1865 Quarter Sessions & Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Cornwall Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Cornwall Spring Assizes ...... 19 3. Cornwall Easter Quarter Sessions ...... 45 4. Cornwall Midsummer Sessions ...... 58 5. Cornwall Summer Assizes ...... 75 6. Cornwall Michaelmas Sessions ...... 114

Royal Cornwall Gazette January, 6, 1865

1. Cornwall Epiphany Sessions The Epiphany General Quarter Sessions of the peace for the county of Cornwall, commenced on Tuesday morning last, in the County Hall, , before J. J. Rogers, Esq., M.P., chairman, and the following magistrates:— C. B. G. Sawle, Esq. J. Hitchens, Esq. T. J. A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. D. Horndon, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. R. G. Lakes, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. N. Norway, Esq. C. P. Brune, Esq. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. R. G. Bennett, Esq. W. Roberts, Esq. E. Coode. jun., Esq. F. M. Williams, Esq. W. H. P. Carew, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. E. Collins, Esq. Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. R. Foster, jun., Esq. Rev. A. C. Thynne Major Grylls. The following gentlemen were sworn as THE GRAND JURY. Mr A. Hambly, Bodmin, foreman. Mr T. Andrews, St. Columb Minor. Mr J. Beswetherick, Bodmin. Mr M. D. Broad, St. Columb Major. Mr J. Cobbledick, Mawgan. Mr J. Crang, Bodmin. Mr J. Drew, St. Austell. Mr S. Edmonds, Falmouth. Mr E. Hambly, Menheniot. Mr F. Hickman, St. Austell. Mr W. Hooper, Budock. Mr J. May, Mawgan. Mr J. Marshall, Bodmin. Mr R. B. Parkyn, . Mr F. Roberts, Mawgan. Mr G. Rowe, Menheniot. Mr J. Sobey, Menheniot. Mr P. Stocker, St. Austell. Mr N. Veale, St. Columb Major. Mr. J. V. Waycomb, Mylor. Mr G. Wright. Bodmin. Mr S. Cater, Kenwyn. Mr. W. Bennett. Her Majesty's proclamation against vice, profaneness, and immorality having been read, The CHAIRMAN addressed the Grand Jury as follows: —Gentlemen of the grand inquest—It is always gratifying to the Court to be able to say that there is always a good attendance of grand jurors at these sessions, for the purpose of assisting us in the administration of criminal justice, and I am happy to see that there is as good an attendance to-day as we usually have on these occasions. It is also a pleasure to me to have to assure you that your duties, though onerous in themselves, will be less so than usual at this time of the year. It generally happens that during the long hours of darkness of the winter, a greater number of offences against person and property are committed than during the summer months; but, although the calendar contains the names of 38 prisoners, it does not contain any cases in which any questions of law are likely to arise. There are four cases of house-breaking; but I believe in none of these will you experience any difficulty. They are all simple, straightforward cases, which will not require, so far as I can now see, any explanation from me as to the law bearing on them. Should any questions of law, however, arise on any of the cases that will come before you, I shall be happy to afford you any explanation you may require, so as to remove any difficulty that may present itself. I have before me the comparative statement, which is always presented to the Court by the governor of the gaol, showing the number of prisoners for trial compared with the corresponding sessions of last year; also, the number of prisoners received at the gaol during the last quarter, together with the number of debtors committed by the County Court, and I am happy to say that viewed in any way, it exhibits a more favourable criminal return than we had at this time last year. From this it appears that there have been received into the gaol, including the 38 now for trial, those committed under the Criminal Justice Act and the Juvenile Offenders' Act during the last quarter, 49 prisoners in all. In the corresponding quarter the number was no less than 60, showing a diminution of 11. Again, the total number of prisoners committed to the county gaol and received by the governor during the past quarter of 1864, was 150, against 176 during the corresponding quarter of last year, showing a diminution of 26. I also observe that fewer persons have been committed as debtors from the County Courts, the number in the quarter last year being 33, and this year 17, showing a diminution of 16. This decrease must be very gratifying to you and to the county generally; but yet it is no more than the county has a right to expect, because as you are aware, the county has been put to great expense during the last few years, in order to make proper preparation for the reception of criminals, and to place these establishments on a better and sounder footing; and having done so, I think we have a reasonable ground to expect that all this expenditure will not be for nothing. Whilst crime shows a very decided diminution, without being sanguine, we may reasonably indulge in the hope that this diminution may continue. At the same time, too, that we see crime diminish, the gaol expenses are considerably less. You will hear, by and bye, from the report of the visiting Justices, that the expenses of the gaol are less than they have been for many years past; and this, again is attributable to the improved system upon which we are now carrying on this part of the county business, and it is to be hoped that this reduced expenditure will be continual. It has been usual to announce, in the charge from the chair, the amount of the Coroners' bills for the past quarter. The Coroners' bills have been as follows:—Mr Carlyon, 30 inquests, at a cost of £104 0s. 4d; Mr Hamley, 23 inquests, £71 14s. 10d.; Mr Roscorla, 31 inquests, £94 0s. 3d.; Mr. Good, 9 inquests, £35 17s.; Mr Jago, 20 inquests, £59 9s. 3d.; making a grand total of 113 inquests, at a cost of £365 1s. 8d., being somewhat larger than that of the corresponding quarter of last year, when there were 101 inquests held at a cost of £360 16s. 6d. There had, therefore, been twelve more inquests during the past quarter, at a cost of about £6 more. From the Financial committee's report, you will hear that the general rate required for the next quarter will be sixteen thirty-seconds of a penny, in other words one halfpenny, which is less by one-eighth of a penny than the rate of the corresponding quarter of last year, when it was twelve thirty-seconds of a penny. The police rate will also be sixteen thirty-seconds of a penny, being the same as the rate levied in the corresponding quarter of last year. In conclusion the learned Chairman dismissed the grand jury to their duties. NEGLECT OF MAGISTRATES' CLERKS.—EXPENSES DISALLOWED. Before proceeding to county business, the CHAIRMAN said he must again call attention to the exceedingly negligent manner in which depositions were returned to the Court by magistrates' clerks. There was generally great irregularity in the mode of sending in depositions, and in one case now before him, No. 32 in the calendar, the depositions had only just now come in, though the prisoner had been committed three months ago. It was the duty of magistrates' clerks to assist the court in the administration of justice; but instead of doing so, they very frequently impeded its administration. In the bundle of depositions which he held in his hand, there were no fewer than ten sets without any manner of endorsement. In the case to which he had referred—that of James Henry Masters, for obtaining money by means of false pretences, at , committed on the 31st October—the expenses of the magistrates' clerk must be disallowed. This neglect was a great inconvenience, and rendered it absolutely impossible for the chairman to see whether there were any points of law which required to be explained to the grand jury. Last night a great portion of his (the chairman's) time was occupied in correcting the clerical errors of magistrates' clerks, which should not be one of the chairman's duties. There was a case of great negligence from St. Columb, and several cases from ; indeed, Callington was the most prolific in complaints of any place in the county— (laughter). The Court then proceeded with the C O U N T Y B U S I N E S S. COUNTY FINANCE. The Finance Committee reported the total balance due to the county to be £8,890 6s. 10¾d. On the general account there was a balance of £3,452 8s. 8½d. On the county police general account, a balance due to the county of £1,909 16s. 10½d.; and there was a balance due to the police superannuation fund of £151 16s. 5d.; and to the constabulary building fund a balance of £3,376 4s. 11d. The report was received and adopted, and the £151 16s. 5d., due to the superannuation fund was ordered to be invested in the Consols. The coroners' bills, as given in the Chairman's charge, were then allowed. COUNTY GAOL. Capt. Colvill, the governor of the gaol, reported, that since the date of his last report, nothing requiring any special remark had occurred. The conduct of the prisoners, generally, had been good and orderly, and he certified that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been complied with. The gaol expenses, for the quarter, amounted in the gross to £704 14s. 5d., upon which there was a reduction for sundry small credits, leaving the charge of £694 5s. 6d. The CHAIRMAN said this would he found to be the smallest charge, on account of gaol expenses, for the last ten or twelve years, and this, notwithstanding the fact that the population had largely increased, and that the criminals brought to justice were perhaps more rather than less. This is the first occasion on which the Court had the opportunity of judging of the effect of the new regulations in the gaol. The diminution, he must say, was not only the result of the reduced dietary, but generally of the economical arrangements arising from improved discipline. The hall expenses were reported to be £8 19s. 8d. for the past quarter. VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT. The CHAIRMAN read the following report:—"The Visitors' Committee have the pleasure to report most favourably of the gaol and bridewell, and of the efficient state of the establishment. The Bodmin Gas Company having undertaking to erect new purifiers, and to render a much better quality of gas at 4s., instead of 5s. 6d. per thousand feet, the committee have suspended all proceedings in the erection of gas works. A sum of £220 will be required for the current expenses of the gaol, during the ensuing quarter.

