that the Asylum might not lose the benefit of Sir Colman Rashleigh's services, he begged to propose that Mr. Kendall, who had retired from the committee of subscribers, be elected one of the visiting magistrates; leaving it open to the committee of subscribers to elect Sir Colman Rashleigh one of their number. Lord VIVIAN adjourned the motion of which he had given notice at the Epiphany Sessions for heightening the wall at the end of the hall; and gave notice that at the next sessions he would move that a sum of 30l. be granted for the purpose of fencing off the area at the back of the Hall. ALTERATIONS OF THE COURTS.—Mr . PETERS, in pursuance of notice at the last Sessions, moved that a sum not exceeding 100l. be granted for the improvement of the Courts. Mr. Peters spoke at considerable length, on the importance of providing ample accommodation for all persons engaged in the business of the Courts, and submitted the following proposed alterations:— 1st. The raising the jury box twelve inches in the Crown Court, and in both Courts the sides of the boxes above the heads of the jurors, so as to prevent their hearing conversations, remarks, and voices of persons without, other than those of the Judge, Counsel, and witnesses; and so as to prevent, as much as possible, distraction of their attention from the matter in hand before the court. 2nd. To shorten the eastern end of the Counsel Table in the Crown Court, and the western end of that in the Nisi Prius Court, and to appropriate the empty space so made to two boxes for Reporters, with a view to the accommodation of these gentlemen—to the preventing idle spectators, or interested persons, sitting immediately under the jury, and so distracting their attention and confusing their memories, in long trials,—also to hindering any remarks being made to the jurors without these remarks being heard by all persons professionally engaged in the matter before the court.—This proposition included the making of a covered passage between the jury box and the proposed Reporters’ box; by which means the jury would be effectually protected from interruption or annoyance of persons passing before them. 3rd. To make the counsel tables more narrow on the southern sides of the courts to the extent of nine inches, in order to give more room to attornies with their papers, behind their Counsel. 4th. To raise the seats of the Chairmen in both Courts, by nine inches. 5th. To make means to bring witnesses into the Crown Court, by an entrance along the northern and eastern wall, by a door in the north-eastern corner of the Court. 6th. To take means to bring in prisoners to the docks direct from the cells below.

7th. To get east-iron rosettes with appliances for ventilation. Mr. THOMSON seconded the motion. On the suggestion of Mr. FORTESCUE, the several propositions were considered seriatim.—On the 1st proposition, it was resolved that the sides and front of the jury box in the Crown Court, be raised so as to prevent communication with the rest of the Court. On No. 2, an amendment moved by Mr. ENYS, and seconded by Mr. FORTESCUE was carried by a majority of 6 to 5.—It was—that the space under the jury box be reserved for Reporters during the next six months, in order to test the convenience of the place, before the next Michaelmas Sessions. The 3rd and 4th propositions were withdrawn; as was also the 7th. The 5th was defeated by a majority of 4 to 3. The 6th was carried; after a statement by the Governor, in reply to the Chairman, that by the proposed alteration, no foul air would be admitted into the Court from below. The Rev. R. BULLER gave notice for a sum not exceeding 2l. 10s.,for an alteration of the approach to the Magistrates Bench. Mr. GILBERT, acting we believe on a suggestion from Sheriff, gave notice for 200l., for the building of retiring rooms for the juries, at the back of the Courts. CRIMINAL BUSINESS. WILLIAM MATTHEWS, JOHN CHAPPLE and EDWARD EDDY were brought before the Court, on Sheriff's warrant, charged with having neglected to appear at the last sessions—Matthews to prosecute, and the two others to give evidence against Thomas Bankes, indicted for felony.—They stated, in their defence, that they were told by the Magistrates' clerk at Penzance that they were to be at Bodmin on the 13th of January; and that they had no printed notice given them.—Under these circumstances, the three men were discharged. JOHN HILL, of , the only prisoner charged with felony, pleaded Guilty of stealing a sheaf of oats, the property of James Johns.—Sentence, 14 days’ hard labour. MATTHEW RICH, 30, committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards his mother; and JOHN MORNEY, 44, also committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace; were both admonished and discharged; no one appearing against them. APPEAL. RASHLEIGH, appellant; Mr. Shilson. CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF FOWEY, respondent; Mr. Stokes.—This was an appeal by W. Rashleigh, Esq., against assessments on some plantation, carriage road, and young timber. By consent of respondents, the rate was ordered to be amended. CONSTABLES' PAY.—Mr. STOKES stated to the Bench that he had already mentioned to Sir Colman Rashleigh, a matter of public importance. At the last Assizes, Mr. Sydney Gurney, in consequence of some recent acts of parliament, thought it might disallow all constables’ costs previous to committal of the prisoner. The result was, that many constables in the neighbourhood of Truro, who had paid expenses themselves, were deprived of many pounds. Mr. Gurney felt the injustice of the thing; but said he had no alternative; he (Mr. Stokes) believed that the only thing that could be done in the matter would be to induce some member of parliament to take it up. The CHAIRMAN:—I intend to write to the Home Office. Mr. STOKES: It is of great importance, especially in country districts. No preliminary expenses are allowed. Mr. Gurney says the same principle has been acted on at every assizes throughout the Kingdom. The CHAIRMAN:—It is under the statute which authorizes the examination of expenses to be repaid out of the Consolidated Fund. Mr. STOKES:—Yes, Sir; and Mr. Gurney considers that the expenses before the committing magistrates are to be confined solely to such expenses as take place on that particular day. —The Bench confirmed an order, by Mr. J. Coryton Roberts and the Rev. Wallis Roberts, for the alteration of certain highways in the parishes of Saltash and Botus-fleming. (The particulars of the alteration have been advertised in the Cornwall Gazette.) This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 2 and 9 July 1852

4. Midsummer Sessions

—These Sessions opened at Bodmin, on Tuesday last before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., chairman Sir W. L. S. Trelawny, Bart W. Morshead, Esq. Hon. G. M. Fortescue. W. Braddon, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq., M.P. R. Foster, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq. Day Perry Le Grice, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. E. Stephens, Esq. C.B. Graves, Sawle, Esq. H. Thomson, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. Augustus Smith, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. S. Davey, Esq. C.G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. W.P. Kempe, Esq. J.S. Enys, Esq. H.P. Rawlings, Esq. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. F.J. Hext, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. Rev. R. Gerveys Grylls R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. F. Glanville, Esq. Rev. Arthur Tatham. T.G. Graham, Esq. Rev. J. Buller Kitson —The Rev. J. Perry, of , qualified as a magistrate; and the Rev. John Glynn Childs took the oaths on presentation to the rectory of St. Dennis. —The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Messrs. E.O. Bullmore, Budock, J. Bartlett, Mawgan in Kirrier, F. Carter, Breage, W. Davies, St. Martin in Meneage, J. Jones, Falmouth, F. Keverne, St. Martin in Meneage, W. Lovey, , S. Lugg, Mawgan in Meneage, A. Pengilly, Ruan Major, R. Roberts, Manaccan, J. Roskruge, do., A. Randle, St. Martin in Meneage, E. Roskruge, St. Martin, R. Randle, Ruan Minor, J. Reed, , H. Shepherd, Mullion, J. Tresidder, Falmouth, T. Thomas, St. Martin in Meneage, J. Williams, Penryn, J. Triggs, Falmouth, W. Selley, Budock, H. Blake, , J.G. Mason, Callington. After the usual preliminary proceedings, the CHAIRMAN delivered his Charge to the Grand Jury:—[not transcribed] The grand jury then retired to their room. COUNTY BUSINESS. [VISITING JUSTICES REPORT.—not transcribed] [GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—not transcribed] BRIDGES.—Mr. MOORMAN, surveyor for the Western Division, reported that no bridge in his district required any particular remark; but he requested an order for one levy to be paid at the next Sessions. Mr. DAY PERRY LE GRICE complained of inconvenience resulting from the fact that the contractor for the repair of road ways over bridges west of Penzance, was resident in Bodmin. If any thing required doing, it was necessary to apply to a man residing in the eastern part of the County. The CHAIRMAN said the contracts were offered to public competition, and it seemed somewhat strange that no western man could have offered on as reasonable terms as an eastern man. The existing contract would end on the 1st of May, 1853; and then if any western magistrate should think it desirable, he might bring under consideration, the propriety of introducing any qualification in the contract. But he thought that, perhaps it might not be desirable to limit the competition to one district of the county. TRUPEL BRIDGE. – Mr. PEASE reported that since the last sessions, two magistrates of the district had visited Trupel Bridge, and inspected the guard and retaining walls, and he presumed that those gentleman would report whether they believed that those walls were originally so substantially built in conformity with the Act of Parliament, as that the cost of repairs should be borne by the county. – The report of the two magistrates, afterwards read, was to the effect that the guard and retaining walls had not been so substantially built as to warrant the county in assuming the costs of repairs; but the Trustees of the Liskeard Turnpikes begged to remind the Court, that at the time they built the bridge in 1844, the sum of 20l. towards it was promised by the county, and they prayed that that sum should now be expended, under the direction of the County Surveyor, in repairing the guard and retaining walls. – The CHAIRMAN said he would see if there was any such entry in his minutes. SEATON BRIDGE.—Mr. PEASE reported that he had prepared plans for a new bridge, as ordered at the last sessions, at a cost of 70l., including the approaches.—On the motion of the Rev. A. TATHAM (for Mr. Howell), seconded by Sir WILLIAM L.S. TRELAWNY, Bart., it was ordered that a sum not exceeding 70l. be extended in rebuilding Seaton Bridge, according to Mr. Pease’s plans. WADEBRIDGE.—Mr. PEASE reported that the committee having directed a contract to be entered into with Mr. Nicholls, and another for effecting the proposed improvement of Wadebridge at a certain sum, the contract had been signed by the parties and their sureties. – The amount at which they contracted was 548l.; while the sum for which notice had been given was 700l. —Mr. PEASE recommended a renewal of contracts for the repair of bridge roadways and parapet walls; and it was agreed by the Bench that a committee on the subject be formed at the next sessions. Mr. Pease required four levies. BRIDGE.—Mr. RODD called attention to the state of one of the approaches to this bridge, in the parish of Linkinhorne, over the . Years ago, the road over it was one of the principal roads in the county. Afterwards it became quite a by-road, until the mines became prosperous. Those mines produced a large amount of traffic, rendering the bridge of very considerable importance. One of the approaches, that on the east, was as steep as one in seven, and near the bridge was suddenly narrowed from 25 feet to 9 feet, by the angle of a house abutting on the road opposite another house. One of those houses, the property of Mr. Trehane, had recently fallen down, and thereby an opportunity was now offered to the county of purchasing so much of the site as would render the road sufficiently wide for the traffic. The parish of Linkinhorne asked the county for assistance towards remedying the existing evil; and both Mr. Lethbridge (the chairman) and himself, who had visited the spot, were of opinion that it was desirable the county should give 10l. towards the purchase of the site, so as to prevent its being built on. Mr. Rodd submitted a motion to this effect, which was seconded by Mr. R. GULLY BENNET, and unanimously agreed to. —On the motion of the Rev. R. BULLER, seconded by the Rev. T. PASCOE, it was resolved that a sum not exceeding £30 be granted for the purpose of fencing of the area at the back of the Assize Hall.—(It appears that the main object of the proposed alteration, which was mooted at the last Sessions by Lord Vivian, is to prevent communicating with, and the handing of spirits to, prisoners awaiting trial.) LOOE BRIDGE.—The CHAIRMAN read the Rev. R. Buller’s notice of application for a sum not exceeding £2500, to be borrowed on security of the rates and repaid in 14 years according to the provisions of the statute, for building a bridge at Looe. The Rev. R. BULLER said, perhaps the first thing would be to ask Mr. Coode if he had received notice. Mr. COODE replied;—not a proper notice—not the notice required by the Act. The Act requires notice to be given by two magistrates usually acting in and for the Division in which the bridge was situate. In the present case, the notice had been signed by Mr. Buller, and Mr. Gilbert, (residing in the parish of Feock). – Mr. Coode afterwards read from the Act (4 and 5 Victoria, cap. 49), the clause which has reference to the required notice, and from which it appeared that notice of the intended application by Mr. Buller ought also to have been published in the county newspapers – which had not been done; and Mr. Coode added that every mortgagee in the proposed loan was bound to see that all these preliminaries required by the Act were complied with. Mr. GILBERT read the following report from the Looe Bridge Committee:— Cornwall Midsummer Sessions, 1852 The Committee of Magistrates appointed at the Easter Sessions to consider the designs of Looe Bridge transmitted by the Admiralty having met this day, John Davies Gilbert, Esq., in the chair, report that they have had submitted to them a report from Mr. William Bald, the Engineer appointed by the Admiralty, accompanied by two designs for a stone bridge at Looe. Design No. 1, with 5 arches, estimated at £6800. Design No. 2, with 8 arches, estimated at £3200. Of this last design Mr. Bald writes:— “The estimate of expense to build a bridge of 8 segmental arches, 35 feet span each, with a reversed side of 6.6 inches, all drawn from a radius of 26,635 feet, a roadway 21 feet wide between the parapets, with a clear water way of 280 feet, will amount to the probable sum of £3,200 as per estimate annexed (to which must be added 300l. as the probable cost of making the approaches). The site recommended is 210 feet above the east end of the old bridge, and about 230 feet from the west.” The question of wood, stone, or iron, is considered by Mr. Bald, and decided by him in favour of stone.—The committee having asked the opinion of Mr. Pease, the County Bridge Surveyor, he suggested the propriety of reducing the width of the roadway on the bridge from 21 feet to 18 feet, and stated that he believed the bridge so reduced in width might, together with the approaches, be executed within the sum of 3,500l. And therefore, the Committee recommend the County to adopt the design marked No. 2, subject to the above-mentioned reduction.—And for the purpose of carrying it out, to vote the sum of 2,500l., which, in addition to the sum of 1,000l. liberally offered by John Francis Buller, Esq., and Looe Harbour Commissioners, they have reason to believe will more than defray the cost of the proposed works. They also recommend that Mr. Pease be directed to prepare plans and specifications accordingly; and that the committee be directed to advertise for tenders, and, provided that such tenders shall not exceed the sum of 3,500l., that the committee be empowered to accept the same, and to proceed with the work. But should they received no satisfactory tender within that sum, that the committee be directed to refer the whole question back to the next sessions. And that the committee be continued to carry out the above resolutions. J.D. GILBERT, Chairman. Mr. GILBERT moved that this report be received.—The motion was seconded by Mr. D.P. LE GRICE. Considerable desultory discussion took place, in consequence of Mr. Buller’s and Mr. Gilbert’s persevering attempts to get the application entertained at once.—The CHAIRMAN expressed regret that the application should have failed from informality and insufficiency of notice and especially as the public generally appeared to be more and more impressed with the necessity of building a bridge at Looe; but, he felt that he was bound, as chairman, to prevent the establishment of wrong precedents. He also observed that if the magistrates did not act in perfect conformity with the statute, every mortgage made to the lenders of money would be invalid. Mr. KENDALL also expressed regret at the necessity of postponing the application; but he did not see how the Bench could proceed at present. Eventually, the motion to receive the report of the committee was agreed to nem. con., and the Rev. R. BULLER gave notice that at the Michaelmas Sessions he will produce plan and estimates, and move that a sum no exceeding 2500l. be granted, under the limitations and subject to the conditions, of the 4th and 5th Vic., cap. 49, for the purpose of building a new bridge at Looe. —A motion by the Rev. R. BULLER, for a grant of a few shillings, for an extension of the Magistrates Bench towards the entrance, was agreed to; the CHAIRMAN humorously observing that there at least, Mr. Buller might have a locus standi, though he was out of court as to Looe Bridge. CONSTABLES’ PAY.—The CHAIRMAN, referring to the complaint made at last sessions, of Mr. Sydney Gurney’s refusal, at the spring Assizes, to allow constables’ costs incurred previous to committal of prisoners; said he had written to the Home Secretary on the subject. The reply from the Home Office was to the effect that Mr. Secretary Walpole had not, as yet, made any new Table of Fees under Lord Campbell’s Act (14 and 15 Victoria), and therefore, he presumed, the Table of Fees made under the 7th Geo. 4th, cap. 24, was still in force.—Under these circumstances, it was the opinion of the CHAIRMAN, and apparently of the other magistrates, that the constables’ costs previous to committal should be allowed as formerly.—The amount disallowed by Mr. Sydney Gurney, was 36l. 4s. 6d. —The Clerk of the Peace’s Bill, amounting to 40l. 0s. 11d. for expenses consequent on the Registration of Voters, was presented and allowed. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JOSEPH BASSETT, 21, charged with having, on the 19th of January, at Falmouth, stolen two saws, a spoke-shave, a mortice-gauge, a chisel, and a screw driver, the property of John Roberts, cabinet maker, with whom the prisoner had been an apprentice. It appeared that the prisoner left Mr. Robert’s employ in May 1851; the tools which he was charged with stealing were last seen at Mr. Roberts’s premises by his foreman, James Sampson, shortly before the 20th of January last; and the first time they were discovered to be in prisoner’s possession was the 5th of April last, the prisoner then being at work with Mr. Plint, a cabinet maker at Penryn. On account of the length of time that the articles had been missing, and the consequent possibility that they had been stolen by some one else, the chairman summed up somewhat in favour of the prisoner; but the jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: two months hard labour) WILLIAM BARBERRY, 19, was found GUILTY of having, on the 8th of May, stolen from the dwelling- house of Mary Trevethan, of Chace Wood, in the parish of , two shawls and two cotton frocks, the property of Mary Trevethan. It appeared that about 7 o’clock in the morning of the 8th of May, Mary Trevethan locked up her house and went to Creegbraws Mine, and on her return about four o’clock in the afternoon, she found that a pa---?d had been taken out of the door, the door opened, and the house plundered of the articles named. Two witnesses saw the prisoner in the immediate vicinity of the house about 8 o’clock in the morning, and to one of these, a lad, he denied his real name and concealed his face. In the afternoon of the same day, prisoner was proved to have been in Truro, selling shawls and frocks, which were afterwards taken by the policeman Ward, and, on their production in court, were identified by the prosecutrix and her sister. When selling the articles, he stated that they had belonged to his mother who was dead; and to the policeman Ward, who apprehended him on the following Sunday, he stated that his name was Williams and that he supposed he should be transported and sent to Australia. When called on for his defence in Court, he said he bought the articles of a packman, who was hard up.—GUILTY.—A previous conviction was proved against him. At the August Assizes, 1851, he was convicted of stealing a duck, the property of Martin and was sentenced to three months hard labour.

