1864 Quarter Sessions and Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes ...... 29 3. Easter Sessions ...... 74 4. Midsummer Sessions ...... 88 5. Summer Assizes ...... 104 6. Michaelmas Sessions ...... 134

Royal Cornwall Gazette 8 & 15 January 1864

1. Epiphany Sessions The Epiphany Quarter Sessions for the county of Cornwall were opened on Tuesday last, at , when there were present the following magistrates:— Charles Brune Graves Sawle, Esq., Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., and Chairmen J. Jope Rogers, Esq., M.P. Lord Vivian. R. Foster, Esq. Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend C.B. Kingdon, Esq. Boscawen. J. , Esq. T.J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. W. Roberts, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. S.U.N. Usticke, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. F.M. Williams, Esq. John St. Aubyn, Esq., M.P. W.R.C. Potter, Esq. Sir S.T. Spry. J.C.B. Lethbridge, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. E. Collins, Esq. John Tremayne, Esq. H. Trelawny, Esq. C.P. Brune, Esq. J. , Esq. F. Howell, Esq. E.H. Rodd, jun., Esq. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. D. Horndon, Esq. T.S. Bolitho, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. F. Rodd, Esq. Rev. J. Symonds. N. Norway, Esq. Rev. V.F. Vyvyan. R.G. Lakes, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. R.G. Bennet, Esq. Rev. J. Glanville. W. Michell, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. J. Hichens, Esq. Rev. L.M. Peter. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. Rev. J. Glencross. E.C. Roberts, Esq. Rev. H.F. Rowe. W. Williams, Esq. Rev. F.T. Bachelor. THE GRAND JURY Mr. Thomas Olver, St. Mabyn, foreman Mr. E. Arthur, Mr. T.W. Blake, St. Breock Mr. J. Broad, Mr. W. Cook, Mr. R. Clogg, Polruan Mr. H. Deecker, Liskeard Mr. Joseph Godfrey, Liskeard Mr. J.R. Hawke, Liskeard Mr. F. Hellyar, St. Columb Mr. J. Hockin, Liskeard Mr. Joseph Hearle, West Mr. William Jasper, Mr. Thomas Moon, Liskeard Mr. William Mead, Liskeard Mr. C.H. Moody, Liskeard Mr. J.P. Parkyn, Bodmin Mr. H. Rice, Liskeard Mr. Joseph Rickard, St. Dominick Mr. William M. Richards, Mr. James Rowe, St. Minver Mr. F.L. Seaton, Padstow Mr. H. Trestrail, West Looe Mr. J. Toll, , also answered to his name. The Clerk of the Peace having read the Queen’s Proclamation against vice, immorality and profaneness, The CHAIRMAN charged the Grand Jury. He said—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, on the present occasion I am able to congratulate the county that we have a full grand jury. Unfortunately we have not been able always at these sessions to obtain a full grand jury; but on this occasion we have, as I said, a full grand jury; and I will take this opportunity of saying that I am under deep obligations to my two friends with whom I am associated as chairman for the personal inconvenience to which they have been put in kindly acting for me as chairman during my long illness. On the present occasion I am glad to say that the calendar, which will be laid before you, contains ten cases less than at the sessions this time twelve months. There were then 52 cases for trial, and there are now 42; yet I am sorry to say that the present calendar contains some cases of a character which the calendar this time twelvemonths did not contain, and some of these are of considerable aggravation. Now, though the calendar which will be presented to you contains only 42 cases, yet I find that among them there are three cases of housebreaking, and seven cases of stealing from the person. These are cases of considerable aggravation, because it is unusual in this county to have so many persons for trial charged with stealing from the person. The general tone of the calendar is so far satisfactory that all the prisoners except one are persons of very imperfect education or no education at all, there being in the calendar only the name of one person able to read and write well. Another satisfactory circumstance is that there are only three persons for trial under the age of 20, which fact I attribute to the institutions established in the country for the repression of juvenile crime. Now in the remarks which I may make on the cases, the prisoners may be separated into two heads—namely, those prisoners who appear here for the first time, and those who are continually in our court. In the one case the prisoners are perhaps more objects of pity than punishment, for the way in which they are brought up renders them very liable to be easily drawn into crime. With regard to the other class, they are continually before our criminal courts, and leniency seems to have no impression on them. Therefore it is to be presumed that only the terror of criminal law and gaol discipline can affect such men as those. As regards the cases in the calendar, I would call your attention to one or two cases. There is a man, No. 31, Stephen Woolcock, who is charged with an assault with intent to rob. It seems the prisoner and the prosecutor were at a public-house drinking on the evening when the offence was committed, and on the latter leaving the house to return home, the prisoner made an attack on him. They had been drinking at a public house, as I have said, and am sorry to say that there are many cases that would not have been here but for the accursed practice of drinking. There appears to be no doubt that a grievous assault was committed by the prisoner, but if the evidence does not satisfy that it was an assault with intent to rob, I would advise you to find a bill for an assault only. The next case to which I shall refer, No. 34, Michael Drew, is one that does not often appear in a sessions calendar, and I shall not now refer more particularly to its nature. It is of a very disgusting character, and the evidence which will be brought before you will be of a very disagreeable nature. Therefore I would ask you before finding a true bill to investigate the case narrowly. Although for the ends of justice it is necessary that cases of this kind should be investigated, yet I think it would be better, if you have any doubt as to whether the evidence will sustain the offence, that the bill should be thrown out, than that the disgusting case should be tried in this court. On the other hand, if you are satisfied from the evidence, that the case is proved, it will be your duty to find a true bill, however disgusting the details may be. The next case is one of a somewhat peculiar character. It is that of Frederick Walker, who is charged with obtaining money under false pretences. The law is this, that a simple misrepresentation is not a false pretence, but a wilful misrepresentation of a distinct kind with intent to fraud, cognizable to the senses, constitutes the offence. The offence in question took place at Padstow, in this county, and it appears that the prisoner was in the habit of selling cheese by the usual mode, namely a taster, and this cheese which he then sold was found to be of a very different quality from that which the prosecutor tasted. Now, if the prisoner was cognizant of the inferior quality of the cheese which he sold it would constitute the charge of obtaining money by false pretences. There are two cases in the calendar of assault of an aggravated character, and I regret to say that Cornwall is not freer than other counties from offences of this character. In one of these cases the prisoner is a sailor, and the assault took place at the Sailors’ Home at Falmouth. The prisoner was there and was requested by the prosecutor to go away. He refused, and the prosecutor pushed him out, not using any unnecessary force in so doing, on which the prisoner took out a knife and stabbed him. In the other case the parties had been to a public house drinking, where a quarrel had taken place. On the prosecutor afterwards going home, the prisoner followed him, took out a knife and stabbed him. The next case to which I shall call your attention, No. 37, is a very peculiar one, in which a man named Mutton is charged with obtaining money under false pretences. He is a blind man, and it appears that he has been going about the county collecting money from the charitable, alleging that it was for the establishment of a blind institution. It seems that the statement was untrue, and that the money was for his own use. That would be a false pretence under the statute, and if the evidence should appear to you to sustain the charge, you will find a true bill. These, gentlemen, are the only cases to which I shall refer. The calendar will occupy you some time, for although there are 10 cases less than this time twelve- month, yet many of them are of an aggravated character. The rates that will be required, will be, for general purposes ¾d. in the £, being the same amount as was required this time twelvemonths; and for the police, a rate of ½d. in the £, being four rates less than at these sessions last year. The rate was 20-32nds of a penny in the £ last year, and at the present sessions it is 16-32nds of a penny in the £. FINANCE REPORT The Finance Committee reported that they had examined the treasurer’s account, and found the balances due to the credit of the county to be:—General account, £3,805. 14s. 1½d.; police superannuation, £119. 1s. 11d.; police buildings, £5,271. 6s. 9d.; total, £11,155. 8s. 9d. The committee found that a rate of 24-32nds of a penny was required for general purposes. The committee recommend the bridge surveyors’ account to be paid; they would require about £100 for the current expenses of surveyors, and ½d. in the £ for police purposes. The report was received and adopted.

CORONERS’ BILLS The CHAIRMAN read the following coroners’ bills for the past quarter, comparing them with the corresponding quarter of last year:— Present year Corres. qr. Last year No. of Inquests Amount of Bill No. of Inquests Amount of Bill Mr. 34 £113 19 10 21 £96 2 10 Mr. Hambly 18 70 14 2 25 77 18 4 Mr. Hichens 27 90 2 3 19 77 17 3 Mr. Coode 7 36 17 0 17 49 13 6 Mr. Jago 15 49 3 3 13 49 4 9 Total 101 £360 16 6 95 £350 16 8 The bills were allowed. COUNTY GAOL VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT—The visiting committee of the county gaol have much pleasure in being able to report most favourably on the good management, discipline, and economy exercised in each department. In accordance with the wishes of the finance committee, due inquiry has been made, with the view to the more economical insurance of the county gaol. The result is a recommendation to reduce the insurance from £8,500 to £8,000, and to change the office of the West of to that of the County Fire Office. Up to this date, we have paid 2s. per £100 to the West of England, which had, however, offered to reduce it to 1s. 6d.; but as the County Fire Office not only offers to take 1s. 6d. per £100, but to return 25 per cent—in case of no accident—every seven years, the committee feel bound to recommend the latter. The £30 granted by the county for turning temporary wash-houses into cells for hard labour, has been expended with the most satisfactory results. The chaplain has long been most urgent to have a school-mistress; but as the average number of girls has not exceeded six, the committee have not felt justified in asking the county for such an appointment. A proposition is now made by the chaplain, that the junior matron, Mary Dungey, shall undertake the office for two hours per day; and arrangements can be made to this effect. The chaplain reports that she is competent and the committee recommend that she be employed to give instructions to girls and female adults for two hours each day, with an addition of £5 per annum to her present salary, and an increase of £1 per year until her salary shall reach £30. The committee recommend that the chaplain shall have a supply of gas, free of cost; and they cannot omit the opportunity of expressing their thanks to him, for the unwearied attention he has paid to the spiritual wants of those under his charge. The arrears for maintenance of prisoners due from various boroughs, are in course of liquidation if we except , which now pays to the county rate, and no further difficulty can arise. The sum of £330 will be required for the current expenses of the year. The report was received and adopted without discussion. On the motion of Mr. KENDALL, M.P., the visiting justices were re-appointed for the ensuing quarter. THE COUNTY GAOL GOVERNOR’S REPORT—The Governor’s report stated the conduct of the prisoners in the gaol had been generally good and orderly. The new hard labour cells sanctioned at the last sessions have been completed and well answer the purposes for which they were erected. Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons approved of these cells at his recent visit on the 29th ult. GAOL EXPENSES—The Chairman read the expenditure of the gaol for the past quarter:— Subsistence, £175. 7s. 2d.; clothing, £4. 1s. 8d.; fuel, £66. 7s.; sundries, £119. 19s. 11d; salaries £347. 8s. 6d; porter, attendance, &c., £47. 17s. 6½d.; building new cells, £30; other work, £9. 12s. 2d.; total, £850. 15s. 5d.; corresponding quarter, of last year, £869. 15s. 6d.; various deductions this quarter £47. 17s. 3d.; which leaves the actual expenditure, £802. 18s. 2d. The hall expenses were £7. 6s. 5d. STATE OF CRIME—The CHAIRMAN next read a comparative statement of the number of prisoners for trial at the commencement of the Epiphany Sessions, 1863 and 1864. In 1863 there were 44 prisoners in custody for felony, and 1 on bail; for assault, 1; for breach of the peace, 2; total for trial 48. There were also committed under the Criminal Justice Act, from Michaelmas to Christmas, 1862, 14; under the Juvenile Offenders’ Act, 3; making a grand total, 65. At the present sessions (1864) there were 26 prisoners in custody on charges of felony, and 9 on bail; for misdemeanour in custody, 4; for assault, 1 in custody and 1 on bail; for breach of the peace, 1; total for trial 42. Committed from Michaelmas to Christmas under the Criminal Justices’ [sic] Act, 13; under the Juvenile Offenders’ Act, 5; making a grand total of 60 prisoners. Number of prisoners received during the quarter ending Christmas, 1862, 183; for the quarter ending Christmas, 1863 (the past quarter) 6 sheriff’s debtors, and 26 county court debtors, making a total of 32, were received, and during the last quarter 2 and 5 respectively, making a total of 37. The Hon. and Rev. J.T. BOSCAWEN enquired of Mr. Hambly, coroner, the reason for holding an inquest upon the body of a man named Henry Mumford, on a Sunday morning. Mr. HAMBLY explained that the body was in an advanced state of decomposition; he had received a pressing letter from the deceased’s master, at whose house the body was lying, to hold the inquest, and several of deceased’s relatives had come from a distance to be present at the funeral on the Sunday. He considered the circumstances were of a pressing nature, so he held the inquest on Sunday morning before church time. On further discussion, it appeared that the deceased died on Saturday morning, and several of the magistrates appeared to think there was no necessity for holding an inquest on Sunday. Mr. HAMBLY said he did not receive the information till Saturday evening between five and six o’clock, too late to get a jury, as he should have had to ride 15 miles to the place. He was sorry that he had done so, and he would take care that it should not occur again. The subject then dropped. THE COUNTY BRIDGES EASTERN DIVISION—Mr. Jenkin, the surveyor of this division, reported that the piles for the buttresses of Bridge had been driven both above and below this bridge, and it was not probable that anything more could be done till the spring. Slight repairs were required to be done to Trecarrel, Sterra, Rilla, Plisha, Trekerner, Hotter, and Wenford Bridges. He had received a notice from the promoters of the proposed Launceston, Bodmin and Junction Railway with reference to the approach road to this bridge, which he begged to lay before the court. WESTERN DIVISION—Mr. Thomas Hickes, surveyor of bridges for the western division presented the following report:—In laying before you this report I am sorry I have to complain of malicious persons damaging the guard walls at several of the bridges by throwing down the coping stones, and destroying the railings at by sawing them off, this having been repeatedly done. I first offered a reward of £2 and then £5, but nevertheless I have not been able to discover the offenders. Higher Carnon Bridge—The posts and rails require painting, which will cost about £3.10s. The road will require some repairs, which I estimate at 10s. Sticker Bridge—The posts and rails require painting. I estimate the cost at £2.10s. Bridge—The road requires stoning, which will cost about £1.10s. Cornelly—This road will require some repairs; cost £1.10s. Bridge—the guard walls require repairs, which will cost about £1.10s, and the road requires some repairs, which will cost £1.10s. Mylor—Replacing the rails that have been destroyed, and repairing the road, I estimate will cost £2. —This road requires cleaning and some repairs; cost, 10s. St. Erth—This road requires cleaning and repairs; cost, 15s. Godolphin—This road requires stoning and cleaning; estimated cost, £1.15s. Long Bridge—This road requires cleaning and repairing which will cost 12s. 6d. - This road requires cleaning and repairing; cost, 9s. —A drain requires clearing and the road repairing; cost, £2.5s. —A drain here requires clearing and the road repairing; cost, £1.13s. The CHAIRMAN said it would be well if the Superintendent of Police of that district should make an effort to detect the perpetrators of the disgraceful depredations alluded to by Mr. Hickes. It was a very serious and malicious act, and parties detected would be liable to heavy penalties. LAUNCESTON, BODMIN, AND WADEBRIDGE RAILWAY The promoters of this railway applied to the court in respect of a contemplated level crossing of one of the county roads at St. Breward, asking the magistrates to express their assent or dissent, or say if they would remain neutral. Some discussion took place on the matter, objections being made by several magistrates to all level crossings. It was moved by Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, and seconded by Mr. LE GRICE, that the court dissent from the request. Mr. RODD moved as an amendment, that the court remain neutral. This was seconded by the Rev. J.J. Wilkinson, and was carried by 25 to 5. Mr. JENKIN (surveyor) said that the railway company had already obtained the consent of the waywardens. LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH confirmed the statement made in Mr. Jenkin’s report with respect to this bridge, and said nothing further could be stated upon the matter at present. He moved the re- appointment of the committee to report at the next sessions. He was told that the Lostwithiel people were not at all satisfied with what was being done to the bridge, and they therefore declined to contribute anything towards its improvement. Mr. FOSTER said they were prepared to contribute something towards widening the approaches if the work was done as they wished; but as the bridge belonged to the county they thought the county ought to repair it. CARNON BRIDGE The Committee appointed to inquire into the state of Carnon Bridge reported that they were of opinion that the dams above and below the bridge ought to be removed without delay, and the returned to its original course. If that was not done the silt, which was rapidly increasing, would block up the bridge, two arches of which were already blocked up. Mr. BEAUCHAMP TUCKER, chairman of the committee, said there was only a space of about eighteen inches left for the water to pass through, and if something was not immediately done there would be a smash at the first flood, as the bridge would be very likely carried away. The dams had been erected and the water diverted by various parties and it was almost hopeless to discover the delinquents. The committee were directed to consult the Clerk of the Peace as to the steps necessary to be taken to remedy the evil. THE LUNATIC ASYLUM Mr. POLE CAREW said he would again ask to be allowed to adjourn his motion for a grant of £600 for the purpose of securing an efficient water supply for the asylum, as owing to various difficulties the matter was not yet matured. He begged to present the quarterly report of the committee of visitors:— VISITORS’ REPORT—In laying the annual report of the County Lunatic Asylum before the justices in quarter sessions, the committee regret that they are obliged to call attention to the urgent necessity which exists for increased accommodation. In October last the male side was more than full. It is calculated to contain 180 patients; the average for the year has been 176. The female side is calculated to contain 200 patients; the average has been 187. A diminution of numbers has lately been made by allowing the Falmouth and unions to remove eight chronic but quiet patients to their union houses. It may be doubted, however, whether this will be a desirable arrangement, and at any rate it will be considered all important that no persons having the care of lunatics shall be able to plead that the asylum is full, as an excuse for detaining them from the only establishment which affords full security for kind and judicious treatment. The number of patients on the 31st of December was 358. The number discharged during the year has been 58 which is above the average. The wards are in good order and some have been rendered brighter and more cheerful by the addition of inexpensive decoration and furniture. The patients are comfortable, and the officers and servants generally attentive. The weekly charge for each pauper patient has been 8s.; the cost 8s. 0¼. The visitors have spared no time or trouble in their endeavours to provide the large supply of water adverted to in the last report. They have already stated to this court their reasons for rejecting the project of a steam engine to pump water, to which a grist mill was to be attached. They have met unexpected difficulties in the alternative schemes for bringing water from Penbugh, or Keswick, and they now doubt whether all their difficulties can be got over without the powers conferred by an Act of Parliament; but this question will occupy the earnest attention of the committee for the ensuing year. The report of the Commissioners in Lunacy and of the medical officer of the asylum were here read, but in consequence of their length we defer their publication till next week. We also defer the gaol chaplain’s report for the same reason. Mr. T.S. BOLITHO said that the county was very much indebted to the visitors for their exertions during the past year. He would suggest to the committee that it might be well to allow the removal of some of the patients to unions. He thought it would be desirable to have a separate building to which to remove partially cured patients, so as to give them change of scene and air. This plan was adopted in other countries—especially in Belgium and Germany, where the proportion of cures was much larger than in England; and the reult (sic) could only be attributed to that plan. Mr. CAREW said the suggestion was an excellent one; there could be no doubt that it would be an advantage to have a separate place to which to remove partially cured patients, but the great difficulty was the question of expense. With respect to removing patients to unions the difficulty was that the unions had no proper accommodation for them. They would require a separate ward, separate attendants, and better diet. Besides this they had received a circular from the commissioners in lunacy, stating that they should not in any case allow removals on the application of the unions themselves; the proposition for removal must originate with the committee, and he did not think they would be justified in recommending removals unless better accommodation were provided at union workhouses for the patients. Mr. TREMAYNE said it must not be forgotten that when patients were removed to unions they had power to give 24 hours’ notice for their discharge, and then they were lost to all medical supervision. The Visiting Committee was then appointed for the ensuing quarter. Lord VIVIAN moved that the reports be referred back to the committee, with the request that they consider at the earliest possible moment what additional accommodation is necessary for the due accommodation of all the lunatics in the county, and what would be the probable expense necessary to provide it. A letter had already appeared in the public prints casting an undeserved slur upon the county; but if they did not take steps to provide sufficient accommodation for their own lunatics they would lay themselves open to the slur. The report was accordingly referred back to the committee. THE INSURANCE QUESTION Mr. G. BENNET drew attention to the amount which the county was paying for insurance upon its various buildings amounting in all to the sum of £66.10s.11d. yearly, and as public stations were being built the amount would go on increasing. Insurance tables were drawn up so that the insurance officers must be the gainers in the end, and he therefore suggested that it was deserving of consideration whether they should not become their own insurers. Government buildings were never insured, and he did not see why the county buildings should be. There would be a large annual saving in the premiums, and he thought it would be wiser to run the risk of fire. He begged to propose that the question be referred to the Finance Committee for consideration. Mr. J.J. ROGERS and Mr. COODE agreed with Mr. Bennet that the matter was worthy of consideration, and it was referred to the Finance Committee. COUNTY CONSTABULARY Mr. E. Coode, junr, read the report of the County Police Committee, as follows:— A meeting of the Committee was held at the Chief Constable’s office yesterday, when the following members were present:—The Chairman, (Mr. E. Coode, junr.); Hon. and Rev. J.T. Boscawen; C.B.G. Sawle, Esq; F. Rodd, Esq; J.T.H. Peter, Esq; D.P. Le Grice, Esq; J. Trevenen, Esq; F.M. Williams, Esq; C.B. Kingdon, Esq, and Rev. R.B. Kinsman. The expenses incurred during the last quarter were examined and approved, and the vouchers for the present quarter were certified by the Chairman as correct. STATION—The committee hoped to have been able to report some progress made towards the buildings of this station. Having to deal with public money, the committee thought it their duty to apply to the solicitors of the proposed lessors of the site for some evidence of their title to grant such a course, being as the committee are prepared to admit, not usual in ordinary cases. As the lessors have declined to accede to this application, the committee cannot recommend the court to proceed further in the purchase, and have requested the chief constable to endeavour to find another site. STATION—A demand for tithe-rent-charge has been made on the county in respect of this station, but as the committee are advised that the said rent-charge belongs to an estate of which the county occupies a portion only, they have instructed Mr. Shilson to endeavour to arrange with the tithe owner for a fair apportionment of the charge between the county and the other occupiers. BLUE ANCHOR—A plan for this station has been approved by the committee, and it is hoped, should the sanction of the Secretary of State be obtained in time, that tenders will be procured in time for the next sessions. GOVERNMENT ALLOWANCE—A letter from the Hon. F. Peel on this subject has been referred to the committee, and the chief constable having furnished them with the necessary information, the Chairman was requested to prepare an answer setting forth the views of the committee for the approval of the court. The following sums should be charged to the county rate, and carried to the credit of the police rate, viz:— Conveyance and subsistence of Prisoners ...... £171 17 11 Allowance by Coroners ...... 41 12 0 For Weights and Measures’ expenses ...... 29 7 10 £242 17 9 A sum of £119. 1s. 11d. has accrued to the police superannuation fund, and should be invested as heretofore. A rate of one halfpenny in the pound will be sufficient for the present quarter. Mr. E. Coode, jun., Chairman Mr. Howell having sent in his resignation as a member of the police committee, the Rev. Prebendary Tatham was appointed in his place, on the motion of Mr. E. Coode jun. GOVERNMENT ALLOWANCES ON POLICE EXPENDITURE. Mr. E. Coode read the following letter from Mr. Frederick Peel in reference to this question, which has been for some time under the consideration of the court:— Treasury Chambers, 17th July, 1863 Sir,—I have laid before the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury the communication addressed to this board by the magistrates of the county of Cornwall, on the 1st instant, and I am desired by their Lordships to state to you in reply, that the amended form of return, showing only the net amount of pay received by the police force, was adopted by this board in consequence of their Lordships having reason to suppose that the sums certified as having been disbursed for pay in the several jurisdictions, included stoppages from the pay for various purposes, and also extra allowances which they did not consider came within the class of disbursements of which one-fourth is directed to be paid by the Act. The stoppages referred to consisted in most cases of deductions from the pay for the superannuation fund, and for rents of houses occupied by constables. As regards the first, I am to observe that stoppages for the superannuation fund are compulsory under the authority of acts which were passed prior to the act of 19th and 20th Vict., cap.69, and on which the contribution of one-fourth is made, that they are carried to a district pension fund, for the maintenance of which the county rate is liable, and that they form no portion of the real pay of the force, though they may be issued nominally as pay in the first instance from the police rate. It is not stated in the memorial under what conditions the deductions for rent are made. If, however, it can be shown that the county has provided buildings which are let to the police at rents not exceeding the average rents paid by the same classes of the police in the county who find their own lodgings, and there has been no increase of pay to cover this charge for rents, or any portion of it, my lords will not be disposed to insist upon stoppages made on this account. They desire, however, that it may be understood they would not feel justified in contributing to any allowance in lieu of lodgings, or to any addition to pay in any form resulting from arrangements for the occupation by the police of county buildings. Reference is made in the memorial to a deduction for medical attendance. There may be reasons which might induce their lordships to admit this deduction, specially as forming a portion of the pay on which the calculation of one-fourth is based; but I am to request that they may be informed of the nature of the stoppages in the County of Cornwall on this account, and of the manner in which it is applied. I am, sir, your obedient servant, F. PEEL To the Chairman of Quarter Sessions for the County of Cornwall Mr. COODE said that the following answer had been drawn up by the committee:— Bodmin, January 5th, 1864 Sir,—Your letter of the 17th of July last, on the subject of the stoppages from the pay of the Cornwall County Police, has been laid before the magistrates in quarter sessions and referred by them to their police committee, who having reported therein, I am requested by the magistrates to submit for the consideration of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury the following remarks:— 1st. As to the stoppages for the superannuation fund, the magistrates gather from the above- mentioned letter that their lordships have finally decided that they cannot admit this to be considered as part of the pay. They hope, however, it may not be considered disrespectful in them to observe that although the stoppages are made by law compulsory on the police, the rate of the stoppages is discretionary with the magistrates. (Mr. Coode stated that Mr. Peter had suggested the following addition, which he very gladly adopted). The superannuation fund appointed by Act of Parliament, is part of the regular wages which induce a police officer to give his services to the public. To the whole body of police its enjoyment is postponed; to individuals it is contingent; but it is part of the wages of all—part of the inducement to perform service held out by act of parliament. The ultimate liability of the county rates to pay superannuations, if that fund ordered to be laid according to act of parliament be not sufficient, throws a contingent burden on the county, and is a reason why that part of the police officers’ wages which goes to make up the enacted superannuation fund should not be thrown on the county. 2nd. As to stoppages for rent of quarters—No rent is charged except to constables who reside in buildings provided by the county. The rate of charge is two shillings per week each for married constables, and one shilling per week for single man, and these rates do not at all exceed the average rate at which the constables can procure quarters for themselves. No distinction as to amount of pay is made between constables paying rents to the county, and those who provide their own quarters; nor has any arrangement whatever been made for any allowance in lieu of lodgings, or for increase of pay on occupation of county buildings. 3rd. Stoppages for medical attendance—One penny per week is charged each constable without distinction of rank, under this head, and in consideration of this sum medical attendance is supplied when required. This stoppage, in fact, answers the purpose of an ordinary medical club, by which the constables jointly contribute to provide that which each would otherwise have to procure for himself at his sole expense. I am, &c, To the Right Hon. F. Peel Mr. J.J. ROGERS said that this subject had been under the consideration of a very competent body of gentlemen, chairmen of quarter sessions, who had met in London, amongst whom were Mr. Henley, chairman of the Oxford quarter sessions, and other eminent men; and they had expressed to him their great confidence that they would ultimately succeed in obtaining our just demands. It was probable that in the present year they would get a satisfactory answer from the Treasury upon the subject. The CHAIRMAN read a letter from Mr. Waddington, on the part of the Home Secretary, which stated that the Home Secretary had considered the inspectors’ report of the state of the police, in the county of Cornwall, and had much satisfaction in certifying to the Lords of the Treasury that the police force had been kept in a very satisfactory state during the past year. THE HIGHWAY ACT The CHAIRMAN said that the next business was to consider the confirmation of the provisional order dividing the county into highway districts, by a final order. Mr. ROGERS presented a memorial from the parish of Breage, or rather from a highway board in that parish, claiming to be exempted from the operation of the Act. He explained that there was a highway board in the parish up to 1851, but on the census being taken that year it was found that the population was under 5,000, and they consequently ceased under the Act to be a highway board. In 1861, however, it was found, on the census being again taken, that the population had risen to above 5,000, and the parishioners thought that they again became a highway board, and on that ground they claimed exemption from the operation of the Highway Act. He told the memorialists that he was afraid they would not be exempted from the operation of the Act, but that he would present their memorial to the Court. Mr. E. COODE, junr. said that he had a memorial to present from the St. Austell Board of Guardians, in which they set forth their views as to the way the Highway Act should be carried out. Some conversation then took place as to whether the whole of the numerous memorials from various unions and parishes in the county should be read. The CHAIRMAN said that there were four or five from individual parishes, and he thought that these should be read. But it was for the Court to say whether the eight memorials from various boards of guardians should be read also. Mr. H. TRELAWNEY—I beg to propose that none of them be read. Mr. LE GRICE—I propose that none of them which extend beyond two pages be read. Mr. E. COLLINS—I propose that all memorials coming from properly constituted vestries be read, and none others. Mr. J. ST. AUBYN—I do not agree with our making any distinction between memorials coming from parishes and those from unions; and I would suggest that the purport of all of them should be stated. Mr. W.H.P. CAREW—I am placed in a rather delicate position. I have a memorial to present from the Liskeard union, and although I differ from the views therein expressed, yet I would ask the Court to hear the arguments that are stated by the memorialists. I beg to propose, therefore, that all the memorials be read in extenso. Mr. T.S. BOLITHO seconded the motion. Mr. ROGERS—I agree very much with the motive which has influenced Mr. Carew, but I really think that all due respect would be done to the memorialists, if the proposal made by Mr. St. Aubyn were to be adopted. All the arguments in the memorials are well known to all the magistrates, especially those in the memorial from the Union. To read them in extenso would necessarily consume a great deal of our time, and as we have other duties to perform, I put it to the Court whether the suggestion of Mr. St. Aubyn would not be sufficient. I am not inclined to treat any memorial with disrespect, although I think that a difference should be made between memorials coming from unions, and those from properly constituted vestries. Mr. J. ST. AUBYN said that if his suggestion was unanimously adopted he thought it would be the best mode of dealing with the matter, but if there were some magistrates who thought that the memorials should be read, he should withdraw the proposal. Mr. T.S. BOLITHO—It will be better to read them. Mr. D.P. LE GRICE—And stop this discussion. It was then agreed that the memorials should be all read. The CHAIRMAN said that he should have to ask Sir Colman Rashleigh to be so kind as to read the memorials for him, as the present state of his health would not allow him to undertake the duty. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH then read the memorials from the , the Truro, St. Austell, Bodmin, Falmouth, and Liskeard Boards of Guardians in favour of Union districts; and from the Stratton and Launceston Unions in favour of Petty Sessional districts. Mr. CAREW said that he had been requested to explain, that with respect to the memorial from the Liskeard union it had been signed by the chairman only as a matter of form, and that the gentlemen disagreed entirely with the views expressed in it. Mr. CAREW then presented memorials from a public meeting of the inhabitants of Callington and neighbourhood, from the ratepayers of the parish of Callington, and from the parishes of St. Dominick and South Hill, forming a very large portion of the Liskeard union, expressing their approval of Petty Sessional districts, and requesting the magistrates to confirm the provisional order by a final order at the present sessions. He also presented memorials from St. Stephen’s and the St. Germans union, asking for the appointment of two waywardens instead of one as proposed in the provisional order; from , one of the largest parishes in the county, containing nearly 40 miles of roads, asking for the appointment of two waywardens; from another place in the parish of Calstock, the name of which we did not catch, on the same subject; all of which were read by Sir Colman Rashleigh, who also read a resolution passed at a meeting in the parish of to the effect that every means be taken to prevent the parish being included under the operation of the act; a memorial from and St. Erney, asking for the appointment of two waywardens. Mr. CAREW—Before we proceed to the question of confirming the final order, I wish to state that I think it would be very desirable to reduce the standard of mileage on which the committee gave two waywardens to 24 instead of 30. This will give to several of the Petty Sessional districts a larger number of waywardens, and I think it will give great satisfaction to many large parishes, the mileage of whose roads come within this category. If this proposal is adopted, it will give two waywardens instead of one in the following parishes:—Altarnun, St. Ives, St. Stephens-by-, , Gorran, , , , , St. Breward, , St. Breock, St. Columb Union, St. Wenn, , . This would afford great satisfaction, because much importance has been attached by certain of the ratepayers to the statement that the magistrates will have a majority in the highway boards. For my own part, however, I do not think there is much in the objection. For instance, it is said that there are eleven magistrates in my Petty Sessional division, but we think ourselves extremely fortunate if we can get three of them to attend; and I think the same thing will be found in other districts. Two of the eleven are peers of parliament, two are non-resident nine months out of the twelve, three more are prevented from attending from other causes, so that the number is reduced down to four, and we consider ourselves very lucky when we can get three out of these four to attend. I really think that the cry which has been raised as to the magistrates being a majority at the board meetings is not justifiable, but still it will be desirable to make this alteration in order to afford satisfaction to certain parishes that may think one waywarden too little. It has been thought by some that the making of this alteration would effect the passing of the final order at these sessions, but that is a mistake, and if the proposal should meet with the approval of the court, I will move that the alteration be made. Mr. LE GRICE: I can only say that in my district the waywardens are double the number of magistrates Mr. CAREW: Still I think it desirable that the alteration should be made, as it will show that the jealousy with which we have been regarded in this matter is unjustifiable. Mr. LE GRICE: Suppose that the roads of any parish should exceed 50 miles, will three waywardens be given to it? Mr. Carew: No; we think that two waywardens are enough in the case of any parish. Mr. E. COODE, junr:—I think the suggestion is an important one, and deserving of our consideration. As to the St. Austell Union it would be very slightly affected by the alteration, the only parish that would be affected being Gorran, which would have two waywardens instead of one. As to the objection that the magistrates will possess a majority at the boards, I consider there is really nothing in it; but, nevertheless, I think that the mileage of the roads of the different parishes should be taken into consideration, so that the number of waywardens should be apportioned in some degree to the mileage, and to the trouble necessary to keep the roads in repair. In the St. Austell district, for instance, there are two parishes in which the expenditure on the roads has been more than double that of all the rest of the district put together—St. Austell and St. Stephens. They have each 40 miles of roads, and according to the arrangement that has been made they would only have four waywardens. Now I think that is not enough, and I beg to propose that the number of elected waywardens in the St. Austell Petty Sessional district be as follows:—St. Austell parish, 3; St. Stephens, 3; St. Dennis, 1, St. Gorran, 2, St. Ewe, 2; , 1; St. Mewan, 1; and Roche, 2. That would increase the number of elected waywardens from 11 to 15 for this district. Mr. R.G. LAKES—I should be very sorry to do anything to prevent or delay the carrying out of the Act; but I must say that there are strong grounds for the alteration proposed by Mr. Coode. There are no such roads as those of St. Stephens in the county, as it is impossible to pass over them. I beg to second the motion, if its adoption would not in any way prevent or delay the carrying of the Act into operation. Mr. Carew—I would suggest that we should confine ourselves to day as much as possible to a general rule with respect to the standard of the mileage. If it should be shown that in St. Austell or any other parish an increase ought to be made in the number of waywardens, it can be done hereafter—(hear) Mr. N. KENDALL—I was just going to say that I think we should to-day confine ourselves to the adoption of a general rule. Hereafter, should it be found that any parish should have an additional waywarden, the alteration can be made. Mr. ROGERS asked whether St. Keverne, the largest parish in the North district, would be affected by the alteration proposed by Mr. Carew? Mr. CAREW—No; St. Keverne is entitled to two waywardens according to our previous arrangement. Mr. Coode, jun., said he should be happy to adopt the suggestion of Mr. Carew were it not that they should be in this position—that they would be unable to make any alteration hereafter without going through all the preliminary formalities again, such as advertising and other preliminary expenses. Mr. CAREW—I have no doubt that it will be found necessary hereafter to give notice of other alterations. For instance, I shall probably have an alteration to propose in the Liskeard district. It has long been desired to have a petty sessions there, and I think it will be possible to establish it there. If so, it will be desirable to transfer the parish of Menheniot to the Liskeard district. Mr. CAREW—I should like to make a few remarks with reference to the objections that have been urged by some of the boards of guardians in this county, if the Court will grant its indulgence— (hear, hear). And first of all I should like to refer to the memorial from the Truro union. I find, first of all, that an objection is made to the accuracy of the mileage returns; and it is stated that there are only 311 miles of roads in the Truro Union. Now, I cannot find, on comparing the returns put forth in the Truro Guardians’ report with those which we gave, and which were received by the clerks of petty sessions from the waywardens, when there was no object to serve, any reason why we should trust the former in preference. I do not see any reason why we should attach greater accuracy to the returns given in this report than to those which are published. After comparing the returns of mileage of the roads in one or two parishes of the Truro Union as published in the report of the board of guardians, with those issued by the magistrates, he continued—I cannot believe that our returns are so far incorrect as we are told they are. Then, I find that no reference is made in this report to what we think is one of the most important points which we have to consider. Mr. Hickes, one of our bridge surveyors, has been kind enough to bring here Greenwood’s large map of the county, in which all the Petty Sessional districts are marked out; and it must be obvious to any gentleman who looks at this, that compactness is a very material point to be attended to in the settlement of the districts; and that 315 miles of roads within a small area is infinitely more workable than only half that distance extended over a large space—(hear, hear). The next point referred to in the Truro report is that a large portion of the roads are roads of slight traffic, and I do not think that upon that point anything can be better stated than is contained in the very able letter of Mr. Thomas Liddell:— “It may be a matter of but little importance to the public generally whether or not these minor ways are efficiently amended; but to the farmer located in their vicinity it will be almost a matter of life and death. He has to bring home his corn and turnips, and cart out his dung and mineral manures, as well as carry away the various productions of his farm, and he must necessarily be a great sufferer if facilities are not afforded him for the due performance of these important operations. Need we say that the wear and tear of his implements and cattle will greatly depend on the roads over which he has to travel? Nor should it be forgotten that any ratepayer can compel the effectual reparation of our ways. Not many years since a piece of road not far from the homestead of a certain estate in St. Minver was found in a dilapidated condition. That piece of road accommodated scarcely any one but the farmer living just by, and he requested that the road which had been so long neglected should again be put in repair. The surveyor demurred, alleging as a reason that the road was not of much public benefit, and that the funds at his disposal had better be applied where they could be of more general service. But the complainant was inexorable; he insisted that the road should be repaired, and of course the surveyor had no alternative. The renovation enforced by the yeoman of St. Minver may be, and no doubt will be, required by gentlemen in other parts, and it may be predicted that our surveyors will find, in the superintendence of those, our comparatively unimportant ways, anything but a bed of roses or a sinecure.” Now I will go further than Mr. Liddell on this point, for I contend that if a saving is to be effected, it is to be effected by the attention of the waywardens to these little roads. I do not apprehend that on the roads of large traffic any great saving will be effected. Mr. Liddell points out that the roads over which there is large traffic are generally open to the action of the sun and wind, whereas the roads on which there is small traffic are narrow, wet with springs, and shrouded by hedges, and so thin in material that ruts are easily formed. Great inattention has been shown to them by the waywardens for many years, who have thought nothing of leaving them with great gullies from the rain running down the centre, and ultimately a greater expense will be thrown on the parishes in putting these roads in order than would have been incurred if they had been properly attended to. The evil can only be remedied by the surveyors going regularly over them, and seeing that the hedges and those things which have affected them, owing to the want of attention, are removed. The next point in this Truro report is that the surveyor would, in attending to the summonses of parties, lose no time, as he would have to pass over the roads under his care; but, I ask, is it true of the Truro Union? I believe, on the contrary, that the petty sessions are so many that they have to attend some out of the union. The next point that is urged is the expediency of the highway boards sitting after the board of guardians had finished their business; but I ask any one who knows anything of the business of boards of guardians, whether it would be desirable to leave the management of the roads to such meetings—to men who are tired with the business which they have had to transact in relation to the relief of the poor, and no doubt anxious to hurry away to market. The report then speaks of the saving of expense that would be effected from the using of the board rooms of the union houses for the meeting of the highway boards, instead of having to hire buildings for the purpose, and employing the clerks of the unions as the clerks of the highway boards. Now if the union houses should be thought the best places for the meetings of the highway boards, I see no reason why they should not be appointed; but I cannot see that any saving of expense would be effected by adopting Unions instead of Petty Sessional districts. If the clerks of unions should be appointed, they would have to be paid for their services, and if in any instance any of these clerks should be found the most suitable person for the office, I see no reason why he should not be appointed. I also think that a great deal of misapprehension has arisen in consequence of its being thought that the meeting of the highway boards will be as frequent as the meetings of boards of guardians. My opinion is that there will be no necessity for meeting more than six times in the year at first, and that after the Act is put in operation, it will not be necessary to meet oftener than four times yearly. I will now briefly refer to the memorial from the Liskeard Board of Guardians, which was entrusted to me to present. That memorial begins by assuming that poor law unions have a similarity of organization with highway districts, the districts should be the same. If their objects were the same that argument would apply, but there is no similarity of objects between them. Then it is stated that the board rooms of the workhouses are available for the meetings of the highway boards without any expenses. As I said before, I see no reason why that arrangement should not be adopted. Another matter which has been made a question in several of the memorials is that of appeals. Now, Mr. Rogers has called my attention to the fact that the appeal is to the quarter sessions and not to petty sessions. The object of going before the magistrates is that they have power to take examinations upon oath, whereas boards of guardians and highway boards have no such power. There is no reason, therefore, why parishes should not act on these highway boards because questions of appeal will not come before them but before quarter sessions; and there are always enough magistrates here to decide any appeal, without any magistrate acting in the district from which it comes, taking any part in it. The Liskeard memorials then go into the same arguments previously used by the Truro board, to which I have referred; but I may say that the chairman told me he merely signed the document as chairman of the board, and that he did not himself agree with it. I could not help asking how many gentlemen were present, because it appears that a great deal of steam had been got up by the board within a short time. I learned that out of 43 elected guardians in the Liskeard union, 26 only voted on this matter, and out of them only 17 voted in favour of the memorial. Six did not vote at all. So that the actual result is that only 17 out of 43 guardians were in favour of the memorials. I state this because I wish you to see that this memorial does not fairly represent the feeling of the ratepayers of the Liskeard union—(hear, hear). I hope before any vote is taken on the final order that the motion which I have proposed with regard to the number of waywardens will be adopted. Mr. ROGERS said with reference to the Truro memorial he had some remarks to make in addition to what had been said by Mr. Carew. It states that the surveyor need not suffer any waste of time in going to or from Petty Sessions as he would have to travel over the very roads to which he would have to attend, besides which, his attendance could be dispensed with, agreeably to the 18th section of the act. Now any person looking at section 48 would see that the exemption of the surveyor from attendance only referred to cases where the summons was against the surveyor, when it might be answered by the Clerk or any member of the board, and to the much more numerous instances in which he himself issues the summons, and must of necessity attend to Petty Sessions to sustain them. It must therefore follow that where there was more than one Petty Sessions within a highway district, the surveyor would be subjected to a loss of time in attending them; and in the Truro Union there would be four or five. There was another reason why Petty Sessional districts should be preferred. In the neighbouring County of Devon the Petty Sessional districts had been adopted, as the basis of the highway districts, and as there were several parishes on the borders of Cornwall which were not in the Union, they would be entirely excluded from the operation of the Highway Act if Union districts were adopted. Mr. CAREW said he had since coming into court, received a letter from Mr. Hickes, who was known to many of the magistrates as a very able surveyor of the Truro trust. He ventured to say that there were no roads in England better kept than those of the Truro trust—(hear, hear). The letter was as follows:— Truro, Jan. 4, 1864 Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd, which only came to hand this morning. I will, if all be well, bring the map with me to the sessions. I quite think, the highway’s committee came to the right conclusion in dividing the county with petty sessional highway divisions. The rule of division adopted by the most counties cannot be fairly applied to this, for there are a far greater number of miles of roads in a given area in this county than in any other I know; and besides, in consequence of the mines and denser population, the traffic is much more and much heavier. The districts you propose contain about the same number of miles of roads as union districts in other counties. Many of the unions would have been much too large for one surveyor, however competent, to have managed with economy or satisfaction to his board. I consider that no surveyor should have more than from 150 to 200 miles of roads; if he has more he cannot properly manage them; and allow me to say everything depends upon the ability of the surveyor under the act. If, therefore, one surveyor cannot manage more than 150 or 200 miles of roads, another surveyor must be employed in union districts; and then I cannot see where the saving can be, in adopting union districts, for the surveyor’s salary is the chief extra expense. I cannot see, either, why the Highway Boards may not hold their meetings as cheaply and as conveniently at the different places where the petty sessions are now held as at the unions. I should be glad to render you any service in my power. I beg to remain, sir, Your obedient servant, W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. THOS. HICKES Mr. CAREW said he considered the testimony of such an experienced and practical a man as Mr. Hickes was very important on the matter. It thoroughly coincided with what he had before stated, but he must say that he believed Mr. Hickes to be in error with respect to the adoption of union districts by most other counties. He begged to propose that in accordance with the alteration in the standard of mileage from 30 to 24 miles, the parishes which he had before mentioned should have each two waywardens instead of one. Mr. RODD proposed an amendment that the recommendation of the committee be adhered to. Lord VIVIAN said he was about to propose the same thing, for he saw that they were about to involve themselves. Up to this time the committee had appointed the minimum number of waywardens, with the intention of waiting to see the working of the act, and then to increase the number if necessary. Now the only argument in favour of an additional number of waywardens was that very foolish one that had entered the heads of some people—he hoped only a few—that there would be collisions between the waywardens and the magistrates. The act merely required the performance of a simple duty, that was to put the roads in a proper state of repair, and to keep them in that state. In that the interests of the waywardens and the magistrates were identical, and how was it possible, provided they entered upon their duties with a desire to carry into effect the provisions of the act, that any collision should take place. It was a most ridiculous notion. He believed that perfect unanimity would exist between the magistrates and the waywardens; and it was a mistake to propose this alteration, because, in doing so, they were admitting one of the strongest arguments which he had seen used against the making of the final order, namely, that they had obtained wrong information with regard to the mileage of the different districts. They have got the best information they could possibly get, but many of the petitions now informed them that it was all a fallacy, but as it was official information, they were bound to rely upon it. He believed the waywardens would find their duties altogether very light, and after they had found an efficient surveyor, their duties would be almost nil. The step for the court to take was to act in accordance with the recommendation of their committee which they had appointed, and whose views had been so ably supported by their Chairman, Mr. Carew, but who in the alteration he was now proposing, was only speaking in his own name and not in that of the committee—(hear, hear, from Mr. Carew). Let them carry the Act into operation, and then suggest any alteration which might be necessary afterwards—(hear, hear). The Rev. S. Symons seconded the amendment. On being put, 32 voted for the amendment, and 6 against. Mr. Carew’s motion for the alteration was therefore lost. On the motion of Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., seconded by the Hon. and Rev. T. BOSCAWEN, Monday the 11th of April, was appointed as the first day for the meeting of the new highway boards. Mr. G. BENNETTS asked what expenses had been already incurred. The CLERK of the PEACE replied that the expenses were already about £170. Mr. BENNETTS: Which will be thrown to the winds if the final order is not made. The CLERK of the PEACE: Yes. The CHAIRMAN then put the question “that the Provisional order be made final,” which was carried by acclamation. The Court then proceeded with the TRIAL (sic) OF PRISONERS. BILLS IGNORED—The following bills were ignored by the Grand Jury:— JOHN BENNETTS, charged with stealing two asses, the property of Sampson Stephens, of Mawgan, on the 11th October. RICHARD DAWE, charged with stealing a purse and 3 sovereigns from the person of John , at Redruth CYRUS MORCOM, charged with breaking into a shop and stealing a quantity of goods at the parish of , on the 21st October. MARY JANE PENHALIGON, charged with stealing from Elizabeth Roberts, a purse, 4s. and a threepenny piece, belonging to William Roberts, at the borough of Truro, on the 28th November. PLEADED GUILTY. THOMAS DAVIS, 14, labourer, with stealing a sovereign, the property of Wm. Teembath (sic), at the parish of . Sentenced to 14 days’ hard labour, and to be once privately whipped. SAMUEL FIELDING, 20, seaman, with stealing four eggs, the property of Thos. Shephard, at Padstow, on the 30th Dec. There was a previous conviction against the prisoner and he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. SUSAN JOLLY, 25, mine worker, with stealing flour, and a silver spoon, &c., the property of Philip Holland, at Illogan, on the 2nd October; also to stealing five brooches, the property of Ann Welman Roe, at Camborne. Sentenced to two months’ hard labour for each offence. JANE KNIGHT, 26, charwoman, with stealing from the person of John Trethewey, as (sic) , a bag and three sovereigns, at Redruth. She was sentenced to 6 months’ hard labour. BENJAMIN NATHAN, 54, quill dresser, with stealing 44 lb. of beef, the property of Thos. James, at the parish of Redruth, on the 20th November. Three months’ hard labour. FIRST COURT, Wednesday Before C.G.B. SAWLE, Esq., and J.T.H. PETERS, Esq. STEALING A FLANNEL JACKET AT NORTHHILL. GEORGE GUEST, 24, labourer, was charged with stealing a flannel coat the property of Wm. Hicks, at the parish of Northhill, on the 19th of Oct. Mr. Cornish appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that Hicks, who is an old man, went about the country with a donkey and cart, and on the evening in question, he called at the house of a farmer named Crocker, at Lenderey, where he remained to supper, putting his donkey and cart into the waggon house in the mean time. He left his flannel coat in the cart, but on returning it was gone; next day police sergeant Gill found the coat at the prisoner’s house, under the tick of the bed where his wife was lying. It was proved that the prisoner was on Mr. Crocker’s premises on the evening of the robbery. He was found guilty, and this being his fourth conviction, he was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude. The Chairman remarked, in passing sentence, that the prisoner was one of those characters who appeared to live upon plunder, and upon whom leniency had no effect. He was was (sic) therefore determined to remove the prisoner for some time from his life of crime. STEALING A PIECE OF LINSEY AT TRURO. EMMA RICKLESS, 26, servant, and HENRY SCOBLE, 48, miner, and small farmer, were charged with stealing, at Truro, on the 28th Nov., 11 yards of linsey, two yards of lining, and two reels of cotton, the property of Mary Coad. Mr. G.B. Collins, of St. Columb, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Marrack defended Scoble. The prosecutrix is a farmer’s daughter living in the parish of , where also the two prisoners live. On Saturday the 28th Nov., the prosecutrix and the prisoners were in Truro, and both prosecutrix’s father and the prisoner Rickless, had carts, each of which was placed in the open yard at the Seven Stars Inn, Truro. The prosecutrix purchased the articles named in the indictment at Mr. Job’s shop, and about five o’clock placed them in her father’s cart, and went away to return to Cubert in a van. The father, James Coad, saw the parcel safe in the cart, and then went into the stable, to bring out his horse. At this time he observed the two prisoners in the yard, and did not see any other person in the yard at the time. He left about a quarter of an hour afterwards, and on getting home missed the parcel placed in the cart by his daughter. Police constable Hellan went to the house of the female prisoner on the following day, and asked her if she knew anything of a dress; she said she did and produced a parcel, containing 7¼ yards of linsey, 1 yard of lining, and 1 reel of cotton. She said Henry Scoble knew all about it; he had put the articles into her cart, and she had not stolen them; but as he was going to take the parcel away she said she would keep it till somebody called for it. Afterwards Scoble’s house was searched and another reel of cotton was found; and in an outhouse on Scoble’s premises another piece of linsey, 3⅛ yards, and another yard of lining were found under the thatch, making with what had been found in the possession of Rickless, the exact quantity purchased by the prosecutrix. The articles also corresponded with those purchased in appearance; the linsey was evidently from the same piece, and the two yards of lining were of different colours and qualities. The prisoner Scoble, on being apprehended said that the prosecutrix’s father and his son were both drunk at the Seven Stars, and that a pig which they had in the cart, broke loose and knocked the parcel out of the cart. The parcel was picked up by a man and put into Rickless’s cart, and was taken home. Mr. Marrack submitted that there was no evidence whatever on which to convict Scoble. The only evidence affecting him was that a reel of cotton, which could not be identified, was found in his house, for the articles found under the thatch of an outhouse might have been put there without his knowledge. There was only a bare case of suspicion against him, and the jury must have specific evidence of theft before they could convict. After a careful summing up by the Chairman the jury acquitted both prisoners. ROBBERY BY A LODGER AT ST. AUSTELL. ANN MEAGOR, 17, farm labourer, was charged with stealing two petticoats, a pair of drawers, a pair of stockings, and a pair of boots, the property of Mr. Penver, of St. Austell. Mr. Shilson, junr., prosecuted. It appeared that the prisoner had lodged with the prosecutor for three days. She left on the 4th December and the goods were missed the same day. The prisoner was apprehended by Superintendent Sherston, at Scorrier, on the 9th December. The prisoner was searched at the station-house, St. Austell, and the petticoats, and other articles were found on her person. The prosecutor’s wife identified them. The prisoner said in defence that she bought the articles for 3s. 6d. from the prosecutrix. She was found guilty; two previous convictions were proved, and she was sentenced to six calendar months’ imprisonment with hard labour. STEALING TWO ASSES AT MAWGAN. SOLOMON PARNALL, a labourer, about 35 years of age, was charged with stealing two asses, the property of Sampson Stephens, of Mawgan. Mr. J.B. Collins appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr. Jenkins, of Penryn, defended the prisoner. A boy named John Bennetts was included in the indictment, but the grand jury ignored the bill, and he was brought up as a witness against Parnall. The case for the prosecution was that on the 11th October the prisoner, who resides at , called upon the boy Bennett, asked him to go with him to get two donkeys, promising to give him one of them. They accordingly went together, and on Tregullion Common, at Mawgan, they found two donkeys. The prisoner caught one, and put a halter on, and he and the boy drove both back to Perranzabuloe, where prisoner gave the old one to the boy. They were seen by a girl named Caroline Benney, near the common, on the morning of the day in question. On the same evening, she saw the prisoner and the boy driving two donkeys towards Perranzabuloe. She knew that one of the donkeys belonged to the prosecutor, having seen it almost every day for two years. The prosecutor said that he had had the older of the two donkeys for 4 years. He identified the old one by a cut on the ear, and the younger one by a welt on the leg. The prisoner, who is a volunteer in the Cornwall Miners’ Militia, and received a good character, was found guilty, and sentenced to four months imprisonment, with hard labour. BREAKING INTO A DWELLING-HOUSE AT ST. AGNES. CATHERINE HELIE, 19, servant, was charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Richard Piper, at the parish of St. Agnes, and stealing 12s. 6d. in silver, and a silk dress of the value of £1, the property of Richard Piper. Mr. Stokes appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. The jury found the prisoner guilty of stealing only, and she was sentenced to three months’ hard labour. BREAKING INTO A WAREHOUSE AT TRURO. ANTHONY STEWART, 20, labourer, was charged with breaking and entering a warehouse in the borough of Truro, and stealing a barrel of lard of the value of 20s., the property of Stephen Thomas Middleton, on the 19th November. Mr. Marrack prosecuted. The barrel of lard was never found, but Superintendent Woolcock found portions of the staves in the , near Truro, which were identified by the prosecutor. The Chairman in summing up, said there was no evidence of breaking, and therefore the jury must only consider the question of stealing. The prisoner was found guilty, and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment with hard labour. STEALING DUCKS AT SALTASH. JAMES TICKLE, a middle-aged man, and ISAAC BROOKING, a young man aged about 20, were charged with stealing two live ducks on the 26th December. Mr. D.H. Shilson for the prosecution, and Mr. Childs defended Brooking, who had been on bail. The prosecution were unable to prove the case, and the prisoners were acquitted. THE FRAUDS BY A BLIND MAN—INGENIOUS DEFENCE BY THE PRISONER. CHARLES PEARCE MUTTON was indicted for having on the 26th May last, falsely pretended to Wm. Bawden and others, that he was authorised by the superintendent of the Wesleyan Methodists, at Truro, to raise money for the said institution, and with receiving certain moneys from the said Wm. Bawden, and appropriating it to his own use. There was a second count, charging the prisoner with obtaining money from James Giles, of Kea, under similar circumstances to the first charge. Mr. Stokes said there were three distinct charges to which the jury would have to direct their attention, in each of which he was charged with obtaining money under false pretences; in the first case in May; again in the early part of June, and again towards the end of June. William Bawden said: I reside at ; I am connected with the Wesleyan chapel. The prisoner called at my house on the 23rd of May; he asked me if I would grant him the chapel in order to deliver a lecture; I first asked him the object of his lecture; he said it was in order to establish an institution in the county for the instruction of the blind, teaching them to read and write, make baskets, and so forth. I first objected on account of the day, as I required the chapel for some other purpose. He told me that Mr. Carus-Wilson, of Truro, was the treasurer; he then went on at great length to describe the great benefits which the institution would confer, and I allowed him to have the chapel. He then mentioned the name of Mr. Cheeseman, the Wesleyan Superintendent of the district, who he said had referred him to us. He lectured on the 20th (sic) of May; he said he wanted no money for himself, as he had two annuities from other institutions—one of £10, and the other of £20. I made a collection for him in the chapel, which amounted to 9s. 7d; I took him the collection, and regretted the smallness of the amount; he said “well, you must make it even money,” or “a round sum”; I then made it up to 10s., and handed him the money; I did not see him again till he was in custody. Charles Alford said:—I am steward of the Wesleyan chapel at Trespin, St. Erme. In the early part of June I saw the prisoner; he asked to be allowed to give a lecture in our chapel; he said he had got word from Mr. Cheeseman and Mr. Jonathan Rowe to come to me for permission to lecture; he asked what time would suit us best; he said the object was to raise an institution in Truro for the training of the blind; he said that as there was no institution of the kind in the county of Cornwall, one ought to be erected, and his object in lecturing was to raise funds for erecting this institution. I then granted him the use of the chapel, and he lectured in the evening, and mentioned the object again, and said that he had an annuity of £30; there was a collection made that night, amounting to 5s. 6d., which I handed to him; he said Mr. Carus-Wilson, of Truro, would be treasurer. Cross-examined by the prisoner:— Did I not tell the audience that my object was to stir them up to agitate the question, and to try and induce influential people to take the matter up, and obtain subscriptions?—Witness: I don’t remember that you did. James Giles said: I live at , in Kea, and am a Wesleyan. The prisoner came to Baldhu on the 30th June; he said he wanted to lecture in the chapel on behalf of the blind; he said there were 500 persons blind in Cornwall; he said Mr. Wilson would keep all the monies; he lectured in the chapel, which was full of people; we collected from 14s. to 15s., and I made it a sovereign, which I gave him; I also entertained him for the night and accompanied him part of the way to Truro. Prisoner: Have you a circular of mine on which the object of the letter is stated? Witness: Yes. Prisoner: Then please hand it in. Prisoner: Did I not conclude my lecture by asking you to unite in prayer to move the hearts of the rich and influential, to make an effort in the cause of the blind? Witness: I believe you did. Mr. Edward Shepard Carus-Wilson said: I am a banker at Truro. I saw the prisoner about two years ago; he brought me a testimonial from Dr. Taylor, and he said his object was to open an institution for the blind in the town of Truro; he told me he had been in the blind institutions at Devonport and Exeter, and was, therefore, able to teach the blind; he produced a book with persons’ names down for various sums for this object, and then he asked me to receive any sums he might collect; and with them to defray any bills incurred in his undertaking. I wrote a statement, adverting to this, in his book. He never paid me any money, and I never again saw him till he was in custody. The prisoner: When I called upon you on the 21st Feb., 1862, to ask you to become treasurer, I also asked you to subscribe, did I not? Witness: I believe you did. Prisoner: Did you not ask me how I was to support myself? Witness: I might have done. Prisoner: Did I not say that I would make the lectures support me, and my object in asking you to become treasurer was that there should be a guarantee that the subscriptions should be properly applied? Witness: You said your object in making me treasurer, was that as you were a blind man, the public might know that the money was in the hands of a responsible person. Prisoner: Just so; then you intended me to use your name to the public? Witness: Yes for the object stated. Prisoner here produced a small pocket account book, and passed it to Mr. Wilson, asking if that was not the book in which he signed his name. Mr. Wilson said it was the very book. Superintendent Complin said he apprehended the prisoner at Redruth on the 8th December. I charged him with obtaining money under false pretences. He said—“In what way.” I replied by pretending that you were lecturing for an institution for the blind, whereas you appropriated the money to your own use. He said, “Oh, if that’s all, I am clear of that, for the money I collected at the lectures were for my own personal benefit. It was never intended that the money from the lectures should go to the institution, for that was all I had to support me, and it badly did it.” The prisoner’s deposition before the magistrates was then put in, in which he stated he was not guilty of the charge, and that the money which he had received at the lectures were for his own benefit, he having no other means of support. The prisoner, who throughout the trial exhibited the utmost coolness and tact, and displayed an accurate memory as to dates and circumstances, addressed the jury at great length. He said his position today was to him a most painful one standing before them charged with a crime which it had been, his great endeavour to avoid even the suspicion of; but he trusted that although he was unable to employ a solicitor, he should have at their hands a patient and impartial hearing, and he would state facts as briefly as possible. He had unfortunately never known the value of sight, but he did know that if the means were afforded to him and his numerous fellow creatures who were deprived of the blessing of sight in this county, by the erection of a proper home for the blind, they would be able to earn their living by their own industry. Feeling strongly upon this point, and knowing that a few years ago an effort had been made by a blind man to raise subscriptions for such an object, which effort had failed in consequence of the inability of the man to travel without a guide, he determined to resume the attempt. He called upon several influential gentlemen at Truro, and they asked him who was to see that the money was properly expended after it was collected. He could of course make no answer to this, but the gentlemen gave him several names, amongst which were Mr. Carus Wilson, upon whom he called and explained his object. He afterwards obtained permission to lecture at various chapels, but the understanding always was that the money collected at the lectures should be for his own maintenance, and the object of his lectures was to agitate the question and to stir up the minds of the rich and influential men of the county to take the matter in hand. A public meeting was held at Redruth, at which clergymen of all denominations were present, and at which the Rev. J.W. Hawkesley presided. The question was very fully discussed; but the meeting decided that as a town they could not take the matter up. Several of the gentlemen present, however, advised him to continue to agitate the question and it was suggested that he should appropriate £30 a year, or 11s 6d per week out of the collections for his own use, and that anything which remained above that amount should be paid to the treasurer. To that he agreed, and he afterwards lectured in various parts of the county. He stated at every lecture that his object was to bring before the public the practicability of forming an establishment for the employment of the blind in Cornwall, and he told the assembly that he required their influence to make the object succeed. He showed that there were 300 incapable blind in Cornwall, and that that was the only county without a blind asylum. He always stated that accounts of money collected were to be rendered, and showed how the institution could be carried on for £400 or £500 per year. He had taught several blind persons to read and write, and had instructed the parents of others how to teach them, and procured them the proper books. He had received in all during the year and eight months which he had been lecturing £35. 6s. 10d., which was only about 7s. 6d. a week. He had gone to work with the idea that if he succeeded he should be instrumental in the performance of a work which would be of great benefit to himself and to his fellow creatures; he often had to travel 10 miles to give a lecture, and perhaps only collect 5s. from an audience of 300 people. He knew that people sometimes practised imposition, and for that reason he was most particular, that the audiences should know for what purpose the money collected at the lectures was intended; and he fully believed that they did know. He asked the jury if it was not a proof that they knew the collection was for his own use when an assembly of 300 people only gave 5s. or 6s.; for could they believe that if such an assembly of Cornishmen thought they were subscribing towards the erection of an institution for the benefit of 300 of their unfortunate fellow creatures, they would limit their subscriptions to so small a sum as 5s. or 6s. amongst nearly 300 people; no, such could not be the case. However, he at length found that he could not succeed, as there was no zeal shown in the matter, and he determined to retire from the attempt; he had not then a farthing of money; he made his wants known to a gentleman in the county who had kindly interested himself on his behalf, and he had received thirty shillings per week for seven weeks—twenty-five shillings from that gentleman, and five shillings from another. Some persons in Redruth had latterly interested themselves in his behalf; a subscription was raised, and the same gentleman forwarded £3 towards it, for the object set forth in his book. The prisoner here handed an account book to the Chairman. But while he was in hopes of seeing this object realised, he was charged with the crime of imposition; he could answer then that his only object was the benefit of his fellow creatures, and that the collections at the lectures which were bare enough to keep life in him, were fully understood always to be for his own use. He now entrusted, he might say, his life to the jury, for he knew he was ruined for ever if he was committed for such a crime. The Chairman in summing up, said if the jury thought the prisoner obtained the money ostensibly for his own benefit, there was no false pretence, and they must acquit the prisoner; if on the other hand they believed that he obtained the use of the chapels to give lectures for the benefit of a blind institution, they must find him guilty. The jury, with only one moment’s consultation, found the prisoner guilty on all the indictments. The Chairman in passing sentence said, the prisoner was one of a class of men who, by imposing upon charitable people, help to steel their hearts against charity, and thereby did a grievous injury to useful charitable institutions. However, on account of his blindness, the court were disposed to deal leniently with him, and they thought the publicity given to the matter would prevent him from imposing upon the public in the future. The sentence of the court would be, that he be imprisoned for one month with hard labour as was suitable to him. SECOND COURT.—WEDNESDAY. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Chairman, J.J. Rogers, Esq., M.P., and J. Trevenen, Esq.) ROBBERY AT TRURO. WM. MATTHEWS, aged 32, labourer, was charged with stealing, on the 16th December, at the borough of Truro, from the person of Wm. Jenkins, a bag, containing about £1 10s. in silver. Mr. Marrack prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The jury found him guilty; and the Chairman, in passing sentence, said it was fortunate for the prisoner that he had not been indicted for this felony, after previous conviction. Punishment appeared to have had very little effect upon him for he found that between 1847 and the present time he had been convicted at the assizes, quarter sessions, and summarily no less than eight times, the present making the ninth conviction, besides having been acquitted on one or two occasions when charged with other offences. The court could not allow a person of the prisoner’s character to remain in the county, and the sentence which he should pass upon him was Four years’ penal servitude, at the same time informing him that no part of the term would be remitted. WHOLESALE FEMALE BURGLARS. ELIZABETH JANE JOLLY, aged 19, a mine girl, JANE TRETHOWAN, aged 38, and MARY ANN WILLYAMS, aged 21, were charged with breaking and entering an outhouse or kitchen belonging to William Willoughby, at the parish of Illogan, on the 17th or 18th October, and stealing three bonnets, a jacket, an apron, two baskets, two capes, a shawl, 16 lbs of meat, four large loaves of bread, some flour, vegetables, an iron saucepan, &c., the property of the said William Willoughby. Jolly pleaded guilty to this and four other charges of stealing a dress, a child’s pinafore, and a jacket, the property of Edward Champion, in the parish of Ludgvan; stealing several articles of wearing apparel, the property of William Kendall, at the parish of Camborne; and to stealing the bottom and body of a dress, the property of Thomas Thomas, in the same parish. Trethowan was also indicted for three, and Mary Ann Williams for being concerned in one of these offences, as well as for feloniously receiving the stolen property. Mr. Cornish prosecuted; and the prisoners were undefended. The prosecutor, William Willoughby, is a miner residing in the parish of Illogan, and on the evening of the 17th October he fastened up his house and kitchen in the usual manner before the family retired to bed. When he came down stairs the next morning, about half-past six o’clock, he found that the lock had been forced, the staple drawn, the door open, and the articles mentioned stolen. Nearly all of the articles were afterwards found at the houses of Trethowan and Williams by Superintendent Miller of the county police, and other police officers, and while in custody the prisoners made statements showing that the door had been forced open by them with a poker, that Jolly and Trethowan went into the house and brought the various articles out while Williams remained in the road in front, and that they took the articles away and divided them. The jury found Trethowan and Williams guilty. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said there was no doubt that the prisoners had committed a burglary, and had they been committed to the assizes, there could be little doubt that they would have been tried for that offence, and they would have been liable to a very severe punishment. Jolly and Trethowan were sentenced to three years’ penal servitude each, and Williams to twelve months’ hard labour. No evidence was offered in support of the other charges. STEALING MANGOLDS AND HAY AT CAMBORNE. JOSEPH GEORGE, aged 38, and EDWARD JELBERT, 29, were charged with stealing on the 26th November, at the parish of Camborne, 375 lbs. of mangolds, and 75 lbs. of hay, the property of Samuel Powell. Mr. Cornish prosecuted, the prisoners were not defended. The jury found the prisoners guilty of receiving the hay and mangolds, knowing them to have been stolen. A previous conviction for housebreaking was proved against George. Jelbert was sentenced to three months’ and George to twelve months’ hard labour. JAMES PETERS, aged 15, pleaded guilty to having on or about the month of August, at St. Germans, stolen a silver watch, belonging to William Hobbs. He was sentenced to be once privately whipped, 12 lashes to be inflicted, and to be imprisoned at hard labour fourteen days. OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. In the case of FREDERICK WALKER, 40, cheese factor, charged with knowingly and unlawfully, by certain false pretences, obtaining money of Mary Bunny, Maria Commons, and Ann Walsh, by selling them cheese which he represented to be of the same quality and description as the sample which he had let them taste, but which was found to be far inferior. Mr. Childs, who appeared for the prisoner, objected that the indictment did not contain any charge which should place the prisoner on his trial, and after Mr. Collins had been heard in the opposite side, the COURT held that the objection had been sustained, and the defendant was acquitted. THEFT AT ST. LEVAN. JOHN HUTCHENS, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing a merchaum pipe, pipe case, tobacco pouch, and some tobacco, the property of John Henry James, at the parish of St. Levan, on the 7th of August. Mr. Cornish prosecuted, and Mr. Trythall defended the prisoner. The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and he was discharged. JAMES STARK, 32, labourer, was charged with stealing a silver watch of the value of £3, on the 26th Dec., the property of John Nattle, at , in the parish of Antony. Mr. Commins prosecuted. Guilty. Six months’ hard labour. The prosecutor’s expenses were disallowed, the court considering that the offence would not have been committed had he not got drunk and fallen asleep. FOWL STEALING. THOMAS TUCKER, 29, was charged with stealing, on the 13th of November, at , in the parish of St. Johns, 13 tame fowls, the property of Nicholas Parson. Mr. Commins prosecuted. Four months’ hard labour. CHARGE OF STEALING FROM A STALL AT CAMBORNE. SARAH MARTIN, who had been out on bail, was charged with having on the 7th Nov., in the parish of Camborne, stolen two pairs of cloth boots and one pair of shoes, the property of Alexander Vingoe. Mr. Cornish prosecuted; and Mr. Jenkin defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is a boot and shoemaker at Penzance, but he attended the Camborne market, where he had a stall. Mr. Jenkin contended that the prisoner had not taken the articles with any felonious intention, but with the design either of returning them, or of paying for them. The Chairman having summed up, the jury after deliberating for some time, announced that they could not agree as to their verdict. They then retired, and were locked up in the grand jury room till eight o’clock, about two hours, as they were unable still to agree, there being, it was understood, ten for acquitting the prisoner, and two for finding her guilty. The court adjourned on the jury retiring in this case. FIRST COURT—THURSDAY. (Before C.B.G. Sawle, Esq.) APPEAL. LOOE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS, appellants; the CHURCHWARDENS and OVERSEERS of LOOE, respondents—Mr. CHILDS moved the adjournment of this appeal, on the ground that the question was before the Court of Queen’s Bench. Mr. STOKES, for the other side, consented, and the appeal was accordingly adjourned. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. WILLIAM HENWOOD, 44, labourer, was charged with having, at Tregony, on the 26th November last, stolen 2s. 2d., and a pocket knife, the property of Thomas Burley. Mr. Stokes prosecuted; and the prisoner was undefended.—Nine months’ hard labour. STABBING AT ST. ERTH. JAMES JOHNS, who had been out on bail, was charged with assaulting John Thomas, the younger, stabbing him, and attempting to cut his throat, with the intention of doing him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Cornish prosecuted; and Mr. Stokes defended the prisoner. On the 19th December, the prisoner and the prosecutor were drinking at a public-house at Fradham, in the parish of St. Erth. While there, the prisoner who was drunk, and another man commenced fighting. The prosecutor succeeded in separating them, and sometime after he left the house to return to his home at Bosworgie. On the way he called at a neighbour’s house, and while there, he saw the prisoner fighting with three men. After the prosecutor had got home, the prisoner came to his father’s house, and tried to get in, but finding the door fast, he held up something, and said “Mr. Thomas, I intend to lodge this in the bowels of your son.” Afterwards he came again with his brother, Joseph Johns, and tried to get in. Prosecutor’s father went out to them, when Joseph Johns seized him. Prosecutor came to his father’s assistance, when the prisoner stabbed him with a knife in the side, and then struck him with it in the throat. Prosecutor called out that his throat was cut, and then grappled with the prisoner, and with the view, as he alleged, of causing him to leave go of the knife, he seized his nose in his teeth, and bit the end off. In cross examination, the prosecutor admitted that one of the three men who were fighting with the prisoner, and who had got him down was his brother Thomas, and that he heard the prisoner had applied for a summons against him for biting his nose off, before he gave him into custody on the present charge. The defence was that the prisoner did not use the knife till after the prosecutor had bit his nose off—Guilty. Six months’ hard labour. SECOND COURT,—THURSDAY. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) UNNATURAL OFFENCE. MICHAEL DREW, 31, seaman, of Falmouth, was charged with a disgusting offence, upon a boy 14 years of age, son of a farmer at Treworval, Constontine (sic), on the 24th October. The details were of the most disgusting description. He was found guilty of the attempt, and was sentenced to four years’ penal servitude. The business of the Session concluded at two o’clock. We are obliged to hold over some of the cases until next week. ______The following cases were disposed of after our last parcel was dispatched from Bodmin on Thursday last:— STABBING AT FALMOUTH. PETER SMITH, 31, a Swedish sailor, was charged with unlawfully cutting and wounding John Gates, at Falmouth, on the 6th Nov. Mr. Childs prosecuted, and Mr. Jenkins defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is a sailor, and on the 6th Nov. he was stopping at the Sailors’ Home at Falmouth. On the evening of the day the prisoner went to the Home to see a shipmate, with whom he commenced making a disturbance. The mistress of the Home said that she wished not to have any disturbance there, and she asked the prosecutor to endeavour to get him to go away quietly. Prosecutor accordingly requested him to go away, and took him by the arm and led him out. On reaching the garden gate prosecutor gave the prisoner a small shove or push, on which the prisoner ran back at him, and prosecutor believing that he was going to strike him, put up his arm to defend himself and received a stab with a knife, at the same time the prisoner said that he would cut any Englishman that came in his way. Prosecutor then went back to the Sailors’ Home, and the prisoner walked up and down the front of the building in a violent manner, so that the inmates were unable to fetch a surgeon. The prisoner was apprehended the same night at the Dolphin Inn, and on the way to the station-house some person in the crowd which followed remarked that the prisoner had stabbed a man, on which the prisoner turned around and said—“Yes, and I wish I had stabbed him to the heart.” Mr. T.S. Guppey, surgeon at Falmouth, deposed that the wound inflicted by the prisoner on the prosecutor, was of a severe character. The wound bled very freely. Mr. JENKINS urged for the defence, that the prisoner was naturally provoked at the gratuitous push which the prosecutor gave him, and that in his passion he involuntarily pulled out his knife to defend himself; that he held it up for that purpose not intending to stab the prosecutor, and that the wound was accidentally inflicted, in consequence of the latter suddenly raising his arm. The jury, however, found the prisoner guilty, but in consequence of his being a foreigner, and of its not appearing that he had had any previous quarrel with, or bore any ill-feeling towards the prosecutor, he was only sentenced to five month’s (sic) hard labour. BREACH OF THE PEACE. THOMAS HAWKEN, 29, labourer, who had been committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace against Anna Maria Hawken, at the parish of Tywardreath, on the 16th of Nov. The complainant was asked if she was willing that the prisoner, her brother, should be discharged, provided he kept the peace towards her in the future. She declined to do so, as not only was she, but her father and the family generally were afraid of their lives of him. They had frequently overlooked his violence on his promising to behave better, but it had been of no avail, as he was as bad as ever when he got home again and if he was set at liberty, the family would be compelled to leave the neighbourhood. Capt. Colville, the governor of the gaol stated, in reply to the chairman that the prisoner was the most troublesome man he had had under his charge. The court, under these circumstances ordered the prisoner to be kept in prison till next sessions. APPEAL. WM. LAITY, appellant; ELIZABETH DINGLE, respondent. This was an appeal against an order in bastardy made on W. Laity by Mr. Reynolds and Dr. Smith, dated Oct. 13th, 1863. Neither the respondent or any one on her behalf appeared, and Mr. Dale having proved service of notice of appeal, &c., the order was squashed. SECOND COURT, THURSDAY. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) TRIALS OF PRISONERS. THE CASE OF BOOT STEALING AT CAMBORNE. SARAH MARTIN, who was yesterday charged with stealing boots and shoes from the shop of Mr. Alexander Vingoe, of Camborne, and in whose case the jury were discharged without coming to a decision, was this morning again arraigned, and Mr. Cornish on behalf of the prosecutor, said he would not offer any further evidence in the matter, without the court thought it was necessary in the cause of justice to do so. The Chairman said the court would not interfere in the matter; it was entirely for the consideration of the prosecution. Mr. Cornish then said he would withdraw from the prosecution. The jury were accordingly directed to acquit the prisoner, and she was discharged. ASSAULTING THE POLICE. ROBERT BANIFORD, labourer, was charged with assaulting Police Constable James Richards, at Millbrook, in the parish of Maker, on the 1st inst. Mr. Marrack appeared for the prosecution. On the night of the 1st instant, there was a disturbance at the Devonport Inn, Millbrook, when Richards was sent for by the landlord to quell the disturbance. Richards endeavoured to induce the prisoner to leave the house quietly, but instead of doing so he struck the officer a violent blow on the face. Thereupon Richards drew his staff and struck the prisoner a violent blow over the eye. A scuffle then took place in which the prisoner badly treated the policeman, who, however, ultimately got assistance and took the prisoner into custody. The prisoner’s defence was that he was drunk and did not know anything about the charge. He was found guilty, and this being the fifth offence of a similar kind he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. On this the prisoner said when he came out he would do for Richards. The chairman, hearing the remark, called the prisoner back, and told him that he would take care to report his threat to the chief constable, and when he came out of prison he would have to find sureties to keep the peace against Richards or remain in prison till he did. He was evidently a very dangerous and violent man. The chairman then called up Richards and told him that he was very unwise to draw his staff so hastily as he had done; a policeman should never draw his staff unless in self defence; however, as he understood that the prisoner had threatened his life, he was perhaps more excusable than he would otherwise have been. CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED HIGHWAY ROBBERY AT PENRYN. Stephen Woolcock, 22, labourer, was indicted for feloniously assaulting Richard Nicholls, with intent feloniously and violently to steal his moneys, goods and chattels, at the parish of Budock, on the 17th December last.—Mr. Jenkins prosecuted, and Mr. Stokes defended the prisoner.—The statement for the prosecution was that at midnight, on the 17th Dec., the prosecutor called at the Commercial Inn, near Penryn and Falmouth, for a friend named Tripp. In the house he saw the prisoner, who is in the habit of singing comic negro songs, and who had his face blackened. Prosecutor had nothing to drink, but left the house with his friend, and they walked together towards Budock hill. When they got to the railway arch Tripp expressed a belief that some suspicious persons were near them, and hurried on. Prosecutor followed, but on reaching the top of the hill some one sprang upon him from behind, forced him to the ground and exclaimed “You — turn out”. He managed to see that the speaker was the prisoner, who still had his face blackened, and asked him what he meant by acting in that manner. Prisoner demanded “the price of a pot”, but George Beddison coming up at that moment, the prisoner made off. Tripp then arrived with some friends to the prosecutor’s assistance, and prosecutor walked towards his home with them, when the prisoner jumped into the road from behind a gate and wanted to fight Tripp, who, however, refused to do so, and the prisoner then went away.—Mr. Stokes, in defence, remarked that it was very improbable that the prisoner, had he had a felonious intention, would after making his escape present himself to several persons immediately afterwards.—The landlord of the Commercial Inn, William George Martin, was called, and swore that Nicholls and Tripp were drunk on this night, and said that to get them to leave his house he put out the light, left open his front door, and went up stairs to bed while they were still in his house. He came down stairs 20 minutes afterwards and they were still there. The jury having been directed that they could not on this indictment convict the prisoner of a common assault, acquitted him. The prisoner was then indicted for a common assault on the occasion in question, and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for four months with hard labour. This concluded the business of the Sessions. ______The following reports relating to the County Lunatic Asylum were omitted last week, in our report of the county business of the quarter sessions for want of space:— REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN LUNACY. Cornwall County Asylum, 25 March, 1863 Since our visit on the 26th of June last, 63 pauper and 7 private patients have been admitted, and 26 pauper, and 6 private patients have been discharged. Twenty-five patients have died, only one of whom was a private patient. The numbers now in the Asylum are as follows. Private patients Males ...... 18 Females ...... 14 Paupers Males ...... 155 Females ...... 176 363 One female patient is absent on trial who is not included in the above numbers. In the course of our visit we saw and spoke to every patient. Two or three of the pauper women were noisy, but generally the patients were very quiet and orderly, and we found no one restrained or secluded. The instances of seclusion are rare, and restraint is not employed. The clothing was generally good although some of the women were untidy, and several of the private female patients’ dresses were in a torn and disorderly condition. We examined many of the beds, and with two or three exceptions found the bedding in a clean state. Some new bedspreads have lately been supplied. Nearly all the old painted bedsteads require painting. The women’s wards were very clean, some of those on the men’s side were in not so satisfactory a condition, and we noticed in both departments a great want of proper ventilation. The windows which were originally of very faulty construction have been suffered to get out of repair, and we found that by far the greater number of them could not be opened. We think this is a matter which requires immediate attention. We are glad to report that one of the women’s galleries (ward L) has lately been painted and fitted up in the manner suggested at the last visit, and that orders have been given for improvements of a similar description in wards B and F. We hope that ultimately changes of this character will be introduced throughout the asylum, as from long experience we are well assured of the beneficial effect which they will produce upon the conduct and demeanour of the patients. The back ward for men, and the large dining room are particularly gloomy and in want of colour, paint and furniture, and they should, we think, receive early attention. The wards used by the private patients were clean and well furnished, the upper day room for the gentlemen being especially neat and comfortable. Some new baths have been fixed in the places of those which were old and worn out, and others will shortly be supplied. Some improvements have also been effected in the shower baths. Notwithstanding the strong recommendation contained in our last report we found that the keys are still left on the hot water taps. We were told that the doors of the bath-rooms were kept locked, but this did not prove to be universally the case. The men’s airing courts were in good order, but very little progress has been made in laying out the gardens for women. It is very important that at least one of them should at once be completed, and we recommend that the embankment which has been commenced should not be continued as a sunk wall has generally been found to be very objectionable. We suggest also that narrow beds should be formed close to the walls, and that ivy, and other creeping plants should be trained against them. The new workshops so long in contemplation have not yet been commenced, neither has the steam engine for pumping water, &c., been purchased. We have received the following return relative to the employments of the patients. MALES. In the garden and farm ...... 40 Wards and airing courts ...... 52 At trades ...... 15 Assisting baker, &c...... 6 113