COUNTY BRIDGES. Mr JENKIN, the surveyor of the County Bridges in the Eastern Division of the county reported:— Soerra Bridge.—I have to apply for a grant of £1 for making a drain at this bridge. Trekener Bridge.—I have to apply for a grant of £1 for making a drain at this bridge. St. Austell Higher Bridge.—I have to apply for a sum not exceeding £1 for repairing the coping of the parapet walls of this bridge. I beg to submit Parliamentary notices which I have received from Messrs Gurney, Cowlard, and Kempson referring to Ruthern Bridge, in the of Bodmin; and from Messrs Bircham, Dalrymple, Drake, and Ward referring to Tresarret Bridge, in the of and . Also copies of the deposited plans and sections of the Launceston, Bodmin, and Junction Railway, and Bodmin and Wadebridge Railway, as far as they refer to the before-mentioned bridges. Mr JENKIN, in answer to the Court, explained, that with respect to Tresarret Bridge, it was proposed by the railway company to carry the road over the railway, remove the present county bridge, and to divert the river. It was also proposed that the gradient of the road on one side the bridge should be 1 in 16, and on the other 1 in 20. The CHAIRMAN thought that they ought, on behalf of the county, to insist that the gradient of the road on both sides the bridge should be only 1 in 20. It was then resolved that Mr Jenkin be directed to watch over the interests of the county in any alteration that might be proposed to make in the bridges in question, so as to secure proper gradients and drainage, and all expenses connected with the alterations, as well as the expense of the future maintenance of the roads in question. The report was then adopted. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr Hickes, the surveyor of bridges for the western division of the county, reported that the road at Higher Carnon bridge required stoning, which he estimated would cost £1 15s. Tregony.—This road required stoning, which would cost £3 10s. Cornelly.—The road required cleaning and stoning, which he estimated would cost £1. Trevemper road also required cleaning and stoning, which would cost £2 10s. Bolingey road also required stoning, the cost of which would be £1 10s. Gwithian.—A large quantity of sand having been blown on the road, he had it removed, at a cost of £2 10s. St. Erth.—The road required cleaning and stoning, which would cost £1. Godolphin.—The road required stoning, the cost of which would be £1 15s. Longbridge—The road requited stoning, at a cost of £1 10s. Chyandour.—Ditto, at a cost of £1 10s. .—Ditto, at a cost of £3 10s. Berious.— The road required cleaning, which would cost 10s. Higher Carnon.—He had the satisfaction of reporting that the work ordered at the last sessions had been done at a less cost than the estimate. COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM. Mr W.H.P. CAREW moved, in accordance with notice, that the sum of £600 be granted for the purpose of providing a supply of water for the County Lunatic Asylum. He explained that he had no regular plan of the water-works to lay before the Court; but the plan which they proposed to carry out was the one that had been agitated so long—namely, that of obtaining the supply at Penbugle (sic); and it would be his duty to give notice at sessions of his intention to apply for a further sum of £1000, to be asked for next sessions, on account of these works, as they would have to pay the landowners compensation. If the Court should then wish for plans, he should he prepared to furnish them; but, in the position in which the negotiations at present stood, it would be injudicious to do so, as it was always injudicious to enter into explanations while negotiations were in progress. Mr R. NORWAY seconded the motion. Mr E. COODE, jun.—l object to the grant, not because I do not recognise the necessity of providing a supply of water for the asylum, but because I object to the legality of the course the Committee are pursuing. The motion was then put, when 11 voted for it, and two against, including Mr E. Coode, jun. It was consequently declared to be carried. Mr CAREW presented the reports of the Commissioners in Lunacy, the visitors, superintendent, medical officer, and chaplain of the asylum, all of which were read by the chairman, excepting the first. They were of considerable length, and we therefore defer their publication till next week. They were all adopted. Mr CAREW proposed that the following be appointed visitors for the county for the year 1865:— W. H. P. Carew, John Tremayne, Edward Collins, Augustus Coryton, J. St. Aubyn, M.P., William Coulson, Richard Foster, and R. G. Lakes, Esqrs.; Major Grylls, and the Right Hon. the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe. The motion was seconded by Mr SAWLE and carried. Mr CAREW said that at a meeting on the previous day, at the asylum, the following were chosen as visitors on behalf of the subscribers:—Francis Howell, David W. Horndon, Nevill Norway, Esqrs., the Rev. George H. Somerset, and Major Carlyon. Mr CAREW said that the Bodmin Junction Railway proposed to tunnel under a portion of the asylum grounds. Mr S. HICKS, the superintendent of the asylum, said that the tunnel would be 20 feet below the surface, and would only pass a short distance under the asylum grounds. The CHAIRMAN—But the tunnel itself will be very short. Mr JENKIN—Yes; very short. And it will only pass under a small portion of the asylum ground—a corner of the chapel ground; and it is so laid out as to avoid the possibility of any interference with the surface of the land. Mr CAREW then gave notice that he should, at the next sessions, move that £1000 be granted for securing a supply of water to the asylum. COUNTY CONSTABULARY. Mr E. COODE, jun., read the following report of the County Police Courts:— A meeting of the committee was held on Monday, Jan. 2, at the Chief Constable's Office, present— E. Coode, jun. (chairman), Hon. and Rev. T. Boscawen, J. T. H. Peter, F. M. Williams, N. Kendall, M.P., W. Roberts, and J. Trevenen, Esqrs. The expenses incurred during the last quarter were examined and approved, and the vouchers for the previous quarter having been examined by the chairman, were reported by him to be correct. STATION.—The chief constable and the architect reported that the means adopted to remedy the bad drainage and ventilation in this station appear so far to be perfectly successful, and the cost has been within the sum allowed by the sessions. CALLINGTON.—Plans for this station by Mr Goodyear, have been examined, approved, and ordered to be sent up forthwith to the Secretary of State, and if approved by him, tenders are to be procured for the work against the next meeting of the committee. TREGONY.—The conveyance of the site to the count has been executed. HEAD-QUARTERS.—The purchase of the small garden adjoining the site mentioned in the committee's last report has been arranged, and only waits an order of Court to enable the Clerk of the Peace to execute the conveyance on behalf of the county. The price was £90. Mr Shilson was instructed to take immediate steps for disposing of the detached field originally purchased as part of the site, which will not now be required. Plans for the station were approved and lie at the chief constable's office for the inspection of magistrates. Subject to the approval of the plan by this Court and by the Secretary of State, tenders are to be procured against the next meeting of the committee. STRATTON.—No return of fees and allowances for the quarter ending Michaelmas last, has been received from this division. GOOD CONDUCT PAY.—This subject was again discussed, and the annexed report, now finally approved by the committee, is presented to the Court.—The County Police Committee met pursuant to special notice, on Thursday, the 8th ult., to consider the proposition of the chief constable for a system of progressive increase of pay to constables in proportion to length of service; present— E. Coode, jun., Esq., chairman, Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, Rev. A. Tatham, J. T. H. Peter, Esq., and Rev. R. B. Kinsman. The Chief Constable presented the annexed scheme to the committee, and in support thereof, waged the following considerations based on his own experience while in command of our own police force, and on information gathered by him from other counties, and embodied a table attached to his report:— 1st. That our present rate of pay is not equal to that in the majority of other counties, especially when it is remembered that the price of ordinary labour is in Cornwall above the average. 2nd. That in several counties a system similar to that now proposed, is adopted, and found to work beneficially. 3rd. That efficient constables as they gain experience from length of service, really become more valuable to the public, and that it is always desirable to retain them in the force. 4th. That the proposed scheme will never increase the whole pay of the force by more than about £300 per year upon the pay of the force, which at present averages about £10,000, and most probably very seldom to anything like that extent, while the pay would even then be barely equal to other counties. The committee, after full investigation, were of opinion that the above-mentioned considerations are sound and founded in fact; and believing that any reasonable inducement which can be held out to experienced constables who have proved themselves efficient, to better their position by perseverance and activity in their duty, must tend to improve the character and usefulness of the force, recommend the annexed scheme to the Court, not merely as a judicious outlay of public money, but as one which is absolutely required to enable the county at large to reap the fullest possible benefit from the expense at present incurred. The following is the scheme of the Chief Constable referred to:—Proposal to be submitted to the Court by the Chief Constable at the Epiphany Sessions for encouraging good conduct and rewarding length of service in the different ranks of the Constabulary force in the county. Deputy Chief Constables and Superintendents.—After five years' service as superintendent, £6 per annum; after 10 years' service as superintendent, £12 per annum; after 15 years' service as superintendent, £18 per annum. Inspectors.—After five years' service as inspector, £4 per annum; after 10 years' service as ditto, £8 per annum; after 16 years' service as ditto, £12 per annum.— Sergeant Majors and Sergeants.—After five years as sergeant, 1s. per week: after 10 years' ditto, 2s. per week. 1st Class Constables.—After three years' service as a 1st class constable, 1d. per diem; after seven years' service as ditto, 2d. per diem. 2nd Class Constables.—After five years' service as a 2nd class constable 1d. per diem. An inspector to be promoted (sic) to the rank of superintendent to be allowed to reckon for every two years' previous service as inspector, one year's service as superintendent. A sergeant promoted to the rank of inspector to be allowed to reckon for every two years' previous service as sergeant, one year's service as inspector. A first-class constable promoted to the rank of sergeant, to be allowed to reckon for every two years' previous service as first-class constable, one year's service as sergeant. A second-class constable promoted to the rank of first-class constable, to be allowed to reckon for every two years' previous service as second-class constable, one year's service a first-class constable. Should any officer of the force be punished for any neglect of duty or any irregularity, the good conduct pay will at once cease, and the following two years' service will not reckon towards good conduct pay. POLICE RATE.—A rate of 16-32nds, or of one halfpenny in the pound, is recommended for this quarter.