(Sentence: transported for seven years) MARY WILLIAMS, 28, was charged with stealing from the person of John Endean, the younger, (a young lad of Short Lane End, in Kenwyn), at Truro, about 10 o’clock on the night of Saturday the 29th of May, a half crown and seven shillings and sixpence and one brown bag. The young prosecutor was, with another lad named John Ellery, walking about Truro from 7 o’clock till 10, when they saw the prisoner between Walsingham Place and Charles Street, and, shortly after her inviting him to walk with her, and his refusal, he, having previously felt her pull on his pocket from behind, found that his bag and money were gone. The two lads pursued her, and saw her throw the bag over a hedge; but were prevented by some men from going for it. They then went for the police constable Ward, who succeeded in apprehending the prisoner, and finding the bag. He also found coin on her person, corresponding in kind to what Endean had lost.—GUILTY. (Sentence: six months hard labour) CONRAD MITCHELL, 13, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 8th of June, from the person of Caroline Harvey, of St. Austell, a shilling, a sixpence, 2½d. in copper and other articles. (Sentence: four months hard labour) CATHERINE ANGOVE, 13, was found GUILTY of stealing from the person of Harriet Hocking, at Redruth, one shilling in silver and 2½d. in copper. (Sentence: two months hard labour) GEORGE WEBB, 14, pleaded GUILTY of feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of the Rev. W. Newling, at St. Keyne, on the 19th of June, and stealing a tablet, visiting cards, and part of a ham. (Sentence: 1 week's imprisonment and to be once privately whipped) SECOND COURT. – TUESDAY, June 29. (Before C.B.G. Sawle, Esq.) JOHN STEVENS, 22, was charged, in one count with stealing, and in another with receiving, knowing it to have been stolen, a piece of rope, the property of George Clift of Truro. At eight in the evening, prosecutor saw the rope in an unoccupied room where he kept his tools, &c., and the next morning it was gone. The rope was afterwards brought for sale by prisoner to a man named Ward, collector of stores, who bought it. Afterwards, in consequence of information received, the latter carried it to prosecutor’s house. Prisoner, on being apprehended, said that he had got the rope from George Williams, a sailor, who lived near the place where the rope had been kept. Verdict, GUILTY of receiving, knowing it to have been stolen. (Sentence: two months hard labour) ELIZABETH MICHELL was charged with stealing at Gwennap, two sheets, two bed-gowns, and a pillow- slip, the property of Michael Robert Michell. Mr. COMMINS prosecuted; Mr. HOCKIN defended. The articles, it appeared, had been put out to dry, and had been missed. They were afterwards found in the possession of the prisoner, and the sheets she had pledged to Edward Martin, a pawnbroker, for a shilling. Prisoner accounted for her possession of them in various ways; and among the rest, in a written statement, said she had bought them of a woman who sold second hand clothes, and liquor. (With reference to this deposition, the Chairman remarked that these statements of prisoners always ought to be in very clear writing; whereas this was so badly written as to be almost illegible.) A public road ran near the field from which they had been missed. On behalf of the prisoners, a respectable farmer stated that she was rather of weak intellect; though not so much as not to know right from wrong. The jury asked leave to retire, and were still considering their verdict when the court rose. (Sentence: three months hard labour) (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq.) WILLIAM HENRY MORCOM, 20, was indicted for feloniously removing a quantity of tin stuff, at Wheal Owles, in St. Just, with intent to defraud John Scobell and others, the adventurers in the said Mine. A second count charged prisoner with feloniously concealing the tin stuff, with like intent. Mr. Darke and Mr. Roscorla conducted the prosecution.—The prisoner was undefended, but displayed no small ingenuity in his own cross-examinations.—It appeared that on the 9th February, Capt. John Boyns set a pitch to prisoner at the back of the 8 fathom level in the Cargoths lode, at 15s. in the £ tribute. Prisoner had no partner in his take. On Saturday the 20th of March, he applied to the lander to have his stuff drawn to the surface. It so happened that the prisoner’s brother was kibble-filler at the plot to which his stuff was drawn out from the level for the purpose of being raised. On Saturday the 20th of March, the lander began hauling at half past 11, and continued hauling till half past 1, when the prisoner objected to the continuance of hauling, saying he had more stuff to bring to plot. As early as half-past 6 the following Monday morning, the land on going to the mine, found that the prisoner had thus unusually early gone underground. The lander began to haul again a little after 7 o’clock on Monday morning, and when the kibble came up, he observed some rich spalled stones. In ordinary fair working, ore was never spalled underground. The lander (Wm. Trevorrow) landed 13 kibbles on the Saturday, and 11 kibbles, equal to about 25 barrows, on the Monday; although the prisoner on the Saturday had said he had but about 7 barrows more underground. The ore raised on Monday was of different quality from that raised on Saturday. Trevorrow trammed out the ores which he landed on Saturday and Monday, and laid them in separate piles; and then the prisoner assisted by a little boy, put the Monday’s hauling into three heaps ready for sampling.—On the floor was a large pile of adventurers’ best work, which had been there a long time, and had become dull and discoloured by exposure to the air and weather. – On the evening of Wednesday, the 22nd March, Capt. John Boyns received information, which induced him to go the next morning, with Mr. Richard Boyns, to the floors. He then examined the prisoner’s pile, and observed that a great part of it was so rich and of such a character that he could swear it was never broken in prisoner’s pitch. At that time the whole pile had been spalled, but it was evident that part of it had been spalled and had lain at surface for many months. (The suspicion against the prisoner was, that between the hauling of Saturday and Monday he had taken rich stones of spalled ore from the adventurers’ pile of best work, and had thrown it down to his plot, to be hauled up mixed with what he had broken in his pitch). There were also rich stones of ore in the prisoner’s pile which had not been so long exposed at surface. The adventurer’s pile came from the deep levels, where there was a rich vein a little off the lode, of a different character from the lode itself. Capt. Boyns distinctly swore that none of the rich spalled stones were broken in the prisoner’s pitch, nor anywhere near the 8 fathom level. The tribute that would have been paid on the rich ores in the adventurers’ pile would have been about two or three shillings only, while the prisoner’s tribute on his pitch was 15s.—On the Friday , Capt. Boyns found the prisoner working at the back of the adit level, out of his pitch, and asked him what business he had there and where he broke the stuff that was in his pile; he replied that he broke it there (pointing to a piece of ground right before him). This place was out of his pitch. Capt. Boyns, after examining the place, said it was not broken there – that it was not like the stuff in his pile. A few days after that, Capt. Boyns again went underground and saw the prisoner in his own pitch, and asked him where he got his stuff at surface. He then said that he got it from behind the casing of the shaft in the 8 fathom level (which also was out of his pitch). The prisoner then said that if his stuff at grass was kept from him, he would go and throw himself over cliff, for he would as soon die as hear tell of it. On the Thursday morning, Capt. Boyns gave orders to a labourer on the floors named Angwin, to put the prisoner’s three piles into one heap and cover it over and take as much care of it, as if it was gold. This was done; and, on the 6th April, Capt. Boyns went, with the lander Trevorrow, and took from the prisoner’s pile some of the old spalled stones, and some stones from the adventurers heap; he also went to the prisoner’s pitch and took a fair sample of the ore from there. He went before the magistrates on the 7th, and there, the old spalled stones of rich ore from the adventurers’ heap, and those of the same sort from the prisoner’s pile got mixed; and they were so much alike that he could not again distinguish them. In this mixed state the stones were now produced by Capt. Boyns, together with stones of very inferior quality and different character from the prisoner’s pitch.—Richard Boyns, the trier of samples at the mine, stated that on the 24th of March, the prisoner and an agent named John Boyns, brought him a sample, which he tried in prisoner’s presence and was immediately struck with the quantity of tin, and the rich quality of it. Knowing the poor pitch in which prisoner had been working, Mr. R. Boyns charged him with prilling the sample, and told him that he should not purchase for the adventurers from that sample. The next day, he went with John Boyns to the prisoner’s pile, and found that not merely the sample, but the whole pile had been prilled. In the pile were several different sorts of tin from different parts of the mine, some of the stones were of the same description as the adventurers’ pile; they were very different from the remainder of the heap, and witness was positive, had never been broken in the same place. Should judge that the richer stones of ore would increase the value to the extent of three parts out of four. According to the assay, the tribute on the prisoner’s pile, with the mixed rich ore, would have been 11l. 1s. 4d. for that month.—Evidence of the prilling of the prisoner’s pile, with a large quantity of the adventurers’ best work, was also given by Edward Angwin, the labourer employed to that charge of the prisoner’s pile, after it had been examined by Capt. Boyns and others.—In defence, the prisoner put in a long written statement, which was read by the Clerk of the Peace, but was unsupported by any evidence.—The jury found him GUILTY on the first count. In the course of hearing of evidence, and also in summing up, the CHAIRMAN repeatedly advised that in all cases of prosecutions against tributers for dishonest working—kitting or prilling—the agents should take the specimens of ores intended to be produced in court, in the presence of the suspected party, so that, at the trial, there should be no question as to the specimens having been taken fairly, as between both parties. (Sentence: six months hard labour) HENRY DUNN, 24, and LUCY REED, 22, were charged with having, on the 14th of June, at the parish of St. Erth, feloniously stolen, from the person of George Maslin, a silver watch and chain. There was a second count charging feloniously receiving. Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson defended the female prisoner; the male prisoner was undefended.—George Maslin stated that he lived at Madron, and on the 14th of June got into a third class carriage on the to go from Penzance to Redruth. He knelt on the seat, looking over, and the persons on the same side of the carriage were William Oats (who was also kneeling on the seat), and the two prisoners—the female prisoner being close to him on one side, and the male prisoner next to her. At Marazion, prosecutor looked at his watch; but, just be-fore arriving at the St. Ives Road Station, Oates saw the woman put her hand open towards Maslin’s fob, and make a back shove with her closed had; but he did not see anything in her hand. Oates then asked Maslin what o’clock it was, and he then found that his watch was gone. Oates pointed out to him the woman as the person who had taken it, and, on arriving at the St. Ives stations, John Sampson, a guard on the train, was informed that a watch had been stolen, and, in consequence of that information, he kept watch on the man and woman (to whom his attention had been directed on leaving Penzance;) and, as the train was proceeding to Hayle, he saw the man take a watch out of his pocket and place it on the floor beside his bundle. He told Maslin of it, and he took up the watch. The female prisoner, at that time, was standing between the male prisoner and the prosecutor. On arriving at the Hayle station, Maslin gave the watch to the policeman, William Armitage, who now produced it in court, where it was identified by the prosecutor.—The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, told the jury that under Lord Campbell’s Act, they might find either both of the prisoners guilty of felonious receiving only. An ingenious defence was made by Mr. Shilson, and the jury retired for consultation. After an absence of nearly an hour, they found Read GUILTY of stealing, and Dunn GUILTY of feloniously receiving. The jury added to their verdict that they considered the prosecutor culpable in carrying his watch much exposed. (Sentence (each): six months hard labour) HENRY NEPEAN, charged with having, on the 18th of April, broken and entered an outhouse at Tregadillet, in the parish of St. Thomas the Apostle, and feloniously stolen two hens’ eggs, the property of James Harris, was ACQUITTED. WILLIAM BURT, 15 charged with having, on the 18th June, at Alternun, stolen a shirt, the property of Simon Saundercock. GUILTY. (Sentence: four months hard labour) A REMARKABLE CASE.—JANE STEPHENS, 21, REBECCA STEPHENS, 44, MARY STEPHENS, 17, and JOHN STEPHENS (apparently about 50 years old), were charged in the first place, with stealing on the 20th of March, a variety of drapery and other articles, the property of William Pascoe, mercer and draper, Bodmin. A second count charged Rebecca, Mary, and John Stephens, with feloniously receiving the same. On a third count, all four prisoners were charged with stealing a large quantity of feathers and other articles, from Mr. Pascoe, on the 30th of May. A fourth count charged Rebecca, Mary, and John, with feloniously receiving these articles. The case excited great interest among the inhabitants of Bodmin and its neighbourhood, and the court was densely crowded throughout the trial. The robbery was a most extensive one; and when the articles were produced for identification, they occupied a very large portion of the central part of the Court. The case was also one of painful interest, from the circumstance of the prisoners being members of one family;—John and Rebecca being the parents of Jane and Mary, and there being several other younger children. Mr. Shilson and Mr. J.B. Collins conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes and Mr. T. Commins the defence. In opening the case, Mr. SHILSON stated that the prosecutor was Mr. William Pascoe, draper, residing near the Mount Folly, in Bodmin. Jane Stephens, one of the prisoners, had been a domestic servant of his and resided with him up to the 31st of May, for about five months. The elder prisoners were her father and mother, and they lived at Kernick, in the parish of St. Wenn, about 6 miles from Bodmin; and Mary, the youngest prisoner was their daughter and lived with them. The entrance to Mr. Pascoe’s shop is in front from the Fore-street; and there are also two side entrances near the Assize Hall. One of those side entrances was to the kitchen, and near it is a show room on a higher level than the shop. As long since as March last, during the assizes, Mr. Pascoe missed a silk umbrella and had searched for it in vain. About the latter end of May, in consequence of some information he had received, Mr. Pascoe determined to visit the house of the elder prisoners at St. Wenn for the purpose of ascertaining if any of his property was there. But before leaving his own house, on the 31st of May, for that purpose, he told the prisoner Jane that he had missed the articles which he was going to her father’s house to search for. Mr. Pascoe, accordingly went to Kernick, accompanied by one of his assistants named William Stephens. During the time Jane was residing with the prosecutor, she was in the habit of being visited rather frequently by her mother and younger sister; and it would be proved that the younger sister had on one occasion, been seen to be the bearer of a parcel from Mr. Pascoe’s house. On arriving at Kernick, Mr. Pascoe saw the mother and Mary, and said to the mother – ‘I wish to see the shawl that you had on at Treganetha fair.” The mother then went to a drawer and took out a shawl; but Mr. Pascoe said, “that is not the shawl I want to see.” She then brought another shawl to Mr. Pascoe; and he said “that is not the shawl I mean.” On this, the daughter Mary (Mr. Pascoe afterwards said it was one of the daughters, but he could not say which) went up stairs, and soon after that, the mother followed, and Mr. Pascoe went after them. The young man, William Stephens, who had remained outside the house, called to Mr. Pascoe that a bundle was thrown out of the upper window. This bundle, on its being brought into the house, was found to contain the shawl that Mr. Pascoe was searching and inquiring for. Mr. Pascoe identified that shawl as his property; and then a further search was commenced, and in a bed room in which the father and mother slept, Mr. Pascoe discovered the silk umbrella which he had missed on the 21st of March. There were also various other articles—a circassian cloth dress that Mr. Pascoe had missed about the same time; and in a box in the same room, a parasol, a piece of tick, a man’s hat, materials for two alpaca dresses, five bed-sheets, a French Merino dress, flannel petticoats, several pocket handkerchiefs, a riding boa, a piece of old stair-carpeting, a piece of gingham, pieces of cotton print, cap-cauls, five new bonnets, waist-coat-pieces, two cloth caps, a pair of boys’ trowsers and materials for another pair, and other articles. All these articles were found in a box and in the bed-room of the elder prisoners. On the same day, Mr. Pascoe’s attention was drawn to some feathers at the foot of a bed, and he said to Mrs. Stephens “This is the bag of feathers I lost.” He asked Mrs. Stephens to turn up the bed-tie and underneath he found several bags of feathers,—8 in all—which had been taken into stock by Mr. Pascoe since the 10th of May, and more had been sold by him. Mr. Pascoe had also lost some knives and forks; and on his making inquiry of Mrs. Stephens where she kept her knives and forks, she said “in the cupboard.” He looked at some in the cupboard, and said they were not his, and there were more yet. She then went to a drawer in the kitchen, and there Mr. Pascoe saw the knives and forks he had missed. He asked where they were got from and Mary then said “I brought them home yesterday.” Many times during the search, the mother made use of such expressions to Mr. Pascoe, as— I am guilty—you may send me to prison, or cut my throat at once; I don’t want a Judge or Jury.” The daughter Mary also used similar expressions, saying, I am guilty; I hope you will forgive me.” They would also hear from Mr. Pascoe’s assistant, William Stephens, that Mary said she received the goods from Jane.—In addition to the goods in the house, there was a relation, Mary Hannah Stephens, a dress- maker, who lived at Roche, and in her possession were found a green silk dress, and two new bonnets which had been brought to her by one of the family, to be made up and trimmed. These articles would be identified by Mr. Pascoe. – Mr. Shilson went on to say, that, should the jury have any doubt as to the charge of stealing, there was the fact of the goods being in possession, and that Mary, in the presence of the mother, said, “I had the goods of Jane,” and the mother did not contradict the statement. That would be evidence against both the mother and Mary. As regarded the male prisoner, the only evidence was the fact that the goods were in the house, and therefore, in the eye of the law, he was held responsible. With regard to Jane, the evidence against her was that she had access to the places where these articles were kept at Mr. Pascoes; and it would be proved by a Mrs. Hawke that Mary Stephens had been seen coming from Mr. Pascoe’s with a bundle. The first witness examined was Mr. Pascoe, who, in addition to evidence supporting Mr. Shilson’s statement, said that, at the the (sic) of the search, Mary said, in presence of the mother, “the feathers are partly yours (Mr. Pascoe’s) and partly ours.” The old man throughout protested his innocence; and both Mary and the mother declared he had had nothing to do with it; there was also nothing but his own private property found in his own box. The old man implored him (Mr. Pascoe) to overlook it; but added that he could not expect it—it was too bad.—After finding all the goods, Mr. Pascoe had them brought down into the kitchen, and the father lent his horse and cart, with his son to drive, to take the goods back to Mr. Pascoe’s. On Mr. Pascoe’s return in the evening, he found that Jane had left; she had not since returned to his house. The articles were afterwards delivered to Bray, the Bodmin constable. Bray produced the articles in court, and the greater part of them were identified, more or less positively, and some most undoubtingly from private marks, by the prosecutor and his assistants, William Stephens and Robert Gatty. The former witness also corroborated Mr. Pascoe’s testimony as to the search. Mary Hannah Stephens, a dress-maker living at Roche, proved that she had received from Anna Maria Stephens, a younger sister of the prisoners Jane and Mary, a green dress to make up, and calico lining; which she afterwards gave up to Mr. Pascoe. It was alike, in color, to that now produced. Joyce Hawke, a fruit-stall keeper in front of Mr. Pascoe’s shop, knew Jane Stephens when she was a servant with Mr. Pascoe, and also her sister Mary. A fortnight “before this broke out” about the robbery, Mary came to her stall for a pennyworth of something, and had a large parcel in her arms,—it looked as if it was wrapped in a coarse apron. Had seen her many times, but never before observed anything of that kind. Witness asked her if she fetched her sister’s clothes to wash; she replied, no, but she came errands for her mother. Ruth Bawden was a servant to Mr. Pascoe, up to the 27th of April. Saw Jane Stephen’s mother there once, just after Jane came into service there; and had seen Mary there several times – perhaps five or six times. For the defence, Mr. STOKES first submitted that, as respected the prisoner Jane, there was no evidence to go to the jury. The statement to her prejudice made by Mary could not be receivable as evidence against her, as it was not made in her presence. And the only other piece of evidence against her, was her going away from Mr. Pascoe’s after he had told her that he was going to her parents to make a search; which evidence, Mr. Stokes contended was wholly immaterial. The Court, after hearing Mr. Shilson, decided that the case should go to the jury. Bray, the constable was recalled. He stated that he apprehended Jane at her father’s house on the day after the search. He went first into the kitchen, and asked the mother where her daughters were; she made some reply which he did not understand. He then went up stairs, and saw Jane getting out of the window. Mr. STOKES then ably addressed the jury; and, after a careful summing up, the jury found a verdict of ACQUITTAL in respect of both Jane and John; and a verdict of GUILTY of feloniously receiving, against Rebecca and Mary, on the second and fourth counts. (Sentences: REBECCA STEPHENS - nine months hard labour; MARY STEPHENS - four months hard labour) John Stephens, who was much commiserated by all persons in Court, was then discharged, and he left the hall, after taking affectionate leave of his wife and daughters.—Jane was ordered to be detained, there being another indictment against her, for stealing a parasol, the property of Mr. Pascoe. The Court then rose at about 7 o’clock. —A bill against Priscilla Merton aged 16, charged with stealing money from the person of Isabella Rendle at St. Austell was ignored. —Among the true bills found by the Grand Jury on Tuesday, was one against “Alfred Tedder, of the borough of Truro, livery stable keeper, for an assault. ______—The Reverend Richard Robert Wright, of , this day qualified as a magistrate; and the Rev. Alfred Robert Taylor, took the oaths on appointment to the Rectory of St. Stephens in Branwell. SECOND COURT. (Before C.B.G. Sawle, Esq.) CHARLOTTE RICKARD and THOMAS PHILP were charged with stealing a quantity of lead, the property of William Pollard, of Egloshayle. Mr. S POLLARD prosecuted; Mr. SHILSON defended. The lead was taken, part from a mangle house, and part from a lead gutter attached to the dwelling house. Mr. Shilson took a technical objection to the indictment, in which the Court concurred, and the prisoner was consequently ACQUITTED. RICHARD PERRY, 29, was then put on trial for receiving the lead which formed the subject of the previous case, well knowing it to have been stolen. The prisoner who was undefended, was found GUILTY. A prior conviction for stealing a coat was also proved against him. (Sentence: transportation for ten years) JAMES PIPER, 23, was charged with stealing, at the parish of Bridgerule, a waistcoat, the property of Henry Tabb. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. SAMUEL HENDER, 28, was found GUILTY of stealing, at Bodmin, a girding rope, the property of Simon Hugo. (Sentence: one month hard labour) MARY ROGERS, 21, was arraigned on a charge of stealing, at Wendron, a cotton gown, the property of Thomas Goldsworthy. The prisoner was found to be insane, and the Chairman ordered her to be remanded to the gaol, to await Her Majesty’s pleasure. MARY ANN HARRIS, 22, pleaded GUILTY to a charge of stealing two pairs of boots, the property of Elizabeth Going, of St. Agnes. She also entered the same plea on a charge of having been convicted on a former occasion. (Sentence: transported for seven years) ELIZA GERRY, 20, and JANE GERRY, 69, were charged with stealing at Launceston, a quantity of articles, the property of Henry Hayman; and Jane Gerry was further charged with receiving the same articles well knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. DARKE prosecuted; Mr. STOKES defended the prisoners. The younger prisoner came in April last, to live as a servant with Mr. Hayman, who keeps a drapery and a fancy shop in Launceston. After she came, many articles were missed from the shops, and her box being searched in her presence, several articles were found there which could be identified. The elder prisoner lived at Ashwater, six or seven miles from Launceston, with her husband, and the younger prisoner (who was her daughter), was in the habit of sending boxes, carpet-bags, &c., to her. Once in particular, she sent a box to her by the carrier, to whom she said that it contained dirty linen: by some accident, however, the box fell on the way, was sprung open, and seen to contain many articles of the description of those lost. Search was made in the elder prisoner’s house on the 11th of May, by Sambell, the police constable at Launceston, and nothing was found except two pieces of calico, which Mr. Hayman was not aware that he had lost. Eliza, the younger prisoner, was then in custody, but on the 15th, Sambell searched the house again, in company with another policeman called Higgs, and many of the articles were found in the very places which had been searched four days before. Prosecutor in the course of his evidence, said that the younger prisoner, without any inducement having been held out, had said to him that the articles found were the whole which she had taken, and she hoped he would forgive her. Her statement before the magistrates, was “that her father, mother, and brothers were all innocent. They did not know but that she bought the things. They did not know but that it was dirty clothes which she had sent to be washed.” The jury convicted the younger prisoner and acquitted the mother. (Sentence: (ELIZA GERRY) six months hard labour) ASSAULT ON A POLICEMAN. – WILLIAM POOL, 25, and JOSIAH CARTHEW, 19, were arraigned on a charge of assaulting, at , in the parish of , Charles Tregoning, a police constable in the execution of his duty. Carthew pleaded GUILTY. Pool pleaded NOT GUILTY. Mr. Darke prosecuted, Mr. Childs, on behalf of Mr. Stokes, engaged in the other court, appeared for the defence. Mr. Darke, in opening the case, remarked that though the principal blow had been struck by Carthew, if Pool was there assisting in the assault, he was equally liable to punishment.—Charles Tregoning, police officer of Redruth, said he had a warrant to apprehend three men, Reed, Francis, and Curtis. With that warrant he went to Hayle, having other constables with him. Rees was apprehended at Wheal Maria mine, and another constable Westacott, put him into the public house at Guildford, to wait for the train. Witness afterwards went in, and Westcott left Rees in his custody. Rees was tipsy; he had some drink and wanted some more, witness said he should have no more. The prisoner Pool, who was there, said he should have some, and handed his glass to Rees. Witness tried to prevent this, and got up to take Rees out of the company. Pool then put his hand on witness’s collar; witness’s hat was knocked off, and he was taken by several persons by the hair of the head, and dragged to the floor. He received some blows whilst there, and when he had go up again he had lost his staff. Nicholls, another constable, then came to his assistance. Witness was then in the passage. He then heard some one call out—“Mind the cleaver!” Witness turned and before he could defend himself, received a severe cut over his head with the cleaver. The blow was struck by Carthew. He still had the cleaver in his hand “threatening and flourishing.” Witness struck Carthew across the head with his staff; and the latter ran away, throwing the cleaver at witness, and cutting him in the finger. Witness then followed Carthew, but whether he knocked him down or not, he could not say; at all events he fell down. Nicholls then came up, and they took Carthew into custody. As they were taking him back to the house, Pool came to the door; saying “if you mind to fight, fight fair,” or something of the sort, and Witness said to Nicholls, “that’s the first man that assaulted me.” Pool was then taken into custody by Westacott. Witness was attended by a surgeon for nearly a fortnight. As soon as he was taken by the collar, witness had taken his staff out of his pocket crying “they had better not interfere with him, as he was a police officer.” He was, however, in plain clothes. The warrant was executed in the petty-sessional district of Eedruth (sic).—William Nicholls, a constable at Redruth, and John Rogers, a policeman of the West Cornwall Railway, also gave corroborative evidence. Verdict, GUILTY, but strongly recommended to mercy on account of Rees having been taken into a public-house where prisoner and others were drinking, and already much excited. (Sentences: POOL - four months hard labour; CARTHEW - six months hard labour) The Court then closed for the day. Two or three of the jurors complaining that they had been obliged to attend at the Sessions and Assizes very frequently during the last few years, the CHAIRMAN said that by applying to the Clerk of the Peace they could get certificates to exempt them from serving again for three years. THURSDAY, July 1. Before J.K. LETHBRIDGE, Esq., chairman. JANE STEPHENS, 21, who was last evening acquitted on a charge of stealing various articles from Mr. W. Pascoe, draper, of Bodmin, was now charged with stealing, on the 2nd of May, a satin parasol, value 7s., and one yard of thread lace, value 1s., the property of William Pascoe the younger, her master.