FEMALES. In the Laundry ...... 20 Needle and household work . . . 75 95 The private female patients seem to have little or no occupation, and we think that with more encouragement, better workshops, and more means for useful labour, the whole body of the inmates might be more generally and profitably employed. Prayers are read as usual in the wards every day, by Mr. Iago the chaplain who has succeeded Mr. Dew. Two full services are also given in the chapel on Sunday, at which a larger number of patients would be present, were the buildings of sufficient size to accommodate them. We have again to call attention to the necessity which exists for making an alteration in the general rules, rendered necessary by the abolition of the office of domestic superintendent. We were on the whole satisfied with the kindness and attention shown by the superintendent and other officers, to the comfort and well being of the patients W.G. CAMPBELL, Commissioners ROBERT NAIRNE, in Lunacy. ___ Cornwall County Asylum, Dec. 30, 1863 My Lord and Gentlemen,—During the past year the patients in the asylum have appeared to derive much comfort from the religious privileges which you have placed within their reach. I have found many of them quite capable of understanding spiritual things, taking great delight in prayer, in reading the Holy Scriptures, and in attending Divine Service. Of the whole number (447) who have been resident within the walls, 334 have attended prayers either in chapel or in the galleries, or in both; and I have allowed 16 of them to partake of the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and 1 to be confirmed. The services in the chapel are eagerly looked forward to by them, and it is observed that many exercise considerable moral self-restraint during the week, in order that they may obtain permission to attend on the Sunday. I have had the service enlivened by the singing of hymns and by the chanting of the Canticles, and the Gloria at the end of each Psalm. Your having permitted me to introduce “Hymns Ancient and Modern” has been most beneficial, as the want of a hymn-book was much felt. The choir has consisted of 12 of the asylum servants, male and female, and two male patients who volunteered their services and have been very regular at practice, &c. The conduct of all present at Divine Service has been most quiet and orderly, and during the whole year only one patient became so excitable as to render his removal necessary, and not even in that case was the service interrupted. In my visits I have prayed with the sick, many of them being sufficiently rational to understand it. Besides visiting the patients I have conversed with all the attendants and servants on religious subjects, and (with the consent of the vicar of the parish) I prepared and examined for confirmation 11 nurses and servants, whom I afterwards took to Bodmin church where they were confirmed. The issue of the library books and papers has afforded great gratification and amusement to a large majority of the patients—those who are able to read taking the greatest interest in the various narratives and stories, and being able, when asked, to give a very good account of what they have been reading—whilst those who are unable to read are very fond of looking at the pictures and of hearing what is read to them by others. The galleries are all supplied with Bibles and Prayer-books, besides which there is a regular circulation of entertaining volumes, periodicals, &c. The number of volumes in use at any one time being 120 and the number of monthly parts of magazines 154. The newspapers also (especially those illustrated), by diverting and arousing the thoughts of the patients do them much good. I have carefully encouraged the free circulation of the books, &c., giving the gallery attendants to understand that no blame would be attributed to them if any book, while in use by the patients, should happen to be injured or destroyed. The result has been most satisfactory. The attendants have not kept the books locked up from the patients, I have seen them continually in their hands, and not one volume has been missed or destroyed for the year. They have been returned clean and in good condition, a few papers only have been torn, but nothing of any value injured. There have been 28 funerals from the asylum since last December, which I have performed at the Bodmin cemetery. The bodies of two other patients having been removed by their friends. In the exercise of my duties as chaplain, I have met with every co-operation and assistance on the part of all the officers and servants of the asylum—all the former, and some of the latter, being regular communicants. I have the honour to be, My Lord and gentlemen, Your most obedient Servant, WILLIAM IAGO, Chaplain. To the Visiting Committee, Cornwall County Asylum. ___ Cornwall County Asylum, Bodmin, Dec. 31, 1863 My Lord and Gentlemen,— Males Females Total There remained in the Asylum on the 31st December, 1862 168 191 359 Admitted during 1863 51 37 88 Total under care 219 228 447 Discharged 29 29 58 Died 17 14 31 Remaining under care 173 185 358 of whom 29 males and 16 females are private patients. In 25 cases, insanity had existed for more than six months previous to admission; and in 13, for more than five years; in nine, the disease was complicated with general paralysis or epilepsy. Twenty-seven men and 18 women were admitted, in whom some cause was assigned for the attack; of these 26 were due to moral, and 19 to physical influences. When compared with the two previous years, the number admitted is less by nearly one-sixth, but this must not be regarded as an indication that insanity is on the decrease in this county, but must be attributed to the fact that you have been compelled to direct notices to be sent to the various unions, stating that, owing to the over-crowded condition of the wards, only recent and urgent cases could be admitted. The practical working of this necessary but undesirable step cannot, I fear, be otherwise than most prejudicial to the interest of the insane, and ultimately, I think., will be attended with increased expense to the ratepayers; for it is an acknowledged fact — that the earlier those afflicted with insanity are submitted to treatment, the greater chance is there of recovery; and those forms not characterised by excitement and violence, such as acute dementia and melancholia, which when placed under treatment at the commencement are frequently curable, will, I am afraid, be allowed to run on, and will only be sent to an asylum, when their habits are become such as to render them utterly unmanageable elsewhere. When the restrictions you have been compelled to place on the admissions shall be again withdrawn, we must expect that many will be received, in whom, from the duration of the disease alone, cure will be almost hopeless. Fifty-eight patients have been discharged, of whom 39 were recovered. Of the remainder, eight chronic and selected cases have, at the request of the guardians of the Redruth and Falmouth unions, been removed to their respective workhouses. Before removal, it was stipulated that paid attendants and a special dietary—better than the usual workhouse diet—should be provided for them, and that they should also have some means of occupation. If these stipulations be not thoroughly carried out, I fear that a recurrence of the active symptoms of disease must be expected, and that they will again have to be returned to the asylum. Seventeen men and 14 women have died: less by three than last year. Of the deaths 13 are due to diseases of the nervous centres, and 10 to disease of the lungs. During the past summer, the want of an adequate supply of water has been severely felt. In an institution where so much depends on cleanliness, and where there are so many to whom a daily bath is an absolute necessity, I need hardly say that a limited supply of water is a serious evil. In the treatment of the patients, moral means are every year found to be of greater value. The last of the iron doors have been removed, and replaced by wooden ones. Many of the wards have been much improved by partly painting the walls, hitherto whitewashed, introducing matting, simple articles of furniture, pictures, &c.; the comfort of the patient has thereby been materially increased. The result has been most satisfactory, and the patients have been more happy and contented, and less liable to excitement. Occupation and amusement, as in former years, have formed important remedial agents. The number employed daily is about 220. In the summer you were kind enough to sanction a large out- door party; 260 patients were present, all of whom behaved well; dancing and the various games provided were thoroughly enjoyed, and to many, the permission to attend induced habits of self- control, which cannot but prove beneficial. At Christmas, in addition to the usual amusements, a prettily decorated and furnished tree was provided; about 140 patients were present, each of whom received some small present. I trust that at no distant date a suitable room may be provided for recreation purposes; the one at present in use is becoming too small for our largely increased numbers. I am, my Lord and Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, RICHARD ADAMS, Medical Superintendent

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 18 & 25 March 1864

2. Lent Assizes The Commission of these Assizes was opened on Monday by Mr Baron Bramwell, who arrived at Bodmin Road Station at 3.27 p.m. from Falmouth where his Lordship proceeded on the termination of the Devonshire Assizes. His Lordship was met at the station by the , Day Percy Le Grice, Esq., and his chaplain the Rev. Uriah Tonkin, Mr T. Cornish (Under-sheriff), and Mr R. A. Davies (County Clerk). His Lordship was conducted to the High Sheriff's carriage, and proceeded to Bodmin. Near the parish church his Lordship was met by a body of the County Constabulary, who escorted the party to the Mayoralty House where they were shortly afterwards joined by the mayor (Mr Oke), Dr Mudge (ex-mayor), and the Rev John Wallis, vicar of Bodmin. After a short stay the learned Judge was driven to the County Hall, where he formally opened the Commission of Assize, and afterwards, accompanied by the aforementioned officials, attended Divine Service at the parish church (service was performed by the vicar, the curate, (the Rev J. Hawkesley) reading the lessons). The sermon was preached by the sheriff's chaplain (Rev U. Tonkin), from the 10th chapter of Hebrews, verse 17:—For ye know that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. Baron Martin, the other Judge, did not arrive at Bodmin till the arrival of the down mail on Monday evening, having proceeded to London on the conclusion of the business at Exeter. CROWN COURT, Tuesday. (Before Mr Baron Martin). The court opened at half-past ten o'clock this morning, when the following gentlemen were sworn on the GRAND JURY. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., foreman. N. Kendall, Esq. N. Norway, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. J. Batten, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. W. Michell, Esq. C. D. Bevan, Esq. J. W. Peard, Esq. T. S. Bolitho, Esq. W. S. Rosevear, Esq. E. W. Brydges Willyams, Esq. J. Trevenen, Esq. R. H. Stackhouse Vyvyan, Esq. F. G. Enys, Esq. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. J. Borlase, Esq. E. C. Roberts, Esq. F. M. Williams, Esq. J. Hichens, Esq. The mayors of Bodmin, Helston, St. Ives, Lostwithiel, and Truro, and magistrates, and the county coroners also answered to their names. The proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, The learned JUDGE addressed the Grand Jury. He said: Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, I shall have occasion to occupy but a very short portion of your time, for after a long and considerable experience, this is undoubtedly almost the lightest calendar I have ever seen, and if there had been a court of Quarter Sessions, or an intermediate court between shortly before these Assizes there would have been very little indeed to do here; for the great majority of the cases consist of the most trifling charges of larceny, which would have been very well disposed of by the magistrates themselves at their petty sessions, had the parties been willing that they should be so disposed of. It is a singular circumstance that in a county of this size and population there are only two cases of attempted injury to the person at all, but one of those is rather a bad one, and, I suppose, not a common case in this county. It appears that two men, having been fighting, one of them stabbed the other with a knife, an offence from which I believe the people of this county are singularly free. There must have been a great deal of provocation on the part of the prosecutor, for it appears from the depositions, that the prosecutor was fined by the justices for being drunk and disorderly on the same occasion, and had it not been for the use of the knife, probably the case would not have been heard of at all. There is another singular case in which a man is charged with shooting with a gun, and certainly if it turns out that the man did shoot with a gun, he must have been drunk, for it is clearly not a case of firing with intent to murder, but a foolish act; committed by a man on being remonstrated with by the police. There is also a case of arson, in which, from the depositions, I should doubt whether the prisoner at the time he committed the offence, was in a proper state of mind. It is a case of a grandson setting fire to his grandfather's house on some alleged offence given him by his grandmother, and it is accompanied by some declamation which he made to a policeman, which certainly shows that he was at the time either acting under some delusion, or that he was a very bad person, for he stated that it was his intention to murder his grandmother at the time, but his heart failed him when he came to do it. It would very probably turn out that the man was not in his ordinary frame of mind when the offence was committed. With one exception these are the only serious cases in the calendar. There is one case which I need not allude to, which unfortunately will occur, and does occur in all counties in England; but there is a very singular case which will be brought before you, and which, in so far as my experience has gone is perfectly novel, and I must own, that in this county, where I presume in every parish, there is some justice of the peace, or some clergymen of the established church, or some dissenting persuasion resident, it is strange that such a thing should have occurred. As far as I can hear from the depositions, it appears that about eleven years ago a man became insane, and I have no doubt he did become so at least there is every reason to believe from the depositions that he was then an insane person, and that he was treated in such a manner that it is really disgraceful to humanity that such a state of things could exist. It would be no benefit to anybody for me to dictate upon it, but I must say that I never did read an account which had such effect upon my mind. I have heard of and tried persons for committing savage acts of cruelty, done from some notice present in their mind at the time, but I have never in the whole course of my life, heard of such continued ill- treatment as had been inflicted upon this unfortunate man. How it came to take place that the neighbours who were living next door to the house in which the unhappy man was confined, and who heard his cries and groans and did not communicate the fact to any person, I own I cannot comprehend. I have endeavoured as well as I can to ascertain what the law is on the matter. I do not know what bill will be presented to you, but I know there are some gentlemen upon the grand jury which have had experience in these matters, and should you have any difficulty in the case I shall be exceedingly glad to give you every assistance in my power. I apprehend, that the indictment will be framed upon the 9th section of the 16th and 17th vic. chap. 96, which is an act to amend an act, for the regulations of the care and treatment of lunatics, and, prima facie, it would appear as if it were limited to a superintendent, an officer, a nurse, an attendant, or a servant employed in registered asylums, but there are some words in the concluding part of the section, which seem to me wide enough to include any person who should take upon himself voluntarily the care or charge of a lunatic. I presume that the indictment will be framed under this part of the act; or it may be upon some other act, which I have not been able to lay my hands upon. It seems that an offence of this kind is not the subject of an indictment at common court. If it had been followed by death I have no doubt the person inflicting the cruelty would be found guilty of manslaughter, but no doubt some of you are aware that there are many cases in which death ensued in consequence of ill-treatment, and the offending parties were guilty of manslaughter, but, nevertheless, if no such consequences followed; they would not be subject to an indictment at common law. The legislature has always been very jealous of extending the criminal law and so far as I can ascertain, such conduct as has been exercised in this case would not be the subject of indictment at common law. I do not know, but, I presume the indictment will be framed by the Commissioners of Lunacy, by whose directions this prosecution has taken place; and if there should be a count for a common law offence I shall be glad to see it, and look into it before the jury are called on to act upon it. There is no other case in the calendar which requires an explanation from me. I have looked through the depositions and it appears to me,—for they are very well taken—that if no further evidence is given than had been adduced before the justices, it would be the duty of the jury in every case to find the bill, for it appears to me that there is no person in the calendar who has not been properly committed. The only case which admits of any doubt is No. 24 in the calendar.—Daniel Waters—who is charged with stealing a sail and yard from a boat. According to prisoner's own statement he is not the person who stole the property, but somebody else, and he was not concerned in moving the articles stolen. You are perfectly aware that to constitute the crime of larceny there must be a felonious taking at the time of removal of the chattels, and from the depositions it appears to me that it is a case in which there is no doubt that the party should have been put upon his trial. I have no doubt, however, gentlemen, that you will treat all the cases properly. The Grand Jury then retired to their duties TRIALS OF PRISONERS. ROBBERY FROM A MINE. WILLIAM LANCE, 36, labourer, was charged with stealing 112lbs. of iron, the property of the adventurers in the Mines at St. Just in ; a second count charged the prisoner with receiving the property knowing it to be stolen. Mr Lopes appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. From the evidence it appeared that between 5 o'clock on the afternoon of the 10th February, and the following morning, two iron wheels, a shovel, a piece of flat iron and iron staves of a ladder were missed. On the 12th February, P.C. Ward searched the prisoner's house and the adjoining premises; he found a portion of the articles embedded in a dung heap in the yard, and others in the house. The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. CHARGE OF STEALING A GUN. THOMAS RICHARDS, a labourer, was indicted for stealing a gun, the property of Mr Brinton, at Uny , on the 3rd December. Mr St. Aubyn appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that the gun was a crazy old weapon, which was kept on a rock, and was only used for the purpose of frightening rooks. The prisoner picked it up as it was lying on the rocks, and there did not appear to be any intention of stealing. He was acquitted. STEALING PORK AT ST. ERTH. JOSIAH TREVARTHEN. 26, miner, was charged with stealing a shoulder of pork, the property of James Goodman, at St. Erth, on the 2nd January. Mr Turner appeared for the prosecution. It appears that the prisoner was in the kitchen of Goodman's public-house, St. Erth, on the night of the 2nd January, where some shoulders of pork were hanging up. The prisoner was seen to take the pork from the rack, and it was subsequently seen in his possession. He was found guilty, and sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour. OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES AT CAMBORNE. MARTIN KNEEBONE, a boy of only 11 years old, was charged with obtaining by means of false pretences, 1lb. of pork, half a gallon of potatoes, and a half a pound of sugar, the property of John Pearce, of Camborne, on the 27th January. Mr Oxenham appeared for the prosecution. It was clearly proved that the prisoner went to the prosecutor's shop and obtained the goods on the representation that they were for a Mrs Holman, which afterwards was found to be false. The jury found him guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth. His Lordship deferred passing sentence. STEALING A GUERNSEY FROCK AT FLUSHING. THOMAS JAMES PASCOE, 19, seaman, was charged with stealing a Guernsey frock, the property of Eli Fleet, at Flushing, on the 18th January. Mr Bowen for the prosecution. A woman named Susan Tuffery, who lived at the prosecutor's house, saw the prisoner take the frock from the line in the yard; she afterwards went to him and accused him of having taken it. At first he denied having taken the frock, but, on being threatened with the police, he told the witness that he had put the frock up an old chimney, where she afterwards found it. In defence, the prisoner said he thought the Guernsey belonged to his sister, who had clothes out in the same yard. He was found guilty, and sentenced to three mouths' imprisonment with hard labour. STEALING A GOOSE AT ST. BREOCK. WILLIAM TAYLOR, 41, labourer, was charged with having on the 25th January, 1864, stolen a goose, the property of John Williams, a farmer, of St. Breock. Mr Roupe for the prosecution. The chief evidence against the prisoner was that of the policeman, who went to the prisoner's house, on hearing that the prosecutor had lost his goose, and found the prisoner in his bed-room, with the goose lying on the bed, apparently just killed, and the blood fresh upon it. The goose, which had been stuffed by the policeman, was produced in court, and its scraggy appearance produced great amusement. The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. THE ALLEGED ROBBERY FROM A BOAT AT MALPAS. DANIEL WATERS, a middle-aged man, the captain of a smack called the Porth, was indicted for stealing a sail and a yard, of the value of £1 5s., the property of William Scoble, pilot, of Malpas. Mr Cox prosecuted, and Mr Rogers defended the prisoner. Notwithstanding the opinion given by the learned judge in his charge to the grand jury, a true bill was found against the prisoner, and he was accordingly put upon his trial. The circumstances of the case will be remembered by our readers, as we reported them fully on the case being brought before the county magistrates. It appeared the prosecutor was employed in June last by the prisoner to pilot his smack up to Truro. Afterwards the smack returned to Malpas and lay off the jetty alongside the prosecutor's. On the night of the 25th June the sail and spar were taken from the boat, and were missed the next day when the smack had sailed. Early in the morning the prosecutor who lives close by the jetty was awoke by a noise, and on going to the window, saw two persons, who he believed to be the prisoner and his mate pass close to his boat. He would not however, swear that they were the men. He heard nothing of the property till the 28th Feb. this year, when the smack returned to Malpas and the prisoner again came to the prosecutor to ask him to pilot his smack up to Truro. On going on board he found the missing yard. He went ashore and saw the prisoner who affected surprise, but afterwards said the sail was also there but it was cut up; he said prosecutor could have it and offered to pay for the damage, but he afterwards altered his mind, and said he should have nothing to do with it, the prosecutor might do what he liked. He then gave information to P.C. Stephens, who went on board and found the sail. On this the prisoner said it was brought on board by his mate without his (prisoner's knowledge, and he knew nothing of it till off Falmouth Harbour. The mate, who had now gone to Australia, cut the sail up to adapt it to the smack's boat. Mr Rogers was proceeding to address the jury for the defence, when His LORDSHIP said there was always a preliminary question for the judge to decide as to whether there was sufficient evidence to go before the jury. In the present case, there was no evidence to show how the property was taken, and the next time the prisoner came to Malpas he applied to the prosecutor again to pilot his smack, upon the deck of which was then lying the yard. That certainly did not look as if he were conscious that the things had been stolen. He had throughout said he never took the property. Stealing depended upon the taking at the moment the stolen article was removed, and the prisoner stated that he knew nothing of the removal, and there was no evidence to show that he did. The jury would, therefore, under his lordship's direction, find the prisoner not guilty. It struck him that the man was not conscious of anything wrong having been done. Mr Rogers said he had several documents showing the good character of the prisoner. The prisoner was then acquitted. BURGLARY AT BODMIN. SAMUEL BROADWAY, 21, tinman, and WILLIAM UGLOW, 18, tinman, were indicted for breaking into the dwelling house of Richard Barrett, Bodmin, on the night of the 4th January, 1864, and stealing therefrom two pairs of boots, and other articles, the property of the said Richard Barrett. Mr Roupe prosecuted. It appeared that on the night of the 5th January the prosecutor's house was entered through a window which was broken open for the purpose. The two prisoners having been seen together in the neighbourhood the day previous to the robbery, suspicion fell upon them, and they were apprehended, when one pair of the stolen boots were found upon the prisoner Broadway. The boots were identified by the prosecutor and by the shoemaker who had made them. The prisoner Uglow was connected with the offence in a very curious manner. A pair of old boots were found outside the window by which the entry was made to the premises, and these were identified by Police Sergeant Stephens of Redruth, who had had occasion to examine them at Christmas on Uglow's feet. The prisoners were found guilty, and there being previous convictions against them, they were each sentenced to five years' penal servitude. A LUXULLIAN CANNIBAL. EDGAR RETALLICK, a young man, about twenty years of age, was indicted for assaulting, beating, and wounding, William Cock, thereby inflicting upon him actual bodily harm, at St. Austell, on the 30th January. Mr St. Aubyn appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Carter defended the prisoner. It appeared that the prosecutor is a shoemaker of St. Austell and is a cripple. On the night in question, he was at the "Bugle" Inn, St. Austell, drinking with some other men, amongst whom was the prisoner. The prosecutor, who uses a crutch, was crossing the floor, when somebody touched his crutch, and some one saying that it was the prisoner, Cock, (the prosecutor), turned around, and being excited, struck the prisoner a "tap" with his stick. Prisoner protested that he was not the party who touched the crutch, and words having taken place, blows followed, and at last Cock, who is a very strong man, clutched the prisoner round the neck with both hands, and pulled him down on a form, the prisoner being uppermost. There Cock held him for some time, and, on liberating him, it was found that a piece had been bitten from Cock's ear. The defence was that the prisoner finding himself unmercifully "hugged" by Cock, caught his ear, and gave an "easy bite" with the intention of making him lose his grip, but finding the "easy bite" ineffective he bit harder, but had no intention of biting off the ear, and did not know that he had done so. Witnesses were also called to good character. In summing up the case, his Lordship remarked that the act was one of a savage and not of a man; so long as man fought fairly in this country, they were generally let fight as long as they liked, and he did not think there was any great harm in it, but nothing could justify a man in acting as the prisoner was said to have done. The only question for the jury was, did the prisoner or did he not bite the prosecutor's ear off. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but thought "the prosecutor was the worst of the two." His Lordship said he took that to mean, that the prisoner had received, great provocation, inasmuch as he had been falsely accused of touching the prosecutor's stick, and was afterwards struck, and that they therefore recommended his case fo (sic) favourable consideration. He should take that into consideration. The prisoner appeared to have received great provocation. As far as fair fighting went, he should not feel much inclined to interfere; but an inhuman act of that sort could not be tolerated; he should call upon the prisoner to enter into rcognizances (sic) for his future good behaviour, and if ever he was again brought before the court upon such a charge, he (the judge), would take care that he was punished for the present offence; he hoped it would be a warning to him. SHOOTING AT A POLICEMAN AT PROBUS. WM. HARVEY, 43, labourer, was charged with feloniously shooting with a gun at Daniel Dunn, police constable, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm on the morning of the 1st November last. Mr Cox appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. Daniel Dunn, said he was a police constable at Probus. On the morning of the 1st Nov. about one o'clock he met the prisoner about 200 or 300 yards from his house. I spoke to him, and he said, “I am as drunk as the devil," I said if that is so, the best place for you is bed. He appeared to be able to walk very well, and I advised him to go home. He said he would not till he had a mind to. I pushed him on towards his home. He went away, but again returned, when I pushed him again, and he fell down. He got up and said, "you're a d—— sight too fast and I'm d——d if you get anything by this." I followed him and saw him go into the garden gate in front of his house. I remained in the street watching about two or three minutes when I saw the prisoner come out again I slipped aside by the corner of a house, I could not then see the prisoner. Immediately on my moving back, a gun was fired. I did not feel anything, but I heard the shots close by me. I then went to the police sergeant. The next day I went to the place and measured the distance from where I stood to a door in which I found shot embedded; this was 15 yards from the corner of the house where I took shelter. The distance from this place to the spot where the prisoner was standing was 31 yards, being 46 altogether to the door in which the shot was found; it was in a straight line from the prisoner. I afterwards found two shot holes in the skirt of my great coat. (The coat was produced and handed to the jury). Joseph Harris, a police sergeant at Tregony, went to the prisoner and charged him with firing a gun at police-constable Dunn, with intent to injure him. He said "Yes, I did fire the gun, but not at the policeman; I did not see him; the reason I fired it was that I had it in the house loaded for several months with the intention of killing a rabbit." I asked where the gun was, he said it was upstairs. I then searched an adjoining room, and found a gun behind the door, which the prisoner acknowledged to be the one he had fired. I saw that it had been recently discharged, and found some powder and shot in the house. Witness also spoke to the distance and the shot found. In summing up the case his Lordship said to convict a person under the act of Parliament it was necessary that the shooting should be at the person and with the intention of doing grievous bodily harm; therefore, if it appeared that the gun was discharged out of mere bravado, and not knowingly at the person, it could not be an offence under the act. With regard to the conduct of the policeman, his lordship said a policeman had no right to push a man even though he was drunk; he might take him into custody but not push him. The jury thereupon found the prisoner "not guilty." STEALING AN ACCOUNT BOOK AT ST. IVES. SUSAN PEARCE and GRACE PEARCE were charged with stealing an account book, the property of Mary Ann Bosanquet, at St. Ives, on the 19th Feb. Mr Clarke appeared for the prosecution. The prisoners were mother and daughter, and the daughter appeared to have had a "running account" with the prosecutor who is a milliner and shopkeeper. The daughter (Grace Pearce,) was at the shop on the day in question paying some money on account. The account, however, was disputed, and the two prisoners, the prosecutrix, and her mother and sister entered into an exciting lingual battle, which brought all the little ragamuffins of St. Ives to witness the spree. After the prisoners had left the shop, the account book, which was worth about 3d or 4d, was missed. The trial of the case was a most amusing exhibition of Cornish "lingo," and his Lordship appeared to relish the scene as much as anybody else. The elder prisoner took off her bonnet, and flourishing it wildly in her hand alternately addressed the Court and Jury and "all the gentlement (sic) present" and bullied the witnesses, keeping the court in roars of laughter. The account book seemed to involve an account amounting to 14s. There was no evidence whatever to inculpate the elder prisoner, and the only evidence touching the younger one was that Mary Ann Daniels, the prosecutrix's sister, who had a bonnet to trim for the prisoner Pearce, during the row brought the bonnet down and placed it on the counter beside the account book, and that Grace Pearce, on leaving, picked up the bonnet, and it was suggested took the book at the same time; at any rate the book was never again seen. The prosecutrix, her sister and her mother (Maria Anne and Anne Maria Daniel) also stated that the prisoner Pearce, on leaving the shop, appeared to have something concealed under her arm. The jury immediately found the prisoners not guilty, and they were discharged, apparently to the satisfaction of all present. The court then adjourned till nine o'clock on Wednesday morning. The GRAND JURY having finished their business, were discharged about five o'clock, his lordship saying that he was sure they must now be of opinion that he was correct in his remarks respecting the criminal position of the county. They had every reason to be satisfied with the position which the county held. He had great pleasure in discharging them. His Lordship, on the opening of the court in the morning, invited the justices to dine with him in the evening. PLEADED GUILTY. MARY ANN ROWE, 27, described as a worker in the fields, to unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at Ruanlanihorne, on or about the 7th of October, 1863, Sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour. MARY ANN BASSETT, 19, servant, to unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at , on the 17th of November, 1863. Sentenced to six months' hard labour. WILLIAM JOHN MORSHEAD, 20, shoemaker, to unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously setting fire to a bedstead, bedtie, bedding, box, and other articles, of the value of about £20, the property of John Morshead, in a dwelling-house at Kea, on the 31st of January, 1864. Ten years' penal servitude. JAMES BARRY, 24, baker, to stealing one chest and one clothes bag, containing numerous articles of clothing, the goods and chattels of James Wilson, at Falmouth, on the 26th of January. Nine months' imprisonment.

NISI PRIUS COURT. TUESDAY, MARCH 15. Baron Bramwell took his seat upon the bench in this Court at ten o’clock this morning; the following was THE CAUSE LIST.