—E. Coode, jun., Chairman. Mr COODE said that the Chief Constable was in possession of a considerable amount of information, which he had obtained from other counties, as to the rates of pay to the police there, and also as to the counties in which the salaries recommended, by the committee had been adopted. The committee were anxious to lay before the Court the fullest information on the subject, and they trusted the magistrates would inquire fully into it. He was sure that the object of the committee was to save the county every possible expense, and in making the recommendations contained in their report, which he had just read, they had this object in view. He moved the adoption of the report and of the scheme embodied in it for the progressive increase of the pay of the constabulary. The Hon. and Rev. T. BOSCAWEN seconded the motion. Col. GILBERT, the chief constable, in answer to a question from the chairman, said that the scheme proposed had been adopted in seven counties in . Mr CAREW asked whether the scheme had not been devised partly in consequence of the Chief Constable finding that he could not keep many of his best men. The CHIEF CONSTABLE said that it had been resolved upon as rewards for effective service and good conduct. Mr CAREW: But is it not a fact that you have lost some of your best men. The CHIEF CONSTABLE: I have lost some of my best men during the last two or three years, and I have thought it necessary to hold out rewards for effective service and good conduct. Mr CAREW: And that it is desirable to adopt some plan in order to keep them? The CHIEF CONSTABLE: Just so. The CHAIRMAN was sure every magistrate would feel that the police committee had always paid the utmost attention to the management and efficiency of the police of the county; and that it was due to them to give them credit for not having adopted a recommendation like that which had been submitted, without having first given it the fullest consideration. Every one, he was convinced, would agree that they would not have recommended a change of the important kind proposed, without being first satisfied that there were strong and cogent reasons for its adoption, and, therefore, he thought that they ought to adopt the recommendation. The CHIEF CONSTABLE, in reply to Mr Robartes, said he had lost several officers in consequence of their obtaining better appointments. They did not always exchange into other police forces, but some times they were appointed relieving officers and to other situations, and some of them had emigrated. Mr C. B. G. SAWLE said there could be no doubt that it was very expensive to the members of the police force to be constantly changing, and it was the interest of the county to prevent this as far as possible. The county had to incur the expense of training the men for some years, and when any of these removed after they became efficient, their places had to be supplied by new men. He thought, therefore, that they ought to feel greatly obliged to the police committee for their very able report. The report was then adopted. The report of the CHIEF CONSTABLE was then read by the Chairman. It stated that in compliance with the 2nd and 3rd Victoria cap. 93, sec. 17, he laid before the court the quarterly return of crime committed in this county so far as it is known to the county constabulary—also a return showing the number and distribution of the force. He had merely to add that the general conduct of the force continued very satisfactory. He further reported that the police contingencies for the quarter amounted to £325 17s. 10½d. The CHAIRMAN stated that the Chief Constable had placed in his hand a letter from the Home Office, signed by Mr Waddington, stating that the Secretary of State had considered the report of the government inspector of police, respecting the police of the county of Cornwall, and he had the satisfaction of stating that the force had been found in the state of efficiency required by the Act of Parliament. THE SALMON FISHERIES. Mr R. G. LAKES said it was not his intention to offer many remarks of his own with reference to this question, but there was a friend of his present whose opinions and whose writing on matters connected with fish were known and respected by the most scientific men in the land. He (Mr Lakes) regretted to say that neither himself nor Mr Couch—for that was the gentleman to whom he alluded, were in any way connected with, or had any interests in the fisheries of the or the Camel. His only object was to bring before the court a great grievance and injustice under which the poor fishermen were labouring, and in doing so he would merely state the plain simple facts. By the Act of Parliament—24 and 25, vic., cap. 109, which regulated the salmon fisheries in this county, the open season was at first fixed from February to the 1st September, but in consequence of the interference and influence of Mr Kendall, an alteration was made so as to extend the close season in the spring to the beginning of April. In his opinion the alteration took place at the wrong end of the season—at all events as regards the Fowey and Camel. The fact was that the fisheries were now in this anomalous position, that when the law said the fish might be taken there were no salmon in the river, and when law said the fish shall not be taken the river were full of them—that was after the first of September and the following months. It was well known that the salmon did not make their appearance in the Fowey till July, consequently the act was calculated to do away with the fishery at Fowey and Polruan altogether. Now, they would all agree that none of them were fully acquainted with the different laws of nature, and no doubt the legislature were in the same state and were therefore liable to make mistakes. If they took other natural science—ornithology and botany for instance,—they would find peculiar conditions affecting them also. With regard to botany, certain plants would grow in your neighbourhood but not in mine, and how could this be explained, except that they had a peculiar attachment for one place over another. And again, why did the starling come here in one season and migrate to Herefordshire and the neighbourhood at another. Those were things that could not be explained, and so it was with regard to the peculiar habits of the salmon in different rivers. He only appeared in the interest of the poor fishermen upon whom, at Polruan and Fowey alone, this Act of Parliament had inflicted a loss of something like £1,000 a year. It appeared that on the 13th of the present month a meeting is to be held at Exeter, at which one of the Government Commissioners Mr Ffennell is to attend, and the Conservators and all persons interested in the fisheries in the Western Counties are invited to attend to give evidence on the matter. Now, that was an admission that the Government themselves did not consider the enactment satisfactory. He thought if the fishermen of Polruan and Fowey were allowed to fish for salmon till the end of November, something like justice would be done to them, though even then not full justice. Now, he had here stated nothing but facts, but as they might be considered only assertions on his part, he would ask the court to allow him to call Mr Couch to state whether they were correct or not; he only wished to put the plain facts before the court in such a manner as to make a case of injustice towards the fishermen, and having made out the case he should ask the court to request the Government to inquire into the matter with a view to remedying the evil. The CHAIRMAN said it was no doubt a very important question, but one upon which the Court could not approach the Home Office unless upon well-substantiated facts. Therefore, he thought Mr Couch's evidence had better be taken. Mr COUCH having been requested to state what he knew on the matter, confining himself to the point in question as nearly as possible, said he had kept a journal of fisheries for more than 50 years, and during that time he had never known salmon come into the Fowey in July but once; a few came in August; they began to be more abundant in September, but even then it was not worth the fishermen's while to begin to take them; but in October and November the fish were most plentiful and in best condition. The fish were now in the river in very large numbers, in consequence of not having been caught since the passing of the act. The river was now full of salmon, but the fishermen could not catch a single fish. The time for breeding was during the latter half of December and the first half of January; that was the time all over Europe, though there might be an exceptional case of a fish breeding in September. Mr KENDALL asked if the fish were in good season up to the end of November. Mr COUCH: Quite up to that; that was their best time. It was very well known that not more than half the fish spawned in one year, the other half spawning the next year; they spawned in alternate years. They varied considerably in their time of coming up rivers. In Scotland, even in rivers within six or seven miles of each other they varied very much. They would lie off a week or too (sic) and rush in all at once, perhaps on a dark or cloudy night. There was no doubt a reason for it in nature, but it was not known. He had reason to believe that the habits of the Camel salmon were the same as those of the Fowey, but he could not speak of the Camel from personal experience. The court ought to understand that there were three kinds of fish commonly spoken of as salmon, which were really not salmon. There was the salmon peal of Devon and Cornwall, which was a distinct species and as different from the salmon as a rabbit was from a hare. Then again there was the salmon trout, which was also a distinct species. Mr. KENDALL: Do I understand from you that when the law allows fish to be caught there is then none to catch, and that were you to begin to fish in February the fish would then be spent? Mr COUCH: That was the fact, and it was proved by experience that though the salmon shed their spawn at different periods, the spawn came to life about the same time. The fish were not good in February or March, but April was a proper time. Mr KENDALL said the Home Office agreed to extend the close season to April, but they would not make a corresponding alteration in the autumn. The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the 20th of October, to which time the sessions had asked the Home office to extend the open season, was not long enough? Mr COUCH said it ought to be at least to the 20th November. October and November were the best months. He then spoke of the third kind of fish frequently mistaken for salmon; this fish went under various names, but was called in Fowey, "bluepole," that was a distinct species which only came to them in the winter. Mr KENDALL: Would you be likely to catch more fish in the first or last week in October. Mr COUCH: There would be pretty much of a uniformity in the take all through October and November; it would only vary from unforeseen causes. Mr KENDALL: If you were to go to the last week in November would it improve the breed? Mr COUCH: No, none whatever. He might state that it was calculated that the salmon produced for every pound in weight a thousand spawn, so that a ten pound salmon would produce 10,000 spawn. There was a great difference in the time of the spawn coming to life; this was much affected by climate, the transformation being effected here in half the time that it was in Scotland. The CHAIRMAN asked if Mr Couch could suggest any practical way of meeting the difficulty felt by the Home office; that of unseasonable salmon being sent from other parts of the county, and sold as Fowey or Camel salmon. Mr COUCH said the objection might be obviated if the rivers were properly protected; and another mode of preventing the imposition which had been suggested to him was for the customs authorities to mark all the salmon sent from the Cornish rivers—say by pinching its tail—(laughter)—and make the imitation of the mark an offence. Mr E. COODE, jun., said he had great respect for Mr Couch's opinion, and the Court was very much indebted to him (hear, hear), but at the same time even Mr Couch's evidence had shown that the Act had been productive of good, for he admitted that the salmon in the river had very much increased— (hear, hear). He (Mr Coode) did not think they ought to attempt to induce the Government to alter the close time without very strong evidence, and this was a question upon which there was great difference of opinion. There were then in Court several gentlemen, sportsmen and practical men who differed from Mr Couch, and he thought they ought to be heard in the matter before the Court committed itself to any action. There were Col. Gilbert, Capt. Edyvean, and Mr Pascoe, Mr Fowler, and Mr Thomas, the latter two being practical men, living on the . Mr KENDALL did not see what use there was in having a river full of salmon if they were not allowed to catch them—(laughter) that was the great evil, and the increase of the fish could be of no benefit so long as they could not catch them. Mr COUCH said he had not spoken from his experience with regard to the Cornish rivers alone, but had information from the most scientific men in all parts of Europe with whom he had been in communication on a work he was writing. For his own part the only interest he had in the matter personally was that he used to get a salmon now and then but now he got none—(laughter). Major GRYLLS said he had himself caught salmon in June in the Fowey and had seen several others in the river. Mr COUCH said it must have been peal. Mr E. COLLINS having obtained from Mr Couch drawings of peal and salmon, declared that he had caught salmon in the Lynter in June. The CHAIRMAN said it occurred to him that it would be rather premature to address the Home Office before the result of the meeting at Exeter was known, and he would suggest that the question be adjourned till the next sessions, for the purpose of having before them the result of the meeting, where evidence of wider application would no doubt be taken. Mr KENDALL did not see how it would alter their position. The question was that the rivers were full of good seasonable salmon here, when they could not be taken. Mr Fennell had himseIf admitted that the salmon were later in coming up the Cornish rivers, and were later in season, but he said if the open season was extended here they would have unseasonable salmon from other parts, caught and sold as Camel or Fowey salmon. Now, he (Mr Kendall) did not consider that any answer at all. If they could prove an injustice was done here, it ought to be removed, and it was the duty of the government to find a remedy for any other evil that might follow. If they proved that the rivers were filled with seasonable salmon when they were not allowed to catch them, that was a great injustice, and it was for us to see that the grievance was removed. Mr ROBARTES said he understood Mr Lakes' object