— Mr. Shilson and Mr. J. Basset Collins conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Stokes and Mr. T. Commins, jun., the defence. Mr. SHILSON stated the case, and proceeded to call the following witnesses:— William Pascoe, examined by Mr. Shilson:—I am a draper residing in Bodmin, and Jane Stephens the prisoner was my servant for about 5 months; she left me on the 31st of May; she left, unknown to us, at night, without her bonnet, and leaving her goods behind her. I went to London on Monday morning the 3rd of May. On the previous Saturday night I had taken out of my stock a brown satin parasol for the purpose of returning it to the person of whom I had bought it in London, as it was damaged in the manufacture of the satin and was unfit for sale. On the Saturday night, I put the parasol in a recess of the passage that I might not forget it on the Monday morning. On the Monday morning, it was gone; and I made search in the parlour and throughout the show room, and also made inquiry of Jane Stephens, who also searched for half an hour. I left for London by the coach at 7 o’clock, first telling prisoner that I very much feared she had taken or stolen the parasol. She appeared much agitated, and said she had not seen it. On my return from London, the parasol was delivered to me by Mrs. Pascoe, and I kept it until I delivered it to Bray the constable. After Jane left on the 31st of May, I searched her box, and found there a piece of thread lace which belonged to me; it was made up into a pair of cuffs, and was in the head of a new bonnet which she had had about 7 or 8 days. I produce another piece of the same kind of lace, from my show room; it is 10d. a yard, and is not such an article as is used generally by persons in the prisoner’s situation. The lace found in prisoner’s box is precisely of the same description as that I now produce on the card. (The pieces were handed to the jury). It was not sold by me. William Bray, constable, produced the parasol—a brown satin one, which Mr. Pascoe identified as the one he had placed in the passage recess on Saturday night the 1st of May; Mr. Pascoe said it was an expensive parasol—not such as servants usually carried; he knew it by the damage in the manufacture of the satin. Mr. Pascoe, cross-examined by Mr. Stokes:—Any one could see the parasol where I placed it in the recess. I cannot say that I noticed it there on the Sunday; I should not have occasion to pass there on Sunday.—Mrs. Pascoe had given the prisoner notice to leave, before she left.—The bonnet in which the lace was found was a hat-box, with no difficulty in opening it. I have no mark on the lace; but it is a very rare pattern, and very little used; it is possible, but not likely, that there may be lace of the same kind in other shops.—Re-examined—I swear most positively to the parasol. There is no lace of the kind produced, in any shop in this town. Prisoner’s notice had not expired when she left. Robert Gatty.—I am an apprentice with Mr. Pascoe. On Sunday the 2nd of May, between 2 and 3 o’clock in the afternoon, I was in the street at Bodmin, with Elizabeth Bennett, and saw the prisoner in the street with a brown satin parasol like the one now produced; and I said to Miss Bennett ‘how nice she is looking with her new brown satin parasol.’ Elizabeth Bennett, an apprentice with Mr. Pascoe, corroborated the evidence of last witness; and also said—I heard of the parasol being missed on the Monday morning, and on the Tuesday I searched the drawer in the showroom where the parasols were usually kept, and every where I thought it likely to find the parasol; but without success. Mary Stick, an apprentice with Mr. Pascoe. I heard of the brown satin parasol being missing on the 3rd of May; I searched the show room and the drawer in it, and could not find it. Ednah Stick, another apprentice in Mr. Pascoe’s shop, stated that on Wednesday (the 5th of May), she found the brown satin parasol had been missed, in the drawer of the show room, where the parasols are usually kept, and gave it to Mrs. Pascoe. She knew it by its being damaged. The show room is near the kitchen and is open every day. Fanny Pascoe, wife of prosecutor. I recollect Mr. Pascoe’s going to London on Monday morning, the 3rd of May. Early that morning, I made search for the parasol, and ordered two or three others to do the same. The prisoner searched up stairs, in three or four of the bed-rooms. After Mr. Pascoe left for London, further search was made and the prisoner again searched, of her own accord. I had heard Mr. Pascoe tell Jane to look and that she must find it. I charged the prisoner on Monday with having taken the parasol. She said she had not seen it. I asked her to show me the one she had carried the day before. She then showed me an old black silk one, which she said was the one she had carried on the Sunday afternoon. (The constable Bray here produced an old black silk parasol, which Mrs. Pascoe identified as the one in question). I found that old parasol in her box the day she left. After the Wednesday on which the brown satin parasol was found in the show room drawer, the prisoner asked me if the parasol was brought back. I told her it was. Mary Ann Rowse:—I am a servant with Mr. Parkyn, draper; I know the prisoner Jane Stephens and was on friendly terms with her. On Sunday afternoon the 2nd of May, I was out with her; she had a parasol. I think this brown satin one is like the one she had, as near as I can tell. She had not the black silk one. On Monday morning between 8 and 9, she came to me at Mr. Parkyn’s and asked me if I could lend her an old parasol. I told her I had not an old one, but I had one which was very good one and that she could have that. There was an old one lying on the kitchen table, and she took it up and asked whose it was. I told her it was my mistress’s. She asked me if she should have that. I told her no, she could not have that, as it was mistress’s. She said she would not hurt it, and would bring it back in 10 minutes. She then took it. I asked her what she was going to do with it; she said she would bring it back in ten minutes and tell me all about it. She never brought it back to me. (The black silk parasol now produced is the one). About two hours after she took away this parasol, I went, in consequence of a message, over to Mr. Pascoe’s, and saw the prisoner there. I asked her what she wanted. She told me, if Mrs. Pascoe or any of them should ask me what sort of parasol she had on Sunday, I must say it was a brown silk one. I saw her again on the Monday evening. I asked her what she had done. She said she had done nothing amiss—that she had only taken a parasol for the day and had put it back again into the show-room. I asked her why she had the parasol of me. She said she had that one, if Mrs. Pascoe should ask her about the other. The first time I mentioned this was when Bray came to me the Saturday before the prisoner was committed.—Cross examined.—When I was with her on the Sunday, I did not take particular notice of the parasol she had, and I cannot say if it was brown silk or satin. Mr. STOKES then addressed the jury for the defence, alleging that, with respect to the parasol there was no proof of felonious intent, or that the prisoner did any other than foolishly take the parasol, to appear fine on the Sunday, intending to return it the next day. Had she intended to steal it, she certainly would not have openly walked about with it in Bodmin streets, in open day, in the presence of her fellow servants. With regard to the lace, the evidence was consistent with her having procured it honestly, either at Mr. Pascoe’s or elsewhere; it was placed in her hat box which was open to inspection, and Mr. Pascoe’s evidence as to its being his property was unsatisfactory, there being no mark on it, and nothing to swear by but the pattern and quality. The jury found the prisoner “GUILTY of stealing, as a servant.” (Sentence: six months hard labour) MOSES WILLIAMS, 36, was indicted for stealing, on the 10th April, certain pieces of brass, the property of George Bowness Carr, and others, adventurers in Treleigh Consols Mine.—Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Sampson Uren deposed:—I am an agent at Treleigh Consols, and the prisoner was engine man at that mine; he had been so for 7 years. In February last, I found a brass valve and seat of an engine missing; they had been taken off the engine 4 years before that, and had been put in the material-house, to which the prisoner had access for grease and oil. (Policeman Armitage produced several broken pieces of brass). These pieces form part of such a valve and seat as we missed; but I cannot swear positively they are part of the very same; they would form a valve and seat of an engine of the same size as the engine that was taken out of Treleigh engine-house. I had missed it about three months. James Uren:—I am a constable and mine-policeman. In consequence of brass being missed, I gave information at the different foundries at the end of April last, and, among others, to Mr. Hambly, agent for Messrs. Harvey and Co., of Hayle. After that, Mr. Hambly showed me a large quantity of brass bearings, valves, and other parts of engines. On the 6th of May, I saw Mr. Hambly again and he gave me the pieces of brass which have been now produced. When old brass is sold from a mine, it is not broken up. James Hambly:—I am foreman at Messrs. Harveys’ foundry at Hayle. I am in the habit of frequently bringing old metal for them. When we purchase old brasses of engines from mines, we buy them entire. On the 23rd April last, I bought 294 lbs. of brass from John Williams Richards, a shopkeeper at Helston. In consequence of some information I had received from James Uren, I selected some portions of the brasses after Richards had left; they were bearing brasses, parts of valves and seats, and other parts of mine-engines; they had not appearance of having been sold direct from a mine; they had been put into fire, and were much broken up. On the 6th of May, I saw James Uren again, and gave him some pieces of brass – among them, the pieces now produced. Henry Armitage, policeman:—I heard that some brass had been missed from engine-house, and in consequence of that, and some information, I went to search. On the 6th of May, I received some brasses from Uren. On the 5th, I had gone to Helston, and saw John Williams Richards there. In consequence of what passed between me and Richards, I went to see a person called Anear at Redruth; and, from what I heard from Anear, I on the following day, with Richard Rodda, a constable, went to Moses Williams, the prisoner, at his house. The constable Rodda apprehended him in my presence on a charge of stealing railway brass. Prisoner said he never stole any railway brass, and had never been near Angarrack railway-engine. He kept saying that, when we had got him on the road. I told him he had better say nothing; but he looked towards Rodda, and said he would tell, and that would keep him from being transported; he then said that the brass he sold to John Anear he took from the mine he belonged to, out of the material house. Then we brought him to Redruth, and, after that, I received the brass from Uren. Besides the pieces now produced, there were pieces of railway brass. I showed the whole of the pieces, mixed together, to the prisoner. He said he had never before seen the railway brass, but the other pieces were what he had sold to Anear. He selected the pieces now produced, and Anear’s wife also sorted them out in the same way in prisoner’s presence. John Anear, dealer in marine stores at Redruth. I know the prisoner, and brought 25½ lbs. of brass of him on Easter Monday. The pieces now produced are some of it. I took it to Helston and sold it to John Williams Richards, shopkeeper, at Helston. William Richards, manager of Treleigh Consols mine, proved that Mr. George Bowness Carr is one of the adventurers, and that there are several other adventurers. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: six months hard labour) JAMES MITCHELL was indicted on 12 counts, for obtaining money by false pretences, in February and March, 1851, from the adventurers in Chypraze Mine, in Saint Enoder. Mr. Shilson and Mr. G.B. Collins conducted the prosecution; Mr. Hockin and Mr. Darke the defence.—The jury having been sworn, and the prisoner having pleaded Not Guilty, Mr. HOCKIN took an objection which, he said, applied to each count of the indictment.—The objection was that, in each count, the indictment, while charging that the defendant had obtained money by false pretences, omitted to allege that this was done “with intent to defraud;” these essential words were omitted in each count. After hearing the arguments of the advocates, the COURT held that the objection was fatal, as the whole gist of the alleged offence was the intent to defraud.—The Court, consequently, directed the jury to give a verdict of ACQUITTAL. The jury was then discharged. MARY BIRK, 29, committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace, at St. Austell, was reprimanded and discharged; no prosecutor appearing against her. APPEAL. LANLIVERY, appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Childs. ST. MINVER LOWLANDS, respondent; Mr. Darke and Mr. J.B. Collins. This was an appeal against an order for removal of Edwin Kingdon, who was born on the 29th of August, 1834, after the passing of the Poor Law Act; he was an illegitimate son of Jane Kingdon, who afterwards married a person named Richard. Ley. Mr. DARKE stated that the respondent parish had removed the pauper to Lanlivery, as the birth settlement of his mother’s husband. The appellants, in their grounds of appeal, set up an acknowledgment by relief of William Ginnis Ley, father of Richard Ley, about 44 years ago, in the parish of St. Mewan, whilst the said Wm. Ginnis Ley was living out of that parish. On the receipt of those grounds of appeal, Mr. Collins made search, at the parish of St. Mewan, and found that no such relief had been given, from the year 1800 to 1813. But, on Tuesday last, after the appeal was entered, Mr. Collins went to St. Mewan and made further search, and found that between the years 1816 and 1819 relief was granted to William Ginnis Ley. Being thus satisfied that relief was given, such as would establish a settlement in St. Mewan, and feeling an uncertainty as to the power of the Court to amend, the respondents had resolved not to incur the expense of resisting the appeal. They therefore now applied to have the order quashed; but, without costs, on the ground that, if the appellants had given more definite information as to the years in which relief was given in St. Mewan, Mr. Collins might have found the evidence thereof at St. Mewan, before the entry of the appeal. Mr. SHILSON said his friend Mr. Darke had omitted to state that besides the relief to the pauper’s grandfather in St. Mewan, the grounds of appeal had further set forth that from 1840 to 1846, the widow of William Ginnis Ley was relieved by the Board of Guardians of the St. Austell Union on account of the parish of St. Mewan, while she was resident in the parish of . By inquiring into the fact of this alleged relief to the widow of William Ginnis Ley, the respondents might easily have satisfied themselves of the pauper’s settlement in St. Mewan. There was therefore no pretence for saying that the appellants were not entitled to full costs. Mr. CHILDS, on the same side, complained that the respondents by removing to Lanlivery, on a prima facie birth settlement, had thrown on an innocent parish, the trouble and expense of finding out the last place of settlement of Ley. Mr. DARKE replied that the relief in 1840 was two or three years after the marriage of Jane Kingdon to Richard Ley, and therefore would not affect the settlement at all. The Court quashed the Order with common costs; no maintenance. After the entry and and (sic) adjournment of two appeals, the Prisoners were called up and received Sentence. This concluded the business of the Sessions. SECOND COURT. (Before C.B.G. Sawle, Esq.) THURSDAY, JULY 1. GEORGE STANNAWAY, the younger, 19, was indicted for having assaulted at Gwennap, Mary Daw, with intent to commit a rape. He was also indicted, in a second count, for common assault. Mr. HOCKIN appeared for the prosecution, Mr. CHILDS for the defence. Mary Daw, (who gave her evidence extremely well,) wife of Johnson Daw, stated that about nine or ten o’clock in the evening, on the 28th of May, she walked to her mother’s house, about half a mile from where she herself lived, to fetch her husband’s horse and harness against the Saturday morning. When she got back to her own field, she saw two men,—prisoner and his father. She had to pull down a stone gap in the hedge for the horse to go through, and after she had passed through it, prisoner and his father, neither of whom she had known before, built it up for her again. The father was very tipsy, and the prisoner had also been drinking. Before the latter assisted his father in building the gap, he had put his arm over her shoulders; but she had told him not to do so, as “she was a married woman, and a mother of children, and did not want to have anything to say to him.” Afterwards she walked towards her little girl, - whom she had taken with her when she went to fetch the horse, but who was not by when she met the two men, and prisoner and his father followed on the same road. Prisoner outwalked his father, and came up with her. He said he had saved her house from taking fire, three months before; - which was not true; she told him it was not the case, but he said she was the same woman, and asked to see her face. The assault— which was accompanied with some violence, and the details of which are unfit for publication,—was then committed, but she defended herself resolutely, and got away. She screamed “murder!” called her husband’s name, and called her little girl. She ran towards the place where the little girl was, and the latter came towards her; when prisoner, who had followed, saw her coming, he turned back to his father, and they went another way. Prisoner was a married man. Elizabeth Jane Daw, a little girl, in her 11th year, daughter of the last witness, deposed to having heard her mother’s screams; at first she was afraid to go; but when called by name She went towards her. They afterwards went into a house for safety. Mr. Harris, surgeon of Redruth, had attended Mrs. Daw, for the injuries she had received; she was pregnant at the time.—GUILTY of the assault with intent. (Sentence: twelve months hard labour) JAMES PARSON was charged with assaulting, at St. Austell, Richard Gummoe, a constable, of St. Austell, while in the execution of his duty; and he was also charged with assaulting Benjamin Julyan Nott, a relieving officer while in the execution of his duty. Richard Gummoe was sent for by Mr. Nott, and took the prisoner into custody, on the old western turnpike. He had then nothing on but his shoes and trousers; he was in liquor, and making a great disturbance. Witness told him he was a constable, and he (prisoner) must go with him. He said he would not, and that if witness put a hand to him, he would knock his b-----y brains out. Witness then sent for his staff; and carried prisoner’s clothes to him. Prisoner threatened to kick him if he did not put down his clothes. Witness then endeavoured to draw him along, and prisoner kicked him very badly, and struck him with his fists. There was great difficulty in taking him to the lock-up; and witness had to send for the assistance of Mr. Nott, and another man. Mr. Nott, relieving officer, said there had been some disturbance about prisoner’s maintaining his wife, and he (witness) told him that if he did not do so, he should be obliged to have him taken up for deserting his wife and family. Prisoner became very violent, and struck him. He then sent for Gummoe. GUILTY of a common assault on the first Indictment. No evidence being offered on the second; on that he was ACQUITTED. (Sentence: two months hard labour) This concluded the business of the Second Court.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 6 August 1852

5. Summer Assizes

The Judges for the Western Circuit—Mr. Baron Platt and Mr. Baron Martin— arrived at Bodmin about 6 o'clock on Friday evening, and immediately proceeded to the Crown Court and opened commission. Their lordships then proceeded to Glynn, the seat of Lord Vivian, where they dined with a large party of ladies and gentlemen of the neighbourhood, invited to meet their lordships.—On Saturday morning, at 9 o’clock, their lordships, accompanied by the High Sheriff, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., the Under Sheriff, W. Shilson, Esq., and the County Clerk, Christopher Childs, Esq.; and also by the municipal authorities of Bodmin; attended divine service at the Church. Prayers were read by the Rev. John Wallis, vicar of Bodmin; and an excellent and appropriate sermon was preached by the Sheriff’s Chaplain, the Rev. F. J. H. Kendall, Vicar of Lanlivery, from Romans, 13th ch. 1 v.:—“The powers that be are ordained of God.” CROWN COURT. At ¼ to 11 o'clock, Mr. Baron Platt took his seat in the Crown Court. The following magistrates were sworn on the Grand Jury:— The Hon. G. M. Fortescue, foreman. Sir C. Lemon, Bart. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. Sir J. Sawle Graves Sawle, Thomas Hext, Esq. Bart. E. Coode, jun., Esq. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. H. Prynn Andrew, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq. S. Davey, Esq. C. H. T. Hawkins, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. W. P. Kempe, Esq. R. Graves Polwhele, Esq. H. P. Rawlings, Esq. W. Williams, Esq. F. J. Hext, Esq. E. Collins, Esq. T. R. Avery, Esq. E. Archer, Esq. J. Batten, Esq. W. Braddon, Esq. After the Mayors and Coroners had been called and the Queen's proclamation read, the learned Judge delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY: Gentlemen of the Grand Jury; you have been convened by command of Her Most Gracious Majesty, to perform a high constitutional function in the advancement of the criminal justice of the country. Gentlemen, the which founded this administration of Justice are part of the Statute Law of the realm. They are framed by the wisdom of the people through the voice of their representatives—by the wisdom of the peers of the realm—and, ultimately, by the wisdom of the advisers of the Crown for the time being; rendering thereby to the people of this country that confidence they should always feel in the laws of their country. But the care, gentlemen, for the public good does got cease here; because, in the administering those laws, which are so important as regards the public on one hand, and the accused on the other, every safeguard has been adopted for the purpose of preventing their malversation—for the purpose of protecting innocence, while at the same time the guilty are dragged forth for punishment. Gentlemen, in the first place an investigation takes place before a magistrate—an educated and enlightened man. Having heard the case, the magistrate forms his opinion whether it be fit that the accused should be called on to answer the charge in a court of justice; if so, he sends him up for trial; and, if not, then he discharges him. But that is not the only protection for a suspected party. You, gentlemen, come with a shield to throw round him if he be innocent and improperly suspected. And, although a great part of your painful duty is to present those whom you believe to be guilty of crime to this court for trial, still a most important part of your duty is to throw around persons against whom insufficient suspicions may exist, the shield of your protection. Gentlemen, that is the law. It does not depend on the judgment and breath of one man, sitting where I have the honour to sit, to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused party. For further protection the petty jury is convened. In public the charge is heard—the witnesses are also examined in public, and a most fair trial is given in this court to every man charged; so that, at last, if truth can be arrived at by any mortal inquiry, the best assurance for arriving at it must be found in the means I have adverted to. It is the high privilege of this country to have the laws thus made and thus administered. It makes the people what they are. For, in fact, you must be aware, that we govern ourselves. The laws are, in fact, made almost by ourselves. They are administered by the people—that is, by judges selected from among the people. Everything is popular, and everything shows a desire that truth should prevail in this country, and that justice should be fairly administered. —I have looked at the calendar presented for consideration at this Assizes. I am happy to say that I do not see any greater degree of enormity than may be expected from the fallen nature of man. We never can hope to see the day when the community will be free from crime. But there are one or two cases inviting observation. And one, standing prominent, is that of a young woman charged with destroying her own offspring. If you, gentlemen, should be of opinion that that bill should be found, and if the jury who shall try her shall find her guilty, it will be necessary, for the purpose of putting down this dreadful crime, perpetrated in secret, and for the purpose of securing infant life,—it will be necessary to make an example of it. (Sensation in Court). But, at the same time we must take care that we are right in what we are about, that the person shall not be convicted, although charged with a crime, unless, beyond all question, the guilt of that crime be brought home to her.—There is another piteous case also. And here we have to guard ourselves against the strong feelings which always beset such a case. It is the case of a child who is said to have been deprived of life by the ill-treatment of her parent and a near relation. When a matter of this kind arises, I should rather say when a child has died while in charge of a parent, in circumstances that naturally excite a suspicion and a doubt whether the child had been fairly and properly treated, or whether unfair and improper treatment has caused the catastrophe, there is no neighbourhood which is not alive with sympathy—no woman's tongue will be silent, no man's arm will be still, until persons charged with such atrocities are brought to trial. It is that strong feeling which suspicion alone in such cases will arouse, against which we here should all guard ourselves. We come here, dispassionately and without feeling—with judgment and discretion—to administer justice according to the particular circumstances of each case—to avoid as much as possible prejudices of popular feeling, and to look at each case fairly in all its aspects.—Gentlemen, I did, in the course of yesterday, refer to the returns of criminality in this county for the last 8 years. I rejoice to find that crime is not on the increase. Doubtless, much of the decrease of crime may result from a decrease of poverty. Where men have work and are well fed and happy, you have less of crime. That may be one cause. But certainly, there is a decrease in the amount of crime, on the whole returns. I am not now speaking with regard to this calendar. That affords no test; because you have disposed of many cases at sessions; and without having the sessions calendar also, it is impossible to form any estimate of the general returns of the county. I find that in 1844, the number of commitments in Cornwall was 269; in 1845, 272; in 1846, 280; in 1847, 341; (which, you may remember, was the year of distress); in 1848, 272; in 1849, 277; in 1850, from 277 the number went down to 226; and l am happy to say, that in 1851—the returns go no further—the number went down to 210; showing, gentlemen, a declension from 1849, annually, as far as the returns go. On the whole, it appears beyond all question that not only is this number in 1851 less than that of the preceding year, but if we take the average of the eight years, which is a fair way of estimating the extent of criminality, the average gives 268 annually, which is 58 more than the number in last year. This is most satisfactory; because it shows, as far as returns can, a diminution of crime. I have taken the commitments. But I have also compared the acquittals, and I find that the proportion is remarkably similar in every year; varying in small degree; but on the whole, the acquittals are to the commitments, as 8 to 27—not amounting to 1 in 3.—Gentlemen, these are not the only results I have found. In the whole eight years, you have had here but two convictions for murder. I also find that in those 8 years, there have been only 5 convictions for stabbing, shooting, or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Therefore, considering the population of the county, you have great reason to congratulate yourselves as to its state at present. I cannot but think that this state of the county must have resulted very much from your own endeavours among your people. Gentlemen, it does not belong to any one of us to say—“Am I my brother's keeper?" The answer is, we are our brother's keepers. Every one is bound by his example, his sympathy, his assistance, his protection, to aid that brother. And it seems to me, I own, that that doctrine has very much been acted on in this county. For, looking at this calendar, I find only one person without any religious impressions received. The others appear to have been educated religiously, some more than others; but only one out of the whole 22 to have been entirely devoid of religious knowledge. Gentlemen, I cannot conclude my address without calling attention to that eloquent statesmanlike speech made on the occasion of the last change of ministry, in which the speaker advocated that which would beyond all question assist in the diminution of crime, as well as improve the condition and safety of the country. He says—"The greater amount of education we can give—the more widely it is spread among all classes of Her Majesty's subjects—the greater chance will there be for the preservation of the tranquillity and happiness and well-being of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. But the education to be followed by such results is not the mere development of the intellectual faculties—the mere acquisition of temporal knowledge—the mere instruction that enables a man to improve his social condition in life, and gives him fresh habits and fresh means of accommodating himself to their enjoyment; but, that education which includes the culture of the mind and soul, laying the foundation of all knowledge on the basis of scripture."—On this basis, gentlemen, the welfare of this country must rest. I have now, with these observations, which the cases on the calendar and the state of your county have evoked, only to request that you will return some bills at your earliest convenience. The Grand Jury then retired to their chamber. By the courtesy of the learned Judge to the representatives of the press present, we are enabled to give in full the table which his Lordship had compiled from the Returns of Commitments and Acquittals in the last 8 years :— Commitments. Acquittals. 1844 269 78 1845 272 81 1846 280 101 1847 341 100 1848 272 94 1849 277 85 1850 226 47 1851 210 50 TRIALS OF PRISONERS. NICHOLAS GIDLEY, 44, & ANTHONY HAWKEY, 22, were indicted for having, on the night of the 15th of June, burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of John Francis the younger, in the parish of , and stolen therefrom a double-barrelled gun, the property of the said John Francis the younger.—The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Bevan; the prisoners were undefended— Anne Francis stated that she was the wife of John Francis the elder, and lived at Tennell Farm in the parish of Landulph. About half-past 10 o'clock on Tuesday night the 15th June, she went into the dairy and saw the outside doors and windows all fastened secure. About half-past 4 the next morning she went into the dairy and found that the window had been broken at the bottom dern, and that the wire lattice was broken away, making a hole large enough for a person to go through—John Francis the younger:—l live at Tennell Farm, with my father, and with my mother the last witness. I had a double-barrelled gun, which I kept over a stove in the kitchen; there are two doors between the kitchen and dairy. I last saw the gun in the kitchen on Monday the 14th of June, and missed it on Thursday morning the 17th. I immediately went to Devonport and and gave information at the Police Stations. Anthony Hawkey had left our service about a fortnight before the robbery. In consequence of a letter I received from Mark Merritt, superintendent of police at Tavistock, I went to Tavistock on the Friday week after the robbery, and saw the gun at Ellis's Inn, and afterwards gave information to the constable at Devonport.