Plaintiff's Atty. Plaintiff. Defendant. Def. Atty. C. P. Peters. Sanders & others, v. Hooper & another. Hingston. Ex. Trythall. Nicholls, v. Trewhella. Hichens. Q.B. Coode, & Co. Millett, v. Edmonds. Eaden. Ex. Downing. Millett, [S.J.] v. Edmonds. Roscorla. Ex. Whitefield Pearce, [S.J.] v. Harvey. Stokes. Ex. Downing. & others v. Trewhella. Boyns. SANDERS AND ANOTHER v. HOOPER AND ANOTHER. Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Bullar were counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Cole appeared for the defendants. Mr. BULLAR said this was an action brought to recover two cottages or messuages, with the land, courtlages, and premises thereto belonging, situated at Henwood, in the parish of , and the duty of the Court was to try the plaintiff’s right to recover. Mr M. Smith stated the case for the plaintiffs, Thomas Sanders, of , who claimed to be the owner of the cottages in question; and James Dawe, his tenant; and it would be shown the defendants took forcible possession of them, under circumstances of considerable violence. The property in question consisted of two small cottages, with their courtlages and gardens, consisting altogether of about an acre of land, adjoining some mining property, of which the plaintiff, Mr Sanders, had been in possession since 1849, receiving his rents up to 1862. The defendants were John Hooper and Richard Hawke, and it appeared that the latter had been tenant, for some time, of one of the cottages, paying Mr Sanders the rent for it. In 1862, Sanders gave Hawke notice to quit this cottage at the ensuing Michaelmas, he having entered into an agreement to let it to John Dawe, who was also the occupier of the other cottage. It seemed that Hawke was not ready to go out at Michaelmas, and on the 26th he applied to Sanders to be allowed to remain till the 14th of October. Neither Dawe nor Sanders desired that he should be put to any inconvenience, and they agreed to his request. Between the 29th Sept. and 14th of Oct., when Hawke was to quit, he allowed John Hooper, his son-in-law, one of the defendants, to enter into possession of the house, instead of giving up possession, or of allowing his tenant, Dawe, to take possession. Hawke did hand the key to Dawe on the 14th Oct., but as a new lock had been put on the door, it was of no use. On the 14th October the plaintiffs went to take possession of the house; they found Hooper and other persons inside, and the former said the house was his, and he threatened to oppose their entrance. Mr Sanders went again with a constable, and was again opposed by the defendants. With a view of obtaining possession of the house, Mr Sanders summoned Hooper before the magistrates, but there being a dispute as to the title, they declined to interfere. In the month of April, it appeared that the defendants, not satisfied with holding possession of one cottage, commenced to interfere with the other, and on the 8th May they—Hooper, Wm. Harvey, and the defendants went with other persons to Dawe's cottage, and desired the inmates to go out. They declined to do so, locking the door, when the defendants broke it open, and threw out the furniture of Dawe, and causing considerable terror to the women who were in the house. Dawe remained in the house as long as he could, but he was obliged to quit. The defendants held the house in defiance of the attempts of the plaintiffs to obtain possession, and this action was brought to recover the same. In law, no person had a right to go and forcibly enter a house, throw out the occupier's furniture, turn him out, and hold possession, and then turn round to the owner and say—Prove your title to it. Thomas Sanders and one or two other witnesses were called to prove the above facts. The former, in cross-examination, stated that he had indicted the defendant at the Quarter Sessions for taking forcible possession, but the indictment had been dismissed. Mr Cole, for the defendants, urged that Sanders had failed entirely to show a title to the property in question, except that in 1849 he somehow or other got possession of the cottages, and had received some rent, but how he got possession he had not said a word. He had asked him if he had a mortgage, and to produce the deed to prove it, but he had not done so, so that in fact he had not made out any title whatever. Mr. Sanders had not been in undisturbed possession for 20 years, and could not claim on that ground, but he set up another kind of right. He said that he was in possession, and the defendants had forcibly turned him out—and that he was therefore entitled to recover. But he submitted that the plaintiff Sanders himself was the first wrong doer. The fact really was, that some years ago the cottages in question were the property of a man named Hooper, who was the grandfather of Hooper, one of the defendants. Hooper had mortgaged the property to some person from whom Mr Sanders claimed, but old Hooper as well as his son, and the mortgagee, were dead, and the property had got in into such a muddle that it was now impossible to say whose it really was. Hooper, the defendant, claimed the property from his grandfather, and he called upon Mr Sanders, if he had any title to it against him to show it—if the plaintiff held a mortgage on the property he was ready to pay it off. He called an old woman named Gumm, who deposed that 56 years ago she occupied one of the cottages under John Hooper, uncle and not grandfather of one of the defendants, by whose direction she paid her rent to John Dingle. The JUDGE said that the action was really an undefended one, as the defendants had no right to enter the house, take possession and call upon the plaintiff to prove his title. They must, therefore, return a verdict for the plaintiffs. Were they to admit the right of the defendants to act as they had done, it would amount to this, that a person might walk up to any one of them, pull his watch out of his pocket, and say that he must tell him who was his watchmaker. If the owner declined to do so, he might retain possession, saying that he was a pretty fellow to have a watch, and he should keep it, as he did not show a title. The jury at once returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. NICHOLLS v TREWHELLA. Mr Cole and Mr Tosswill were council for the plaintiff, and Mr Karslake appeared for the defendant. The declaration stated that the defendant had driven a horse and cart on the Queen's highway, furiously and negligently against the plaintiff, who was knocked down and permanently injured. To this the defendant pleaded not guilty, on which issue was examined. The plaintiff, John Nicholls, is a man in a humble position in life, being a hedger, living at , a village in the parish of Ludgvan, and the defendant was Mr Martin Trewhella, a farmer living in the same parish, and occupying a farm called Polgreen, under Mr Rogers, M.P. The plaintiff claimed damages for a serious injury which he had received, as alleged by the learned counsel in stating the case, through the very gross negligence of the defendant. On the evening of March 19th, 1863, the plaintiff was proceeding to attend the evening service at the Methodist Chapel at Whitecross. His road was along the Hayle turnpike road, which is about 24 feet wide at the place. It was raining at the time, and overtaking an acquaintance named Pearce, who was also on his way to the chapel, he offered him a share of his umbrella. It was about seven o'clock at the time, and there was sufficient light for any one driving to see them, there being no hedge on this part of the road. Pearce and the plaintiff walked on together, on the left hand side of the road—the proper one, until they arrived at , where the road is perfectly straight, but there is then a slight descent, after which it is level for a short distance, and then there is a rise. As they were walking down this descent, they heard the noise of a vehicle close behind them, when Pearce called out, "a horse, a horse," jumped instantly on one side, and thus fortunately escaped. In a moment, before the plaintiff could step to one side, the horse, which was driven at a furious rate, struck him, knocked him down, and he was dragged some distance. He struggled to get up but was unable to do so. Pearce recognized the driver, Mr Martin Trewhella, and he called out to him that he had killed the man, and succeeded in stopping the horse. The plaintiff was unable to get up, and had to be raised by Pearce, and he told the defendant that he had nearly killed him. The defendant, it appeared, had been to Penzance, where had taken some liquor, and instead of stopping and conveying the plaintiff to his home, he whipped his horse, causing it to break from the persons who had by this time come up, and drove furiously away. The plaintiff was carried at first to a house in the neighbourhood, from whence he was removed to his own home, and medical assistance obtained. It was found that the injuries which he had received were very severe. He was very much bruised about the shoulders and other parts of the body. The principal injury which he had sustained was to the inner side of the left knee, which was so great that he was now unable to bend it, or to follow his labour. The actual loss which the plaintiff had sustained was £61 17s., including the surgeon's charges. Then there was the compensation which he was entitled to receive for the injuries he had sustained, and also for the extreme suffering he had endured. The plaintiff, John Nicholls, deposed to the above facts, wild stated that he was bruised very much about the shoulders, arms, and breast, but the most severe injury was to the inside of the left knee. He was confined to bed for 12 weeks, eight of which he was unable to lay down and had to be propped up with pillows and bolsters, and was confined to his room three weeks longer. The night after the accident the defendant came to see him, and a conversation passed between them. The defendant said that he had no knowledge of having driven over the plaintiff, and he was sorry that anything of the kind should happen; he also stated that after the plaintiff got better he was to make out a bill, and he would pay the damages. He also said that he had been to Penzance that day, and had drunk a little too much. The defendant came again on the 24th of March, and said that he would not mind giving the plaintiff £1, £2, £3, or £5 to compensate him for the injury; but plaintiff's family thought that such an allowance was not sufficient, and that he ought to be allowed something weekly, as they did not know how long he might be ill. The defendant objected at first to such an arrangement as this, but afterwards asked him to name a sum. On the 3rd of April the defendant called and said that the plaintiff's son had applied to him for 15s a week, but he thought that was too much. Plaintiff asked him what he was willing to allow, and he said 10s a week. Plaintiff asked him to allow 12s a week so long as he was confined to his bed, and 10s a week after until he was able to work. Defendant said he would allow 12s a week so long as plaintiff was confined to bed, if he would make another agreement after he got out. He also agreed to pay the doctor. When the defendant said he could not allow 12s a week, plaintiff asked him if he would do so for four weeks, and 10s a week until he was able to work, to which he agreed, and they shook hands upon the agreement. The defendant asked him if he wanted any money, and the plaintiff said that a little would be very acceptable. The defendant said that he would bring some the next Monday, but he did not do so. Plaintiff afterwards wrote to the defendant, and sent the letter by his son, requesting payment of £2 8s from him, being the allowance of 12s a week for four weeks, as had been agreed upon, but the defendant did not send the money. On the 24th of March plaintiff was examined by Mr Mudge, surgeon of Hayle, at the request of the defendant. He had since been unable to do any work. In hedging he was required to bend the knee, but since the accident he had been unable to bend his left knee, and it was also very weak. His shoulder was getting better, but it was very weak, and he had been unable to dress himself since the accident. His wages during the last seven years had averaged about 17s a week, he being engaged chiefly on piece work. The following witnesses were called who deposed to the above facts: Richard Pearce, Johanna Bawden, Mary Nicholls, (wife of the plaintiff,) James Thomas, Thomas Rowe, Mr Richard Quick, and Mr Mudge, surgeons. Mr QUICK said—l am a surgeon at Penzance, and on the 19th of March last year, I was called in late at night to see the plaintiff. I found him at his house, powerless in bed. I examined him, and found several severe bruises in different parts of his body, and a very severe wound on the inner side of the left knee. It was very much torn and the bone was severely injured. There were severe bruises about the other leg, arms, and shoulder. I continued to attend him until the middle of July. After that time he came to my house occasionally. It was a very painful case and required much care. The system suffered considerably, and after a time he required much nourishing food. The wound on the knee was a very difficult one to heal, arising from the nature of the parts. The thigh and leg were very much swollen. I have examined the plaintiff to-day, and I find that he is unable to bend the knee, or at least he can do so very slightly. He cannot kneel, and I do not think he will ever perfectly recover the use of the knee. My charge for professional attendance amounts to something more than £8. Had the plaintiff not been a temperate man, he would have suffered much more than he had done. Mr MUDGE, surgeon, Hayle, said that he had been the professional attendant of the defendant, and shortly after the accident to the plaintiff he went to see him by desire of the defendant. He had heard the evidence of Mr Quick, and that was correct as to the extent and nature of his injuries. The leg would in time be a useful limb to the plaintiff, though it would not be so strong as before, and he would probably never be able to kneel with that knee. Mr KARSLAKE, in addressing the jury for the defendant, submitted that the evidence did not show the defendant was driving fast or furiously on the night of the accident, but was on his own side of the road, and was proceeding home leisurely. It was rather strange, if he was proceeding at such a rapid rate that the plaintiff and Mr Pearce had not heard the noise of the cart until it was close upon them. The defendant's account of the occurrence was that when he drove up to plaintiff and his friend, Mr Pearce sprang across in front of the mare, seized hold of her head so suddenly as to cause her to rear up, and nearly to tilt the defendant out of the cart, and she then bolted off. The defendant denied that he had ever admitted the plaintiff was entitled to any weekly allowance from him, he believing that he was driving carefully and properly at the time of the accident, and that it was owing to the plaintiff himself and Mr Pearce that it had occurred; but out of kindness he was willing to assist him and to pay the doctor's bill; afterwards finding the demands of the plaintiff increase, he proposed that the matter should be referred to two arbitrators, one to be named by the plaintiff and the other by himself, and if these should not be able to agree they should appoint an umpire, and whatever might be their decision he would agree to. He called the defendant, who denied that he was drunk on the night in question, he having only drunk two glasses of gin and water, and one of brandy and water during the whole day he was at Penzance, and that on his return he was quite "fresh." He gave evidence corroborative of his counsel's statement as to the circumstances under which the accident had occurred. Mrs Trewhella deposed that when she visited the plaintiff after the accident, he only complained that he was stiffish about the knees; that Pearce had caught hold of the horse's head, and he believed that if Pearce had allowed the horse to go on, he should not have been injured so much. She used to take him wine, fowls, and other things during his illness. The Judge clearly summed up the evidence, and the jury then consulted for a few minutes, when the foreman stated that they had agreed as to their verdict, but they disagreed as to the amount of the damages. The Judge said they had better retire, and consider the matter. After a further brief consultation, however, the jury—without leaving the box—returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, £65. ACTION FOR LIBEL. MILLETT v. VINER. Mr M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr Kingdon were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr Karslake and Mr Bere were for the defendant. Mr KINGDON opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Mr Richard Millett, and Mr Henry Viner was the defendant. The declaration charged the defendant with having printed and published a false and malicious libel against the plaintiff, to which the defendant pleaded, first, that he was not guilty; and secondly, that the words so published were and are true; and this was the issue which the jury would have to try. Mr SMITH, Q.C., stated the case. He said the plaintiff, Mr Richard Millett, was a gentleman of the highest respectability, residing at Penzance, where he had practised as a solicitor for a period of 35 years; he had also been elected an alderman of that town, and had held the office of clerk of the peace of that borough. In the course of his professional duties he frequently practised in the County Court of Penzance, and it had happened that he had been concerned against Mr Viner in actions tried in that court; or rather he had been concerned for persons who had brought actions against the defendant in that court. Mr Viner was a professor of music at Penzance, but he must say that he appeared to have been more a promoter of discord than of harmony in that town; for he had been engaged in litigation against several persons in Penzance against whom he had brought actions in the County Court, and he appeared to have fallen foul of every person who happened to have been in any way engaged in these cases—judge, defendants, and advocates. It seems that a Mr Joseph Gundry Fox, of Penzance, had borrowed a sum of money, about £60, of Mr Viner, to whom he gave a promissory note for the amount. In the summer of 1860, Mr Viner brought an action against Mr Fox in the Penzance County Court for the recovery of £50, due on the promissory note; when Mr Millett acted as the attorney of Mr Fox. There was no doubt that the promissory note had been given, and that Mr Viner was entitled to recover, but as there happened to be some difference of account, it was agreed to refer the matter to Mr J. J. Lanyon, of Penzance, ironmonger, who was to send a certificate to Mr Bevan, the Judge of the County Court, when that gentleman, it was agreed, should return a verdict for the amount so certified. Mr Lanyon accordingly heard evidence in the case, and afterwards certified to Mr Bevan that Mr Viner was entitled to recover from Mr Fox £33 13s 8d, and as that gentleman had only paid £27 into court, he became entitled to £6, odd, in addition. Mr Viner seems to have been dissatisfied with this award, and the arbitrator reheard the matter and confirmed his award. Several futile attempts were made by Mr Viner to get the award set aside. It was Mr Viner's duty when he had been paid the amount awarded to him, that he should return Mr Fox or his attorney, the plate which he held as security, but as he declined to do so, Mr Millett commenced what was termed an action of detenue against him, which was afterwards tried in the county court of Penzance on the 15th July, when the judge directed that the plate must be given up within ten days, or Mr Viner must pay £34, the value of the articles. Mr Viner was dissatisfied with this judgment of the court, and on the 8th of August following he presented an affidavit in the county court, in which he asked for a new trial on the ground that at the hearing of the case no evidence was adduced by the plaintiff or his attorney as to the title of the plaintiff to the silver plate, or which showed that it was of the value as was mentioned in the plaintiff's particulars of claim. Mr Millet filed an affidavit in reply to this, on the 13th of August following, and the judge of the court, after reading affidavits and hearing the arguments on both sides, refused the application. Thereupon Mr Viner, instead of sending the plate to Mr Fox or his attorney, took it to the registrar of the county court, but that gentleman refused to receive it; and he took it home with him again. Mr Millett then issued a writ against the defendant for £34, the value of the plate, and his costs, which the defendant paid under protest. This litigation appeared to have raised the violent wrath of Mr Viner, and led him to violently attack and vilify the character of every person concerned. Mr Bevan, the respected judge, was declared to be unfit for his office; Mr Millett was grossly attacked in a pamphlet, which had been widely circulated in the county, entitled "The Experience of an Amateur Miner":— "On the 1st of April following I appealed against the verdict. Millett told a different story. The Judge did then as Millett wished. I found witnesses to prove the truth of that which I stated, and Millet's untruths; but that Judge was out of the county for some months after. At last Mr Bevan was again in the county, and with my witnesses I made my appearance before him. The judge then ruled that my notice was informal. Millett saw, and took advantage of the same, and told a few more untruths, asking for an order I wanted to give my version of the matter, but the Judge would not hear me. The Judge gave an order. Although I felt the injustice of the same, I complied with it, yet a few days afterwards Millett put an execution into my house. Under protest, I paid the officer £40, and I complained to the Registrar of the County Court, who coolly told me he was aware the order entered in his books was not the order given by the Judge, but insisted it was the order the Judge should have given. Millett, finding that I would not let the matter drop, filed an affidavit. Knowing that affidavit to be false, I filed a counter affidavit, and have since asked the Judge, in Court, to commit either Millett or myself for perjury (for he knows which of us has committed that crime). To get out of the fix I thus placed the Judge in, he requested to speak to me privately, when he coolly asked me to drop the matter, and put up with the loss. One thing I own he did, viz., tell Millett in open Court his was sharp practice. I presume that, although I have the truth on my side yet dared I to speak so plainly of the same; but fortunately for me, the reporter of the Penzance newspaper was present; thus evidence confirming that which I have stated is to be found in print. I have taken legal advice in the matter, but am told that to inflict on Millett the punishment he deserves would be very expensive. One thing is certain, i.e. that the Judge should either have punished Millett or myself for the perjury committed, and, if the former, compelled him to give reparation for the legal robbery inflicted on me. For his not so doing, he is unfit for his office, and should be removed. Again for his not at least suspending the Registrar for inserting an order different from that given by the Court, he should be deprived of his Judgeship. Lastly, supposing that the Registrar was right, and the Judge wrong in his order; then, I say Mr Bevan should be removed from his post as Judge; for it certainly is wrong for any Judge to be kept in office who knows not what is the verdict he should have given. Millett began by fooling the Judge on the first of April, which he carried step by step until he ended by committing perjury. The foregoing tells me plainly that lawyers have licence to commit any crime without the fear of being punished." It was scarcely possible to conceive a libel more derogatory to the character of a gentleman, and especially of a professional gentleman like Mr Millett, than this one; and on its publication that gentleman, who had passed over a great deal of abuse from Mr Viner, felt compelled, in justice to himself, to bring an action, and to put Mr Viner to the proof of the validity of the charges which he had dared to utter against him. The action was brought at the end of 1862; and in the beginning of 1863, Mr Viner, acting, he believed, on the advice of a most respectable solicitor of Penzance, Mr Rodd, sent the following letter to Mr Millett: — "Penzance, February 13, 1863. "Sir,—As I know not that I have written or said anything relative to or of yourself which the law regards as libellous, neither did I intend such. If I have gone beyond such in what I have said or written of you, I can only say I am sorry for it.—l am, sir, your obedient servant, "Mr Richard Millett. HENRY VINER." That letter was not a very handsome apology, yet Mr Millett kindly resolved to countermand his notice of trial. Afterwards the defendant boasted, and published the boast to the county, that Mr Millett was afraid to go on with his action, and that he was not a man who was entitled to public respect. He gave him notice to go on with the trial, or to pay him his costs. The defendant, therefore had only himself to thank for being thus brought into court, Mr Millett regretting that he was under the necessity of proceeding with the action. Mr Edward Came was then called to prove the publication of the libel in question by the defendant, but this was admitted by Mr Karslake. Mr Millett, Mr William Wallace, and Mr C. D. Bevan, judge of the County Court, were then called on behalf of the plaintiff, and deposed to the above facts. Mr KARSLAKE addressed the jury for the defendant, urging that, having been unfortunately engaged in a good deal of litigation in the county court at Penzance, and being generally his own advocate, he had committed the mistake of designating statements which he considered to have been incorrect as perjury. After referring to one or two points in the case, the learned counsel called Mr Henry Viner, the defendant, who deposed—l am a musician, and have lived for many years in Penzance. I have known Mr Millett, the plaintiff, during many years. In 1860 I was the plaintiff in an action brought in the County Court, at Penzance, against Mr Fox, on a promissory note. In that case Mr Millett appeared for the defendant, and Mr Boyne for me. The matter was referred to Mr Lanyon, who made an award in November, 1860. We had two meetings before the award was made. Miss Fox was present at the first meeting, but nothing was then said about the witnesses going out of court. At the second meeting, before the business was commenced, I requested that all the witnesses should be ordered out of court. Mr Lanyon, the arbitrator, said that Miss Fox (who was present) had come down from London to hear the case, and she should remain. She remained for two or three hours, and heard the whole of my evidence and the evidence of her father. Eventually, she left the court, evidently to obtain some dinner, and on her return, Mr Lanyon said to her that there was another room adjoining with a fire in it, and she might as well go there and make herself comfortable. She then went into the adjoining room. I remember making the motion in the County Court for the case to be gone into again, on which occasion Mr Millett attended to oppose the application. One of the grounds of my application was that the witnesses were not ordered out of court by the arbitrator, as requested. The judge of the court then asked Mr Millett whether the witnesses were ordered out of court, and that gentleman got up and assured his Honor that all the witnesses, Miss Fox included, were ordered out of court between ten and seven o'clock. So far from this being correct, all the witnesses were in court the whole time. On this the judge decided to refuse the application. I afterwards spoke to some of the witnesses in question, who confirmed what I had said, and at the next court I attended with them that they might prove the fact, but his Honour was then out of the county, and the deputy judge refused to hear me as he was a stranger to the case. The judge decided that my next application for a re-hearing of the case was informal, his Honour saying that I ought not to have used the words "deliberate and wicked falsehood," alluding to the charge which I had made against Mr Millett. He said that if I applied to the court, Mr Ralph would furnish me with a proper form or order: but when I said this, Mr Ralph said there was no such order. (A laugh). In accordance with the judge's order, I afterwards took the silver plate to the Registrar of the Court, informing him that I did so under protest, as I still intended to raise the question with respect to the validity of the award. He refused to receive them. I took the plate home again, telling him he might have it on giving me notice. No such notice was sent me, but on that very day, Mr Millett issued a writ against me for £34 and costs. After that I filed another affidavit giving my version of what had occurred at the award. I considered that my version was correct, and that of Mr Millett untrue. In cross-examination, the defendant deposed that he had been concerned in about 20 actions in the Penzance County Court. He had had about 1000 copies of the pamphlet entitled "the Experience of an Amateur Miner" printed, and of these he had sold some, and about an eighth part of the whole number had been circulated in the county. Two other witnesses were called, but nothing of any importance was elicited from them. The JUDGE, in summing up the case, said that the words of the libel must be taken to mean, not what Mr Karslake had ingeniously urged was only intended—namely, that the defendant had merely intended to say that Mr Millett had stated what was not correct—but what ordinary people, on reading them, would take them to mean. In conclusion his lordship observed that if the jury considered the libel was so utterly worthless that no respectable person would think it deserving of attention, then they would consider whether inconsiderable damages would not meet the justice of the case. After three hours' deliberation, the jury found for the plaintiff, damages £60. LANYON AND OTHERS v TEEWHELLA (sic). Mr KARSLAKE and Mr COLE were counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr CARTER appeared for the defendant. The plaintiffs were the Messrs Lanyon, Morcom, Garland and Co., safety-fuse manufacturers in this county; and the defendant was Mr John Trewhella, a Cornishman who had been in Italy for many years, and was now engaged in Tuscany in the construction of a railway. In the execution of the undertakings in which he had been engaged, the defendant had for many years used the safety-fuse of the plaintiffs, which he paid for by authorising the plaintiffs to receive the dividends as they became due on shares he had in Wheal Basset Mine. In 1859 he wrote from Tuscany, ordering ten barrels of it to be sent to him. As a vessel could not be readily found that was bound from St. Ives to Leghorn, the port to which the fuse was to be sent, several letters passed between the defendant and the manager of the plaintiffs, and at length he wrote requesting them to send it by a vessel from Liverpool, as he was urgently in want of it. In the early part of 1860 the fuse was accordingly sent by a ship called the Pellican from that port, and on the 7th of April a letter was received from him, in which he stated that the vessel had arrived at Leghorn with the fuse, but complaining of the excessive charges that were made for its carriage, and stating that as the barrels appeared to be under water and the fuse was doubtless greatly injured, he trusted the plaintiffs had insured it. The manager replied that they never insured fuse sent abroad unless ordered to do so by the purchaser, and that it was sent entirely at his risk; but that having laid the matter before the company, they were willing to take off £1 per barrel of the price making a reduction of £10 altogether. The defendant then wrote and ordered ten more barrels of the fuse to be sent to him, and this was accordingly despatched in due course. The two lots of fuse so sent amounted to £93, but though repeated applications were made to the defendant for the payment of the account, he took no notice of these demands. In July, 1863, Mr Gee, the plaintiffs' manager, happened to hear that the defendant was at Redruth, and he went to that town and had a conversation with him. He admitted that he had received the barrels of fuse, but said he was afraid he had not enough money in his pocket to settle the account, and that he would send half the amount from Paris, which he was about to visit. Mr Gee, considering that the defendant was a rather slippery gentleman, and that if he once got abroad he might bid adieu to the money, issued a capias and had him arrested. The defendant has since gone back to Italy, and the case had been brought into Court for the decision of a jury. Alter the examination of Mr Alfred Gee and one or two witnesses whose evidence corroborated the above facts the Court adjourned. CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16. Baron Martin took his seat upon the bench at nine o'clock this morning. WILLIAM COOPER, aged 17, labourer, was charged with having at , on the 30th of November last, committed an abominable and disgusting offence with James Strout. Mr Oxenham prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. The case was of a most aggravated character, and the judge in passing sentence said he felt that he should not be doing his duty if he did not pass on him the severest punishment the law allowed, which was penal servitude for life. FRAUDLENT (sic) CONVERSION OF LEATHER AT LOSTWITHIEL ROBERT STEPHENS, aged 28, shoemaker, was charged that be, being the bailee of a small quantity of leather, the property of Robert Pope, did fraudulently take and convert the same two (sic) his own use, at Lostwithiel, on the 11th of January. Mr Clarke prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. On the 11th of January the prosecutor bought some leather of Mr Eva at Lostwithiel, which he delivered to the prisoner to be made into a pair of boots; and the same day prisoner took it to the shop of Mr Joseph Daniel, shoemaker in that town, and asked him to buy it, but he refused to do so. The prisoner then asked Mr Daniel to lend him 1s. 6d., as he wanted to go to Bodmin, and he would leave the leather until his return; Mr Daniel, did so, and the prisoner left the leather. On being apprehended on the 16th, and charged with the the (sic) offence, the prisoner said—Well, he should only get two months for it. The Judge said he was of opinion that the evidence did not show the prisoner had completed the offence. If he had pledged the leather with Daniel, so that the latter could have kept it he would have been guilty; but he had not done this, only asking Mr Daniel, to let him have 1s. 6d., and leaving the leather with him until his return. The prisoner would have had a defence to an action of trover, and he must have a defence to this charge; therefore, the jury must acquit him. Then jury then found the prisoner not guilty. FOWL STEALING AT STOKECLIMSLAND. JOHN LOZE, aged 29, a miller, was charged with stealing four hens, the property of John Gray, at Stokeclimsland, on the 8th of January last. Mr Little prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. On the evening of the 8th of January the prosecutor had seven fowls in a linhay, near his house, in the parish of Stokeclimsland, and the next morning it was found that four of them were gone. On the same night, three fowls were also stolen from the same linhay, belonging to James Doidge. On the 9th, the prisoner offered four pairs of fowls for sale to several persons in Callington, and on being apprehended on the 10th, a basket was found near his house in which were some feathers. The prisoner had sold a pair of fowls to Mrs Sandercock, poulter, of Callington, and on the heads and legs of these being produced, they were identified by Mrs Gray, as the heads and legs of two fowls that had been stolen from her. On Sunday morning, the 10th, Mr Doidge on going out found his three fowls that had been stolen back in the linhay again, and the case for the prosecution was that the prisoner being unable to sell them, had returned them. Guilty. Four Months Hard Labour. STEALING OYSTERS AT FALMOUTH. JOHN WRIGHT, aged 23, labourer, was charged with having on the 8th January, at Falmouth, stolen a quantity of oysters from an oyster-bed, the property of Henry Mark. Mr Cox prosecuted. The prosecutor, Mr Mark, resides at Penryn, and he has as oyster bed in the parish of Mylor. The practice was to dredge the oysters from different parts of the channel, and a person engaged in the trade could tell by the appearance of the oysters from what part of the channel they had been taken. They were laid on the oyster beds as they were dredged from the channel and afterwards taken away as they were required. On the 7th January the prosecutor had a quantity of oysters on his bed, and on the morning of the 8th it was found that between two and three tubs of them, worth 20s. a tub, had been taken away. It was extremely difficult to identify oysters, and the charge against the prisoner was sought to be established by a variety of circumstances. On examining the mud bed or bank, foot marks were found in the mud which must have been made after high water; the mark of the keel of a boat was found in the channel, and on tracing this for a couple of hundred yards or so, a boat was found with a considerable quantity of oysters inside it. Afterwards, the prisoner was found to go to the boat which was his property, and on being charged with having stolen the oysters, he denied that he had done so, and said that he had dredged them the previous day from the channel where the Russell guardship was lying. The witnesses for the prosecution, however, stated that it would take a person nearly three weeks to dredge as many oysters as were found in the boat, because they had come from different parts of the channel. Then the weed found on them was the same as that which would be on oysters that had been for some time lying in a bed, and not like that which would be on oysters recently taken from the channel. Next, it was stated that if the prisoner had dredged them he must have used the dredging ropes, and these would have been laid on the top of the oysters in the boat, whereas in this case the rope was found lying in the bottom of the boat, and the oysters upon it. On afterwards spreading the oysters over the space in the bed from which oysters had been removed, it was found that they exactly covered it in the same way that the other parts of the bed were covered. The Prisoner in defence, said that he had dredged the oysters some time before from the bay near the Russell, and the Black Rock, but being unable to sell them, he had kept them, and had now put them into his boat for the purpose of again trying to sell them. The jury found the prisoner not guilty. STABBING AT TRURO. JOHN BENNETT, who had been out on bail, was charged with having on the 28th November last, unlawfully cut and wounded Thomas Julian. Mr Lopes prosecuted; and Mr Stock defended the prisoner. On the night of the 28th November the prosecutor and the prisoner were both drunk at the Turk's Head Inn in Truro. The band of the Rifle Volunteers were playing there during the evening, and it seemed that the prisoner who had rendered himself very disagreeable, was turned out of the house. About half-past one o'clock in the morning the prosecutor left the Turk's Head to go home, and on reaching the end of King’s-street, the prisoner and a man named Venton came up to him and the former commenced abusing him for not having taken his part at the Turk's Head. The prisoner then struck the prosecutor in the face with a sharp instrument, and he fell on his back. On getting up he accused the prisoner of having some sharp weapon in his hand, but he denied this. The prosecutor then knocked the prisoner down, and on his getting up knocked him down again. This was again repeated, and on Bennett's getting up for the last time, he said that he had had enough, and would fight no more. While the prosecutor was putting on his coat, the prisoner and Venton attacked him, the prisoner getting behind him struck him with something hard and sharp three times on the back of his head, and inflicted three severe wounds. Prosecutor turned round and knocked Bennett down, and then went up to Venton, and asked him why he had attacked him. Venton drew a knife with a blade six inches long, and said that he would run it into him if he touched him. Police Constable Cornish then came up and Julian and another person ran away. The prisoner notwithstanding that he was the first aggressor said to the officer that he gave those men in charge for having insulted him. The prosecutor was afterwards apprehended, and fined by the magistrates 5s. for being drunk; Venton was also fined for drawing a knife. The prisoner absconded from Truro, and kept out of the way for some time. Mr STOCK urged on behalf of the prisoner that no weapon had been produced, and there was really no evidence to show that he had used a sharp instrument.—Guilty. Six months' hard labour. FRAUDULENT GAMBLING AT LISKEARD. WILLIAM HOPKINS, 25, a brush maker, was charged with obtaining, by means of fraud and unlawful device, the sum of £2 from Richard Piper, at Liskeard, on the 8th Feb., with the intent to defraud and cheat him of the same. Mr Lopes prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. On the day in question, the prosecutor, who is a miner living at Liskeard, was at the Globe Inn, in that town, kept by Mr Simmons; and while there the prisoner came in and produced a roulette box, and offered to bet the prosecutor 3d. that he would throw a higher number than 11 every time. Prosecutor accepted the bet, and the prisoner spun and won. They went on betting, increasing the amount to 6d., a shilling, and so on, until at last £2 a side was betted. The prosecutor lost every time, being minus £4 9s 3d ultimately. The prisoner was at length suspected of foul play, his box was seized, and on being examined it was found that all the cavities or apertures to the numbers below eleven were raised or stopped up with bits of card, which prevented the pea or ball from dropping into them, so that every time the prisoner spun the box, he was certain to get a higher number than eleven, and of course won every bet. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, adding that they thought the prosecutor was very much to blame for playing with him.—Four months' hard labour. OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES AT TRURO. THOMAS STEPHENS, aged 37, was charged with obtaining by false pretences, on the 16th January, a tenon saw, of William James Criddle, ironmonger, of Truro, with intent to defraud him of the same. Mr Lopes prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. On the day in question the prisoner went to prosecutor's shop and asked to be shown some tenon saws. Several were shown to him by an apprentice named George William French, and be selected one, desiring the apprentice to charge it to Mr Harris, builder, Feock, who was a customer of Mr Criddle. Mr , an assistant, corroborated the evidence of the apprentice French as to what had taken place when the prisoner obtained the saw. Mr Harris said that the prisoner had worked for him at times during two or three years, and was in his employ the week before the 16th January. Never authorised him to obtain a tenon saw or any other saw from Mr Criddle. Mr Harris added, that though the prisoner had been in his employ from this time, and had access to locks, tools, and other things, he had never missed anything. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to Six Months' Hard Labour. PUBLICATION OF A LIBEL AT PENZANCE. HENRY VINER, aged 40, was indicted for unlawfully and maliciously publishing on the 19th of December, a false and defamatory libel on and against Mr Rowland Augustus Griffiths Davies, reflecting on him in his character of Mayor of the borough of Penzance; also in his character of Registrar of the County Court of Cornwall, holden at Penzance; and thirdly in his private capacity. Mr M. Smith, Q.C., prosecuted; and Mr Cole defended Mr Viner. The libel in question was the same for which the action had been brought by Mr Millett on the previous day against Mr Viner. The Defendant on being arraigned, pleaded guilty. The JUDGE—Do you know what you are doing? You aret (sic) pleading guilty to a malicious libel. The Defendant—I have no malice or ill-feeling agains (sic) Mr Davies. The JUDGE—You are pleading guilty to a malicious libel and I wish to know whether you understand what you are doing. The Defendant—Yes; and I plead guilty The Defendant was then informed that he would be called up for judgment the next day. THE FLUSHING LUNACY CASE. SAMUEL PORTER, who had been out on bail, was then charged with having on the 30th Nov., at the parish of Mylor, ill-treated and wilfully neglected Robert Porter, a lunatic, or alleged lunatic, detained under his care and charge. This case excited considerable interest, and the court was much crowded during its trial. Mr M. Smith, Q. C, and Mr Stock conducted the prosecution; and Mr Cole and Mr Kingdon appeared for the defendant. Mr STOCK opened the case. He said that this was an indictment which had been directed to be preferred by the Commissioners in Lunacy against Samuel Porter, who was charged on several counts with abusing and ill-treating one Robert Porter, a lunatic, who was under his charge and care. He was also charged with having assaulted and ill-treated the said lunatic. To this the defendant had pleaded not guilty, and this was the question which the jury had to try. Mr SMITH stated the case. He said that the prosecution had been directed, as his friend Mr Stock had said, by the Lunacy- Commissioners, and was framed under the Act 16th and 17th Victoria, chap 96, sec. 9, which enacted that any person taking upon himself the charge, custody, or care of any lunatic, if he should afterwards abuse or ill-treat, or exercise any cruelty towards him, he should be held to be guilty of a misdemeanour. He regretted to say that this was one of the most revolting cases that had ever been brought before the public. The unfortunate lunatic who was alleged to have been so ill-treated, was an elder brother of the defendant, and was aged about 55 years. His father was a mason and builder, living at Flushing, near Falmouth, in this county, and was possessed of some houses and other property. It appears that Robert Porter, the lunatic, was in his youth a good-looking man, of some intelligence, and seemed to possess considerable vigour, both of mind and body. He was brought up to the trade of a mason, but early in life—he believed, shortly after he had attained the age of 20—reason began to give way, and he became insane. He was taken care of by his parents until their death, the mother dying in 1843, and the father in 1850; and then the younger sister, named Charlotte, undertook the charge of him; he remained with her till 1853, when she emigrated to America; he was then taken by the defendant, who had had the care of him from that time until his removal—a short time ago—to the County Lunatic Asylum. The learned counsel then proceeded to state the other facts as they are given in the subjoined evidence. He then said that the father had left six houses, the rents of which amounted to about £60 a year, and these must have come, on the death of the father, being freehold, to the lunatic, as he understood no will had been found. The personal property would be, of course, devisable among the children, or if there had been a will, the freehold property would have been divided in accordance with its directions. The rents of these houses had been received by the defendant, and he had stated that he was allowed 7s. a week for taking charge of the lunatic, and the remainder of the rents he sent to his sister Charlotte. Not only had the defendant the care of the lunatic, but he had taken charge of him voluntarily; and he had taken the rents of the property to remunerate himself for so doing. He thought that the jury would be satisfied when they heard the evidence, that the defendant had not only broken the law of the land, but the principles of common humanity. He then called Mr R. W. T Lutwidge who deposed—l am one of the Commissioners of Lunacy, and have been connected with that body for a period of 23 years. On the 9th December I went to Falmouth, accompanied by Mr Wilkes, a medical commissioner. On the following day we met Dr Byrne, at Flushing, and proceeded to defendant's house. We did not find him at home. It was a respectable house. We inquired for his wife and told her who we were, and what we had come for. After a short delay we walked up some steps at the back of the house to the room in which the lunatic was detained. We afterwards learnt from the defendant that that room was built by him, and constructed for the lunatic. The floor of the room was on a level with the first floor of the house. There was a back kitchen partly under the room. There was a privy adjoining the room, and beyond the privy there was an ash-pit. On going up the steps, Dr Byrne entered the room first, and we took a view of its condition and dimensions. The first thing that struck us was the most foetid stench I ever smelt. The room was about 8 feet wide by 12 feet long, and 8 feet high. There was an ordinary sash window which could be opened, but it was not when he went in. There was a green blind to it. There was no other means of ventilation to the room, and no provision for warming it in cold weather. The only article of furniture was a trestle bed, consisting of five or six laths nailed across a frame, with intervals of five or six inches between. The frame was to the right as we entered. The lunatic was inclined to the right side of the bed as if he was rising, his legs doubled up, his knees against his chest, and his heels were bent back against his thighs. He apparently had no power to extend his limbs, the only limbs that were free being his arms. Very soon after we entered he leant forward, and I observed that he was scraping with his hand liquid urine and dirt, which he put into his mouth, mixed it with his saliva, and swallowed it. There was no bed-clothes, only some pieces of sacking, which were saturated with filth and wet with urine. There was no clothing on him but only these pieces of sacking. His body was exceedingly dirty, and he had a wound on the scalp and sores on other parts of his body. Beneath the trestle bed there was a slate in a slanting position, from which there was a sort of wooden trough, at the end of which was a frying-pan to receive the urine. The only other articles were an old pewter pot. There was another rusty frying-pan, which appeared to be used for his food. The floor of the room was covered with excrement and urine, as were also the walls. He appeared to be very much emaciated. We put some questions to him which he tried to answer. He had an innocent, harmless expression of face. On the defendant coming home, I explained who we were, and read the order of the Secretary of State directing us to enter the house. I also cautioned him as to what he said, telling him that the case was of such a character that proceedings might be taken against him. The defendant or his brother-in-law stated that the lunatic was his elder brother; that he had been under the charge of his father down to February, 1850; that he was then under the charge of a sister who had emigrated to America, in 1853, since which time he had been under his care; that he had lived in a house in another part of Flushing, from which he had removed the previous year to his present house. I enquired as to any property there might be left. He stated that his father had certain houses, the rents of which he now received—that he believed there had been no regular will, but in accordance with his wish, there had been an arrangement after his father's death, under which 7s. a-week was to be paid for the care of the lunatic, and if there was any balance it was to be remitted to his sister Charlotte, in America. I do not remember anything being said about furniture. The only other thing said by the defendant was that he did his best for the lunatic—that if he was cleaned he would immediately dirty himself by smearing himself with excrement. Afterwards we went and looked at the room which it was stated had been occupied by the lunatic in the former house. That was smaller, being only 6 feet by 9, and had a communication with the rest of the house, but it appeared to be recently made. We went a second time to the lunatic's room the same day. We were then accompanied by Mr Kinsman, a magistrate, and a policeman. We then gave direction for the magistrates to take the proper steps under the Lunacy Act, to remove the lunatic to an asylum. Crosss-examined (sic): I was not examined before the magistrates, and no part of my evidence has been communicated to the defendant, I dont think it right to cross-examine a man I am going to prosecute. My reason for putting the questions as to property was with the view of ascertaining whether there was any which might be available for the maintenance of a lunatic. I made certain rough-notes but they are not here. They were put aside because the whole substance of them is embodied in a report I made to the Secretary of State. I have not made any inquiry for the sister Charlotte or any other member of the family. I am not positive that 7s. a week was the sum which was mentioned as that which was paid for the care of the lunatic, but my impression is that it was; I think that the prisoner did occasionally go out of the room when I had conversation with the brother-in-law. I think that the conversation as to the arrangement referred to did not take place with the brother-in-law, while the defendant was out. Dirt and filth is a frequent accompaniment of insanity, and lunatics are sometimes known to eat their own filth. The way to prevent this is to attend to the lunatic, furnish him with comforts, and he will improve. Sometimes they will tear up their bed clothes, eat their own dirt, and refuse the food given to them, and it has to be forced down their throats. They naturally become pale and emaciated. It would be dangerous to leave a lunatic in a room with a fire in it without some other person to watch him. Re-examined: The state of a lunatic may be materially improved under warmth, cleanliness, and attention; and he would naturally get worse both mentally and bodily, under a system of neglect. I see about 14,000 lunatics yearly, and I cannot doubt that the state of this man was greatly aggravated by the neglect to which he had been seen subjected. Dr. T. E. Byrne was then examined, but with what he saw and did, our readers are already fully acquainted. Cross-examined: I have heard a report that there was a lunatic in Flushing confined by his brother, but I could never ascertain where, although I made inquiries. I went to Australia in January, and on my return, I commenced inquiries and found that the lunatic had been removed in the night. On that I wrote to the Commissioners. I mentioned the matter to Elliott who, although he lived in the same house with the defendant had never seen the lunatic. Mr James Wilkes: I am one of the Commissioners in Lunacy. I have heard the evidence of Mr Lutwidge and Dr. Byrne, and it is perfectly correct. Everything showed that he had been greatly neglected. Cross-examined: Dirt is a common phase of insanity, and I have seen lunatics eat their own excrement and spit it out against the walls of their rooms. I heard that the man had been a lunatic between 20 and 30 years, I should think the contraction of his limbs had existed for many years—it might be 20 but I cannot say. I know that there used to be a feeling in many parts of the country among certain people against sending their relatives to an asylum, but it is not now so strong as it was. Re-examined: I consider where such habits exist it is a proof that proper care has not been taken of the lunatic. I consider that the rigidity of the limbs had been produced gradually, and had been caused by a want of exercise, of proper care and attention, and by the lunatic shrinking up in that crouching attitude from cold. Edwin Elliott deposed that he formerly lived in the house in which the defendant resided; the defendant removed on Ladyday, 1862. He was aware that there was a lunatic in the house, but he never saw him; he frequently heard him making noises in the evening, like a man in distress. When the defendant was going to remove, he told witness that if he heard any noises in the night, he was not to be alarmed or take any notice, as he was going to remove "this man." In the night, witness heard the noise of a wheelbarrow, and next day he told witness that he removed him in a wheelbarrow—that only his wife assisted, and he carried him quite nice; that when he got him into the new room, he said “this is a nice room, is it not, Robert?" to which the lunatic replied that it was “middling, considering." After the defendant had left, witness went into the room in which the lunatic had been kept. When he opened the door, there was such a dreadful smell that the witness had to draw back; he found the room in a filthy state. On one side was the place where the man had lain. It was raised about four of five inches from the floor, and the stone on which he had lain was covered with human dung, the impression of his body being sunk in it—where the shoulders had been, to the depth of 5 or 6 inches. The walls were covered with excrement. There was a window in the room, but it was covered with green dirt, owing to its never having been cleaned. The dirt and straw swept out of the room made seven or eight barrows full. Cross-examined—I saw the defendant take the lunatic his victuals, twice a day and his wife once. Had never known the defendant to strike the lunatic. Re-examined—I saw the defendant take bread and treacle and something in a jug, but I do not know what. Julia Tregidgo—I am a widow and am in my 66th year. I have lived at Flushing nearly 50 years. I have lived in a house belonging to the father of the defendant. I left it 17 years ago. I knew old Robert Porter, the father of the defendant, who was a master mason. I also knew the lunatic, who was a fine young man. Old Porter had got five houses that he built himself, besides the one I occupied, and I heard that he held two other leasehold houses. I believe that it is about 25 years since Robert Porter broke down. He was then taken care of by his father and mother. Mr. Porter died about four years ago, and then a younger sister took charge of him and continued to do so until she went to America, about ten years ago. I lived next door to Mr. Porter for 14 years, and when my husband was alive I was not so much afraid of the noises which the lunatic used to make. My husband died about seven years ago, and then I was afraid of the noises which he made. About three years and a half ago, I saw the lunatic in his cell, his knees rested on the bottom of his chest, his hands on the side of his head, and he was a naked as when born. This was in the summer time. Cross-examined: All the village knew this; and they did not complain, nor did I ever do so, to a magistrate about the way the lunatic was treated. I have not been quarrelling with Mr. Porter. I had a little garden, and Mr. Porter had 30 fowls, and they used to go into the garden and eat everything up. Mr. Cole: I believe you are considered a wise woman, are you not? Witness (indignantly): A wise woman! I do not understand you. Mr. Cole: Don’t you. Come now, don’t you tell fortunes? Witness (with a look of extreme horror): Me tell fortunes! I will bring you up for that, you wicked man. (Roars of laughter, in which the learned judge joined.) I have always got my living honestly, and I have three sons officers in her Majesty’s navy. Re-examined: I came from Plymouth, and I have conducted myself, and reared my family respectably. To say that I tell fortunes! Oh, you wicked man (addressing Mr. Cole). John R. Tong—I am collector of rates for the parish of Mylor. I knew Robert Porter, the father of the lunatic. I served my apprenticeship with James Porter, his brother. I remember the father building one or two houses. The defendant has paid me rates in respect of property in Flushing—his own and other property. I called on him for some rates in January. He always expected a separate receipt for certain property, and another receipt for certain other property. He invariably asked for a receipt to satisfy his sister Charlotte as to the expenditure. He required this receipt in respect of the property which had been his father’s—six or seven houses. After the Lunacy Commissioners had visited Flushing I had a conversation with the defendant. He said, you know Tong I was never benefitted a farthing by Robert, and I said I do not believe you were. He said, I was aware that house property was not worth much in Flushing; and that all he had received was 7s. a week for the maintenance of Robert. He told me that after deducting for the maintenance of Robert and for repairs, the residue was remitted to Charlotte. He showed me some books. The gross rental of the houses was from £50 to £60 a year. Cross-examined: From this had to be deducted rates, conventionary rents, and repairs. I knew the lunatic years ago, and I had no idea that he was a cripple until the Commissioners came. I have known the defendant, who was considered a respectable man. Mr Richard Adams, medical attendant of the County Lunatic Asylum deposed: Robert Porter was admitted to the asylum on the 6th of December. He was then tolerably clean. He was very much emaciated. His thighs were bent until the knees almost touched his chin, and the legs were then bent back on the hams, and the feet crossed, I endeavoured to bend the legs, but were so contracted that I could not. We weighed him, and found he weighed 94 lbs. 6st. 10bs. I measured him, and he appeared to be 5ft. 10in. in height. He was suffering from dementia (sic). I have had him under my care since; and he has been quiet the whole time—has not shown the slightest violence. He has increased nine pounds in weight. He is occasionally dirty and only occasionally, and he has decidedly improved in this respect. His clothing is the ordinary kind, and he has never destroyed anything. He takes his food well, excepting bread which at times he declines. He has improved mentally, and can now answer questions better than when he came. Cross-examined He has not had more care than some other lunatics. He does not and never has eaten his excrement since he was admitted into the asylum. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Cole then objected that the four first counts of the indictment were bad, inasmuch as they did not state the time when the alleged ill-treatment of the lunatic had occurred. The Judge held that the objection was not tenable. Mr Cole then objected to the fifth count, which charged the defendant with having assaulted and ill-treated the lunatic, no evidence being adduced that he had done anything of the kind. The Judge thought that there was certainly no evidence of an assault. Mr COLE then submitted that the case did not come within the meaning of the statute, 16 and 17 Vic., sec. 96. That statute was intended to apply to persons who either kept lunatic asylums, or who undertook the care and custody of lunatics for hire, and as a business. There was not the slightest evidence to show that this had been the intention with which the defendant had undertaken the care of the lunatic in this case. In support of his objection he referred to the case of the Queen v. Rundle, 24, Lam Journal, (Magistrates cases), in which the Court of Criminal Appeal had held that the act was intended only to apply to the keepers of lunatic asylums or to persons who had the care of single lunatics. His LORDSHIP said that he should not stop the case, but on the application of Mr Cole, he agreed that he would state a case on the point, if necessary, for the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court then adjourned. NISI PRIUS. WEDNESDAY. ( Before Mr BARON BRAMWELL.) The court opened this morning at nine o'clock, and resumed the case of LANYON and others v. TREWHELLA. The examination of Mr Alfred Gee, clerk of the plaintiff, was resumed. He produced the letters referred to in the opening address of Mr Karslake, which he believed to be in the handwriting of the defendant. He also proved an interview with the defendant at Redruth, when the defendant made no objection to the account, and that he also gave the defendant an invoice. The witness admitted, on cross-examination, he had been a schoolmaster, a local preacher, and had a "touch at the law." The defendant came to Redruth in July last, when witness went to see him, in company with the sheriff's officer. He went into the house where the defendant was, asked to see him, and taking him by the arm walked with him to the door, where stood the sheriff's officer. He said, "I have the honour to introduce to you Mr John Trewhella." The sheriff's officer then took the defendant into custody on a capias which had been telegraphed for to London. The defendant offered to pay half the amount due, and send the remainder from Paris. This was refused, because he thought the defendant was slippery. Mr Charles Lanyon, one of the plaintiffs, was also called and proved the debt. In cross-examination, he admitted seeing the defendant at Wheal Basset mine on the 28th of July, where he proposed his health as 'an enterprising Cornishman.' The defendant was still, he believed, an adventurer in Wheal Basset; it was a good mine; he (witness) had made £20,000 by it in legitimate dividends. This concluded the plaintiff's case, and Mr Karslake summed up the evidence. Mr Carter then addressed the jury for the defendant, submitting that defendant was not present when the order was given, that he never received the goods, and was not therefore liable; and that the evidence in support of the handwriting was utterly worthless. The learned Judge said he could see no difficulty in the case at all, and, without summing up the evidence, told the jury to consider their verdict, and the jury immediately returned a verdict for the full amount. The Judge said it was a perfectly undefended case. THE HAYLE POISONING CHARGE. ACTION FOR DAMAGES. RICHAKD OKE MILLETT v. FREDERICK EDMONDS. This was an action to recover damages for a malicious prosecution, in which Dr. Richard Oke Millett, of Hayle, was charged with poisoning his brother Jacob Curnow Millett, on the 30th December, 1863. The first count of the indictment charged the defendant, Mr Frederick Edmonds, surgeon of Hayle, with laying an information against Dr Millett, to the effect that he had wilfully and maliciously administered poison to Jacob Curnow Millett, with intent to cause his death. The second count charged the defendant with having feloniously and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause, charged Dr Richard Oke Millett, with poisoning his brother. To these counts the defendant pleaded not guilty. The case was heard before a special jury, upon which the following gentlemen were sworn:—Messrs. Neville Norway, foreman, Thomas Graves Sawle, Wm. Wymond, Joseph Morsom, Thomas Martyn, Wm. L. Martyn, Edward Pethybridge, John Freeman. Mr Coleridge, Q.C., Mr H. T. Cole, and Mr Bullar appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, instructed by Mr Downing, of Redruth. For the defendant Mr Karslake, Q.C., and Mr Kingdon appeared, instructed by Messrs Roscorla and Davies, of Penzance. Mr Bullar having stated the pleadings, Mr Coleridge opened the case at great length. He stated that the plaintiff was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and a physician having an Aberdeen and Edinburgh degree. The defendant was also a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and a brother-in-law of the plaintiff, having married his sister. The action was brought for what was called a malicious prosecution, but in plain English it was for charging the plaintiff with poisoning his own brother. This charge had been persisted in the most deliberate manner, and was up to the present moment so made, and so persisted in, as to leave Dr Millett if he meant to hold up his head in the county or amongst his fellow creatures, no alternative but to bring this action to call upon the defendant to come forward in the face of the county in which he had made the charge, and either to justify It or withdraw it. The plaintiff was the fifth son by the second wife of a clergyman named John Curnow Millett, a gentleman, of considerable property, who resided at Penpol, and who died on the 30th January, 1848. He was married twice, and had two children by his first wife, and nine by his second. The plaintiff was the fifth son by the second wife, and being his father's companion and favourite son, he succeeded to a portion of his property, which enabled him to live in a comfortable position. In 1848, the father died at the age of 77 years. Since that time, the plaintiff had lived at Penpol house, of which he was the chief owner. In the same year a sister of plaintiff’s, named Jane, died, at the age of 20 or 21 years, at Penpol. She was consumptive, and had been travelling about to Plymouth, Bath, and other places for the benefit of her health; she had a little property which was equally divided amongst the brothers and sisters. Jacob Curnow Millett, of whose death the plaintiff was accused, was the 4th son of the second marriage; he was born in 1813 and died in 1863, being about 50 years of age, He had been weakly from his birth, having suffered from congenital hydrocephelus (sic), or water on the brain. He was a small man of disproportionate formation. He was always very delicate, and unable to take much exercise; accordingly he was not brought up to any profession like the rest of the family, but had a small income of £100 per annum, on which he lived with the plaintiff, of whom he was very fond. Jacob was a decent scholar, could read his Latin and Greek, and play a hand of whist, but was of delicate health. He was a man of strong religious feeling, a Wesleyan, and of good intellectual capacity. He died in the night between the 30th and 31st Dec. For about 18 months previous to his death, he had been observed to be getting weaker in health, and immediately before his death he was failing very much, and he was constantly placing his hand to his head as if suffering from pressure or fulness of the head; his feet and hands got puffy, and he could not take exercise; he had frequent attacks of diarrhoea, which reduced him considerably. In 1861, when his health began to fail, there was some dispute between him and Mr Hannibal Millett, of London, about some property. Jacob proceeded to London to settle the matter, and then visited the defendant, who was living at Croydon, and remained with him a few days. Jacob was living upon his own property, which amounted to about £100 per year, but he had advanced £200 to William Millett, his elder brother, which made it necessary for him-to obtain some money from the plaintiff, who advanced him altogether something over £100. It appeared that Jacob made a will in favour of his three sisters, but afterwards destroyed it on the death of Jane. In Feb. 1863, he again made a will leaving all his property (£100 a-year) to the plaintiff, with whom he had always lived and to whom he was strongly attached. Nothing could be more natural than this; but the will was made the subject of a caveat by the defendant, but he had since thought proper to withdraw, and the will was now admitted to probate. After this, Jacob Curnew (sic) Millet’s ill-health went on increasing, and three or four weeks before his death he had an attack of influenza, accompanied by a cough from which he suffered till the last. Now, the jury's own common sense would tell them, independently of the medical testimony, that this was the worst thing that a man in the deceased state could suffer from. The learned counsel then detailed the symptoms preceding the deceased's death, which are well known to our readers from the full accounts published in the Royal Cornwall Gazette, and also the manner in which the death took place. He then alluded to the fact that on the morning of the death the plaintiff informed the members of the family of the occurrence by letter, and gave notice to the coroner who held an inquest on the following day, and to the funeral which took place on the 4th Jan., and at which several members of the family were present. They would no doubt ask what there was under such circumstances to suggest the slightest atom of suspicion against Dr Millett, or to warrant the defendant in taking the course he had done. It appeared to be a common case of apoplexy from pressure on the brain; but as it had been said "the stillest night is full of sounds which are determined to listen," so if a man gave himself up to suspicions, he will find food enough to feed upon. The defendant was a surgeon of considerable ability, having realised a large fortune by the practice of his profession. Early in life he went out as a surgeon to one of the great mining companies in Mexico, whence he returned in 1846; and, after a very brief courtship, married Elizabeth Millett, the plaintiff's sister, then about 21 years of age, and who had great expectations. The marriage was very much opposed by her father and the plaintiff, but Miss Millett was determined to have the defendant, and have him she did; and the consequence was that an estrangement took place, and there had never since been any friendship between the families. The defendant shortly afterwards again went to Mexico, returning in 1856, when he immediately became the plaintiff in a Chancery suit against Mr Hannibal Millett, of Okehampton, the plaintiff's uncle, a very old man, the head of the family who was mixed up with the administration of the property of the plaintiff's father, who died in 1848. This suit had been in Chancery ever since, and was now there. There had never been any intercourse between the plaintiff and defendant from the time of the marriage till the funeral of the deceased, on the 4th of January. He (the learned Counsel) should be anxious to know from the defendant what was his earliest action in the matter. At present he could only speak to the advent of Mr Richard Edmonds, of Plymouth (the defendant's brother and attorney), who visited Mr Cornish, of Penzance, the magistrates' clerk for East Penwith, for the purpose of getting an information drawn up against the plaintiff, accusing him of poisoning his brother. It was at first proposed that Mr William Millett, plaintiff's brother, and Mr John Thomas Millett, a half brother, should join in the information. John Thomas, however, refused to have anything to do with it, and William not being considered sufficiently responsible, the defendant himself appeared on the scene. It appeared that he had first made application to the Secretary of State for a warrant of exhumation, but being referred to a local magistrate he came down and made himself responsible. The learned Counsel then read the information which commenced by enumerating the persons residing in the house at the time of Jacob Millett's death, amongst whom were a female called Davey and a boy 12 years old, called Rawlings, the reputed son of the plaintiff and the said female Davey. The learned counsel remarked upon this that the defendant in making the statement knew that he was telling an abominable and wicked falsehood. The "female Davey," was not residing in the house, and the boy was not the son of Dr Millett or of Miss Davey, but of Mrs Rawlings, Miss Davey's sister, whose husband was engineer of the works at Coom Avon in Wales where he died, and where the child was born, as he should prove by the mother and the nurse who attended her. The information further alleged that three months before the death the deceased had told certain parties he would not leave his money to the defendant; and that Mr Richard Millett had arranged to see Jacob the second week in January to make his will, of which arrangement the plaintiff was aware. Now, in plain English, that meant that Dr. Millett having got a will made in his own favour, and finding that it was likely to be altered, poisoned his brother in order to prevent the alteration being accomplished; a more malignant, a more disgraceful, a more infernal statement than that it was impossible to make; and yet the fact of the case, of which Richard Millett and the defendant must have been aware, was that Jacob wanted to see Richard Edmonds to obtain from him a document which he held in his possession, and had positively told Edwin Edmonds that he did not want a will made. The information then proceeded to detail the symptoms which preceded the death of the deceased, alleging that death could only be explained on the supposition of poison having been administered. Upon that the Secretary of State granted an order for exhumation, but declined to allow it to be done at the public expense, and the defendant thereupon made himself responsible for the costs. The defendant was present at the post mortem examination which took place on the 20th January, and on the 22nd he laid a second information, which stated that there appeared to be no natural cause to account for death; especially as there was no effusion on the brain; and that it w as his decided and solemn belief that Jacob Curnow Millett died of poison, and that that poison was administered by Richard Oke Millett, the defendant; and that declaration was made notwithstanding the fact that the man had a pint of water in the ventricles of his brain, whereas there was only a teaspoonful in that of a healthy person. The plaintiff was a member of an old and respectable Cornish family, who up to that time had not had the slightest stain upon his reputation, was then arrested in the open day, taken by policemen, and lodged in prison, subject to all the indignity which a person charged with a dishonourable crime could be subjected to. Five times was he taken before the magistrates and kept 14 days in prison. His alleged crime was the subject of comment in the whole county, and his name was brought into the deepest dishonour, and all without the smallest shadow of a pretence. It was a charge of the most infernal wickedness that the heart of man ever conceived, or that it ever entered into the mind of man to perpetrate. He should add that when the warrant was granted for the plaintiff's apprehension defendant stated that he did not care whether there was poison or not found in the stomach of the deceased, he would undertake to satisfy anybody that poison had been administered. The learned Counsel then read Dr Taylor's report of his analysis and his suggestions as to the cause of his death furnished to the magistrates. After this report, if the defendant had only been acting with a view to public justice, and if he was not influenced by the most malignant spirit, he would have come forward and said to Dr. Millett that it was a very painful thing to him to be the prosecutor, and that now he heartily rejoiced that he had come out of the enquiry clear of the slightest suspicion. But what did he do. He actually turned round upon Dr. Taylor, whose evidence he criticised in a letter published in the Western Daily Mercury, and making suggestions far worse than any he had ventured to make before the magistrates. That letter was signed “Investigator," and appeared on the 20th Feb. He suggested that aconite root finely powdered or the juice of aconite with horse radish had been taken at dinner. It was necessary that the deceased should be prevented from leaving the house, and to prevent his doing so, the aconite was administered; but not being sufficiently effective, it was suggested that a chloroform handkerchief placed over his mouth as he lay on the sofa would easily finish the matter; and a man was cooked up to snore in imitation of the deceased to deceive the people in the house. Not content with charging the plaintiff with poisoning his brother, the defendant in this letter insinuates that the plaintiff had murdered his father and sister, because they died at Penpol house, yet the father dies at the age of 77, surrounded by his family and friends, and the plaintiff, being his favourite son could have no motive whatever, in taking his life, and the sister, who had been for a long time away from home travelling for the benefit of her health, had never been prescribed for by Dr. Millett, and died at Penpol on her return home, her sister being in the room with her when she died. Both father and sister had died in 1848,—16 years ago, so that it was impossible for Dr. Millett to do more than assert his innocence in the most solemn manner; yet the defendant, in what he was pleased to call the exercise of a public duty drags up the death of the plaintiff’s father and sister in that base manner; it was one of the most inveterate and diabolic charges ever brought into a court of justice. The defendant, so to speak, spared neither age nor sex— all that came between him and his vengeance upon Dr. Millett must be crushed; Miss Davy is unchaste; the boy Rawlings is a bastard; and Dr. Taylor a fool or a knave, because like an able and honourable man he had blown to the winds the trumpery accusation against the plaintiff. No money compensation could undo the great and inexpressible wrong committed upon Dr. Millett; the injury sustained was absolutely irreparable, but he (the learned counsel) was addressing honourable and upright men who could judge by their own feeling as to the injury sustained, and he would therefore leave the question of damages in their hands without a syllable of comment. Dr. Millett examined by Mr Cole, said: He had been acquainted with the defendant from boyhood. His father was my father's solicitor. In 1846, he paid his addresses to my sister. It was a short courtship—about a week. The marriage was distasteful to me and I have never been on terms of intimacy with him since. My father first married a Miss Thomas, by whom he had two children, John Thomas, and Mary. By the second marriage he had by Miss Honey 9 children; William John Honey, Honey Leonard, Jacob Curnow, Richard Oke, Hannibal Curnow, Caroline Jane, Elizabeth Mary, and Jane (deceased). Elizabeth Mary married the deceased, and the other married Mr Howarth. With the exception of the deceased Jacob, all my brothers were brought up to professions; he was from infancy physically incapable of taking an active part. He had a powerful memory, a good classic, and a great organ of number. My father died in January 1848; my father had an income of about £1,000 per year; at his death the landed property went to the sons, and the personal accumulations to the daughters. For the last 18 months Jacob's health and sight had been gradually failing; he tottered in his walk. In February, 1863, he spoke to me about making a will. He had previously made a will which was drawn by his brother Hannibal; this he destroyed. He asked me to draw the will, and he said he was going to leave it all to me. He had about £100 per year; he paid me £1 per week for his board and lodging; I thought that was all he could afford; he was very generous and gave a great deal away. I advanced him money to the extent of about £119. Before death he was subject to occasional twitchings, or convulsive movements of the limbs, and afterwards looked foolish. Shortly before his death he was suffering from influenza, but he persisted in being his own doctor and would not take my advice not to go out. On the morning of his death he had an attack of diarrhoea. He then described the symptoms on the day of the death. With regard to Miss Davey, he had known her for 20 years, but she never resided in his house. The remainder of the evidence agreed with that already described by witnesses at Hayle, with which our readers are familiar. The witness helped to carry the deceased up stairs, and he considered from his symptoms at that time that he was a dead man; it was no use trying to do anything for him; it was only a punishment to give remedies under the circumstances. About four hours after the deceased's death, Mr Edwin Edmonds, surgeon, the defendant's brother, saw the corpse, and said it was a very pleasant one—more pleasant in death than in life. On the morning following the death an inquest was held, and a verdict returned that the deceased died from natural causes. A few days afterwards I heard that my brother's body was to be exhumed, and that it had originated with my brother William. Nothing was said to me about going to see the post mortem and it was by mere accident I heard of the exhumation. On the 22nd Jan. I was at home at Penpol, when two policemen came and arrested me. They told me to turn my pockets out which I did. I was taken to Camborne by train, a policeman at each side of me. I was put in a room with the walls reeking with water, and filled with smoke; I was nearly suffocated; the room was not fit for any human being to live in. The next morning I was taken to Hayle, where an examination was taken and I was remanded four times. My solicitor each time applied for bail which was refused. The defendant sat beside Mr Roscorla his solicitor, each time, and was instructing him and suggesting questions. On the 5th day Dr Taylor's report arrived and I was discharged. I was practising my profession and had several appointments. Was well known in the neighbourhood and in the Western part of the County. There is no truth in the statement that Miss Davey resided at my house or that the boy Rawlings is my son. I have read "Investigator's" letter. There is not the slightest shadow for the assertion that I had anything to do with the death of my father or sister. My father died surrounded by his friends at the age of 77, and my sister died from consumption. Cross-examined by Mr KARSLAKE. I had lived at Penpol the greater part of my life. Jacob Curnow, (the deceased) and Leonard Millett (also deceased) were tenants for life of Penpol. Hannibal Curnow Millett is also tenant for life of Penpol and I pay her rent for the estate; I pay him two-thirds and ⅓ towards my father's estate. He never said he would dance upon his father's tomb when he died. There were no quarrels between himself and his father on money matters. There might have been some disagreement respecting the conduct of his sisters. He inherited estate upon the death of his father. The defendant went abroad in 1846 or 1847 and his (witnesses) father died in 1848. Never frightened his sister by saying that he had poisons in the house with which he could put anybody out of the way without its being known. His sister Jane never refused to eat what was given her for fear of being poisoned. Leonard did not die suddenly; he died of dropsy in my arms; he left his property to me; drew the will by his directors. Jacob had a severe accident by a fall from a railway carriage: witness attended him. Miss Davey was not constantly at Penpol in 1862; she might have been there once a fortnight; Jacob never complained to me of her attendance. (Letter put in). That letter is in Jacob's handwriting. Miss Davey visited Penpol more frequently after 1862. Jacob had a niece named Ellen. As far back as 1857, he said she should have his property, but after her marriage he said she should not have a farthing of his property. Myself and Jane Teague were the only witnesses examined on the inquest of Jacob Curnow. There was no medical man called in; it was useless. It was my opinion, and that of every member of the family that Jacob would die suddenly; knew he had been suffering more or less from diarrhoea for the last 18 months; complained of a sinking pain in his stomach. Mr Hannibal Curnow Millett, my uncle, is the head of the family, and administrator of my father's estate. Received a copy of a letter from him that he had received from the defendant. Do not know when my sister Mrs Grills became a widow; don't know that she is now Mrs Howarth; believed she was married but did not know. Mr Howarth was a clergyman; had not spoken to his sister since 1859. William Millett was his brother, and a lost drunkard. Many years ago he expected that when his brother Jacob Curnow died he would be exhumed. At the examination at Hayle, Mr Roscorla, the defendant's solicitor, said he had no objection to bail being granted. Re-examined by Mr COLERIDGE. It was many years after his father's death that he heard of the suspicions which had been promulgated. His sister died six months after her father. She had been absent from home for some time, and had been attended by Dr. Budd and other medical men; witness did not attend her; he refused to have anything to do with her. Ellen, Jacob's niece, married a Roman Catholic, a marriage which Jacob hated, and for that reason did not leave her his money. William Millett was a lost drunkard, in body and mind; he subscribed £10 a year towards his support till last Midsummer, and for his uncle, Hannibal, he paid £10 per year till last Christmas. John Thomas Millett’s wife said some years ago to witness, that whenever Jacob died Frederick Edmonds would have him exhumed. Witness then said he should have an inquest on the body whenever he died. By the Judge: My sister Jane's property was about £1000; she died without a will, and there were 11 persons to share it amongst; I have benefitted by the death about £5 a-year. Helen, Jacob's niece, resided in London. She only visited Penpol once for about two months. Believed that Jacob used to correspond with her, but the correspondence ceased after her marriage. Jane Teague was next called and examined by Mr Bullar. Her evidence was the same as that already published, and the cross-examination elicited no new facts. Wm. Samuel Rawlings, Wm. Mitchell, the carpenter at Pensol (sic), Wm. Bryant, the gardener, were next examined with the same result. Edwin Edmonds, brother of the defendant was next examined: He saw Jacob on the 21st December. Witnesse’s (sic) brother (Richard), had written to witness to say he would be at Penpol on the 4th of January. Told Jacob, who said he should he glad to see him, as he wanted a mortgage deed which he had in his possession; asked Jacob whether he wanted Richard to make his will, he said no. The remainder of the evidence coincided with that previously given. He said that there was an objection to Mr Millett's attending the funeral in the carriage. He was a drunken man, but had taken the pledge and was reformed. He did attend the funeral after a little persuasion. Francis Hocking, the undertaker, deposed to the fact of having attended to the funeral of the deceased, and been present at the exhumation. Wm. Hichens, county coroner, said: On the 31st of Dec. he received a letter from Dr. Millett requesting him to hold an inquest; he held an inquest on the following day; saw Mr Millett at his own house, and told him he had come over to hold the inquest, and hoped he would be ready to give his evidence. He said he should be glad to give every information so that a proper enquiry should be made. He said that it was not till lately that he had heard that Mr Frederick Edmonds had been speaking to witness respecting the death of the father, and it was on that account he wished to have the inquest held. Cross-examined by Mr Karslake: Mr Edmonds made enquiries of me in 1856. (Letter handed in which witness said was in his handwriting.) Thos. Cornish, solicitor of Penzance, said: on the 7th or 8th June last, Mr R. Edmonds, solicitor, called upon me, and produced several documents in the handwriting of Mr Frederick Edmonds. Saw a paper in Mr Richard Edmonds' hand, and reading from that he told me the defendant had been to the Home Office for an order to exhume the body of Jacob Curnow Millett; He said the Home Office referred him to a local magistrate, told him it could not be done as it required an information; he asked if Mr William Millett, could lay the information. Mr Tonkin and Mr W. Millett attended on the 9th, and Mr Tonkin refused to grant the order on the information of William alone. Informed Mr Edmonds of it, and on the same day wrote to the defendant, informing him that an information must be made by a responsible person, as the accused would be immediately arrested on the information being sworn. On the 13th January, Mr Richard Edmonds and Mr Roscorla called upon witness, and a paper in defendant's handwriting was submitted, and from that witness drew out an information. It was drawn up in the names of John Thomas Millett, the half-brother, and William Millett, the brother. I drew up an information from that paper, and intimated that unless some information to the effect of that I had drawn up was given, I could not advise the granting of an order. On the 15th Jan., Mr Roscorla, William Millett, and Mr F. Edmonds, attended my office with an information in Mr Roscorla's handwriting. Upon that information a warrant was applied for to apprehend Dr Millett, and the defendant was informed that the magistrates would not issue a warrant unless a distinct charge was made. No such charge was then made. I was directed to forward the information to the Secretary of State, from whom an answer was received granting the order for exhumation, but declining to be answerable for the expense. (Warrant for exhumation produced.) Communicated Sir George Grey's answer to Mr Roscorla, particularly noticing the fact that he would not be answerable for the expenses. Mr Roscorla and the defendant called upon me the same evening, when I informed them we could not go on without a guarantee for the payment of the expenses. The defendant agreed to pay the expenses, but upon my suggesting that there must be an analysis, defendant said he did not put the case upon the issue of poison being found in the body, as he should be able to prove that the deceased had been poisoned, even if no poison were found. I suggested Dr Montgomery and Mr Vincent to perform the post mortem. The following day I attended the exhumation; asked Dr. Montgomery whether it would prejudice the analysis if the contents of the jar were detained till it was known whether the Secretary of State would pay the expenses of the analysis. Dr. Montgomery replied that it would, and the defendant then said he would pay the expenses. Superintendent Miller was then entrusted with the jars, and the defendant gave him a £5 note to pay the expenses. Afterwards, before Mr Tonkin, the defendant said he could state that there was no apparent cause of death in the body. That the deceased must have died from poison, and that that poison must have been administered in Penpol House. There was another meeting of the magistrates on the 22nd, when the defendant attended and laid the second information (produced). Upon that a warrant was issued for the apprehension of the plaintiff. Dr Taylor's report was sent to me. I read it and the magistrates dismissed the case. That was on the 5th hearing. I dictated every word of the depositions to my clerk (deposition put in). Cross-examined: Never saw the defendant before he called upon me with reference to the case. (Produced a certificate by Dr Montgomery and Mr Vincent, stating that they could not discover any natural cause of death, and that there were no signs of acute effusion of the brain). I believe I said to the magistrates that the certificate was not consistent with death from water on the brain. On every application for bail, Mr Roscorla, the defendant's attorney, said he had no objection to bail. I sent up the depositions to Dr Taylor, on his request. The defendant appeared calm and earnest in what he was doing. The defendant asked if the information could be laid and the warrant be delayed till the result of the post mortem was laid. Henry Miller, superintendent of police, deposed to receiving the jars containing the contents of the stomach and delivering them to Dr. Taylor, at Guy's Hospital, London, on the 23d January. For that he received money from Mr Roscorla to whom it was handed by the defendant. Was present at the post mortem examination. When Dr Vincent was taking off the skull cap the water gushed out; some of it fell in the coffin, about half a tea cupful on the floor, and some on Dr. Montgomery’s trowsers. Philip Vincent, surgeon, was then examined as to his post mortem examination of the body of Jacob Curnow Millett, and gave the same evidence as previously; with the exception that he said the water of the deceased's brain was sufficient to cause death. Cross-examined: Formed that opinion since the result of Dr. Taylor's evidence was made known. He had always believed that it might have caused death, but he was not then called upon to account for death. Before the magistrates he said, having heard all the evidence, he did not believe that death was the result of effusion on the brain. He had said he was unable to account for the deceased's death. He had said that the fluid came from the ventricles of the brain, and that "it would not cause death because it had been there so long;" had said the substance of the brain was perfectly healthy. The witness was cross-examined at some length on his depositions, and admitted having said everything in them. James Barclay Montgomery, M.D., was next examined. He stated that the body was perfectly healthy; if he had been called upon in an ordinary case where there was no suspicion, he should have given a certificate that the patient had died from chronic hydrocephalus, but at the same time he should have considered that he might have died from some other cause. In cross-examination, he admitted having said that there was no evidence that deceased had died from acute hydrocephalus. Mrs Rawlings, widow of the late Mr Rawlings, engineer said that she resided from 1846 with her husband at Cwm Avon in Wales; was the sister of Miss Davy, and mother of William Samuel Rawlings; he was born in Wales in December, 1850. Her husband died in the preceding August. Betsy Richards said she was a nurse, and attended Mrs Rawlings at her confinement when the Rev. William Samuel Rawlings was born. Isaac Latimer, proprietor of the Western Daily Mercury produced a copy of the paper containing the letter of "Investigator" and the original manuscript. The manuscript was brought to the office by Mr Richard Edmonds; had a letter from Mr Richard Edmonds and from the defendant; had written to ask if there was any objection to giving the name and address of the writer of the letter, as he had been applied to for them. He received a letter from the defendant giving permission to do so, and stating that he was the writer. Mr Alfred Swayne Taylor, M.D., examined: I have had very large experience on those questions. On the 23rd Jan., 1864, Superintendent Miller gave me certain sealed jars containing the viscera of the deceased. I made an investigation and communicated the result to Dr. Cornish, and sent a copy to the Home Secretary. I have nothing to add to my report or to qualify it. The evidence given to day in court of the symptoms of the deceased strengthens my judgment; they are not consistent with any form of poisoning I ever heard of; death was caused by pressure on the brain by the serum found in the ventricles of the brain. I have read Mr Edmonds's comments in the Western Daily Mercury There is nothing in his statement that deceased had water on the brain from birth; my opinion is that the water had increased latterly, but that would not be discovered by a post mortem examination. The increase would produce pressure sufficient to cause death. Stertorous breathing is one of the last symptoms in cases of narcotic poisoning, but in it was one of the earliest symptoms in the case of the deceased. There was no appearance of anything like aconite root in the stomach. Aconite root could not be mistaken for horse redish (sic) except by a very ignorant person; when scraped it was certainly something like horse redish, but when examined the tissue was very different. Knew nothing of either party in the transaction, and should not have made the analysis at all but for the order of the Secretary of State. If a chloroform had been administered as suggested by the defendant, there would have been congestion of the lungs. Cross-examined by Mr Karslake:—Cases of chronic hydrocephalus at the age of deceased were very rare, for persons afflicted in that manner generally died before they were 20, and most commonly in infancy. In cases of apoplexy persons generally became insensible at once, but not always. In narcotic poisoning insensibility came on slowly and was preceded by stupor. He had heard to-day for the first time that snoring came on when the deceased fell upon the sofa; that was a clear indication of mortal pressure upon the brain. There were vegetable alkaloids which might cause death and leave no traces behind. He had no doubt that chronic hydrocephalus was the cause of death, and was certain that symptoms could not have been those of any case of death from poison. Dr Albert Bornaise, Professor of Chemistry at St. Thomas's Hospital, London, and a Fellow of the Chemical Society, said he fully agreed with the result of Dr Taylor's analysis, having read the report and seen the Doctors notes. The analysis was conducted in the best possible manner. He was only a chemist and could not give an opinion as to the medical part of the question. Dr. George Barlow, senior physician to Guy's Hospital London, coincided with Dr. Taylor's views as to the cause of death. Chronic Hydrocephalus always caused death, and always must do so. A person suffering from it always had apoplexy hanging over his head. Dr. Samuel Wilks, physician and lecturer in Guy's Hospital, and demonstrator in morbid anatomy, concurred in the opinions of Dr. Taylor and of Dr. Barlow. He had made upwards of 4,000 post mortem examinations. He had never met with but one case of a hydrocephelus (sic) patient so old as the deceased. The appearance of the brain would generally be healthy to the naked eye, though there might be evidence of disease on microscopical examination. In his experience, where chronic hydrocephalus existed it always destroyed life. This concluded the plaintiff's case, and the court rose at about half-past 6 o'clock. PEARCE v. HARVEY. The special jury were sworn to take a verdict in this case, counsel on both sides having agreed to take the verdict of the nine gentlemen already sworn in the case of Millett v. Edmonds. Mr KARSLAKE said in this case Mr Pearse, a clergyman, was the plaintiff, and Messrs Harvey and others were the defendants, and were engaged in carrying on a mine called Rasperryn. Mr Pearse brought the action on the ground that he was entitled tho te (sic) minerals, although another gentleman was entitled to the surface. These gentlemen entered the ground under the impression that the title was in Lord Arundel. On looking into the title, it appeared Lord Arundel passed the property to Mr Peters. It was, therefore, agreed that there should be an arrangement of the terms, and th (sic) they should take under Mr Pearse. Mr M. Smith, Q.C. (with whom was Mr Bullar), said that he and his learned friends felt that Mr Pearse's title was clear, and this action was, therefore, very quietly and comfortably settled. Verdict for the plaintiff.—It is stated that an arrangement has been come to in the case—that the defendant is to pay all the costs, Mr Pearse granting a lease of twenty years, at 1-16th dues. Plaintiff also to receive 1-6th of the shares, free of calls, until 1,500l has been expended. CROWN COURT. THURSDAY, MARCH 17. Mr Baron MARTIN took his seat on the bench this morning at nine o'clock. Mr Cole proceeded to address the jury for the defendant, Samuel Porter. He asked them to come to the consideration of the case with that calmness and impartiality which a jury should always feel, and especially in dealing with a charge of this kind, and to divest their minds of all the prejudice which the statements made out of doors were calculated to excite. He complained that the defendant had been unfairly treated by those who had been concerned in the prosecution, because evidence had now been produced for the first time, and no intimation had been given him of its character. He submitted that the evidence did not prove one act of cruelty on the part of the defendant against the lunatic. If he had been guilty of anything at the utmost it only amounted to a a case of simple neglect. What was the charge they had brought? They saw the lunatic with his knees drawn up in the manner that had been described, and they wanted the jury to believe that the defendant had been the cause of all this. They knew that this was not true, and that the lunatic had been in that state for more than 20 years. They told the jury what was the state of the man in 1863, but they had not attempted to show them what he was in early life, many years before he came under the care of the defendant. What were the real facts of the case? The lunatic was brought up a mason, and about 20 years ago symptoms began to manifest themselves, which showed that his mind was giving way. He grew gradually worse, and at length he would not get out of bed, but would lay all day; would not take any exercise; and the result was that his limbs became shrivelled up until he lost the use of them, and they at length got into that state in which they were found by the Commissioners. He should prove conclusively that while under the care of the father, with whom he lived up to 1863, he was in identically the same state as that in which he was found. The Lunacy Commissioners on coming down to Flushing from London, might have ascertained this fact, must have ascertained it, but they had put the proof of it on him. The lunatic had become a most violent person, tearing not only all clothes that were given him from his person, but his bed-clothes and everything he could lay his hands on; and he should prove that during the eleven years the poor maniac had been under the charge of the defendant, the latter had attended to him with all the care, kindness, and attention in his power:—that from time to time clothes had been supplied to him, and bedding found him, but he had always destroyed them. Did they suppose that if the lunatic had been ill-treated for so many years, the people of Flushing would not long ago have been up in arms about it? He proceeded to comment on the evidence of Elliot and Dr. Byrne, stating that that of the former was a tissue of falsehood. He had stated that seven wheelbarrows-full of dirt had been taken out of the first room, whereas the men who had actually cleaned out the room could tell them that they had not taken out half a wheelbarrow full. Next he had told them that the lunatic had lain in six inches of his own dirt, whereas it was impossible that he could have done so, as he laid on the same trestle bed on which he was found by the Commissioners, and which was the same bed on which he slept in the time of his father, and while under the care of his sister Charlotte. The witnesses examined for the defendant were Mrs Sarah Pascoe, Susan Copeland, and Mary Tregoning, James Dunstan, and George Thomas, and Joseph Tongue, all of whom sated that the lunatic while in his father's care was mentally and physically in the same condition as when conveyed to the Lunatic Asylum; and that the defendant was always kind to him, supplying him with three meals a day, and the same food as the family partook of, and that he washed him and swept out his room. Dunstan and Thomas completely contradicted the evidence of Elliott, as to the disgusting condition of the room from which the lunatic had been first removed. They cleaned it up, and found not a bucket full of dirt, and the straw was slightly smeared. Mr Montague Smith having ably replied on the case, The learned Judge summed up. He was of opinion that the case came not only within the act under which the indictment was made, but that it came under the common law of the land; if a person took upon himself the charge of a helpless human being, although there might be no obligation upon him to do so, he considered that he was bound to pay proper attention to him, and would, if injury resulted from neglect, be liable to punishment under the common law. The jury found the defendant guilty of neglect, but added that they did not think he was aware of the law on the subject, and they therefore recommended him to mercy. The judge said he should not pass sentence till the Court above had decided the point which Mr Cole had raised, and the defendant would be liberated on entering into his recognizance to appear for judgment when called upon. He was then bound over, himself in £500 and two sureties of £250 each, to appear when called upon. THE PENZANCE LIBEL CASE. HENRY VINER was called up to receive judgment for the libel of which he had pleaded guilty on the previous day, and Mr Cole stated that the plaintiff had no desire to punish him; all he wanted was that defendant should not repeat the offence. It was agreed that defendant should enter into his own recognizances of 100l, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the next 5 years; the judge stating that had it not been for the leniency of the prosecutor, he should have been bound to have inflicted a long term of imprisonment. This concluded the business of the Crown Court.