to be, to show that there was an injustice and then to ask tor an inquiry and not to fix any time himself. Mr KENDALL said he had fished both the Camel and the Fowey very largely, and he believed the Camel to be the latest river in the kingdom, so that the case was even stronger than the Fowey. Col. GILBERT said he had caught a fish in the Camel 121bs weight in Sept. last; it was full of spawn and fresh from the sea, being covered with sea lice. Capt. EDYVEAN said that he had fished the river Camel last year up to the end of August. He commenced in April but he saw from the peas in the fish they caught, that the salmon was not fit for food, and that the fishing should be stopped. They only fished up to the 1st September, but they found that August was quite late enough. There certainly never had been so many fish brought into Bodmin as during last year, and yet never was the water in the river so low. Two years ago they began to fish in the Camel in April, and the first day they caught 17 salmon, some of which weighed 17 lbs., but they were not good. In fact, they were more like hake than salmon, and were not fit for food. The fish were spent and miserable, and the fishmongers in Plymouth to whom some were sent, would not have anything to do with them. They were not fit for food in May, but in June they got better, and they were able to fish during that month, July and August, but in September they began to get bad again. Mr LAKES said that the statement of Capt. Edyvean showed that during the time specified by the Act of Parliament the fish were not fit for food. Mr E. COLLINS did not think that sufficient evidence had been given to justify the court in asking the Home Office to extend the open season, and he moved that the court do not do so at present. Mr KENDALL said that he had seen excellent fish caught in November; in fact, Mr Fennell himself had admitted to him that the Cornish fisheries were much later than those of other parts of the kingdom. He would, however, ask Mr Lakes whether he thought it would be wise to ask for October and November to be included in the open season. Mr LAKES said he did not wish to name any time; but he would leave that entirely to the court. If they should succeed in obtaining a month's longer time for the fishermen, he should be very thankful. Mr CAREW said that Mr Lakes had clearly made out a case showing the necessity for further inquiry on the subject, and he moved that the Home Office be asked to direct that Mr Fennell should visit Cornwall and institute an inquiry into the salmon fishery in all their rivers. Mr SAWLE said that they could not include the Tamar without notice being given both in Devon and Cornwall. Mr LAKES said that the motion of Mr Carew would meet his views, and he begged to second it. The CHAIRMAN was then instructed to communicate with the Home Secretary, asking him to request Mr Fennell to come to Cornwall after the meeting at Exeter, and inquire into the subject of the salmon fisheries of the Cornish rivers. This concluded the county business which lasted all the day. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. (Before J. JOPE ROGERS, Esq., M.P.) FOWL STEALING AT GOLANT. Philip Blewett, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing a fowl, the property of James Stick, on the 5th November, at Castledon, in the parish of Golant. Mr Childs prosecuted. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to two months' hard labour. CHARGE OF STEALING A WATCH AT FALMOUTH. John Moyle (who had been bailed), was charged with stealing a watch, the property of Frederick Webster, at the parish of Budock, on the 4th November. Mr Commins prosecuted, and Mr Jenkins defended. Not Guilty. The Court then adjourned. (Before C. B. G. SAWLE, and J. HICHENS, Esqrs.) CHARGE OF POCKET PICKING AT . Mary Chadwick, aged 24, was charged with stealing from the person of John Coad, a purse, containing 13s. 6d., at Redruth, on the 21st October. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution. The prosecutor was a miner, and being in Redruth on the night in question, he was standing outside of the door of a public house, when he was accosted by the prisoner, whom he accompanied into a passage, where, after a short time, she left him. He directly afterwards missed his purse and money. He followed the prisoner and saw her into a house, and then fetched a policeman who found the prosecutor's purse behind the door outside the house which the prisoner had entered. The prisoner denied that she had ever seen the prosecutor, and said that the yard where the purse was found was used by a great number of people. The jury acquitted the prisoner. SHOPLIFTING AT REDRUTH. Emma Austin was charged with stealing a flannel shirt, valued at 12s., the property of William Richards, tailor, of Redruth, on the 9th December. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner, who was a customer of the prosecutor's, was in the shop during the afternoon, shortly before the shirt was missed, and she pledged it the same evening for 4s. The defence was that she found the shirt. She was found guilty and sentenced to two months' hard labour. STEALING WEARING APPAREL AT FALMOUTH. Samuel Brimner, 20, seaman, was charged with stealing a suit of oilskins, a belt, a pair of drawers, and a flannel, the property of William Gosling, at Falmouth, on the 12th December. Mr Childs appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that the prisoner obtained £1 from the prosecutor, on an advance note for £2, besides supplying goods to the amount of 19s. 6d. These goods, however, the prisoner left in the prosecutor's shop as well as a carpet bag. During the prosecutor's absence the prisoner went to the shop and took his goods away, also taking a parcel which lay near his own. The articles were found in the prisoner's bag, on board ship. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy, and he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. FIRST COURT.—WEDNESDAY. Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq., M.P. ROBBERY FROM A MINING CHANGE HOUSE. Thomas Morgan, 25, and James Jones, 36, seamen, were charged with stealing several articles of wearing apparel, the property of Henry James and William Gilbert, on the 25th November. Mr Childs appeared for the prosecution and the prisoners were undefended. The prosecutors worked in Tretherras mine, in the parish of St. Columb Minor. On the 25th November they undressed in the changing house, leaving all their clothing there, and went underground between three and four o'clock in the afternoon. On coming up again between seven and eight o'clock, the change house door was found open, and James missed a necktie and a pocket knife, and Gilbert a monkey jacket, a vest, and a woollen scarf. Mr John Stevens, farmer, of St. Columb Minor, saw the prisoners together on the evening of the robbery, coming from the direction of the mine, and both prisoners were apprehended on the 23th, at , about fifty miles from the scene of the robbery. On the person of James was found a handkerchief, which was identified by the prosecutor James, and his wife, and on Morgan, a necktie, which was identified by Gilbert. The jacket and scarf also identified by Gilbert were found inside a hedge in a lane near Bude, near which the prisoners had been seen loitering, after they had heard that the police were on the look out for them. They were found guilty and were each sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. GENUINE BEAR'S GREASE. Daniel Fitzpatrick, an elderly man, was charged with obtaining sundry sums of money from various persons in the parishes of Perranarworthal, St, Erme, and Ladock, by means of false pretences. The alleged false pretence was that the prisoner sold what he represented as "genuine bear's grease," stating he had been travelling with a wild beast show, and that one of the bears died at St. Austell. He had obtained the grease from this animal, and therefore was enabled to offer the rare opportunity of obtaining the "genuine" article at a moderate price. Suspicions having been excited as to the truth of the prisoner’s representations, enquiries were made, and it was discovered that the "genuine" bear's grease was manufactured from lard and other articles purchased from Mr Feaver, druggist, of . The prisoner having admitted this fact and that the death of the bear at St. Austell was a fabrication, was committed for trial by Mr W. T. Chappel, of Truro, but the grand jury ignored the bill and the prisoner was discharged. ROBBERY AT ST. GERMANS Amelia Jane, 16, domestic servant, was arraigned on a charge of breaking open a desk belonging to her master, and stealing therefrom about £8 in money, on the 11th December. Mr Brian, of Plymouth, appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr P. J. Wallis, of Bodmin, defended the prisoner. The prosecutor, Mr Crebor, a farmer, went to church on the morning in question, leaving the prisoner alone in the house, and on his return the robbery had been committed, and the prisoner stated that a man had come into the kitchen and seized her; she managed to escape from him, and ran upstairs and locked herself up in her room, where she remained about 20 minutes, during which time she heard the man knocking about the house. The police were sent out in all directions in pursuit of the supposed delinquent, but no trace could be found, and ultimately suspicion fell upon the prisoner, whose story had been found to vary, somewhat. There was, however, no money found upon her, and the evidence merely suggested a case of suspicion, though Mr Brian laboured in a most extraordinary manner to procure a conviction. Mr Wallis ably defended the prisoner, and she was acquitted. HOUSE BREAKING AT ST. STEPHENS. Samuel Brenton, 17, labourer, was indicted for breaking into the dwelling-house of William Cowling, a quarryman, residing a St. Stephens in Branwell, near St. Austell, and with stealing therefrom a silver watch, on the 28th Oct. Mr H. D. Shilson appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner, it appeared, had worked in the same quarry with the prosecutor, and knew that he possessed the watch in question. On the 28th October, the prosecutor left his watch at home, and his wife went out about mid-day, leaving the watch on the dressing table, and locking up the house. She returned about 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening, when she found the kitchen window broken open, and the watch gone. The prisoner sold the watch to a young man in the neighbourhood for a gun and a half-a-crown two days afterwards. He was found guilty, and a previous conviction having been proved against him, he was sentenced to twelve months' hard labour. STEALING AN IRON BAR AT ST. AUSTELL. Josiah Hawke Pascoe, on bail, was indicted for stealing an iron bar, the property of Joseph Wedlake, at the Bugle, in the parish of St. Austell. Mr H. D. Shilson, appeared tor the prosecution, and Mr Stokes defended the prisoner. It appeared that the prosecutor is a carpenter, and the prisoner a blacksmith, living on the opposite side of the road, but who recently entered into the carpentering business. The prosecutor, according to his evidence, had a bar of iron about 18 months ago. It was then twelve or thirteen feet long, and was numbered in feet. At that time he gave the prisoner liberty to cut off a piece of the bar for his own use. The portion cut off was three feet long, and the portion which remained in his possession was about 8 feet long. This remained up to a short time before the 12th December, when it was missed from the open yard where it was frequently used by the workmen in turning over timber, &c. On the following day the prosecutor went into the prisoner's shop, where he found a piece of iron bar between two and three feet long, which he brought away with him, and a workman named Gilbert also found another piece in the same workshop. This was also brought away and both pieces being put together were found to match, and the prosecutor believed both pieces to be part of the bar which he had lost, and from which he had allowed the prisoner to cut a piece some eighteen months previously. He accordingly sent one of the pieces back to the prisoner's workshop and kept the other piece. The prisoner was absent from home at the time and a warrant was issued for his apprehension, but he gave himself up. The prosecutor, a workman, and an apprentice, swore that the piece retained was a portion of the bar lost, but the evidence on this point was not satisfactory, and there was nothing to show that it was not the piece or portion of the piece which the prosecutor had allowed the prisoner to cut off, and the jury, without hearing Mr Stokes for the defence, acquitted the prisoner, stating that they considered that there was not a blot upon his character. Mr Stokes said he had six or seven most respectable witnesses who had known the prisoner for many years, and would have given him an excellent character; in fact, he had never had a blot upon him. STEALING BARLEY AT ST. IVE. Thomas Pomroy, and Richard Barratt, both on bail, were indicted for stealing a quantity of barley, the property of Peter Pollard, farmer, of St. Ive. Mr Childs for the prosecution; Mr 11. D. Shilson defended Barratt, and Mr Stokes defended Pomroy. The offence was proved, and Pomroy, being a servant of the prosecutor's, was sentenced to nine months' hard labour, and Barratt to six months.

SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4. (Before C. B. G. SAWLE, Esq., Chairman). STEALING MONEY AT BODMIN. Samuel Cock, aged 24, who had been out on bail, a waiter, was charged with stealing, on the 6th December, in the dwelling house of Willliam (sic) Oliver, in the borough of Bodmin, certain monies, to the amount of £20, and a purse, belonging to John Barrible. Mr Wallis prosecuted, and Mr Marrack defended the prisoner. Mr Wallis stated the case. Several witnesses were examined, after which, Mr Marrack, for the defence, submitted that this case was only one of strong suspicion; but mere suspicion would not justify the jury in finding a prisoner guilty of such a serious offence as that charged against the prisoner. There was no evidence which brought the offence home to the prisoner, and the purse was found in a room through which dozens of persons passed daily. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to eight months' hard labour. FELONY AT REDRUTH. James Pearse, aged 18, miner, was charged with stealing, on the 19th of September, at Redruth, a pair of boots, the property of John Polglase. Mr Cornish prosecuted. The prosecutor is an innkeeper at Redruth. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and a previous conviction for felony, at the last Lent Assizes for Cornwall, on the 24th of March, having been proved against him, he was sentenced to nine months' hard labour. FLANNEL STEALING AT COPPERHOUSE. Georgiana Williams, was charged with stealing a piece of flannel shirting, the property of Edward M. Hancorne, at the parish of Phillack, on the 2nd of Nov., she being at the time a servant in his employ; and Grace Jose was charged with receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen. Williams pleaded guilty, and Jose not guilty. Mr Cornish prosecuted, and Mr Jenkins defended Jose. The grounds on which the prosecution sought to show that the prisoner, Jose, had received the flannel, knowing it to have been stolen, were that she had received it from Williams, whom she knew at the time to be servant to the prosecutor, and that afterwards when questioned respecting her possession of it, she gave different accounts as to where she had obtained it. The jury found Jose not guilty, and she was discharged. Georgiana Williams, who was recommended to mercy by the prosecutor, was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour. FELONY AT ST. GERMANS. William Humphreys, 25, was charged with stealing two coats, of the value of 4s. belonging to James Burrows, at the parish of St. Germans, on the 12th November. Mr Commins prosecuted. The property was traced to the possession of the prisoner, who was found guilty. It appeared that on eight different occasions the prisoner had been sentenced by courts-martial to various terms of imprisonment, and he was now awarded four months' hard labour. OBTAINING MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCES. James Henry Masters, aged 23, was charged with having, by false pretences, on the 26th October, at the parish of Egloshayle, obtained from Edward Hawken the sum of £1 10s., with intent to cheat and defraud him of the same. The prosecutor is a farmer, residing at St. Davy, in the parish of Egloshayle. Guilty.—Three months' hard labour. HOUSE BREAKING AND FELONY AT LANDRAKE. Joseph Wilson, aged 21, gardener, was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling house of Thos. Sowden, at the parish of Landrake, on the 9th November last, and stealing therefrom an overcoat, two dress coats, a pair of black trowsers, black waistcoat, black shawl, a piece of print, and a piece of sheeting, altogether of the value of £8, the goods and chattels of the said Thos. Sowden. Mr Commins prosecuted. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and sentenced the prisoner to eight months' hard labour. James Cox, an elderly man, was charged with indecently assaulting Henrietta Wellington, a girl above the age of 10 and under 12 years, at the borough of , on the 6th of December. He was also charged, in a second count, with a common assault. Mr Childs prosecuted, and Mr Brian, of Plymouth, appeared for the defence. After some consultation between the advocates and the chairman, the prisoner, on the advice of Mr Brian, pleaded guilty of a common assault, and no evidence was offered in support of the graver charge. Sentence, six months' hard labour. ALLEGED WATCH ROBBERY AT CALSTOCK. Elizabeth Smollan, aged 25, was charged with stealing, from the person of Wm. Paul, on the 8th August, at the parish of Calstock, a watch, his property; and Peter Smollan, 34 was charged with receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen. Evidence having been gone into, the prisoners were acquitted. CHARGE OF ASSAULT AT ST. GERMANS. Thomas Williams, aged 27, was charged with assaulting and occasioning actual bodily harm to William Tucker, at the parish of St. Germans, on the 26th Nov. last. Mr Commins prosecuted, and Mr Brian defended the prisoner. The prosecutor was employed by Mr Glanville to look after poachers and trespassers on the estate of Catchfrench, near St. Germans. About five o’clock in the afternoon of the 26th November, he heard a report of a gun, which appeared to have come from the direction of the plantation. He proceeded on to the road in the direction of the sound, and on looking up into a tree at the pheasants, he saw a person whom he stated to be the prisoner with a gun. He desired the man to come down, but as he declined to do so, prosecutor got up the tree to pull him down. The man kicked at him, and the prosecutor had then to go to Catchfrench for assistance. The prisoner then came down, and on the prosecutor trying to take him into custody, he struck him with the gun, breaking the barrel by the force of the blows. A great number of witnesses were called to prove various corroboratory circumstances, after which Mr Brian, for the defence, called several witnesses to prove an alibi.—The trial did not conclude till half-past nine o’clock at night. The jury then, after a short deliberation, found the prisoner not guilty. The result was received with loud applause by a very large auditory who had remained in court throughout the trial. FIRST COURT—THURSDAY. (Before J.J. ROGERS, ESQ., M.P. Chairman). Benjamin Turner, an old man, was charged with an indecent assault upon a girl named Elizabeth Mary Luke, at the parish of St. Austell, on the 8th of October last. A second count charged him with a common assault, and acting on the advice of his solicitor, Mr. Brian, the prisoner pleaded guilty to this, and no evidence was offered in support of the more serious offence. Mr. Brian handed to the chairman a testimonial, signed by a number of persons, to the prisoners good character. He was sentenced to three months’ hard labour. DUCK STEALING AT . Charles Richards, aged 58, was charged first with stealing, and secondly, with receiving three ducks, the property of Mr Charles Coulson of Clare House, in the parish of Madron, to the stealing of which his son, William Henry Richards, had pleaded guilty on Tuesday. Mr Marrack prosecuted. The ducks were clearly traced to the possession of the prisoner. The jury found him guilty of receiving the ducks knowing them to have been stolen. LEATHER STEALING AT ST. ERME. Edwin Annear, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing twelve pieces of leather, of the value of about £5, the property of John Collett, at the parish of St. Erme, on the 27th October. Mr. Marrack prosecuted, and Mr. Stokes defended. Both prosecutor and prisoner are shoemakers, the former having his shop at Tresillian, and the latter at Probus. For the defence, witnesses were called to prove an alibi, but the jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to four months’ hard labour. SECOND COURT—THURSDAY. (Before C. B. G. SAWLE, Esq). The Court opened this morning at nine o'clock. CHARGE OF ABANDONING A CHILD. Grace Wilton, a woman about 25 years of age, an agricultural labourer, was charged, at the instance of the Guardians of the Bodmin Union, under the statute 24 and 25 Vic. chap. 100, with “abandoning and exposing a child, under the age of two years, whereby the health of the child was likely to be permanently injured." Mr Preston J. Wallis appeared for the prosecution. From the evidence of John Coleman, the owner of the house in Bodmin in which the prisoner lived, and from that of P.C. Solomon, and Charles James Mayell, the relieving officer of the Bodmin Union, the child which was an illegitimate one, belonging to the prisoner, was found in the room occupied by her, on the 12 October, lying on a bundle of straw, rolling in its own filth, and in a very neglected condition. At this point the Chairman consulted with his brother chairmen and the Clerk of the Peace, and on returning, stated that he could not allow the case to go before the jury, as they considered that this was not such an exposure, and abandonment as would be likely to lead permanently to improve (sic) the health of the child within the meaning of the statute. The child was found in the prisoner’s own room, and though no doubt it had been very much neglected still there was no evidence of abandonment. The jury therefore, by direction of the chairman, acquitted the prisoner. The Chairman then addressed the prisoner stating that if she had been indicted for the neglect of her child the result would have been very different, and she would have been severely punished; he therefore advised her to be careful of the child for the future. PLEADED GUILTY. George Blight, 27, hawker, and Eli Brown 18, cutler, to having on the 27th December, stolen two sheepskins and two lambskins, belonging to John Spettigue, at the parish of . Blight appeared to have been several times committed for petty offences, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Brown pleaded guilty to a previous conviction for felony, and there were also several previous convictions recorded against him of a similar character. He was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. John Manhire, labourer, to stealing a pole, the property of E. Collins, Esq., of Truthan. It was the prisoner’s first offence, and he was strongly recommended to mercy by Mr. Collins, for whom Mr Marrack appeared. Sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour. Robert Woolcock, 42, miner, to stealing a quantity of timber, of the value of 3s., the property of the adventurers in West Chiverton Mine, on the 21st October. Mr Marrack appeared for the prosecution, strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy, and he was sentenced to one month's hard labour. John James, aged 23, pleaded guilty to stealing several articles of apparel, belonging to Richard John Hanson, at the borough of Penryn, on the 24th Dec. last, and was sentenced to three months’ hard labour. James Mutton, aged 26, a miner, pleaded guilty to breaking into the dwelling house of Wm. Gill, at the parish of Calstock, and stealing therefrom a striped cotton shirt, on the 17th October last. Also to stealing at the parish of Calstock, on the 20th Oct., a shirt, the property of William Morrish. He was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour for each offence, the second term of imprisonment to commence at the expiration of the first. George Woolcock, aged 36, also pleaded guilty to breaking into a house belonging to Richard Band Body and Henry Body, at the parish of Liskeard, and stealing a quantity of flour and barley, and a sack, their property. Six months’ hard labour. ______CORNWALL QUARTER SESSIONS. The business at the quarter sessions terminated on Thursday evening. We give below those portions of the report which we reserved from last week:— COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM. REPORT OF LUNACY COMMISSIONERS. Bodmin County Asylum, 9th and 10th May, 1864. The following changes have taken place in this asylum since our last visit on the 25th of March, 1863, viz:— M. F. Total. Admitted Private 8 5 13 Pauper 46 42 88 Discharged Private 5 2 7 Pauper 25 27 52 Died Private 4 1 5 Pauper 18 11 29 leaving in the house this day. Males Private 19 Pauper 155 Females Private 15 Pauper 178 Total 367 One male pauper patient is absent on trial—of the total patients discharged, 37 were reported to be recovered. We have personally examined every patient, and have made the enquiries directed by the statute, relative to their condition and treatment. It appears that Divine service is performed by the Chaplain twice every Sunday, and that he reads prayers daily in the male and female wards. The chapel, which will contain about 150 patients, is inadequate to accommodate the number of patients who could attend were more space provided for them. The average attendance at the daily prayers is about 70 of the male, and 50 of the female sex. The means of amusement are of the same description as reported on former occasions, but the stock of books and newspapers has been increased, and we observed a liberal supply distributed in the various wards. As regards the useful occupation of the patients, we are sorry to find that the new workshop has not yet been commenced. We have received the following return of the average numbers employed:— Men Women. In the wards 40 Laundry 19 Land and garden 44 Sewing 58 Other trades. 