—William Ellis. I keep an Inn at Tavistock. I saw the two prisoners there on Thursday the 17th of June, between 10 and 11 in the forenoon; they came together and had a gun wrapped in a smock- frock or a piece of wrapper. The gun now produced is the same. They came in and had a pint of cider, and Gidley introduced the gun for sale; he said he was "hard up," and wanted to sell the gun for 2l. I told him I did not want any thing of the sort, but if he was driven up, I would give him 1l. for it. He said he would not. I went about my business; and the prisoners stopped there some time; in about half an hour, Gidley asked me if I would give 30 shillings. I told him "no." He left me, and went back into the Tap-room, and sat down there with Hawkey. Some time after that, the two men met me in the passage, and Gidley said I should have the gun for 25s. I told him "no, I would not." Hawkey was outside the door, and Gidley went out and consulted with him, and then came to me and said I should have the gun. Then I questioned him whether he got by the gun honestly; he said, yes, but that he was driven up for a time and wanted some money. I gave him a sovereign for it. I kept the gun till the Saturday afterward, and then sold it for two sovereigns to a man called Vigurs. Thinking the men had not come honestly by the gun, I gave information to the police at Plymouth.—Mark Merritt, superintendent of police at Tavistock. I received information which induced me on the 22nd of June to call at Ellis's public-house, and in consequence of what took place there, I went to Vigurs's house at Tavistock and received a gun, which I have now produced.—Robert Ellis, constable of Devonport. On the 28th of June I apprehended Anthony Hawkey at Devonport near the market. I said, "Anthony, how long have you been out of gaol?" He said, "near 4 months. I told him I had another charge against him—for breaking and entering a house in Cornwall, in company with another man and stealing a gun and selling it at Tavistock. He said "I know nothing about it; no one can prove I ever stole the gun."—By the Judge. I believe 40 shillings is the outside value of the gun.—Nicholas Brent, constable:—On the 28th June, from information I received from Merritt, the superintendent at Tavistock, I apprehended Gidley in a beer shop at Stonehouse; I told him he was charged with breaking and entering by night, Mr. Francis's house at Tennell in Cornwall, and stealing a double-barrelled gun and selling it at Tavistock. He said "that's a very serious charge," and asked if I had a magistrate's warrant. I said, no I had not. He said, "then you shall not take me." I told him that my telling him the charge and that I was a constable, was quite sufficient to justify my taking him. He resisted for some time, but at last said "if I must go, I must"; and I took him into custody. — Verdict, Both Guilty.—A previous conviction was proved against Hawkey, at the October Sessions, 1851, for stealing geese the property of Richard Roberts; for which he was sentenced to 4 months' hard labour.—Sentences:—GIDLEY, Twelve months' hard labor. HAWKEY, 10 years' transportation. Robert Ellis, the Devonport constable, now reported to the Judge, that he had received a warrant from the Rev. Thomas Hunt Ley, a magistrate of and Cornwall, for the apprehension of both prisoners on another charge of robbery, committed in Devon; and Mr. Ley had desired him to request the opinion of the Court how to act.—The learned JUDGE said, as to Hawkey, who had been sentenced to transportation, he need take no further steps; but as to Gidley, the warrant had better be lodged with the Governor of the prison, and, before the term of imprisonment expired, a writ of habeas corpus must be obtained for his removal in custody to Devon, to be tried on this last charge. [In the course of this trial, the learned Judge, holding in his hand a paper and, apparently, referring to its contents, the nature of which, however, did not transpire, bestowed on Mr. Everest the commendatory remark:—"These duties are very well performed by the Governor of this Gaol.”] UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN.— JOHN KARSLAKE, 53, and ELIZABETH VANSTONE, 27, were charged with having, at Launceston, unlawfully and knowingly uttered and put off certain pieces of false and counterfeit coin, apparently intended to resemble and pass for certain of the Queen's silver coins, called a sixpenny piece, a shilling, and a half-crown.—There were three counts.—ln the first, the prisoners were both charged with the aggravated offence of uttering on several occasions within the period of ten days; and in the other counts they were simply charged with the uttering, on two different days— namely, the 7th and 9th of July.—Mr. Moody and Mr. Stock, Counsel for the Mint, conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended. Mr. MOODY in opening the case stated that in order to bring this charge home to both prisoners, it was not now, as formerly, necessary to prove that they were both together at the time of actually uttering; it was enough to show that they were engaged together in the common purpose of uttering counterfeit coin, and assisting each other.—Ann Weldon deposed:—I live at Launceston and let lodgings there. Prisoners came together to my lodgings, on Monday the 5th of July. The female prisoner brought with her a basket and, I think, a handkerchief bundle. The basket remained with me from the Monday until the prisoners were taken up on the following Friday. They went out together on the Tuesday morning and and (sic) remained till the Tuesday evening. On the Wednesday, they did not carry out their goods; they were out in the town, but I cannot say if they went out together. They were in and out in the course of Wednesday, and the female was washing that day. On the Friday, Sambell, the police officer, came to me, and I showed him the goods which prisoner brought into the house.—William Pinch: I keep the Bell Inn, at Launceston. Between 8 and 9, in the evening of Wednesday the 7th of July, Karslake came to my house and had a quart of beer which he paid for with a bad half-crown, to my wife, and I took it from her in the prisoner's presence. I told him it was a bad half crown, and while I was saying so to him, the female prisoner came in and said that he was not aware that it was a bad one, but that if it was a bad one, he had better pay with some good money that he had, and destroy the bad one. I asked Karslake where he got it, and he said he did not know. He then paid me with a good shilling, and, after cutting the bad half-crown with a knife, he threw it in the fire. I told him he had better be careful not to try to pass any more bad money, or I should be called in evidence against him. He said he had never done any thing of the sort in his life. The two prisoners left my house together.— Thomas Hutchings:—l am landlord of The London inn, in Launceston. The prisoner came into my house between 7 and 8 o'clock, on the evening of the 7th July. He asked for a pint of beer and offered in payment a shilling, and I gave him 9½d. in change. I put the shilling in my pocket, having no other shilling there. I kept it in my pocket till the next morning and then I found it was a bad one. On Friday the 9th, between 4 and 5 in the afternoon, he came to my house and had two half-pints of beer and tendered a shilling again to me. I left the kitchen where he was sitting and went to the bar for the purpose of examining it; and when he saw me looking at it, he directly said, "if that is a bad shilling, I have a good sixpence." I threw the shilling on the table and said any person could see that it was bad. He directly took it up, put it into his pocket, and paid me with a good sixpence, for which I gave him change. I went and gave information to Higgs the constable and, after I had marked the shilling, I gave it into his custody. I did not see the woman there, at the time he passed the coin to me.—Samuel Higgs, constable, produced the shilling, which was identified by the witness Hutchings.—Mary Cottle:—I keep the Jubilee Inn in Launceston. Karslake came to my house in the after part of the 9th of July, and had a glass of beer, for which he put a sixpence on the table, and I gave him 4½d. change. I took up the sixpence and said "I don't think it is good;" on which he took the bad sixpence and put it in his pocket, drank up his beer and went out.—By the Judge:—The woman was not with him.—Thomas John Colwell, of the Exeter Inn, Launceston. The prisoner Karslake came to my house between 9 and 10 in the evening of the 9th July, and had a pint of beer, for which he offered 6d. I examined the 6d. and found it was bad. I went to the policeman Sambell, who was waiting in an adjoining room, and handed the 6d. to him. I then called the prisoner into the room where Sambell was, and Sambell searched him. I marked the 6d. as I gave it to Sambell.—By the Judge:—The female prisoner was not with him.—Benjamin Sambell, constable of Launceston. On the 9th of July, I had received information about Karslake, and was on the look-out for him. I met him in the street and watched him to see where he went. Where I first met him was between the Jubilee and London Inns; the female prisoner, whom he called his wife, was within a few feet of him. I saw him go into the Exeter Inn, and the woman stopped close outside; I went into the inn, and took Karslake into custody, after Colwell had given me the sixpence. I searched him and found he had 6½d. in copper. When I brought him out of Colwell's, the female prisoner was standing near, by the dark side of the market. I went and locked up the prisoner, and afterwards took the female prisoner in custody in the street, as she was going towards her lodgings; I took her to the London Inn, and said I should send for a female to search her; she said I need not do that, and took out of her pocket several pieces of coin and a thimble, full of Plaster of Paris. After that, I went to her lodgings, and, in Mrs. Weldon's presence, took some plaster of Paris in a handkerchief out of her pocket. I had seen the two prisoners together frequently during the week.—The case had all but gone to the jury, when Mr. MOODY discovered that he had not proved that the coins were bad. He then called Michael Maunder, silversmith, of Bodmin, who proved that the coins produced were counterfeit.—In summing up, the learned JUDGE directed the jury that there was no proof of the female prisoner's participation with the male prisoner in the transaction of the seventh of July, and, consequently, she must be acquitted on the first count; and he thought the proof of her participation, as respected the utterings on the ninth, was of a doubtful character.—The jury found Karslake GUILTY, on the first count; and ACQUITTED the female prisoner. Sentence:—Twelve months hard labour. A CHARACTER FOR CORNWALL.—Before passing sentence in the previous case, the learned Judge, as usual, asked questions concerning the habits and character of the prisoner, which proved anything but satisfactory. He then asked the prisoner if he was not an Irishman. The prisoner replied, no; he was one of Devonshire.—The learned JUDGE then said:—"You might as well have stayed in Devon, to give it the benefit of your services. It seems to me, from what I see, that the calendar contains more prisoners that are foreigners, than belong to the county. It appears to me that if Cornwall had its rights, not one half of the prisoners on its calendars would be found to belong to the county. JOSEPH HAWKE, who had been admitted to bail, was charged with having, on the 13th of July, unlawfully and maliciously stabbed, cut, and wounded William Arthur, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.—(The prosecutor, in this case, had just been found guilty, before Baron Martin, of stealing a lead pump, the property of Sir S. T. Spry). Mr. LOPEZ conducted the prosecution; Mr. ROGERS the defence. William Arthur, the prosecutor, stated:—I am a labourer, and previous to the 13th of July, I had been in the employ of the prisoner. At that day, he owed me 7s. 6d. for wages and 2d. for leeks, and I went to his house and asked him to pay me. He told me he did not owe me any thing, and that if I was not gone, he would kick my guts out and kill me. At that time, I had one leg inside the prisoner's house, and one leg outside. He told his daughter to take a pike and run it into my breast. As she ran towards me with the pike, I took up an old kettle that would hold about a gallon, and said, "Madam, if you come on with the pike, I'll knock you down with this." Hawke then caught the pike out of his daughter's hands, and struck me on the head with the claw end of it, and I fell down dead. I was carried home by four or five men in a cart, and was under the doctor's care for a fortnight. I fear I shall feel the effects of it for ever; my hearing is nearly all gone in the left ear.—Ann Solomon, married woman, of Lower St. Columb:—On the evening of the 13th July, about half-past 5, I was outside Hawke's house, and heard Arthur demanding wages of Hawke. Hawke said he would not; and then some words passed and I saw Hawke knock down Arthur with a pike. Some words had passed between Arthur and Hawke's daughter; I heard her say she would knock him down with a pike; and he said, if she did, he would knock her down with the iron kettle. Then Hawke took the pike and gave Arthur a blow on the side of the head, and he fell to the ground, like dead; and Hawke gave him another blow with the pike. Arthur lay on the ground some time quite insensible.—Jane May gave similar evidence to that of the last witness.—George Jewell, surgeon, of St. Columb Minor, on the 13th July was called on, about 12 at night, to attend Arthur, and found him in bed, at his own house, faint from loss of blood. There was an extensive laceration of the integuments of the forehead on one side; the wound was about an inch long and a quarter of an inch wide, and had been made by a blunt instrument. He vomited, and I was satisfied that he had been drinking spirits. At the time, I considered the wound to be of a dangerous character.—For the defence, Mr. ROGERS adverted to points he had elicited in cross-examination, in anticipation of his own case, which was that the alleged assault by the prisoner was justifiably committed by him, after an aggravating insult, and in defence of his daughter. He then called Ellen Hawke, a daughter of the prisoner, 18 years old. Her evidence was:—l recollect the 13th of this month. I was at home with my father and mother. About half-past 5, William Arthur came to the house; he was very drunk. I was in the kitchen at the time. He came into the kitchen and asked where father was. I told him father was up in the higher room; mother also was up there sewing. Arthur went up, and spat in father's face. I saw him do that. And he also put his fist between father's eyes several times. Father did not say anything. Mother rose up and said—"William Arthur, you are very drunk, you had better go home and go to bed." With that he up with his fist and knocked her down. He then shut the door, and swore he would kill us all. I was outside, and said to Jane May, "he is in, going to kill father and mother." He is generally drunk. When he came out, I said to him, "Arthur, if you are not gone, I'll knock you down with the pike." He then took up a large iron thing that would hold about 2 gallons, and swore he would throw it at me. I expected he would, and I ran away. Then father came out, took the pike out of my hand, and gave him one blow. I had heard Arthur that same evening say to father "pay me my wages." Father said, "you owe me 7s. 6d. for rent, and I owe you 7s. 6d. for wages." He had lived in a cottage of father's, and went away without paying the rent.—ln summing up, the JUDGE told the Jury that if they believed the evidence of the prisoner's daughter, the blow given by her father, though, perhaps a more violent one than was intended, was given by him in defence of his daughter who was in danger, and was a justifiable act under the circumstances.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY. WILLIAM PRINCE, 24, pleaded GUILTY to two indictments:—the one charging him with burglary and robbery at the dwelling-house of James Davey, in the parish of Gwennap, on the 29th of March; and the other, with burglary and robbery at the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Dryden, also in the parish of Gwennap, on the 8th of March.—There had been a previous conviction against him; and the JUDGE reminded him that he had been concerned, with two other prisoners, in attempting to escape from gaol.—Sentence, transportation for 15 years. The Court was then adjourned to 10 o'clock on Monday. NISI PRIUS COURT. The learned JUDGE, Mr. Baron Martin, took his seat in this court at half-past ten o'clock. The following was the Cause List:—

Plaintiff’s Plaintiffs. Defendants Action Defendant’s Attorney. Attorney Coode & Co. Hernaman, Pender & anr. Trover. Assignee, v. Chaplin and Doe J - Couch Tres. Towsey. Williams. rison v. Grylls & Hill Dingley v. Lyle Debt. Woodroffe.

. Doe Dem.—HARRISON v. COUCH.—This was an action of ejectment brought to recover property belonging to Mrs. Harrison, situated in the parishes of St. Stephens and St. Breward, in this county. Defendant held the property under a lease, which he had forfeited by non-compliance with a covenant for erecting dwelling-houses. The action was undefended, and the ancient personage "John Doe," as the Judge observed, was for the last time called upon, this legal form having been done away with by a recent act of parliament. The learned Judge certified for immediate execution, under which plaintiff will be put into possession forthwith. DINGLEY v. LYLE.—Plaintiff was Mr. Edward Dingley, of Falmouth; defendant was Mr. Joseph Lyle. This was an action for goods sold and delivered. Defendant had paid 8l. 5s. into court, and the record was withdrawn on his agreeing to pay the further sum of 55l. 18s., in satisfaction of debt and costs. HERNAMAN assignee, v. PENDER and ANOTHER.—Mr. CROWDER and Mr. COLLIER appeared for plaintiff; Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH for defendant. Mr. CROWDER stated that this action was brought by Mr. Hernaman, official assignee in the Court of Bankruptcy, for the benefit of the creditors of Mr. Thomas Penrose Dixon, of Falmouth. The defendants were Miss Mary and Miss Betsy Pender, of Falmouth. They were amongst the creditors of Mr. Dixon, and the object of this action was to recover from them property to the amount of 69l. odd, of which they were in possession, and which, it was alleged, ought to be applied to the benefit of the creditors generally. Mr. Dixon, the bankrupt, had carried on business in Falmouth for a great number of years, as a printer and stationer; he was also agent for a steam packet company, and carried on business in other ways. About 1849 or 1850 he became embarrassed, and borrowed 60l. of the defendants, as security for which, he gave them a bill of sale on the 6th of March, 1850. After this Mr. Dixon continued in possession of the property, although the mortgage became absolute at the end of 1850, the 60l. not being repaid. Then on the 27th of November, 1851, he made a declaration of insolvency, and was adjudicated a bankrupt on the 4th of December. But under a bill of sale a bailiff had been put in possession previously; the goods were removed to the opposite side of the street on the 3rd of December, and on the 4th they were sold by auction, and realized 69l. odd. The greater part of the goods, types, presses, and so on, were bought by parties and restored to the bankrupt, who has them now in possession and use. By this means the general body of creditors had been deprived of the proceeds of the goods. The question then was, whether the two defendants were entitled to the property under this bill of sale. He contended that they were not, and said he should prove that the bankrupt was not in a solvent state at the time the bill of sale was given. Admissions with regard to some of the above stated facts were then put in, but defendant's counsel would not admit the act of bankruptcy. Thomas Biden, accountant in the Exeter District Court of Bankruptcy, was then examined, and stated that he had been employed by bankrupt to examine into his affairs; that his instructions were personal, and he had a note of them.—Mr. M. SMITH objected that this could not be received as evidence. Mr. CROWDER then proposed to put in the balance sheet, but this met with a similar objection. Mr. Thomas P. Dixon was then examined by Mr. Crowder as to the debts he owed to different parties, with the view of showing that he was in an insolvent state before the bill of sale was given. Witness said that in March 1850, when the bill of sale was given, he was lessening his debts, but had not sufficient assets to discharge his debts. If his stock-in-trade, furniture, &c., had been sold at a fair price instead of at the lower auction prices, he thought he should have had enough to pay off his debts at that time. On further examination witness said, though he thought his property sufficient then, he did not now think it was. After giving the bill of sale in March 1850, he went on as before in his business, till November 1851. On the 3rd of December, when the goods were removed from his house, he was not at home, and had nothing to do with the transaction. The man Julyan was in possession when witness left, which was about the end of November. Witness did not communicate with the Penders before he left home; he did not tell them to send a man there to take charge of the property. At the sale on the 4th of December, witness was not present; he studiously avoided having anything to do with it. The greater part of the things afterwards came back to him. They were bought at the sale by Mr. Pascoe, Mr. Still, and the cashier of the bank. These were friends of witness, and it was a voluntary act on their part. The goods were now their property; it was a loan on their part to him. Witness had since carried on business with those goods, and had been paying them by instalments for what they bought. Cross-Examined by Mr. M. Smith—These were friends of mine; they had nothing to do with the Misses Pender. In March, 1850, I wanted some money and went to Mr. Pender, a solicitor, and he got £60 for me from the Misses Pender, and I executed the bill of sale. The man Julyan came in on behalf of the Misses Pender. Mr. Young, of London, was my solicitor; I do not know that Mr. Pender had any communication with him in November. Re-Examined—l did not give defendants notice that I was to be a bankrupt; I cannot tell how they came to take possession, excepting it was that half a year's interest had not been paid. I had previously paid them interest. The bill of sale was then put in, it being an assignment by way of mortgage. The learned JUDGE held that it was necessary to prove the petitioning creditors' debt existed at the time the bill of sales was given, and that proof, he said, had not been given. The admission made was only that the petitioning creditors' debt was due on the day when the declaration of insolvency took place, whereas defendant's title, under the bill of sale, existed a year and nine months before that time— Plaintiff’s counsel still urged that there was a case for the jury; that there was some evidence of this being a fraudulent assignment, under the statute of Elizabeth; also under the bankruptcy law, Mr. Dixon being a trader; and thirdly, that he contemplated bankruptcy at the time of making the bill of sale. The learned JUDGE, however, without hearing Mr. Smith in reply, held that plaintiff had failed in making out his case, and that there was no evidence to go to the jury. Plaintiff’s title to the goods, if any; accrued on the 27th of November, 1851, and not before. The effect of the bankruptcy law was to transfer from the bankrupt to the assignee, all his property for the benefit of his creditors. But this applied only to property which belonged to him at the time of the act of bankruptcy. In his (the Judge's) opinion, this property did not belong to him, but to the defendant, at the time of the bankruptcy, they having in March 1850, advanced money to Dixon and taken a mortgage, and then allowed him to go on in possession. In some cases they might have raised a question of fraudulent transaction; but the present was not a case of that kind. The question was, whose property the goods were? In his opinion they were the property of defendant, by the operation of the deed which conveyed the property to them; therefore he directed that the jury find a verdict for the defendant.—Verdict accordingly for defendant. The Court then proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. WILLIAM ARTHUR, 40, was charged with stealing a leaden pump, the property of Sir Samuel Thomas Spry. He was also indicted for receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. KARSLAKE conducted the prosecution. The evidence of Thomas Chergwin, clerk to Mr. Chilcott, solicitor for Sir Samuel T. Spry, was to the effect that the farm of Trebilzue, in St. Columb parish, was occupied by Mr. Richard Tremain, as tenant, up to Michaelmas last, and at that period there was a pump standing in the back-yard.—This pump, it appears, was afterwards missed. A witness called William Hawke, stated that shortly before Easter the prisoner came into his shop, in Mawgan parish, and asked if he had heard of a pump having been stolen at Trebilzue. Witness said "yes," and prisoner then said, "I have got it." He also said, "I thought it would do for your little well." Witness replied, "I will have nothing to do with it." Prisoner then said, "if you do not like to buy it, but will go with me to where it is concealed, you shall have half of it." I said I would have nothing to do with it; I would not have it on my premises for 1000l."—After this witness had given his evidence, prisoner stated that he had spoken what was false; that the witness's brother had assaulted him (prisoner), and they had agreed to bring this false evidence against him. To this the witness replied that he had nothing to do with the squabble between his brother and the prisoner. Another witness, John Hawke, a blacksmith, of Lower St. Columb, said that some time in July last, prisoner told him he had had Trebilzue pump, and had carried it down and laid it in the brake.—Sarah Scoble, wife of Henry Scoble, marine store dealer at Cubert, stated that her husband bought the lead produced in court of the prisoner, last Friday three weeks; prisoner said he bought it at a sale, and that he could bring the auctioneer to say so.—Henry Scoble confirmed his wife's statement, and said he sold some of the lead he bought of prisoner to Whitburn, a servant of Burridge, marine store dealer at Truro. Policeman Fitzsimmons, having received information, found the lead at Burridge's shop, and afterwards went to Scoble's, where he found more lead that had been purchased of prisoner, and going to Trebilzue he found the pieces fitted to what was left of the pump. Prisoner, on being called on, said if he was struck dead that moment, he never stole the pump; he had found some "old trade" thrown over the cliff. Verdict, GUILTY of receiving, knowing to have been stolen.—Three months' hard labour. PETER BISHOP, 46, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a candlestick, belonging to William Spargo; also "to having been twice previously convicted of felony. The Judge said the prosecutor did not wish him to be severely punished; otherwise it would be his duty, when there had been previous convictions, to pass a sentence of transportation.—Six months' hard labour. MARY FRANCIS, 17, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, in May last, at Redruth, an Orleans visette, and a calico night gown. In aswer (sic) to his lordship, prisoner said she had no father and mother. Policeman Tregoning was asked if he had known anything against her before this. He replied that he had not. His lordship then cautioned the prisoner not to be found in this position again, or she would have a severe sentence passed upon her.—One fortnight's imprisonment. JOSEPH PHILLIPS, 33, & MARGARET TURNER, 20, were charged with stealing a velvet coat, the property of William Hawke, of , near Launceston. In another count the female prisoner was charged with receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen. On the 30th of June prisoner called at the house of Hawke's master, offering to mend umbrellas and sell tapes. Hawke had placed his coat over the shippen door. After prisoner had left, the coat was missed, and the same evening it was found in a bed- room he had occupied. There was no evidence against the woman, and the Judge directed an acquittal. Phillips was found GUILTY, and sentenced to Six months' hard labour. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.—CALEB LORD 31, and SUSAN OVER,33, were indicted for the manslaughter of John Lord, in the parish of Mevagissey. The prisoners were also charged with the same offence on the coroner's inquisition. The prosecuting counsel, Mr. ARCHER, made application for the postponement of the case on the ground of the absence through illness, of the most material witness, Jemima Hunkin; the probability was, he said, that she would be able to attend on Monday. The learned JUDGE, however, having read Hunkin's deposition before the coroner, declined to accede to counsel's application. The trial then proceeded, prisoners being defended by Mr. Stock. Mr. Archer then stated briefly the nature of the case, and applied to put in as evidence the deposition of Hunkin as taken before the coroner. Mr. Stock objected that it was not receivable as evidence; and his Lordship having referred to the acts 11th and 12th Victoria, c. 42, and 7th George 4th, c. 64, was of opinion that the deposition could not be read and taken as evidence; the coroner was not to be considered, in such a case, as a justice. The following witnesses were then called on for the prosecution:— Jane George—l reside at Mevagissey, and am a widow. I knew the late wife of the prisoner, and attended her in her illness. I remained in the prisoner's house three months after her death, which took place about eleven months ago. The child John Lord was healthy and well whilst I was there. Prisoner had three children. This child was about two years old when I went there, and could walk round the house holding by the things. Children of two years can generally walk without assistance. I had a quarrel with the prisoner, and left about a week before Christmas. I left on the Wednesday, and he sent for me to return on Sunday morning. When I returned, the child was blind in both eyes, and had a little "scruff" between the two eyes. I remained in the house three weeks after that. I have seen prisoner strike his children; have seen him slap the deceased child John Lord, because he could not walk; he would put him to walk sometimes, and because he did not walk without holding, the father said it was laziness, and would slap him. Cross-examined by Mr. Stock—l never slapped the child myself. The prisoner pretended he would marry me, and has refused to do so. I am not now angry because of that. We had that quarrel before Christmas when he refused. He has also refused since. I am now in the family way, and have had two children before, which were not born in wedlock. Mary Ann Elvins, wife of James Elvins,—I lived under the same roof as the prisoner; his bedroom was over mine. After Jane George (the last witness) left and before she returned, there was no one looking after the children. One morning during her absence, I heard the prisoner say to the child, if he did not call to ease himself, he would knock his young head off. Just then I heard a noise on the floor, as if the child was thrown along, and I heard the child cry. A day or two after, a neighbour called me in, and then I saw a young man in prisoner's house having the child in his arms. The child's eye was then swollen and inflamed, and there was a mark above, looking as if it had been caused by falling. It looked like a knock, and there appeared to be a film over it—Cross-examined—When I heard the child cry, it appeared to be a young child. Rev. Mr. Alban, vicar of Mevagissey—l saw the deceased child about six months after its birth; it appeared then to be a healthy child. I have seen it since. In consequence of information, I went to prisoner's house in May, and told Caleb Lord I had heard certain reports of the neglect and ill-usage of the child. He said he was aware the child was not taken proper care of, but that it would be very different soon, as he intended again to be married in a week or two. I had some conversation also with the female prisoner; I stated to her I heard there were these reports; she denied that there was any truth in them. The child then seemed in a very weak state of health, & could not stand. I went two or three times afterwards, but the door was locked and I could not obtain admission. On a subsequent occasion, about a week or two after I had seen the prisoner, I obtained admission. My attention was not then called so much to this child as to another which was in the same state,—the child of the female prisoner, Susan Over. In three or four weeks after that, I again saw the child; he was then sadly altered; he was sitting on one stool and his head leaning on another. I recommended that medical attendance should be had. I again saw the child the day before his death, on a Monday; he was then in much the same state as when I saw him previously. Cross-examined by Mr. Stock—The child was brought to Mrs. Alban when she lost her own; she nursed it for a time. The child l am aware had been in a weakly state of health; it was a weakly child, and subject to eruptions on the skin. It was about six or eight weeks before the child's death that prisoner told me it would be soon taken more care of because he was about to marry. The last occasion but one that I saw the child, Susan Over told me the child had been so ill she wondered he was not dead. Mr. Timothy Ball, surgeon at Mevagissey—I was called to attend John Lord the Saturday before his death, which took place in July. When I called, it was late, and there being no one at home, I called again on the Sunday morning, and then saw the child for the first time. He was then in a corner of the room, sitting on one stool and leaning his head on another. The child was very much emaciated, was blind in one eye, and had a wound in the side of the head; he also appeared to be suffering from disease of the lungs. The eye appeared to have been gone for some weeks, or perhaps months, the pupil being white. I made a post mortem examination of the body. There was great disease of the lungs; consumption of the lungs I believe to have been the cause of the child's death. There was no food in the child's stomach. Mr. ARCHER—Did the body of the child present an appearance of care or not? Mr. Ball—I should say not; there was great emaciation, disease of the lungs, emptiness, and contraction of the stomach. Cross- examined—Consumption of the lungs is a disease that takes some months to progress to a fatal issue, and may be brought on by natural causes without any ill treatment. Mr. STOCK—Suppose the child to have been a weakly child, would not such a child be more likely to contract that disease than a healthy one? Witness—I should say he might; I think he would be more subject to it, unless it should be inflammation on the lungs. Mr. STOCK—l need not ask you whether great emaciation may not be produced by disease without ill-treatment? Witness—We occasionally meet with it so. Witness further said, I had not known this child before. The prisoner, Susan Over, brought the child to my house on the Saturday, but I was out of town; I heard of it and therefore went to see the child on the Saturday night, but was then too late. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. STOCK, for the defence, submitted that there was no evidence of any kind against the female prisoner. Mr. ARCHER observed that the prosecution had lost the principal witness. The learned JUDGE in summing up, said there was not a particle of evidence against the woman: and he did not see that there was anything conclusive against the man. He seemed to be a man who got his livelihood by his labour, and it appeared that whilst Jane George was in his house, sometime in January, the prisoner slapped the child for not walking properly. It might be a barbarous thing for a man to slap a child so, but it did not appear that that had anything to do with the child's death, for the evidence was that the child died of disease of the lungs. Now Mary Ann Elvins says, that during the time Jane George was away, she heard prisoner say he would knock his young head off, and that she heard the child thrown along and cry. That might be a barbarous act towards so young a child, but I do not see how it can be connected with the death of the child, which took place in July, six months afterwards, from disease of the lungs. Therefore I think you must find the prisoner not guilty.— A verdict of NOT GUILTY was accordingly returned. The learned JUDGE, addressing the prisoners said—You have been acquitted most properly, because there is not evidence against you. But I have read the statement before the coroner, made by the woman Jemima Hunkin, and certainly if her statement is true, you both were guilty of very barbarous treatment of the child. But the law very properly requires that evidence should be given publicly in open court, and that depositions otherwise taken should not be receivable unless in certain cases coming within the Act of Parliament. If you are acquitted in consequence of the absence of this woman, I am very sorry for it, for if you have treated this child in the way she describes, you have a great deal to answer for.—The learned Judge further observed that there might possibly be exaggeration in the testimony of the absent witness, there being great difference between telling a in that way, and being subjected to cross-examination in open court. The male prisoner, before leaving the dock said,—If I were to be hanged for the child's death, I should be as innocent as the angels in heaven; it is only brought against me because I did not marry the woman.—The female prisoner also said she never ill-used the child. JOHN SWAN, 34, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 22nd July, a curry-comb, the property of Stephen Luxon, of Bodmin.—One month's hard labour. WILLIAM BARRATT, 13, was found GUILTY of stealing a watch, chain, and key, the property of Owen Conner.—Three Months' hard labour. ARSON.— JOHN MANSELL, 19, was indicted for having, on the 22nd of April, at the parish of Stratton, set fire to a stack of hay, the property of Shilson Tuke. Mr. HUGHES for the prosecution called the following witnesses: William Brimacombe recollected seeing a haystack on fire near his house, on Thursday morning, the 22nd April, about 5 o'clock; he went to endeavour to save some of it, but could not succeed. He searched around by the stack, and found a piece of stick which he gave to a policeman.—Thomas Maynard, apprentice to Robert Woodley, blacksmith, near Stratton, said prisoner was in his master's shop on Wednesday, the 21st April, and remained there three hours. He had not been long there before he asked witness about Mr. Shearm's hay stack; which had been set fire to. (This had taken place some time before). Prisoner said he saw the two men at Bodmin who set it on fire. He also said, "some one shall have a good spree with me tomorrow, to take me up, for I want to do something to get transported." Whilst prisoner was in the shop he had a white withy in his hand. He put the end of the stick into the forge fire, and the end was burnt. When the prisoner left the shop, about 6 o'clock, he went on the Holsworthy road, in the direction of the stack of hay. Next morning about half- past six, he went out to him, and said “Now you have done a pretty job." He said "I am d—d if I care." I said he must be a pretty fool to set the rick on fire, and he said he did not care. I then asked him to come inside the shop where I was at work; when he came in, I asked him if he had set the hay-stack on fire sure enough? He said, "yes, I have." He said he burnt nearly a box of matches to set it on fire because the wind was so hard. After this he took some lucifer matches from his pocket and threw them into the forge fire. I told him to stay there a minute or two, and master would come; he did so, and on my telling him, he took prisoner into custody.—Robert Woodley, blacksmith, said after he took prisoner into custody, he took him to where the hay-rick was burning, and told him he had better to have begged than to have done it. He replied that he might as well be sent away for that as any other thing. I asked him when the fire happened, and he said about five o’clock.—Policeman Jarrett, stated that he apprehended prisoner on the 22nd of April as an escaped convict. He questioned him as to the gaols he had been into; he said he had never been convicted but once, which was at Bodmin at the time that Simmons and another man were tried for setting fire to Mr. Shearm’s hayrick. Prisoner said he set fire to the hayrick they had just left. I asked him what made him do it? He said he was hungry, and wanted something to eat.—The policeman also spoke of finding the piece of stick at the place of the rick, and on asking the prisoner about it, he said it was his walking-stick. The jury without hesitation found the prisoner GUILTY; and a previous conviction for stealing carpet bags from Mr. Joseph Edwards, in 1851, was proved against him. The learned Judge, in passing sentence, said the prisoner had been guilty of as bad and mischievous a crime as he ever heard proved against any person. If his desire was, as he had stated, to be transported, he would find himself very much mistaken if he thought when transported he should have his liberty, and perhaps be enabled to go to the gold diggings. On the contrary he would be kept in strict custody, and would have very severe punishment inflicted on him. He then sentenced the prisoner to be TRANSPORTED FOR LIFE. RICHARD HARDING was charged with stealing at Bicton, in the parish of St. Ive, two bags containing a quantity of manure, the property of Lord Ashburton.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY.—The Court then rose. ______CROWN COURT, MONDAY, AUGUST 2. (Before Mr. Baron Platt). AN ADMIRALTY CASE. WILLIAM JEMERSON, 26, was indicted for feloniously and fraudulently removing certain marks from certain naval stores, the property of Her Majesty; in a second count, he was charged with removing part of the marks; and in a third count, with employing Mary Bound to do it.—Mr Crowder and Mr. Poulden conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—MR CROWDER, in opening the case, stated that the prisoner was a mason, and also kept a huckster’s shop near . He was indicted under an Act of Parliament passed to protect the naval stores of the country from depredation. In order to facilitate the detection of parties stealing these stores, a worsted thread is interwoven with the strands of the cordage for the navy, to demote that it belongs to Her Majesty, and any person unlawfully manufacturing cordage with this coloured thread, is subject to a severe penalty. In the Chatham dockyard, a yellow denoting thread is used; at Portsmouth, blue, and at Plymouth, red. The act sets out that if any person destroy or take out any of these distinguishing marks from Her Majesty's cordage, he shall be deemed guilty of felony, and be liable to 14 years transportation. Mr. Crowder went on to state, that on the 22nd July, constables, acting on information received, went with a search warrant to Jemerson's shop; and on going from the front shop to the wash-kitchen, Mrs. Jemerson was seen to drop some rope, which the constables picked up; this rope had been unravelled, and a portion of red worsted thread was found in it. Further search was then made, and on the constables proceeding up stairs, to a room occupied by Mary Bound, an old woman, they found a quantity of red worsted in balls. The constables, in prisoner’s presence, charged Mary Bound with taking out the worsted thread; and she said that the prisoner had given it to her to pick, and that she had been a fortnight doing so. The prisoner said he did not wish to get any one into trouble, he gave it to her to pick, but he would tell how he got it.—The constables, Robert Ellis, and Nicholas Brent, gave evidence of these facts; and Mary Bound gave evidence that it was not by desire of the prisoner that she took the worsted thread from the rope, but because she wanted to make a --? for herself.—A quantity of rope was produced in court; and Mr. Besley, chief clerk in the store-keeper’s office, stated that a portion of it was new rope. —Richard Gard, master rope-maker, also stated the same; and both these witnesses stated that no new rope is sold from the dockyard.—Samuel Jennings, whose duty it is to select rope for sale from the dockyard, said that such rope as one of the pieces produced would not be sold from the dockyard; the remainder of that produced was old rope.—With respect to the piece of rope which the witnesses stated was new, or not one-third worn, there was the difficulty that the Queen’s red mark was not distinguishable in it; the rope having been unravelled, and there being only a short piece of red worsted at one end of it, which could not be satisfactorily proved to have been in the rope. The Counsel for the defence urged that it might have become attached to the rope from its having been mixed with the old rope, in some of which the red distinguishing thread was clearly discernible.—A form of certificate was put in by Mr. Crowder, and a clerk in the store-keeper’s office, named William Morris Richards, stated that a similar certificate is given to every purchaser of rope sold from the Dock-yard. The rope, however, it appeared, was sold in lots of 4¼ tons, and afterwards re-sold in smaller lots out of the dock-yard, and there was no evidence that the certificates were ever given to retail purchasers, although, it appears that according to the strict letter of the Act, such certificate should be procured by every purchaser.—At the close of the case, the constable, Robert Ellis, recalled, stated that when the case was before the magistrate, there was some red worsted in the new rope produced.—For the defence, Mr. COLE addressed the jury, urging that there was not the slightest attempt at concealment in the case, and that the prisoner had honestly become possessed of the property, for the purpose of making oakum for sale.—Mr. Richard Elliott, formerly a farmer, gave the prisoner a good character; and the jury found a verdict of ACQUITTAL. In the course of summing up, the learned JUDGE said it was much to be regretted that those sales of old rope should take place at the dock-yard, without previous removal of the distinguishing mark. By the present plan, an innocent man might be placed in peril. By means of convict labour, which he was sorry to say was abundant in this country, the red mark might be cheaply removed previous to sale of the rope. WILLIAM JEMERSON, the same prisoner, was then indicted for having certain naval stores in his possession with Her Majesty’s mark thereon, he not being a contractor, nor a person employed by a contractor. Mr. CROWDER stated, that as the circumstances in this case were the same as in the preceding, on which the jury had found a verdict of acquittal, he should decline to offer any evidence. A verdict of ACQUITTAL was consequently directed. RICHARD GABRIEL, 37, was indicted for unlawfully having in his custody certain naval stores marked with the broad arrow, the property of Her Majesty, and not satisfactorily accounting for the same.—Mr. Crowder and Mr. Poulden again appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. Cole for the defence.—Mr. CROWDER stated that the indictment was preferred under Acts for the protection of the public property, viz., 9 and 10 William 3rd, cap. 41, sect. 2, and 40 George 3rd, cap. 80. Prisoner was placed in charge of one of the lighters used in conveying stores between the dock-yard and vessels in Hamoaze, and he had been 14 years in the service. He was charged with stealing a considerable number of articles—seven pieces of timber, screws, hammers, iron and copper nails, a wedge, hinge, and pieces of canvass. Prisoner lived by the water side at Torpoint. The constables, Ellis and Brent, in consequence of certain information, went on the 22nd of July to the prisoner’s house, where they found the timber in a cellar. Prisoner said he had given 6d. and some beer for it. The nails and some other articles were found in a bag in the prisoner’s garden. All these articles were marked with the broad arrow, and the canvass was markefl (sic) with a blue serpentine streak. The witnesses in the case were the constables Ellis and Brent, Mr. J. Llewellyn, timber inspector in the Dock Yard; Mr. Besley, chief clerk in the storekeeper’s office; and Mr. W. M. Richards, clerk in the storekeeper’s office. Some of the articles were said to be new, and others old; and it was stated that the only way in which a person could obtain such articles, was in conveying them from the dockyard to the ships, or vice versa; and the prisoner had been employed in that way.—The prisoner was found GUILTY, but recommended to mercy. Certificates of prisoner’s good character were handed to the Judge, who sentenced him to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of £5 and the costs of such. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER—GERTRUDE WELLINGTON, aged 22, (but looking some years older) was indicted for the wilful murder of her male child on the 2nd of May, at Luxulyan. The prisoner, on being arraigned, pleaded as follows:—"I am not guilty, Sir; it is not my child, Sir.” The following gentlemen were sworn on the jury:—Messrs. John Husband, Richard Brewer, Joseph Congdon, Richard Dawe, William Green, James Arthur, George Brendon, William Barrett, Thomas Bree, Nicholas Berryman the younger, Philip Hoare, John Giles the younger. After the Jury had been sworn, the learned Judge, addressing the prisoner, said:—"if you like to sit down, young woman, there is a seat, I believe, for you.” The prisoner curtsied respectfully, and sat. Mr. Cole was counsel for the prosecution.—The prisoner had employed no counsel for her defence; and, on this fact being made known to the Judge, His Lordship said: "Gertrude Wellington, it appears that you have not employed any counsel? Prisoner: No, my Lord, I have not. The Judge: Do you desire that Counsel should appear for you? Prisoner: If you please, your Honour; I should be glad to have the protection of the Court. The Judge: You should like to be protected by Counsel, should you? Prisoner: If you please, your Honour, I should. The Judge:—We will see if we can get that protection for you. This being the last case for the Assizes, all the Counsel, with the exception of Mr. Cole, engaged for the prosecution, and Mr. Crowder and Mr Poulden, who had just left the court, and were, it appeared, on the point of departure from Bodmin, were the only Counsel remaining in the town.—Mr. Poulden was sent for, and in a few minutes entered the Court, and was thus addressed by the Judge:—“Mr. Poulden, it would be a great satisfaction to the Court if you would appear and watch the case for this poor woman; she has no Counsel.” Mr. Poulden:—If your lordship will give me some little time—some 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour; I had nearly packed up my things and was going to leave in Mr. Crowder’s carriage. I believe I am the only Counsel left. The Judge:—Yes, I know. But you see how urgent the case is. The fact is we ought not to have postponed this case on Saturday. I dare say you will make a sacrifice in the cause of justice. Mr. Poulden assented; and in a few minutes re-appeared in Court, for the purpose of undertaking the defence. Mr. COLE opened the case for the prosecution, stating that a more important case could scarcely be submitted for the investigation of the jury. It was a most solemn inquiry on which they were about to embark. The charge against the prisoner was that of murder, and no less than the murder of her infant child, which was a crime the most abhorrent to our feelings. Unfortunately, of late, crimes of this description had been very rife in this country, and it was their duty especially to watch cases of that kind when they were brought before them. Far be it from him, however, to prejudice their minds against this prisoner, because similar crimes had been committed by other persons; they were not to be influenced by feelings of humanity on the one side, or of prejudice on the other.—He then stated the circumstances of the case. The prisoner at the bar, Gertrude Wellington, had lived in the service of Mrs Parkyn, at Nanscawen house, in the parish of Luxulyan. On Sunday morning, the 2nd of May last, a man called John Smith went to a pond near Nanscawen house for the purpose of getting water-cresses. On going there he saw a child’s arm showing above the water. He and another man who was present, took the child from the water, and he went to inform Mr. Parkyn of the matter. The body of the child was given to a constable, and an inquest was held, at which a gentleman well known in that neighbourhood, one of the ablest surgeons in the west of , attended and examined the child. He would give his evidence, and would state most distinctly that the child was born alive, that the lungs filled the cavity of the chest, that they appeared to have been inflated, and, in medical language, that they crepitated on being depressed; that the organs were in a healthy state, and the child full grown and a fine infant. Also that on the back of the head of the child there had been inflicted an extensive blow or blows, and that the discolouration with blood was such as could only have taken place when the injury had been received during life, when the circulation was going on in the child. On removing part of the flesh there was also found two or three teaspoonfuls of blood underneath the place where the blow had been inflicted. This was another proof that the child had received the blow during the time of the circulation of the blood. Mr. Nicholas, who had operated at the post mortem examination, would give evidence to the same effect. The evidence which appeared to connect the prisoner with the death of the child, was as follows: On the body of the child being found, the pond was directed to be cleaned out; and just at the spot where the body had been found, there was picked up a woman’s skirt or petticoat, to which there adhered a fleshy substance, which was apparently from the child’s body. That skirt was afterwards shown to several persons, one of whom would state that about three weeks before, she saw the prisoner wearing a similar skirt. A dress-maker would also state, that upwards of three years ago she had made a gown for the prisoner, and that as far as she could judge, the skirt found in the pond had been made from that gown. She would state that it was of the same pattern, though she would not swear that it was the same gown she made for the prisoner. Mrs. Parkyn would also state that some time before the child was found, she had suspicion that the prisoner was in the family way. She asked her about it, on which she at once denied it, said she heard there were such charges against her, that they were utterly false, and she was ready to be examined by any medical man to show it was not the case. Mrs Parkyn, on hearing the girl deny it so strenuously, was staggered, and thought she was mistaken, and no examination was made. Mr. Ward, the surgeon, would however state that the day after the child was found, he examined the woman, and found that she had been recently confined. In addition to this, evidence would be given by a dairymaid, who had slept with the prisoner about three weeks before the child was found. This dairymaid got up in the morning, and made the bed. She turned the tye, and at that time it was perfectly clean, and there were no stains on the blankets. Mrs. Parkyn would however, state, that immediately after the prisoner left her service on the 3rd of May, the day after the child’s body was found, the blankets were very much stained, and so was the bed-tye, which had been washed. Mr. Ward would also state that the stains were such as would be caused if a woman were confined there. These were the facts of the case. The question would be, whether the skirt found was that of the prisoner; if they were satisfied on that point, he thought it would become their painful duty to say the prisoner is guilty of the crime charged against her. He then called on the following witnesses:— John Smith—On the morning of the 2nd of May I was in company with William Trewhella, and went to a pond near Nanscawen house, which is occupied by Mr. Parkyn. I went there to pick water-cresses. I saw there what appeared to be the arm of a child. I called Trewhella from the opposite side of the pond. He came and I took the child out. I went to Mr. Parkyn’s house and informed him. He returned with me, and I took the child to Bennetts the constable. It was a male child, and was dead and naked. As I lifted the child from the water, I saw a fleshy substance fall from it. I afterwards pointed out to John Pascoe the place where I found the child. Robert Parkyn—I live at Nanscawen House, in Luxulyan. The last witness came to my house on the 2nd of May; I followed him soon after, and saw the child lying on the side of the hedge by the pond. I afterwards went to the magistrates, and gave information. On the following day I gave direction to Pascoe to clean the pond. He came and told me he had found a skirt. I sent him to fetch it, and he brought it. I thought I saw a fleshy substance not larger than a pea on it; I put it on the bushes to dry. It was in a very filthy state. It was taken up on the fork, I did not touch it. I gave the skirt to the constable. By the JUDGE—This young woman had lived in my service ten months; she left me after the inquest. She came to live with me on Midsummer-day, 1851. We used the water of the pond, and our people would not use any more of it after the body was found; that was the reason for having the pond cleaned out. The cleaning out was the cause of finding the skirt. John Pascoe—I am servant of Mr. Parkyn, and was employed by him to clear out the pond. Before I began to clear it out I found the skirt. There were some spots of blood about it when I found it. There was a very peat smell with it. I informed my master, and it was taken up to the house. I carried it under a stream of water to wash it. John Smith pointed out to me where the child was found; about a foot from that I found the skirt. [The skirt was here produced]. Cross-examined: I do not know that the pond smelled. Our pot-water came from the pond. Re-examined. The pond did not smell and the child was found in it. By the Judge: There was about a foot of mud in it; it was offensive. By Mr. Cole: It was not offensive till we found the child. The skirt smelled as if something dead had been wrapped up in it. By the Judge—The pond was to be cleared out in the summer and we intended the mud to be used as dressing. The skirt was under the mud; I was using a shovel to prevent the water from running that way, when I found the skirt. This was on the Monday, and I did not see the skirt again until it was produced before the magistrates on the Thursday following: — Bennett: I am constable of Luxulyan. On the 2nd of May I received the body of a dead child from Smith, and took it before the coroner. After that I received a skirt; it was brought to the justice meeting; Mr. Parkyn was present. There was a bloody substance about it; I took it home and washed it; it smelled “dreadful bad.” It had every appearance to me that it had had something dead wrapped in it. The smell is not gone yet. Cross-examined:—It is not a smell at all of mud. I first saw this skirt on Thursday the 6th of May before the magistrates. Mr. Parkyn said he had drenched it through the water. One of the female witnesses here in court brought it. I do not know what had become of it from the Monday to the Thursday. John Ward, examined by Mr. Cole:—I am a surgeon residing at Bodmin, and have been in practice here 30 years. On the evening of Sunday the 2nd of May last, I saw a child at the house of Bennetts the constable. I did not very particularly examine it on that occasion; there were reasons why I should not have done so. I saw that the child was a full and well grown child. Putrefaction was then going on on the surface. It was a remarkably fine child—rather more than the average one. On the following day, I saw it before the coroner, and by direction of the coroner, a post mortem examination was made at that time, by my assistant and myself; Mr. Nicholas, in my presence, made a post mortem examination of the body on Monday morning the 3rd of May. With the exception of the brain, I found the whole of the internal organs of the body in a perfectly healthy state, and with regard to size, they nearly filled the cavity of the chest, but not quite. We began the examination with the lungs; we began with the thorax and went downwards, then making examination of the chest, of course our first object was to examine the lungs in order to ascertain whether the child had been born alive, and had breathed. The lungs were firm in consistence, of a pale reddish color; the air-vessels of the lungs were filled with air, evidenced by their crepitating on pressure; showing that the child had inspired. The lungs were then submitted to the most usual test in our profession—the hydrostatic test; they were first submitted in a mass, and then were subdivided, and submerged in portions, and they floated invariably, and, even when air was forced out of them by pressure, and they were then thrown into the water, the lungs still came to the surface. As far as all human probability goes, and the usual received opinions, I have no doubt on earth that that child had breathed. The lungs were not in the least decomposed; there was no mottled appearance to show that decomposition was going on. I scarcely remember to have seen lungs more healthy than those in that child—that is to say, in a post mortem examination. The whole of the viscera were perfectly healthy, although a very great amount of putrefactive decomposition had been(?) on the surface of the body. It is always the case where bodies have been taken out of water and again submitted to the influence of the atmosphere, they begin rapidly to decompose. But the whole of the internal organs of this child had undergone very little putrefactive process indeed, except the brain. The skin of the external part of the body was very much decomposed; or, I should say the cuticle, rather than the true skin, was very much decomposed. The brain was in a very putrid, and in a semi-fluid state; it is one of those parts of the human frame that very rapidly go into a state of decomposition, under ordinary circumstances, after death. After making that examination, I turned my attention to the back part of the head, and there I found a mark or marks of a violent blow or blows, which I believe were inflicted on the child while it was alive. There was a large black mark, with considerable swelling of the part, and an extravasation of blood into the subjacent cellular tissue; and around and on the edge of the black mark was a yellowish tint, which to us is evidence of a blow having been inflicted whilst vitality existed. There were two or three tea-spoons full of blood that escaped on cutting down into the part. My firm conviction and belief is that that blow was inflicted on that child when it was alive, or the appearance that I have described would not have been presented; blows made after death do not present the peculiar appearances I have described. The Judge: Then the child received a blow or blows in life, in your judgment?—Witness: Yes, it did, my lord, in my judgment. Mr. Cole: That was the result of your examination?—Witness: That was the result of my examination of the child; and the conclusion I came to was that it might have been stunned, as it is called, and then thrown into the water. Mr. Cole:—Could you tell how long it had been dead? Witness: I could not take on myself to say exactly how long the child had been dead; but the impression on my mind was that the child had been born, from 5 to 7 or 8 days; the appearances were such as I should expect to find in a child that had been dead about that period of time.—On the same day, previous to the examination of the dead body, I made a very careful examination of the young woman with a view to ascertain if she had been confined recently. I examined two girls on that occasion; there was another girl—a fellow servant of hers—on whom some degree of suspicion had fallen, and she was the first girl I examined, but in her I found not the slightest trace of her having been a mother; I should say this, in justice to that girl. I am sorry to say, with regard to the second girl, there was, in my opinion, downright evidence, from every symptom that presented itself, that she had been very recently delivered of a child. Mr. Cole.—Can you say within what period? Witness: I think that she had been delivered five or six days before; because after 9 or 10 days, the symptoms become very equivocal.