BILLS IGNORED. The grand jury ignored the bill against James Tinney, charged with stealing from the person of John Harris, of St. Columb Minor; also the bill against Samuel Broadway, charged with breaking into the house of John Harris at Illogan. NISI PRIUS.— THURSDAY. Before Mr Baron BRAMWELL. THE HAYLE POISONING CHARGE. The court resumed business this morning at nine o'clock. Mr Karslake opened the case for the defendant at a great length. He contended that his friend had put the case upon an erroneous issue in saying that the plaintiff had come into court to clear his character, and if that were all he wanted, the report of Dr. Taylor which had been read to the magistrates was all that he could have wished. The jury were no doubt aware that a man, even though he be instigated by malice may lay a criminal information if he had reasonable grounds for so doing, but in this case he contended that the defendant only did what he believed it to be his duty to do, and that he did it without malice, instigated by his wife (the plaintiff's sister), who took the greatest possible interest in the case. Mr Karslake then reviewed the course of events from the time of defendant's marriage with plaintiff's sister to the death of Jacob Curnow Millett, upon which he contended that the defendant had acted in the matter under most positive information, and backed up by the magistrates and magistrate's clerk, which fully justified him in taking action in the matter. He first received a telegraphic message from Mr Hockin, rector of , followed by a letter from the same gentleman, suggesting an application to the Secretary of State for an order of exhumation. Another letter from the rector of Phillack stated that there was but one opinion in the parish as to the cause of death, and having consulted with the Revs. Mr Tonkin and Mr Cornish, he agreed with them that defendant should come down and take action in the matter. The learned counsel contended that looking at the whole of the case, and considering the general conduct of the plaintiff, and the circumstances generally, particularly the medical certificate of the post mortem examination, the defendant acted upon sufficient grounds, carefully and cautiously, and without malice, under a sense of public duty. The learned counsel then called witnesses for the defence, and the examination was proceeding when we went to press. THURSDAY.— Before Mr BARON BRAMWELL. THE ALLEGED POISONING AT HAYLE. MILLETT v. EDMONDS. We last week brought this important action to the close of the plaintiff's case; we now give the case for the defence. Mr KARSLAKE, in addressing the jury for the defence, said that he quite agreed with his learned friend that the case was one of very great importance, though he did not regard it as being so on the ground of its being necessary to the clearing of the plaintiff's character. They were probably well aware that it was not because the criminal law was put in force, and put in force by a person actuated by malice, that the person so putting the criminal law in force was liable to an action. A man actuated by the greatest malice might prefer a charge, if there were any ground for his doing so; and for the purpose of maintaining such an action as the present one it was necessary for Dr. Millett to show that there was an absence of all reasonable and probable cause for making the charge which Mr Edmonds had made; and, in addition to that, that he should have been actuated by malice in bringing it forward. He had to ask their attention to what was the real issue between the parties. The question really was—what were the grounds upon which the charge was preferred in the early part of January in the present year? They would have to decide upon what had passed before that time, in what mode and on what grounds Mr Edmonds had acted—whether his conduct had been dictated by what his learned friend had characterized as "infernal malice and spite," or whether the defendant had not brought forward a charge which he believed was absolutely necessary to have investigated; whether he had not done what he considered to be his duty in obtaining the exhumation of the body of Mr Jacob Curnow Millett. Mr Edmonds would be in the witness box, and his learned friend would have the opportunity of cross-examining him; and when they looked at the case from beginning to end—when they had heard the evidence of Mrs Edmonds, who would also give evidence, and who had instigated her husband to adopt the course he had; and when he had shown them certain facts which he was going to prove, he trusted that they would be of opinion that, although Mr Edmonds might have acted without as much judgment as he might have displayed, his intentions had nevertheless been of a bona fide nature. Whatever might be the cause, Dr. Millett appeared to be on bad terms with every member of his family. He might possibly not be in fault, but such was the case. He must, however, contradict the statement of Dr. Millett that Mrs Edmonds had married her husband against the consent of Mr Millett himself and against the wishes of the rest of the family. As far as the brother of the lady was concerned, it was true that there was no cordiality existing amongst them—on what grounds might possibly appear in the course of the evidence. Mr and Mrs Edmonds were married from Penpol House, it was true after but a short courtship. They had heard of whom the family consisted in 1848 at Penpol, for they must once more go back to that period. Mr Edmonds at that time had known little or nothing of the plaintiff. He had married his wife, and had shortly afterwards gone to Mexico. He wished that his learned friend had been properly instructed in saying that Mr Edmonds was enjoying a large fortune that he had made in the practice of his profession. Such was not the case. After living in Mexico till 1855, Mr Edmonds was compelled to return to England on account of ill-health. He was then obliged for the same reason to go to Spain, and from the time of his leaving Mexico up to the present moment he had been obliged to give up the practice of his profession. In the year 1846, as he had told them, Mr Edmonds married Miss Millett, and again went to Mexico. In 1848 Mr John Curnow Millett, the father of this numerous family, died. Several of the children were living at home in 1848; and inasmuch as reference had been made to the death of the old Mr John Millett, it would be necessary for him to say a few words upon that subject. As far as the circumstances connected with the death of Mr John Millett, the father, and Miss Jane Millett, the daughter, were concerned, the defendant was personally unacquainted with them. All the information he had acquired upon those subjects he had derived wholly and solely from letters which had come to Mexico. They would hear that, although the old man had suffered from indigestion, he had been found dead in his bed one morning under circumstances which excited suspicion in the minds of Mrs Grylls and others. It seemed that the plaintiff, Dr. Richard Oke Millett, who had been represented as being the favourite son of his father, had constantly been making use of expressions which had caused the greatest pain and distress to his family. He was constantly having altercations with his father. He used to frighten the woman by saying that he kept poisons in the cupboard which would take away life without leaving any traces behind. Whether he meant what he said or not, those conversations and the altercations with his father had a very material effect upon the inmates of the house. The consequence was that Jane and he were on bad terms; Mrs Grylls and he were also, he believed, on bad terms. On the death of the father it was beyond all doubt reported in Mexico that for 24 hours previous to death the old man had not partaken of any but the lightest possible food, while at the inquest which was held upon the body Dr Richard Oke Millett, who was the only witness examined, had represented to the coroner that death was caused by eating heartily, leaving the impression that his father had eaten a hearty meal, and had died in the night. His death was followed by the death of Jane in the month of June in the same year. Those were circumstances which made a strong impression upon the minds of the inmates of the house. Mrs Grylls constantly corresponded with Mrs Edmonds for the time the latter went to reside in Mexico, but the tone of these letters became at last so extraordinary, and the charges made in them, rightly or wrongly, assumed such a form that it was considered desirable by Mrs Edmonds, when they returned to England, to burn them for fear their contents might become known or that they might be subjected to inspection in passing through the custom-house. The fact of those letters having been written was brought prominently before the notice of Mr Hannibal Curnow Millett, the eldest son, and now living, and through him to Dr Richard Oke Millett in 1863. All these circumstances were communicated to the plaintiff, and that fact might possibly account for his demanding an inquest. They would at least find that the plaintiff could not have been ignorant of the tact that the rumour had been circulated for years that the death of the father had not been the result of those natural causes to which it had been attributed by the plaintiff in his evidence before the coroner. When Mr and Mrs Edmonds returned to England, in 1856, they went into Cornwall and visited Penpol, where Mrs Millet, the plaintiff's mother, was still alive. On no occasion when they went to see her did they see plaintiff, and, consequently, no word was exchanged between them. His learned friend had said that there was some great enmity between Mr Edmonds and Mr Richard Oke Millett, and had put the chancery suit prominently forward as the cause, but that would certainly not account for any malice, if any such existed. While Mrs Edmonds resided in Cornwall it was not unnatural that she should make some enquiries and that she should hear a great deal of what had been going on in Penpol House. He did not mean to say that the things reported really happened, but that the death of Mr John Millett, and the suspicion that his death had been attributable to other causes than the one mentioned at the inquest, had become a matter of public talk, and the frequent topic of conversation at dinner tables. Subsequently Mr Leonard Millett had died suddenly, and though he might have had been perfectly competent to make a will at the time he died, yet it was certain that by a will made a few hours before his death, and in the plaintiff's own handwriting, everything was left to Richard Oke Millett. Such serious statements were made from time to time that Mr Edmonds was desirous, above all things, of having them cleared up, but from some reason or another Mrs Grylls then chose to be silent upon the subject. He held it would be found that up to the year 1860, and even up to a recent period before his death, it was beyond all doubt, as far as it could be judged from expressions made use of, the intention of Mr Jacob Millett to leave the little property he possessed not to the plaintiff, nor to the defendant or his wife, but to his niece Helen, of whom he was particularly fond, and with whom the plaintiff said he was displeased on account of her marriage—a statement for which he ventured to say there was not the slightest pretence. Something had been said about a feeling of affection that Mr Jacob entertained for the plaintiff. If that were so, he certainly showed it in a very peculiar manner, for, whatever might have been his demeanour at Penpol he had in a letter described his position in very different terms to those employed by the plaintiff. In 1860 or 1861 Mr Jacob Curnow Millett, being a witness in an action that was coming off, had to go to London, and while away from Penpol stopped with Mr and Mrs Edmonds at Croydon, where they now reside, and where they have lived since their return to England. They would find it very material to consider what occurred on that visit, as it had a very important bearing on the case. His learned friend had said that the deceased was unfit for the transaction of business in any profession, but he did not think his learned friend desired to show that Mr Jacob Millett was either idiotic or incapable of seeing what was going on around him. Mr Jacob Curnow Millett was in the house at the time of his father's death, and this event naturally formed the subject of conversation. Mr Jacob was perfectly well aware of the treatment that his father had received, and that, as he had for many hours before his death, he believed for 24 —partaken of hardly anything, it was absurd to say that he had died of over-eating. He saw his niece Helen then, and he (Mr Karslake) believed that she had been brought to Croydon especially for him to see her. A good deal of conversation took place about the position of Mr Jacob and his future movements, and the result was that Mr Jacob had determined not to reside at Penpol. After 1861, or at all events at Michaelmas, 1861, he made up his mind to go into lodgings. He hoped to be able to show that there was a very strong feeling of the inexpediency of Mr Jacob's going back to Penpol, and that the deceased himself coincided in the feeling. At the time of his father's death, the plaintiff came into the property at Marazion, and the same year Jane died, when he again derived a benefit, but a small one it was true. Leonard had also died after making a will in favour of the plaintiff. In September there was a letter from Jacob Curnow Millett, describing the state of things existing in Penpol House. He desired to call their attention to it, because it showed his feeling for Helen, notwithstanding her marriage, and it also showed what was his view of a certain lady, who, beyond all question, was constantly at Penpol House, who was almost the mistress of that house, who was constantly in the grounds, and evidently caused the greatest possible annoyance to the inmates. Mr COLERIDGE objected to the reception of the evidence of any conversations which might have taken place at Croydon between Mr Jacob Curnow Millett and Mr or Mrs Edmonds. He had, on the previous day, proposed to ask Jane Teague certain questions with reference to the same period, and to ascertain from her the nature of certain conversations she had held with Mr Jacob Millett on his return from Croydon. His learned friend had objected to the reception of that evidence, and his Lordship had ruled in favour of the objection. His LORDSHIP said that objection did not come upon him as a novelty, because he had expected that it would be made when he had given his first decision. The cases were, however, different. In order to enable the defendant to prove that he was not actuated by malice, he was at liberty to show anything that might have acted upon his mind. He thought, therefore, that what Mr Karslake proposed introducing was evidence, nor could he see that his former decision was inconsistent with his present ruling; because Jacob Millett's statements were not evidence of the truth of what he said, which was the purpose for which Mr Coleridge wished to introduce them. His Lordship added that he should not have answered Mr Coleridge's objection so promptly if he had not previously considered it. Mr KARSLAKE continued: Soon after leaving Croydon Mr Jacob Millett met with a severe accident, and consequently continued to reside at Penpol. The letter which he had referred to was as follows:— Penpol, September 27, 1862. My dear Elizabeth,—I have not heard from you for a long time, which leads me to think you are all in the enjoyment of pretty good health. I am still here until I can suit myself better, notwithstanding the inconveniences that obstruct my way. Who would have thought that Penpol would have become a sort of home, and its gardens a pleasure ground, for Dr. R. O. Millett's lady. Yet so it is. Alas! alas! To return to another subject. How does the Chancery suit go on? I believe it lies idle till November. What a long, tiring, pending suit. How palatable to the lawyers! Have you seen Caroline since she has been in town? I suppose she has paid you a visit before this. Is Isabel getting on with her music? I hope that she still makes proficiency in it. Freddy, I dare say, has got almost the head in his school. I have not heard of Helen since her marriage. William Oliver has got married. Mrs Veal desires to be remembered to you. She is very well. Her age is 83, and she is comfortably provided for. Yours sincerely, JACOB C. MILLETT. That letter would explain the state of feeling on the part of Mr Jacob Curnow Millett in 1862. It had been shown that Mr Jacob Millett had not been unusually unwell up to dinner time, and that by 4 o'clock of the same afternoon, as far as medical skill was concerned, he was a dead man. They must remember that in everything the defendant had to trust to the reports of others, for he was not in Cornwall himself. The defendant did not willingly take action in the matter, and did not do so until he received a letter from Mr Cornish, which induced him to adopt the course he did. The defendant's first intimation of the death of Mr Jacob Curnow Millett was by a telegram, not sent by the plaintiff, but by some other member of the family. They had heard the symptoms described, and it was very easy to them, after having had all the light thrown upon them that Dr. Taylor and other eminent scientific men could give, to arrive at a decision as to the cause of death; but that was not the question. They had to remember the state of things before the post mortem examination. One fact would strike an ignorant person like himself, for he must plead ignorance in such matters. The plaintiff had stated that he had heard certain rumours, and so had demanded the inquest. It might have been that medical aid was useless; but inasmuch as medical men were living close by— inasmuch as his brother had been living in the same house with him alone—inasmuch as his will had been made in the plaintiff's own handwriting and in the plaintiff's favour, Dr. Millett might have considered it advisable to call in medical aid. But nothing was done; although the plaintiff had called for the inquest from having heard of certain rumours, he did not think it necessary to ask for a post mortem examination. There was not a single relative in the neighbourhood invited to attend the inquest. The inquest was held at a short distance from Penpol House on the Friday, and the remains were interred on the Monday following. By letters which he should by-and-bye put in evidence, he should show that, rightly or wrongly, the defendant had acted upon information which he had believed. He had been put to a considerable expense in carrying out what he considered to be a duty, although his learned friend had described, it as being "infernal spite and malice." In all his proceedings he was backed by the magistrates, and the magistrates' clerk. On the 2nd January, 1864, he received the following letter from Mr Hockin, the Rector of Phillack, and nobody whom he could suggest would be better qualified as an adviser, for Mr Edmonds was living at a distance while Mr Hockin was on the spot. — Phillack Rectory, Hayle, 2nd January, 1864. Dear Sir,— On Thursday afternoon I met Mr William Millett on his way hither to inform me that his brother Jacob had been found dead in his bed that morning, and requesting me to write to Mrs Edmonds. It was then too late for that day's post, so I sent a telegraphic message to you in his name. He also requested me to write to the coroner, to beg that there might be a responsible, or, as he expressed it, "no packed jury." I wrote to the coroner, accordingly, at once, with a request that a jury might be summoned who from their position and intelligence, would duly investigate the circumstances connected with his brother's death. I am rather surprised to learn this morning that the coroner did not order a post mortem examination. I have not heard that any other witnesses were examined at the inquest besides Dr Millett and his servant. I have seen people who saw the deceased out of doors on the Wednesday, to all appearances in his usual health. He had been arranging for a Christmas treat to some singers on that day, according to his usual custom. It is said that he was taken ill shortly after dinner on the Wednesday that he expressed his intention to go out to see about the above-mentioned singers' feast, but that his illness increased and he was taken to his bed and died between 5 and 6 o'clock the following morning. I understand that the jury brought in a verdict of "Died from natural causes," and notice has been given to me of the funeral to take place on Monday morning between 10 and 11. I do not know what your view of the matter may be, but the coroner having given his warrant for the interment of the body, I am not aware that any course is open to you, in case you consider it a subject requiring further investigation, but to apply to the Secretary of State. Yours sincerely, FREDERICK HOCKIN. Mr Karslake then read a letter from J. T. Millett, in which the writer, after stating the particulars of the death of the deceased, gives a conversation about the will which took place in the mourning carriage on the day of the funeral, when Dr Millett said that the will was made out in his favour, and that no one had so much right to the property as the one who had housed, fed, and taken care of Jacob. The writer also said that Honor, the cook at Penpol, had stated that up to August last deceased had made no will, and that a Mr Samuel Pike, an innkeeper, had said that he had made none three or four months ago. The defendant subsequently received the following letter: — Phillack Rectory, Hayle, 9th January, 1864. My Dear Sir,—Mr Tonkin, our nearest magistrate, having informed me that he would be from home all day on Friday, I appointed this morning for Mr William Millett to come to him. Yesterday afternoon Mr Richard Edmonds called, and I put your letters into his hand. We agreed that he should see Mr Tonkin's attorney (Mr Cornish, of Penzance,) last night, and that as soon as Mr William Millett had started for Lelant this morning I should telegraph for him to come down to Mr Cornish. On consulting Mr Cornish, however, he said that he should hardly like to advise Mr Tonkin to act merely upon Mr Wm. Millett's information, and that he should advise your coming down. After waiting for some time at Lelant (your brother and Mr Cornish not making their appearance), Mr Tonkin, Mr William Millett, and myself, all went to Penzance. After seeing Mr Cornish I agreed with him that it was most desirable for you to come down; in fact, I do not see how else this matter (about which there is but one opinion in the parish) can be investigated. Mr William Millett is very decided, and I believe from what I hear that Mr John Millett, if summoned, will speak out. I am, dear Sir, in haste, yours sincerely, F. HOCKIN. By the same post came a letter from Messrs Rodd and Cornish in which the writers, after stating that Mr R. Edmonds, the defendant's brother, had called on them last evening in reference to a correspondence that the defendant had had with the Home Secretary, said it was necessary for the defendant to embody the charge and present it to a magistrate. The letter went on to say "It is only by this process that a justice of the peace can be set officially in motion. There must be before him a charge and a person charged. In a case like the present the information would be followed by the immediate arrest of the person charged, and by his detention in custody until the pleasure of the Home Secretary might be made known as to the disinterment. You will at once see the grave importance of an act of which the consequences must be so serious, and probably agree with us that under the very peculiar circumstances of the case the magistrates called on to act ought to receive the information of more responsible persons than offer themselves in this neighbourhood. In short, we think that, you yourself ought to attend and lay the information. It must be done personally, and we, as magistrates' clerks, would earnestly entreat you not to enter upon an enquiry of this sort unassisted by some person in our profession accustomed to the practice of the criminal law." His learned friend had a right to say, and he himself said it too, that no man ever entered upon an investigation of that sort with a more perfect knowledge of what would follow than the defendant did, but the very care and thought that he had bestowed upon the case would show that his intentions had been straightforward. After referring to the evidence of Dr. Montgomery and Mr Vincent, who, he considered, had altered their opinions to meet those of Dr. Taylor's, Mr Karslake said that the defendant, in judging of the case of the deceased, had the right that belonged to every ordinary man to use the skill and knowledge to which he possessed, and contended that Mr Edmonds, from Dr. Taylor's works on poisons, fully believed that the symptoms attending the death of the deceased, as reported to him, were such as betokened the administration of poison. In the letter of which the plaintiff complained, it could be seen that the most offensive portion—the heading—was not Mr Edmonds', but that it was substituted in the office of the newspaper by which it was published. Finding that Mr Millett was acquitted, a great many people turned round, and said that it was very cruel of his accuser, and the object of the letter was merely to quote from Dr. Taylor's works, showing that although no trace of poisoning or inflammation were found in the internal organs, poison might still have- been administered, and have caused death.—Mr Karslake concluded, after speaking for nearly an hour and a half. Mrs Edmonds said she was the wife of Mr Frederick Edmonds, the defendant, and was married to him in 1846. The marriage received the approbation of all the family and friends except the plaintiff. After their marriage they went to Mexico, and whilst there she heard of her father's death. Subsequently to that she received letters from Mrs Grylls upon the subject. She destroyed those letters because it was feared that they would fall into other people's hands. Her husband was aware of the contents of those letters. They contained some observations on the subject of her father's death. The letters contained that there was a suspicion in the neighbourhood about her father's death on account of disagreements between her father and brother. Something was mentioned about a party at (sic), who had said if the rumours then prevalent did not discontinue he should interfere. The letters also contained some observations about her sister Jane, who it was said had stated she would never take food in the house unless it was sworn to her that Dr. Millett had not been in the kitchen or near when it had been prepared. Mrs Grylls had stated in reference to an invitation she had received to go to Penpoll House that she would be afraid to eat anything unless she saw the rest of the family partake of it. In 1856 she returned from Mexico and went to Penpoll, where she heard similar statements respecting her sister and father. On account of her husband's health they went to Spain, and returned in 1860, when they went to Croydon to reside. While there in 1861, her brother, Jacob Curnow Millett, visited them, and she recollected that he had a conversation on her father's death. She distinctly heard Jacob state that the verdict was false, and the evidence given at the inquest was false. She had a conversation with her brother about his living at Penpoll House. She advised him not to return to Penpoll because she did not think from what she had heard from her sister that it would be safe for him. Her husband was present at this conversation. (This was objected to by Mr Coleridge, but overruled by his Lordship.) He said he intended to leave after he had arranged his affairs, and promised to leave after Michaelmas quarter. A niece was stopping with her at that time. She was engaged to be married, and Jacob, who was very fond of her, was aware of it at that time. In 1862 she received a letter from Jacob. There was a disagreement with Dr. Millett and his father. She had heard the Doctor say that the happiest day of his life would be when he danced over his father's grave. She had also heard him say he could poison all the family without being found out. The disagreements were chiefly about property. Dr Millett wished his father to allow him sufficient to settle down in London, but he said he could not afford it. He recommended Dr. Millett to pass the Apothecaries Hall, which he had not then done, and to practice at Hayle, which he would not do. She was acquainted with a lady named Davey, residing at Hayle, and she had been told repeatedly that Dr. Millett had frequently visited her. She had met them walking together in the neighbourhood frequently. She had herself seen him going into her house. She saw the letters which her husband received after the death of Jacob upon the subject of his death. She was anxious that her husband should take some steps to clear up the death of Jacob, and she requested him to do so. Cross-examined by Mr COLERIDGE: She had not seen her brother since 1846. Jacob Millett remained at Croydon five days. He was accompanied by his servant William Oliver. They had discussions with him about his will. From what he said she concluded he had made a will. He said his will was in favour of his niece Ellen. She did not hear him say he had burnt a will. She had heard from Mr Howard that he had burnt a will. He told her that his will had been made in favour of Ellen. She did not press him to make a new will. She never locked the door, and put her back against the door, saying he should not leave the room until he had made a will; her husband did not do so either. This letter in 1862 was the second she received from Jacob after his arrival at Penpol from Croydon. Her husband never wrote to him that she knew of. She had never heard of it from her husband. She should feel surprised if she heard he had. She had heard him say he had written a letter to all the members of the family respecting what passed at Penpol. She was never aware of his writing a separate letter upon other subjects to Jacob. She never saw a letter from Jacob to her husband. He had not told her he had written a letter to Jacob, and could get no answer. Mrs Howard was not in Bodmin. She was suffering from illness, caused by concussion of the brain. She did not know how it happened, but heard of it soon after the writ was issued against her husband. She did not know whether she was better; she had no communication with her. She wrote to Mrs Howard, asking her if she would come forward and substantiate what she had said, but she received a letter from Mr Howard, saying she could not attend in consequence of illness. The letters she had burnt were in English, and she was afraid they would be read in the Custom Houses, where the Spanish language was spoken. The letters were not bulky, and not too large to carry about her her (sic) person; it was never expected they would be of importance; she did not believe they were worth keeping then, although she believed the contents; she burnt them a short time before she left Mexico in 1862. She had applied to Mrs Grylls for information. Her brain had not been concussed in 1862. She did not then refuse to substantiate what she had said; she would swear that; she did not know that she was asked then. Her husband had not, that she knew of, made application to Mrs Grylls to substantiate her statement before the early months of 1863, and that she had refused; no application was made to her, to her knowledge; she and her husband had spoken on these matters between themselves. She did not know that in 1855 and 1856 her husband wrote to Mrs Grylls about the letters. She had spoken to her on their return to England about the subject matter of these letters. She would swear she did not show the letters to Mrs Grylls; they had been burnt. Mrs Grylls did not then refuse to give any explanation of what she had formerly written. She asked Mrs Grylls the reason, and they were the same; she did not refuse to give any explanation; she did not remember it. She did give the explanation witness required in 1855 and 1856; she asserted the same thing that was contained in her letters. Her brother did not manage the estate for her father. Her brother wished to go to London; disputes often arose between her brother and his father about that matter; witness and her brother never agreed from the first about anything. Her brother never opposed her marriage with Mr Edmonds; he never spoke to her upon the subject. She had the free consent of her father. He did not attend the marriage in consequence of illness. The distance from Penpol to the church was about a mile. The breakfast took place at her father's house; her father came into the breakfast- room, but did not partake of the breakfast. She had presents from nearly every member of the family. The disputes between her brother and father had been talked of very much at Mr Vawdrey's house. He was not the man against whom Dr. Millett had an action. He was a brother to the Vawdrey against whom plaintiff had an action. Ellen Millett was now married to Mr Fagan. She never heard that Mr Fagan was a Roman Catholic. She should say he was between thirty and forty years of age. Ellen was about twenty-seven years of age. It was a very suitable marriage with regard to age. She did not know that it was unsuitable in other respects. Witness herself never went to see Miss Davey. She was a milliner and witness had been to her house with a few caps to be made up. She had never associated with her. Re-examined by Mr KARSLAKE: Her niece Ellen came down to Croydon at the time Jacob was there on a visit, expressly to see him, he having expressed a wish to see her. She knew the letter produced was in the handwriting of Mrs Grylls. (The letter was dated in 1856, in which she stated that she could not be positive of the facts, and therefore would not commit them to paper). Mr Frederick Edmonds said he was the defendant, and a member of the Apothecaries' Hall, and was Doctor of Medicine by foreign diploma. He wished he had made a large fortune in America. He had been in Mexico from the year 1834, and in 1846 he returned to England for the second time. In 1838 he saw his present wife, whom he had known for a long time, and married her in 1846. He never heard any objection to the marriage. The old Mr Millett expressed his satisfaction at the marriage. He was abroad from 1846 to 1855. He had seen letters written by Mrs Grylls whilst he was abroad. Two particularly made an impression upon him. They were destroyed a few months before they left Mexico, because the luggage had to pass through the United States and Canada, and, there being some imputations in these letters they were destroyed, lest they should fall into the hands of strangers. They were relating to family matters, which he considered strangers ought not to see. It was communicated to him after his father's death that Mr Millett suffered from indigestion. He was a very strong, healthy man, about six feet high, and very broad. In July, 1855, he returned to Cornwall, where he remained during the remainder of 1855 and part of 1856. They spent two weeks at Camborne at the house of Mrs Grylls. He did not stop at Penpoll, although he was wished to do so. He had one or two conversations with Mrs Grylls about the letters. He knew of the letter that had been just read having been written by her. He had kept it in his possession ever since. There was a memorandum of his own on the letter of the questions he had asked. He went to Penpoll on one or two occasions, but did not see plaintiff to speak to. When witness dined there, he (plaintiff) did not dine there, but he was informed that he was in the habit of dining with Miss Davey. Witness had had no quarrel with the plaintiff. Witness filed a bill in Chancery in 1854, but the plaintiff was not a party to it. In 1856 witness was taken ill, and went to Spain, and from thence to the South of France, returning to England in 1860. By his LORDSHIP: At first it was a ministration suit. By Mr KARSLAKE: In 1861 he was living at Croydon, and Jacob Curnow Millett came down to stay with him for a short time. In 1856 he had some correspondence with Mr Hitchens, the coroner, in reference to the depositions at the inquest on the father. He showed a letter (produced) to Jacob Curnow Millett. (The letter was read, and was to the effect that Richard Oke Millett was the only witness examined at the inquest on his father, and the substance of his evidence was that his father had been suffering for the last 18 months from indigestion, but otherwise his health was perfectly good on the Wednesday preceding his death. Witness prescribed some medicine for him, after which he appeared greatly relieved. He retired to bed, and about half-past nine on the following morning he was found dead in bed). Mr Jacob Millett expressed himself warmly when he saw the letter, and said the verdict was false. He said his father was extremely moderate in eating and drinking, and he was sure over-eating was not the cause of his death. He said he should leave Penpol after Christmas. He knew Jacob was very fond of his niece Ellen. He never heard that her husband was a Roman Catholic. She came down to see Jacob and he received her very affectionately. The head of the family now is Mr Hannibal Curnow Millett, residing at Okehampton. He was trustee under his brother's will and also under his father's will. In 1863 witness had a correspondence with him, and he sent a copy of one of those letters to every member of the family except Mr Hannibal Millett, of London. The first intimation witness had of Jacob's death was on the night of the 31st December by telegram from Mr William Millett, at Hayle, stating that Jacob was found dead in his bed that morning. On the 2nd January he received a letter from the half-brother John Thomas Millett. (This letter was referred to in Mr Karslake's opening). He also received a letter from Mr Hockin about the same time. (The letter was read, in which the writer, after referring to the inquest, said the Coroner's warrant having been given for the interment of the body, he was not aware that any course was open to him, in case they considered it a subject for further investigation , but to apply to the Secretary of State). Witness applied to the Secretary of the State before he received that letter. He also received a letter from John Thomas Millett, at Penzance, on the 17th of January. (This letter was also referred to by Mr Karslake in his opening speech). On the 9th January, 1864, he received a letter from Messrs Rodd and Cornish, which had already been read. On the same day he received another from Mr Hockin. (This letter was also read by Mr Karslake). Upon the receipt of those letters witness left Croydon for Penzance, where he saw John Thomas Millett, William Millett, Messrs Rodd and Cornish, and other members of the family. He went to Mr Roscorla, at Penzance, at the recommendation of his brother, Richard Edmonds, at Plymouth. He went to Mr Cornish's office with Mr Roscorla, and remembered seeing the draft of the in-information (produced), in which there were some alterations in writing in witness's own handwriting.—The witness was then examined in reference to the information:—His object was to get an order for the exhumation of the body and a post mortem. He had only heard of the boy Rawlings from his wife and others. It was always supposed that this Elizabeth Davey was a constant associate of the plaintiff. Witness had been informed that the deceased had said he would not leave any of his property to the plaintiff. He believed at the time the declaration was made that Jacob Millett had not made a will, and that he would not leave any of his property to the plaintiff. He learnt from his brother Richard that he did not know the object for which Jacob wanted him, but there was a supposition that it was to make his will. The supposition came from his brother Edwin he believed. When witness made the statement he did not think it was a point of very great importance.—Q. When you made that statement did you believe it?—A. I did not think it of much importance at the time.—The witness stated that he had received information confirming the symptoms of deceased's illness, as described in the information, before he swore to it. Witness was present at the exhumation and post mortem examination. He took no part in it whatever. After seeing the head he formed an opinion that the death was not caused by effusion of the brain, and he could see no disease in the organs that could occasion death. When he went before the magistrate after that, he heard the certificate of the medical men read. It was a case of rare occurrence for a man to live at that age with water on the brain. They generally died in infancy. After they had passed infancy, and the bones of the head closed, he should expect in that case to find traces of disease to cause death. The water in the ventricles of the brain did not appear to him to cause death. He went before Mr Tonkin, and heard Mr Cornish read the certificate of the medical men, and Mr Cornish observed that the careful examination made by the two medical men quite rendered the statement made by plaintiff untenable. Witness, as a medical man, of course agreed in that opinion. After that Mr Tonkin asked him if he had a belief that the case was one of poisoning, and he replied that he could not account for the death from any disease, and that in his belief deceased was poisoned. That was his statement. As far as his experience went, the symptoms described to him were not those he should expect to find in case of effusion of the brain. At that time, before the report of Dr Taylor, he believed the symptoms were from the stomach, and not from the head. The symptoms described to him were perfectly consistent with poisoning, he considered at the time. During the time the corpse was being opened he took care to look at everything that the two medical men examined, and there was not the slightest appearance of anything in the body that would cause death, in his judgment. He had nothing to do with the appointment of Dr Taylor. He knew of the fact of the jars being sent up to him. After that he went to Mr Tonkin and stated his belief that deceased did not die from effusion of the brain, and that the symptoms were those of poison which had been administered at his last meal, and that he believed deceased had taken poison accidentally or intentionally, that it was his belief that, supposing it were a case of poisoning, there was only one person in the house at Penpoll who had an interest in administering it. It was agreed there and then that he should embody his belief in a deposition, which he did 2 days after. He was satisfied with the post mortem examination, and he considered he was in the hands of the magistrates. He did not wish any further steps to be taken. He was informed that unless the warrant was issued no further enquiries would take place, and he then swore the information. He attended the examination before the magistrates, and heard the evidence of the witnesses. He then thought the statements rather confirmed his opinion; he did not think the symptoms explained inconsistent with poisoning. Before the investigation was over it was intimated to him by the solicitor for the plaintiff that he should hear further; if bail was not accepted it would be the worse for him. Witness was willing that the plaintiff should be let out on bail. He was not present when Dr. Taylor's statement was read. He had since carefully read it. The writ was issued within 2 or 3 days after the investigation before the magistrate. He had been informed that a variety of articles had appeared in the papers against him, and he received a letter from Mr John Thomas Millett, stating the articles were so strong that he was afraid he should not meet with a fair trial in Cornwall. He wrote a letter signed "Investigator," thinking he had a right to defend himself, and before he wrote that letter he studied Dr Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence. It was his opinion the poison might have been taken without any analyist (sic) detecting it. That letter published after he found he was the object of attack in Cornwall. Before he went down to Cornwall for the purpose of making this information he discussed the matter with his wife, who was anxious to know the true cause of her brother's death. (It was the first intimation of the death of the father, describing the symptoms of his death.) Cross-examined by Mr COLERIDGE: He kept the letter which had just been read, because it was addressed to him. In 1855 or 1856, when he came home, he asked Mrs Grylls about her letters, but he avoided giving an explanation. When he came to England, in 1860, he did not remember applying to her. Very likely he asked her questions within the last 3 years. He did not remember making a special application to Mr John Thomas Millett for information on the subject. It was in 1855 or 1856 he applied to Mr John Thomas Millett. He did not remember applying to him subsequently. About 1854 he filed a Chancery suit, which was now pending. In 1861 he showed Jacob Millett Mr Hitchens' letter. Did not say anything to him about making a will. He was not aware whether he had or had not made a will at that time. He had conversations about it between him and Mrs Edmonds. Witness never asked him to make a will, and never on any occasion put his back against the door of the room, saying he should not go out of the room until he had made a will. It was utterly absurd to his mind. In some respects he considered Jacob partially idiotic, and in others not. Did not remember addressing him serious letters on family affairs. Did not remember writing to him on the 4th May, 1863. (A letter was here put in and read, and Mr Edmonds then stated that he recollected it.) Witness telegraphed to Mr Vawdrey to attend the inquest on the 31st December. That was the first thing he did. He wrote a letter to the Coroner, supporting a request made by the plaintiff for an inquest. He went to the Home-Office a day two afterwards. He thought it was on the 4th of January. Mr Hocking was there. After many days witness came down into Cornwall. The first time he saw Mr William Millett was on the day the first information was laid. Mr. William Millett came in spontaneously. No agreement was made. He attended before the magistrates with witness. Witness supposed Mr William Millett was communicated with. Witness did not fetch him. He had not seen him since 1856. Witness swore that he knew the facts partly from his own knowledge and the investigation he had made. The investigation upon the subject of the boy Rawlings and Miss Davey was merely what he had heard from his wife and in letters written by Mrs. Grylls. He was informed that Mr Richard Edmonds told him it was a supposition that he was wanted to make a will for Jacob; therefore he swore the information in that form. He merely wished to express that he was informed that Dr. Millett knew he was coming down. He meant to convey nothing further. His brother Richard very likely told him of it. Witness did not touch the body of the deceased. He knew the intestines were going up to Dr. Taylor for examination. He paid the policeman's expenses for going up. Witness did not undertake to pay for the analysis. He only under took to pay for the post mortem and the exhumation. He paid the policeman £5 to get rid of the remains of the body. He wanted to have nothing more to do with them. He did not wish to take any further steps in the matter. He did not wish anything more than to see that the body was properly examined. Did not see the Doctor's certificate drawn up until after it was done. It was drawn up in the rectory at Phillack. The ventricles of the head were very large, and were full of water. Not more than ten or eleven ounces of water came out. It was a large quantity for a healthy brain; never heard of a healthy brain containing that quantity. For a case of congenital hydrocephalus they were not very large. A man suffering from congenital hydrocephalus at this age was not more liable to apoplexy than other persons. Congenital water on the brain when cured was cured in infancy. After infancy he considered it was no disease. If he had no idea of poison in this case there was nothing that would lead him to know the cause of death. He considered this case was cured in infancy. He swore the second information because he believed the deceased had died from no cause visible or explicable to the medical men who had examined the body. He believed at the time that Dr. Millett had poisoned the deceased. He did not believe it now as he did then. He considered at the time the body was opened and examined, and from information he derived from persons in the neighbourhood, that the symptoms were not those of apoplexy, but of poisoning, and he acted accordingly. From what they had ascertained since, and according to Dr. Taylor's evidence, it was a case by no means clear. It admitted of great doubt, but at the time he had not Dr. Taylor's evidence, nor the examination before the magistrates to direct his judgment. He did not believe it now. He believed the plaintiff was completely absolved. He absolved him because he gave credence to the evidence produced, and to the high authority of Dr. Taylor. In his own mind he considered that the plaintiff was absolved. He considered him absolved at the time the magistrates absolved him. He thought he was entitled in his own defence to comment on the evidence adduced before the magistrates. He did not wish to impute in his letter that Dr. Millett had used aconite root. He did not at the time he wrote the letter mean or wish to impute anything to Dr. Millett.—Q. That letter was written under a painful but public duty?—A. That letter I confess I wrote under excited feelings, and was sorry for it afterwards. Re-examined by Mr KARSLAKE: He never communicated in any way to the public that "Investigator" was Mr Edmonds. In his judgment there was no cause assigned for deceased's death up to the present time. It was a doubtful case. A brain might be perfectly healthy notwithstanding the presence of the water, and the presence of water would not make a diseased brain. Dr. Taylor was still the sufferer by the dispute as to who should pay for the analysis. John Thomas Millett said he was a surgeon at Penzance, and a half-brother to the late Jacob Millett. He last saw him some weeks before his death. He asked witness when Mr Richard Edmonds was expected, and he replied in the early part of January. Jacob then said if he could not see him soon he must go and see another lawyer. Witness communicated this either to the defendant or Mr Richard Edmonds. On the death of Jacob Millett he received a letter from Dr. Millett on the evening of the same day, announcing the death. On the 6th of January he wrote to Mr Frederick Edmonds. Witness did not recollect saying to Mr Edmonds that he had been suspicious of Jacob's death. He did not recollect saying anything to him about his father's death on his return from Mexico. By his Lordship: He did not attend his sister Elizabeth's marriage. He received an invitation, but believed he was professionally engaged. Richard Edmonds said he lived at Plymouth, and occasionally went to Penzance to collect rents. He remembered receiving a letter from Edwin Edmonds respecting Jacob Millett. He received that letter during the last two or three weeks of 1863. He remembered afterwards going to Penzance. He told Mr Frederick Edmonds that he had received a letter from his brother Edwin, who said he supposed it was to make a will, which witness considered very likely to be the case. He told Frederick Edmonds that he believed he was wanted to make a will. That was his impression at first. Edwin Edmonds afterwards told him it was only a surmise on his part. Cross-examined by Mr COLERIDGE. Witness did not keep the letter till he made the appointment. He made no note of the contents of it. He trusted to his memory. He supposed he destroyed the letter on the morning of the day he received it, or on the following morning. There had been a document kept by witness, but there had been no application made for it by Jacob, or on his behalf. It was a mortgage, of which Jacob was the mortgagee. Edwin Edmonds afterwards told him it was about the mortgage, and not the will. He could not remember when he was told this. Could not say how soon it was after the receipt of the letter. Could not tell whether he was informed by letter or by word of mouth. The Rev. Frederick Hockin said he was the rector of Phillack. He knew the Millett family well. He wrote a letter, dated 2nd January, 1864, to Mr Frederick Edmonds, the defendant, in reference to the death of Jacob Millett. He was communicated with by William Millett, who desired him to write. It was also at his request that he wrote to the coroner, in his name, requesting that there might be a fair jury. When he wrote to the defendant there was a general opinion in the parish that deceased had met with his death by foul play. He knew Miss Davey. Did not know of his own knowledge that she was at Penpol House. William Oliver said he lived at Copper House, and knew Jacob Curnow Millett nearly all his life. He was servant at Penpol House. He was in the habit of taking the deceased home from chapel on Sunday evenings. He saw him home the Sunday but one before he died. That was the last time he saw him alive. He had not heard him make any complaint. He used to accompany him on account of his bad eyesight. Witness accompanied him to London. Saw him about a month or six weeks before he died. He said to witness if he (witness) had a larger house and an additional room he would come to live with him (witness). He never said anything to witness about his property. Honor Johns said she was formerly in service at Penpol, and for some time had the care of Jacob Curnow Millett. She left Penpol six weeks after Mrs Millett's death. She met Mr Jacob Millett in the middle of August last, and walked with him from Hayle to High Lanes, and had a conversation with him. Mr COLERIDGE objected that this conversation was not evidence. His LORDSHIP ruled that it could not be admissible, and Mr KARSLAKE said he was bound by his Lordship's decision. Had he otherwise decided the objection he should have called two or three more witnesses. This closed the evidence for the defence, and Mr KARSLAKE proceeded to reply to the whole of the evidence, and Mr COLERIDGE replied on the other side. His Lordship then proceeded to sum up in a lucid and masterly manner. He commenced by observing that it was impossible not to say that the plaintiff had been entirely acquitted of the charge which had been laid against him. He was acquitted on the evidence of Dr. Montgomery and Mr Vincent, and on the evidence of some of the most eminent authorities in the world, and on the statement of the defendant himself. The trumpery charges of plaintiff having been the author of the deaths of his father, sister, and brother Leonard, had also been well sifted, and disposed of. He (the learned Judge) was astonished that any reasonable man should have given them credit. Mr R. O. Millett's father had been an old man, his sister had died of decline, and his brother Leonard of aggravated dropsy. Thus he was acquitted of all four murders, and the foolish people of Phillack, whose general opinion it had been that he had been guilty of them, would do well to get the nonsense out of their heads. The action was brought to recover damages for the institution of the prosecution by defendant without reasonable and proper grounds, and with a malicious intent. There was no doubt that there had been a prosecution, but to recover damages the plaintiff must show that it had been made without reasonable and proper cause, and also that it had been done maliciously. In England, where there was no public prosecutor, but where the punishment of crime was left to private individuals acting under various motives, the law naturally cast around such people its protection, and said 'If any man has reasonable and probable grounds for the prosecution he institutes—although unfounded, and so also if he has not such reasonable and probable cause, but does it honestly—he shall be protected: because we will protect those people who act unreasonably for the public benefit, provided they do it honestly." The question for the jury to consider was not whether there had been; whether its presence or absence had been shown at the time the charge was made before the magistrates; and the defendant was not bound to show that such cause had existed as would have satisfied a petty jury of the guilt of the plaintiff; but had simply to show enough to have given ground that the matter should be sifted. The decision as to what amount should be considered necessary for that purpose had been determined to be a question of law for the judge. Such matters gave rise to some of the most difficult and embarrassing questions which could come before a judge and jury. The judge must pronounce his opinion on facts to be ascertained by the jury. Let them consider what would be the reasonable and proper cause for this charge—that Jacob Millett had died of poison, and that the plaintiff had administered it. And first, had it been reasonable to suppose that the deceased died of poison? That was a question for the jury arising out of the circumstances to which he would call their attention. The defendant had had two letters written to him by the clergyman; but he (the judge) did not think them very material, inasmuch as they referred to rumours which could not be given in evidence, and could not of themselves constitute reasonable and proper cause. Then defendant had a letter from deceased's brother describing the symptoms but incorrectly stating that he had suffered great agony. Next they had the corpse opened by the doctors, who saw nothing in the body that could account for death. In the head they saw congenital hydrocephalus, but they could not find any signs of acute effusion. In addition to this, it was proved negatively that there were some vegetable poisons which would destroy life without remaining in the body or leaving any traces of their operation. Defendant argued that taking all these things together he might reasonably conclude from them that death was not natural, and not being so, that it was caused by poison. It was for the jury to say whether that was a reasonable conclusion for him to have drawn from the information furnished to him, and which he supposed to be true. It would also be for them to consider whether the defendant ought not himself to have taken into account the manner in which these two comparatively young medical men—Dr Montgomery and Mr Vincent—had been prepossessed in favour of the death arising from other than natural causes. So much for the question "had the defendant reasonable grounds from his means of information for believing that this man had died from poison?" Then came another question—“Had he reasonable ground for supposing that, if Jacob Millett was poisoned, the plaintiff was the man who did it?" As to that, there was certainly a great deal more to be said. In the first place, if deceased had not died from effusion on the brain, plaintiff's statement that he had so died would be false; and all such false statements were taken as evidence against the man who made them. Next, there was the ordering of the inquest; and on the principle of the French proverb that he who excused himself accused himself, it was difficult to see very clearly why, on account of these preposterous rumours, the inquest should have been ordered. Then there was the fact that no other medical attendant had been called in, which one really would have thought that plaintiff would have done out of a reasonable regard for himself, considering what statements had been made, and that the will of the deceased in his (plaintiff’s) favour, and drawn by himself, was in his possession. He (Baron Bramwell) quite agreed with Mr Karslake in his remarks on that point. He could not help thinking, if they believed Jacob Millett had been poisoned, that taking all the circumstances into consideration, there was reasonable ground for believing that the plaintiff was the man who did it. Whatever showed it was likely that the plaintiff did it, also showed that it was done; and whatever showed that it was likely it was done, went a long way to show that the plaintiff did it. They had then to decide whether defendant had or had not reasonable or proper cause for believing at the time that the prosecution was set on foot that the man died from poison, and whether, if he did, plaintiff was or was not the man who poisoned him. The next thing to which they would have to direct their attention, and which must be made out to their satisfaction to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict, was whether the defendant had or had not been actuated by malice. Malice meant absolute ill-will, a desire to do mischief in the ordinary way in which people understood it, or any indirect or improper motive—any motive, in short, other than the legitimate one of bringing a person to punishment. In this case it was relied upon as a very cogent evidence of malice that there had been ill-will between plaintiff and defendant ever since the year 1846. It was evident that there was as much ill-will manifested between plaintiff and Mrs Edmonds as could well exist between brother and sister, but defendant appeared to have had no personal difference with plaintiff. However, the fact of the existence of this ill-will cut both ways. A husband who entered into such a prosecution for the sake of gratifying his wife's ill-will would act maliciously; but if a wife were continually stimulating a husband to a particular course of action, he might, under her influence, do it honestly in the belief that it was right. The other matter relied on as a proof of malice was the introduction of allusions to Miss Davey in the information, which it is argued could not have been introduced save for the purpose of giving pain. The explanation was that the allusion was introduced to show that the deceased man was in a house where there were no persons but those who were under the control of the plaintiff. If the jury thought that it had been put in out of malice it certainly would go a long way as a proof of ill-will. Then there was the allusion to Mr Richard Edmonds as coming to the deceased about his will. In the original draft it had been stated that such was the purpose of Mr Edmonds's visit; but defendant had struck that part of the statement out. Mr Coleridge had said that what defendant said was almost worse than if he had told an untruth, because it was an insinuation of what was false. If the jury could once put their finger on a wilful falsity it would be a proof that the defendant had acted from improper motives. Defendant, however, swore that he believed at the time, from the information he had received, that the making of deceased's will was what Mr R. Edmonds was wanted for. If they thought the statement was a dishonest one, intended to insinuate what defendant could not tell in so many words—that Mr Richard Edmonds was come to make a will, of course that would go a long way towards showing malice. Defendant had told them that he had no authority for stating that plaintiff was informed and aware that the will was going to be made, and that he did not think that statement of any very great moment. But one could not fail to see that it was all-important; for the inference was that plaintiff, to make sure of his brother's property, had poisoned him before the will could be made. It was marvellously strange that defendant should think that of no consequence. He thought it was possible that this part of the deposition (which had not been drawn up by defendant, although he had corrected it) might have been taken by Mr Edmonds upon trust—a thing that people were somewhat apt to do. If he was aware that it was in the deposition and kept it there without authority, of course that also would go to show malice. Baron Bramwell then referred to the letter of “Investigator." Respecting that, defendant's explanation appeared to be that in consequence of what had been publicly stated he had thought it right to publish that letter for the purpose of showing that, notwithstanding what Dr Taylor had said, the charge might have been well founded. He supposed that was the explanation, but defendant had not made a very happy witness, and his somewhat lame attempt to explain had certainly not been facilitated by the cross-examination of Mr Coleridge. The letter contained a great many terrible surmises as to what might have been done. If the jury thought these had been made through malice, of course that would show a malicious disposition in the mind of the writer, and they might take that as an evidence of the nature of the prosecution. His lordship then referred to the influence which the rumours which he had heard, and the statements contained in the letters of Mrs Grylls, might be supposed to have had upon defendant's conduct. He did not wish the jury to understand him to say that the existence of these rumours was a justification of the prosecution. A rumour could not be given in evidence to show that a man had a reasonable and proper cause for a prosecution; but it might be important so far as regarded the question of malice, because it might go a long way to explain his conduct. He thought Mr Coleridge had been rather hard upon Mr Hockin, but he agreed with him in thinking that it would be very much better if, before persons of position spread and acted upon rumours in any way, they should take the trouble to inform themselves as to whether these rumours were well founded. Defendant had sworn that he had not acted from malice; but although every possible respect might be paid to his oath, that would not be sufficient to satisfy the jury, because men deceived themselves, and might listen to malicious impulses without being aware of them. After remarking that they all had a common interest in enforcing that law which protected those who acted for the public benefit, his lordship said that if the jury found for the plaintiff, that was if their verdict was that defendant had no reasonable and proper cause for the prosecution, and that he was actuated by malicious motives, then they would have to consider the question of damages. That was a matter entirely within their own hands, and as men of the world they were to apply their own good sense to its consideration. The trouble and expense the plaintiff had been put to, and the annoyance of being shut up in a cell, were trifling matters compared with the enormity and cruelty of the charge brought against him, whether well or ill-founded. And if that charge proceeded from downright absolute malice, and from a desire to injure, he hardly knew what damages they could give. They must, however, take all the circumstances into consideration, and must consider, if their verdict were for the plaintiff, how far those circumstances might mitigate the defendant's conduct. The jury then retired, and on their return announced that they had found for the plaintiff on both issues— damages FOUR HUNDRED POUNDS. This concluded the business of the Assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 8 April 1864