20 Wards 43 Kitchen 5 104 125 It is still found necessary to purchase a portion of the clothes and shoes worn by the patients. Mechanical restraint has been employed twice in the case of a female patient of violent and destructive habits, and a male patient has been placed in a strait jacket for surgical reasons. The instances of seclusion have not been numerous, and seem to have been confined to a small number of the patients. There are now 17 male, and 15 female attendants, besides one attendant of each sex who is employed as night watch, and two laundry maids. We understand that some difficulty has lately occurred in obtaining the services of properly qualified female attendants, probably owing to the low scale of wages allowed. The building now contains quite as many patients as it can conveniently accommodate. Some of the associated dormitories are indeed rather overcrowded, and it is evident that the limit of the accommodation has been reached. We are, therefore, very glad to learn that the subject of enlargement has again been brought under the consideration of the committee of visitors. There can be no doubt that the plan originally contemplated of erecting a new and separate building for the private patients, would be preferable to any enlargement of the pauper wards. With one or two exceptions, the patients, when examined by us, were free from excitement, and no one was restrained or secluded. We thought that some of the clothing was not so neat and orderly as it should be. The bedding was generally clean, but some of the beds were extremely hard and many of the hair mattresses require opening and restuffing. The pillows are very small and thin. The wards were clean and properly ventilated, but the passages near the entrance doors in the female division were some of them very offensive, owing to bad construction of the drains in the bath- rooms. These require immediate attention, and some means should at once be adopted to prevent the offensive odour now arising from the saturated floors of single rooms used by patients of dirty habit. Three of the women's wards have now been improved and more liberally furnished, and we believe it is intended to introduce similar improvements throughout. They are much needed—more furniture is much wanted in the single rooms on the ground floors of the private patients. The means for personal washing are still quite inadequate. We find that the body linen of the patients is changed only once a week; this is probably owing to the want of sufficient room in the washhouse and laundry. This department is not only too small but also inconveniently arranged. The airing courts for the women still require small gravel; it seems important that they should be completed without delay. It is again our duty to call attention to the baths, the hot water taps of which are still unprotected. The shower baths also remain unlocked. We beg again to draw attention to a recommendation formerly made as to the appointment of female attendants in the men's epileptic and sick wards—a plan which has been found to be beneficial in other asylums. The medical officer is evidently very zealous in the discharge of his duties, but it is obvious that the asylum now contains more patients now than can be properly taken charge of by one medical man. We therefore recommend that an assistant be appointed. Great advantage would also follow the appointment of a head attendant on the female side. W. G. CAMPBELL, Commissioners in JAMES WILKES Lunacy. ______VISITOR'S REPORT. The Committee of visitors of the Lunatic Asylum presented the following report:— In the last annual report which the Committee laid before the quarter sessions, the urgent necessity which then existed for increased accommodation was adverted to. In the past year the average number of patients has been larger than in former years, having been in 1863, 363, and in 1864, 374. The greatest number at one time has been 389. The total number on the 31st December was 379, the asylum being calculated to contain 380. The number of discharged patients has been 39, and of deaths, 36. In order to relieve the crowded state of the wards a new bakehouse has been built, and the space occupied by the old bakery is in process of adaptation for the occupation of patients, adding twelve beds. The plans for the larger addition, which has been approved by this court, and by the Secretary of State, will be carried out with as little delay as possible. The advertisements for tenders will be issued immediately. The arrangements with the owners of the land at and leading from Penbugle, for acquiring the much-desired water supply, are progressing satisfactorily, and it is confidently hoped that the county will be saved the expense of an Act of Parliament. The want of water has been a most serious evil in the past year, interfering not only with sanitarry (sic) arrangements, but even with the thorough cleanliness of the establishment. In other respects the wards have been maintained in good order, and further efforts have been made to render the whole place as cheerful as the case admits of. The patients seem comfortable and are well and kindly looked after, and most satisfactory assurances are given by recovered patients of the invariable kindness with which they are treated. The weekly charge for pauper patients has been 8s., the cost 8s. 5d. The visitors desire before closing this report to advert to the munificent bequest of the Basset family for the benefit of discharged patients. The legal documents have now been completed, and the money invested in the name of trustees. MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT. To the Visiting Committee. My Lord and Gentlemen, M. F. Total. There remained in the asylum on the 31st of Dec, 1863 173 185 358 Admitted during 1864 47 49 96 Total under care 220 234 454 Discharged 20 19 89 Died 23 13 36 Remaining under care 177 202 379 Of whom 18 males and 15 females are private patients. The total number of cases treated during the year has been 454, and the largest number resident at any one time 389; 9 more than the buildings, as at present arranged, were supposed to be capable of accommodation (sic). Of the admissions an unusual number have been from the very commencement demmed (sic) incurable. 27, or nearly one third of all admitted, were either epileptics, or suffering from advanced disease of the cerebro-spinal centres, or were more than 70 years of age, and in such a state as to preclude all hope of recovery. In 24 cases, insanity was acknowledged to have existed for more than 12 months previous to admission, and of the (sic) 15 had been insane more than two years, seven more than five years. With regard to the duration of attacks it will be found on investigation that in the majority of cases sent to the asylum, disease is frequently dated from some decided outburst, rather from its real commencement; thus it often happens that patients are admitted in an advanced stage of disease, while, in the order for their admission, it is stated that they have shown symptoms of insanity for a few days only. As for the insane, early treatment affords the most reasonable prospects of recovery, and as when the disease is thoroughly engrafted in the constitution, cure is rendered extremely difficult, if not impossible, the advantage of their speedy removal to institutions specially adapted for their treatment, cannot be too strongly or frequently impressed upon the community generally. In 51 of those admitted, the general health was more or less impaired; several were much reduced and enfeebled. In 44 instances some cause was assigned for the attack; of these 23 were due to moral, and 21 to physical influence. Thirty seven patients have been discharged. Twenty three men and thirteen women have died; of the deaths, sixteen were occasioned by disease of the nervous system; four by phthisis, four by diarrhoea, these last being among the old and infirm, one of whom, 66 years of age, had spent nearly 44 years in this asylum. During the past summer the want of a supply of water, proportionate to the requirements of the place, was much felt. For many weeks we were compelled to omit the usual bathing of the patients, and notwithstanding that every care was taken to prevent waste, it frequently happened that we were almost without water; had a fire occurred under such circumstances, the results would have been most disastrous. I trust that before another summer you will be enabled to carry out the scheme at present contemplated, and that we shall at all times have an ample supply. In the general treatment and management of the patients, I have continued to practice the non- restraint system. During the past year no instance of the employment of mechanical restraint (except in surgical cases) has occurred. Seclusion, the use of which has been gradually diminishing for some years, and of which the instances have this year been fewer by nearly one third than in 1863, has been had recourse to only when absolutely necessary, and is never permitted to be employed by the attendants, except under the most pressing emergencies and never even then without its being immediately reported; it being felt that if the power of removing those irritable and excitable, was at all times indiscriminately permitted, there would be no inducement to the attendants to guard against the causes of excitement and watch for its earlier indications. Employment of the able-bodied is considered, as in former years, a valuable accessory to treatment. The preparations for the new buildings about to be commenced in addition to the ordinary work of the farm and garden, have furnished ample out-door occupation for all those capable of being so employed. Neither the position nor the size of the shops for the artisans is what could be desired; were the shops larger and more conveniently placed, a greater number of patients might, I think, be advantageously employed at their respective trades. Of the women, upwards of 100 are daily engaged at needlework, or in assisting in the various domestic duties connected with the establishment. Since my last report, the new airing ground for women has been brought into use; it is spacious, pleasant, and by allowing some classification of the patients, and giving more