—When before the magistrates on the 6th of May, I examined a bed-tye and blanket that were shown me by Mrs. Parkyn; I examined the bed-tye very carefully; I found there were extensive marks of discoloration, evidently produced by a fluid of a pale straw colour, such as is often discharged during labour. There were also spots of blood. The blanket was in the same condition. Mr. Cole:—As far as you can judge then, some woman had been in labour there? Witness:—If I had been asked, irrespectively of this case, to give an opinion on the stains on that bed-tye, I should have said that a woman had been recently delivered there. CROSS-EXAMINATION.—Mr. Poulden:—You have been speaking of the most usual tests; I observe you have spoken very cautiously; you speak of the floating of the lungs; that is not always a sure and certain test, I believe? Witness:—It is the test usually depended on; but it is not infallible. Mr. Poulden:—Now, with respect to the mark on the head; is it not possible that that injury on the back of the head, might have been received during delivery? Supposing the woman endeavoured to deliver herself, is it not possible, that during her agony, the injury might have been produced during delivery?—Witness:—Presuming that she was lying on a bed? Mr. Poulden:—No matter; we must not presume any thing as to what her position was. Can you say at all from what that injury proceeded?—Witness: Oh, yes; from a blow with great force. Mr. Poulden:—Assuming that the woman had been delivered suddenly, and the child fell forcibly, might not that have caused the injury?—Witness:—l don't think the blow I saw could have been produced in that way, even supposing she had been delivered in a standing position, and the cord had broken and the child had fallen to the ground. If she had been delivered from a height and the child had fallen on a heavy stone or a heavy piece of wood, there is a possibility that such a thing might have happened. Mr. Poulden—Then there may have been a case in which that blow might have happened during delivery?— Witness: There is a possibility of such a thing, undeniably. The Judge: There is a possibility that that injury might have been the result of mere accident?— Witness: It certainly admits of the possibility. The Judge: The child might fall?—Witness: It might. The Judge: And I suppose the woman is not in the best condition at that time, to take care even of herself, much less of her child?—Witness: Certainly; most assuredly not. Mr. Poulden: You have spoken of certain appearances or marks on the blanket. Is it not possible that those marks might have been produced in some other way?—Witness: They might certainly. The Judge: Had the blanket been washed?—Witness: It had; and the stains had not been washed out. Mr. Poulden: Then, it would be more difficult for you to ascertain the cause?—Witness: No ; because the stain of liquor amnii is more difficult to wash out than any stain. Mr. Poulden: Is it more difficult to ascertain after washing than before?—Witness: Yes, certainly it is. The Judge: Then it is your opinion that the stain was that of liquor amnii?—Witness: Yes. Mr. Poulden: I did not quite understand what you said about 5 or 8 days?—Witness: I said, in answer to a question put to me, that from the appearance of the child, and the state it was in, and the degree of decomposition, I thought the child might have been born from 5 to 7 or 8 days. RE-EXAMINATION.—Mr. Cole: As far as I understand, you say it is possible that the blow in the head might have been caused in that way, but that you do not think it probable?—Witness: Yes, that is my answer; I admit the possibility. The Judge: I understood you to point out the most prominent part of the back of the head?—Witness: No; it was below the prominent part of the head; it was in the hollow at the back of the head: the blow was at the very base of the brain. Mr. Cole: Then you think that is not a part of the skull that would strike the ground in falling?— Witness: I think not; if the cord had broken, the upper part of the head, the vertex, would be struck. The Judge: You say that the lungs were not at all in a putrefactive condition?—Witness: They were perfectly healthy. The Judge: But you are aware that if putrefaction took place in the lungs, that would evolve gas, filling the cells and making the lungs float?—Witness: Yes; but in such a case the lungs would give evidence of decomposition. The Judge: How did you find the foramen ovale?—Witness: Partly closed; and the ductus arteriosus also. The Judge:—About the brain; the brain itself was not touched by the water; how came that to be putrefied in so short a time?—Witness: The brain is so soft a substance that it always putrefies much more rapidly than any other portion of the human frame. The Judge: Did the diaphragm point upwards or downwards?—Witness: The diaphragm was in its natural position; it had not sunk down as it would have done supposing the child had died from drowning. The Judge: Did it curve up towards the chest?—Witness: It did. The Judge: Is not that evidence, when the diaphragm curves upwards, that the child had not been born alive? Is not that the state in which the foetus is found?—Witness: Very true, my lord; but the diaphragm in this case was just as I should expect to find it, in a child that had breathed. The Judge: Is it not the usual mode or condition of the diaphragm in the foetus, that it curves upwards?—Witness: Yes, my lord. The Judge: Is not that because the lungs have not expanded, and driven it down? Witness: Most certainly. The Judge: How do you account for the Iungs being full of air, and the diaphragm curved upwards?— Witness: The diaphragm and lungs corresponded in size; the lungs did not quite fill the cavity of the chest. The Judge: If a child has never breathed, the diaphragm curves upward?—Witness: Yes. The Judge: If this floating of the lungs had resulted from putrefactive process in those lungs, would not, in that case, the lungs float from gas evolved in that putrefactive process; and would you not at the same time find the diaphragm curved upwards?—Witness: I have not paid very much attention to the subject; I dare say it might be so. The Judge:—It is a very natural position that. Suppose the lungs filled with gas evolved in the putrefactive process, and the child had not breathed, should you not expect the lungs to float, and the diaphragm to curve upwards?—Witness: I have made very few experiments on that subject myself; but amongst the highest authorities there is great contrariety of opinion—Beck and others. The Judge: Are you not mistaken about that?—Witness: No: there is the greatest possible contrariety of opinion on the point. The Judge: Surely if the thorax had never been expanded for the purpose of breathing, you don't mean to say that the diaphragm does not curve upwards?—Witness: No, I don't mean to say so. The Judge: If the floating of the lungs resulted from gas evolved by the putrefactive process, should you not have expected that the diaphragm would have been curved upwards, as well as the lungs floating?—Witness: Yes, certainly. The Judge: You say the bowels were not affected by putrefaction?—Witness: None of the organs were much affected by putrefaction. The intestines were more so than any other; the liver and bladder were healthy. But my assistant more particularly examined the intestines. The Judge: Would there be a possibility of the evolution of gas in the lower part of the body, affecting the lungs?—Witness: I think not, my lord; and certainly, the intestines had not undergone so much putrefaction as to evolve gas. The Judge: Does the diaphragm separate so as to prevent gas proceeding from the intestines to the lungs?—Witness—There is no direct communication between the intestinal canal and the lungs. The Judge: Can you undertake to say whether the mark on the back of the head resulted from more than one blow?—Witness: I cannot. The Judge: Was the skull injured by fissure or fracture? Witness: No, it was not. The Judge: Did you find any congestion of the brain, or appearance or congestion?—Witness: The brain was in such a semi-fluid state, and so decomposed, that we could make nothing of it. The Judge: Did you observe about the heart?—Witness: There was an equal quantity of blood on each side of the heart. The Judge: Would that induce you to come to the conclusion that death did not result from suffocation?—Witness: In death by drowning, only one side of the heart is found filled with blood; the other is empty; the right side is congested, the other empty. The Judge: The absence of that appearance would induce you to say that suffocation did not cause death?—Witness: Yes; that is one of the inferences. The Judge: I believe that results from the blood returning to the heart, and not being able to get oxygenization in the lungs?—Witness; Yes. The Judge: You found nothing of that?—Witness: No. The Judge: Then, the result, in your opinion, is that the blow was the cause of death?—Witness: I have no doubt, that either the blow was the immediate cause of death; or that the child was stunned, and then thrown into the water. The Judge: Would that have stopped circulation:—Witness: Yes, especially if the child was thrown into the water. The Judge: Is it possible that the child might have been stunned, and before revival put into the water?—Witness: Yes, that is very possible. The Judge: You say that the stains were of liquor amnii; are there not other discharges of the sex that leave the same stains after washing?—Witness: This stain was too extensive for that; it covered more than one-third of the bed-tye. The Judge: We are speaking of the nature and colour of the stain, and not the extent of it.—Witness:— It was not the stain of blood, to the best of my judgment. The Judge: Can you undertake to say it is impossible it could be the stain of anything else but liquor amnii?—I could not say it was impossible. Francis Tamlyn Nicholas—l am a surgeon in practice at Bodmin. I was operating surgeon at this post mortem examination, assisting Mr. Ward. I have heard Mr. Ward's evidence, and I agree altogether with him. Mrs. Julia Parkyn—l am the wife of Mr. Parkyn. Prisoner had been in my service since Midsummer, 1851. For some time before this child was found, it was reported she was in the family way. In consequence of something I heard, I accused her of being in the family way. I was somewhat suspicious of it myself. I charged her with it, but she very strongly denied it; she said she knew there was such a report about her, she wished to clear her own character, and convince me it was not the case; and she offered to be taken to any doctor I chose to examine her. I told her it had been my intention to do so, but I said I was satisfied with her declarations, and did not think she would deceive me; I did not think she was in the family way after that; I was quite of my guard, from that. The dairy maid had slept with her about three weeks before. No one had slept with her before that time. After she had been examined, I examined the bed she slept in, and Mr. Ward also saw it. By the Judge I examined her bed on the morning after the coroner's inquest, and found certain marks in it. By the Judge—Do you recollect when it was you taxed her with being in the family way?—Witness here referred to a memorandum book, and said—she went home with a bad leg, and during her absence I heard she was in the family way; when she came back, I charged her with it; she went away on a Sunday, and returned on the Saturday following. It was on the 14th of February that she returned , and I then taxed her with being in the family way. Mary Stanlake—l have been in the habit of working occasionally as dairy maid at Mrs. Parkyn's. Three weeks before the body was found, I slept with the prisoner. I made the bed on the following morning. I saw the blanket, there was no mark on it at that time; the bed-tye was also quite clean. I turned it when making the bed, and both sides of the tye were clean. Whilst I had been sleeping with her, l saw her put on a petticoat; it was a frock with the body cut off, with a little piece of the waist left and a “peak." I examined the skirts before the magistrates; the skirt now produced is made in the same manner as that I saw her wear, but I cannot swear it is the same skirt; it is the same pattern, and made in the same way. Cross-examined: It is now torn; it was not when I saw it. By the Judge: l am not sure that is the skirt. By Mr. Poulden: I suppose many people turn a frock into a petticoat; I do not know it would be stronger if there was a peak at the waist. She had not more than one frock of one sort. By the Judge—What is there remarkable about that print? Witness: I do not know that there is anything remarkable about it, but I never saw one of the kind before.—The JUDGE here desired the prisoner to leave the dock, and go into a room with the matron; prisoner was shortly afterwards brought back, and the petticoat she had taken off was handed to the witness, who said that was also a skirt made from a frock, and it had likewise a peak to it. The Judge: Is not that the petticoat you saw her wearing?—Witness replied that it was not; she also said—when I was at Nanscawen, and prisoner went home because of her bad leg, and I went to relieve her, I wore this dress without asking her, not having a change of my own at Nanscawen. This skirt (the last produced) was then a frock, and has been cut down since. The JUDGE—When that was a frock and you wore it, did you at the same time see her with this peak petticoat? Witness Yes. Elizabeth Joll l am the wife of Joseph Joll, of Luxulyan. I remember about three years and a half ago making a gown for the prisoner. I have some of the remnants of it. I have looked at the skirt now before me; it is the same pattern. I cannot tell exactly whether it is made in the same manner. By the Judge—l sewed the skirt, but cannot tell my own work, it is so long ago. By Mr. Poulden—Perhaps various dresses are made of the same pattern. By the Judge—The prisoner gave me the pattern of this dress I made for her. (Prisoner here shook her head). Witness said, I never made any of that pattern for any other person; I never saw the pattern before. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. POULDEN, in behalf of the prisoner, submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury. The surgeon says the death of the child might have been caused by accident. In fact there is no evidence that she had been delivered of a male child; and the girl says she cannot tell whether the dress produced is the prisoner's or not. If in a case of larceny a person could not be convicted without some affirmative evidence as to the thing stolen, surely there must be evidence of that kind to support a charge of murder. Neither of the two witnesses last examined would say that was the dress of the prisoner. Mary Stanlake was then re-called. The Judge—What do you say about that skirt? Witness—l say I saw the prisoner wear one like it, but I cannot swear that is the skirt. The Judge—Do you believe it is the skirt? Witness—It is by all appearance. Judge—Do you believe it to be the same? Witness— l don't believe it is the same. Judge—ls it because it has the same appearance that you don't believe it is the same? Witness—It has the same appearance, my lord, but it is torn from what it was when I saw it. The Judge (to Mr. Cole)—That is very like a blot in the case, for that is the only thing to connect it with the prisoner, and the only question for the jury. Mr. Cole— With regard to the last witness it is impossible for any witness to give her evidence more fairly. She says she has reason to believe it is the same skirt, but she will not swear it is. But there are other facts.—the child was found, and the prisoner had been very lately delivered. The witness Elizabeth Joll was then re-called. The Judge—Do you believe that skirt before you is part of the dress you made for the prisoner? Witness—I do not know whether it is the same; I cannot tell anything about the old skirt. The Judge (to Mr. Cole)—How then can the jury tell anything about it, if these witnesses do not? Mr. Cole—My lord, I have done my duty; the case is now in the hands of the court to deal with. The Judge—The evidence is that the child was found in this pond on the premises of the prisoner's master, and then there is evidence that she had been in the family way and lately delivered. Mr. Cole—And just about the time that the act was committed causing the death of the child. The Judge— l cannot see that there is evidence to go to the jury. Mr. Poulden—There must be affirmative proof of all these propositions. There is no affirmative proof that the child was killed; it appears the child's death might have been caused by accident. The Judge—The woman says the child is not mine. The first affirmative is to show that this child was the child of that young woman; secondly, to show that the child died a violent death; and thirdly, to show that there are circumstances to satisfy the jury that the child came to its death by her hand. If they are not satisfied on that point, they may consider whether she concealed the body. But the first step in either case, is to be satisfied whether it is her child. The learned JUDGE then turned to the jury and said,—Gentlemen, it is absolutely necessary in this case that the child be shown to be the child of the prisoner, whether the charge be that of its destruction, or the concealment of the birth. Are you satisfied, on the evidence, that it is her child? For, if you have any doubt, the learned counsel will address you. The Jury: We have great doubt; we think there is not sufficient proof to satisfy us that the child was her’s (sic). The Judge: That is quite enough; then you will say the woman is not guilty. A verdict of NOT GUILTY was then returned, and the JUDGE said, let the woman be discharged.—She then left the dock, still preserving a very serious countenance. This young woman, Gertrude Wellington, was indicted at the Spring assizes, 1851, for having murdered, at Luxulyan, her male illegitimate child. ln that case the Grand Jury ignored the bill. This concluded the business of the assizes. The following bills were ignored: Jacob Grigg, charged with having, on the 29th of June, stolen from a mill, in the parish of , about 30lbs. of flour, the property of Edward Stenhouse, of St. Austell. Henry Scoble, charged with feloniously receiving, at St. Columb Union, 20 lbs. of lead, of the value of 2l., the property of Sir Samuel Thomas Spry. An Escape.—James Pilgrim, who had been committed for trial, charged with burglary at a dwelling- house, at Penryn, last week, contrived to effect his escape, with hand-cuffs on, while he was being conveyed in custody, from Penryn to Bodmin.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 22 and 29 October 1852

6. Michaelmas Sessions.

These Sessions were opened on Tuesday last, at Bodmin, before the following Magistrates:— JOHN KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman. Sir W. L. S. Trelawny, Bart E. Coode, jun., Esq. Sir J. S. G. Sawle, Bart. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. T. J. A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. F. J. Hext, Esq. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq., T. Hext, Esq. M.P. E. Stephens, Esq. J. Gwatkin, Esq. R. Johns, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. T. R. Avery, Esq. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. D. P. Hoblyn, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. W. P. Kempe, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. Prebendary Lyne. T. G. Graham, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. R. Bird. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. H . Thompson , Esq. Rev.—Wright. Goldsworthy Gurney, Esq. Rev. James Glencross. Rev. William Willimott took the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, on his appointment to the rectory of St. Michael Carhayes; and the Rev. Prebendary Lyne, on his re-appointment to the living of Tywardreath. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Messrs. Nicholas Robins, Roche; Henry Andrew, St. Austell; Samuel Anstey, Tywardreath; Edward Cowling, Gorran; Jonathan Cock, Luxulyan; Thomas Colman, Cuby; Henry Drake, St. Austell; Robert Dunn, St. Austell; James Hick, St. Austell; John Higman, St. Austell; Thomas Hickes, St. Clement; Hugh Henwood, Creed; John Julyan, jun., St. Austell; Robert Julyan, jun., St. Clement; William B. Kellow, St. Austell; Samuel Kernick, St. Austell; James Kendall, Gorran; William Knight, Luxulyan; Richard Parsons, St. Austell; Thomas Pearce, St. Blazey; James Polkinghorne, Tywardreath; Samuel Pascoe, St. Clement, Joseph Roberts, Roche. The following gentlemen answered to their names:— Mr. R. Scantlebury, Mevagissey; Mr. J. Truscott, St. Stephens; Mr. G. Truscott, St. Stephens; Mr. R. Wellington, Luxulyan; Mr. George , St. Stephens. After the usual preliminaries, the Chairman delivered his Charge to the Grand Jury [not transcribed] The Grand Jury then retired; and the magistrates proceeded with County Business. The CHAIRMAN read the following Gaol Reports:— VISITING JUSTICES' REPORT.—The visiting magistrates have pleasure in reporting that the Gaol and Bridewell, with the exception of the roofs and pavements, are in their usual clean and excellent order.—The prisoners, during the last three months, have been healthy and orderly.—We beg to call the attention of the bench to a practice which prevails amongst some of the contractors and constables, of inducing prisoners, when on their way to prison, to lodge what money they possess in the hands of publicans and others, in order to obtain the county allowance when discharged. A practice, we think, highly reprehensible, and which should be immediately checked. HENRY THOMSON. C B. GRAVE SAWLE. WILLIAM HEXT. SURGEON'S REPORT:—Mr. Hamley, surgeon to the Gaol, reported as follows:— To the Chairman and other Magistrates assembled at the Michaelmas Sessions, 1852. GENTLEMEN; I am happy in making my annual Report, to state that the prisoners have been healthy, and that no cases of fever or infectious diseases have occurred. There have been two deaths. Theophilus Plint and William Johns, who were both paralyds (sic) when admitted. There is one female, Mary Burnell, now in the Infirmary, in a very precarious state, having been ill for the last two months. The male Infirmary is at present unoccupied. There have been since my last report:— Males. Females. Slight Indisposition …………………………………. 65 ………. 10 Infirmary Cases ……………………………………… 4 ………. 5 Lunatics …………………………………………………. 1 ………. 2 Deaths …………………………………………………… 2 ………. — Greatest number of sick at one time ………. __8_ ………… _5_ 80 22 I have the honor to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, JOSEPH HAMLEY. The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the fact of two lunatic prisoners, who had been sent to the Asylum; and observed that it was very important that magistrates would do well to commit to the Asylum instead of to the Gaol, in cases where prisoners had manifested symptoms of insanity. In the case of the two females to whom he referred, he understood that their violence was excessive; one of them, particularly, had shown great violence, and had manifested an insane tendency before she was sent up to prison. The Visiting Justices of the Gaol were very awkwardly placed in such cases, and they thought that careful inquiry should be made before the prisoners were committed, when their violence was such as to lead to suspicion of insanity.—ln reply to questions from Mr. GILBERT, the CHAIRMAN suggested that when an insane tendency was exhibited, the prisoner, before being committed, should be subjected to examination by a medical man; and, according to his decision, as to the sanity or insanity of the party, the commitment should be either to the Gaol or to the Asylum.— Mr. KENDALL said the fact was—and it was no use to blink the matter—that when a parish had a troublesome man and wanted to get rid of him, they knew that if they sent him to the Lunatic Asylum, they must contribute to the expense; but if they could contrive to get him committed for assault, and sent to Gaol, he was then sent to the Lunatic Asylum, and became chargeable to the County until his parish was found out. Mr. SAWLE remarked, that there was a special Act of Parliament, by which, when a man was committed for an offence, and was found to be insane, he might be sent, by order of two justices, to the Asylum, and charged on the County until his settlement could be found.—The CHAIRMAN observed that in both the present cases, the settlement had been discovered. CHAPLAIN'S REPORT.—l beg to lay before you my Annual Report of the Moral and Religious information of those prisoners who have been committed to your County Prison, during the year ending October 8, 1852. It will be satisfactory to you to find that on the whole of the past year, there has been a decrease in the number of committals over the preceding year, to the amount of 47, the total number of committals for the present year being 511; that of 1851, 558; the re-committals amount to 58, consequently the total number of persons who have been convicted is 453. In the House of Correction, the Vagrants' Ward was unoccupied, at one time for nearly a fortnight, and at this present time only two prisoners are confined in it.—With regard to the moral and religious information of the prisoners received, I cannot report more favourably than on former occasions. Every means are used, and every inducement held out to them, while in prison, to improve themselves, and the progress they make under the able tuition of your schoolmaster, is really astonishing, especially as he has so many other duties to attend to, and consequently can give up but a short time to their instruction. They are supplied most liberally with books, which some of them take as a great boon, and on being examined by myself on the subjects contained in them, answer my questions so correctly, that I am led to believe the perusal of them may, under God's blessing, be of permanent use to them.—None of the adult prisoners are compelled to attend the school, and those who avail themselves of the privilege are taught to think it a reward of good behaviour; misbehaviour subjects them to expulsion for certain periods, sometimes altogether, but I am thankful that in only two or three instances has it been found necessary to put such a rule in force.—A very small number of the adult prisoners who have attended the school, have been re-committed ; but this may in some measure be accounted for, as the best behaved men generally apply for admission.—The association of prisoners tends much to their demoralization; and the contamination thereby following presents a most serious obstacle to their reformation; and I feel it my bounden duty, as your Chaplain, to call your most serious attention to the present pernicious plan of placing prisoners in such numbers together. It has long been my opinion, that association of prisoners tends to encourage vice; but not wishing to bring the subject under your notice until experience had strengthened my views on this important point, I have hitherto only slightly alluded to it in my former annual reports. I could give many instances of young men, who in a thoughtless and unguarded moment, were led to the commission of some trifling offence, but were far from vicious on their first admittance into the prison, becoming, from association with old offenders, most hardened and abandoned characters. Another instance I may mention which occurred in July last, of three persons who made a desperate attempt to break prison, which is clearly to be attributed to association, the circumstances of which will no doubt be noticed in the governor's report. In many conversations with our able governor, who from long experience in prison discipline must be a competent judge, I find that he entertains the same opinion as myself as to the evils arising from the association of prisoners; and from correspondence I have had with many of my brother chaplains, I learn that they also concur in my view of the subject.—I now beg to refer you to the tables annexed to this report:—Table No. 1 contains the ages of prisoners received during the year.—Table 2, the education.—Table 3, the religious knowledge.—Table 4, the particulars of 58 re-committals.—Table 5, the offences for which the prisoners have been committed.—Table 6, their native places; and Table 7, the number of prisoners received in each of the years 1846, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52. I have the honor to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, NICHOLAS KENDALL, Chaplain. [TABLES—not transcribed] The Rev. T. PASCOE begged to return his thanks to the Chaplain for the exceedingly able and lucid report he had presented.—Mr. SAWLE concurred, and said it was a most useful report; and the CHAIRMAN added:—"It is; very much so, indeed."—The Bench generally appeared to unite in this sentiment; though no formal vote was taken. [CORONERS' BILLS. - not transcribed] GOVERNOR'S REPORT.—The Governor of the County Prison reported to the chairman and other magistrates as follows :— Gentlemen; in making my present report, I am happy to inform you that the number of criminal prisoners received into the prison during the year ending the 8th inst., is 47 less than during the year preceding; but I regret to be unable to report a corresponding reduction in the number of punishments inflicted for offences within the prison, which punishments have, for the most part, resulted from association, and whilst that baneful practice continues, I have no hope of maintaining the discipline of the prison with fewer punishments, nor will it, I fear, be possible to guard effectually against attempts to break prison (a daring instance of which recently occurred, in which the prisoners contemplated the murder of the watchman), as plans and schemes are constantly being concocted to effect these and other unlawful objects; which it requires the utmost vigilance to avert. These, however, are not the only evils resulting from association; for, in a moral point of view they are of greater importance, of which the chaplain is also fully impressed; and I am thus induced, from time to time, to bring the subject under the consideration of your worships.—The usual certificates were appended, that the rules and regulations of the prison had been complied with as far as practicable; and that the buildings, with the exception of some of the roofs (which continue in a very bad state) are generally in good order. Mr. GWATKIN asked what obstacles exist to prevent a proper classification of the prisoners. The subject had been brought before the Bench in a very prominent way, both by the Chaplain and the Governor—two very responsible officers; and he should like to know if there was any means of introducing a proper classification, so as to prevent the mischief complained of. The GOVERNOR said the prison does not at present afford any means of proper classification. Classification was now merely carried out according to the 4th George 4th, cap. 64, which merely directs that certain prisoners be kept by themselves. But in some of these classes there were 20 or 30 prisoners, who were, consequently, obliged to be congregated together. The Act of George 4th did not require them to be further classified; and if it did, he had not the means of doing so.—In reply to various questions from Mr. Kendall, Mr. Gurney, Mr. Le Grice, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Gwatkin, the Chairman, and Mr. Sawle, the Governor stated that the prison affords no means of better classification than that which now exists; the prison was not large enough for the purpose; he had effected as much classification as he possibly could, and separated the prisoners at night, but there was no preventing their talking and consulting together; although they were kept isolated at night, in separate cells, there was no preventing their hearing each other talk, the partitions of the cells being only of wood about 1¼ inch thick; great evils resulted at night from this communication; the male prisoners could even converse with the females. He did not think it would be possible to make the necessary alterations in the existing building; he was quite satisfied that the desired object could not be effected without a new prison.—He believed that there existed some difference of opinion among those who had given attention to prison discipline, as to the size of cells, but none as to the propriety of a proper classification. To a certain extent, the question of the size of the cells involved the other question, whether the solitary, or the separate system should be adopted—that is, whether the prisoners should be kept solitary by day and night, or work in gangs by day, and be kept solitary only at night.