3. Easter Sessions The Easter Quarter Sessions for the county of Cornwall was held at the County Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday. JOHN JOPE ROGERS, ESQ., M.P., presided There were also present— Sir Colman Rashleigh, Chairmen C.B.G. Sawle, Esq, Hon. and Rev. J.T. Boscawen. Mr. W. Michell The Rt. Hon. Lord Vivian. Mr. N. Norway. The Hon. Capt. Vivian. Mr. C. Kingdon. Col. Coryton. Mr. W. Williams. Col. Archer. Mr. M. Williams Major Trelawny. Mr. F.M. Williams. Major Grylls. Mr. J. Tremayne. Sir S. Spry. Mr. J. Haye. Rev. T. Pascoe. Mr. R. Foster. Rev. L.M. Peter. Mr. J. Hichens. Rev. A. Tatham. Mr. R.G. Bennett. Rev. V.F. Vyvyan. Mr. C.P. Brune. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. Mr. James Trevenen. Rev. T. Phillpotts. Mr. E. Collins. Rev. R. Buller. Mr. R. Foster, jun. Mr. N. Kendall, M.P. Mr. R. Bolitho. Mr. W.H. Pole Carew The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury:— Mr. J. Davey Willes, Wadebridge, foreman. Mr. J. Algar, Liskeard. Mr. John Bennett, Calstock. Mr. N. Boynes, St. Buryan. Mr. J.M.H. Cardell, Bodmin. Mr. R. Dunstan, Liskeard. Mr. W. Duncalf, Mevagissey. Mr. Wm. Hawken, Wadebridge. Mr. H. Hodffe, St. Levan. Mr. W. Henwood, St. Issey. Mr. R. Kendall, Mawgan. Mr. W. Lake, Charlestown. Mr. J. Marshall, Bodmin. Mr. W. Nash, St. Austell. Mr. H. Pollard, Egloshayle. Mr. F. Pollock, St. Austell. Mr. Rouse, St. Columb Major Mr. J. Snell, Liskeard. Mr. J. Sandry, St. Levan. Mr. J. Stephens, St. Columb. Mr. W. Searle, . Mr. T. Toms, Liskeard. Mr. Jas. Vivian, Phillack. The following jurymen also answered to their names,— Mr. J. Ward, Calstock. Mr. Josiah Wright, Paul. Mr. J. Watts, Liskeard. Mr. M. Wilton, Wadebridge. Mr. G. Wright, Bodmin. Her Majesty’s proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, The CHAIRMAN addressed the Grand Jury. He said: Gentlemen of the grand inquest I am happy to be able to tell you that your duties here this day are likely to be of a very light character, for the calendar only contains a small number of prisoners, there being seven for trial and one in custody for a breach of the peace, amounting to eight altogether, which is exactly the same number we had for trial at the last Easter Sessions. It is very gratifying to find that we have only this small number of prisoners, especially after the very complimentary manner in which Her Majesty’s Justices at the last Assizes called attention to the state of crime in this County. The observations they made showed that this County was in a very favourable condition in respect to crime. Long may that condition continue. With respect to the offences there is nothing in my opinion, which requires any remark to be made from this bench. They appear to be of a very simple character, and I apprehend you will find no difficulty in arriving at a decision. It has been usual to mention the police rates and the County rates to be applied for. The Finance Committee propose to recommend the levying of a rate of one farthing in the pound for general purposes, and the police committee will ask for a rate of three farthings in the pound. The Coroners’ bills are very similar in amount to those of the two corresponding sessions previously to this. I find that while the coroners’ bills this year represent for, 112 inquests, the sum of £369. 15s. 2d., in 1863 the amount of charge was £382. 18s. 11d.; and in the previous year, the number of inquests was exactly the same, and the charge amounted to £358. 12s. 3d., so that there is very little difference in the charge which the county has to bear. As these sessions, from the lightness of the calendar, seem to offer a favourable opportunity for referring to an important subject in connection with criminal justice, I will take this opportunity of drawing your attention to the reformatory system which has become much in public favour, and is being rapidly extended throughout the country. I refer to this subject now in order that it may be ventilated; not that it is the intention of any member of the court to take steps at present to form a reformatory institution in this county, or to ask for a grant for that purpose; but that the matter may be generally discussed throughout the county with the view of taking steps at some future time for forming a juvenile reformatory in our county. We have at present an arrangement for sending our juvenile criminals to other reformatories; we have a few boys at the Devon and Exeter Reformatory at Bransford Wood, and some at the Kingswood Reformatory near Bristol; but I think the time will soon come when arrangements must be made in our own county for forming an independent reformatory school. Whatever may be the idea entertained as to the reforming of hardened criminals who have grown old in crime, I think the statistics of the reformatory schools will show that with regard to criminals of that age, there is every encouragement for us to expect that great good will come to society generally from such establishments. In the first place, in order to put this question fairly before you, I have endeavoured to analyse the accounts of several of the reformatory schools, particularly those of the Exeter and Devon, and also the general returns for the reformatories of the country for the year ending September, 1862. In that year, 1064 juvenile prisoners were committed to the different reformatory schools in the country. Looking to the state of education, I find that of these 1064 prisoners only 2 were marked as having received what is called a “superior education”, and only 87 could read and write well; all the others appear to be either wholly uneducated or had received a very inadequate education. Now this would tend to show that, at least with regard to juvenile offenders, ignorance has some effect upon crime in this country; again with regard to the condition of these offenders, with respect to the possession of comfort and good example at home, and their effect, it appears that out of this total number of 1064 juvenile prisoners, no less than 788, or about 78 per cent., had either lost their parents by death, or been deserted by them, or had their parents in prison, or were the children of criminal parents; so that there was but a small minority who had opportunities at home of leading an honest life. Now, if you examine the results of the education given in the reformatory schools you will find in the first place that a very small proportion of those boys sent out from reformatory schools have been re-convicted, as far as we can judge from the experience of eleven years, showing very strongly that they have greatly benefitted from the instructions which they received in those schools. Then again, with regard to the character of the offences committed by all classes of criminals, we find that in 1862, out of 53,000 convictions of all classes and ages about 28,600 or about 48 per cent. consist of what is called larcenies, while of the juvenile criminals, out of 1064 convicted in that year 939 were for larcenies. This shows that boys generally commence their criminal career with some very petty offence. Therefore we may hope that by sending boys to reformatory institutions for a number of years, society in general may reap the benefit from the attention they receive at these schools, and that the boys will have a hope of living an honest life. My only object in mentioning the subject now is that it is some years since the subject was mentioned in this place by our late chairman, Mr. Lethbridge, and since that time much has been done throughout the country towards the establishment of these reformatories, and I think, statistics show that they are of unquestionable benefit to society at large. I think, therefore, that as soon as we have placed on a sound footing the very useful establishment for female penitents at Lostwithiel, one of the next subjects of public importance for our county would be the establishment of a reformatory school for ourselves. Until that desirable object is accomplished we hope to continue the arrangement with the Devon and Exeter Reformatory, but Sir Stafford Northcote, who is probably one of the most zealous and able supporters of the reformatory movement in Devonshire, has informed me that it is not now so convenient to take our boys into that institution as it was formerly. With regard to the expense of such an institution, the government have taken upon them a very large proportion of the cost. Under a recent statute they undertake to pay 6s. per head per week, which will represent a very large proportion of the cost of maintaining the boys. With respect to the Devon and Exeter School at Bramford Speke, out of the whole funds at their disposal the government provides as much as 38 per cent., and the county 12 per cent., so that there remains only eleven per cent. of the total cost to be provided by public subscription. This shows that if we were to ask for a moderate amount out of the county rate for the establishment of an institution of this kind, the working expenses would be very small indeed. In fact, with a little care, the establishment might be made self-supporting. Now, gentlemen, I don’t know that there is anything else to which I can draw your attention, but I was anxious to say a few words upon this very important question, because I feel that it is one in which we who are engaged in the administration of justice are particularly interested; but it is also a matter deeply interesting to the public at large, because if the conclusions to be drawn from the statistics of juvenile crime are correct, great good will arise to society from the establishment of institutions for the reformation of juvenile criminals. In mentioning the fact that there are now seven prisoners for trial, and the same number last year, I forgot to say that last year there were also 5 committals under the Criminal Justice Act, making a total (with one misdemeanour) of 13, and this time there are only two such convictions, making a total of 10. Also the total number of prisoners committed during the quarter ending March was 142, against 183 in the corresponding quarter of last year, showing a decrease of 41 in favour of the present quarter. It is quite clear therefore—that the remarks made by the learned judges at the assizes with respect to the state of crime in this county were fully justified. The learned chairman then dismissed the grand jury to their duties. COUNTY BUSINESS The Court then proceeded with the following business of the county:— COUNTY FINANCE The CHAIRMAN read the following report of the Finance Committee:— The Finance Committee have examined the Treasurer’s account, and find the balances due to the county on the 25th of March. General Fund £5307 1 7¼ Police General Fund 4014 6 1 Police Building Fund 4768 4 9 Superannuation Fund 163 12 1 Total £14,253 4 6¼ There will be required for general purposes a rate of 8-32nds in the £. The committee have examined the several coroner’s bills, and recommend Mr. Hichens’s, Mr. Jagoe’s, Mr. Carlyon’s, and Mr. Goode’s bills for payment. In Mr. Hamley’s they beg to call the attention of the court to Nos. 6 and 12, and to submit a letter from Mr. Hichens for the consideration of the court. They have examined and approved the bridge surveyors’ bills, but request Mr. Hickes to explain “extra charges for his attendance at Carnon Bridge”. INSURANCE—The county are now paying annually for insurance of their various public buildings—gaol, £21. 5s.; police stations, £9. 17s. 6d.; militia stores, £5. 10s. 9d.; asylum, £30. The committee do not recommend the continued insurance of the gaol, police stations, or militia stores; but bearing in mind the condition of the occupants of the asylum, they recommend that that building should be still insured. CLERK OF THE PEACE.—The committee have given their best attention to the mode of payment to the Clerk of the Peace, referred to their consideration, and are not prepared to recommend any alteration. Signed, Richard Foster, chairman. Mr. GULLY BENNET moved that the report be adopted, and that in accordance with the recommendations of the committee, the insurance of the County Gaol, the police stations, and the militia stores should be discontinued. The Treasurer’s account showed a balance of £5,307 in favour of the county. Mr. BRUNE seconded the motion, which was carried nem. dis. CORONERS’ BILLS. The accounts for the coroners for the past quarter were then read. They showed that the following inquests had been held—Mr. Carlyon 30 inquests; Mr. Jago, 18 inquests; Mr. Hichens, 34; Mr. Hamley, 18; and Mr. Goode, 12, making a total of 112; the charge for which was £369. 15s. 2d. The CHAIRMAN said that the two bills in Mr. Hamley’s account, to which the Finance Committee called attention, Nos. 6 and 12, were for holding inquests on the bodies of a miner named James Robins, at St. Blazey, on the 25th of January, and a pauper named Morrish at St. Austell. Mr. RICHARD FOSTER said it had come to the knowledge of the Committee that inquests had been held most irregularly, and they had, therefore, felt it to be their duty to call the attention of the Court to the matter. Perhaps Mr. Hamley would be able to offer some explanation on the subject. It transpired that in the first case, Mr. Hamley had on the Saturday given an order for the burial of a body on the Sunday, before he had seen it, and on the following Monday he held the inquest having never seen the body at all. Mr. HAMLEY said that it was perfectly true that he issued an order for the burial of the body on the Sunday, and his reason for doing so was that he knew the funeral would be attended by a large number of miners, and he did not like to preclude them from doing so, by preventing the funeral from taking place on that day. He could not hold the inquest on the Saturday, but he did hold it on the Monday as soon as possible. If the court thought he had acted wrong in these cases they could disallow the fees. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said that he thought it was highly improper to hold an inquest in such a way. It seemed that Mr. Hamley had called a jury together on the Saturday, but though they were not sworn, they viewed the body, and he being in London, gave an order for the body to be buried without seeing it. He considered that such a proceeding was extremely irregular, and that the Court ought to mark its sense of the case by something more than merely withholding the fees. Mr. CAREW said that according to his recollection of the second case referred to—that of the pauper named Hugh Morrish, the facts were these:—It appears it was thought desirable that an aged pauper named Morrish should be taken into the hospital of the St. Austell workhouse, but to this the man objected. The master of the house got two or three of the inmates to help him to remove Morrish there, which they accomplished by force, and a few minutes after his admission the man died. This was on the Thursday, and Mr. Hamley did not hold an inquest on the body till the following Monday, and after examining the master of the union house, without calling in the medical officer, a verdict of died from natural causes was returned. The medical officer was afterwards requested to give an opinion, and he stated that the death of Morrish was accelerated by his forcible removal to the hospital. Now, it appeared to him and others that the Coroner should at the inquest have examined other persons besides the master of the union, and that had he done so, and in particular taken the evidence of the medical officer, a different conclusion might have been come to by the jury. But the fact was it was a very slovenly managed affair. Mr. HAMLEY said that with reference to this case, he did not at first think it was necessary to hold an inquest on the body of Morrish at all; but afterwards, hearing a statement that the medical officer had been guilty of some neglect, he had thought it right to do so. After examining the master of the union, it appeared that there was not the slightest ground for the charge of neglect against the medical officer, or that the old man had died from any other than natural causes. Under these circumstances he did not feel justified in putting the county to the additional expense of requiring the attendance of the medical officer for examination. The CHAIRMAN read a letter from Mr. Lakes, giving an account of the circumstances under which Morrish had died, and of no inquest having been held on the body from his death on the Thursday till the following Monday. Mr. CAREW thought that the charge that the coroner had not held an inquest between the Thursday and the Monday was a serious one. Mr. HAMLEY said he was in St. Austell on the Thursday, and nothing was then said to him about holding an inquest. After that he was obliged to go to London on business. Mr. CAREW: It does seem to me to be inconsistent with the efficient discharge of the duties of coroner that he should have so many occasions calling him from home. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH moved that the fees of Mr. Hamley for holding the inquests in question be disallowed, and that he be cautioned by the court not to act in a similar manner in any future case that might arise. Mr. CAREW seconded the motion, which was carried. The CHAIRMAN said that the court felt very strongly that in these instances proper care had not been exercised by Mr. Hamley in the performance of his duties as coroner, and he was desired to caution him as to the future performance of those duties. Mr. GULLY BENNET asked if Mr. Hamley had not a deputy who could act for him when he was from home. Mr. HAMLEY said that he had nominated a deputy, and had sent the nomination to the Lord Chancellor for his sanction, but in consequence of the gentleman being under 27 years of age, his lordship had refused to appoint him. The subject then dropped. The CHAIRMAN said that he had received a letter from Mr. Hichens, one of the coroners, which was addressed to the justices assembled at the Easter Sessions. Mr. Hichens was not present, and he would ask Mr. Hichens, jun., who appeared for him, whether he thought his father desired that it should be read. Mr. HICHENS, jun., replied in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN then read the letter as follows:— “To the Worshipful the Justices of the Finance Committee. “JACOB CURNOW MILLETT, DECEASED, “Gentlemen, “I beg to forward herewith for your perusal and serious consideration, a copy of a letter written by me to the Rev. Thomas Pascoe, relative to a charge which he was reported to have made against me of having failed in the discharge of my official duty as coroner in this case, by omitting to call for and require a post mortem examination. “It would, of course, be much more satisfactory to the coroners if their discretion were more restricted by an order for a more general resort to post mortems, and my reason for sending you this letter is that the matter may have the consideration of the court, on account of the great extra expense which must in that case be incurred. Hitherto we have endeavoured to satisfy ourselves, where more cannot be ascertained without a post mortem, that there is nothing suspicious in the appearance of the body, or in the circumstances connected with the death, or anything to lead to any other conclusion, than that it proceeded from natural causes; and with that result we are satisfied with a verdict accordingly, without in fact ascertaining the positive cause of death. “I am, gentlemen, yours obediently, “JOHN HICHENS, Coroner.” “St. Ives, 1st April, 1864. Mr. FOSTER thought that the object aimed at by Mr. Hichens would be met if the court would express an opinion as to the discretion of coroners to make post-mortem examinations. Mr. Hichens, jun., believed that that was the object of his father. He sought for instruction in cases of this nature—whether he was to exercise his own discretion as to the necessity for holding post-mortem examinations, or the court would restrict that discretion. The Rev. T. PASCOE explained the circumstances under which he made the statement, but his remarks were inaudible to the reporters. He deeply regretted that a post-mortem examination was not held on the body of the late Mr. Jacob Curnow Millett, as it would have prevented the lamentable proceedings which were afterwards required. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said that he objected decidedly to this application, as he considered that it was an attempt on the part of Mr. Hichens to get that court to lay down rules for the guidance of coroners. He thought the court should not lay down any such rules, and that those who undertook the duties of coroners must also take upon themselves the responsibility of acting according to their own judgment in the cases as they arose. Mr. SAWLE said that if post-mortem examinations were held in every case that was not free from doubt, the bills of the coroners would be very largely increased; but while the court would ask these gentlemen not to order post-mortem examinations in cases where there was really no reason or necessity for them, they could not, of course, undertake to lay down any rules on the subject. The CHAIRMAN said that he fully agreed with what had been said by his two brother Chairmen, that the court could not lay down any rules for the guidance of the coroners. These gentlemen had extensive powers given them; and although magistrates might express an opinion on a particular case as it occurred, yet he did not think that it was their duty to lay down particular rules for the guidance of coroners; neither did he think that it would be right for the court to take out of their hands the discretionary power which the law entrusted to them. COUNTY GAOL. The CHAIRMAN read the report of the Governor of the County Gaol, Capt. H.S. Colville, as follows:— Since the date of my last report, the conduct of the prisoners generally has been good and orderly. The sanction given at the Epiphany Sessions, to the employment of one of the assistant matrons as schoolmistress to instruct the female prisoners, in addition to her ordinary duties, has proved most beneficial to that class of prisoners, hitherto debarred from the benefits of school instruction, and without in any way interfering with the discipline of the establishment. The present arrangements for separation of male prisoners at hard labour continue to give satisfactory results. The chief warder, Mr. James Mayall, having made application to the visiting justices for an increase of salary, I feel bound to testify to his untiring zeal and usefulness in his double office as chief warden and storekeeper; his steady watchfulness and care in the latter capacity has merited my highest approval. He carries out my orders strictly and promptly, and he is well deserving of the boon he asks. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF PRISONERS COMMITTED FOR FELONY AND DEBT. The Governor of the County Gaol presented the following comparative statement of commitments for the quarter ending March, 1863, and for the present year:— 1863 1864 In custody for felony 6 6 On bail “ 0 1 For misdemeanour 1 0 For breach of the peace 1 1 Total 8 8 Committed under the Criminal Justice Act 5 2 13 10

Total prisoners received for the quarter ending March 183 142

Sheriff’s debtors 1 4 County Court ditto 31 36 Total for debt 32 36 (sic) VISITING JUSTICES REPORT. The visiting committee have much pleasure in reporting that the discipline of the gaol and its general arrangements are very satisfactory; the committee think, however, that an improvement in the latter may be made by the erection of a gasometer on the premises, whereby purer gas than that now used can be generated at a very moderate cost. From an estimate given by Mr. George Wolcott, of St. Neot’s gas works, Hants, an outlay of £300 will effect all that is required, and that an annual saving in the gas expenditure can thus be made. If it meets with the approval of the justices in quarter sessions, the visiting committee will now give notice that they shall ask for a sum not exceeding £360, at the Midsummer quarter sessions, for erecting a gasometer. Mr. James Mayall, the chief warder and storekeeper, has applied for an increase of salary, which has been strongly recommended by the governor. The committee have from the commencement of Mr. Mayall’s services been perfectly satisfied with him. He has exhibited great zeal, energy, and economy. His duties as storekeeper and chief warder are very arduous, commencing at five o’clock in the morning, and not ending till 10 at night. The committee recommend £80 per annum as a permanent salary. The current expenses for the ensuing quarter are estimated at £250. The report was adopted, and on the motion of Mr. KENDALL, M.P., the Committee of Visitors of the Gaol were re-appointed. In answer to Mr. CAREW, Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said that they had their engineer, and should erect and manage the proposed gas apparatus with the staff of the gaol. Mr. KENDALL said it was believed they should effect a saving of upwards of 100 per cent by manufacturing their own gas. GAOL AND HALL EXPENSES. The CHAIRMAN read a list of the expenses of the County Gaol and Halls during the quarter, from which it appeared that those of the former, after deducting certain credits, amounted to £840. 19s. 11d., and those of the latter to £10. 14s. 7d. COUNTY BRIDGES. WESTERN DIVISION—Mr. Thomas Hickes, the surveyor of the county bridges in the western division, reported:— I have much pleasure in stating that the roads of the several bridges are now in good repair. Lower Carnon—Some repairs are wanting to the guard walls, which I estimate will cost 15s. Sticker—Some repairs are also wanted to the guard wall at this bridge, which will cost about 10s. St. Erth—A drain that should carry the water under the road at this bridge is choked. I estimate the cost of opening it at 30s. Cornelly—There are some repairs required to the fence, which I estimate would cost 20s. Mr. HICKES also presented a bill for special services amounting transportation to £2. 10s., and in answer to questions from magistrates, he stated that whenever his services were required to look after the county bridges he did not make any charge, considering that they were paid for in his salary; but that when his services were required for a special object, unconnected with the repair of any bridge, and in accordance with the order of the court or of a committee of magistrates, then he made an additional charge. After some discussion, it was agreed, on the motion of Mr. Foster, that for the future the bridge surveyors should be entitled to charge a guinea for each day’s attendance on special duty by order of the court or of a committee. Carnon Bridge—The Rev. T. PHILLPOTTS referred to the obstructions at Carnon bridge. He said the committee appointed by the court had visited the bridge and inspected the obstructions, and they were of the opinion that they were caused by the great accumulation of mud above, which was owing to the great number of mine stamp-works in the valley. The deposits for these had flowed into the valley, and in times of flood had been washed down to Carnon bridge. The greater part had found its way into the navigation at , but a very large portion was deposited above the bridge. He understood that about 15 of these stamps had been recently put up. The stamps were erected on grounds belonging to Lord Falmouth, Mr. Vivian, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Basset. He also stated that some time ago the proprietors of these works drove an adit under the road, within 100 feet from this bridge, and merely lined it with timber, and according to the report of Mr. Hickes, this adit might be blown up during any flood, or it might stand for years. Mr. CAREW said he believed the subsoil of the road belonged to the landlord. Mr. PHILLPOTTS said they had not touched the surface of the road, but suppose it should be blown up during a storm? Mr. CAREW—Then you would have your action against the parties. Mr. HICKES, in answer to the chairman, stated that the timber of the adit was only 2½ feet below the surface of the road and made the road insecure. The CLERK of the PEACE agreed with Mr. Hickes that the road was injured by the adit, but it was a question whether the subsoil did not belong to the lord; if the adit injured the road the county would have a right to interfere. Mr. CAREW moved that the attention of the Deputy Clerk of the Peace be called to the new adit under the road at Carnon bridge, with a view to commencing proceedings at law if the road should be in danger. The motion, being seconded, was agreed to. EASTERN DIVISION—Mr. JENKIN reported as follows:—Lostwithiel Bridge—The water has now sufficiently decreased in the Fowey river to admit of the work being proceeded with, and it will be re-commenced in a few days. Stratton Bridge.—An alteration in the drainage of the approach road to this bridge towards is much required; the cost will be £2. Boyton Bridge.—The woodwork of this bridge requires to be painted, at a cost of 15s. Poulson Bridge.—This bridge requires painting, at a cost of £2; the post and rail fence also requires repair at a cost of 12s. Bridge.—The fence of the approach road to this bridge requires repair; I estimate the cost at £4. Yealm Bridge.—The parapet of this bridge requires repair, at a cost of 10s. Sterra Bridge.—Some stone posts and iron rails are required at this bridge; I estimate the cost at £2. Horse Bridge.—The abutment of this bridge requires repair, at an estimated cost of £2. Trussell Bridge.—I have to apply for 10s. for repairing the parapet of the approach to this bridge. SIR COLMAN RASHLEIGH said that he had no report to offer from the committee on Lostwithiel bridge. The water had lately been so high that they had been unable to proceed with the repair of the bridge. Last week they had expected to be able to commence the work, but the rain came down on Sunday, and the water had risen so as to prevent their doing so. Mr. JENKIN said they expected to be able soon to proceed with the work. The committee was re-appointed on the motion of Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, and ordered to report at the next sessions. PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF THE COUNTY ASYLUM. Mr. POLE CAREW said—I have to present, on behalf of the Committee of Visitors, a report in answer to a recommendation given to us at the last court, that we should advise the Court as soon as possible as to the extra accommodation required at the County Lunatic Asylum.—Mr. Carew then read the following report:— The Committee of Visitors report that they have carefully considered the question submitted to them respecting the additional accommodation required at the Lunatic Asylum, and that they have consulted a local architect of experience as to the probable expense. They have come to the conclusion that any expenditure which would only provide for more immediate and pressing wants of the establishment would in the end prove a very false economy, whilst the power given by the legislature to raise money on loan enables them to provide more permanently for its wants, without injustice to the existing ratepayers. They would, therefore, recommend that the projected alterations and additions should extend to providing something like one hundred additional beds, and they can confidently undertake to provide these for a sum not exceeding £5,000, which they would recommend should be raised on loan, payable in 20 yearly instalments.—Signed, W.H. POLE CAREW, chairman. Mr. CAREW proceeded to say—Before I go into that matter I think it right to relieve the alarm which will probably be excited in the county, on my proposing that £5,000 should be raised as a loan for the enlargement of the asylum, by stating what will be the burden inflicted upon the county by the loan, to be repaid in twenty yearly instalments, and I don’t think I can do it better than by stating what a person rated at £100 would have to pay. A ratepayer who is rated at that amount would have to pay on the first year after the loan, just 1s. 1½d., and that small sum would gradually decrease every year as the instalments were paid off, and would in the end amount to a mere trifle. Now that is really all that is asked for the protection of the lunatics of this county; and after the melancholy example we have recently had in this county of what lunatics may suffer by being left under private care, it is a matter that appeals strongly to our feeling to provide such accommodation that there may be an inducement for people to send their unfortunate relatives to the public institution, instead of keeping them under their own care. We are, with one exception, unanimous in the recommendation we now submit to the court, and I am extremely sorry that the gentleman who differs from us is unable to attend today. I will, however, endeavour to tell you upon what grounds Mr. Lakes differs from us. It will be remembered that we have to provide for all the lunatics of the county, and that we have to deal with a mixed asylum; that it is not only for the pauper patients we have to provide, but for two other classes, one of which is called subscription patients; and I may say that there is perhaps no greater charity in this county than the provision of accommodation in the lunatic asylum for these subscription patients. There are many persons unable to pay the higher charges made for private patients who by means of subscriptions are placed in the asylum and provided with all the care and attention so necessary to persons in their state. By means of subscriptions persons have the privilege of recommending a certain number of patients to be admitted at a lower charge than that made for ordinary private patients; and I again repeat that I don’t think there is any greater charity in the county than this—(applause). We have been for many years receiving a high scale of payments from private patients, all of which have gone to the county rate, but we have never been able to get the classes of patients separated. The airing grounds are common to all classes, and so is our building, though certainly the galleries for private patients are separate from the others. I don’t think therefore that we are doing justice to private patients for the high payments we are receiving from them. I think we should provide separate accommodation for private patients such as would induce persons to send such patients to us, instead of keeping them under their own care. We are required to provide for all the lunatics of the county, and of course that requirement includes private patients, but we are not asking you to provide a private lunatic asylum, for we only ask for the sum which would be required to provide the necessary accommodation for pauper lunatics. Mr. Lakes says that the committee have no right to spend the county money in building what he calls a private lunatic asylum. Now I don’t think that that statement is just, because we only propose to make a fresh arrangement of the asylum, which will give us 70 extra beds; we propose to remove the bakehouse, which is now within a portion of the wing, and makes the place at times uncomfortably hot, and by that we shall gain 20 beds; we also propose to erect a new building for the private patients, which will hold about 50. We have now 33 private patients in the asylum but we have frequently had 50, and as we are increasing the accommodation for the pauper patients by about 70 or 80 beds, I think we ought to have a proportionate increase for the private patients, and I think such increase will pay its way. Perhaps the county is not aware of what has been expended on both sides—from the county and from private funds. The amount which has been contributed from the county rate is £27,220, and the total subscriptions which have been made in the county for private patients is £13,590. But besides that, there has been saved to the ratepayers £5,000 since 1841 by the reduced charges for the pauper patients, so that the whole amount the county has benefitted by private subscriptions, and by reduced charges to pauper patients, resulting therefrom, is £18,590, as compared with £27,220 paid from the county rate. Now the original subscription, as compared with the sum expended by the county, was thus:—the county paid seven-elevenths and the subscriptions amounted to four- elevenths, and it will be found that at the present moment the private fund of the asylum amounts to half an eleventh more than this proportion; that is, the county had paid half an eleventh less than they should have done, and subscribers have paid an eleventh more. To keep up the proportion, therefore, I think we have good ground for asking you to make a better provision for the private patients, (hear, hear), and I cannot help hoping that Mr. Lakes, when he comes to consider the matter more fully, and to examine our plans, will see that the proposed arrangements will not only be for the benefit of private patients, but for the pauper patients, and for the benefit of the county—(hear, hear). We are now in a position to lay our plans more fully before you, but we should like an expression of opinion from the Court as to whether we should carry out our proposed plan, or whether we should simply add to the pauper patients wards, keeping them all mixed up as they are now. The whole sum we require is £5,000. I think that will cover the new building, the removal of the bakehouse, so as to get 20 more beds, and the alteration of the old galleries, now in the occupation of the private patients, and their appropriation to the pauper patients. We think the whole gain by these arrangements will be somewhere about 100 beds. It is right to state here that if we have to erect a new building for the accommodation of the pauper patients we cannot calculate upon doing it for less than £50 per head, so that the sum asked for will be necessary even in that point of view. The CHAIRMAN—You propose to borrow £5000, and to spread the payment over 30 years. You say that the expenditure of this sum will provide about 100 additional beds; for what length of time do you think that will supply the wants of the institution? Mr. CAREW said he could speak with very great confidence that it would supply the wants of the asylum for at least 20 years, and that there could be no further demand upon the county for that time. Mr. NEVIL NORWAY said that Mr. Carew had understated the amount of additional accommodation which the proposed arrangement would give; the total increase of beds would be 110. Mr. CAREW said he intended to move for the £5000 at the next sessions, but in the mean time he should be glad if the court would express its opinion either in favour of separate accommodation for private patients, as proposed by the committee, or if it was preferred to keep the asylum in its present mixed state, because they would then be able to prepare the plans accordingly. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said he should be far from wishing to offer any opposition to the scheme which had been mooted by Mr. Carew, but he had received a letter from Mr. Lakes not only protesting against the scheme, but against any lengthened discussions taking place upon it at these sessions. He wished that in the interim, between this and the next sessions the magistrates should be afforded the opportunity of considering the subject; and for his own part, he must say, that there appeared to be serious objections to their falling in with the views of the committee, and erecting a building which would cost £5,000 out of the county rate for private patients. Lord VIVIAN could not agree with the remarks of his friend, because the Court referred back the report to the Asylum Committee, with special instructions that they should report to them what was best to be done on the subject. The committee had accordingly again taken the matter into consideration, and they now brought forward the report which had been read, saying that they considered the plan therein recommended the best. Therefore he thought the committee had acted very properly in the course they had pursued. He must confess, however, that he felt some difficulty with respect to the way in which the committee had put the matter. They proposed to erect a building for the accommodation of private patients, and then to hand over to the county the whole of the present building for pauper patients. Now he thought some legal difficulty might arise upon that, because they were proposing to vote a sum of money from the county rates for the purpose of providing accommodation for private lunatics—(hear, hear). He was quite aware of the assistance that had been afforded to the Asylum by private subscriptions, but at the same time, as far as he could see, Mr. Lakes’ objection was that they could not use the money of the ratepayers for the erection of a building which would be devoted not for paupers, but for private lunatic patients. That was a matter on which he thought the court would do well to consider carefully, before they came to a decision. He thought it would have been well if the committee had taken the opinion of the Clerk of the Peace on the subject. He quite agreed as to the propriety of voting the sum of £5,000 for the purpose of providing additional accommodation to the asylum, especially after the statement which they had had from the Medical Officer of that institution, who had told them, that owing to the want of such accommodation, they had, up to this time, been obliged to decline the admission of many lunatics, who ought properly to have been under the care of the county asylum. Seeing the objections that had been raised, however, he thought the court should not commit itself to an opinion at the moment, but at the same time he thought the committee, under the circumstances in which they were placed, had done quite right in bringing that matter forward in the way they had done, and their proposition for the enlargement of the asylum was one that ought to receive the earnest attention of the court. Mr. CAREW was extremely glad that his noble friend had adopted the course he had done, because he thought his lordship had ably and clearly set before them the objection which had been taken by Mr. Lakes. At the same time he must remind his lordship that the proposed plan was merely for effecting certain necessary arrangements in the asylum; they were merely supplying the requisite accommodation for pauper patients, and he did not know that this could be effected in any better way than that which had been proposed by the committee. It was quite true that the main objection to the £5000 which it was proposed to ask for at the next sessions, was that it would be applied to the erection of a new building. Still, the effect of that new building would be to give over 90 additional beds for pauper lunatics. If that was not agreed to, they must submit at the next sessions an alternative scheme. What he wished was to obtain an expression of the opinion of the Court as to the scheme. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH did not think that any expression of opinion by the Court that day would in any way be binding on the Court at the next sessions. The CLERK of the PEACE being called upon for his opinion as to whether the Court could legally apply the £5000 to the erection of the proposed building, said that he thought it could be done very well. It did not follow that because the building might at first be used for private patients it would not properly be a county building, and as such could be used for pauper patients hereafter if required. The CHAIRMAN asked if it would not be necessary, before any scheme was carried out, to submit the plans to the Lunacy Commissioners for their approval? Mr. CAREW replied that it would, and of course he could not say what their decision might be, but it was right that he should state that the commissioners had recommended the erection of an additional building. Mr. J. TREMAYNE said he could not see the force of the objection that had been taken, because the present building was jointly occupied by private and pauper patients. Mr. CAREW then gave notice that at the next session he should move that the sum of £5000 be raised on loan, to be repaid in twenty yearly instalments for the enlargement of the asylum; and he also respited until next sessions his notice for application for £600 for providing a supply of water for the asylum. COUNTY CONSTABULARY. The CHIEF CONSTABLE read the report of the police committee as follows:— A meeting of the committee was held at the chief constable’s office, on Monday, 4th April, 1864—present, A. Coryton, Esq. (chairman), Hon. and Rev. Townshend Boscawen, N. Kendall, Esq., M.P., J. Trevenen, Esq., J.B. Kingdon, Esq., J.T.H. Peter, Esq. The committee found on comparing the coroner’s account as given by the county treasurer with that given by the chief constable, a difference of £1. 13s. 6d. This apparent discrepancy arises from the coroners making up their accounts to the latest possible day before the sessions; whereas the chief constable’s accounts are made up to the quarter day only; and the committee recommend, with a view of simplifying accounts that the coroners be requested in future to make their accounts up to the quarter day only. BLUE ANCHOR STATION—The committee have received four tenders for erecting this station, and recommend for acceptance the tender from Messrs. Collins and Son, of Wadebridge, for £631. 10s. HAYLE STATION—The Chief Constable reports two sites to the committee at Hayle, and the committee consider the leasehold site as the most preferable, and have instructed the legal adviser of the county to ascertain the terms on which the county can obtain a holding, and to report to the committee. CALLINGTON STATION—A very convenient freehold site has been obtained at Callington for £150, and the committee have requested the legal adviser of the county to examine the title, &c., and if found satisfactory, recommend the county to purchase. TREGONY STATION—A very good freehold site can be obtained at Tregony of nearly three- quarters of an acre for £100, and the committee have in this instance also requested the legal adviser of the county to examine the title, &c., and if found satisfactory, would recommend the county to purchase. BODMIN—The Chief Constable laid before the committee a plan for stables, &c., at head- quarters, to consist of four stalls, and two loose boxes, with loft over; also a harness room, and cart shed; and the committee have directed the chief constable to apply for tenders. A bill from Messrs. Stephens and Co., solicitors, Plymouth, amounting to £7. 11s. 8d., on account of the Hayle Station now abandoned. Ditto from Mr. Goodyear, architect, for professional services from December, 1862, to March, 1864, amounting to £20. 8s. 2d.; ditto from Gurney and Co., solicitors, London, amounting to £19. 16s. 8d.; ditto from Mr. Rowe, solicitor, Stratton, amounting to £3. 13s. 6d., have been received, and the committee recommended the same to be paid. The committee recommend a police rate of ¾d. in the pound for the present quarter. The Chief Constable laid before the committee a notice, containing the dates and places for the attendance of the Inspectors of Weights and measures. This notice is appended to the report. Sir S. T. SPRY objected to the erection of a police station at Tregony, and said that if either erected at Veryan or Ruan-highlanes, or some other central place, it would be far more convenient. Tregony was only eight miles from St. Austell, whereas it was eleven miles from a part of its own petty sessional division. Col. CORYTON moved the adoption of the report, which was seconded by the Hon. and Rev. J.T. BOSCAWEN. Sir S. T. SPRY moved that that part of the report respecting the erection of the police station at Tregony, be referred back to the police committee for further consideration. The Rev. L. M. PETER seconded the amendment, which was rejected by seven votes to three. The report was then adopted. The police superannuation account showed a balance in favour of the fund of £163. 12s. 1d., which was ordered to be invested in the funds as usual. The Chief Constable presented an account of the contingencies for services performed by the police during the quarter, amounting to £194. 13s. 7d., which was carried to the credit of the county. The CHAIRMAN read the report of the Chief Constable, which stated that he had the honour to lay before the court the quarterly returns of crimes committed so far as known to the county constabulary; also a return showing the strength and distribution of the force. Since the last sessions the new station at Stratton had been occupied by the police, though it was not yet quite complete. He had merely to add that the general conduct of the force continued satisfactory. The report was received and adopted. TREASURY ALLOWANCES. The CHAIRMAN said it would be in the recollection of the court that a letter was directed to be sent to the Lords of the Treasury in reply to one which had been received from Mr. F. Peel on the subject of the allowances made by the Treasury to the pay of the police. The letter had accordingly been sent and the following reply had been received: Treasury Chambers, 16th Feb, 1864. Sir,—I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury to state with reference to your further letter of the 5th ult., that my Lords must retain the opinion they have before expressed that they would not be justified in contributing from the grant of Parliament any portion of the sums stopped from the pay of the police force, in aid of the superannuation fund. The public contribution is limited by the act to the specific heads of pay and clothing, and whatever contingent advantages may be derived from the police force from the institution of a superannuation fund, it does not appear to their lordships that sums stopped from the pay of the force with a view of forming such a fund, constitute any portion of the real pay, in the ordinary sense of the word. Adverting to the explanation given in your letter respecting the stoppages for rents of quarters and for medical attendance, and to the assurance that the former does not exceed the average rate paid by the constables who find their own lodgings, their lordships will be prepared to pay one-fourth of the sums stopped for these purposes, in the year ended 22th (sic) Sept., 1862, and not included in the proportion already issued to the county of Cornwall, on receiving a certified statement of the amount of such stoppages respectively.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, F. PEEL. In conclusion the Chairman observed that it was satisfactory to know that on all points but one the Treasury had acceded to the demands of the court. Mr. Sawle, Mr. Gully Bennet, and Mr. Trevenen were then appointed the magistrates to preside in the second court.

MILITIA STORES. A verbal report was then presented by the Clerk of the Peace on the subject of the inquires (sic) that had been made relative to a piece of ground held by Mr. Michell under a lease for two lives, the possession of which it was desirable to obtain, and it was agreed that it should be rented from Mr. Michell at £8 per year. This concluded the county business, and the court proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. FIRST COURT. (Before J. Jope ROGERS, Esq., M.P.) STEALING THE PROPERTY OF THE REDRUTH AND CHACEWATER RAILWAY. PATRICK POWER, 23, and THOMAS KEELY, 15, seamen, were charged with stealing 20 bags, and a quantity of old rope, the property of the Redruth and Chacewater Railway, on the 20th March. Mr. Stokes appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that a number of copper ore sacks were left on the “hutches” over the railway viaduct at Devoran, on Saturday the 19th March, the place where they were left lying being within 60 or 70 yards of a vessel called the Mary Jane, lying in the river. On Monday the sacks and some old junk were missed, and upon the Mary Jane being searched, Keely produced three bags and some junk from the hold, and Power two bags and some more pieces of junk. They both said that they found the goods lying on the quay, and thought they were of no value; they denied having any more. P.C. Berryman, however, on making a further search, got a spade, and dug amongst the sand ballast in the bottom of the hold, where he came upon two lots of bags numbering altogether 15; they were slightly covered by the sand, and Mr. R.T. Hall, the railway superintendent identified the bags from private marks. The boy Keely said he had only taken half of them, and Power had taken the others; Power, however, denied having taken any of the bags. They were both found guilty, and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment each, with hard labour. STEALING FROM A HEDGE AT LISKEARD. GEORGE BUCKLEY, 24, baker, was indicted for stealing, on the 21st March, three pairs of stockings, and a waistcoat, the property of John Penny of Liskeard. Mr. Childs appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that Mrs. Penny washed the articles and placed them on the hedge in the garden to dry; she then left home for a short time, and on returning they were gone. The prisoner was proved to have sold one pair of the stockings next morning, and the waistcoat was found upon him when apprehended at Callington, on the 23rd. The articles having been identified he was found guilty. He made no defence. It appeared that he had been a soldier, and was discharged from his regiment for pilfering, having previously been several times condemned by courts-martial for petty thefts. He was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. A second indictment for stealing a shirt, the property of John Tiver, of Liskeard, was not gone into. BREACH OF THE PEACE. THOMAS HAWKEN, 29, labourer, who had been in custody since last November, in default of finding sureties to keep the peace; was brought up. He was brought before the court, at the Epiphany sessions, and being then unable to find sureties was remanded till these sessions. No person now appearing against him, he was cautioned by the chairman and discharged. PLEADED GUILTY. DANIEL WILLYAMS, 42, blacksmith, to stealing 23 lbs of sugar, of the value of 10s., the property of Mary Dingle, grocer, of Probus, between the 24th March, and the 1st April. Sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. This concluded the business of the first court. ______SECOND COURT. Before Mr. C.B. GRAVES SAWLE (Chairman), and Mr. GULLY BENNET. STEALING AT CALSTOCK. THOMAS WILLIAMS, 24, wheelwright, and ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, 24, his wife, were separately indicted, the former for stealing three paint brushes, and a quantity of wheelwright’s tools, the property of John Jago, of Calstock, at different periods within the last six months; and the wife with stealing a large quantity of linen. The prisoners were quite a curiosity in the Court, from their diminutive size, the husband being only 4 feet 10 inches, and the wife 4 feet 4 inches in height. Mr. Jenkins appeared for the prosecution in both cases. The prosecutor is a wheelwright at , in the parish of Calstock, and the male prisoner had served his apprenticeship with him, and had been employed by him as a journeyman on different occasions since the termination of his apprenticeship; on these occasions the prosecutor missed tools and other articles. On Police- Sergeant Rosevear searching the prisoner’s house for linen which his wife had been suspected of stealing, the tools &c. were found. The wife was employed by Mrs. Jago, as washerwoman. On the evening of the 4th of November, she spread out the clothes which she had washed, to dry, and on the following morning the entire washing of the family—a large one—had disappeared. The prisoner was not, however, suspected, and was again employed. On the 24th of March, Mrs. Jago was from home, nearly the whole of the day, while the prisoner was washing, and on returning in the evening she met the prisoner who was about to leave the house heavily laden with an assortment of articles to which she had helped herself—including flour, potatoes, candles, bacon, &c. She was searched and was found to be wearing a chemise belonging to Mrs. Jago. This was a part of the linen lost on the 4th Nov., and Sergt. Roseveare accordingly searched the prisoner’s house where he found a quantity of the linen, and on the male prisoner two of Mr. Jago’s shirts. Both prisoners were found guilty. There were two other charges against the husband for stealing tools but no evidence was offered, and the male prisoner was sentenced to three months, and the female to two months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. STEALING WOOD AT FALMOUTH. JACOB HALL, a respectable looking man, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing a quantity of timber, the property of the Falmouth Dock Company, on the 29th Feb. Mr. Collins, of Bodmin, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Jenkins for the prisoner. Mr. Volk, the deputy dock master, stated that on the 29th Feb., while standing on the breakwater of the docks he saw the prisoner take some loose pieces of timber from the landing place and put it in his boat, which was lying alongside the breakwater. Witness took possession of the timber and gave the prisoner into the custody of the company’s police officer. The timber which was produced in court consisted of small pieces of wood, of little value, and the witnesses for the prosecution were only able to identify one piece as the property of the company. For the defence, Mr. Jenkins urged that the prisoner had received permission from the joiners to take some fire wood, and as to the larger piece which had been identified, the prisoner picked it up as it was floating about in the dock. He urged the respectability of the prisoner as proof of the truth of this statement. The prisoner was acquitted. This concluded the business of the sessions, and the court rose about six o’clock.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 1 July 1864

4. Midsummer Sessions The general Midsummer Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county of Cornwall, commenced on Tuesday last, in the County Hall, Bodmin, before Sir Colman Rashleigh, chairman, and the following magistrates:— J.J. Rogers, Esq., M.P. and Chairmen C.B.G. Sawle, Esq. Colonel Peard M.H. Willyams, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. W.D. Horndon, Esq. N. Norway, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. F. M. Willyams, Esq. W. Roberts, Esq. J. Hichens, Esq. C.B. Kingdon, Esq. C. D. Bevan, Esq. Rev. Thomas Pascoe. R.G. Lakes, Esq. Rev. U. Tonkin. S. Rosevear, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson T. S. Bolitho, Esq. Bev. (sic) R.R. Kinsman. J. Haye, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. R. H. S. Vyvyan, Esq. Rev. V.F. Vyvyan. J.F. Trist, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. W. Pole Carew, Esq. The usual formal business having been disposed of, the following were sworn as THE GRAND JURY. Mr. W.H. Higman, Foreman. Mr. W. Barrett, Liskeard. Mr John Cook, ditto. Mr Matthew Doney, ditto. Mr James Hamilton, St. Clements. Mr E.J. Hurdon, . Mr John Hill, ditto. Mr W.L. Henwood, ditto. Mr J. Hawken, Padstow. Mr J.B. Job, Truro. Mr T. Knight, Liskeard. Mr Hart Key, . Mr R. Langford, Liskeard. Mr Albert Martin, St. Columb Minor. Mr J.D. Mc-Dowel, Padstow. Mr George Pearce, Camelford. Mr J. Parkyn, Liskeard. Mr W. Potter, St. Austell. Mr J. Shepheard, St. Mary Magdalen. Mr John Wenmoth, Liskeard. Mr S. Wills, Wadebridge. Mr J. Wills, ditto. Her Majesty's proclamation against vice, profaneness, and immorality, and for the encouragement of piety and virtue having been read, The CHAIRMAN charged the Grand Jury as follows: Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—I am very happy that I can on the present, as on very many other occasions, congratulate the county of Cornwall on the full attendance of grand jurors at these sessions. It is most gratifying to find that this is the case, especially at the present season of the year, when such great temptations occurred in the course of their ordinary avocations, to stay at home. The calendar contains the names of 21 prisoners, that is including two who have been committed since it was printed, whereas in the corresponding sessions of 1863, there were 44 prisoners for trial, showing a diminution of 50 per cent. In 1863, the prisoners in custody charged with felony were 30, and on the present occasion, 12; on bail in 1863, 10; the present sessions, 6. The misdemeanants for trial at the Midsummer sessions were, as I have said, in 1863, 44; and at the present sessions, 21. Now, as this satisfactory state of things follows closely on a calender so light as to call forth very complimentary observations from one of her Majesty's Justices at the last Spring Assizes, we are justified in hoping that we have entered upon a period when crime is permanently on the decrease. I have often felt that it is very difficult to assign a reason for the fluctuations—the increase and decrease of crime at particular periods; but as this decrease has taken place at the same time that a great decrease in the dietary system, and the separate system of confinement, has been adopted, I would fain hope that these changes have had some effect upon the decrease of crime in this county. Such a result, to whatever cause it may be owing, is very gratifying. As you are aware, great alterations have taken place in the dietary and discipline of the prisons of the country— and that an improved system of gaol discipline has been established in this county and throughout the kingdom. The subject of the treatment of criminals is one that has received great attention from all classes of society, and especially from the legislature of the country. The expense which their punishment and maintenance involves, and the baneful influence exerted by them on society and property, are matters which must, at all times, call tor great consideration at our hands. The question is now being treated in two ways, in two bills, by the legislature of the country; and I hope that one of the difficulties which has been experienced in the disposal and treatment of prisoners who were formerly sentenced to what is called transportation, and who are now subject to what is called penal servitude, will be removed. I trust that such a system will be sanctioned as will subject all criminal offenders to such a term of probationary imprisonment as will prove of benefit to them, as well as to the country generally. Offenders who may be convicted a second time will not now have the terms of their imprisonment shortened; and, in addition, what are called ticket-of-leave men will be subject to such a system of surveillance by the police, as will prevent them from returning to their former haunts and courses. There is also another matter to which the attention of Parliament has been directed—namely, the discipline and dietary of the county and borough gaols, the inmates of which are chiefly persons who have been tried and convicted for the first time. It is one of the most difficult things to determine what should be the amount of labour a prisoner should undergo, and what should be the scale of dietary he should receive while undergoing that labour. I shall have to read a communication which has been received from the Secretary of State's office on the subject, but I may now state that the Government appointed persons of experience, to enquire into the subject of the establishment of a uniform scale of dietary for the gaols of the country; and they stated that they found the amount of hard labour in different gaols varied so much, that it was very difficult, indeed, to establish a general system of dietary for all persons who might be sentenced to what was termed hard labour. I do not know exactly what is the scale they have adopted, but I believe that it is a good one. As it would be very difficult to adopt one uniform scale of dietary for all prisoners sentenced to hard labour, they have adopted the system of prescribing a certain dietary for the particular kinds of hard labour. For instance, under the dietary tables previously in use, all prisoners committed to hard labour received the same diet, whether they might be engaged in picking oakum, the crank, or in grinding com on the treadmill. Now it must be obvious that turning the crank or working on the mill involved a very different degree of labour from picking oakum, and that those engaged in the former should receive a different and better dietary than those who might be employed at the lighter work. I trust that all these measures will result in a benefit to the country. I will now briefly call your attention to the calendar. There is only one case that requires any observation from me. The case is not in the calendar. It is a case in which a man named Bettinson was charged with been (sic) employed as a bailee to make some chairs by the prosecutor, who supplied him with the materials required. When they were completed, the prisoner, instead of taking them to the prosecutor, went and sold them. If you think the evidence for the prosecution shows that the prisoner had the goods in his possession as bailee, and afterwards sold the chairs, you will be justified in finding a true bill. I may also mention that in case number 2, in the calendar, in which a person named Oke is charged with stealing from the person, there may be some difficulty, as from what I gather from the depositions the prosecutor is dumb, but I believe an interpreter will attend before you, and will interpret to you what he may say by signs. I find in this calendar, consisting of 21 prisoners, there are no less than six who are charged with the very serious offence of robbery from the person, and I believe that I am right in saying that drink has been the cause of these offences. They were all committed either in public houses or just after the parties had left them, both prisoners and prosecutors, I regret to say, being in some of them the worse for liquor. The offence is one which I am glad to say is not common in this county, and I am sorry to find that in two of the six cases, the prisoners are charged with having committed great personal violence. You will also see that all the persons charged in the calendar either cannot read or write, or have not had a good education; and I believe, whatever we may do to reform our criminal population, after all, if we are to make a real change in them, we must refer back to that which I hold to be essential—true religious education in youth; and that it is our duty as far as we can to afford that education. With respect to the county expenditure, I have to state that a rate of a half-penny in the £ will be required for general purposes. For the corresponding period of last year it was also a half-penny in the £. A police rate of ¾d. in the £ will be required, while at the corresponding sessions last year the rate was ½d. in the £. The grand jury then retired. Mr Richard Foster, jun., of Lostwithiel, and Capt. W.H. Peel, of , Duloe, qualified as magistrates of the county. COUNTY BUSINESS. The Court then proceeded to transact the business of the county. FINANCE COMMITTEE. The Finance Committee presented the following report:—The Committee have examined the treasurer's account and found the same correct; the balance due to the county on the general account was £4,393 5s 9½d. There will be required for general purposes a rate of 16-32nds in the pound. The committee examined the Coroners' bills and recommended the following bills for payment, viz., Mr Carlyon's, Mr Roscorla's, Mr Jagoe's, Mr Good's; Mr Hambly's bill has not been laid before the committee. Owing to the death of the late Mr Hichens, the committee have been required to divide the salary of £49 9s 9d between Mr Hichens, Mr Carlyon and the present coroner, Mr Roscorla, who have each acted as coroner for the western district, during a portion of the late quarter, in the following manner:—Mr Hichens £11 8s 3d; Mr Carlyon, £16 9s 10; Mr Roscorla, £21 11s 8d. They have examined and found correct, the bridge surveyors' bills, and recommended that the balance due from the county to Mr Jenkin, £20 16s 4d; and the balance of £2 10s 6d due to Mr Hicks, be paid. The report was received and adopted. The Chairman called upon Mr Hambly to explain the reason why he had not sent in his bill to the Finance Committee in time for examination. Mr HAMBLY said he was anxious to explain to the committee an item of 15s. which appeared in the bill. It referred to an inquest upon a debtor from Falmouth who had died in the county gaol. There was a good deal of comment about the case at the time, and evidence was given that the cell at Falmouth was in a filthy condition and that the clothing which the man wore was dirty. The jury were unanimous in their wish that the foreman should go to Falmouth to examine the place for himself. He charged 15s. for his expenses, but he (Mr Hambly) could not pay the money without the authority of the Court, and he wished to attend the Finance Committee to explain the matter to them, but he was unable to come as he had hoped to do. Mr N. NORWAY moved that the sum be not allowed, but as it appeared that the inquest had been held in the previous quarter, The CHAIRMAN said the Court could not entertain the question and the money must be disallowed. He further informed Mr Hambly that all Coroners' Bills should be sent in in time for examination by the Finance Committee under any circumstances, and if there was anything which he wished to explain personally to the committee he should do so in writing if he could not attend. The Coroners’ Bills were stated to amount on the whole to £361 0s. 8d. for 110 inquests. The inquests held in the corresponding quarter of 1863 were 94, which cost the county £351 1s. 3d. The increase in the number of inquests occurred chiefly in Mr Jagoe's district, and arose from the prevalence of accidents. THE COUNTY GAOL—GOVERNOR’S REPORT. Captain COLVILLE reported that since the date of his last report nothing of any particular moment had occurred requiring special remark. The conduct of the prisoners generally had been good and orderly.

VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT. The Visiting Justices to the county gaol reported as follows: We have to report the gaol and all belonging thereto to be in good order. We have received an application, from Mrs Dungey, the matron, for an increase of salary. She was appointed matron at Epiphany Sessions in the year 1844, at a salary of £30 per annum, which was subsequently increased to £40. Considering her long and faithful services, together with the many additional duties imposed upon her during the construction of the new gaol and the introduction of the separate system, we have favourably entertained her application, and have now to recommend a final increase of £10 per annum. We have also to report the dismissal of Alfred Martin, extra guard to prisoners, for misconduct, and we have not yet supplied his place. We have to ask for an advance of £240 on account to meet the current expenses of the gaol. The borough of St. Ives has made no further payment of arrears due to the county, and we fear we shall have to resort to legal measures to enforce payment. We have also to state that we have received an intimation from the Exeter Reformatory for girls to the effect that the payment of an entrance fee of £4 is abolished. The Gaol expenses for the past quarter amount to £762 9s 3d, and the HaII expenses to £4 11s. The reports were received and adopted, and the expenses allowed. THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE AND COUNTY COURT COMMITMENTS. Mr Bevan, the Judge of the County Courts of the Western District of Cornwall, brought before the notice of the Court the cases of two girls, named Elizabeth Peters and Grace Toms, both of whom had been committed by him, at the St. Austell County Court, to terms of imprisonment in the County Gaol at Bodmin. Mr Bevan entered into a very lengthy statement, and read correspondence respecting these girls, from which it appeared that he had asked Capt. Colville, governor of the county gaol, to report to him any case respecting a County Court commitment which he considered to require investigation in any way, and in this respect he had to acknowledge the governor's courtesy. In the case of Peters, however, Capt. Colville wrote to him and represented the case in such a manner that he immediately went to Bodmin to make inquiries, and he ultimately discovered the representations made to him by Capt. Colville, on the girl's own authority, to be entirely unfounded. She was a girl of bad character, who had obstinately refused to pay a six-pence towards a small debt of 11s, although she acknowledged that she had the money owing to her at a mine. Mr Bevan also stated sundry circumstances respecting the other girl. The officers of the County Court had been charged with taking one of the girls away from her mother's home, judgment having been pronounced against her without any commitment summonses ever having been served upon her, and with other misconduct. But he also complained that this was only one of a series of charges and insinuations against the County Court officers, either for neglecting or over-stepping their duty, which were all equally unfounded; there was a constant current of complaints and insinuations of the sort by the officers of the county gaol. He was sure he had no wish to commit any person for debt; it was a most disagreeable and obnoxious task to him, and he believed he might say the same of the officers of his court. No person need ever be committed, if they would only attend the court and make any kind of excuse, or give any promise of payment; but it was with those who were wilfully obstinate, and with whom nothing else could be done, that this last resource was unwillingly adopted. He thought that at the present time, when County Court Commitments had become so unpopular, from a notion that it was the hard working and industrious artisan who was sent to prison and thereby prevented from earning money to pay his debts, the County Court officers ought to receive every support and encouragement, both from the magistrates and the officials of the gaol. To show that the popular notion respecting the character of the prisoners sent to gaol from County Courts was fallacious, he might remark that it was admitted that County Court prisoners were generally dirty, mutinous, insolent and insubordinate, and gave the officials of gaols more trouble than any other prisoners. Mr Bevan concluded by moving that the correspondence and circumstances which he had brought before the court, should be referred to the Gaol Committee. The CHAIRMAN said it was a question which had not been before the public at all, and he did not think the Court had anything to do with it. Mr SAWLE said neither the governor nor matron of the gaol had brought any charges against Mr Bevan. Mr Bevan himself had requested the governor to report to him upon any case that he thought required it, and he had merely complied with Mr Bevan's wishes. The Rev J. J. WILKINSON seconded Mr Bevan's motion. A long discussion took place, and the motion was at length agreed to. NEW GAS WORKS. Mr C. B. G. SAWLE, in the absence of Mr N. Kendall, M.P. moved for a sum not exceeding 360l., for the purpose of erecting gasworks at the county gaol. Mr NEVIL NORWAY seconded the motion, and stated that it would be a saving of about one half upon the present expenses—(hear, hear). The motion was agreed to. VISITING JUSTICES. The following gentlemen were appointed visiting justices to the county gaol for the ensuing quarter:—Mr N. Kendall, M.P., Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Mr. C.B.G. Sawle, Rev. Vyell F. Vyvyan, Col. Cocks, Messrs E. Coode, jun., R. Foster, Nevil Norway, E. Collins, W.R.C. Potter, and F.M. Williams. Mr J.J. Rogers, M.P., Mr C.B.G. Sawle, and Mr. R.H.S. Vyvyan were then appointed to preside in the second court. COUNTY BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr Jenkin presented the following report:—Lostwithiel Bridge.—Since the last sessions buttresses have been erected both above and below this bridge, and their erection has been successfully accomplished without injury to the structure. I hope in the course of a week or two to be able to complete the pointing and other slight repairs required to the face of the bridge, and to certify the contract for settlement. Sterva Bridge.—I have to apply for the sum of £3 9s. for cost of repairs of this bridge, in addition to the sum previously granted. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr Hickes laid before the court his usual report, and had much pleasure in stating the bridge roads were in good repair. He had estimated the probable cost for providing materials for the coming winter. He then reported that the following bridges would require stoning during the winter, the cost of which he estimated at sums varying from £3 to £1 10s.:—Tregony bridge road, ditto; Gwithian, ditto; Godolphin, Chyandour, Newlyn, Burious, New Bridge, and Perranwharf. HIGHER CARNON BRIDGE. The CHAIRMAN read the following letter, which the Clerk of the Peace had received from Mr H.C. Vivian, of Truro on this subject. Trecara Cottage, Truro, June 25, 1864. Gentlemen,—Having been ill and from home, I could not reply to your letter until now. If you will kindly permit me I will give you a brief Sketch of the matter to which your communication refers. Some years ago, a heavy flood so increased the water in the lobby at Carnon, that the old culvert was much too small to carry the water, the consequence was that the banks were overflown, the two dwelling-houses and gardens near the bridge were in danger of being swept away, and property was destroyed worth upwards of £1,000. The neighbourhood remained inundated several days, and my late father's copper works were stopped and flooded for three months, because the old culvert could not carry off the water coming down the lobby. He then asked permission of his lord's agents to make a new culvert by the side of the old one, which they granted with the proviso, that he should not break the surface of the road. The culvert when made let down the water. Since then, several floods have occurred, and the two culverts, together, have prevented the water rising and injuring the houses and other property, the second culvert, or adit, so far from endangering the road, has shown no signs of weakness, although many boilers, of from 15 to 20 tons weight, have frequently passed over it. I could get the evidence of 20 persons that this second culvert is a positive public benefit, and means of safety during floods. Were it stopped up, as proposed by the justices, the first flood after would cause a recurrence of the misery and loss which once befel us. As the late S. Vivian's executor, I am quite willing to do everything in my power under the directions of Mr Hickes, to render this place perfectly safe to lives of persons passing over it, if it is not already so. And the justices would be doing a benefit to the locality if they gave authority to widen the said adit and form a stone arch under the road, making the passage large enough for the heaviest flood. I beg gentlemen, that you will be so good as to place my remarks before the justices at the next sessions, that they may see there is no necessity to inflict on me a loss of some hundreds of pound, which to me would be a serious thing indeed. I am, Gentlemen, yours respectfully, H.C. VIVIAN. The letter was referred to the committee of magistrates appointed in reference to the bridge. LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE. The committee upon this bridge did not report, but the chairman stated that the repairs which Mr Jenkins, the surveyor had in hand would be shortly finished, and the committee would be enabled to report at the next sessions. COUNTY ASYLUM. Mr W. H. Pole Carew then brought forward the motion of which he had given notice for a grant of £5,000 for the purpose of providing additional accommodation in the County Lunatic Asylum. He said that there were at this moment 380 patients in the asylum, and the number admitted this year, though they had only completed the first six months of the year, was far greater in proportion than last year. Probably, the number was less last year in consequence of a notice which had been sent round to the various unions in the county requesting them to send only such cases as were really of great urgency; but such a notice as that having to be given afforded another fact showing the necessity for providing additional accommodation. A great number of the cases were chronic or incurable, and therefore they could not look for any great diminution in the number except by the usual course of death. No doubt the trial of Porter at the last assizes had produced more anxiety among persons to send patients to the asylum; and the point now for consideration was, how much more accommodation ought to be provided. The asylum committee had gone carefully through the matter since the last sessions, and the opinion which they then expressed was proved to be quite correct by the further investigations that had been made as well as by the plans of the architects which had been submitted to them. They had obtained plans and estimates from five architects, which varied from £4300 odd, to £4750 for the erection of the building for private patients. The addition to the general mixed asylum would entail the erection of two new wings to the present building; the first estimate of the cost of erecting one wing was £4,452, and of the other £4,300, making nearly £9,000 for the two. The last estimate that had been furnished was £6,500 for the additions to the mixed asylum. Therefore it would be seen that the plan of erecting a separate building for the private patients was by far the most economical; and by its adoption they should gain additional accommodation for 95 pauper patients and 17 more private patients. He referred to one or two of the letters which had appeared in the local newspapers on the subject, and said although he disliked to allude to anonymous communications, still he thought in this instance, it was better that the statements of the writers should be at once met. In one letter it had been stated that the £5,000 which the county had derived as profit from the private patients was imaginary; but it could not be stated too strongly that that sum had actually been derived as profit from this class of patients after the cost of their maintenance had been defrayed. That sum of £5,000 represented the actual profit which had been gained since 1841, by their receiving private patients into the asylum, which had gone to the credit of the county—(hear). The various plans that had been prepared were in Court, and it would be seen from them that the committee desired to erect as plain, simple, and substantial a structure as possible. They had allowed nothing for ornament, but had adopted as simple and economical a plan as they could. He moved that a sum not exceeding £5,000 for the additional accommodation required in the County Lunatic Asylum, be raised on loan by a mortgage of the county rates, to be repaid in twenty yearly instalments. Mr R. G. LAKES said, as one of the Asylum committee, he was sorry that he differed from the recommendations of that body. Mr Carew had told them that the proposed addition was required for the maintenance of the lunatics, but be had not stated whether it was wanted for the pauper lunatics or not. He contended that the county had nothing whatever to do with the private lunatics, although he was aware that in the asylum that system had been recognized, for 7-11ths belong to the county and 4-11ths to subscribers. If they referred back to the practice during a former period, they would find that the public grants made by the county were on account of pauper patients, and nothing was done in respect of private patients. It was said that the county derived a profit from the maintenance of the latter class of patients. That might, or might not be so, but he must say that the theory was one which his mind had not been able to see. A gentleman who understood the matter thoroughly had told him that if they separated the 7-11ths from the 4-11ths, it would be found that the cost of the 4-11ths amounted to £16,000, and at that rate every 1-11th would amount to £4,000, or £44,000 in all. Now, had the 4-11ths contributed their fair proportion towards the £44,000? He should say not. It had been said that the private patients not only yielded a profit, but that a portion of the money so received had been conveyed to the building fund, and also to the maintenance of the pauper patients; but it appeared to him almost impossible that such a large sum as that stated could have been conveyed to these accounts. He submitted that if they erected a new building for private patients, they must appoint a new staff of officers; because from what he had seen as a member of the committee, the present staff were fully employed. A private asylum would also entail a great expense in the fitting of it up; and another result would be that they would have to superannuate a number of the present officers. They had already superannuated one superintendent, and the 4-11ths had not contributed anything towards his superannuation allowance. He considered that if they were allowed to go on in their own way without the interference of the commissioners in lunacy, they might erect the necessary building for the accommodation of the pauper patients for £2,000; and although he did not wish to say anything against the Commissioners, still he must say that they appeared to him like birds of ill omen when they came here, and he thought it was very extraordinary that a committee of magistrates and gentlemen could not manage such an institution without their interference. Mr CAREW thought that he had a right to complain of Mr Lakes for having come there and stated that he had yet to learn so and so, when, as one of the committee, he had a full opportunity of going through the accounts of the asylum and of making himself master of all matters of detail. As far as the £5,000 profit was concerned he believed that that sum had been saved from the private patients, and that the money had gone into the account of the asylum from time to time. Mr Lakes had also stated that they should require a new staff of officers for the asylum; why he had seen, as a member of the committee, that they required a new staff already—that the medical officer was over-worked. He asserted that any additional expense which the proposed accommodation of the private patients would entail would be more than repaid by them, and he said further, that they had not done this class of patients justice, for they had kept them in a manner little better than the pauper patients. Then Mr Lakes had told them that the additions required for the accommodation of the pauper lunatics could be built for £2,000, and he considered that he had a right to complain of that statement. The committee of the asylum had met the other day to consider the plans and estimates, and if he had a plan by which the required accommodation could be provided for £2000, why did be not, as one of the committee, submit it. He would say now that if Mr Lakes could show them that the additional accommodation could be erected for £2,000, they should be greatly obliged to him. Mr LAKES submitted that as Mr Carew had stated that the additional accommodation by one plan would cost £9,000, and by another £4,300, it was fair for him to assume that it might be provided for £2,000—(a laugh). He was not aware that he had said anything on that occasion which he did not say at Liskeard when he was in the glorious minority of one. Mr BOLITHO said if they were assembled to decide on the principle of mixed asylums, he should be inclined to agree with Mr Lakes, but that principle had already been adopted. It must not be forgotten that Mr Lakes himself had admitted that the officers of the asylum were a superior class, and had done their duty well, and he (Mr Bolitho) thought they were enabled by means of private patients to pay for superior officers—(hear, hear). Mr CAREW said mixed asylums were expressly authorised by the Act of Parliament. Mr N. NORWAY said that about two months ago the Lunacy Commissioners were at the asylum, and they strongly recommended the course which the committee proposed to take. There was at present but one staircase for private and pauper patients, and they were obliged to use the same airing ground; and portions of the male wards overlooked the female airing ground, which was very objectionable. A gentleman of the county, who had been unfortunately confined in the asylum, had complained that he was unable to make use of the airing ground, in consequence of the classes with which he was compelled to associate, and the bad language they made use of. Mr E. COODE, jun., agreed with Mr Bolitho that it was now too late to decide upon the principle; but it appeared to him that the visitors had scarcely exhausted their subject sufficiently to come and propose the plan which they had laid before the court. It appeared to him that they had nothing to do with any but pauper patients, and he did not think the committee had made it quite clear that the accommodation for the increased number of pauper patients would cost the sum they asked for. If they had, they would have some ground to proceed upon, provided they could get over the legal difficulties which he considered were in the way—namely, whether they had a right to grant any money except for paupers. But if they had, he wanted to know why the county should pay the whole amount, and the other partners nothing. He did not know how the committee arrived at the £5000 profits from the private patients; he did not know what system of accounts there were to enable them to arrive at that conclusion, but he (Mr Coode) had studied the public accounts of the asylum, and there was nothing in them to show that the profits did not come from the paupers. Therefore he said, with all due deference to the committee, that they hardly had a right to come there and say that the profit came from the private patients without making it clear. The total receipts were put together, and also the total expenses, and certain profits were carried forward, but there was nothing to show where the profits came from. Mr CAREW thought that with regard to the first part of Mr Coode's remarks they had fully exhausted the subject. They had taken estimates of the cost of providing the additional accommodation for the pauper lunatics, as well as for the erection of the additional building for the private patients. He then repeated his statement as to the cost of the proposed erections. With regard to the 4-11ths and 7-11ths, he did not know why gentlemen should have contrasted these proportions in the way that had been done. He could only say that there were 380 lunatics in the asylum, and of this number only 35 were private patients—that was actually only 1-11th of the 4- 11ths to which the subscribers were entitled. He did not mean to say that the proportion of private patients should actually amount to the number which the subscribers were entitled to send, but at the same time it was a fact which ought to be mentioned that only 1-11th of the asylum was occupied by private patients. With regard to the accounts, it was a matter that could hardly be gone into in that court, but he should be much astonished and deceived if it could be shown that they had not been gone into most carefully and accurately. So far from apprehending anything of the kind, however, he believed they had been most carefully and accurately kept, and it was found that 9d. per head per week was about the additional cost of the maintenance of private, over pauper patients. The clothing of the private patients was provided entirely by their friends. Mr N. NORWAY said he thought it was quite clear how the profits arose; it cost 8s. to keep the pauper patients, and as taking the clothing into account, the private patients only cost the same amount per head, the difference between that sum and the weekly sum which they paid must go to the account of profit—(hear, hear).

In answer to Mr Bolitho Mr HICHENS said that in the accounts, the cost of the servants was charged pro rata to all the patients. The whole of the profits, after taking the proportion of 4-11ths for repairs, &c., and 8s. per head for maintenance, arose from the private patients. The total yearly profits from that source was from £500 to £600; it was more than an average of £10 per head on each private patient. The weekly sums paid by the private patients varied, some of them paying as much as two guineas. The accounts as to the pauper and private patients were kept separately. Mr CAREW said he was confident, if proper provisions were made for private patients, a still greater profit would be made. Mr COODE said the explanations of Mr Hichens were, to a certain extent, satisfactory, but if a separate account were kept in the asylum, he did not see why the public should not be furnished with it. Mr N. NORWAY then briefly seconded the motion. Mr LAKES moved as an amendment, "That it is not expepedient (sic) for the county to build an asylum for private patients, but that the committee be requested to take into consideration such a building as may answer for the accommodation of the pauper lunatics of the county." He supposed he should be in a glorious minority on the subject—(laughter). Mr BOLITHO and Mr SAWLE protested against the wording of the amendment, which would be liable to mislead the public as to the idea that they were going to build a private lunatic system, whereas it was nothing of the sort, but was merely a matter of arrangement—(hear, hear). Mr CAREW said it was merely a matter of re-arrangement and interchange of accommodation, the portion now occupied by private patients being handed over to the paupers; and this he believed to be the most economical arrangement that could be effected. The amendment, not meeting with a seconder, fell through, and the original motion was agreed to nem. con. Mr CAREW said that the committee found that there would be great difficulty in obtaining the consent of the landowners to the bringing of a supply of water to the asylum through their land from Penbugle without the powers of an Act of Parliament, and he thought it was of the utmost importance that the usual preliminary notices should be given in the present year, in order that they might be in a position to make an application to Parliament next session for such power. He applied that the notice that he would, at the present sessions, apply for a further sum not exceeding £600, for insuring a sufficient water supply to the asylum, be respited to the next sessions. THE COUNTY CONSTABULARY. The police committee presented the following report, which was read by Mr E. Coode, jun., the chairman:— Hayle Station.—Notwithstanding the great want of a station, there appeared to be so many difficulties in the way of obtaining a satisfactory holding in the site last proposed, that the committee, under the advice of Mr Shilson, decline further negociation. Callington.—Mr Shilson advises that an order of the court may now be made, authorising the execution of the conveyance of this site, subject to his final approval of the title, about which he apprehends there will be no difficulty. Tregony.—An order may now be made for executing the conveyance of this site. Head Quarter's Station.—Tenders for the stables, cart-house, yard, &c., were examined, and that of Messrs Truscott, Ham, and Dawe, for £394, is recommended for acceptance, on their giving proper security. Mr Goodyear was also instructed to prepare plans for the remaining portion of the station, the site now being in the possession of the county. Camborne.—The condition of this station, notwithstanding all the trouble already taken with it, is reported as most unsatisfactory. The walls are very damp, and the stench in the prisoner's cells and guard room often such as to be dangerous to health. Whether the cause be a defect in the original plan or imperfect execution by the contractor—it is at present impossible to say, but the committee recommend that Mr Goodyear be instructed to make a thorough examination of the ventilating flues and other arrangements, which he apprehends may possibly be choked. If, after this, the evil continues, it is Mr Goodyear's opinion that the only course to pursue will be to erect a new ventilating shaft and flues communicating with it; and the committee recommended that he should be authorised to lay out, if necessary, and subject to the approval of the chief constable, a sum not exceeding £100 in effecting this object, and improving the general condition of the station. Superannuation fund.—The committee have to report the loss of a valuable officer, in Supt. Brice, of the Launceston district, who is compelled by permanent disease to resign. He has served the county for seven years up to March last, and though this is not long enough to enable the court to grant him an annuity, the committee recommended that he be paid an annuity out of the superannuation fund, of £60, which is a little above the rate, which, as they are informed, is usual in other counties in similar cases. He has a wife and children dependent on him. Weights and Measures.—It becomes necessary to appoint a new inspector for weights and measures for the Launceston district, and the committee recommend Inspector Grant for the office. The following sums are due to the police rate, and should be transferred from the county rate:— Conveyance of prisoners, £136 10s 1d; expenses for weights and measures, £32 18s 7d; together with such a sum as may appear from the coroners' accounts to be due for inquests. The sum of £154 10s. 4d has accrued to the superannuation fund, and should be invested as before. A police-rate of ¾d in the £ will be required this quarter. Edward Coode, Jun., Chairman. Mr BOLITHO recommended Col. Gilbert to endeavour to effect an arrangement with the Cornwall and West Cornwall Railways, by which the police could travel at any time on either line, when on duty, by the payment of a fixed annual sum. He thought that would be an advantage to the service. The report was then received and adopted. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT. Colonel GILBERT, chief constable for the county, reported as follows:— "My Lords and Gentlemen,—In accordance with the 2nd and 3rd Victoria, chap. 93, I have the honour to lay before you the return of crime committed in this county during the last quarter, as far as is known to the county constabulary; also a return showing the number and the distribution of the force. I have to inform the Court that l am about to lose the service of Superintendent Brice, who, I am sorry to say, is obliged from ill-health to retire from the force. He has been superintendent since March, 1857. I always considered him a very good and intelligent officer, and I would beg to recommend him to this court for a gratuity from the superannuation fund, in conformity with the 19 and 20 vic., chap. 69, sec. 10. In consequence of Mr Brice's retirement, a vacancy occurs in the inspectors of weights and measures, and I have to recommend Mr Grant, now an inspector in the constabulary, for this appointment, in compliance with the 5th and 6th William IV, cap. 63, sec. 17. The force is complete in numbers, and I have merely to add that the conduct of the men continues very satisfactory." PETTY SESSIONAL ROOM FOR CALLINGTON. The Clerk of the Peace laid before the Court, an application signed by a majority of the justices for the middle division of East, to direct that a fit and proper place be provided at Callington, for the holding of petty sessions. There was, however, no magistrate of the division present to support the application and it was therefore refused. DIETARY SCALE FOR COUNTY AND BOROUGH PRISONS. The Chairman read the following communication from the Home Office:— Whitehall, 18th May, 1864. Sir,—l am directed by Secretary Sir George Grey, to acquaint you for the information of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Cornwall, that, in conformity with the recommendation of a select committee of the House of Lords in the last session of Parliament, on prison discipline, that a commission should be issued to enquire into questions connected with prison dietaries, he instructed Dr. Guy, medical superintendent of Millbank Prison, Dr. Maitland, in medical charge of the military prison at Gosport, and Dr. Clark, R.N., surgeon of Dartmoor Convict Prison, to make enquiry into the dietary of prisoners in county and borough gaols, and to report their opinion whether any and what changes could be safely and usefully made in the dietary tables now in use. After a full and careful enquiry, these gentlemen have made a report, accompanied by a dietary table, recommended by them for adoption in county and borough gaols, subject to certain conditions stated in their report. A copy of the summary of their report and their final recommendations, together with the dietary table itself, are herewith enclosed, and I am to request that you will submit the same to the next court of quarter sessions for consideration, that subject to the conditions referred to, this dietary should be adopted in the prison for the County of Cornwall. To the Clerk of the Peace for the County of Cornwall. (Signed) THOS. BARING. The committee, in their report, which was of great length, said:—We are charged with the duty of recommending appropriate dietaries for the several classes of persons confined in our county and borough prisons throughout England and Wales. We are called upon, in the first place, to provide for prisoners after conviction; and in doing so, to distinguish men from women, boys from adult males, short from long sentences, and sentences without, from sentences with, hard labour. In the next place, we are to indicate the proper diet for prisoners before trial, for more than one class of debtors and bankrupts, for deserters en route, for prisoners sentenced by the courts to solitary confinement, and for a certain class of misdemeanours. We have also to select the appropriate diets for prisoners under punishment for prison offences of short and long terms. After careful consideration, we recommend that the classes shall be five in number, and that the periods to which they extend shall be seven days and under, more than seven days, and less than a month, more than a month, and less than three months, more than three months, and less than six months, and more than six months respectively. We do not think it necessary to follow the example of one or two of our prisons, by establishing a sixth class for prisoners sentenced to more than twelve months, as we are of opinion that at the end of six months, when the prisoner may be presumed to have become thoroughly accustomed to his prison life, his diet should be raised to its maximum. On diet, as affected by the element of labour, we may observe that prisoners sentenced to hard labour are subject in different prisons to treatment so diverse that it is impossible to arrange a single series of diets which shall bear a due proportion to the sentences. In one person hard labour means any industrial occupation; in another the crank, treadmill, or handmill; in a third, the picking of coir; and we find that in several prisons no distinction whatever is made between sentences with and sentences without hard labour. A single set of diet suffices for all prisoners without exception. We have therefore adopted, as we believe, the only practical course, by devising a series of diets which we deem sufficient for all prisoners not actually put to bard labour, pointing out at the same time the additions which we think ought to be made in the case of prisoners actually set to hard work, whether it be such as the turning of a crank heavily weighted, the grinding of corn by the windmill, the weaving of coir matting, or the more laborious employments of the field or garden. We leave it to the authorities of the several prisons to affix their own meaning to the term hard labour, and content ourselves with offering the suggestion, that no labour which does not visibly quicken the breath and open the pores should be deemed hard labour. As to the work of the crank or treadmill, we have only to remark that, as the object of these employments is not so much to call forth strong muscular efforts as to occasion weariness by the ceaseless repetition of the same movements, and, in some cases perhaps, disgust, at exertions having no aim but punishment, we think it more reasonable, as well as more economical, to apportion the punishment to the diet, than to raise the diet to the level of the punishment. If, therefore, the labour of the crank or treadmill, whether through the amount of exertion or its duration, should in any case prove excessive, so that they are evidently suffering in health, we recommend that the labour be gradually reduced in duration and severity till the prisoner, with the usual diet, is able to bear it. We are also of opinion, that in the case of prisoners under sentence for the longer terms, the duration and severity of the labour should bear some proportion to the amount of food contained in the diets. Diets of Female Prisoners and Boys under 14 years of age. We propose to deal with female prisoners according to the simple principles laid down by the Committees on the dietaries of convicts in separate confinement and at public works. We begin by deducting one-sixth as the excess of weight of men over women of the same age, and taking also into consideration the less active habits and employments of women recommend a deduction of one-fourth from all articles of food served in a solid form, leaving the liquid elements of the dietaries of the same strength and quantity. If, for example the diet of a male prisoner consist of 140 ounces of bread 112 ounces of potatoes, and 16 ounces of meat, with 3 pints of soup, and 14 pints of gruel, that of a female prisoner sentenced to the same term, would comprise 105 ounces of bread, 84 ounces of potatoes, and 12 ounces of meat, with 3 pints of soup and 14 pints of gruel, of the same strength and composition. We recommend also that boys of 14 years of age and under shall receive the same diet as the women. The report then went on to describe the dietary which the committee recommended for the different classes of prisoners and concluded by appending a tabular form, setting forth the same. It was resolved to refer the communication and the dietary scale annexed to the gaol committee. This concluded the County business. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. FIRST COURT—TUESDAY. Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart. JOHN BOLITHO and THOMAS JOHNS who had been out on bail, were charged with stealing a quantity of rope, at Truro on the 11th of May, the property of the West Company. Mr Cornish, who appeared for the company, said that the prisoners, when before the committing magistrates, stated that they considered they were justified in taking the rope, and subsequent inquiries showed that they had acted on what they thought was a reasonable ground, and without any felonious intention. They had it appeared, been employed to unload some timber for Mr Coulson, merchant, of Penzance, who had promised them a gratuity for so doing. He forgot to give it, however, and left the rope in the custody of the company. The prisoners took possession of the rope, under the belief that it had been left for them, as the promised gratuity; the company caused them to be apprehended. Under these circumstances, no evidence would be offered for the prosecution. The CHAIRMAN observed that be thought the West Cornwall Company might have easily tested the accuracy of the prisoners' statement when the case was before the committing magistrates, and as they appeared not to have taken the least trouble to do so, he thought the case was one in which, under the circumstances, he thought not to allow the expenses. STEALING DRAPERY. MARY ANDREW, who had been out on bail, was indicted for stealing a parcel of drapery, of the value of £14, the property of Henry Chisley, of Truro. Mr Stokes prosecuted, and Mr Childs defended the prisoner. The prosecutor who is a travelling draper, resides at Truro. The jury returned a verdict of "not guilty." SECOND COURT. Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq. (in the chair), C. B. G. SAWLE, and R. H. S. VYVYAN, Esqrs. MARY ROBERTS alias HOCKIN was charged with stealing a piece of soap, some wood, flour, and other articles, the property of Marrack Nicholas, of the Queen's Head Inn, Liskeard; a second count charged the prisoner with receiving the property knowing it to be stolen. Mr Shilson appeared for the prosecution and the prisoner was undefended. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor's servant, a girl named Jane Pyke, about 13 years of age, that the prisoner at various times induced her (Pyke) to give her soap, flour, &c. When P. C. Spry apprehended the prisoner she denied having stolen anything, but said "as to receiving I won't say anything about that." The jury found the prisoner guilty of receiving, and there being a previous conviction against her she was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. The chairman severely reprimanded the girl Pyke for giving away her master's property, and told her she had had a very narrow escape of being placed in the position of the prisoner. A LISKEARD "GREENHORN." WILLIAM LOCK, aged 44, a tailor, was charged with obtaining by means of false pretences, 15s. from William Oliver, a farm servant, at the Queen's Head Inn, Liskeard, on the 12th May. Mr Childs appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr Stokes for the prisoner. It appeared that Oliver got into the public house amongst some "knowing cards," who, upon discovering that there was a "young man from the country" amongst them, began to talk about a watch which the prisoner had in his possession. The prisoner said he was hard up and would pawn the watch. The other men advised him not to pawn the watch but sell it; and enquired if he would take 25s for it. He said he would do so, but nobody seemed inclined to give that sum, and one of the party asked the prosecutor what he would give. They spoke of the beauty of the watch, and the sacrifice which the prisoner was making in selling it so cheaply, and at last the prosecutor agreed to give 15s for it. He then pulled out a sovereign which, with the most admirable good faith in his fellow men, he gave not to the prisoner from whom he got the watch, but to another of the party, who immediately skedaddled, and forgot to give change for the sovereign. However, the prosecutor met the man to whom he had given his sovereign at a later period in the evening, and succeeded in getting his 5s out of the sovereign. It was then discovered that the watch was not silver, and the prisoner was given into custody.—Mr Stokes submitted that the case had entirely broken down. The prosecutor appeared to be a great simpleton, and did not seem to possess any of the qualities of the Cornish diamond. However, that was not the prisoner's fault. It appeared that the prisoner actually never received the money at all, and therefore the charge of obtaining money under false pretences could not be sustained. The prisoner was acquitted. The Court adjourned shortly after six o'clock. FIRST COURT—WEDNESDAY. Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart. THE ALLEGED HIGHWAY ROBBERY NEAR TRURO. WM. DAVEY, 22, labourer, was charged with attacking William Varcoe, in the road near the Truro Union Workhouse, and robbing him of the sum of £1 5s on Wednesday the 18th May. Mr Stokes appeared for the prosecution and Mr Shilson for the prisoner. We have before reported the circumstances of the case which are briefly these: The prosecutor, William Varcoe, is a farm servant living at , and appears not to be of very bright intellect—has what is vulgarly called "a slate off." He visited Truro Whitsun fair on Wednesday the 18th June in company with his brother Joseph, Clara Tippet, a fellow servant, and her mother and brother. After spending the day in the fair and buying some clothing, the prosecutor and his party proceeded homewards and on their way called at the Union inn, where the prosecutor had sixpennyworth of gin and water, which he declared was the only drink he had had during the day. The prosecutor gave his purse to Clara Tippet, who took 6d from it and returned it. He had counted the money before entering the inn and found that there was £1 5s 6d. The prisoner was in the inn at this time and saw the money taken from the prosecutor's purse. They remained at the Union inn about half an hour and left about half past 11 o'clock. On arriving at that part of the road between the Union gate and the Union Workhouse the prosecutor stopped behind his party to tie up his bundle and while he was doing this the prisoner came up and said "Is that you Billo; come along with me; I'll take care of you." They then walked on together to Woodcock Corner, about half a mile distant, when the prisoner suddenly knocked the prosecutor down, rendering him insensible: when he came to himself again, his money was gone and his pocket was turned inside out, and he saw the prisoner leaning against the hedge a short distance off. He accused him of having robbed him, when the prisoner threatened to murder him and threw him down, took hold of him by the hair, and knocked his head against the ground. Prosecutor got up again when the prisoner again began to pull him about. At this time Nicholas Barret a smith, who lives at Merther, came up and saw the prisoner pulling the prosecutor about. The prosecutor in Barret's presence again charged prisoner with the robbery and the prisoner again threatened to murder him, and offered to allow Barrett to search him. The evidence of the prosecutor as to the money and drink was corroborated by Clara Tippet, who also stated that as she was walking towards home with Joseph Varcoe, some distance in advance of the prosecutor, she heard him calling out "you have robbed me of every farthing." Upon which she and Joseph Varcoe returned and met the prosecutor and the prisoner together, when the prosecutor again repeated the charge. They all walked together afterwards as far as where they separated, and the prosecutor positively swore that he then walked straight home and went to bed between one and two o'clock, and did not get up again till six o'clock in the morning, and that he was quite sober all the previous evening. He further said that if it was not true that be went to bed between one and two o'clock and remained there till six, nothing which he had said was true—For the defence Mr Shilson called John Lilley, who stated that he was a mason, and lived at Probus. He was in the Union Inn on the night in question, and saw the prosecutor, his brother, the girl Tippet, and her brother. They were drinking gin, and they left the house about half-past eleven, and he remained there about a quarter of an hour later, when he left the house with the prisoner. He then left the prisoner and went towards home. At the Union gate he overtook the prosecutor and his brother, and also Clara Tippet and her brother. He heard the prosecutor shouting a quarter of a mile before he overtook them, and when he came up the prosecutor had his hands stretched out and was "rambling" from one side of the road to the other. He went against the hedge. Witness thought he was in liquor; was quite certain of it. Could hear him shouting as far as Woodcock corner. Wm. White, a labourer, employed at , and who lives at Probus, left his home the morning after the night in question, about four o'clock. He passed the house of prosecutor's father about five o'clock. On passing the house he saw the prosecutor lying in the ditch on his back, with his legs out in the road. Witness roused him up and asked what he was doing there. He replied, "I don't know." Witness also asked him how long he had been there, and why he did not go in, but he knew nothing, and did not say anything about having been robbed. Mr Stokes having replied, the Chairman summed up very minutely, contrasting the evidence of the various witnesses, and stated that it was merely a matter of credibility as the witnesses completely contradicted each other. The jury found the prisoner guilty of an assault, but on being informed that that charge was not before them, they found the prisoner “not guilty.” There was a second indictment against the prisoner for a common assault, which Mr Stokes did not wish to proceed with. The court, however, were of opinion that the prosecution ought to proceed, but that in fairness to the prisoner a fresh jury should be sworn. The jury were accordingly sworn, and the evidence affecting the assault again called. It appeared that the assault was committed in consequence of the prosecutor charging the prisoner with robbing him. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to one months’ imprisonment with hard labour. “AN OLD FOOL IS THE WORST OF FOOLS.” ELIZABETH FITZWATER, 35, was charged with stealing a purse containing thirteen sovereigns, from the person of Thomas Williams, at St. Germans, on the 30th May. Mr. Childs appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Marrack for the prisoner. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor, who is an old man with “one leg in the grave,” that he attended St. German’s fair, on the 30th May, and after supper in the evening went for a walk, when he met with the prisoner, who is a lady of easy virtue. He remained in her company some time, when she suddenly exclaimed “the police are coming,” and ran away. Before she went he felt her hand in his pocket, and afterwards missed his purse, which contained thirteen sovereigns and thirteen or fourteen shillings. The prisoner was shortly afterwards apprehended, but neither purse nor the money was found upon her. Mr. Marrack made a very effective speech for the defence, and the jury found the prisoner “not guilty,” on the principle of “Serve him right.” SHEEP STEALING AT CALSTOCK. RICHARD CHUBB, 38, labourer, was indicted for stealing a sheep, the property of Mrs. Mary Bowhay, at the parish of Calstock. Mr. Marrack appeared for the prosecution; Mr Stokes and Mr. Bridgman, jun., of Tavistock, defended the prisoner. The prosecutrix was a widow, keeping a farm at Sherril, in the parish of Calstock, and the prisoner was a labourer in the same parish. The prosecutrix was assisted in the management of the farm by her two sons. On the 22nd May her eldest son placed 57 sheep, 26 ewe hogs, and 31 weather (sic) hogs in a field. On the following morning one of the ewes was missing. Information was given to the police, and on searching an outhouse a fresh sheepskin was found under some straw in an outhouse. A thorough search of this house was made, but nothing was found but the skin. There was a cellar, however, under the prisoner's house, which communicated by means of a hole in the well with the outhouse, and the door of this cellar was locked. Police-inspector Marshall waited in the prisoner's house for nearly three hours, when the prisoner emerged from the cellar, and on being questioned he said he had gone down there to sleep. A fresh search was then made, and three parcels of fresh mutton were found in the outhouse, which were not there on the previous search. Mr Stokes said that the question which they had to deal with was not whether the carcase was found on the prisoner’s premises, but whether he was the person who went to the field and stole the sheep.—The Chairman then summed up and drew the attention of the jury to the grave nature of the offence.—After some deliberation, a verdict of guilty was returned; and there being a previous conviction, the prisoner was sentenced to three years' penal servitude. SECOND COURT. Before J. JOPE ROGERS, Esq., M.P. CHARGE OF STEALING FROM THE PERSON AT REDRUTH. ELIZABETH BUZZA, 26 (imp.), was indicted for stealing a sovereign, half-sovereign, and ten shillings in silver, the property of William Brown, a miner, at Redruth, on the 3rd of June.—Mr Cornish prosecuted.—The offence was said to have been committed in a beershop. The prisoner in defence said the prosecutor came in drunk and had some beer with her. The only money she received from him was 10s., which he gave her to pay for the beer, and half of which he made her a present of.— The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. STEALING RAZORS AT REDRUTH. JOHN TRESTRAIL, 14 (imp.), a carpenter, was indicted for stealing three razors and strops, the property of Stephen Bartlett, at Redruth, on June 3rd. Mr Cornish prosecuted, and Mr Stokes defended. He was found guilty, and sentenced to one month imprisonment, and to be once whipped. STEALING A WATCH AND MONEY AT ST. IVES. WILLIAM MAJOR was indicted for stealing a watch, a purse containing 18s., a tobacco-box, and other articles, from the person of John Huthnance, on the 27th May. Mr Cornish defended and Mr Jenkins prosecuted. The prosecutor, a working engineer at St Ives Consols, and prisoner, were at the Red Lion Inn, at St. Ives, and after being in company with each other some time, prosecutor missed his money and the articles, some of which were found afterwards upon the prisoners.—Mr Cornish, for the defence, argued that that the prosecutor was intoxicated, and the articles were given to the prisoner by the prosecutor "to take care of." The jury returned a verdict of "not guilty." STEALING MONEY AT ST. GERMANS. JOHN COLLACOTT a cattle driver, was indicted for stealing a silver Spanish dollar, belonging to Solomon Hissett at S. Germans on the 30th of May.—Mr D. Shilson prosecuted, and Mr Jenkins defended. The prisoner was found guilty and there being two previous convictions against him he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. A PICTURESQUE PROSECUTOR. THOMAS OKE was indicted for violently stealing from the person of James Wilson a metal watch chain, six watch keys, two seals, a watch case, &c, at , on April 21st.—Mr Shilson prosecuted, and Mr. Marrack defended.—The prosecutor is an elderly man, and gains his livelihood by selling various articles from place to place. He is dumb, having had the greater portion of his tongue cut out. He appeared in Court dressed in a military jacket, epaulettes, wearing spurs, and having various decorations of buckles, medals coins, portion of a hymn book and other articles upon his breast. He also wore a musketeer’s cap mounted with a feather. Each of his fingers and thumbs had a ring on and in some instances three. He styled himself the Rev J. Wilson, and said he belonged to the church of Stratton Union. On being asked what his trade was he, replied “I sell rags.” The prisoner overtook the prosecutor on the road, seized him, threw him into the hedge, and said he was a policeman, and was going to search him, when he took several articles from him by force, and retained some of them. The defence was that the prisoner was drunk and was "skylarking." The jury returned a verdict of "not guilty." The second charge, that of assault, was then gone into. The prisoner pleaded guilty. Sentenced to one month imprisonment with hard labour. PLEADED GUILTY. Grace Langdon 19, dressmaker, was indicted for stealing five half-sovereigns, the property of Thomas Gilbert, at the parish of Kea, on the 15th June, 1864. The was also indicted , for stealing one dress shirt and one shawl, of the value of £1 10s., the property of Thomas Gilbert; and Emily Northey, 21, servant, was indicted for receiving from Grace Langdon a portion of the money, knowing it to have been stolen.—Both prisoners were sentenced to four calendar months' imprisonment with hard labour. The circumstances of this case were fully reported in our last. Robert Stephens, 28, shoemaker was indicted for stealing two leather insteps, the property of John Woolcock, at Lostwithiel. The prisoner had been several times previously convicted and he was now sent to the House of Correction for eight calendar months, with hard labour. Samuel Rice 15, seaman, to stealing 20lbs of rope, the property of Edward Michell, of Truro, 10lbs. of rope, the property of George Stoughton Arnall, of Truro on the 28th March. Sentenced to one months' hard labour. Mary Blight to fraudulently converting to her own use certain goods, the property of Mary Ann Friggins, of Redruth of which she was the bailee. Sentenced to four months' imprisonment. BILL IGNORED. Richard Bettinson, charged with larceny at Liskeard. This terminated the business.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 5 August 1864

5. Summer Assizes The assizes for the county of Cornwall were opened on Friday last, in the County Hall, Bodmin. Mr. Justice Byles arrived at the Bodmin Road station, from Exeter, by the train which left Plymouth at 2.30 p.m., and was met by the High Sheriff, Mr. D.P. Le Grice, and his chaplain, the Rev. U. Tonkin, Mr. Thomas Cornish, the Under-Sheriff, and Mr. R.A.G. Davies, the county clerk. His lordship having entered the carriage of the High Sheriff, accompanied by that gentleman and his chaplain, was driven to Bodmin. Outside the town the carriage was met by the trumpeters, attendants, and a body of the county police, who escorted it into the town. His lordship was at once driven to the County Hall, which he reached shortly before five o’clock, and Her Majesty’s Commission of Assize were opened in the usual manner. His lordship was then driven to the Mayoralty House, and after remaining there for a short time, he was driven to Bodmin church to attend Divine Service. The Rev. J. Wallis, the vicar of Bodmin, read the prayers; the Rev. J.W. Hawksley, the curate, the lessons; and the sermon was preached by the Rev. U. Tonkin, the High Sheriff’s chaplain, selecting as his text, the 7th chapter of Deuteronomy, 9th and 10th verses. The service was attended by the Mayor and Corporation of Bodmin, and a number of the inhabitants. Mr. Justice Williams still, unfortunately, continued too ill to attend the assizes, and remained at Exeter. Under these circumstances, Mr. M.T. Chambers, Q.C., was sent down from London, to preside in the Nisi Prius Court in his place. The criminal business, so far as regards the number of prisoners, was about the usual character at these assizes, the calendar containing a list of 20 prisoners, which with one committed after it had been printed, made a total of 21 for trial. The majority of the cases were of a light character, the common descriptions of larceny; but there were seven or eight prisoners who were charged with more serious offences; one woman being charged with the murder of her child, at ; another with perjury at St. Columb; two females with concealing the birth of their children; a man and a boy with beastly offences; and two young men with indecent assaults. The civil business was heavier than at any Cornish assize for some years, eight causes being entered for trial, three of which were special juries, and one or two of them of a rather heavy nature. CROWN COURT. SATURDAY, JULY 30. Mr. Justice Byles took his seat on the bench in this court at ten o’clock this morning. The court having been opened in the usual manner, the names of the magistrates of the county were called over. The following answered in addition to those sworn on the grand jury:—Mr. W.C. Bradden, Mr. R. Foster, jun., Mr. C.M. Grylls, and the Rev. S. Symonds. The Mayors of Bodmin and Lostwithiel, were the only representatives of the Corporations of the county who were present, and none of the coroners for the county answered their names. The following were sworn as THE GRAND JURY Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Foreman. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. J.J. Rogers, Esq., M.P. F. Rodd, Esq. F. Glanville, Esq. R. Roster, Esq. C.G.P. Brune, Esq. E.W. Brydges Willyams, Esq. C.L. Cocks, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. D.W.H.J. Horndon, Esq. F.M. Williams, Esq. F.J. Hext, Esq. H.R.S. Trelawny, Esq. J. Batten, Esq. M.H. Williams, Esq. N. Norway, Esq. W.R.C. Potter, Esq. J.W. Peard, Esq. James Trevenen, Esq. F.G. Enys, Esq. J. Hichens, Esq. F.R. Rodd, Esq. THE FLUSHING LUNACY CASE. After the Grand Jury had been sworn, SAMUEL PORTER who had been convicted at the last assizes, before Baron Martin, of ill treating and wilfully neglecting Robert Porter, his brother a lunatic, at Flushing, was then called up. It will be recollected that, after his conviction, sentence was deferred until an objection taken by his counsel, Mr. Cole, had been decided by the Court of Criminal Appeal. That objection having been unanimously decided by all the judges of the court to be bad, Porter was now called up to receive sentence. Mr. COLE—I wish to ask your lordship, before you pass sentence, whether you appear here as judge in the case, or only in a ministerial capacity? Mr. Justice BYLES—Only in a ministerial capacity. Mr. COLE—Because I was instructed to offer a few words to your lordship on behalf of the prisoner, but I informed the attorney who applied to me, that I thought your lordship would only act in a ministerial capacity in the case. Mr. Justice BYLES—Just so. I am only the mouth-piece of Mr. Baron Martin. Mr. COLE—Then, in that case, I have not a word to say. Mr. Justice BYLES then delivered the sentence of Baron Martin as follows:—Prisoner at the bar, you were convicted at the last spring assizes at this place, before my brother Martin, under the statute of 17 Vic. c.96, sec. 9, of the wilful neglect of your brother, a lunatic. I am but the mouthpiece of my learned brother, and read the sentence of the judge, who is inaccessible to popular clamour, and never fails to administer justice with mercy, duly weighing every circumstance in favor (sic) of the prisoner. At the conclusion of the case for the Crown, it was objected by the learned counsel, who conducted the defence, that the case was not within the statute, inasmuch as the care and charge of a lunatic brother was, by virtue of the domestic relations which was implied, excepted out of the statute, and a case of the Queen v. Rundle, 24 “Law Journal,” magistrates’ case, p. 129, was cited. It was the case of husband and wife, and there was certainly a statement by a learned judge there which gave colour to the contention of the learned counsel. I thought at the time that the objection was not well founded; but in deference to the opinion of the learned judge, judgment was suspended in order that opinion of the Court of Criminal appeal might be taken. This having been done, the court, of which the learned judge before referred to was a member, were unanimously of opinion that the objection could not be sustained, and that your case was within the statute. The conviction is therefore right, and judgment is now to be given; and I am to pronounce the sentence which has been placed in my hands. The circumstances of the case were such as one could scarcely believe could have been kept 11 years in a village containing a considerable number of inhabitants in such a state and neglect as one would scarcely keep a common domestic animal; that for years he should never have been seen, and his existence be almost unknown; and that the gentleman by whose exertions the matter was brought to light should have had considerable difficulty in ascertaining his existence and the nature of his custody. One feels almost incredulous; but these facts are nevertheless true. I entertain no doubt that the Commissioners of Lunacy, who saw him last December, stated truly the condition in which they found him, and the feeling of horror and disgust created by it. The jury have commended you to the merciful consideration of the court. This is a recommendation to which I always pay the greatest attention. The criminal law of this country is administered through juries, and in my opinion it is of the utmost importance, in a public point of view, that it should be administered throughout, as far as is possible, in harmony with their wishes and views. I can understand the ground of their recommendation. It was proved that the supply of food to the lunatic was abundant; his appetite was probably more like that of an inferior animal than a rational human being. Everything used by the family was freely and liberally supplied to him, he had a full share of all. Also there was no suggestion or reason to believe that any violence or cruelty had been used towards him, and the jury probably thought that the daily and accustomed habit of being in the room where the lunatic was had blunted your sense of the sight and offensiveness which the condition of the lunatic created upon the Commissioners when they saw him for the first time. I have given much consideration to the sentence to be passed upon you. Upon the one hand, it must be such as to convey to all that if anyone, instead of taking the steps of causing a lunatic to be removed to the county lunatic asylum, thinks proper voluntarily to take upon himself the charge of the lunatic, he would be guilty of an indictable offence if he abused, illtreated, wilfully neglected him. Upon the other hand, I must take into consideration the recommendation to mercy by the jury, and my own belief that a long continuance of the condition of this unfortunate being had, to a considerable extent, blunted your own sense of its real nature and character, which made so strong an impression upon those who saw him for the first time. I think that justice will be satisfied by the punishment of nine months’ imprisonment. To avoid all probable misapprehension, I desire to state that the law does not authorise hard labour to be imposed for this offence. The sentence of the court, therefore, is that you be imprisoned for nine months. Porter then asked permission to say a few words, saying that he had to remain silent up to this time, and leave being granted, he proceeded to address the Court in a very excited and incoherent manner. He said: I have been hunted and hooted, and persecuted in the place where I live, in a most shameful manner; yet I have put down hundreds of pounds for him and for charitable objects; and does that show that I could be cruel to my brother? I have saved the lives of no less than three persons—jumped into the water and rescued them from death; I have built houses for my sisters; and is that the conduct of a man who was likely to be cruel to his brother? The JUDGE—I should be very glad to hear you, as I never like to prevent a prisoner from offering an explanation to the Court; but I must tell you that it is no use your making this appeal to me. If you have any observations to make, or explanation to offer, you must now address them to a higher court. Let the prisoner be removed. Her Majesty’s proclamation against vice, profaneness, and immorality was then read, and his Lordship delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—I suppose your calendar is at this season of the year, about an average one; and it presents only one case which calls from me for any observations to you. Allow me to say, in the first place, that I preside here in consequence of the lamented illness of my learned and excellent brother, Mr. Justice Williams, who is utterly unable to proceed with the business of the circuit, and whom I left at Exeter, stretched on his sick bed. Gentlemen, I am quite sure that those who know him best will be most anxious for the speedy recovery of so excellent and profound a lawyer. Gentlemen, the case to which I have alluded is the case of Charlotte Jane Tippet, who is presented on the coroner’s warrant, for the wilful murder of John Rowe Tippet. The prisoner appears to be a young woman of the age of about 21 years, and the child was not a new born infant, but a child, as I collect from the depositions, of some months old. The facts appear to be, shortly, these:—The mother describes the child to have been restless and unwilling to take the sustenance provided for it by nature; and in order to settle it, she applies to the chemist for some laudanum. The chemist informed her that laudanum was an improper and dangerous drug, refused to sell her it, and supplied her with spirit of poppies, to be administered 10 drops at a time. I suppose that this woman was in poverty; and it seems she sought to eke out the medicine by other means. She pulled poppy heads out of the garden, boiled them, and administered both the decoction and syrup to the child. I do not say that it was in consequence of this, but some time after the child died. Afterwards the body was exhumed, and although decomposition had then proceeded to some extent, the organs were found to be perfectly healthy, but the body was very much emaciated. Therefore, it is suggested either that the child died from the effects of the anodyne administered to it, or that it had died from the want of proper sustenance. Now, gentlemen, I do not suppose that you require any assistance from me as to the law of this case; nevertheless, I beg to remind you that all homicides— taking away the life of another—is prima facie murder. That is the protection thrown around the lives of us all; and any one who would reduce the charge of homicide to less than murder, ought to satisfy the jury that there are good grounds for so reducing it; the first thing to be considered is, whether the child died from any act of commission or omission, for either of them may be ground for conviction of manslaughter or of murder. Now, the act of commission would be the administration of these anodynes or soporifics, and the question on them will be two fold—whether the child died from that cause, and if so, then whether these medicines were administered with the intent to take away the life of the child, or whether they were administered negligently or ignorantly. If you think that they were administered with a view to promote that which happened, then the unfortunate girl is indictable for murder. If you think that they were administered ignorantly or with culpable negligence, that is not murder, and she would only be guilty of manslaughter. If you think there was no ignorance, culpable negligence, or any design on the life of the child, then in that case, death could only be an accident, and you must throw out the bill. If you should be of opinion that the syrup of poppies, or the poppy heads had nothing to do with the death, then you will have to say that the child died from want of nourishment. Now, that is not an act of commission, but one of omission, which may be either murder or manslaughter. When a child is born, there can be no doubt what the law of nature prescribes. It is the law of nature—of the Author of Nature—of God—the wonderful beneficence—which has provided for it as soon as it comes into the world, an abundance of nutriment independent of all other means. There is no doubt that the withholding of nutriment from a child by its mother with the intent to cause its death, is murder. What, then, you will have to consider is—did death result from that cause, and was death the motive. It is a source of great satisfaction to me, that in this case I have the assistance of a grand jury, of gentlemen who have long been familiar with the law bearing on cases of this kind. I lean on the grand jury, and I ask your attentive consideration to this case, before you send down the bill. And if you will excuse me, I will ask you take the other cases first before you consider this case, as it is desirable that you should send down some bills as soon as possible. The Grand Jury then retired, and having in a few minutes returned a couple of bills, the Court proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. STEALING FROM A SHIP AT ST. JUST. ALEXANDER DYNES, aged 18, a seaman, was charged with stealing at St. Just, on the 24th July, a quantity of wearing apparel, the property of Thomas Moodie. Mr. Lopes prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. The prisoner and prosecutor were both seamen on board the Medina lying in Falmouth harbour. After the vessel arrived at that port, the prosecutor bought a quantity of wearing apparel, which he placed in a box on board. Between 8 and 9 o’clock on the evening of Saturday the 24th of July, the clothes were safe in the box, and soon after looking at them he went to bed. It war (sic) the prisoner’s turn to keep the first watch that night, and when prosecutor went to bed he left him on board. Prosecutor rose about five o’clock next morning, and then found that both the prisoner and his clothes were gone. He gave information of the robbery to the police, and the prisoner was pursued by P.C. Quarn, stationed at St. Mawes, to Bissoe, ten miles from Falmouth, where he came up with him wearing part of the stolen property, and having the remainder packed up in a bundle. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to Two Months’ hard labour. ROBBERY AT DEVORAN. THOMAS NAISH, aged 21, a seaman, was charged with stealing on the 26th July, at Devoran, a horse cloth, the property of Edward Lukey Rundell. Mr. W.M. St. Aubyn, prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor is a farmer residing at Mylor, and on the 26th July, he had to go to Mr. Woolcock’s, at Devoran, on business. He walked there, but ordered his servant to bring his horse and trap in the evening to take him back. The servant did so, and on his arrival, prosecutor told him to throw the horse rug over the horse and wait for him a short time, as he was not ready to start. The servant placed the rug over the horse, but he afterwards found the rug gone. The prisoner was suspected, and on being spoken to about the rug a day or two after, he went to a hutch on the quay at Devoran, and pulled it out from under some coals. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth. He was sentenced to Six Weeks’ Hard Labour. CHARGE OF THEFT AT REDRUTH. ELIZA HARRIS, aged 43, was charged with having, at Redruth, on or about the 16th or 17th July, stolen a serge shirt, the property of Richard Grey. Mr. W.M. St. Aubyn prosecuted. The prosecutor is a tailor residing at Redruth, and on the evening of Saturday, the 16th of July, his wife hung out the serge shirt to dry, placing it on a wall close to the back door. The prisoner was seen near the door several times during the evening, and the next morning, on its being found that the shirt was gone, she was suspected of having stolen it. Information was given to the police, and on a police sergeant going to search the prisoner’s house, he found the shirt wrapped in a portion of the handbill of the Helston races, in a hedge about 14 or 15 feet from her residence. To connect the prisoner with the robbery, Mr. Bell, butcher, Redruth, deposed that he sold the prisoner some meat on the 16th July, and that he had wrapped it in this piece of race bill. The JUDGE, in summing up, observed that the jury ought to be cautious not to attach too much importance to the evidence relative to the portion of the bill in which the shirt was found to be wrapped. Had the prisoner been defended, her counsel would very properly have urged that, although she might have had this piece of paper in her possession, yet that, as it was worthless, she had thrown it away, and it might have been picked up by some other person, who had stolen the shirt and wrapped it in it. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was ordered to be discharged. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. ELIZABETH CRAPP, aged 19, servant, pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at Falmouth, on the 28th April. LOUISA HILL, who had been out on bail, also pleaded guilty to unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at , on the 7th April. The prisoner, when placed in the dock, appeared to be in a very weak and poorly state, and was accommodated with a seat. She was sentenced to Two Months’ Hard Labour. THEFT AT ANTONY. WILLIAM COX, 39, labourer, pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing two hammers, of the value of 2s. 6d., the goods and chattels of John Wills, at Antony, on the 27th of May, after a previous conviction for felony. STEALING FROM A DWELLING-HOUSE AT ST. ISSEY. PAUL ROSEVEAR, aged 15, pleaded guilty to entering and stealing from a dwelling-house, in the occupation of Elizabeth Drew, at the parish of St. Issey, on the 7th July, a knife, seven sovereigns, and some pence and farthings, the property of the said Elizabeth Drew. CHARGE OF INDECENT ASSAULT. JOHN HENRY TRUDGIAN, who had been out on bail, was charged with unlawfully and indecently assaulting and ill-treating Emma Mitchell, on the 25th of June, at the parish of St. Stephens in Branwell. Mr. Roupe prosecuted; and Mr. Cox defended the prisoner. The prosecutrix deposed that, on the 24th of June, she attended a fete or party given at the clay works at which she was employed. She left the works about half past eight in the evening, and “leaded” with James Hooper during about a quarter of an hour’s walk; and when Hooper left her, she went into a public-house at , where she remained only a few minutes, as there were a number of acquaintances there. When she left to go home she was followed by the prisoner, and when he came up to her she told him that she was not going to walk with him, as she looked upon him as good as a married man. She said that the prisoner then put his arm round her waist, and indecently assaulted her. The prosecutrix admitted, in cross-examination, that the prisoner did not throw her down, and that she merely gave herself a twist and got away from him. He did not follow her, and she ran home. The charge was not made against the prisoner, before the magistrates, till ten days after the alleged assault; and the reason she gave for this was, that neither she or her parents had the money to pay for a summons and its service.—The prisoner was then single, but he had got married about a week ago. Mr. COX submitted that the evidence had failed to make out the charge. His LORDSHIP said that this was a matter which the jury only could decide; and on their being of that opinion, they expressed a wish that the case should proceed. Mr. COX, accordingly, addressed the jury for the defence, and called witnesses to prove that the prosecutrix had been seen walking with the prisoner, and sitting on his knee with her arm round his neck, and very “comfortable.” Before the whole of the witnesses for the defence had been examined, the jury said that the learned counsel need not proceed with the defence any further, as they were now satisfied the charge was not proved, and they then returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”