room to all, has added materially to their comfort. Amusements have been regularly provided, and are looked forward to and enjoyed by a large number of patients. Several improvements have been effected in the wards during the past year, especially in the old part of the building occupied by the women. Many of the windows, which were in iron frames, and from long use had become so difficult to open and shut that proper ventilation was almost an impossibility, have been replaced by ordinary looking windows, in wood frames, so arranged that while effective ventilation can always be obtained, no danger to the patients need be apprehended. By partly painting the walls, the addition of pictures, and some simple articles of furniture, wards, which hitherto were dull and cheerless in the extreme, have assumed quite another aspect. The result of these and many other alterations of a similar character has been most beneficial to the patients. I cannot conclude this my eighth annual report, without very gratefully acknowledging on behalf of myself and all connected with the institution, the many kind and valuable presents received during the past year. Among them I would mention a billiard table, upwards of 150 pictures and frames, several volumes of Punch, and many other articles, intended as Christmas gifts to the patients. I am, my Lord and Gentlemen, your obedient servant, RICHARD ADAMS, Medical Superintendent. December 31st 1864. ______CHAPLAIN'S REPORT:— The following report was presented by the Rev. Mr Jago, the asylum chaplain:— "The majority of the inmates of the asylum have been able, to some extent, during the past year, to avail themselves of their religious opportunities. Of the whole number of patients, 451, who have been resident, 345 have attended prayers either in the chapel or in the galleries, or in both, and I have permitted 23 to partake of the sacrament of holy communion. On Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Ascension Day they are allowed to walk outside the walls to the asylum chapel, which they attend in a very orderly manner, a great many making full use of their books and joining devoutly in the responses, chanting, and hymns. I read prayers and preach twice on Sundays (viz., at 11 a.m. and 3 p.m.) and once on the other days named. During the week about 150 patients are assembled daily in the galleries for prayers, which I read first in the men's hospital at nine a.m., and immediately afterwards in one of the women's wards. A greater number would be present if we had more room for them. The chapel, too, is quite filled; and in consequence of the increasing number of patients the addition of a north aisle is much to be regretted. The choir has been composed of attendants and patients; 18 of the former, and two of the latter having belonged to it during the year, and been regular in their attendance at the service and practice. I have also held a choral class, to which four patients and 20 attendants have been admitted: in this way providing not only for the singing in the chapel, but also contributing towards the winter entertainment of the patients. The library, books, paper, and magazines continue to be highly valued by the patients, many of whom take a great interest in in (sic) what they read. I have so arranged and classified them that in addition to the newspapers which I issue daily and weekly, a certain packet of volumes and periodicals is received in each gallery at the beginning of every month. The books are thus regularly circulated throughout all the twenty-three day-rooms in turn, and it is very rarely that any of them are found to be wilfully injured. The following additional gifts to the library have been received, and will prove very useful:—A collection of books, papers, cards, and leaflets from the society for distributing Christian truth, and four volumes of Punch kindly presented by a number of the visiting committee. 172 volumes of books, and 197 monthly parts of magazines are always in use amongst the patients at one time, besides bibles, prayer-books, and hymn-books. In visiting and praying with the sick, I have found many of them quite capable of understanding all that I have said to them. 36 patients and the nurse have died in the asylum during the year. Of these I have had to bury 31 at the Bodmin Cemetery, the bodies of the other six having been removed for interment by their friends. While endeavouring to perform the duties of my office, I have met with much ready help, and have been pleased and encouraged by the very friendly manner in which my efforts have been received by all those connected with the asylum."

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, Friday March 24 and March 31, 1865

2. Cornwall Spring Assizes The opening of the Commission of Assize for the county of Cornwall, took place on Monday. Mr. Justice Crompton arrived from Exeter, at Bodmin Road Station, shortly before three o’clock, where he was received by the High Sheriff, John Michael Williams, Esq., of Carhayes Castle, the Rev. W. Willimott, Sheriff’s Chaplain, Mr. John Coode, Under-Sheriff, and Mr. W. Coode, County Clerk. His Lordship entered the High Sheriff’s carriage, which was drawn by four greys, and proceeded to Bodmin. On arriving at Prior’s Barn, on the outskirts of the borough, the carriage was met by a company of the County Constabulary, trumpeters, &c., who formed an escort to the Mayoralty House. Here his Lordship was met by the Mayor of Bodmin (Mr. Hichens) and Mr. Oke (ex-mayor). His Lordship having been robed, was escorted to the County Hall, where he opened the commission in the usual form. He afterwards proceeded to the parish Church, where a large congregation had assembled. The prayers were read by the Rev. J. Wallis, the Vicar, and the Lessons by the Rev. J.W. Hawkesley, the Curate. A very able and appropriate sermon was preached by the High Sheriff’s Chaplain, from Micah vi., 8v.:— “He hath showed thee, O Man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” The business of the assizes commenced on Tuesday morning. Mr. Justice Crompton presided in the Crown Court, and Mr. Baron Channell in the Nisi Prius Court. The Crown Court having been formally opened at 10 o’clock, the following gentlemen were sworn on the GRAND JURY : - Sir C. RASHLEIGH, Bart., Foreman Sir C.B.G. Sawle, bart. R.H.S. Vyvyan, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. M.H. Williams, Esq. C.G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. N. Norway, Esq. T.S. Bolitho, Esq. W.H. Davey, Esq. R.G. Bennett, Esq. J.W. Peard, Esq. D.W.H.J. Horndon, Esq. J. Trevenen, Esq. J. Borlase, Esq. F.G. Enys, Esq. J. Batten, Esq. J. Hichens, Esq. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. W.J. Trevelyan, Esq. F.J. Hext, Esq. E.B. Tucker, Esq. H.R.S. Trelawny, Esq. J.C.B. Lethbridge, Esq. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— R. Foster, Jun., Esq., the Hon. and Rev. J.T. Boscawen, Rev. J.J. Wilkinson, Rev. S. Symonds; the Mayors of Bodmin, Launceston, and Penryn; and Messrs. T. Good, and E.G. Hambly, coroners. The Royal proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, Mr. Justice CROMPTON addressed the grand jury. He said:—Gentlemen, I am happy to see so full an attendance of grand jurors upon this occasion. I find your calendar contains a very large number of cases, but I must say that many of the charges are of that kind which we do not usually expect to come before a court of this nature; such cases, for instance, as a little boy for stealing a few hogs’ puddings, and other trivial charges, are not such as usually come before courts of this description. We have, however, on this circuit, found a great number of these cases, except in Devonshire, where an intermediate sessions were held immediately before the assizes. There are a few serious cases, however, which I will bring before you; the great majority of them your own experience will teach you how to deal with. A very serious charge is that of wilful murder against one Rudolff, a foreigner who is charged with stabbing a person named John Timmins, at Falmouth, in one of those sad disturbances which we have had of late so many of. Quarrels take place between Englishmen and foreigners, and the foreigners, having knives in their possession, unfortunately make use of them and stab those with whom they are quarrelling. The case before you is one entirely of circumstantial evidence. There was some drinking in a public-house in Falmouth, where Englishmen and foreigners were congregated. The prisoner was present and there is some evidence to show that the prisoner had a knife with him, and you will have to see whether the knife can be identified. It appears that he lent the knife to another foreigner to cut some tobacco with, and the foreigner will prove that he returned the knife to the prisoner. It appears that there was afterwards a disturbance in the street between some of the foreigners and some Englishmen, and one of the foreigners and an Englishman were preparing to fight. I think it will appears in the evidence that Timmins and some friends were endeavouring to prevent the fight, when suddenly Timmins was stabbed to the heart, and in such a way, according to the medical evidence, as might be done with the knife which had been in the prisoner’s possession. However, no person saw the prisoner deliver the blow, though a good many saw the blow given, and the man who gave the blow was seen by one person to run down the street. None of these individuals, however, could identify the prisoner. Of course, it was rather in his favour that persons having a good opportunity of seeing the person who gave the blow, could not identify him. The pressing part of the case against the prisoner comes afterwards. No knife is found upon him by the police, and when asked about a knife, he denies that he had one. However, he was seen to slip something from his trowsers behind a box on board the ship, and on the policeman picking it up he found that it was a bloody knife, and this knife is shown to be, at least, similar to that which he had in his possession on the previous evening. You will, upon this evidence, have to say whether a case for enquiry has been made out. If you think the case sufficiently brought home to him, the crime will be that of murder, unless some legal provocation can be shown which would have the effect of softening it down to manslaughter. If the prisoner had been engaged in a disturbance and any violence had been used towards him, the crime would be manslaughter; but here, I don’t find that there had been any violence offered to this man, or that he had been in collision with any person previous to the commission of the crime. If there was a row going on, and the prisoner deliberately stabbed the deceased, without any provocation; then the crime is murder. If the blow was given in the heat of blood, resulting from provocation, the crime may then be softened down to manslaughter, but I don’t see anything to that effect in the evidence. There is another serious case in which a man named Lobb took up a gun, and carelessly pointed it at a boy and discharged it, and the ramrod being in the gun the boy was killed. The prisoner says he tried the gun through the window three times and found it would not go off. He therefore thought it was quite safe when he pointed it at the deceased. Of course the degree of guilt here is determined by the degree of culpable carelessness with which the prisoner acted. There was, in human affairs, scarcely any accident which did not occur through some extent of negligence, and therefore when events of this nature occur, it must be considered if the negligence is culpable, and if so what degree of culpability there may be. John Broad is charged with the manslaughter of William Johns by