—He had no doubt that, from want of proper classification in the prison, many prisoners went out worse than they came in. The Magistrates whom we have named as taking an active part in this discussion, all concurred in the importance of taking some measures for remedying the evil complained of; but Mr. Kendall urged the propriety of delaying any large expenditure until the government shall have decided on the question, which is the best plan for the erection of gaols. The CHAIRMAN referred to minutes of some proceedings at this Court in 1849, when it was agreed to grant 5000l. for the building of 40 additional cells. This, it appears, had not been carried into effect, in consequence of the proposed enlargement and alteration being not sufficiently extensive to satisfy the Home Secretary; and, also because, from that time, as it appears by returns, the number of prisoners had diminished. After considerable conversational discussion, it was resolved, on the motion of Mr. GILBERT, seconded by Mr. LE GRICE, that the last Gaol Committee be re-appointed, with additions, consisting of the Visiting Justices and the following gentlemen—Messrs. Lethbridge, Enys, Brune, Archer, Gilbert, E. Coode, Stephens, Magor, Gurney, Willyams, Gwatkin, and Robartes, with power to add to their numbers; to take the reports of the Chaplain and Governor into consideration, and report thereon at the next Sessions. In the course of the observations on this subject, Mr. LETHBRIDGE made a suggestion to the governor, which was approved by the magistrates generally,—that, in order to prevent communication to some extent, the prisoners should not be allowed to occupy the same cells on successive nights, but should be changed about.—The Governor said this had been done occasionally; but, to do so regularly, would involve a breach of the Secretary of State's order—that no prisoner should sleep in another's bed, without the bedding being washed; and to change the bedding would be very inconvenient, inasmuch as the bedding was numbered according to the cells. [GAOL EXPENSES for the past quarter—not transcribed] BRIDGES.—EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. PEASE, Bridge Surveyor for the East Division of the County, reported that the magistrates of the district had ordered, and had certified to, repairs to Kenworthy Water Bridge, amounting to 3l. 19s. 4d. The new Bridge at Seaton, though not quite finished, was so far advanced towards completion, that the roadway over it was now open to the public, and he expected the whole work would be finished in the course of another week. He submitted, for the consideration of the Court, the correspondence which had taken place between the Clerk of the Liskeard Turnpike Trustees and himself, respecting the repairs required to the guard walls on the embankment at the west end of Trussell Bridge.—The improvements ordered to be done at Wadebridge were reported to be in course of operation. Five of the arches on one side had been widened, and he thought the manner in which the work was being effected could not be otherwise than satisfactory.—Agreeably to the directions which he received at the last sessions, he had prepared plans and specifications for a new bridge at Looe, and also for a new line of approach road at the western end. He had the satisfaction of stating that John Francis Buller, Esq. having kindly given permission for an approach to the proposed new bridge to be made through Polvellan, he had succeeded in marking out a line at no greater length than 1800 feet, the inclination of which will not exceed one in 13; the inclination of the present approach road to the old bridge being about one in 4 feet 6 inches. The expense of the work, if done according to the plans which he had the honor to submit, and which plans were, he believed, in accordance with the Admiralty requirements as respects depth of foundations, span of arches, &c.— would be within the sum of 3,500l.; including the proposed approach road, the land for which Mr. Buller had liberally consented to give, in addition to the handsome subscription announced at the last Sessions, in order that the public may be rid of the present dangerous bridge and its approaches.—Mr. Pease begged to remind the Court that the contracts for the repairs of bridge roads and parapet walls will expire on the 1st of May, 1853.—The repairs to Notter Bridge had been effected at an expence (sic) of 14s. 6d. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Moorman's report merely reminded the Court that the existing contracts for the repair of bridge roads and parapets would expire on the 1st of May next. No levy was required by either of the bridge surveyors. TRUSSEL BRIDGE.—The correspondence referred to by Mr. Pease in his report, touching the question whether the County or the Liskeard Turnpike Trust are liable to repair this bridge, was read; and after some observations from the Rev. R. Buller on behalf of the Trust, and from the chairman, Mr. Kendall and Mr. Sawle, the question was postponed in order to afford opportunity for reference to minutes of the Court's proceedings, on the erection of the bridge, in 1844. LOOE BRIDGE.—ln compliance with notice duly advertised, the Rev. R. BULLER, after stating that Mr. Pease in following up the report made by the Looe Bridge Committee, had prepared plans, specifications, and estimates, begged to submit them to the Court, and to move that a sum of 2,500l. be granted by the County—that sum, with 1,000l. given by Mr. Buller of Morval and the Looe Harbour Commissioners, making 3,500l., the sum which Mr. Pease assured them, to the best of his knowledge, would be sufficient to complete the work effectually. Mr. PEASE produced and handed to the Court, his plans, specification, and estimates; after which, Mr. GOLDSWORTHY GURNEY said:—Having taken a great deal of interest in the question of Looe Bridge, and having inquired, I believe, as much as any gentleman on the bench into the subject, and going back to the spirit in which it was originally agitated, and the feeling I had when it was proposed that a reduction should be made from the proposed vote of 5,000l.; in justice to myself and the gentlemen who went with me, I may take the opportunity of saying that I claim credit, with my friends, for having done that much. I cannot but admire the spirit with which Mr. Buller has come forward with his donation. I have inquired into the present plans and specification; I think they are perfectly satisfactory; and I shall therefore be happy to second the proposition. My original proposal was to build a bridge of wood; and I must say in justice to myself and the gentlemen who were with me, that when Mr. Gilbert and myself called on the Admiralty on the part of the county, Capt. Veitch, the gentleman appointed to meet us, stated that if they (the Admiralty) should build the bridge, they should build it on the plans proposed by us. But, under present circumstances, and from the manner in which Mr. Buller has come forward, I cannot but feel that we should unanimously vote the sum of money now required. The motion was carried by a majority of 18 to 3. On the motion of the Rev. R. BULLER, the Looe Bridge Committee was revived—to consist of the following gentlemen:—The Chairman, Lord Vivian, the Hon. G. M. Fortescue, Messrs Howell, Foster, Coryton Roberts, Kendall, Goldsworthy Gurney, Hext, Gilbert, R. G. Bennett, N. Kendall, jun., R. Buller, A. Tatham, J. Glencross, Brune, Sawle, and Sir Colman Rashleigh, with power to add to their numbers, and 3 to be a quorum; and it was also resolved that the Committee be directed to advertise for tenders; and provided that such tenders shall not exceed the sum of £3500, the Committee be empowered to accept the same and proceed with the work; but, should they receive no satisfactory tender within that sum, the Committee be directed to refer the whole question, to the next Sessions. CONTRACTS FOR REPAIRS OF BRIDGE ROADS.—The Chairman, mentioning that the existing contracts will terminate on the 1st of May next, added that Mr. Pease had suggested an improvement in the districts in which the bridges should be placed for future contracts.—It was suggested, and Mr. Pease was requested to act on the suggestion—that copies of Mr. Pease's proposed improvements be forwarded to one or two magistrates in each division of the County, for consideration prior to the next Session. VENTILATION OF THE COURT.—Mr. Peter postponed the motion of which he had given notice—for a grant of £60 for the improvement of the ventilation of the Nisi Prius Court, until further trial should have been had of the effect in the Criminal Court, of the alterations which have been made therein for improved ventilation, in connection with more convenient means of access for prisoners to the dock from their cells below the Court. REGISTRATION EXPENCES.—The Clerk of the Peace's Bill, amounting to £38. 8s. 9d. was allowed. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. WILLIAM BEGS, 26, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 29th of September, at Bodmin, a silver watch, the property of John Belling, watchmaker. (Sentence (WILLIAM BECK): four months h.l.) MATTHEW RICH, 31, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 3rd of August, at Mevagissey, one pound weight of pork, the property of John Robins. (Sentence: six months h.l.) EDWARD TREMELLING, 15, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 14th of October, at Tywardreath, about 45 pounds weight of flour, the property of George Growden. (Sentence: three months h.l.) MARY ANN MARTIN, 17, charged with having on the 12th of August, at Saint Austell, stolen two silver spoons, the property of William Brown, with whom she had lived as servant, was found GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h.l.) JOHN HARVEY, 17, and DANIEL GILLARD, 17, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 21st of August, at the parish of St Clement, a pair of shoes, a jacket, a pair of stockings, a waistcoat, a pocket-handkerchief, a piece of suet, and a piece of pork, the property of Walter Stephens. (Sentence: JOHN HARVEY - eight months h.l.; SAMUEL GILLARD – eight months h.l.) GEORGE SMITH, 49, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 11th of September, at Bodmin, from the person of Joscelin Lanyon, a silk handkerchief, the property of the said Joscelin Lanyon. (Sentence: one month h.l.) EDWARD HOSKING, (on bail), was charged with stealing, on the 3rd of September, at the parish of St. Austell, from a certain clay-work, three rag-slates of the value of 6d , the property of John Lovering. It appeared that the prisoner, who was of respectable appearance, was driving, on the evening of the day named in the indictment, a cart with slates in it, towards a place where he was building a house for himself, and, on passing Mr. Lovering's clay work, he was seen by a labourer named Menear, to go on the work and take some rag-slates from near a wheel, and carry them towards the road. Meneer saw him go a second time to the spot, and take three slates which he took to his cart in the road. In doing this, it would seem that he had not seen Meneer, and on Meneer 's coming forward and asking him what he was doing, he said he had some large rags in his cart, and had merely taken those other rags for a time to try them up; but he would carry them back again, if there was any thing wrong in it; and he did carry back three of the slates which he had taken.—Meneer's evidence was corroborated by a lad named Vivian. Thomas Sambell, policeman of St. Austell, stated that prisoner, on being apprehended, said that he did not intend to steal the rags; he was coming from Charlestown with some slates which he had bought, and as they were rattling and he was afraid they would break, he took those rags of Mr. Lovering's to try them; intending to take them back on the next Monday morning.—For the defence, the prisoner repeated his former explanations of his conduct; and an excellent character for honesty was given him by Mr. John Nicholls, a farmer, of St. Austell.—The jury hesitated for some considerable time, but eventually found a verdict of Guilty. (Sentence: one month hard labour) PHILIPPA CROWLE, was found guilty of stealing, on the 2nd of October instant, at St. Stephens in Branwell, one duck, the property of John Truscott. (Sentence: three months h.l.) ______WEDNESDAY, Oct. 20. (Before J. King Lethbridge, Esq. GEORGE TUCKER, 29, JANE COAD, 23, ELIZABETH BLAMEY, 20, and CATHERINE JACKA, 19, were charged with stealing on the 18th of September, at Liskeard, a box containing a dial and a quadrant, a paper parcel containing a flannel shirt, drawers, and a towel, and a bundle containing a jacket and a Jim Crow hat, the property of Samuel Richards, a mine-agent, at Trehane Mine, in Menheniot. There was a second count against all the parties for feloniously receiving, knowing the goods to have been stolen by some party unknown.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson defended the prisoner Tucker; the other prisoners were undefended.—The prosecutor drove a gig into the Bell Inn, about 8 o'clock on Saturday evening the 18th of September; there being in the gig the articles named in the indictment, with some others. The under hostler took the horse and gig, and put the gig in the coach- house down the yard. Mr. Richards took out some mineral specimens, and went into a room in the inn; and in about half an hour, the head hostler called him out, and he went with the hostler to the coach- house, and found that the gig-box had been opened, and the articles named had been taken away.—On cross-examination, the prosecutor staled that Tucker was one of a pair at Trehane mine, and that his place was still kept open for him at the mine, waiting the result of this trial.—Richard Welch, the under hostler, stated that about half an hour after Mr. Richards's arrival at the inn, he went into the gig-house, having a candle , and saw the two girls Coad and Blarney, and Tucker, run out of the gig-house; each of the girls having a bundle under her arm. He said nothing to them, but carried back his candle to the kitchen, and went and called the hostler, and afterwards to the constable. About a quarter of an hour afterwards, he saw Tucker near the back door of the yard, and asked him where the things were that they had carried away from the coach-house; he said he never carried nothing out.—(The witness was closely cross-examined on his evidence as to the participation of Tucker in the felony).—Elizabeth Wills, wife of George Wills, a miner, living in the parish of Menheniot, on Sunday morning the 19th of September, went to the house near by, where the three female prisoners lived together. As she got to the window, she heard Catherine Jacka lecturing over Elizabeth Blarney for something she had done the night before, saying, "d—n thee, thee dist ruin all thee comest near, thee dist ruin ten thousand by thy d—d plundering." Blarney said she had done nothing but rob a gig on Saturday night, and had taken out of the gig a bundle and box, and in the bundle there were several things (similar to those named in the indictment) and a black "billy-cock" hat which she gave to Dan at Pengover. Blamey also said that she opened the box, and when she found there was nothing in it in her way she carried it back and dropped it at the Bell Tap; she said she wished she had not put the bundle they stole into Paul Spargo's back- house; if they had digged a pit in the earth and buried it, they should be all right. Witness told her brother and brother-in-law, and went with them and Paul Spargo to Paul Spargo's back-house, and Spargo found a bundle in the straw and gave it to her. She and her brother opened the bundle and found in it a cloth coat, flannel shirt, and a diaper towel; there was no hat there. She afterwards, with her brother, carried these goods to Capt. Richards, and delivered them to the constable.—Daniell Cowl, a carpenter living at Pengover Green in Menheniot, on Saturday evening, the 18th of September was at Liskeard and left the town about a quarter past 11, in company with three young men. About a quarter of a mile out of the town, he saw Coad in a field near a small house. Witness and one of his companions, John Pearce, walked on with Jane Coad; leaving the other two men behind. Witness and Pearce went to the house occupied by the female prisoners in Menheniot, and stopped there half an hour. The prisoners Blamey and Jacka came in while he was in the house; Jacka had a billy-cock hat in her hand and gave it to him; and Blamey had a small bundle. Witness, on his way home, threw away the hat in a field by the road side; and on the following Sunday evening, he went with the constable and found the hat in the same place.—Hugh Snell, constable of Liskeard, produced the hat which he found on the Sunday evening, in a field near Pengover, in the presence of Daniel Cowl.—(The hat was now identified by the prosecutor; and Cowl said he believed it to be the same that was given him by Jacka).—Cornelius Simmons, another constable, being seriously ill at Liskeard, his deposition before the committing magistrates was received and read:—That he stated that on Saturday he apprehended Tucker, and charged him with the felony; he said he knew nothing about it, and had not been near the gig-house. On the Saturday morning he apprehended the prisoners Coad and Blamey, and charged them with robbing a gig in the gig-house, at the Bell Inn. At first they both said they had not been near the place; but afterwards one of them said she had been in the gig-house in the beginning of the evening. Witness afterwards received from Elizabeth Wills, in the presence of Captain Richards, the articles contained in the handkerchief produced in Court, and identified by the prosecutor as his property.—For defence of the prisoner Tucker, Mr. SHILSON addressed the jury on the weakness and insufficiency of the evidence affecting him; and this prisoner received a very excellent character from the prosecutor; from Mrs. Jane Bone, in whose service he had formerly lived for 12 months; and from Mr. James Harris, who had known him 10 years.—Verdict:—Coad and Blamey GUILTY on the second count; Tucker and Jacka, NOT GUILTY. Sentences:—Blamey, Six Months hard labour; Coad, Four Months hard labour. JOHN MATTHEWS, 15, was found guilty of stealing, on the 9th of August, at the parish of , a silver watch, the property of Elizabeth Arundell, widow. (Sentence: three months h.l.) ELIZABETH MICHELL, (a young girl of respectable appearance) was charged with stealing, on the 23rd of August, from the house of James Percy, in Callington, 4s. 6d., of the current silver coin of the realm, the property of the said James Percy.—Mr. Gilbert Hamley conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Shilson the defence. It appears that the prosecutor is Toll collector at the North Gate of the Callington Turnpike. Having lost some money on previous days, he marked four shillings and four sixpences early in the morning of the 23rd of August and placed them in a desk. He then concealed himself to keep watch, and shortly before 8 o'clock, he saw the prisoner come in with milk, as she had been accustomed to do. She went to the desk, opened it, put some silver at first into her mouth, and afterwards in her pocket. He then went with a constable Sampson Jasper, and found the prisoner at Mr. Martin's draper; she had a bonnet in her hand which she said she had bought at Mrs. Pellow's. At first she denied having taken any money from Mr. Percy's; but, on the constable returning from Mr. Pellow's, with the 1s. 6d. she had paid there for a bonnet, she stated where she had placed the remainder of the money. The constable then went with the prosecutor and the prisoner, to Catherine Strong's, and this woman (who it appears bears a bad character) took four shillings from the dresser, and handed them to the constable.—Elizabeth Pellow proved that on the 23rd of August, the prisoner came to the shop and bought a bonnet, for which she paid a shilling and a sixpence, which she afterwards handed to the constable.—The contable (sic), Jasper, produced the moneys he had received from Mrs. Pellow and from Catherine Strong; and Mr. Percy identified three shillings of Catherine Strong's, one shilling of Mrs. Pellow's, and a sixpence received at Martin's shop.—The constable, Jasper, stated that the prisoner was only about 12 years old, that her father was a miner, and that both her parents were very respectable people; but that Catherine Strong was a very dangerous person, and of bad character.—For the defence, Mr. Shilson made no attempt to dispute the facts proved, but expressed his hope that the circumstances of the prisoner's tender age and good character, the respectability of her parents, and the probability that she herself had been made use of by the woman Strong, would induce the Court to deal leniently with her, in order that she may be soon restored to her parents.—The Jury found a verdict of GUILTY, recommending the prisoner to the mercy of the Court. (Sentence: one week hard labour) COUNTY BUSINESS. TRUSSEL BRIDGE.—The Rev. R. BULLER moved (seconded by the Rev. J. GLENCROSS) that the county resume the charge of this bridge.—It appears that in 1844, the Liskeard Turnpike Trust laid out a considerable sum of money in lowering St. Keyne hill and widening Trussel Bridge; and, without asking any pecuniary help from the county, requested that the work should be inspected by the County Bridge Surveyor—then Mr. Chappel. The Court assumed that this inspection had been duly made by the late Mr. Chappel; and therefore, unanimously agreed to the proposition to resume charge of this bridge, as a County Bridge. THE CHAPLAIN OF THE GAOL'S REPORT.—Referring to this report read yesterday, the CHAIRMAN said:—Had our Chaplain been here, I was requested to present to him the thanks of the Magistrates for the very able and luminous report he has made to us at these Sessions. Efforts have been made to find him; probably he is in attendance on those duties that he discharges so faithfully. Therefore it is impossible for me to pay him personally the compliment he so highly merits. I may say that his report is a very luminous and useful one; and the Tables he has favoured us with are of a kind to afford us a great deal of information, and to redound greatly to his credit. Therefore, I desire, on your behalf, gentlemen, to express our thanks to him. TRIALS OF PRISONERS RESUMED. ELIZABETH SAMBELLS was found GUILTY of stealing 4s. 6d. from the person of William Trick, a servant of Mr. Higgins, at Launceston, on the 16th August. (Sentence: four months h.l.) JEMIMA BENNETT, wife of William Bennett, of Northill, charged with stealing 19 lbs. of potatoes, the property of Mr. Arthur Petor, of Lanxon, in Northill; was ACQUITTED. ALFRED TEDDER was indicted for assaulting and beating Henry Ward.—Mr. Shilson and Mr. Hockin appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. Stokes for the defence. Mr. SHILSON stated the case to the Jury, alleging, that the sole question for them would be whether the assault had or had not taken place, and that, in law, no angry words, however violent, formed a justification for an assault.—The circumstances preceding and attending the alleged assault will appear in the following evidence:— Henry Ward, examined by Mr. Shilson—l carried on business at Truro as a livery-stable keeper, and I have also been horsing the North Mail, and the Tally-ho previous to that. My ground is from St. Austell to Falmouth; that was considered so. My brother, at Plymouth, Charles Ward, is also a proprietor, and was also of the Tally-ho. The defendant was brought down by my brother to join in horsing the Tally-ho. The Tally-ho went off the road when this North Mail was established, and my brother took the contract for that North Mail, and I joined in horsing it. I established my business as livery-stable-keeper at Truro about three or four months previous to Tedder's coming down. After he came down he joined me in that business until we got the contract for the North Mail, and then he joined me in that business also. We agreed to throw it altogether. Subsequently to the North Mail being established, the Quicksilver Mail was established. I have nothing to do with the Quicksilver Mail; I believe Tedder has; I felt aggrieved that I had no part in that contract, and I had some difference in consequence with Tedder. Mr. Glasson, the former book-keeper at Pearce's Hotel, used to keep our accounts, and we used to meet there from time to time to make up and settle our accounts. We met there for that purpose on the 5th of May, about 7 o'clock in the evening. Mr. Tedder was there just before me; I saw him enter the front door as I turned Hodson and Crowle's corner to go there. I went to a room called the Store-room, where we usually met to settle our accounts, and there I saw Tedder and Mr. Glasson together. As I was going in, Tedder looked round and said he should like to be alone with Mr. Glasson for 20 minutes or half an hour. In consequence oi that, I went into the Coffee-room and remained there more than half an hour. I then returned to the store-room, opened the door, and went in. Glasson sat opposite the window; Tedder on his left; and I, in the corner, on his right. Tedder immediately began to make objections about some small paltry bill of 9s. for papering a harness-room. I said it was requisite, or else it would not have been done. Glasson said he would go and fetch the books; but the ledger was then before him on the table. As soon as Glasson left the room, Tedder said, "What are we going to do about the ground?" I said, " Why, you have yours and I'll have mine." I considered that the Falmouth ground had been mine legitimately, until we threw it altogether: I had horsed the Tally-ho down from Truro, and Tedder from Liskeard; and in consequence of his being end-man there, it was agreed that I should be end- man from Truro ; and I considered that that lower ground was mine.—It was not a second after Glasson left the room that Tedder asked the question about the ground. When I had answered it, he immediately rose and said, "you d—d rascal, do you mean to say you won't give me up that lower ground?" I said, "certainly not." He then caught at me, and struck me with both hands—one on the ear and the other on the neck; my head went against the window-shutters; he repeated this several times, and my head went ringing so that I could scarcely tell what I was about. Unfortunately, I was behind a corner of the table and could not get out to relieve myself at all. He stood so as to prevent my getting out, and kept repeating his blows—6, 7, or 8 blows. (I had been stooping down) and saw him standing in a fighting position. He then took his seat again; I think he heard Glasson coming. Mr. Glasson then came in. I was very angry at this treatment, and called him almost every thing I could think of. Glasson tried to quiet us; but I can scarcely recollect what he said to us. I told him he was an avaricious ungrateful scoundrel, to want to do what he tried to do to me. He then rose up and struck me again twice in Glasson's presence, and hit my head against the wainscot again. I was then still sitting down; I had never got up; I was dizzy from repeated blows. I made no attempt to return the blows or strike him again; I never lifted my hand. After these second blows had passed, I took up my hat, and said "I refuse to go into the accounts to night, Mr. Glasson; I then left the room, and went first into the coffee-room. The place on my forehead beginning to swell, I thought it was necessary to go home; I went home and fomented it and put some lean beef over my eye. I was very much injured about the head, contused and bruised, but not cut; it was very black next day. This took place on a Wednesday evening. The Thursday and Friday I continued using fomentations and applying lean beef; on the Saturday, I found the glands of my neck very much swollen and dis- coloured, and I went to Mr. Spry, who thought I could not do better than to continue what I had been doing. Prior to the first assault, I had done nothing to Tedder but say that I would not give up the lower end of the road; nothing, either by word or deed, to provoke him.—Cross-examined— We had been friends since we came into the county, till this dispute arose about the road. It was my brother and Tedder that took the contract for the mail between them. He has not advanced me cash from time to time; but Mr. Glasson has advanced me money on account. I do not say that the only difference between us was about this road business; because he has treated me worse than any man in the world could treat another. There was no cause of difference between us because of my winning a great deal of money at keels; Tedder never remonstrated with me about it; he never opened his mouth to one about it; he went and asked the very same young gentleman a fortnight before, and stopped him in the street, to play with him; this young gentleman gave me a challenge to play. I wish I could hear Tedder say that he remonstrated with me about that; I would have him up for defamation of character. I did win some money, honourably and fairly; I had a challenge sent me, and I accepted it. I’ll be on my oath Tedder never mentioned that matter to me; he would have been very glad to be there himself.— Before Glasson went out of the Store-room, no blows had passed, and no words besides those I have mentioned about the harness-room. I cannot say exactly how long Glasson was absent from the room; it might have been 3, 4, or 5 minutes. After I had received two or three such rum ones on the side of my head, it was impossible I could recollect very nice. When Glasson came in, I did not complain to him that Tedder had struct me, but I was abusing Tedder—telling him what he was. When Tedder struck me while Glasson was out, I did not strike him again; I should like to; I could not get out. I have not so much skill in the noble art of self-defence as he has; I can take my own part; but he would not give me a chance. I tried to get away from him. He hit me almost silly at once; he gave me two or three blows that I did not expect; I was completely stunned, and never made any defence; I do not know if this affray made a considerable noise; if the servants had heard it, I suppose they would not have come in, not if they knew we were settling our accounts (laughter).—Mr. Stokes:—Oh, I suppose that is what you call squaring up (laughter).—Witness:—I don’t know what words I made use of to Tedder, after Mr. Glasson came in; I know I called him everything I could think of. Mr. Stokes:—Eloquent, and choice expressions, I suppose? Witness:—As good as l thought he deserved. I deny that I had assaulted Tedder on the top of the coach shortly before the occasion.—When Glasson came in, I was abusing Tedder; I don't know that I made use of the expression. I will not swear whether I did or did not say, "you are not Jesus Christ, are you?”; I am not positive; I can’t say if I called him "a bloody bully"; probably I did. That was not before I had the black eye given me; I had one or two blows in the eye before Glasson came in. I did not with a tremendous oath call him a swindler. I was in such a state that I cannot remember what I said. I don't know what I said, or what Tedder said, but I know that he got up again and struck me twice in Glasson's presence; I felt it right and left. I do not recollect that I said, "I will put Smith and Roberts on you;" there are very few things I can recollect after I was struck. I got away as soon as I could.—I told the Grand Jury all the facts; I told them I had been struck three or four times; I did not tell them, nor anybody else, that Glasson was present all the time.—When I went into the coffee room, I had sixpenny worth of brandy and water, and showed my friends how I had been served. I then went to Gundry's inn; I did not go there too to show my eyes; they asked me what was the matter, and I told them Tedder had just given me that and more; I had one glass of brandy and water there. Mr. Stokes: What; just to wet t'other eye? (laughter). Witness : Yes. Then I went home; I was not confined to my bed at all; but I was almost ashamed to go out. Mr. Stokes:—That was the first time, I suppose, you ever had such an ornament as a black eye? (laughter). Witness:—No, I wont (sic) say that.—l did not call out to any body to come in, when Tedder was assaulting me, and I made no alarm; nor did I use any self-defence. If I had seen any person go along, I should have called him in to protect me; and so would you too (laughter). I don't know that I should be afraid of him at any other time. Re-examined.