CRIMINAL ASSAULT AT GWINEAR. JAMES THOMAS, aged 21, blacksmith, was charged with feloniously and criminally assaulting Mary Ann Michell, a girl under ten years of age, at Gwinear, on the 25th March. Mr. Oxenham prosecuted, and Mr. Bowen defended the prisoner. Mary Ann Michell, an interesting little girl, under 10 years of age, and who gave her evidence with great reluctance, deposed that she lived at Gwinear, and on the morning of Good Friday last, she was sent by her step mother to Mr. Trevaskis’s for some milk. While waiting for the milk Mrs. Trevaskis requested her to go into the blacksmith’s shop adjoining for some coals. She went into the shop and found only the prisoner there, and she alleged that he indecently assaulted her. In cross- examination, she admitted that to account for the marks on her dress, she had stated that she had fallen on a broken glass bottle and cut herself, and she afterwards told a woman named Roberts that the prisoner had never touched her. The girl’s stepmother said that the latter did not say anything to her about the offence till a week and three days after Good Friday, and she did not send for a surgeon to examine her. It was a fortnight after this before the prisoner was apprehended. The stepmother and Mrs. Trevaskis gave the prisoner an excellent character. The JUDGE, in summing up, said that, in the first place he entertained considerable doubt as to whether any evidence had been given of the principal offence having been committed. No medical man had been called to prove this. In the next place, the girl had made two statements, both of which was the case for the prosecution now to show were false; and if she had told two falsehoods, might not the charge against the prisoner be false also. The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of “Not Guilty”, and the prisoner was ordered to be discharged. STEALING A PONY AND CART, &C., AT ST. AUSTELL. RICHARD HAWKE, aged 40, a hawker, and THOMAS JENNINGS, aged 37, a tin man, were charged with stealing and leading away a mare, stealing a cart and a hawker’s basket at St. Austell, on the first of July, the property of Richard Warner (sic). Mr. Charles prosecuted; the prisoners were not defended. The prosecutor is a marine store dealer at St. Austell, and he had at different times entrusted Hawke with his pony, cart, and some earthenware, in order that he might hawk the latter about the country. On the 1st of July, Hawke and Jennings called on Mrs. Warne, during the absence of her husband, and asked her if she would lend them the pony and cart, and let them have a basket of earthenware to sell in the usual manner—that is, to return in the evening with the pony and cart, and account for the earthenware. She agreed to do so, and they took away with them the pony and cart and a basket full of earthenware, worth £1 15s. 6d. She also advanced them 10s. in money. They did not return that day or the next, but on the 5th July. Jennings offered the pony and cart to another hawker named Henry Smith, at . They did not then make a bargain, but on the next day, Smith met Jennings at Penryn, and then bought the pony and cart of the latter for 25s. 6d. and the share of a quart of beer. Smith afterwards exchanged the pony for another belonging to a man named Martin, which the latter stated was 18 years old, and only eight hands high. Smith next sold the cart for a trifling sum to a person named Roberts. Hawke, it appeared, was not present when any of these transactions took place, but on the evening of the 7th or morning of the 8th, he sold the basket to a person named Frances, at Redruth. The police having been informed of the occurrence, enquiries were instituted, and Jennings was traced to Plymouth, where he was apprehended on the 14th; Hawke had been captured before; and he now said, in answer to the charge, that when he got to Redruth, he had no money, and he sold the basket in order that he might pay for a breakfast, as he could not starve. He threw himself on the mercy of the Court. Jennings had nothing to say to the charge, and Mr. Warne, in reply to the Judge, said that he had never let him have any goods, and would not have trusted him with a farthing’s worth. The Judge asked the jury to say, whether on the evidence which had been given, they were of opinion there was any collusion between the prisoners, when they applied for the goods, to steal them; next, whether Hawke was in collusion with Jennings when the latter sold the pony and cart; and lastly, whether Jennings was in collusion with Hawke, when the latter sold the basket. The jury were of opinion that there was nothing to show that the prisoners contemplated the commission of felony, when they applied for the pony and cart and goods, or collusion between them in either of the other transactions. The Judge then said that being so, clearly two distinct offences were charged against the prisoners, and they could not both be found guilty on one indictment. He must therefore call upon the counsel for the prosecution to elect which prisoner he would proceed against. Mr. Charles said he would elect to take Jennings, as he believed he was the worst offender of the two. Hawke was then acquitted and Jennings was found “Guilty”, and he was sentenced to twelve months’ hard labour. The Judge told the witness Henry Smith, that he had acted very indiscreetly, to say the least, in buying a pony and cart from a man like Jennings, for 25s., and he advised him not to make any such purchases in future, or he might find himself, perhaps, in a very unpleasant position. During the trial of the case, considerable amusement was at times occasioned by the learned Judge’s bewildered looks at the frequent use of the Cornish word “clome” by Mr. And Mrs. Warne, in giving their evidence; and it was evident that the word was beyond the scope even of his lordship’s erudition. “What?” he exclaimed, with a puzzled, yet good humoured look, on first hearing the word. “Earthenware”, replied the witness. “Oh,” said his lordship, and went on taking the evidence. Soon, however, “clome” occurred again, and again his lordship repeated his request for explanation, with a bewildered expression with a like result, amid the general tittering of the initiated in court. This occurred once or twice afterwards, until at length his lordship’s difficulty was removed by a learned counsel who appeared to be versed in Cornish lore, explaining that it was a word used in the county and meant earthenware. The Court adjourned to Monday at the termination of the above trial. MONDAY. Before Mr. Justice BYLES. The Court opened this morning at 10 o’clock THE CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER. CHARLOTTE JANE TIPPET was arraigned on the Coroner’s inquisition for the wilful murder of her illegitimate male child. Mr. Rogers, who appeared for the prosecution, stated that bills for wilful murder and for manslaughter had been preferred against the prisoner before the grand jury, but both bills were ignored. He did not propose, therefore, to offer any evidence on the case. The prisoner was therefore found “Not Guilty,” and ordered to be discharged. UNNATURAL OFFENCE. WILLIAM LIGHTFOOT, 25, farmer, was charged with an unnatural offence, at Bedelva, St. Blazey, on the 14th May. Mr. Rogers appeared for the prosecutor (sic) and Mr. Prideaux for the defence. There was only one witness for the prosecution, namely P.C. Beckerleg, of St. Blazey, upon whose word, therefore, the whole case depended. Mr. Prideaux called several very respectable witnesses, who gave the prisoner a very high character for industry, sobriety and general moral character. It appeared that he had been for several years teacher in a Bible Christian Sunday School. He now occupied a small farm of about 18 acres. The learned Judge, in summing up the case, pointed out to the jury that as this was until recently a capital offence, and even now involved penal servitude for life, they must be very careful, as it was only the testimony of one witness, and there did not appear to be any corroboratory circumstances. It was, therefore, a charge which might be made against anybody, and the person charged was at the mercy of anybody who preferred the charge against him. The jury, after a short consultation, were locked up. They returned to Court in about three quarters of an hour and gave a verdict of “Guilty of the attempt.” The prisoner was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. He had already been three months in gaol. UNNATURAL OFFENCE AT . THOMAS DYMOND, 17, labourer, was charged with committing an unnatural offence at South Petherwin, on the 7th April. Mr. Lopes for the prosecution; Mr. Cole for the defence. The prosecutor in this case was a young man named Pearse, a cousin of the prisoner. The prosecutor appeared to be from the evidence of his master, “rather mazed,” and he did not believe what he said. The prisoner was acquitted. ROBBERY BY A RAILWAY SERVANT AT FALMOUTH. ALBERT ROSKILLY, 23, shoemaker, was charged with stealing a hair brush, comb, two brooches, pencil case, and stiletto, the property of the Cornwall Railway Company, on the 10th July. Mr. Stock appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. It appeared that a young woman named Elizabeth Cotterel a ladies maid, residing near Totnes, came down from London on the 22nd June and got out of the railway carriage at Totnes, but forgot to take with her bag which contained the property in question, which was therefore taken on to Falmouth. The prisoner was a railway policeman at the Falmouth station, and it was his duty to receive missing luggage and enter it in a book kept for that purpose. The bag was returned to the owner on the 27th June when she missed from it the articles named. Suspicion having fallen on the prisoner, Mr. W.H. Watkins, station master at Truro, went down to Falmouth, and examined a drawer of which the prisoner kept the key, and there found a brush and part of a comb; the remainder of the comb was found in a sentry box to which the prisoner had access. His house was then searched by John Northcott, police inspector in the service of the company, on the 12th July. He found the stiletto and pencil case in a drawer upstairs, and one of the brooches in a box down stairs. The other brooch, it appeared, had been given to a servant girl, named Mary Sarah, at the railway station on Sunday, the 26th June. Elizabeth Cotterel was called and identified each of the articles found, and Mary Sarah deposed to the fact of the prisoner giving her the brooch. The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. HORSE STEALING AT LOOE. NEHEMIAH GOYNES, 26, labourer, was charged with stealing a horse and bridle the property of Mr. James Pearce, farmer, of St. Martins, near Looe. Mr. Merrival appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that the horse in question, which the prosecutor valued at £25, was left safe in a field at half-past nine o’clock on the night of the 12th July, and was missed early on the following morning. A boy named Theodore Bastard, who was in the prosecutor’s service, saw the prisoner in a field adjoining that in which the horse was, and the prisoner asked him if the horses were there. On the following morning, the 13th, the prisoner offered the horse for sale at St. Austell to a horse dealer named Hugo. He offered the horse first for £10, but subsequently agreed to sell for £5. Hugo gave information to police inspector Sherston, who apprehended the prisoner and charged him with stealing the horse. Before the magistrates the prisoner stated that he and his brother had lived with the prosecutor some ten years previously and was then very badly treated, and to this he attributed the theft which the (sic) committed. The prisoner was found guilty, and was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude. CHARGE OF PERJURY AT ST. COLUMB. SUSANNA CHAPMAN, was charged with committing wilful and corrupt perjury at St. Columb, on the 26th July. Mr. Lopes appeared for the prosecution, and in opening the case, stated the prosecutor (sic) was directed by the magistrates. It appeared that the prisoner was the mother of a Mr. Chapman, in whose service a girl named Bray had lived for some time as domestic servant. Bray had a child by Mr. Chapman, and had received money at various times from Chapman on account of its maintenance. However, Chapman recently got married, and Bray sought to affiliate the child upon him. To do this it was necessary to call the prisoner to prove that she had paid money to Bray on various occasions, on account of her son, Mr. Chapman. However, on being put in the witness box she denied ever having paid any money to Bray on behalf of her son. Now he should prove that she had done so several times. He should have to satisfy the jury upon three points; namely that the oath was taken in a judicial proceeding; that the matter in which the oath was taken was material to the issue; and that the oath was a false one. Mr. George Brown Collins, clerk to the magistrates, was examined, and said he was present on the 26th July when the case in question was heard before the magistrates. There were three magistrates present, and they all resided within the district. The Judge: Where is the information? Witness: I have not got the information; I have the summons. The Judge: That won’t do; I must have the information. Witness: The information is in the possession of the magistrate who took it. The Judge: It is necessary for many reasons that the jury should have the information before them. The judicial proceedings were taken upon an information laid before a magistrate; that information ought to be here. I rule that it is material to the prosecution and therefore you will find a verdict of “Not Guilty.” The prisoner was accordingly acquitted. She is a very old woman, and appeared to be in great distress. KEEPING A DISORDERLY HOUSE AT PADSTOW. MARY JANE MILGROVE, 32, charwoman, was charged with keeping a bawdy-house at Padstow, and in a second count she was charged with keeping a disorderly house. Mr. Lopes appeared for the prosecution. From the evidence of P.C. Martin, the prisoner occupied a room in a house at Padstow. The room only measured 9 feet by 7. The prisoner was a widow, and had three daughters at home with her, the eldest of whom was 15 years of age. He proved that the room was frequented by sailors and women. The evidence was corroborated by another constable and by a labourer named John Phillips, who had informed against the house. The prosecutor (sic) it appeared had been instituted by the overseers of the parish. The learned Judge in summing up, said it was one of those cases which should be very carefully dealt with. Padstow was a seaport frequented by sailors after long voyages, and if they expected that houses like this would not exist in such places, they expected a state of things which would never happen so long as the world lasted. What they had to do was to see that public decency was not outraged. The jury found the prisoner guilty of keeping a disorderly house, and the learned Judge sentenced her to one months’ imprisonment. This concluded the business of the Crown Court; and it being only three o’clock, the special jury was called in the civil case of “Bell v. Blamey and another.” Only six special jurors, however, answered to their names, and the court was therefore adjourned till 10 o’clock on Tuesday morning ______NISI PRIUS COURT—SATURDAY. (Before Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Q.C.) The Court opened this morning at half past ten o’clock. NICHOLLS v. MILLS This was an action for slander. The plaintiff, Mr. Francis Nicholls, is a farmer holding a farm called Penhargan, and the defendant also occupied a farm at Heligan. Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Buller appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Mr. Wallis; Mr. Cole appeared for the defendant, instructed by Mr. Pollard. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and also that if he had used the slanderous words, it was not within the last two years. Mr. Karslake, in stating the case, said the action was brought solely for the purpose of vindicating the plaintiff’s character against the defamatory statements made by the defendant; they were imputations under which no respectable man could lie. The charge made by the defendant was that Mr. Nicholls had stolen a sheep belonging to the defendant, and that charge was repeated again and again. There were only two pleas put on record by the defendant, one of which stated that he did not make use of the words imputed to him, and the other was a somewhat peculiar plea, namely, that if the words had been used it was not within two years before the time of action. But the plaintiff was prepared to prove that very recently before this action was entered the defendant had used the words imputed to him, and they were of such a character as to cause the plaintiff great pain. However, he (Mr. Karslake) was happy to say that the defendant was now willing to offer all that the plaintiff desired—a full and public apology for the words used. He now says that he is not aware of ever having used the words imputed to him, and if he had used the words he never intended to convey the impression deduced from them; and he was perfectly willing to retract those words, and he was very sorry that he had ever used them. He (Mr. Karslake) was happy to say that the matter had come to this, as the parties had always previously been good neighbours, and the plaintiff had no vindictive feeling whatever towards the defendant, and only wished to clear his own character; he did not from the first for one moment have any wish to obtain damages. The plaintiff was therefore willing to accept the retraction. The jury would not therefore be troubled with the details of the case, an arrangement having been made to adopt a course which shall remove from the plaintiff any imputation. Mr. COLE, for the defendant, fully concurred with the statement made by Mr. Karslake. It appeared that some mistake had taken place regarding some words used by the defendant; and the defendant was very sorry that he should have used words liable to such a construction, and he was ready to make the most ample apology. The jury then, by direction of his Lordship, returned a verdict for plaintiff; damages 40s. CRADDOCK v. WRIGHT This was another action for slander, the plaintiff, William Craddock, being a market gardener at , and the defendant a grower of brocoli (sic) and general dealer in the same neighbourhood. Mr. Carter, instructed by Mr. Boyns, of Penzance, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Cole, instructed by Messrs Millett and Borlase for defendant. It appeared in the opening statement that in 1861, Mr. Craddock, the plaintiff, saw a Mr. Yellon, a greengrocer in London, and entered into arrangements with him for taking brocoli to London together. Yellon came down to Penzance in December, 1862, just before Christmas; they entered into partnership respecting brocoli, and bought it standing in the field and sent it to London. Yellon went back to London and returned in February, when they continued to go in partnership up to the 20th March, 1863, on which day the plaintiff was in the ship Inn, Mousehole, along with Yellon. The defendant and other persons were also present, and it was then the defendant made use of the slanderous language imputed to him. The defendant said to Yellon:—“You have got that d— fellow Craddock with you; he is under water; can’t pay his creditors; he has had a bad brocoli season; there is no use his coming here, and we will drive him out of the town.” The defendant, Mr. Carter said, was a fussy, conceited overbearing man, who having a little more money in his purse than the plaintiff, considered himself at liberty to injure his credit and reputation in the most vital manner, particularly as the plaintiff had not sprung from the soil of Mousehole. There were some people, of whom the defendant was one, who thought no person had a right to live in a place unless he had taken root and grown there like a tree. The effect of the defendants (sic) language was that Yellon declined to carry out an arrangement which had been made with plaintiff for a partnership in the potatoe (sic) trade at the conclusion of the brocoli season, saying that after what the defendant had said, he could not risk his money in conjunction with the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore claimed special damages for the loss of partnership with Yellon, and general damages for loss of credit in the neighbourhood, in consequence of the damaging effect made by the defendant. The defendant pleaded that he did not use the words. On the 20th of June, however, they were again in the Ship Inn, where the defendant again made use of slanderous words. He said to plaintiff:—“I pity you, you poor b—; you are very poor and can’t get any credit; you are not a bankrupt yet, but you soon will be.” It appeared that the defendant was rather fond of his bottle; in fact he might be described in the words of the old ballad, “Oh, oh, oh, his nose doth show, How oft black jack to his lips doth go.” (laughter). Mr. Carter continued his opening at some length, the matter being very largely made up of slang and personalities respecting the learned counsel for the defence, Mr. Cole. Mr. William Craddock, the plaintiff, gave evidence in confirmation of the opening. In cross- examination, he admitted that he had been a lawyer’s clerk for forty years previous to the taking of the brocoli trade. He first brought the action in London, but the venue was changed to Bodmin. He sought to have the action tried in London, because his chief witness Yellon lived there. All his other witnesses lived at Mousehole. He only wished to clear his character; did not think whether London was the best place to try the case in order to have his character cleared against his neighbours. Did not try the case at the March assizes because he had not then enough money. Yellon was not now coming forward as a witness, because he could not be found. He had left Penzance, owing, it was stated, £150 to various parties. He was, however, living at Penzance down to June last. There was a pretty deal of law in Penzance. He had been to the County court himself with actions about 10 times during the past two years. He had never brought an action for slander before.—Mr. Cole: Recollect yourself. Are you certain you have never brought an action for slander? Oh yes, I had forgotten, it was such a trifling matter. He took out his pocket-book and booked the slanderous words used by the defendant on both occasions. He did not book any more of the conversation. He considered that he had a good cause of action in what he had booked. He believed he had, from his experience as a lawyer’s clerk. He did not think it necessary to book any more. Messrs Bennet, Osborne, and Jenkin, gave confirmatory testimony; and stated that they believed the plaintiff’s credit had been injured by the words used by the defendant. The last named witness, however, admitted that he had recently given the plaintiff credit for £32, which he now owed to him (witness). Mr. COLE, for the defence, submitted that the plaintiff had entirely failed to prove damages, and as to the special damages for loss of partnership there was no proof of any partnership ever existing; and if there was a loss of partnership the plaintiff could not be much damaged by the loss of a partnership with a man who had run away from his creditors £150 in debt. The action was brought by a man who appeared to be making use of the experience gained in a lawyer’s office, for the purpose of getting up actions, and its only object was to put money into the hands of certain parties. It reminded him of a story told of a lawyer’s clerk who went into the country during the long vacation to enjoy a holiday. When he returned his master enquired how he had enjoyed himself. “Oh,” he replied, “I have done famously; I have booked three actions for assault and three for slander”—(laughter). If they believed the plaintiff, he was under the impression that he was going to make a fortune by a man who had run away from his creditors £150 in debt. Many persons were under similar delusions as to making their fortunes in different ways. His learned friend (Mr. Carter), who had by accident got into the nisi prius court, for it was only by accident that he ever got into it— no doubt, expected to make his fortune at the bar—(laughter). Mr. Cole, having made some clever hits at Mr. Carter, and the manner in which he had conducted the case, concluded by saying that the case all arose out of some idle “chaff” in a public house. The defendant did not deny that he may have used the words, for he had had some drink and did not remember exactly what he had said; and if he had said anything to the injury of the plaintiff, he was sorry for it. The words, if spoken, were said in that system of chaff which takes place amongst such people when they get in a public house, were never meant for any serious allegation, and nothing more would ever have been heard of them if the plaintiff had not been on the watch to book a cause of action if he could get the chance. A respectable attorney, he imagined, would have written demanding an apology for the words used and their retraction. If that had been done, all would have been right, and the apology no doubt would have been made; but no; that did not suit their books—it was writ and action at once without any notice. He had heard of the word and the blow, but this was the blow without the word. He called upon the jury to discourage by their verdict such proceedings. The learned Judge carefully summed up, pointing out the fact that there had been no accusation against the plaintiff’s moral character; the words spoken only reflected upon his commercial credit, and it was for them to award not heavy damages, but such reasonable damages as they might consider met the case. The jury being unable to agree, were locked up, and after a couple of hours absence brought in a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £10. MINING TRANSACTIONS—BARTLE v. WEBB AND OTHERS. This was an action to recover the sum of £128. 15s., the amount paid for five shares in New Rosewarne Mine. Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. A. Rogers, instructed by Mr. Downing, of Redruth, for the plaintiff; Mr. Montagu Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Cole for the defendants. Mr. Rogers having opened the pleadings, Mr. Karslake stated the case at some length. It appeared that the plaintiff is a gentleman residing at Camborne, who occasionally buys and sells mine shares on his own account, and the defendants are stock and share brokers in London, with whom he had had several transactions. On the 17th November last, plaintiff telegraphed to defendants to buy him five New Rosewarne’s for cash. He received a message in reply the same day, saying that they had purchased the five Rosewarnes, and would let him have them at 25¾—transfer to follow the same night. The transfer, however, did not come, and as the shares were then going up he again telegraphed, in reply to which he was informed that the transfer had been omitted in the letter of the 17th, and that it would come by next post. On the 19th he received the transfer, and at once sent it to the purser of New Rosewarne, Mr. Huthnance, for registration. The transfer, however, was returned with a message that there were no shares in the defendants’ name. The transfer was presented at different times up to the 25th, with a like result, the shares having gone down in the meantime to 18; whereas if he had got the shares registered on the 19th, he could have sold at 26¼. Other correspondence ensued, in which plaintiff demanded that the transaction should be cancelled and his cheque for the money returned, but the defendants refused to comply, and hence the present action. The shares were now at 8. Mr. Bartle, the plaintiff, was then called and examined. He said: I reside at Camborne. I have returned from Australia, and am living upon my private means. I had many transactions with the defendants in 1863. In November last, I telegraphed to them, to procure me some shares in New Rosewarne mine. I produce a copy of the telegram which I sent on the 17th. The reply was “no settlers under 25. Nothing else new.” I telegraphed again the same day “buy 5 New Rosewarnes. Telegraph tonight—cash.” There was another telegraph from the defendants “we sell you 5 New Rosewarnes at 25¾—Transfer tonight.” The transfer did not come, and on the following day—the 18th November, I received a letter stating that the transfers had not been sent by mistake, but would be to hand on the following day. I then sent a cheque for £128. 15s. On the 19th I received a letter from the defendants containing receipt. On the same day, I sent a telegram “sell New Rosewarne at the highest price from £26. 10s., to £27. 10s. Received telegram in reply—“highest price £26.” I sent the transfer on to Mr. Huthnance the purser on the mine, saying “please to register these five shares.” On the 20th, I received the transfer returned, with a note to say “The transferor having no interest in the mine, I am under the necessity of returning the transfers.” I sent it back by return of post, and again got a similar answer. I then wrote to the defendants Webb and Geach, telling them the transfers were dishonoured, and that I had had a telegram saying that buyers were at £26. 10s. to £27, and could have made £26 freely on the 19th. I could have made £26. 5s. In reply to this, I received a letter on the following day the 21st, saying it was not their fault; they had bought 5 shares from Mr. Lavington, and sent down the transfer to meet the 5 shares sold to you.” I wrote on the 21st, that unless the cheque was returned, or the transfer made good by the 24th, I should take proceedings at once. I should have stopped my cheque if I had not been too late. On the 23rd I went to Mr. Huthnance with the transfer, and he again refused to register, saying that there was no transfer. I left the transfer, but it was again returned on the 24th. Received a letter from defendants declining to cancel the transaction or to return the cheque, and saying that the shares ought to have been registered. They had eleven shares in their possession. I wrote on the 24th saying that the defendants seemed to have forgotten they had transferred 10 of the shares to Mr. Abraham James, so that there was only one left for me. I received a reply written on the 25th, calling my letter insolent. This letter written on the 25th, said “answer to yours of the 27th.” I then instructed Mr. Downing, to apply for the amount paid to the defendants £128. 15s. On the 26th I could have had the transfers registered, but not before. Cross-examined by Mr. Smith: Was a dealer sometimes in shares, but not a constant dealer in the market. Was on the committee of the Camborne Mining Exchange. Only saw the rules of the London Mining Exchange recently. Never saw a rule stating that all stock must be delivered within five days. His solicitor Mr. Downing had kept the transfer for ever since; it was at the service of the defendants, but they refused to take it. Mr. Karslake called attention to a letter of the 25th November from Mr. Downing saying that the transfer was in his possession and he would return it when the matter was arranged. Mr. Huthnance examined: He was purser of New Rosewarne, a mine conducted on the cost-book system. On the 19th Nov. received the transfer from the defendants to the plaintiff. Mr. Abraham James had presented a transfer to me for ten shares. Mr. James produced that transfer on the 18th; but there was not sufficient shares in the name then and I declined to register. He presented the transfer again and having a sufficient number of shares I registered—it was on the 21st. I received notice of the transfer to Mr. James before that to Mr. Bartle, and the custom is to transfer to the first who presents. I remember receiving the notice, two or three times from Mr. Bartle, but returned it in consequence of not having sufficient shares. On the 26th Nov. I received a transfer of four shares to the defendants which I registered. They were from Ward and Jackman, brokers of London; those made up the five due to Mr. Bartle. The 11 shares were transferred to the defendants four by Thomas Rosewarne on the 14th Nov; on the 7th Ward and Jackman 5. On the same day, J. Reynolds 1; 18th, Kemp 1; making 11. After these there were no shares sent in until the 26th. On the 17th there were several transfers to Lavington. There is a transfer dated the 17th, from Lavington to the defendants, but there was no register till the 26th. Cross-examined by Mr. Smith. We have no note of the date when transfers are sent in. We only book them when registered. I don’t know whether I received Lavington’s transfer of five shares on the 18th or not; I only know they were not registered. Mr. Abraham James examined. I had a transfer from the defendants on the 18th for ten shares. It was returned by post on the following day. On Saturday the 21st I saw Mr. Huthnance, and again gave them the transfer, which I again received on the 23rd, Monday; it was then registered. Mr. Downing was called to state that he had written to the defendants on the 25th Nov. offering to return the transfers if they would settle the matter. This concluded the plaintiff’s case; and Mr. Karslake having summed up the evidence For the defence, Mr. Pennington examined by Mr. Cole, said he was one of the firm of Webb, Geach, and Pennington, the defendants. On getting the telegram from the plaintiff, we bought from Mr. Lavington at 25½; sold them to the defendant (sic) at 25¾. We sold on our own account, and did not act as brokers. If we had acted as brokers, our commission would have been £1. 11s. 9d. per share. Lavington’s transfer went down on the 17th to the purser for registration; and they would have been registered on the 18th if all had gone right. Letter produced, received on the 21st November, requiring us to make good the transfer by the 27th, as we read it. On the 19, we held 11 registered shares, independent of Lavington’s. We consider ourselves bound, by the rules of the London Mining Exchange. These shares fluctuated very much at that time. They rose to £26 in town on the 18th and 19th. In the afternoon of the 19th, they began to drop; on the 20th, they were 23 to 24, and gradually fell away to £20; and on the 25th, when Mr. Bartle attempted to repudiate the transaction, they were about £18. Cross examined by Mr. Karslake: We borrowed four shares on the 25th to make up Mr. Bartle’s five. That is, we borrowed and paid for them. We gave £18 per share for them; that was on the 25th. I have not the transaction with me; I have no memorandum with me now. We borrowed the share at £20 and not at £18; I made a mistake when I said £18. The market price was £18, but we borrowed at £20. We borrowed the shares from a man named Brown, to whom we afterwards returned the shares, and got our cheque back. We are not members of the Mining Exchange, though we deal in shares. I did not write the letter of the 25th acknowledging the letter of the 24th as one of the 27th. Mr. Webb wrote it. By Mr. Smith: It is an ordinary transaction to borrow shares and return them again. We borrowed these shares as there was a difficulty in registering Lavington’s. Mr. George Lavington said: I deal in shares and call myself a share dealer and broker, and am a member of the Mining Exchange. I sold five shares to Webb and Co. on the 17th for 25½ each, receiving a cheque for the full amount. I had purchased 17 shares of Thomas Rosewarne. It was in consequence of his transfer to me not being ratified that my transfer was returned. I am secretary of one or two mines, and a member of the Camborne Mining Exchange. It is the invariable custom if one transfer is returned, when a second transfer comes, to register the second transfer at once. Cross examined: I have been secretary to Lady Bertha mine for ten years. I had eleven of the shares from Mr. Rosewarne transferred to me, and I lent Rosewarne six shares to make up the seventeen, and they were registered on the 26th. Mr. Abraham James recalled: Had transferred thousands of shares; as far as he knew, the custom was, if a transfer was returned, to register the next transfer sent in. Mr. Harvey said he had 20 years’ experience of mining and was now purser of one—Sortridge Consols. His practice would be the same as stated by the last witness. If a transfer came in for a greater number of shares than were in the name of the transferor, he should return the transfer; but if another transfer came in immediately afterwards for a less number, he should register it. That was the general custom. Mr. M. Smith said that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, for even supposing the contract to be in the first instance for an immediate delivery of the shares, the defendants were relieved from that by the plaintiff’s letter of the 21st, that the transfer had been returned for the second time, and that unless it was made good by the 27th, he should take proceedings. It was argued that the plaintiff meant the 24th, but the jury would see that it was as clear a seven as was ever made. The shares were made good by the 26th, and therefore the defendants had complied with the plaintiff’s stipulation. If it was argued that the transfer should have been completed at once, then why was not the transfer returned at once. The fact was, however, that the transfer was kept by the defendant (sic) till the 25th, and presented on that day, and there was no doubt that had the shares gone up instead of down he would have kept the transfer and had it registered on the 26th, when the shares were made good. It was a case which involved more questions of law than of fact, and he should not therefore detain the jury long, but he thought it due to Messrs Webb, Geach, and Pennington, to answer some observations made by his learned friend. The defendants had acted with the most perfect good faith throughout, and were desirous of doing all they could for Mr. Bartle. They bought of Lavington for 25½ and sold to Bartle for 25¾, only making 5s per share by the transaction, and they paid cash to Lavington. Under no circumstances could the defendants be blamed; the fault lay with the purser who ought to have registered the shares. It was the same as a banker’s cheque. If a man sent a cheque to a banker upon another man for more money than was in the bank to the credit of the person in question, the cheque would be dishonoured, but if another cheque came in immediately after for a smaller amount it would be honoured; and the evidence was clear that such was the custom in mines. Mr. Karslake having replied, The learned Judge summed up very lucidly, leaving to the jury three points of fact for decision:— 1st, Was it the duty of Huthnance (the purser of New Rosewarne), in conformity with the custom, to register the defendant’s transfer when it was presented to him? 2nd, Might the defendants have reasonably understood the 24th in the plaintiff’s letter to be the 27th? 3rd Supposing it as reasonable to understand it as the 27th, did they, in point of fact, so understand it? He pointed out the fact that the defendants had ?--- made a genuine mistake with regard to the figure they must have committed a deliberate fraud with a view to plead the misunderstanding in any future proceedings which might be taken. On the one side it was argued that they must have known the plaintiff’s way of making the figure “4”, because they had received cheques from him with that figure made exactly as in the letter in question, and had them cashed, and that it was perfectly absurd to answer on the 25th, a letter of the 24th, and call it an answer to a letter of the 27th; that the person writing such letter could not have done it accidentally, it must have been called the 27th with a view of pleading a similar mistake with regard to the letter of the 21st, in which the “4” was written exactly the same way and with the object of reading “24th” for 27th in that letter. That was a question for the jury to decide. He must, however, point out the absolute absurdity of the transaction. He thought it might be explained in this way. The person writing the answer looked to the date, which is generally exhibited in large figures in an office, and seeing that it was the 25th, put down that date; but on coming to describe the letter which he was answering, he looked to the letter itself; and seeing what appeared to be the “27th”, he called it “the letter of the 27th,” without any further thought. The jury, after about an hour’s consultation, brought in a verdict for the defendant on the first and second points left to them by the judge—that is, they considered that in conformity with the custom, Huthnance ought to have registered the transfer for the five shares presented by the plaintiff; and they considered it reasonable that the 24th, in the plaintiff’s letter, should have been mistaken for the 27th. On the 3rd point, whether the defendants did, in point of fact, so mistake the figures, they could not agree, and were locked up at a quarter past seven o’clock, but not agreeing they were discharged about half-past ten o’clock. BREACH OF PROMISE CASE—BEST v. BRIEN. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for an alleged breach of promise of marriage. Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Lopes were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Smith, Q.C., with Mr. Cole, were counsel for the defendant. Damages were laid at £500, but an arrangement was effected between the parties out of court, the defendant agreeing to pay £15 to the plaintiff, who has to pay her own costs. The defendant is a farmer residing at , near Saltash, and the plaintiff was formerly in his service as housekeeper. The defendant pleaded that he had committed no breach of promise; and secondly, if such promise was made, it was more than six years ago, and therefore his liability was covered by the statute of limitations. The court then adjourned till Monday morning. MONDAY, AUGUST 1. (Before Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C.) The judge took his seat on the bench this morning at ten o’clock TODD v. BADGERY This was a special jury case. Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Buller for the defendant. Mr. KINGDON opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Mr. Thomas Catley Todd, and the defendant was Mr. W. Badgery. The plaintiff, by his declaration, complained that he had hired a horse and carriage of the defendant; that the defendant well knew the horse was vicious, and the harness unsound, and that in consequence the plaintiff was thrown out of the carriage and seriously injured; secondly, that the defendant warranted the horse to be quiet, and the harness, in law, to be sufficient. To this the defendant pleaded that he did not know the horse was vicious, or the harness unsound; and, secondly, that the horse was reasonably quiet and the harness reasonably sound, and on these pleas issue was joined. Mr. KARSLAKE stated the case. The plaintiff, Mr. John Catley Todd, was a shipowner and a shipchandler, living at Austin Friars, London. He was also the owner of some china clay works at Savarth, a few miles from Bodmin, and was interested in mines in the county. The defendant, Mr. W. Badgery, was a shoemaker, and he also kept horses and carriages for hire in Bodmin. The action was brought to recover compensation for the serious injury which the plaintiff had sustained in consequence of the defendant having hired him a vicious horse, which was unfit to be driven, and sending out harness that was unfit for use, on the 10th of June in last year. The learned counsel then stated the case as deposed to by the following witnesses:— John Catley Todd—I am the plaintiff in this action, and carry on the business of a ship chandler, in London. I am also interested in mines in Cornwall. I know the defendant, Mr. Badgery, who is in the habit of letting out horses and carriages. On the 10th of June, last year, I had occasion to go to Savarth, and I ordered a horse and phaeton from the defendant. I had made arrangements for a friend named Daniel to go with me, and I picked him up outside of the town. The horse went pretty well at first—rather faster than I liked. About two miles out of the town we had to pass through a lane, and the horse appeared there to be startled by a bush at the road side. In consequence of its becoming rather restive, I entrusted Daniel with the reins. At Trevallian I had to call on a friend named Udy, but as he was not at home, we drove on to Savarth. The horse continued uneasy all the way, but we arrived there about 12 o’clock. I had taken a quart bottle of ale and some cake with me, and Mr. Daniel had a flask of sherry and water. This was all the refreshment we had. We started back between four and five o’clock, Mr. Daniel driving. On approaching the Ebenezer chapel, the horse was frightened at a man with a basket and a woman before us, shied, and backed into the hedge. I got out and led him, and he then went off at a very rapid rate. We reached Trevallian, and I again called at Udy’s. He was not at home. The horse, while we called, was very restive, and again started off at a rapid rate. After leaving Trevallian there is a hill, and when he got to the top he again set off very rapidly. Mr. Daniel tried to stop him in going up the hill, in order that the drag might be put on while descending on the opposite side, but he could not stop him, although he pulled with both hands; and on reaching the top, the horse set off very rapidly. On approaching some cottages, as there are frequently children playing there, Daniel tried to pull the horse to one side, and in doing so one of the reins snapped. The horse then proceeded without control, until approaching a very narrow part of the road, where there is a turn or bend, when in taking the turn, the phaeton came in contact with a stone that stuck out 18 inches from the wall. Mr. Daniel called to me to hold on, after the reins broke, and we both tried to hold on to the phaeton. I knew nothing after that. We were both thrown out, and I was very much injured. I was insensible, and was removed to a cottage near, and a surgeon was sent for. Afterwards I was removed to my inn at Bodmin, where I was confined for a month, during which I was attended by Mr. Mudge, surgeon, of Bodmin. My business of a ship chandler is one that requires my constant personal attendance. I have not since the accident been able to attend to my business as before. I have paid as much as £50 for medical attendance in London since the accident. After the accident my wife came down from London, and my expenses at the inn, amounted to between £7 and £8. The loss which I sustained by not being able to attend to my business during my illness was at least £100. I did not flog the horse at all during the journey, neither did Mr. Daniel. I held the reins and he did, but we did not flog the horse. Cross-examined by Mr. Smith: I have had horses before this one from Mr. Badgery. There is a perfectly good turnpike road all the way to Savarth, but we took the parish road. This is more hilly than the turnpike road, and it is about a mile further in distance. The horse and trap were brought to the door by a man named Hugo, and I think he drove me out of Bodmin. The fact is, that since the accident my memory has been so impaired, that I cannot speak as to some things. I do not recollect Hugo saying to me that the horse was a very free goer, and did not want much whipping. I took up Mr. Daniel just outside Bodmin; I did not flog the horse at all, or use the whip; I have heard of a person named Stoneman since I have been here, but I do not know that I saw him on that occasion. I held the whip during the greater part of the outward journey, to enable Mr. Daniel to hold the reins with both hands; the horse ran away several times during the outward journey; I cannot say that I mentioned to any one, either at Trevallian or Savarth, that I had got a restive horse; the accident happened near the top of the hill; the road is only eight or nine feet wide at the place, and there is a stone projecting from the wall 18 inches. We started from Bodmin about half past ten, and got to Savarth about twelve. The Judge—It seems a long time, and (sic) hour and a half, to go from Bodmin to this place, six miles, as you say the horse went very fast? Witness—the distance may be seven miles—I cannot say. John William Daniel—I am the secretary to a boiler company in Leadenhall street, London; but in June, 1863, I was living at Kirland, near this town. On that day I met Mr. Todd, by appointment, a short distance from Bodmin—as near as I remember between 11 and 12 o’clock. He was driving a horse and phaeton on the old road to Savarth, and when he came up, I got in; I knew the road well, and had travelled it hundreds of times. I understand it was the turnpike road formerly. Mr. Todd was driving. I should say that the horse was going freely. Shortly after I got in, we came to a small stream, which we crossed by a bridge. For some time after this the road was up hill; and while we were going up, the horse shied at a young tree in the hedge, which happened to be stirred by the wind, and swerved. Mr. Todd was driving at this time, but, after the horse had shied, he pulled up and asked me to drive. I have been used to driving, and I took the reins; the horse trotted off very rapidly, and I had great difficulty holding him; he proceeded at a rapid pace across the moor—the road is a winding one, with a number of holes or ditches at the sides. After leaving the moor and ascending the hill, the ascent and my pulling at the reins checked the speed very much; but, up to that time, I had not full control of the horse; I had great difficulty in keeping it out of the ditches, owing to the rapid rate at which it was going. He was going much faster than I wanted him, and I kept a tight rein on him. After describing the further journey and their calling at Mr. Udy’s, at Trevallian, he continued—At Savarth the horse was taken out of the trap, I believe, but I cannot recollect positively. I should think that it was nearly two o’clock, or perhaps one, when we got to Savarth. We remained there probably two hours, after which the horse and trap were brought, and started off very fast, and I was unable to keep him at the pace which I desired. At one part there is a cluster of cottages, and children are frequently playing on the road there; and as the horse was going at a very rapid rate, I endeavoured to pull him up, and I put an extra strain on the reins. One of them snapped and the horse swerved to one side. I saw a stone projecting from the wall at the side of the road. We seized hold of the guard irons. The trap ran against the stone, and we were thrown out violently. I was stunned, and when I came to myself I found one of the wheels of the phaeton lying on me. I got it off, and looking up, saw the trap laid on Mr. Todd. I endeavoured to remove it but was unable, being stunned. Some persons came up, and I got them to assist me. Mr. Todd was removed to a cottage near, and I sent to Bodmin for a medical man. By the advice of the latter, Mr. Todd, who was unconscious, was removed to Bodmin. There is not the least pretence for saying that Mr. Todd or I was intoxicated. I had a flask of wine and water with me; and I had a small quantity of this, and a mug of the beer which Mr. Todd had taken out. On the return journey, I did not flog the horse at all. I gave the whip to Mr. Todd, and he held it the greater part of the time in order that I might have both hands to hold the reins. None but a madman would have flogged the horse. Cross-examined: We had some difficulty with the horse previous to coming to the moor. I cannot state with certainty whether the horse was taken out of the trap while at Savarth, but I think it was not taken out of the harness. We saw Mr. Udy at the mine, but I do not know whether we left him there or not. On passing down the hill before the accident, the horse was galloping. I cannot now say positively whether it was trotting or galloping. I cannot say whether the horse stood still after the accident. It was standing quite close to where the accident occurred when I came to myself. A man named Stoneman came up after the accident. I do not recollect saying to him that the horse had run away with us; or his replying—“If the horse had run away, you had no occasion to whip him as you did; and it served you right.” I will not swear that this man did not say so, but I have no recollection of it. I was so stunned at the time that I cannot recollect everything that took place. Pharoah (sic) Thomas, employed at the China Clay Works at Bugle, deposed that he and his sister were returning from their work on the afternoon of the 6th June. The phaeton overtook them near the chapel at Luxulyan, and the horse on approaching them, shied, ran back into the ditch, and began to rear. One of the gentlemen got out, took the horse gently by the head and led it out of the “gap” of the hedge, and “smoothed” it. He led it round the corner and then got into the trap, and the horse went off as fast as it could lay its feet to the ground, so far as I could judge. I never saw a horse go faster. I saw them for little more than a quarter of a mile. Cross-examined—I was very much frightened when I saw the horse going so fast, as I saw a little girl standing by the side of the road. Mr. SMITH - And the hair of your head stood on end, I suppose?—(laughter). Witness—Yes; but it did not knock my hat off. I ran after them, and saw the horse going up the hill some distance further, at this rapid rate. Mr. SMITH—While your hair was standing on end!—(laughter). Mrs. Elfrida Chapman, sister of the last witness gave corroborative evidence. Mrs. E Rowe deposed that she lived at Luxulyan, and remembered seeing the trap passing over the moor on the afternoon of the 6th June. They were going slowly. She walked half-a-mile after them, and never saw the horse catch a “whop” at all. I went after them to the village of Trevillian. I was going to Mr. Udy’s there, the same as Mr. Todd. While they were there, the horse got very excited and began to plunge. Mr. Daniel clapped it, and endeavoured to quiet it. She called to him to hold the animal tighter or it would get him under its feet. William Budd, blacksmith, living near the Seven Stars public house, at Luxulyan, Savarth, saw the horse about noon on the 10th of June. It was trotting very nicely, and he saw no whip used. Saw them returning in the afternoon, and then the horse was not going quite so fast as in the morning; no whip was being used on the second occasion, but they were keeping a tight rein, and were going very steadily. William Henry Retallick gave similar evidence. Mr. Thomas Mudge, surgeon, Bodmin, deposed that he remembered the accident on the 10th of June. He was sent for, and went out and found Mr. Todd at a cottage, lying stretched out on a table in a state of complete insensibility. Examined him there, and as there was no accommodation at the cottage, he thought it would be best to remove him to Bodmin. He was accordingly conveyed to his lodgings and examined there. He was suffering from concussion of the brain; he was also bleeding at the ear, which was a very serious symptom; two of his ribs were broken, and there was a bruise on the ear, but all of the injuries were trifling compared to the injury to his head and ribs. Continued to attend him for two or three weeks, when he had sufficiently recovered to be able to return to London. His charge for attendance was £2. 10s., or £2. 15s. John Roseveare deposed that he examined the harness immediately after the accident, and thought it was not in a good state. The reins appeared to be in a perishing state. Saw where the reins had broken, and in his opinion they ought not to have been sent out. John Nicholls said that he doubled a piece of the leather of the reins, after the accident, and it cracked across; then gave the leather a twist, and it broke the other way. The reins appeared to be old and rotten, and were not fit to guide a free going horse. Mr. Charles , mine agent at Little Falmouth, deposed that he hired this horse and a trap, one day, in January 1864, to drive to Mawgan. Mr. Badgery said the horse would not want a whip, and he did not take one with him; but after starting the animal would not go faster than a walking pace. He had to borrow a whip at Luxulyan, but even with this they could not get it to go on. The result of all that was that the horse fell down and broke its knees. William Udy was called to prove that Mr. Todd and Mr. Daniel arrived at the Savarth Works about 12 o’clock, and left about half-past three. Mr. M. SMITH then addressed the jury for the defendant. He said there was no doubt that Mr. Todd had sustained a serious injury in consequence of this accident, but he thought they would perceive before the conclusion of the case, if they had not perceived already, that Mr. Todd might throw the blame of that accident on Mr. Badgery, but that it had resulted from their own ignorance and recklessness. They had doubtless heard of many horse cases before, and they knew something of the manner in which evidence was given in such actions; but he appealed to them whether they had ever before heard of a case in which only two persons who were called to show that the horse was a vicious and runaway animal, were the two persons who drove him when the accident occurred, and only on that occasion. They had not ventured to call a single person who drove the animal either before or after the accident, and who could have told them what kind of horse it was. There was no doubt that the plaintiff had made every inquiry respecting the animal’s antecedents, and he had found that instead of being a vicious, runaway, and unsafe horse, it was quiet, free- going, and good tempered. The learned Counsel then proceeded to comment on the evidence that had been given by the witnesses for the plaintiff; stated that which he should offer on behalf of the defendant. In conclusion he submitted that it would be found that the accident happened through the furious and careless driving of the plaintiff and Mr. Daniel through a narrow country road. If that should appear to be the case, then the defendant would be entitled to a verdict; but whether it did or not would not much signify, because if he proved that the horse was a quiet, safe, and freegoing animal, and that the harness and carriage were in a safe and proper state, then the defendant had done all that the law required of him, and he was not to be held liable for the plaintiff’s ignorance or recklessness. If Mr. Todd was not accustomed to driving, he ought to have taken some one with him to drive; and if an accident occurred in consequence of his want of knowledge, he must take the consequence. He called Simon Hugo, who deposed—I am in the employ of Mr. Badgery, driving for him as a post-boy and taking care of his horses. On the morning of the 10th of June last year, I took a horse and phaeton to the plaintiff’s lodgings at the request of the latter. The harness and trap were in good condition. At the request of the plaintiff he drove up the street, as far as the asylum, and then he gave Mr. Todd the reins and got out. He told Mr. Todd that the horse was a free one, and would go on all right without being whipped. In consequence of a message which he received he took a pair of horses to the place where the accident happened. Knew the way from Bodmin to Savarth. The turnpike is by far the best road. The next day witness drove the horse in question to the same place. He went as quiet as a lamb—too quiet indeed. He was a good tempered horse, and got along very nicely. The defendant kept him about twelve months. Had driven him many times both in single and double harness since the accident. The reins had also been in constant use since the accident; and he drove down to Lostwithiel with them yesterday. (The reins were produced and the witness said that it would be safe to drive any horse with them, however restive.) John Stoneman, a tin streamer, deposed that while at work on the 10th of June, 1863, at Conce moor, he heard the noise of a carriage coming very swiftly along the road. He left his work and walked towards the road, and he saw a horse and carriage in which were two gentlemen. They were going very swiftly, the horse galloping. One of the gentlemen was holding the reins with both hands, and the other had the whip, and he whipped the horse two or three times—it might have been more; certainly, he whipped it more than once. The horse went as fast as it could gallop across the moor. Just as the carriage passed he thought it would upset, and he ran up the burrow towards the road, and found that it had not done so, and that they were driving over the moor at the same speed. Cross-examined: As they were driving up the hill, the gentleman who was driving rose up in his seat and pulled up the horse, which stopped galloping, and walked up the remainder of the hill. Simon Stoneman, son of the last witness, deposed that on the day of the accident, while working at the tin stream works on the moor, between 11 and 12 o’clock, he heard a horse and carriage coming on the road at a rapid rate. Looked down the road and saw the horse going at a gallop. Mr. Daniel and another gentleman were in the carriage. Mr. Daniel had hold of the reins with both hands, and the other gentleman had the whip, and was whipping the horse all the way. Capt. Wm. Stoneman, captain and agent of the stream works at Conce Moor, remembered the day of the accident, and gave corroborative evidence as to the rapid rate at which the horse was being driven on the outward journey. One of the gentlemen held the whip, and whipped the horse shamefully. After the accident, he went to the place and said to Mr. Daniel, “You are one of the men I saw go up the road this morning.” Mr. Daniel said that the horse had run away; and witness replied, “If he ran away, you had no right to whip him as you did; and it has served you right.” Philip Beswarwick, miner, living at Lockin-gate, said that he was at Savarth on the day of the accident. About half past two o’clock he set off home, but before he got there he heard a carriage coming towards him. Mr. Daniel was driving; he held the reins in one hand and the whip in the other. They passed him at a very rapid rate, and soon after they had done so one of the wheels of the carriage came in contact with a stone projecting from the wall, and there was a violent upset. Before this occurred, Mr. Daniel was whipping the horse, and driving as fast as he could. Thomas Stoneman, the younger, recollected the evening of the accident. He was in company with a man called William Rosevear, at Lockin Gate. Saw the phaeton pass on the road from Savarth. They were driving very rapidly. Rosevear took off his hat and halloed to them not to drive so fast, saying that it was not their own horse, or they would not do so. One of them was guiding the horse, holding the reins with both hands, and the other had the whip and was whipping it. Cross-examined: The horse was galloping as fast as it could go, and yet they whipped him. I did not count the number of times I saw them whip him, but I should think between 20 and 30 times. Mary Ann Rowe deposed that she lives at a cottage scarcely a quarter of a mile from where the accident happened. She was looking through her window on the afternoon of the 10th of June and saw the phaeton coming in a direction from Luxulyan. There is a hill near, and on coming up the first half of the ascent the horse was walking. Half way up they whipped the horse, and it then got into a moderate steady trot. In 10 minutes after they had passed she heard of the accident. Loveday Rosevear deposed that she was sitting at one of the windows of her father’s cottage on the afternoon when the accident occurred, and saw the phaeton on the top of the hill not far from the last witness’s cottage. It appeared to be going very fast. She lost sight of it for a short time, and soon after it came in sight again she saw the accident happen. The horse stood still and quiet after the phaeton struck the stone. She went to the place and the horse was standing still then. Captain F. Retallick, agent of the New Croggan stream work, deposed to seeing the horse galloping along the road as fast as it could go while standing at Lockin Gate on the afternoon of the 10th of June. When he heard of the accident he said, “serve them right for driving so hard. Cross-examined: I have not had any quarrel with Mr. Todd. I claim some money, and should be very glad to receive the £20 which we claim from him. He was to pay the adventurers of the stream works £5 a year. Mr. Daniel was whipping the horse right and left when I saw them. John Udy deposed to the horse standing still and quiet after the accident, though it appeared to be very much frightened. Wm. Cole, saddler, of Bodmin, deposed that he sometimes worked for Mr. Badgery. He examined the reins that were used on the day of the accident, and they were now sound and strong, and fit to drive any horse. He made them, but had not mended them. Wm. Bradbury, (sic) the defendant, deposed that he bought the horse from Messrs Marshall and Stephens, of Bodmin, on the 1st of June, last year. Had known the horse before, or he should not have bought it. It was a very quiet horse. Some time after the occurrence the horse happened to meet with an accident, and he kept it three or four months to see if it would get better, but as it was in poor condition, he at length sold it for 50s. Joseph Stephens deposed that they had had the horse about a year and a half before they sold it to Mr. Badgery. It was a very quiet, good tempered horse and a free goer, and did not required (sic) to be whipped. Never ran away while in their possession, or did anything approaching. Sold it because they had two horses at the time and not work for both. Mr. Badgery might have had his choice of either horse. The Rev. J.W. Hawksley, curate of Bodmin, deposed that he had borrowed and driven the horse in the month of September after the accident, but that was not the first time he had been in a carriage behind it. He had driven the animal twice himself, and been driven behind it several times. It was a very quiet free going horse. Wm. Beswetherick, draper, Bodmin, deposed that he knew the horse, and on the Sunday previous to the day of the accident he drove out the horse, taking his wife, two children, and his wife’s father in the carriage. He drove it to his father’s about ten miles from Bodmin, and returned in the evening with the same party. The horse went very free and pleasantly indeed, and he was so much pleased with it, that he expressed a wish to have the same horse again whenever he required one. It did not exhibit the slightest symptom of vice or a desire to run away. Had driven the horse on two or three occasions since the accident, and it went just as on the first occasion. This concluded the defendant’s case, and Mr. M. Smith summed up the evidence which he had called. Mr. KARSLAKE then replied on the whole case, and the learned judge having summed up with great clearness and perspicuity, the jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defendant. The Court then adjourned. TUESDAY, AUGUST 2 Before Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Q.C. The Court opened this morning at ten o’clock. IMPORTANT QUESTION OF WATER RIGHTS—GAVED v. MARTYN. In this case Mr. John Gaved is the plaintiff, and Mr. Elias Martyn the defendant. The declaration contained five counts, in the first three of which complaint was made of diverting a water course. The fourth and fifth counts were for trespass. On the first three counts the defendant pleaded a denial of the right, and on the fourth and fifth counts he paid £5 into court. Mr. MONTAGU SMITH, Q.C. and Mr. BULLAR appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. KARSLAKE, Q.C. and Mr. PINDER for the defendant. The plaintiff’s attorneys were Messrs Smith and Roberts; and Mr. Carlyon, of St. Austell, was the attorney for the defendant. Mr. Bullar having opened the proceedings, Mr. MONTAGU SMITH, Q.C., stated the case for the plaintiff. He said the plaintiff, Mr. John Gaved, was the occupier of some clayworks called Carrancarrow, in the parish of St. Austell, and he occupied under Lord Mount Edgcumbe, whose family had been the owner of the estate for many years. The defendant Elias Martyn is the proprietor of an adjoining estate, called Goonamarth, which was for many years the family estate of the Trevanions. Mr. Martyn became owner of this estate in 1855, and the action was brought in consequence of his interference with some water required for the china clay works, at Carrancarrow, to which water Mr. Gaved claimed to be entitled. The jury were aware that the clay works in this county were now very considerable, and the clay formed one of the staple productions of the county. Now, the very existence of clay works required water in order to get rid of the impurities from the clay. For this purpose the clay was deposited in pits, where it was washed. The clay in the Carrancarrow works was a very good description of china clay. It was largely used in the potteries, and also for the purpose of making paper. The plaintiff did a very large business in this clay, sending a large portion of it to Antwerp, and other parts of the Continent, where it was used for the purpose of making paper. Mr. Smith then proceeded to describe the situation of the works in question, and the disputed water ways as shown upon coloured maps which were supplied to the jury. The two estates of Carrancarrow and Goonamarth, the former belonging to the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe, and the latter to Mr. Martyn, the defendant, were to a great extent divided by a brook running from north to south; the Carrancarrow estate lying to the right, and the Goonamarth to the left, and the places where the boundary varied from the line divided by this brook were marked on the map. This brook, though its channel had varied from time to time, had always been running. The questions, however, which would come before the jury, were mainly in respect to two leats, or water courses, which went to the Carrancarrow clay works, which was situated towards the bottom of the brook as shown on the map. One of the leats in question— the lower leat—was called the foul water leat, and supplied the works with water from the brook. This water was sometimes in a foul state, and was used for the preliminary processes of clay washing. The other supplied the works with pure, or clear water, for the finishing processes; and the works had obtained a very good supply from these two leats for many years. The supply from the foul water leat was drawn entirely from the brook, and flowed directly to the works. The water in this leat was not always foul, but was so when the miners were at work up the stream, and therefore it was called the foul water leat. The clear water leat was made in sections, and received its supply from different sources. The Carrancarrow farm was occupied for a great many years by an old man called Edward Hooper, in whose family it had been for generations. Philip Hooper, a brother of Edward’s, lived in a house which was now in ruins. Being in want of water, he constructed a leat from a place called “The old woman’s house,” where there was a spring down to the house in which he lived, and from that source he obtained a good stream of water. That was about 45 years ago. The Carrancarrow clay works were discovered and started by Edward Hooper, who lived at the farm house, having obtained leave from Lord Mount Edgcumbe to work them. But to carry on the works it was necessary to obtain water, and what he did was this; he extended the leat from Philip Hooper’s house southwards to the clay works. This was the first section. Then he constructed the second section of the leat northwards from the old woman’s house across the river, and up to an old conduit from which a flow of water was issuing supplied from the valley, and from springs on the hill by which it was surrounded. A launder, called the “lower launder” was then put in to convey the water across the brook. That was 34 years ago, and from that time the water has flown uninterruptedly through that leat. Now this leat, extending southwards from the old woman’s house to the clay works, and northward from that house over the launder, was still in the Carrancarrow right. There was a third section to this leat, but before describing it he must say something about the occupation. It appeared that old Edward Hooper carried on the clay works with his son William and some other persons down to 1835, when they sold the plant to the plaintiff, Mr. Gaved. In 1835, the plaintiff took the works from Lord Mount Edgcumbe and had been in the uninterrupted enjoyment of the water from that time—a period of 28 years, and the works during that time had been carried on by means of the two leats described; therefore he had some difficulty in imagining what objection could be made by the defendant to the enjoyment of this water. But there was a third section of the clear water leat which involved somewhat different considerations, but that he trusted they would see the defendant was equally entitled to. When the plaintiff came to the works he drove a new level, and it appeared that in the year 1842 he was desirous of obtaining an increased supply of clear water. For this purpose he extended the clear water leat from the conduit before mentioned, higher up the brook, where he placed a launder, called the “upper launder,” across the stream, and so took the water from an old tin tie which at that place emptied itself into the brook. The water in this tin tie came no doubt originally from an old mining level, and it would be seen that as it emptied itself into the brook it was taken up by the plaintiff lower down in the foul water leat and carried to the clay works, so that the only difference made by taking it over the brook by means of the launder and so on to the works through the clear water leat was to get the water pure instead of foul. It therefore benefited the plaintiff, while it did not injure anybody else. Now the complaint in the action was, that Mr. Martyn, the defendant, had deprived the plaintiff of the whole of the water, and so rendered his works useless. Up to the time Mr. Martyn purchased the estate, there had never been any interference with the plaintiff’s water by the occupiers at Goonamarth. But when Mr. Martyn came there in 1855, he made various attempts to interfere with the water. Those attempts were resisted by the plaintiff. In 1857, a communication was made to Mr. Martyn by Lord Mount Edgcumbe’s solicitors, and from that time he ceased to interfere with the water for about two years. He then again commenced interference, which was constantly resisted till 1863. He broke down the dam and the bank of the foul water leat which formed a junction with the river, and was entirely upon Lord Mount Edgcumbe’s land, and so entirely prevented that water from flowing into the leat. Simultaneously with that wrongful act, he removed the lower and upper launders, and so deprived the plaintiff not only of the pure water from the tin tie, which was also in Lord Mount Edgcumbe’s land, but of all the water which flowed to the works for the last 34 years. For, it would be remembered that even if the upper launder was removed, there would still be a considerable supply of water flowing from the conduit over the lower launder, none of which came from the tin tie. The result of these acts was that the clay works, which had been in operation for 34 years, were stopped, and had become valueless. There were some works called the Corn clay works, on the edge of the stream, which were on both the Carrancarrow and Goonamarth estates. These works were carried on by a person named Thompson from 1825 to 1830, when they were taken by the plaintiff and worked till 1837, when he gave them up, and they remained idle till 1851, when Mr. Trevanion, Mr. Martyn’s predecessor, granted a license to Messrs Wheeler and Higman, who opened the clay works near the same place, called the Goonamarth clay works, and had worked them on ever since without ever having disputed the right to the water. In fact, the water from the tin tie was no use to them, as they required water from a higher level and had to go to another source for it. But as part of the channel in which the water flowed to the Carrancarrow works would be the most convenient for their use, they agreed to make a new channel for the plaintiff if he would allow them to use their channels. This course was agreed to, and the water afterwards flowed to the plaintiff’s works in the new channel made by Messrs Wheeler and Higman. They were no doubt aware that 20 years’ undisturbed possession of water or land gave to a person a right against all the world; no previous right could be shown, after a period of 20 years, to dispossess the holder of the water which he had enjoyed during that time. Now, the plaintiff had been in the uninterrupted enjoyment of the water from the foul water leat for 28 years, and of that from the tin tie for 22 years. But the defendant said, “this water belonged to a tin work, and you have obtained permission to use it from the tinners, and, therefore, you have not enjoyed it as a right.” Now, there were a set of tin bounds, which included part of that tie. Tin bounds was a custom which had existed in Cornwall and Devon, in what was called the Stannaries, for a great number of years, though there was now great doubt, how far the powers claimed under those bounds extended, since it had been weakened in the case of Row v. Brenton. It appeared to be this, however, that tinners might come upon any waste land, upon no title whatever, except of being tinners, and might put up “tin bounds” at four corners of a quantity of land. All within these bounds belonged to the bounders, and they claimed the right to all the water they could lay hold of and even to go into the other land adjoining, and cut leats to convey the water for the purposes of tin streaming. The original bounders paid a toll to the lord, for it was this toll which made the custom good in law; but they afterwards frequently let the right to other persons who were workers, and paid dues to the original bounders. This was the origin of tin dues which were paid to bounders who had no title whatever to the land. Now, old Edward Hooper, the starter of the Carrancarrow clay works, was a bounder, and possessed the right to this water which flowed down the tin tie. He had the power of working it at any time he liked, and so fouling it and rendering it of no use to the clay works. Hooper continued to occupy the Carrancarrow farm after the plaintiff had taken the clay works, and he came to the plaintiff and said that unless he paid him something he would foul the water and render it unfit for use. The plaintiff therefore agreed to pay Hooper £1 per quarter to prevent his interference with the water. Now, if that had been paid to the lord, as an acknowledgement of his right to the water, the plaintiff might not now have been able to claim the water; but it had nothing whatever to do with the landowner; it was a right claimed by the tinners against all landowners, was independent of and antagonistic to the rights of the landowners, and could have nothing to do with rights claimed by landowners inter se. This water had been enjoyed by one lord against another for a period of more than 20 years without any acknowledgment, and therefore there was an established right to it. Those were facts which he should prove to them in evidence, and there could be no dispute about them. With regard to the damages, what Mr. Martyn had done was perfectly fatal to the works, which were entirely stopped, and the loss which the plaintiff had suffered had been considerable in consequence of being unable to meet his contracts. It had been arranged, however, that the damages should be settled out of court by some competent person, and therefore the jury would not be troubled on that point. In conclusion the learned counsel contended that the plaintiff was not only entitled to the water from the brook through the foul water leat, but to that in the clear water leat, from the tin tie and conduit, brought over the river by the upper and lower launders. The first witness called was Richard Carveth, land surveyor, who had made the maps of the locality, and deposed to their accuracy. John Gaved examined: I have been engaged in the China clay works for 43 years; I have been tenant of Carrancarrow clay works in the parish of St. Austell. I hold under the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe, and have done so since the year 1835 under him and the previous earls. Two leats flow into the works, and the supply of water is essential for the carrying on of the works; the foul water leat was supplied entirely from the brook; in dry seasons we took the whole of the water from the brook; the other leat derives its water from various sources; the first supply is from the ‘old woman’s house,’ and there is an additional adit there which I drove in 1836 to increase the supply; I had another supply from an underground conduit independently of the tie. We then got a large supply from the tin tie. At the point of junction between the foul leat and the brook the bank was cut down, and the whole of the water from the brook was entirely cut off from the foul leat. I took the Corn works from Lord Mount Edgcumbe’s and Mr. Trevanion’s stewards, and paid dues to both parties. I continued to work the Corn clay works till 1837. Since 1837 the water has always flowed down from the tie to the Carrancarrow works. I took Carrancarrow in 1835. While I worked the Corn works, I had water from an adit I made from the tin tie to the works. When I gave up the Corn works in 1837 I stopped up the adit, and the water ran down into the brook. In 1842 I put in the upper launder which carried it over the brook and into the Carrancarrow works, thereby preventing it from mixing with the foul water in the foul leat. Soon after Mr. Martyn purchased the estate he demanded £20 a year for the water. I refused to give it. The side of the leat was cut down several times and the launders thrown out. We always immediately put them up again. I complained to Mr. Boger, who wrote to Mr. Martyn, and for two years we had no annoyance. In May, 1863, the acts now complained of were done. Cross-examined by Mr. Karslake: I had a right to work the clay under Lord Mount Edgcumbe. My lawyer has the writings (Mr. M. Smith here declined to produce the writings). Witness: I was at work in 1835, but got no licence till 1836. I did not work the Corn works after 1837. I took them in 1831. There was then an old adit already in existence. In 1836 I agreed with Mr. Trevanion to work for tin on the Goonamarth estate. I drove a level, which did not succeed, and then I gave it up. I never paid any lord’s dues. In 1835 Mr. Martyn came in, and after that the water was frequently cut down from 1835 to 1863, and the launders were also thrown out. The Goonamarth works were taken in 1852 by Mr. Higman. The works are carried on by Messrs Wheeler and Higman. Their works run into both estates, but the clay was washed in the Goonamarth estate. They were supplied by two different streams. There was a road through Carrancarrow from the Goonamarth works. Re-examined:—The present tenant of the farm has nothing to do with the clay works and the yards. They are in my occupation. The Corn works are totally separate from the Carrancarrow. The lower launder is altogether on the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe’s estate. I am not holding under any sett at present; nor was I in 1863. Wm. Hooper, Richard Yelland, and Philip Hooper were then called, and gave confirmatory evidence. Mr. Karslake submitted to the Court that there was no case. Gaved, the plaintiff, had been called and did not produce his deeds, but said he had a license, under which he had been working; therefore if a right was possessed it was by the grantor of the license and not by Gaved. The right claimed was to artificial water courses, the origin of each of which had been shown, and therefore the right could not be claimed. The enjoyment had not been uninterrupted, because it had been litigious since 1855. It was admitted that a payment had been made to Hooper for the use of the water; thus a right could not be maintained against all the world. The fact of paying Hooper disproved the assertion of right. The learned Judge ruled that there was a case for the jury, but consented to take a note of the objections raised by Mr. Karslake. Mr. Karslake then replied on the plaintiff’s case, and called for the defence Richard Jacob who said he was aged about 68. Was a clay labourer under Mr. Martin (sic). Had known the Carrancarrow clay works for 44 years. Recollected the place before any clay works were there at all. Remembered old Hooper streaming for tin down the valley. Knew the tin tie which ran into the brook at the place where the upper launder afterwards crossed. Knew the stone conduit a little below. It was made by Adam Thompson’s men. After the water passed through the conduit it ran into the brook. Had taken down both leats five or six times since 1855 by the defendant’s orders; also the launders. Cross-examined by Mr. Smith: Mr. Gaved put the leats and the launders up again after I pulled them down. Edward Geach said: He was now in his fifty-first year. When he was young he remembered his father having a clay work on the lower part of the Goonamarth estate, down near Biscavillet. He discovered the clay while shooting over the estate. Witness worked on the works. The dirty water from the river was used for the purpose of working the sand out of the clay. Old Hooper discovered the clay at Carrancarrow, a couple of years afterwards. Remembered being present at a meeting, at which his father and Mr. Hooper were present. They had a bottle of brandy and a bottle of gin, which they drank—(laughter). His father said he would grant Hooper the use of the water, with the permission of the tollers of Lord Mount Edgcumbe and of Mr. Trevanion—who were present—on condition that he paid him a peppercorn or a furze prickle in acknowledgment, and also on condition that in scarce seasons the leat should be cut down so as to let the water flow down the brook; there had been no leat cut at that time; saw the Hoopers cut the leat afterwards. Capt. Samuel Bennetts, the toller to Lord Mount Edgcumbe, said to my brother and myself, ‘Come here, my boys; after we are dead and gone, you may be men, and you will remember all this, and can give an account of it if any difference should arise.’ After the leat had been cut, we were sometimes short of water, and then witness went and cut down the dam of the leat and let the water run down its usual course; did that two or three times; it was in summer when the water was scarce; in the winter the Hoopers had as much as they wanted, because there was then plenty of water for both. Cross-examined by Mr. SMITH—Got our clean water from springs on the moor, different altogether from the water in question. Was present at a public house in St. Austell about two years after the meeting in question, when his father demanded a pepper corn or a furze prickle from old Hooper. Hooper stood a pint of beer, and witness drank part of it. Mr. M. Smith—That was a sad falling off from the brandy and gin—(laughter). Witness—Well, a drop of the beer is very acceptable at times—(laughter). Mr. Karslake—It was a better rental than the furze prickle at all events—(laughter). Alfred Geach examined by Mr. Karslake—He said he was the younger brother of the last witness. The works were going on in 1831 when he left and became an apprentice to the hatting business. It was 1829 or 1830 when the arrangement took place. Witness gave evidence similar to that of his brother respecting the meeting and the arrangement with old Hooper. Cross-examined by Mr. Smith—The last time I worked at the works was in 1831. Was about 14 years of age when the meeting in question was held. Never put anything down about the conversation. Talked to my brother about it last Saturday night. Richard Vivian said he was a clay merchant at Truro. He was 72 years of age. He remembered Thompson’s clay work at Corn between 1825 and 1832. Kept the cost book. Made an agreement with old Hooper for the water for making the clay. Was to pay him £4 per year. The first payment was made in January 1826. At the time the streamers tin tie ran as it does now. There was a spring at the head of the tie from which the water ran through the tie into the brook. There was no adit there then. We constructed the adit. Henry Wm. Higman said he was lessee of the Goonamarth clay works. The license is dated from 1851. The firm was Wheeler and Co. The Gonamarth (sic) work is where we are now digging up the clay. Some of the old floors and pits were upon Lord Mount Edgcumbe’s land. Used them up to February last, when we had notice to quit from Lord Mount Edgcumbe. Up to the time had been allowed to use the floors and pits. Were also accustomed to use a road over the Carrancarrow estate. This was by arrangement with the tenants; it was with Hooper. In 1851, made an arrangement with Hooper to prevent interference with the water. Arranged for a certain rental to have the use of pools, &c., which they might have deprived us of. The whole of the land had been streamed. Cross-examined—Was a tenant under Mr. Trevanion and now under Mr. Martyn. The streamers claimed the right to the water as against the landowners. The water used by Mr. Gaved was of no use to us without we raised it by artificial means. Mr. Pinder having put in some documents respecting the setts of the clay works on the Goonamarth estate first to Adam Thompson and then to Wheeler and Higman, Mr. Karslake summed up the evidence for the defendant. He said that for a water case the facts lay in a very small compass. Usually a great deal of time was taken up in proving the origin of the streams in dispute but here that was all clear. He contended that it was clearly proved by the evidence of the Geaches that the water was not taken into the foul water leat as a matter of right, but by their permission and on certain conditions, which were from time to time enforced; that was that the plaintiff might use the water when there was plenty of it, but when the water was scarce the dam was to be cut so as to allow the water to flow down in its natural channel for the benefit of those lower down the stream, who had equal rights to it. The policy of the plaintiff had been to divert the whole of the water from the brook, for his own purposes, to endeavour to retain the use of it for 20 years, and then to say to those who might dispute his right, all this was acquiesced in by you, notwithstanding the fact that ever since 1855 the right had been disputed in every possible way by the defendant. It could not be for a moment held that there had been an uninterrupted possession of the water, when it was admitted that Mr. Martyn had several times between 1855 and 1863, removed the launders, and thrown down the leats, so as to allow the water to flow in the natural channel. If rights could be obtained in that way no man’s property was safe. He submitted that, with regard to the lower leat, it had been used by permission, and not by right, and that as to the upper leat and launder they had only been enjoyed uninterruptedly from 1842 to 1855—without interruption—nothing like a period of 20 years, and that, therefore, no right had been established to either, and that the defendant was entitled to a verdict. Mr. Montague Smith then replied upon the whole case at great length. He submitted that it was clearly proved that since the year 1835 or 1836, Mr. Gaved had been carrying on those large clay works in the full view of everybody, by means of the two leats in question, that was for a period of 28 years, without interruption, other than that by Mr. Martyn. There never was a more clearly established right than this. His learned friend said that the only way to establish a right was by acquiescence, and then destroyed the argument by saying that the acquiescence of the Geaches deprives the plaintiff of the right. Now the interruption of Mr. Martyn, upon which his learned friend had laid so much stress, was, in fact, no interruption at all, because, to be an interruption in the sense of the statute it must be acquiesced in for a year, whereas Mr. Martyn’s interruption had not been acquiesced in for a day. For, they had it in evidence that whenever he destroyed the launders or leats they were immediately replaced. Therefore it was clear that the possession even of the upper launder had been enjoyed uninterruptedly for more than 20 years, and must therefore be established as a right. When Mr. Martyn bought the estate the leats and launders were there, and he must have been perfectly well aware of their existence and of the fact that the Carrancarrow clay-works were carried on by means of these two leats. The learned counsel then proceeded to comment on the evidence of the Geaches, which he characterised as absurd. The idea of a lot of men meeting together over a bottle of brandy and giving away rights which they did not possess, for the consideration of a furze prickle, was too much for one’s gravity; and even the furze prickle was afterwards commuted for a pint of beer (laughter). They were asked that an important right which had been enjoyed for a period of 28 years, should be set aside because two men were dug up who stated that when they were boys some thirty-four or five years ago, a conversation took place over a bottle of brandy and a bottle of gin, and someone said to them pathetically “now my boys, when we are dead and gone remember what was said, if there should be a bother”—(laughter). He thought that was not the way important rights were disposed of. It was considered a great point in the case on behalf of Mr. Martyn that the plaintiff had paid Mr. Hooper not to foul the water, and his friend, to push this point, called two witnesses, Mr. Higman and Mr. Vivian, who, if they proved anything, proved that Mr. Martyn himself had no right to the water. The effect of the evidence was in fact this “I have no right to the water; nobody but Hooper has a right to it; because Hooper has a right to it therefore I have a right to cut it off.” After some further comments on the evidence the learned counsel concluded by saying that the real question was the uninterrupted and open enjoyment of the water in the face of everybody for more than 20 years, and if that did not constitute an enjoyment of the right in Mr. Gaved’s case, he did not see how a right could be established. The learned judge then briefly summed up. He saw no reason why credence should not be given to the evidence of the Geach’s (sic), with respect to the origin of the foul water leat. As to the upper launder he thought a person could not be said to be in the uninterrupted enjoyment of a right, when every possible hostile interruption was employed for the purpose of testing the right. The case had been so ably placed before them by counsel that it was not necessary for him to recapitulate the evidence. He had drawn up the five questions which he would submit to the jury, and they would be so kind as to answer them seriatim. The jury then retired, and after about half an hour’s absence returned to court. The following were the questions submitted, with the answers returned by the jury:— First—Was the Foul Leat cut from the brook with consent of Geach, and under the terms and conditions spoken to by the two Geaches, or was it done by Hooper of right without any agreement? A. It was with the consent of Geach. Second—Was there a cutting off of the water from the leat on one or more occasions, when water in the brook was scarce, and if so, was that done in virtue of the conditions to that effect originally imposed, or done in assertion of the general right to have the water flow down the brook? A. There was, for both reasons. Third—Is the water in the part of the leat above the lower launder derived altogether from the sources of supply above the upper launder, or is it partially so derived and partially derived from springs and sources of supply between the upper and lower launder? A. Partially from both sources. Fourth—Have the plaintiff, and those through whom he claims, had the uninterrupted enjoyment of the two leats or either of them, as of right for more than twenty years without interruption? A. They have had uninterrupted possession of the leat marked Green from the upper launder downwards, but have not had uninterrupted possession of the Foul one too. Fifth—Was the payment of £4 a year to Hooper a payment made for the right to have the water, or was it a payment only in consideration of Hooper not fouling by using it for streaming of tin? A. Only for the purpose of preventing Hooper from fouling it. Verdict for the plaintiff for £1000, subject to be reduced if the arbitrator, to whom the question is to be referred, shall so determine. (Before Mr. Justice Byles, in the Crown Court) ACTION ON A CARGO OF CORN. BELL v. BLAMEY AND ANOTHER. Mr. Karslake Q.C. and Mr. Prideaux, instructed by Mr. Spicer, of London, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. M. Smith Q.C., and Mr. Cole, instructed by Mr. Jenkins, of Penryn, for the defendants. Mr. William Bell, a corn factor and commission agent, residing at Falmouth in this county, was the plaintiff; and Mr. Joel Blamey, a miller and flour merchant, carrying on business at Penryn, and Mr. Dodd, a merchant and wharfinger, at the same place, were the defendants. Mr. Karslake being engaged in the other court, Mr. Prideaux then stated the case. The action had arisen out of the following circumstances:—There is an old lady named Thomasine Wearne, who resides at Ponsanooth, near Penryn, and who until recently carried on, among other things, the business of a miller. The business was formerly carried on by her husband, but he dying in 1855, she became a widow, and though she afterwards continued it, yet being old and infirm, she entrusted its management to her son, Mr. John Wearne. It is necessary to mention that the dealings in the transaction, out of which the present action had arisen, were with Mr. John Wearne, but it would be proved beyond dispute that he was only the agent of Mrs. Wearne, his mother. As such, he made all the purchases of grain, the payment on account of it, &c., and managed the business in every respect, Mrs. Wearne never taking any part in the transaction of the business. The plaintiff had known old Mr. Wearne, and the family had done business with them for many years. On the 25th September, 1863, Mr. John Wearne sent for Mr. Bell, and on going to the place of business at Ponsanooth, Mr. John Wearne said that he had over-bought in wheat, and he should be glad if Mr. Bell would purchase some from him. He said that he had bought a cargo of wheat from Messrs. Rickman and Hill, which was then on board the ship Martha, at Penryn, and that he wanted £400 at once. Mr. Bell declined to purchase that day, but the next day he again saw Mr. Wearne, at Ponsanooth, and he then agreed to purchase the cargo of 330qrs., at 44s. per quarter of 496 lbs. cost, freight and insurance to be free. The arrangement was that two bills for £200 each should be drawn by Wearne on the plaintiff, one to be at two months and the other 75 days date; and the balance of the £729, the price of the cargo, was to be afterwards paid on the delivery of the wheat to the plaintiff. There was also a provision in the agreement that if the price of wheat should rise in the market within a fortnight from that date plaintiff was to have the benefit of it. Two bills were accordingly drawn for £500 (sic) each by Wearne by procuration for his mother, which were accepted by the plaintiff, and then handed over to the former, and at the same time the bill of lading of the Martha, together with a copy of the policy of insurance was handed over by Wearne to the plaintiff. The former was read by the learned council (sic), and stated that there had been in good condition, in the ship Martha, then lying at the port of Poole, and bound for the port of Penryn, 330 quarters of wheat to be delivered there to the order of Mrs. Wearne, or her assign. The bill of lading was endorsed by Messrs. Rickman and Hill, and the captain, J. Jones. At the time of its delivery by Wearne, it was endorsed by him to Mr. Bell, as follows:—“Captain J. Jones deliver the cargo as specified in this bill of lading to Mr. Bell.” On the 30th of Sept., the plaintiff having learnt that the ship Martha had arrived at the port of Penryn, her destination, he went about noon to the captain taking with him the bill of lading as evidence of his title to the cargo, Captain Jones saw the bill, and assented to its being all right, and the plaintiff then said that he would be glad if Captain Jones would deliver the cargo at Falmouth instead of Penryn. He agreed to this on the plaintiff consenting to pay £3, and to send a steam tug to tow the vessel to Falmouth; the plaintiff then returned to Falmouth, leaving a man named Annear on board for the purpose of taking possession of the wheat. It would be shown that up to this time, Mr. Bell had not the slightest suspicion or knowledge that Mrs. Wearne had become insolvent, but unfortunately this was the case, and it would be urged on the other side that the cheque which John Wearne had drawn in favour of Messrs Rickman and Hill, in payment for the wheat, had been dishonoured; on ascertaining this, they sought to avail themselves of a right which was well known to merchants, called a stoppage in transitu. Therefore it was that he had to call the attention of the jury to the fact that the destination of the Martha was Penryn and not Falmouth,—that the vessel had arrived at the former port, that the captain had assented to the bill of lading, and that Annear had, at the plaintiff’s request, gone on board to take possession. The arrangement that the captain should deliver the cargo at Falmouth was a fresh one, and therefore he contended that the right of stoppage in transitu had terminated, as there had in reality been a delivery of the wheat. However, there was another answer to this action, and that was that the transaction in question between the plaintiff and Mrs. Wearne was a bona fide one in law. It had been held that where the dealing was between the original purchaser and the person to whom he sold the goods, the right of stoppage in transitu was gone. The man Annear was permitted to remain on board until the following day, and a steam tug was sent to tow the vessel to Falmouth; but it seemed that in the mean time Captain Jones had received a communication from Messrs Rickman and Hill, and refused to allow the ship to be taken to that port, sent Annear on shore, and refused to allow him to come on board again; under these circumstances, and the plaintiff, hearing that it was the intention of Messrs Rickman and Hill to stop the cargo of wheat, he at once went to the office of Mr. Moorman, solicitor, of Falmouth, in order that that gentleman might take steps to protect his interest. Mr. Moorman, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s son, who had since gone to Australia, then went to Mr. Dodd’s wharf at Penryn, where they found their cargo being discharged. Mr. Moorman gave notice of the plaintiff’s claim to the wheat, and afterwards a similar notice was given to Mr. Blamey; but, notwithstanding, the latter afterwards purchased the wheat. Some time after, Mr. Blamey called on Moorman and asked how the affair about the wheat was going on; on which Mr. Moorman said that the plaintiff intended to assert his right to it; that he had taken the opinion of the Solicitor-General on the matter, and that that gentleman was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the cargo, as the right to seize in transitu had ceased. Mr. Moorman handed Mr. Blamey the opinion of the Solicitor-General to read, and then had the case on which that opinion was given read by a clerk, when Mr. Blamey remarked that the facts were very fairly stated. Mr. Moorman had done this, because he then thought Mr. Blamey was not interested in the matter further than as a friend of the other defendants, and that he might advise him, so as to render litigation unnecessary. Nothing resulted from this, however, and the plaintiff found it necessary to bring this action. He ought to mention to the jury that both the £200 bills had found their way into the possession of a Mr. Willey, of Fleet-street, London, the editor of a Methodist newspaper, and one of them had afterwards got into the hands of Messrs Spicer, a stationer and merchant in London, who had received it for a bona fide debt; and the result was that Bell having got into difficulties, and being unable to meet the bills, Messrs Spicer, having an interest in the matter to the extent of the two £200 bills in their hands, were the parties who were in reality carrying on the action. No steps having been taken by the defendants to settle the matter with the plaintiff, Mr. Moorman, after waiting until February of the present year, thought that it was high time to make a demand for the value of the corn, before commencing action; and he accordingly went and saw the defendant, Mr. Blamey, and served him with a written notice, demanding payment of £726, the price of the 330 quarters of wheat. Mr. Blamey’s answer was—“I have bought the wheat from Messrs Rickman and Hill, and have paid them for it, and I am not going to pay you.” Mr. Dodd, on being served with a similar notice, said that he had nothing to do with the wheat, as he had let the store to Mr. Blamey. He regretted the position in which Messrs Rickman and Hill were placed in consequence of these transactions, as they no doubt guaranteed Mr. Blamey from any risk or loss from any proceedings that might be taken against him by the plaintiff for the recovery of the cargo of wheat; but that was no reason why a bona fide purchaser should sustain any loss on a transaction which he had entered into fairly and in good faith. He then called the plaintiff, William Bell, who deposed to the circumstances as opened by the learned counsel, and he was severely cross- examined by Mr. Montagu Smith as to his localities. Mr. James B. Moorman, solicitor at Falmouth, was the next witness called. He deposed to the circumstances of his having been applied to by the plaintiff respecting the cargo of wheat; of his accompanying the plaintiff to Mr. Dodd’s stores at Penryn, and seeing them unloading the wheat; of his forbidding this; his subsequently serving Mr. Dodd and Mr. Blamey with notices, and his demanding of the latter £726, the value of the wheat and the other matters opened by the learned counsel. In cross-examination, Mr. Moorman stated that on the second occasion when he saw Mr. Dodd, on the 28th of March, and served him with the notice making a specific demand for the value of the wheat, as the agent of Mr. Spicer, solicitor, of London, Mr. Dodd said that he had let the stores to Mr. Blamey, and had nothing to do with the wheat. Mr. PHILLIPS, cashier in Messrs Hawkey’s bank at Falmouth, was next called; but, before his examination was commenced, a consultation took place between the counsel, attorneys, and parties on each side, and, after some delay and demurring as to terms, an arrangement was at last effected. Mr. PRIDEAUX said that he was happy to inform his lordship that his friend and himself had agreed as to terms. They had felt that the case was one of considerable difficulty, and they had agreed to take a verdict for the plaintiff for £400, which was to cover the costs and everything. The JUDGE said he would not enter on the question of the merits of the case, having only heard one side; but the parties had agreed as to terms, and the jury would, therefore, give a verdict for the plaintiff for 400l., which was to cover damages and costs. The jury then returned the verdict as directed. It was stated in court that the 400l. for which the verdict was agreed to be taken was to cover the two bills which had been given by the plaintiff, and that this sum would be paid by Messrs Rickman and Hill, who had guaranteed Mr. Blamey against any proceedings that might be taken by the plaintiff against him, in respect of the cargo of wheat.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 21 October 1864

6. Michaelmas Sessions The Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the county of Cornwall, commenced at Bodmin, on Tuesday. C. B. G. Sawle, Esq., presided, and there were also present:— J. J. Rogers, Esq., M.P., E. B. Tucker, Esq., Sir Colman Rashleigh, Esq., F. G. Enys, Esq., junr., (chairman), J. Borlase, Esq., N. Kendall, Esq., M.P., R. Bolitho, Esq., R. Davey, Esq., M.P., J. Hichens, Esq., J. St. Aubyn, Esq., M.P., B. Lethbridge, Esq., W. H. Pole Carew, Esq., W. Roberts, Esq., Richard Foster, Esq., F. Rodd, Esq., J. Tremayne, Esq., W. Williams, Esq., G. Bennetts, Esq., Major Grylls, F. M. Williams, Esq., The Hon. and Rev. J. T. Bos- N. Norway, Esq., cawen, G. Lakes, Esq., Rev. Rev. R. B. Kinsman, J. T. H. Peter, Esq., Rev. T. Pascoe, E. Coode, Esq., junr., Rev. S. Symonds, and J. Trevenen, Esq., Rev. V. F. Vyvyan. Her Majesty's proclamation against vice and immorality being read, the following gentlemen were sworn upon the grand jury:— Wm. Trethewey, Probus, foreman, E. Cuttance, Falmouth, R. Cardell, St. Columb, R. Davis, Probus, D. Hancock, Callington, P. Hawke, Crantock, J. Hawken, St. Ervan, Jas. Hawken, Trenowth, John Hicks, St. Eval, J. Huddy, Probus, J. Julian, St. Austell, Mr Key, St. Eval, G. Lanyon, Falmouth, W. Lawer, Budock, John Lovering, J. Nicholes, St. Austell, W. Plomer, St. Columb Minor, J. Proctor, Calstock, G. Reed, Budock, H. J. Rowse, St. Columb Major, A. H. Sleeman, Budock, J. Trebilcock, St. Ervan, H. Tresawna, Probus. The following grand jurors also answered to their names:—F.J. Vivian, St. Erval (sic); T. Vosper, Calstock; H. Williams, St. Columb Major. The CHAIRMAN (Mr C. B. G. Sawle), then addressed the the (sic) grand jury. He said: It is always with a great deal of pleasure that the chairman of this court sees a full attendance of grand jurors, and on this occasion I am glad to be able to congratulate you upon the favourable state of the calendar, for it is one of the lightest calendars I ever remember to have seen at the Michaelmas Sessions. The number of prisoners is only 16, and nearly all these are charged with offences against property; there not being a single charge for offences against the person. This time last year there were no less than 46 prisoners for trial, of whom 30 were charged with felony, many cases being of a serious character; there were also several cases of misdemeanour, many of which were aggravated assaults against the person. Recollecting our large population, over 300,000, and the description of employment in which a large number of the population are engaged, I think it is most creditable to the county that there are only 16 prisoners for trial. They are moreover, gentlemen, all cases which will give you no trouble, being simple cases of stealing, without, any aggravation. Our next consideration therefore is—does this state of things imply a permanent decrease of crime in the county? I find that in 1863, 245 persons were apprehended by the police for indictable offences, up to the 29th September, the termination of the legal year, whilst for the year 1864, there were only 209 persons apprehended for indictable offences. This shows a large decrease—no less than of 44 persons in the number apprehended in the county on indictable offences. Therefore, though this county has been put to a large expense in the building of a new gaol, we have every reason to hope that the gaol, combined with the new dietary scale has had its due effect upon the criminal population of the county, and has become a terror to evil doers. With respect to the rating of the county, the general rate for the year 1864, has been 2d. in the £, and the police rate 2¾d., making a total of 4¾d.; while for the year 1863, the general rate was 3d. and 14-32nds, and for police purposes 3d. and 12-32nds, or 7d. in the £ within a fraction, so that there was a decrease of 2¼d. in the total rate for the year just concluded. The general expenses for the year 1864, were £12,460 13s. 5¾d., police expenditure, £13,864 19s. 3½d., grand total, £26,325 12s. 9¼d. There has been an expenditure of £1,699 15s. 10d. on police buildings. The balance due to the county on the general account was £4,038, and on the police account £2,557, making a total of £6,595. We have already £4,129 19s. 10d. in stock on account of the police superannuation fund, for the purpose of making allowances to police officers in cases of being incapacitated by accident or otherwise. There was also an additional sum of £216 to be invested to this account. As regards the finances of the county, we have borrowed over £10,000 on the police account, and repaid £700; and for the gaol we have borrowed £39,000, of which we have repaid £6,000. The general debt of the county for 1863, was £44,432 6s. 8d., which was reduced in 1864 to 42,633l. 6s. 8d. The county rate to be asked for to-day would be 26-32nds of a 1d for general purposes, being a fraction over three farthings; and for police rate 20-32nds, or a halfpenny and half a farthing in the pound. It is usual at the Michaelmas Sessions to allude to Acts of Parliament which have been passed during the preceding session. The first act of which I will speak is the Insane Prisoners' Act Amendment. Section two of this bill enacts that prisoners becoming insane when under sentence of transportation, penal servitude, or imprisonment, that visiting justices are to call to their aid two physicians or surgeons, and on their report to the Secretary of State, that official gives a certificate for their removal to a lunatic asylum. But in case of a prisoner being under sentence of death the Secretary of State is to issue a commission consisting of two physicians or surgeons, who have to enquire into the condition of the prisoner. If they find the prisoner insane they are to certify the fact to the Secretary of State, who upon this issues a warrant for the removal of the prisoner to a lunatic asylum. But if the prisoner should again become sane he is to be removed to gaol to undergo his sentence. Chapter 47 was an "Act to amend Penal Servitude Acts." It was a very important act. Section 2 provided that no person should be sentenced to penal servitude for a less period than 5 years; that was in cases where 3 years' penal servitude was previously awarded; and in case of previous conviction for felony the least period of penal servitude that could be inflicted was seven years. Then there are certain regulations with respect to holders of tickets of leave upon which convicts were formerly allowed to be at large on receiving a character for good conduct. Good conduct alone was now no longer sufficient, but must be accompanied by industry and general fitness for liberty. Section 4 enacted that every holder of a license, or ticket of leave, on being convicted by a jury, his licence became absolutely forfeited. The holder of a licence, unless prevented by illness, is to report himself to the chief police station of borough or division within three days after his arrival in the district; and, if a male, once in each month if required to do so by the conditions of his licence; and if he changes his residence, he must give notice thereof to the police. Section 5 provides that if the holder of the licence fails to produce it when required to do so, or breaks any of its conditions, he shall be subject to a penalty of three months' imprisonment with hard labour. Section 6 is extremely penal; any constable, without warrant, may take into custody any holder of a ticket of leave on any reasonable suspicion. This act has been framed in consequence of a series of offences against the person being committed by holders of tickets of leave, and the intention of the act is, by the use of severe measures, to hold these persons in check. Chapter 39 is an "Act to amend the Union Assessment Act." It is unnecessary for me to make any observations with respect to this act, as your attention has been directed to it for some time. But he might say that the clause which prevented any appeal being made, unless the party had first gone before the assessment committee and failed to obtain relief, was a very important one. Chapter 42 is an act to provide for superannuation allowance to officers of unions and parishes. The guardians of unions, by consent of the Poor Law Board, are empowered to grant an annual allowance to any officer who has given his whole time to their service, and who, from permanent infirmity of mind or body, or old age, is unable to perform his duty efficiently. The allowance may be two-thirds of the salary paid to the officer, but no allowance is to be granted on the ground of age unless the officer has served twenty years and is over sixty years of age. One month's notice, in writing, must be given to each guardian before such superannuation can be granted. Chapter75 provides for the removal of nuisances from turnpike roads, and extends the provisions of the 5th and 6th William IV., c. 50, sec. 70, as to steam engines, to turnpike roads. Chapter 91 was an act for the more effectual protection of her Majesty's naval and victualling stores, and it is well that the provisions of this act should be known in this county, being so near an extensive naval establishment. The act contained some very stringent clauses against persons found in possession of property marked with the Queen's mark—the broad arrow, &c. Dealers in marine stores are presumed to have a knowledge of the Queen's stores, unless the contrary can be satisfactorily shown, and any private person found in possession of marked stores is bound to give a satisfactory account of the manner in which they got into his possession, in order to avoid the penalty attached. Chapter 105 is an act to explain the statutes of her present Majesty for amending the laws relating to the removal of the poor. By this act residence in a parish of settlement is to be included in the computation of time of residence to render a pauper exempt from removal. Chapter 115 is the "Poisoned Flesh Prohibition Act, section 2 of which makes every person placing poisoned flesh or meat calculated to destroy life, on any land, subject to a penalty of £10. There was an exception in regard to dwelling houses and stack yards, where the poisoned flesh was placed for the destruction of rats, mice, and other vermin. There is also the Highway Act Amendment Bill, which is in fact a very extensive act, containing no fewer than 55 clauses, whereas the original act only contained 33 clauses. The amended bill is altogether too lengthy for me to attempt a description of it in my charge. I have, however, no doubt that it will prove a great benefit by making the Highway Act far more workable, and therefore, more valuable than it was previously. There is one important clause which provides that any parish feeling itself aggrieved by being attached to any particular district, can come before the Court of Quarter Sessions, and if the Court thinks proper, it can remove the parish to another district. The chairman having again referred to the simplicity of the cases in the calendar, dismissed the grand jury to their duties. COUNTY FINANCES. The CHAIRMAN read the report of the Finance Committee as follows:— The Committee of Finance having examined the Treasurer's accounts, report that on the 29th of Sept. last, the balances were—

On General Fund £4,038 7 1¼ Police Account 2,557 0 3½ Superannuation Fund 216 8 0 Police Building Fund 4,071 4 11 Total in favour of the County 10,883 0 3¾ There will be required for general purposes a rate of 26-32nds of a penny in the pound. The Coroners', Bridge Surveyors', and Deputy Clerk of the Peace's bills have been examined, and are recommended for payment.—Signed RICHARD FOSTER, Chairman. The report was adopted, and the Committee re-appointed for the ensuing year. CORONERS' BILLS. The coroners' bills for the last quarter were as follows :— £ s. d. Mr Carlyon, 27 inquests £103 1 10 Mr Roscorla, 28 ” 83 4 3 Mr Good, 16 “ 52 3 6 Mr Hamley, 11 “ 53 16 4 Mr Jago, 20 “ 52 17 3 102 £345 3 2 For the corresponding quarter of 1863, the bills were as follows:— Mr Carlyon, 33 inquests £116 8 10 Mr Hitchens, 32 “ 91 4 3 Mr Good, 14 “ 45 13 6 Mr Hamley, 14 “ 61 5 4 Mr Jago, 23 “ 61 18 3 116 £370 10 2 Showing a decrease of £25 7s. COUNTY GAOL. GOVERNOR'S REPORT. Capt. Colville, governor of the County Gaol, laid before the Court the usual statement showing the increase or decrease in the number of prisoners committed to the county gaol and house of correction, during the past year, as compared with the preceding twelve months. The return showed a decrease in male criminal and debtor classes; also in the number of female prisoners committed to the debtors' prison, but an increase in the number of female criminals, viz.:—Number of prisoners committed in the year ending September, 1863—Criminals—male, 548; female, 168; total, 716. Debtors—male, 119; female, 51; total, 170. In the year 1864, 463 male and 184 female criminals were committed, making a total of 647. Of male debtors 102 were committed, and 32 females, total, 134. The proportion of prisoners re-committed during the year 1864 was rather less than in 1863. In 1863, the number of males re-convicted was one in every 2.98, and of females one in 2.30. In 1864 the male convictions were one in 2.98, and females, one in 2.78. This still showed that old offenders are not deterred from crime through fear of prison discipline; reformation is seldom found amongst this class. The conduct of the prisoners generally had been good and orderly. The report was adopted. VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT. The Chairman read the report of the visiting justices of the County Gaol and Bridewell, as follows:— Michaelmas Sessions, 1864. The visiting committee have to report very favourably of the state of the gaol, bridewell, and of the establishment generally. The Committee having taken into consideration the statement made by Mr Bevan at the last Midsummer sessions, together with the correspondence, and having had an interview with that gentleman, find that Mr Bevan does not intend to make any charge against any officer of the prison, but that the supposed cause of complaint originated in a misconception of the facts, and an arrangement has been made to prevent the possibility of any such mistake arising in future. The Committee having compared the proposed dietary by Sir George Grey for the prison, with that now in use, consider the latter, which was approved of by Sir George Grey so recently as August, 1862, superior in every respect, and much more suited to the habits of the prisoners in this county; that the present dietary is amply sufficient is proved by the state of health of the prisoners during the last two years, and the Committee earnestly trust that the magistrates in quarter sessions will resist to the utmost the adoption of the dietary recommended by Sir George Grey, which will unnecessarily increase the quantity of food, and entail great additional outlay on the county. The Committee have only received one tender for the proposed gas buildings, and it so far exceeds the estimate, that they propose to defer the erection of the same for a short period. The Committee have reason to think the estimate a fair one, and they are anxious if possible, not to exceed it. William Barrett was appointed extra guard 11th July, 1864, in the room of Alfred Martin, dismissed 13th June, 1864. The cost of maintenance of prisoners per head per week this year is 2s 2½d. as against 2s 3¼d last year. The sum of £202 will be required for the current expenses of the gaol during the quarter ending Christmas. The report was adopted without comment. REPORT OF THE CHAPLAIN. The CHAIRMAN read the report of the Chaplain as follows :— TO THE WORSHIPFUL THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHER MAGISTRATES IN QUARTER SESSIONS ASSEMBLED. My Lords and Gentlemen, I beg to lay before you my usual annual report of the religious and moral condition and instruction of the prisoners during the past year. It is satisfactory to me to be able to state that, on the whole, crime still seems to confine itself to the worst instructed classes of the population. We have had no prisoners of superior education, and very few who could be said even to read and write well, and religiously and morally their condition has been as low as their instruction; in no respect has it risen above the level of former years. Another very encouraging circumstance is, that during the last year there has been an actual decrease in the number of prisoners admitted into gaol. In 1863 the daily average number of prisoners in gaol was 123. In the present year it has fallen to 113; thus showing in the daily average a decrease of 10. This, undoubtedly, may be owing to those periodical fluctuations of crime which all persons conversant with the subject will have noticed, but which, I believe, have never been satisfactorily accounted for. On the other hand, it may be owing to causes which we know to be at work, both within and without our gaols, for the suppression or prevention of criminal offences—it may, in fact, be owing to the spread of religious education—to the efforts which are being made to put a stop to intemperance—and, in a measure, to the improved system of prison discipline. The last of these subjects, as the Court is probably aware, is at this moment receiving great attention, and from the ability and experience brought to bear upon it, we may fairly anticipate results of (great practical?) value. It is felt that, as the law is made for the punishment of evil doers, the places where the sentence of the law is carried out, should be places of real punishment, of such punishment that is, as without being vindictive or inhumane, should yet be a terror to the bad and criminally disposed. Something, however, may perhaps, not without reason, be urged in favour of comparatively light punishments for first offences. If a prisoner, committed for the first time, has any good in him, he will be more effectually subdued by the mercy than the severity of the law. I have sometimes found the happiest results from directing such prisoners' minds to what may be called the merciful side of their punishment. When I have shown them that the same law which punishes the offences, provides the ministrations of religion and means of instruction, they have been brought to acknowledge that the law is not only just, but merciful, and a step has been gained towards their ultimate reformation. Your Visiting Committee have appointed a schoolmistress, for which I beg to tender them my sincere thanks. She works assiduously, and what is of equal importance, takes an interest in her work. The schoolmaster continues to discharge his duties conscientiously and laboriously, and it gives me pleasure to add with manifest benefit to the prisoners. I have received accounts from the different reformatories of the conduct and progress of the juvenile criminals sent from this county. The majority are, I am thankful to say, doing well. In two cases only out of eleven, are the reports unsatisfactory. I have the honor to be, My Lords and Gentlemen, Your faithful servant, W. F. EVEREST, Chaplain. The County Gaol, Oct. 10, 1864. SURGEON'S REPORT. The surgeon of the County Gaol reported as follows:— Sir,—It affords me great satisfaction to be enabled to report to you that the sanitary condition of the County gaol during the last year has been highly gratifying. At no former period do I ever remember so few cases of illness amongst the prisoners—those especially in the female department. One death only has occurred during the year, that of a man who was in a hopeless state when brought in. I beg to add that the same healthy condition still prevails. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, JOHN WALL, Surgeon, County Gaol. To the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions. GAOL EXPENSES. The gaol expenses for the quarter were—subsistance (sic), £135 0s 5d.; fuel, £44 2s. 3d.; sundries, £132 10s. 5d.; salaries, £369 11s.; and other smaller items, making a total of £777 19s. During the corresponding quarter of last year, the gaol expenses amounted to £803 14s., so that there had been a small decrease during the quarter. Credit had to be given to the extent of £63 4s. 10d. for oakum picking and other work done by the prisoners. The hall expenses amounted to £11 14s. 6d. For the corresponding quarter of 1863, they were £8 8s. 11d. The reports were adopted without discussion, and on the motion of Mr N. KENDALL, seconded by Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, the Committee of Visitors of the Gaol were re-appointed. COUNTY BRIDGES. Accounts amounting to £33 19s. 0½d. from the surveyor of bridges for the Western Division of the County, and of £89 2s. 5d. from the surveyor of county bridges in the Eastern Division, were then allowed. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr Hickes, the surveyor of the county bridges in the western division, reported that he was sorry he had again to complain of damage having been done to the guard wall at Sticker. He estimated the cost of repairing the same at 7s. 6d. St. Erth—Some repairs were wanted to the guard walls, which he estimated would cost £1 15s. The CHAIRMAN also read a letter from Mr Hickes, who stated that the arches of St. Erth were nearly choked up by silth; and if this was not removed and a flood to occur, the probability was that the adjoining property would be flooded. Mr Hickes now added that St. Erth bridge was not the only one that had become thus choked up. At Bissoe-bridge, the silth had risen so high that there was not more than about eight inches between it and the top of the arches, and consequently there was very little room left for the passage of the water. The obstruction was caused by the accumulation of silth from the mines in the neighbourhood. The subject then dropped. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr Jenkin, the surveyor of bridges for this division, reported as follows:— Lostwithiel Bridge—The whole of the work ordered in connection with this bridge has been completed, and I have certified the contractor's account for payment. Bridge—l have to apply for the grant of a sum not exceeding thirty shillings for altering a culvert near this bridge. I have no other application to make at this time. HIGHER CARNON BRIDGE. The CHAIRMAN read the following report:—The committee appointed at the last quarter sessions beg to report that they visited the bridge, and found that the culvert made by Mr Vivian had been newly timbered since our former visit, from end to end, and is now in a thorough state of repair. The channel also has been deepened. The committee beg to suggest that a railing be placed on each side of the road at the west end of the bridge, for the protection of the public. The committee annex a letter from Mr Hickes, the county bridge surveyor, on the subject. The following is the letter:— Truro, October 14, 1864. SIR,—l have examined the adit, and as far as I can judge, what has now been done will strengthen it considerably; and I see no reason for supposing the work may not stand good for many years.— THOMAS HICKES. The report was adopted, and it was resolved that a rail be placed at the western end of Carnon Bridge for the protection of the public, and that a sum not exceeding £8 be granted for the purpose. LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE. The CHAIRMAN read the following report:—The Lostwithiel Bridge Committee have to report that the work at this bridge has been completed in a satisfactory manner, and that they recommend the payment of the amount (£200) to the contractors, Messrs Mead and Lang. Mr Jenkin, the surveyor of bridges, has presented a bill for £13 13s., for his professional services in preparing plans, specifications, which the committee present for the consideration of the council. Signed, C. RASHLEIGH, Chairman. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said that the surveyor, Mr Jenkin, had certified that the work for strengthening Lostwithiel bridge had been done in a satisfactory manner, and they were then in a position to pay the contractors' bill. There was a question as to Mr Jenkin's charge of 13 guineas for his services in relation to this work; but he believed it was usual for the surveyors to make an extra charge for work of this kind. He also mentioned that the work had just cost the £200 which had been granted for the purpose by the Court. After some explanation from Mr Jenkin, relative to his charge, the bills were ordered to be paid. The CHAIRMAN reported that there was a bill of £37 1s 7d for registration fees, which was allowed. The Chairman also stated that the Clerk of the Peace's bill amounted to £378, which included the extra business done under the New Highway Act, which had been examined and passed by the financial committee. The bill was allowed. THE LUNATIC ASYLUM. Mr CAREW stated, that with regard to the grant of £5,000 made at the last session for the addition to the County Lunatic asylum, it was found that the money would not be required immediately, and therefore the committee had not thought proper to accept any tender. The committee had sent the plans of the proposed addition to the Commissioners in Lunacy, who objected to several of the details. A meeting took place between the architects of the commissioners and the committee, the result of which was that very superior plans were produced, which he now submitted to the court, with the sanction of the Secretary of State. The carrying out of these plans would not involve more expense than the previous plans; in fact, he thought they would be more economical, because they were spread over a less space, and the building would be more compact. The Committee considered that the plans now submitted combined as far as possible both their own views and those of the commissioners. After a little further conversation the subject dropped. Mr CAREW said, that with respect to the supply of water to the asylum, the only scheme the committee could recommend was that of obtaining the water from Penbugle. Unfortunately, however, the committee had not been able to arrange with the landowners, as the latter had made stipulations which the committee, under the advice of the Clerk of the Peace, could not adopt. He had to lay before the court the following resolution, adopted by the committee that morning:— "At an adjourned meeting of the visitors of the asylum, held on the 18th of October, 1864, W. H. Pole Carew, Esq., in the chair; present—J. St. Aubyn, Esq., M.P., N. Norway, Esq., R. G. Lakes, Esq., J. Tremayne, Esq., and R. Foster, Esq., it was resolved, that the offer made by Messrs Hext, Pye, and Mrs Glencross, is such that the visitors cannot accept it, having due regard to the opinion of the asylum solicitor. That the visitors, notwithstanding, recommend the adoption of the Penbugle scheme, and advise the county to take the necessary steps for securing a supply of water from this source by an Act of Parliament. He begged to move the adoption of this resolution. Mr J. J. ROGERS, M.P., seconded the motion. Mr E. COODE, jun., apprehended that the expense of an act of parliament ought not to be borne by the ratepayers of the county, but by the asylum,—that was, that the subscribers should pay their fair proportion of the cost. The CHAIRMAN said the cost of an act would not be heavy if there was no opposition. Mr J. TREMAYNE said if there was opposition it might be anything between £600 and £6,000— (laughter). Mr CAREW said that, during the whole of the past season, they had been obliged to carry water for the use of the asylum, and to give up the baths for the patients. The committee felt that they could not take upon themselves the responsibility of carrying on the asylum without a proper supply of water. At present, there were seven more patients in the asylum than it was calculated to accommodate, and they were without a supply of water should a fire occur. Mr E. COODE, jun., still objected to the court incurring the expense of an act of parliament on their own responsibility. If it was understood that the subscribers were to bear their proper proportion of the expense, he should not object to the motion. The CHAIRMAN said there was no fund out of which the subscribers could pay part of the expense of obtaining the act. Mr E. COODE, jun.—l cannot help that; let it be paid out of the profits on private patients. The motion was then put, when 16 voted in its favour, and three against; and it was therefore carried. Mr J. T. H. PETER supposed that the committee were still open to receive a reasonable offer from the landowners, supposing one should be sent in before proceeding to Parliament. Mr CAREW stated that a committee had applied to the landowners for their ultimatum, which they had sent in that morning. This, he had already stated, was of such a character that it could not be accepted; and the committee must now proceed with arrangements for the necessary notices, or they should not be in a position to apply to parliament next session. If the landowners sent in a proposal which could be accepted, before next Wednesday, well and good; but, after that day, the committee could not delay a moment. He could assure the Court they had no wish to put the county to the expense of obtaining an act of parliament. COUNTY POLICE. Mr E. COODE, jun., the Chairman of the Police Committee, read the following report:— Camborne Station.—The Chief Constable reports that the measures taken to improve the drainage and ventilation have every prospect of being successful, and that the cost will be within the sum allowed by the last sessions. Callington.—The title to this site is approved by Mr Shilson, but owing to unavoidable delay in the production of certain documents there has not been time to prepare the conveyance. Tregony.—Some difficulties appear to exist in getting a conveyance of one small portion of this site as originally agreed for, but an arrangement has been made to dispense with that portion entirely, the remainder being considered sufficient for the station. The price will now be £95. Head Quarters' Station.—It appears that a very great improvement can be effected by purchasing a small garden immediately adjoining the back of the main premises, which the committee are informed has been offered for £90. The expense can be met to a considerable extent by selling a detached field belonging to the county, and which formed part of the original purchase, but which can in that case be dispensed with. If approved by the Court, the matter should be at once placed in Mr Shilson's hands. Good Conduct Pay.—The Chief Constable has represented strongly to the committee the expediency of introducing a system of increased rates of pay to the different classes of constables, proportioned to length of service, and dependent on good conduct. The committee, without expressing at present any opinion on the proposal, feel it to be a subject of such importance that that (sic) they have determined on holding a special meeting for the consideration of the question at such a time that, if they then think it desirable, a notice can be inserted in the agenda paper for the next sessions of any scheme which they may decide to recommend to the court. The following sums should be transferred from the county rate to the police rate:—Conveyance and subsistence of prisoners, £165 10s. 6d.; weights and measures, £18 16s. 8d.; coroners' inquests, £42 6d.; total, £226 13s. 8d. The sum of £216 8s. has accrued to the superannuation fund, and should be invested as heretofore. A police rate of 20-32nds of a penny is recommended for the present quarter. The report was adopted without comment. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT. The CHAIRMAN read the following report:— My Lords and Gentlemen,—I have the honour to lay before you the annual returns of crime committed in this county as far as is known to the county constabulary. Also a return showing the number and distribution of the force. After mature consideration, I have come to the conclusion that for the efficient maintenance of the force, and for the just encouragement of the same, a system of increased pay on a fixed scale should be adopted for long service and good conduct throughout the different grades, and I have thought it my duty to recommend the same to the committee. I have the honour to be, my lords and gentlemen, Your obedient servant, W. H. GILBERT, Lieut. Col. And Chief Constable of Cornwall. To the Chairman of the justices in quarter sessions assembled at Bodmin. The report was adopted. COUNTY FINANCES. The CHAIRMAN then explained that the treasurer had presented an abstract of the accounts of the county for 1864, and their duty was merely to direct that this account be printed and published in the usual manner. This was ordered to be done. APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING MAGISTRATE. At this point Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr R. G. Bennet, and Mr Trevenen, were appointed the magistrates to preside in the second court. TRANSFER OF THE MINERS' ARTILLERY MILITIA STAFF. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said he rose to propose a motion relative to the transfer of the Royal Cornwall and Devon Miners' Artillery Militia, from Truro to Pendennis Castle, Falmouth. Perhaps he ought to explain the circumstances which had led to this removal; some time ago Colonel Wodehouse was appointed by the Government to inspect the militia stores throughout the country, and in consequence of the report which he made of the inefficient state of the militia stores at Truro, a suggestion was made to the Secretary for War, that the stores should be removed to Pendennis, where the facilities for gun drill were much greater than it was possible to obtain at Truro. This suggestion had previously been made in 1856, but the Secretary of War then objected to the transfer as he was opposed to the removal of the troops for Pendennis fort. On the opening, however, of the Cornwall railway, and the greater facilities thereby afforded for the removal of troops, he was of opinion that the castle should be given up almost entirely to the militia. The following letter on the subject had been received from the Lord Warden of the Stannaries, the Duke of Newcastle:— Clumber, 27th August, 1864. The Lord Warden of the Stannaries presents his compliments to the Magistrates of Cornwall in quarter sessions assembled, and begs to inform them that the Secretary of State for War has intimated that he considers it desirable that the Staff of the Royal Cornwall and Devon Miners' Artillery Militia should be removed from Truro to Pendennis Castle; and that upon the Lord Warden's acquiescence in the propriety of such a transfer, he is prepared to appropriate a portion of the military barracks, at Pendennis Castle, for the accommodation of the stores of the regiment, on condition of receiving as rent £30 on the part of the public from the Stannaries of Devon and Cornwall. The barracks would afford sufficient accommodation for a considerable number of the permanent staff. The Lord Warden begs to recommend this arrangement as to the proposed terms to the favourable consideration of the magistrates. To the Magistrates of Cornwall in Quarter Sessions assembled. In consequence of these instructions, he (Sir Colman) had now to move that the magistrates of the county approve of the proposed transfer and accept the terms offered by the Secretary for War. It was right that he should explain that the Secretary for War proposed to afford accommodation for the whole of the militia stores, for the quartermaster, and to appropriate 16 barrack rooms for the staff, besides granting the use of the hospital and magazines, for the rent of £30 per year. The rent at present paid for the stores at Truro, was £50. As far as he understood it, this £30 would cover everything; but if there should be any further charge, it would be for the fuel, which would cost about £6 per year more. Mr ROGERS—And the Government will keep everything in order for that amount? Sir C. RASHLEIGH replied in the affirmative, and added that the present stores were utterly insufficient, so much so that Colonel Wodehouse told him there was only one other store in the kingdom so bad, and that was at Fife. Of course, he meant for artillery; the stores were all that was required for infantry. Mr CAREW seconded the motion, which, after some further explanatory remarks, was agreed to. THE CORNISH FISHERIES. Mr R. G. LAKES gave notice that at the next sessions he should bring before the Court the present state of the salmon fisheries in the Fowey and Camel, in order that the present apparent injustice arising therefrom might be represented to the Home Secretary, with a view to some alteration being made as to the time of catching salmon in these rivers. He hoped to be then in a position to produce such evidence as would induce the Court to apply to the Home Secretary for an alteration in the close season. Mr ROBARTES said that during the last three or four weeks, he had received such statements on the subject from persons unconnected with the fisheries as would, he believed, lead to a reconsideration of the question. He was not, however, prepared to go into the matter at present, but it appeared to him that the open season might be judiciously extended to October. The other day he wrote to Mr Baring, the under-secretary, on the subject, and in his answer that gentlemen stated that the case of the salmon fishery was a puzzling one. The fishery inspectors were against extending the time of the open season; but if he were a magistrate, and not satisfied with the present arrangement, he should certainly bring the question again before the quarter sessions. Mr N. KENDALL explained that there was this difficulty, which had been mentioned to him by a gentlemen who had been sent down to inquire into the matter, that if the open season was extended to October in Cornwall, and not in other parts of the country, then every case of fish that went up to London in October, would be called Camel or Fowey salmon. That was, undoubtedly, a strong point, but as Mr Lakes had given notice of his intention to bring the whole question before the next sessions, they would then have an opportunity of considering what should be done. This concluded the county business.

TRIALS OF PRISONERS. FIRST COURT. Before C. B. G. Sawle, Esq. STEALING MONEY AT SOUTH PETHERWIN. JAMES PEARSE, 23, miller, was charged with stealing two sovereigns, a half-sovereign, and some silver, the property of John Barber, at the parish of South Petherwin, on the 23d August. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution, and the prisoner was undefended. The only evidence against the prisoner was that be lodged in the same house as the prosecutor, knew where the money was kept, and was proved to have been spending money freely in Devonport after the theft. The Chairman did not consider this evidence sufficient to connect the prisoner with the robbery, and he was accordingly acquitted. STEALING MONEY AT CAMBORNE. WILLIAM TRENGOVE, 35, miner, was charged with having stolen a bag, containing two sovereigns, one shilling and three halfpence, the property of Joseph Robins, a fellow workman, on the 7th Sept. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Stokes for the defence. The evidence which we have previously published went to show that the prisoner and prosecutor worked together in the same mine. On the day in question the prosecutor before going underground placed his money in a miners' bag, and then, having put the bag into the toe of his stocking and the stocking in his boot, locked them all up in his box, which was in the sump house. The prisoner was afterwards seen with his hand in prosecutor's box, and when the prosecutor again returned to the surface he missed boot, money and all, on which he was "struck upon the head" for some time. As soon, however, as the effects of this mental blow departed, he made enquiries, and suspicion fell upon the prisoner, whose house was visited by P.C. Stephens at four o'clock in the morning. The constable, looking through the window, saw the prisoner place something in a clock case, and on examination it turned out to be a bag containing two sovereigns, and on the prisoner’s person was found a shilling and three halfpence. The prosecutor identified the bag as his property. The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to Four Months' imprisonment, with Hard Labour. CHARGE OF STEALING MONEY AT MARAZION. GRACE JOHNS, a middle aged married woman, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing a sovereign, the property of Richard Michell, provision dealer, of Marazion, on the 59th (sic) September. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution and Mr Stokes for the defence. It appeared that the 29th September was a fair day in Marazion, and the prisoner who lives a little distance from the town, visited the prosecutor's shop to purchase some articles which she required. Before she came in, prosecutor laid a sovereign, which he had in his hand, on the counter; the prisoner stood near the place where the sovereign had been placed, and during her stay in the shop she was observed to stoop down and do something to her boot. Directly she had left the prosecutor missed the sovereign, and after making an ineffectual search on the counter and the floor, he followed the prisoner who, he stated, was the only person who had entered his shop from the time he placed the sovereign on the counter till he missed it, excepting one woman, Mrs Elizabeth Johns, and she sat on a chair four or five feet away from the counter. He overtook the prisoner a little way from the shop and found that she was then stooping doing something to her boot. When she saw prosecutor she said: I think there is something in my boot." Prosecutor replied “Perhaps it's my sovereign," whereupon the prisoner offered to allow him to search. This, however, he did not do, but sent for a policeman. The prisoner, in the mean time, sat down and took off her boots, which she offered to the prosecutor. At this time, being about seven o'clock in the evening, it was nearly dark. A light was produced, a large crowd collected, and a sovereign was found near where the prisoner stood. She was then given into custody. At the station house, according to the evidence of P.C. Rickard, she offered to give him a sovereign, and afterwards two sovereigns, if he would let her go free, and also asked what punishment she would be likely to get if convicted. Mr Stokes submitted that there was nothing whatever to connect the prisoner with the sovereign found in the street, nor even anything to show that the sovereign found was the one that the prosecutor had lost, and he contended that her conversation with the policeman in no way went to criminate her. After a careful summing up, the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. STEALING A COAT AT CUBY. WILLIAM PERRY, 31, a gipsy tinker was charged with stealing a coat, the property of Nicholas Coombes, farm labourer, of the parish of Cuby, on the 17th August. Mr Stokes appeared for the prosecution, and prisoner was undefended. It appeared that on the morning in question the prosecutor left his coat in a shed and went to work in the harvest field. He was in in (sic) a mowhay in the afternoon, when the prisoner came to him and asked him for some beer. Prosecutor immediately recognised his own coat, which prisoner was wearing at the time, and replied, "wait a moment till I come down, and I'll give you some beer!" He thereupon descended from the mowhay, accused the prisoner of having stolen the coat, and proceeded to take it from him. Prisoner showed fight and said he had not stolen the coat, it had been given to him by "the master." Prosecutor, after a tussle, succeeded in getting possession of the coat, and left the prisoner, who did not, however, go away, but again met prosecutor and the master (Mr Williams, farmer of Cuby), and asserted that the latter had given him the coat. Prisoner was apprehended on the 26th of August, by Sergeant Harris. He did not attempt to avoid the police officer, but, on the contrary, on hearing that he was wanted, went to learn what the charge against him was. Prisoner all through stuck to the assertion that the coat had been given to him by Mr Williams, and he made the same defence before the bench. He seemed very much amused at the evidence of the prosecutor, and cross-examined the witnesses with the greatest coolness. Mr Williams was examined and denied giving the coat to the prisoner, though he admitted having seen him during the morning. He was found guilty and sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour. He had been twice previously convicted, but the convictions were not proved. SECOND COURT. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Chairman, Mr R. G. Bennet, Mr Trevenen, and Mr R. G. Lakes. THEFT AT REDRUTH. ELIZABETH ANN EMMANUEL, aged 22, was charged with stealing, on the 1st of August, in the parish of Redruth, a pair of boots, the property of Thomasine Rule, widow. Mr D. H. Shilson prosecuted. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty. A previous conviction for felony, and sentence for three years' penal servitude, was then proved against the prisoner, and it appeared that she had been three times convicted and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment in 1860, and the same number of times in 1861, the sentence of penal servitude being passed on the last occasion. The Chairman said that under the Act of last Session, he had no alternative but to sentence the prisoner to seven years' penal servitude. FELONY AT TRURO. SAMUEL RICE, aged 26, and WILLIAM MERRIFIELD, 16, were charged, the former with stealing at Truro, on the 5th September, 26lbs weight of rope, of the value of 3s. the property of William Harvey and others; and the latter with feloniously receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen. Rice pleaded guilty, and Merrifield not guilty. Mr Marrack prosecuted. The Messrs. Harvey and Co. have a timber pond in , at Newham, and on the 5th September Wm. Burley, who is in their employ, left the rope on the beach at the side of the pond, to dry. He left the rope there at 12 o'clock, and at two o'clock he discovered that it had been stolen. He informed the police, and P. C. Roberts found the rope at Carlisle's, marine store dealer, in Kenwyn street, where it had been sold by Merrifield. The jury found Merrifield GUILTY. It appeared that Rice had been convicted of felony in June of the present year, and had only just been discharged from prison when he committed the present offence. He had also been twice convicted before. Rice was sentenced to six months, and Merrifield to one month's hard labour.

CHARGE OF FELONY AT EGLOSHAYLE. THOMAS HARRIS was charged with stealing, on the 15th October, in the parish of Egloshayle, a goose, the property of Henry Pollard; and WILLIAM POLKINGHORNE with aiding and assisting him in the commission of the offence. Mr Childs prosecuted, and Mr Marrack defended the prisoners. The evidence failed to connect the prisoners with the offence, and the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. THEFT AT LINKINHORNE. WILLIAM CROWLE, aged 40, was charged with stealing a bundle, containing a striped shirt, a flannel shirt, a cloth cap, a pair of stockings, and various other articles, the property of James Brocklebank, at the parish of Linkinhorne. Mr Commins prosecuted. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to ten months' hard labour. The Court then adjourned. FIRST COURT. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19. (Before C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq., Chairman.) THE ROBBERY AT THE CORNWALL RAILWAY STATION. FREDERICK JOHN JULIAN, aged 25, was charged with having, on the 19th of December, 1863, at the borough of Truro, he being a servant of the Cornwall Railway Company, feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away £11 6s. 4d. and one leather bag, one account book, and one cash sheet, of the monies, goods, and effects of the said company. A second count charged the prisoner with receiving the money and property, knowing it to be stolen. Mr Childs prosecuted; and Mr D. H. Shilson defended the prisoner. The evidence showed that the money with the account book was placed in the leather bag and deposited by Mr Morecombe the booking clerk, in a box in the booking office. Mr Morecombe left the office for two or three minutes to speak with a person upon the platform. On his return he again remained in the office, but did not miss the bag, but after having gone out again for a minute or two he was asked for the bag and money, and then it was found that the bag had been stolen. It was the duty of the prisoner, who was a railway policeman, to collect tickets from passengers of the trains, and a train was drawn up at the station during a portion of time that Mr Morecombe was absent. Inquiries were instituted, but no clue was obtained for upwards of seven months. Prisoner left the service of the company and went to Plymouth, and thence to Exeter, in search of employment. He left his box with Mr Glasson, of Truro, with whom he lodged, and to whom he owed three weeks' board. He stayed at a public-house on the Alphington-road, Exeter, for upwards of a month, and as he had worn his linen unchanged during that time the landlady urged him to send for his box. He wrote two letters to Mr Glasson promising that if the box were sent he should be enabled to pay what he owed, as he had a bank book in the box which it was necessary he should have, as he had no money left. The request was not acceded to, and then the prisoner yielded to solicitation and sent the key of his box to Truro by Delve, one of the guards, whom he desired to take out a change of linen. The key was given to a porter at Truro, and on opening the box, the bag, money, account- book, and cash sheet were discovered. The prisoner's apprehension followed. For the defence Mr Shilson urged that prisoner was occupied in collecting tickets during at least a portion of the time that Mr Morecombe was absent from the ticket office, that he could not have stolen the bag whilst Mr Morecombe was in the office without being observed, and that prisoner's conduct was wholly inconsistent with guilt, as he might, if he stole the bag, have destroyed it, and by using the money might have paid Mr Glasson and have provided funds for himself. In support of the defence he urged also the fact that the prisoner was exceedingly straitened in means whilst in Exeter, and that it was to the last degree improbable that having stolen the money he should have sent the key that opened his box through a railway official—a course that inevitably entailed detection. He further contended that it was not unreasonable to assume under the circumstances that some person had opened prisoner's box, which was only secured by a very common sort of lock, and had deposited the bag there. The Chairman, in summing up, said that the prisoner's conduct did appear inexplicable; but, on the other hand, the prisoner must first prove that a conspiracy had been set on foot against him before his defence could be borne out. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that prisoner was not proved to have stolen the property, but was guilty of having it in his possession knowing it to have been stolen. The prisoner was then sentenced to 12 calendar months' imprisonment. SECOND COURT—WEDNESDAY. Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH (Chairman), and R. G., BENNET, Esq. A PRISONER WITHOUT A NAME. A young man, described in the calendar as "a male person, who is dumb, and whose name is unknown," and set down as a shoemaker, aged 21, was indicted for stealing a coat, the property of Michael Milford, labourer, of the parish of St. Austell, on the 12th August. Mr Marrack appeared for the prosecution. The jury were first sworn to try whether the, prisoner was "mute of malice, or by the visitation of God," and Mr Wall, the gaol surgeon, was called, and gave evidence to the effect that the prisoner had never spoken since he had been in the gaol, but he was certain that he could hear well enough; and the fact of his being able to hear, was a fair inference that he could speak. Witness believed him to be malingering, but he was unable to swear to that fact. The officer of the gaol in charge of the prisoner, also stated that prisoner could hear; he turned round immediately on the cell door being opened. The Chairman said he was himself satisfied that the prisoner could hear, for he came begging of him (the Chairman). Thinking that he was an imposter he did not give him anything, but when the prisoner had gone away a few yards he (the Chairman) called out "Here's threepence for you," upon which the prisoner turned round as quickly as possible—(laughter). However, as there was no direct evidence that the prisoner was "mute of malice," the jury would have to find that he was "mute by the visitation of God." The jury having returned a verdict accordingly, the prisoner was placed on his trial for the theft. The Chairman wrote on a slip of paper “what is your name?" and on the paper being handed to the prisoner, he wrote underneath, "what is your name!" copying the Chairman's writing very accurately. On other questions being put to him in writing, he shook his head and refused to write any reply. It appeared that the coat had been stolen from a shed at , on the 12th August, and was found on the prisoner, on 15th August, in a lodging house at St. Austell. He was found guilty and sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. PLEADED GUILTY. RICHARD COUCH, 25, to stealing a coat and a pair of trousers the property of James Couch, at the parish of on the 22nd of August. One calendar month's imprisonment. William ROGERS, alias WHITE, 30, labourer, to stealing six bags and two coats, the property of William Huddy, at the parish of St. Enoder, on the 27th September; also to stealing a pair of steelyards, the property of William Henry Boulton, at the parish of St. Enoder, on the 27th of September. Two calendar months' imprisonment. THOMAS GOLDSWORTHY, 16, miner, to stealing a heifer, of the value of £16, the property of his uncle, Richard Goldsworthy, at the parish of Breage, on the 22nd September. Three months' hard labour. PETER O'BRIEN, aged 31, a seaman, to breaking and entering a certain building within the courtlage of a dwelling house of Frederick Charles Bullmore, in the parish of Budock, on the 30th August, and feloniously stealing therefrom two knives, two coats, and a pair of boots. The prisoner had been several times convicted for offences in other counties.—Fifteen Months' hard labour. APPEALS. LOOE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS v. THE OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF EAST LOOE. Mr Childs asked, on behalf of the appellants, to have this appeal respited to the next sessions. Mr H. Shilson consented on behalf of the respondents.

THE LICENCE QUESTION. STEPHENS v. THE JUSTICES OF PENRYN. In this case Mr H. Shilson appeared for the appellant, Mr Sampson Stephens; and Mr Childs and Mr Jenkins for the respondents, the Justices of the Borough of Penryn. Mr Shilson said the appellant was the mayor of Penryn and perpetual magistrate of that borough. He had for the last 25 years carried on business as a retailer of wines, spirits, ale, and porter. About 14 years ago a large house standing in the centre of the town of Penryn, which had been unoccupied for many years, was purchased by Mr Stephens, for the purpose of his business on the assurance of the borough magistrates that they would grant him a license for it. The premises cost about £7,000, and Mr Stephens had expended about £1,400 in effecting improvements. Ever since that time he had annually received a retail license for that house; but on his application for the renewal of the license this year it was refused on the ground that the justices were determined not to grant licenses to any but public houses. There was a case which occurred in Devonshire, known as the Paignton case. The justices had refused to grant licenses to several houses which were merely used as stores, no dwelling houses being attached to them, nor any accommodation afforded on the premises. The keepers of these stores admitted that they had no accommodation for man or beast, and did not pretend to have. The justices therefore held that not only had they no wish to grant licenses in such cases but they had no power to do so, the 9th Geo. IV., cap 61, only enabling them to grant licenses to "Inns, alehouses, and victualling-houses." A case was granted, and on going to the court above the decision of the justices was confirmed. But he (Mr Shilson), contended that the case of Mr Stephens was a very different one to the Paignton case, brought before the superior court. In that case there was no pretension to keeping an inn, as there was no consumption of liquor on the premises, and no accommodation for the public; Mr Stephens, however, devoted six rooms to the accommodation of the public, and he sold on the premises every week, on an average, 14 gallons of spirits, and 8 gallons of wine, besides porter and beer, and of that two-thirds consisted of quantities of not more than half a pint. That would give the court some idea of the accommodation afforded to the public. He might also say that it was the only house in Penryn, excepting Mrs Powells, where pure wines and spirits could be obtained, and the only house but two in which wines were sold. Carters and others went in there with their pasties and had their beer, and used the house in every respect as any other inn, and though no beds had been hitherto provided, the house contained ample accommodation of that description, and there were also stables. He (Mr Shilson) therefore held that this case did not come within the decision in the Paignton case, and therefore that the magistrates were not warranted in refusing the license on the ground that they had no power to grant it. That was a point which, he contended, required further consideration. On the other hand, if the justices refused the licence on the ground that the accommodation was not necessary in Penryn, he could show that it was. The town of Penryn, containing a population of 3,600 persons, had 15 public-houses of one sort or other, but they were almost all of a low class, and besides the accommodation already mentioned as afforded by Mr Stephens, he supplied the poor with pure wines and spirits for medicinal purposes; and he had, moreover, stated to the justices that he was quite ready to throw the whole premises into an hotel, and further, to run an omnibus to the Penryn station, an accommodation not hitherto possessed by the people of Penryn. Mr Childs submitted that the Paignton case settled the matter, and that his friend was therefore out of court, on his own showing. After a brief consideration, the court confirmed the decision of the justices. Mr Shilson asked for a case. Mr Childs opposed the application, on the ground that it was a point already decided. Mr Shilson contended that it had not been decided, as the facts were entirely different from the Paignton case. The Bench retired to consider the matter, and after a short absence, decided to grant a case, the chairman expressing a hope that now the case had been granted it would be proceeded with. During the hearing of this appeal there was a large attendance of magistrates on the bench. BASTARDY CASE. In this case Stephen Keast, farmer, of Veryan, appealed against an order of the justices, made on the 4th July last, at the Ruan Highlanes Petty Sessions, by which he was adjudged to be the putative father of the illegitimate child of Elizabeth Ann Elliott, the respondent, and directed to pay two shillings per week towards its maintenance. Mr Marrack appeared for the appellant and Mr Childs for the respondent, a farmer's daughter, aged 17, and living at Tincreek, Veryan, the adjoining farm to that occupied by the appellant. The order of the justices was confirmed, and £10 costs allowed to the respondent. This concluded the business of the sessions.

Transcribed and checked by Karen Duvall, John Evans and Claudia Richards