—The above which I gave him was all after the first assault, and after Glasson had come in. When Glasson went out of the room, I believe he closed the door after him. Edward John Spry:—l am in practice as a surgeon in Truro; I attend Mr. Ward's family. He came to me on Saturday, the 8th of May, to consult me respecting several severe bruises he had on the left side of his face and nose, and also on his ear, extending down his neck. He complained more especially of his neck, which I examined, and he pointed out a swelling just below his left ear. I inquired what he had been doing. He said he had been fomenting the bruised parts, and I told him he could not do better then (sic) continue that treatment. His injuries were severe bruises, and his face was swollen considerably in different parts. There was a swelling on the brow; some swelling over the nose; but the principal swelling was over the ear, and extending down the neck. The injuries were just such as would appear to be the result of any pugilistic encounter. I should say they must have been severe blows, from the extent of the bruises I saw. I infer there must have been several blows, because I saw several places that were more intensely bruised than others; and I think that those parts indicated the seats of different bruises. Altogether it was a very severe bruising.—Cross-examined.—l did not prescribe anything; nor use any leeches, nor give any medicine. Mr. STOKES then addressed the jury in defence. His general view of the case was that no assault took place before Mr. Glasson left the room ; and that the subsequent assault was the consequence of the irritation induced in Mr. Tedder by the violently abusive language of Mr. Ward. Admitting, as he did, that no words would legally justify an assault, yet such words as Mr. Ward used might well be taken as going far in extenuation, particularly when it would be shown by highly respectable witnesses that the defendant was a man of most peaceable demeanour.—Mr. Stokes commented on the fact that Mr. Ward had chosen to prefer a criminal indictment, thereby excluding the defendant's evidence, and on his having also declined to bring forward the evidence of Mr. Glasson. He then stated that Mr. Glasson would be examined in behalf of the defendant, and if, as he believed, the effect of his testimony would be to shake the confidence of the jury in Ward's testimony, then the question would be, with whom did this assault begin? And on this point, the learned advocate argued that it was more probable that the assault began with a man who had used such language as Ward had, than with Tedder, whose respectable and peaceable demeanour would be testified by respectable witnesses. John Glasson, examined by Mr. Stokes:—l was for many years a book-keeper at the Royal Hotel, Truro, and am now a book-keeper on the West Cornwall Railway. In May last I was also in the employ of Tedder and Ward, keeping their accounts for the livery stable and other business in Truro. On the Wednesday evening in question, they were to meet me to go into their accounts. I saw them at the Royal Hotel, about half-past 6 or 7 o'clock. We went into the room called the Store-room. There are several rooms adjoining that, and the servants room as well; the bar parlour is next to it, and the public bar next to that again; and there are a great number of servants about, on Pearce's Hotel. I saw Mr. Tedder and Mr. Ward in the Store-room together. I and Mr. Tedder were alone at first, making up the accounts. Mr. Ward was waiting to come in, till we had made up the figures. When Ward came in, he took a seat at the end of the table, as has been described; Mr. Ward was at my right hand, and Mr. Tedder at my left. We proceeded to state matters as they appeared on the book. I should say that neither of them was at all elevated by liquor; but I thought that Ward, from the beginning, appeared to be a little irritated and nervous. We went into the accounts; and, after a little while we came to Ward's items of disbursement, for which he wanted credit in account. Tedder required some explanation as to some of the payments Ward had charged; on which Ward turned round and called him some of those names you have stated; some of his expressions were—"you great bounce, "you infernal scoundrel." This was after I had gone out of the room. Before I went out of the room, there did not appear to have been any heat or violent expression. I went out of the room, to fetch a ruler; I left the door open; I might have just drawn the door after me, but I did not close it. I had to go only 10 or 12 yards to the office to get a ruler. I was not absent three minutes. When I came back into the room, Ward and Tedder were on their legs. Ward was not sitting down. There were high words passing between them. I remonstrated with them and said, "don't let us have any words; let us go into the accounts. Then the whole of us resumed our seats. Ward did not then complain that he had been struck by Tedder, and there was no appearance of blows on his head or face. We went into the account again. Tedder requested some explanation as to an item Ward had paid, and for which he wanted credit; whereupon, Ward said, " you great bounce," "you infernal scoundrel," "you d—d blackguard," and other similar expressions. I begged him to be quiet for fear of disturbing the house. I believe those profane expressions that have been spoken to already were used. While he was going on thus, Tedder was very much surprised and struck with hearing such language proceed from Ward's lips. Tedder said, "what do you mean by this language towards me?"—And he might have added "you vagabond," or some such term. I had not heard Tedder use any violent expression before that. Ward used language similar to what has been already repeated; and then Tedder rose from his seat and said "it's no use, Ward, I can't stand this any longer;" he then pulled off his coat, went towards Ward, took him by the collar of the coat and said, "now, stand up against me." Ward still retained his seat. Tedder struck him very violently, and gave him two or three blows; one I particularly noticed which, from its sound, I thought was with the back of his hand; this was a blow on Ward's eye. Ward then got up on his legs, took up his hat, and made some remarks to Tedder; I don't know what were the exact expressions; but I think he made use of some remarks about Smith and Roberts. He then left the room, and, I believe, went into the coffee room. I have known Tedder ever since he has been in Truro; his conduct has been that of a very quiet and peaceable man. In whatever I have had to do with him I have always found him gentlemanly, and a very gentle and amiable man. I don't recollect any row or disturbance between him and any other person, since he has been in Truro. Cross-examined.—When I came back into the room after getting the ruler, Ward was on the same side where I had left him, but not on the seat. They were both on their legs; they appeared to be having some words. Tedder was quite cool until he rose up and went towards Ward, saying he could not stand it any longer. When Tedder shook Ward by the collar and wanted him to stand up against him, Ward did not rise; he was then, certainly too peaceable to do that. Besides the blow with the back of the hand which I think gave the black eye, the other blows did not appear to be very hard. I dont (sic) know that Tedder knocked Ward's head against the shutters; he shook him in the chair.—l have the same feelings towards Ward as towards Tedder; Ward has always been a peaceable man with me, and I believe with every other person as far as I know ; I never heard any thing to the contrary. Re-examined. I have heard of his knocking down the guard, Rowe. Henry Pearce:—I am proprietor of the Royal Hotel, Truro. I have known Mr. Tedder about 4 years; ever since he has come into the neighbourhood; I have had matters of business with him during that period, and have seen a great deal of him at the Hotel. I have never met with a person to whom, in a short time, I have been more attached. He is a very respectable and peaceable man. William F. Karkeek, veterinary surgeon at Truro. I have known Mr. Tedder for some years. His conduct has been very excellent; peaceable and quiet; he is a good friend and neighbour in every respect. Mr. SHILSON then addressed the Jury in reply, contending that, on the whole of the evidence in the case, the Jury could come to no other decision than that the defendant was guilty of the assault charged. He submitted that it was a circumstance in Mr. Ward's favour that he had not sought to put money into his pocket, by laying an action for damages in the County Court. The CHAIRMAN then summed up, and the jury found a verdict of GUILTY.—Sentence was passed by the Chairman, as follows:—Alfred Tedder; you have been convicted of an assault on Henry Ward; and I cannot help saying that the verdict that the jury have thought proper to give, is one in which I believe the Court most fully accords. We are really sorry to see a man whose character is that of a peaceable man, and who has received that character from several very respectable persons—the Court very much laments that this unhappy provocation between you and your brother tradesman, as he may be called, has led you into circumstances that have brought you into apparently, a discreditable situation. We are unwilling to punish you in a way that perhaps some persons may desire; because we have considered the very high character you have received. We do hope and trust that whatever may hereafter occur between you and your opponent Mr. Ward, you will endeavour, if possible, to maintain that peaceable character you have had. The Court is sorry to notice that Mr. Ward's language is highly discreditable to him; and that circumstance we have also taken into consideration. We have also reflected that this is not a matter in which the public may be said to be concerned; it is only a severe squabble between two private individuals. Our conduct therefore, on this occasion, will be marked by some degree of clemency towards you, with a view to prevent the case being considered by the public as one of an ignominious character. Under these circumstances, taking into account the excellent character you have received for your peaceable demeanour hitherto, which has acquired for you the good wishes and best feelings of your respectable neighbours and friends, we have determined only to fine you. The sentence is, that you be fined in the sum of £30, and that you be confined in the House of Correction till that sum be paid. Mr. Tedder immediately handed his cheque book to his Advocate ; and the fine was at once paid. The Petty Jury were then discharged. The only case in which a Bill has been ignored by the Grand Jury at these Sessions, is that of Hannah Dingle, aged 14, charged with stealing 1 yard of bonnet ribbon, the property of Harriet Penrose, at St. Austell. ______Wednesday, October 20. SECOND COURT. (Before C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M. P.) ALFRED REYNOLDS, 16, & MATHIAS ANDREW, 13, were charged with stealing a coat, the property of Samuel Harvey, of Truro. Prosecutor keeps a second-hand clothes shop at Truro, and his wife attends Redruth Market, from whose stall, on the 17th of September, the coat was stolen. Andrew was found GUILTY; Reynolds ACQUITTED. (Sentence (MATTHIAS ANDREW): one month h.l., and once privately whipped.) JOHN TRESIDDER was charged with stealing a box of tea, weight 20 lbs., from the van of John Hoblyn, of St. Columb. Mr. Stokes called witnesses, from whose statements it appeared that John Hoblyn drives a van from St. Columb to Truro. He was at Truro on Saturday, the 7th day of August. He went to a storehouse on the quay, and had from Mr. Hichens a box of tea to deliver to Mr. Bilston, of St. Columb. The box was addressed to Mr. Bilston. He carried it to his van at the back of the Red Lion Hotel. Some time afterwards the prisoner was seen by Jane Chappel, at that time Laundress at the Red Lion, to take the box from the van, and attempt to put it into a bag. He could not get it in, and then carried it away on his shoulder. The witness told John Tallack, at that time Ostler at the Bear Inn, that she had seen a lad carry away a box from the van. Tallack went after him and overtook prisoner with the box, who said he was going to take it to Cobbledick's van. But John Cobbledick gave evidence that he drives a van to Perranzabuloe, and never takes anything for St. Columb, and that he had no orders to take a box of tea that day. Tallack, the ostler, was killed a short time since by falling from a horse; his deposition, at the time of the prisoner's committal was therefore read, and received in evidence. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h.l.) JULES CARMECKIES, 41, and ANN CARMECKIES, 37, were charged with stealing, at the Commercial Hotel, Padstow, on the 2nd of August, a smelling bottle, the property of Elizabeth Rawlings. A second count charged the prisoners with feloniously receiving the same. Mr. CUMMINS prosecuted, and Mr. CHILDS defended the prisoner, and did his best for him as a poor Hungarian refugee, one of the victims of Austrian oppression." He was however, found GUILTY, but the female was acquitted. (Sentence (JULES CARMECKIES): one month h.l.) MARY FRANCIS, 17, was charged with stealing, in the parish of Redruth, on the 25th of August, a cotton apron, the property of Francis Jose. Verdict, GUILTY, and a former conviction at the last Assizes was proved against the prisoner. There was another indictment against her for stealing a woollen turnover from Richard Benney, of Redruth, but this case was not proceeded with. (Sentence: six months h.l.) RUTH GOODMAN, 42, was charged with stealing two pieces of silver, the property of Mr. Selley, of the Green Bank Hotel, Falmouth. Mr. COMMINS called several witnesses. Benjamin Levi, a Jew, and dealer in jewellery, called at prisoner's house in Falmouth, on the 7th of October. She asked him if he would buy any silver, and opened a small box from which she took two pieces of silver and half of a spoon. He saw there was a name on the silver, but he did not spell it. She told him she had the silver for some time lying by. He gave her 10d. for the two pieces and sold them in the afternoon to Mr. John Johns, a jeweller at Falmouth, for half-a- crown.—Mr. Johns stated that he weighed the silver when it was brought to him, and finding it a little over half-an-ounce troy, he paid the Jew half-a-crown for it. Being at the time busy with several persons in the shop, he did not then examine the silver, but on looking at it in the evening he saw on one of the broken parts the name "Thomas," and the other "Selley." He gave the silver to constable Julyan, who went to prisoner's house the following day. The Jew was there also, and went into the house first, and asked the woman if she had any more silver to sell. She said, no. The constable then went in and charged her with stealing, upon which she said she found the silver opposite Mr. Glasson's. She afterwards said she had it of the "boy Charles," one of her children; she said she was hurried when she made the first statement.—William Selley said the silver produced was his property, and was part of the cover of a snuff- box; his father's name was engraved on it. The box had been missed since June 1851; prisoner's son, Charles, was in the habit of coming to the house at that time. The box was kept in the bar, sometimes on the shelf, sometimes on the counter. By the COURT— Witness never saw the female prisoner there ; a great many persons go in and out of the bar in the course of a month. It was possible that some other person might have taken it, as it had not been seen since June 1851.—The CHAIRMAN said there could be no doubt that the silver was part of Mr. Selley 's box, but the prisoner had never been seen in the house, and though the property was found in her possession, it had so long been lost, that it might have passed through many hands before it came to her, and he thought she could not fairly be called on to account for it.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY.—Mr. Johns applied to have the silver given up to him, as he had bought it and paid for it.—Mr. Selley said he thought it belonged to him. The CHAIRMAN said the Court would make no order in the matter. The Jew was then again called into the box, and the CHAIRMAN told him he had very improperly bought the silver, which had a name on it, and having given only ten pence for what was worth half-a-crown. If he was not more careful, he might figure in the court some day as a receiver of stolen property. JENEFER BOLITHO, 40, was indicted for keeping at Redruth a common, ill-governed, and disorderly house. Mr. DARKE conducted the prosecution, and examined as witnesses Richard Harris, a cabinet maker at Tuckingmill, James Sholl, who lives in Foundry Row, Redruth, five doors from the house kept by prisoner, Charles Tregonning and Thomas Hodge, policemen. Evidence was given of prostitutes frequenting the house, of intoxicated men being seen going in there, of disturbances by night and annoyances to the neighbours. Verdict, GUILTY. The CHAIRMAN told the witness Harris he ought to be ashamed of his conduct as a married man. (Sentence: eight months h.l.) JOHN TONKIN and WILLIAM TONKIN were indicted for assaulting James Thomas at . Mr. HOCKING for the prosecution, called as witnesses James Thomas, John Manuel, Thomas Bawden, and Captain Anthony Sarah, of Creegbraws. The assault took place in the evening of the 7th of October, outside Chacewater churchyard, where John Tonkin struck prosecutor with a stick, then knocked him down, and kicked him in his head and other parts. Some persons then came out of the churchyard from a funeral, and separated the parties. William Tonkin, the other prisoner, also struck prosecutor in the face. Captain Sarah stated he heard John Tonkin say he came there for the express purpose of killing James Thomas, and he would do it. Absalom Tonkin was also present, and endeavoured to restrain his brother John from the assault; but the latter said, "what do you think I care about thirty or forty pounds?" Prosecutor was so much injured by the attack that he said he had not been able to work since—Mr. CHILDS addressed the jury for the defence, and called as witnesses Absalom Tonkin and Captain Skewes, formerly of Poldice. The defence was that the prosecutor had some time ago challenged Wm. Tonkin to fight, and that John Tonkin, on coming home from Cuba, sought this occasion to attack prosecutor. It was stated also that prosecutor had said he would fight any of the family, but this he denied, and said he had made up the quarrel with William and shook hands with him. It was also stated that John Tonkin had been seriously injured about eight years ago in a mine, and had been taken to an infirmary; that in consequence of that injury he had ever since been very exciteable (sic), and at times exceedingly violent, particularly after taking liquor. Capt. Skewes gave the prisoners a good character. They were both found GUILTY, and John Tonkin immediately showed something of his violent disposition by attempting to leap over the bar in Court and attack the prosecutor. His brothers endeavoured to keep him back, and two or three turnkeys coming up, a severe struggle took place all out through the court, and until he was got down into the prisoner's cell below. (Sentence: WILLIAM TONKIN – four months h.l.; JOHN TONKIN – eight months h.l.) This concluded the criminal business of the sessions. THURSDAY, Oct. 21. The Court this morning, passed sentence on the prisoners. The Court then proceeded to the hearing of appeals. KENWYN, appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Darke. St. MARY, TRURO, respondent; Mr. Hockin and Mr. Childs.—This was an appeal against an order for the removal of Samuel Tregenza, his wife and family, from the parish of St. Mary's to Kenwyn. The ground of settlement in Kenwyn was an alleged renting, from 1839 to 1846, of a tenement of the value of 10l. yearly, the property of the late Mr. Turner, and of Messrs. Turner and Ferris. Mr. SHILSON having moved the appeal, Mr. HOCKIN addressed the Court on the part of the respondent. He stated that the settlement, according to the dates named, fell within the statutes, 6th Geo. 4th and 1st Wm. 4th, as to renting, and 4th and 5th Wm. 4th, as to assessment and payment of rates. He then went on to state that the pauper would be proved to have been in possession of the property in question, in Kenwyn-street, Truro, consisting of a dwelling-house and bake-house, as tenant under the late Mr. Turner and Mr. Ferris; he had paid his rent for a portion of the time during which he had so occupied, and, particularly, it would be shown that he had paid a sum of 10l. in full for a year's rent from Michaelmas 1839 to Michaelmas 1840; and that in 1843 he made payment of 15l. 9s. on account of rent then due. Other payments were subsequently made; but the pauper was not in good circumstances and frequently fell in arrear with his rent.—With regard to rating, Mr. Hockin said he believed the appellants would admit that the pauper had been assessed, and had paid his rates. (This admission was afterwards made by the appellants' advocates).—As far as he could collect, he understood the appellants' case to be that the original contract by Tregenza for the occupation of this property, was made with a gentleman named Plummer, who preceded Mr. Turner as its owner; that by that contract Tregenza was to pay £10 a year rent, and to be repaid all the rates, which he was to pay in the first instance; that that contract continued in the same way with the subsequent owners of the property, Mr. Turner and Messrs. Turner and Ferris; and that such a contract was insufficient to give a settlement, as the rent minus rates re-paid, was less than £10 a year. To this case Mr. Hockin replied that, whatever was the original contract with Mr. Plummer, there was no proof of its continuance with the subsequent owners, as regards repayment of rates; and even supposing that such was the fact, he contended that it made no difference whether the landlord paid the outs or not. In support of this opinion, Mr. Hockin cited the case of King v. Southend; and that the same principle applied to re- payment of rates, was evident from decisions in the cases King v. Openshaw, Borrows Settlement Cases, and King v. Oakhampton, and Queen v. Axmouth. Mr. Hockin also referred to a case, Queen v. Willoughby, 4 Adolphus and Ellis, p. 143, to show that, for purposes of settlement, rent need not be paid in the current year, but may be paid at any time afterwards. This point had reference, as regards the present case, to some allowances by the owners of property, in 1843, by way of payment of rent; the pauper being a plasterer and doing work for his landlords, his bills for which were allowed in account. The witness examined by the respondent were William Cradock, who became in 1839, agent for the collection of Messrs. Turner and Ferris's rents in Kenwyn; and Samuel Tregenza, the pauper; but the latter was introduced and dealt with by Mr. Hockin, much as an adverse witness, he having, it was stated, a preference for St. Mary's parish as his settlement. There was a direct conflict between the witnesses on one important piece of evidence;—Mr. Cradock swearing that at the Court in January 1841, Tregenza paid him in cash 10l. for a year's rent due at Michaelmas, 1840; while Tregenza swore, as positively, that he never attended any Court at all and never paid 10l. in cash in one sum to Cradock.—Tregenza's account of his taking the premises afforded some amusement He said, about 10 or 12 years ago (he having previously kept a bake-house in Coomb's Lane, in St. Mary's) young Mr. Anthony Plummer sent for him concerning the taking these premises in Kenwyn-street. He asked Mr. Plummer what the rent was to be. Mr. Plummer admitted that the premises were not worth more than 7l. a year, but said "it must be 10l. to make you a vote, and then you'll get plum-pudding and roast beef at elections." It was also agreed that he (Tregenza) was to pay the rates, and have them allowed him again, and that he was to have all the work the landlord could get for him. The outs had been altogether from 30s. to 40s. a year. Mr. SHILSON said this case was one of settlement by renting a tenement, since the passing of the 4th and 5th William 4th; and therein lay the very gist of the case. The case of Queen v. Southend was applicable only to the state of law under 59th George 3rd, and 6th George 4th, by which a renting of 10l. a year, with repayment of rates and taxes by the landlord to the tenant, was a sufficient hiring for purposes of settlement. But the Act 4th and 5th William 4th required that the tenant should not only pay the 10l. rental, but also the rates and taxes in addition; and it was clear that the tenant, in the present case, had not done so; it was not pretended that more than 10l. had been paid; and therefore it was impossible that both rent and the rates and taxes had been paid by the tenant, as was required by the 4th and 5th William 4th.—Besides this, Mr. Shilson, on the facts in evidence, denied that there was proof that any sum of 10l. for rent had been paid; and if it had, the deduction for outs, according to agreement, would reduce it to about 8l. a year. The Court confirmed the order; no maintenance; 5l. costs. KENWYN, appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Darke. ST. CLEMENT, respondent; Mr. Hockin and Mr. Childs. An appeal against order for removal of Thomas Lawry his wife and children. Mr. SHILSON moved to adjourn the hearing of this appeal till the next sessions; the appellant undertaking to pay the costs of this day. The ground on which he made this application was, that within the last few days, the appellants had discovered that the pauper was irremovable, by reason of more than five years continuous residence. The reason why that allegation was not included in the grounds of appeal was, that on enquiry being made when the order of removal was served, they were told that the pauper had been brought before the Board of Guardians of the Truro Union, with the view of being charged on the common fund; and that the guardians had refused to do so. The appellants therefore assumed that the guardians had good grounds for coming to that decision, and to that extent were misled and thrown off their guard. The learned advocate cited authorities to show the power of the justices in Quarter Sessions to adjourn; and urged that, without such adjournment in the present case, injustice would be done, both to the appellant parish and to the pauper. Mr. HOCKIN expressed surprise at this application; and said, if it were granted, it would form a precedent for the adjournment of any appeal in which the grounds were insufficient. He also urged that the pauper had been resident in the respondent parish for six months, and by the next Sessions there would be three months more residence; and, therefore, if the pauper was not irremovable at the time of the order, yet he might become irremovable by this delay; as there were numerous cases to show that time might be added, on suspended orders. He contended that the present application was merely an attempt to induce the Court to make up for negligence on the part of the appellant parish to make proper inquiry. To say that they were misled by the proceedings at the Board, was in fact, merely saying that they, the appellants, had neglected to do their duty and make proper inquiry. In reply, Mr. SHILSON stated that his application would, of course, be limited to the date of the order, and would have no reference to time subsequent thereto. The appellants, he said, had other merits besides this one of irremoveability (sic); but they felt that the latter, on becoming known to them, was so important, that they were bound to ask for further time for the obtaining the necessary evidence thereon. There had been no gross or wilful laches on the part of the appellants ; their laches, if any, was merely in assuming that the Board of Guardians were right in their decision; whereas it turned out now, that they were wrong, and that the pauper was irremovable. By adjournment, with payment of the day's costs by appellants, no injustice could possibly be done to the respondents; while, by the refusal of adjournment, injustice might be done, both to the appellant parish, and to the pauper. Further, he, Mr. Shilson, believed that if this application for adjournment were granted, he should be able to satisfy Mr. Hockin of the pauper's irremovability; and in that case, the appeal would not be again brought forward. The Court granted the adjournment on payment of £9 12s. Od., the costs of the day. MORSHEAD, appellant; Mr. Shilson, attorney. CHURCHWARDEN of SOUTHILL, respondent; Mr. Stokes. This was an appeal by Mr. John Morshead against an order, under the hands and seals of Sir William Trelawney and Mr. Messenger, Justices of the peace, for payment of 16s. 11d. alleged to be due for Church-rate in the parish of Southill, in respect of a rate made on the 11th of March last; together with a further sum of 9s. 6d. for costs.—After proof of service of notice of appeal, Mr. STOKES took a preliminary objection. The order appealed against bore date the 3rd of June, and he believed was not served until the 23rd of June; but whether served in June or July was the same in effect as regarded his present objection. Under the Act of Parliament ,53 Geo. 3, cap. 57., s7, the appeal was not against the Justices' order, which was a merely formal document, but was against the judgment of the Justices, which judgment in the present case, was delivered orally, on the 3rd of June; and as the Act required that any person feeling aggrieved by a judgment of Justices in petty sessions, should appeal at the next general Quarter Sessions, Mr. Stokes contended that the present appeal ought to have been made at the last Midsummer Sessions, and that it was too late now to receive the appeal. Mr. SHILSON stated that, in this case, the complaint was heard by the Justices in Petty Sessions on the 3rd of June, but it was not till the next Petty Sessions that the order for payment against Mr. Morshead was signed by the Justices; and it was afterwards served, but too late (as was admitted by Mr. Stokes) for allowing an appeal to be receivable at the Midsummer Sessions. And, referring to the 7th section of the Act, Mr. Shilson contended that it was the written order only that could be appealed against. There was no grievance until the order was made; the party aggrieved could not appeal without the order, which order, it was necessary to file with the Clerk of the Peace, previous to appeal. The court overruled the objection. Mr. SHILSON then proceeded to state the facts of the case, from which it appeared that the appellant's objections were, mainly, that Mr. Honey Trehane was under-rated, and himself over-rated,—that the Callington Mine was omitted from the rate—that the rate was unnecessary, because the churchwarden had made a rate in the month of February preceding, the whole of which, except Mr. Morshead's proportion, he had collected and had in his hands, unexpended,—and that the rate was excessive, and retrospective. It will be seen, however, that the case did not proceed to a hearing on merits; it was decided on the ground that the order for payment was illegal, inasmuch as, at the Petty Sessions, Mr. Morshead had given written notice to the justices, that he should not contest the validity of the rate in the Ecclesiastical Court, but should commence an action against the justices for all their acts connected with the rate, on the ground of its illegality.—Mr. Shilson referred to cases mentioned in Prideaux on the Duties of Churchwardens; Queen v. Wrothesley, 1, Barnwell and Adolphus, p. 648, and Queen v. Wakefield, 1 Burroughs, 485 ; and contended that after receipt of the notice referred to, all jurisdiction in the Justices in Petty Sessions ceased, and consequently their subsequent order of payment was invalid.—Dale v. Pollard, 10, Queen's Bench Reports, was also cited , in which a notice similar to that which Mr. Morshead had adopted, ousted the jurisdiction.—Mr. Morshead, the appellant, being examined on oath, proved the facts stated by his advocate; after which, Mr. STOKES admitted that it would be useless to occupy the time of the court, after proof of service of notice by the appellant to the Justices in Petty Sessions that he meant to dispute the validity of the rate; and Mr. GLUBB, the attorney in the case, stated that he had not previously heard of this notice. —The Court quashed the order. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

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