driving over him in a trap. The deceased man appears to have been lying on the road drunk, and the prisoner states that his horse suddenly shied at the place where the deceased was run over and that he was not aware of the accident, and this statement appears to be borne out in some degree by the wheel marks. Because a man is killed it is not to be supposed that it is from culpable negligence, and unless there is evidence of culpable negligence you must throw out the bill. There is another case, No.37 in the calendar, in which death has been caused by a very trivial circumstance. The prisoner, James Treglown, appears to have been driving a cart along the road when he picked up a ball which was rolling along before his horse, not knowing to whom the ball belonged. The deceased followed him and threatened to take out the linch-pin from the cart, which he attempted to do. Upon that the prisoner struck the deceased on the face with the whip. There appear to be several nerves in the part where the blow struck, and tetanus, or lockjaw, supervened, causing death. There is no doubt the man did not intend to kill the boy, and it was a serious thing to have the linchpin taken from the cart, and you must be satisfied that the prisoner exceeded what was necessary for the defence of the cart in order to find a bill for manslaughter. There is the case of Peter O’Brien, a prisoner in the County gaol, who is charged with striking John Bramble, one of the warders of the gaol, with a sledge hammer. The indictment is for intent to murder, but having struck the man on the leg, it appears to have been merely an attempt to do grievous bodily harm. You are aware that in an indictment for grievous bodily harm, it was formerly necessary to prove that there had been a “wounding” or cutting through the skin; but by a recent useful alteration in the law that is not now necessary, and a person may be indicted for intent to do grievous bodily harm without proving that there was what is called a “wounding”. I think you will have no difficulty in dealing with that case. No.43 in the calendar is a case of cutting and wounding. The men were drinking together, and went home to the prisoner’s house, when they sat together in the kitchen. The injured man, it appeared, was drunk, and during the course of the evening he received very severe injuries on the face, being struck, as he said, by the prisoner with a quart pot. You will have to see whether this case is not one for enquiry before the petty jury. There are a few cases of robbery in the calendar, but, I am happy to say not highway robbery. You seem to be very free from such cases here—with which you will have no difficulty. There are two cases of a very grievous character—one of them being of a most horrible nature. The grandfather of a little girl, only eight years old, assaulted her in a manner calculated to excite the greatest horror in the mind. The child does not appear to have been taken before a doctor, and there is hardly sufficient evidence to prove that the offence was completed, but there is the strongest evidence of indecent assault. It is a case arising out of a horrible superstition which appears still to exist in this part of the country, that disease may be got rid of by communicating it to another. It is one of the most horrible cases which have ever come before me. No.3 in the Calendar is another case of this description. William Henry Trevelyan is charged with assaulting a little girl under the age of 10 years. The child herself speaks to the offence having been completed, and as she was under the age of ten, of course her consent could not be of any consequence. But there were some marks which the medical man was of opinion might have been caused by an accident. You will have to consider whether you will send the prisoner before the jury for the capital crime, or whether it was a case of indecent assault. There was also an assault of this nature upon a grown woman, but it did not appear to have been proceeded with so far as to complete the offence. Then there is a case of endeavouring to extort money by means of threats, which, if the boy Edward Montague Lark was not so young, would be one, if established, of a very serious character, and requiring very severe punishment. The boy seems to be only 15 years of age. He most wickedly charges a respectable married woman with disgustingly indecent conduct towards him. The woman will tell you the boy was only two years old when he slept with her, and that nothing of the kind alleged ever took place. We have recently had a very similar case at Winchester. A young soldier had written to his commanding officer, demanding money, and using menaces. In that case, from the prosecutor not appearing and other circumstances, there was good reason to believe that the charges made by the soldier were substantially true. It was not, however, the less crime; a man was not to extort money under a true accusation any more than a false one. But here there is nothing of the sort. There does not appear to be any cause whatever for the charges brought against this respectable woman. There is only one other case with which I will trouble you; it is that of a person named M’Alister, who is charged with stealing a bag of gold from an omnibus. M’Alister was a passenger by the omnibus, and seems to have a good deal of the run of the vehicle; he was on friendly terms with the driver and had an opportunity of looking into the boot and other facilities. However, though he is seen by a great many witnesses, none of them saw him do anything to connect him in any way with this robbery. One witness, indeed, says that she saw the prisoner take another parcel, a dark one, besides his own light-coloured one,—not from the boot,— but from the box of the omnibus. Several other witnesses, however, who saw the prisoner afterwards, and saw both his hands, did not observe any second parcel in his possession. The only other evidence is that, when spoken to by the policeman, he denied having gone out of his own house after having arrived home from the omnibus, and there was a witness who saw him out with his wife. This being the case, it does appear to me to have been somewhat premature to have committed M’Alister for trial. It may be a case of some suspicion, but nothing more. M’Alister is a tradesman at St. Just; his house, I presume, was searched, and none of the missing money was found either upon him or in his house, and, in fact, there is nothing at all brought home to him, to connect him in any way with the robbery. The money has not yet been found, but the police may yet succeed in discovering what has become of it. If you find a true bill and send the case before the petty jury, and they should acquit the prisoner from want of evidence, it would have the effect of screening the prisoner, if he is really guilty, from any further proceedings in the case, because, if acquitted, they could not again prosecute him for the same offence. But, if you throw out the bill, and fresh evidence comes into the hands of the police, he may be taken up again and tried. Of course, you will be able to judge of the matter yourselves much better than I can when you have the evidence before you, but I am of opinion, that if you think it is a case not likely to lead to a conviction, you had better throw out the bill. The learned judge then dismissed the grand jury to their duties. TRIALS OF PRISONERS CHARGE OF THEFT AT ST. COLUMB MINOR Maria Trebilcock, 55 charwoman, was indicted for stealing three yards of blanketing and a sheet, the property of James Solomon, at the parish of St. Columb Minor, on the 9th of March. The evidence did not bear out the case, and the prisoner was acquitted. Mr. Roupe appeared for the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Oxenham. STEALING HOGS’ PUDDINGS AT ST. AUSTELL George Lovering, jun., 15, was charged with stealing 1½ pounds of hogs’ puddings, the property of John Crowle, at St. Austell, on the 18th January last. Mr. Charles appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. The case was clearly proved, and his lordship said it was a pity that the court should be occupied by the trial of such trivial cases. He sentenced the prisoner to one month’s hard labour. ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON AT REDRUTH Jane Trebilcock, 32, charwoman, was charged with stealing from the person of William Jewell, at Redruth, on the 20th January last, £3 14s. in money. Mr. Gulson appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that the prosecutor was a farmer and cattle dealer, of Perranzabuloe, and that on the 20th January, he was at Redruth, where he met with the prisoner and went into a house with her. Here he asserted that he drank some wine, which had a stupefying effect upon him, and when he recovered, he found that he had been robbed. He went with the prisoner for moral purposes and not for any improper purpose—(laughter). There was no evidence to show that the prisoner had actually taken the prosecutor’s money, and the jury, under the direction of his lordship, acquitted the prisoner. His lordship advised the prosecutor not to go with such persons for moral purposes any more. EMBEZZLEMENT AT REDRUTH John Guy, a man about 45 years of age, was charged with embezzling the sum of 10s. the property of his master, John Beer. Mr. Charles appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. It appeared that the offence was committed so long ago as June, 1863. The prisoner was in the habit of sending prisoner out to his customers with boots. He sent a pair to a person named Fredd at St. Agnes. He afterwards asked prisoner for the money, but he said Mr. Fredd had not paid him. After some time prosecutor went to collect the money, when he found that Mr. Fredd had left the country. He recently returned, and then it was discovered that he had paid the 10s. to the prisoner. In defence the prisoner said he gave the money to his wife, and he was under the impression that she had paid it over to the prosecutor. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment with hard labour. BURGLARY AT GWINEAR Frederick Hildenbrand, 40, weaver, was indicted for having on the 9th September, 1864, burglariously entered the dwelling-house of Christopher Hendra, in the parish of Gwinear, and stealing therefrom a silver watch, a pair of trowsers, a cloth overcoat, a coat, and a pocket handkerchief. Mr. Oxenham appeared for the prosecution, and prisoner was undefended. It appeared that the prisoner, who is a German, but who has been living at for some years, was apprehended in the neighbourhood of the prosecutor’s house, five days after the burglary. He resisted the constable who attempted to apprehend him, and endeavoured to strike him with a “marling spike”, a small pointed instrument like a poignard, used by sailmakers. In his possession was found a bunch of Skeleton keys, a file and a candle, and also a pocket handkerchief. The handkerchief was identified by the prosecutor, by Mrs. Hendra, by her daughter, a little girl who had hemmed it, and by the mistress at whose school it had been hemmed. The handkerchief had been left in the pocket of one of the coats which had been stolen. Supt. Miller, of Camborne, proved that the marks made in breaking open articles in the prosecutor’s house, were such as would be made by the “Marling spike” found in the prisoner’s possession. The prisoner when apprehended threw away the skeleton keys and the handkerchief, and he afterwards denied having had the handkerchief at all. However, at a late period he gave different accounts of the manner in which he became possessed of it, ultimately alleging that he bought it from a little boy for a halfpenny. The jury found the prisoner guilty. There was a second indictment against the prisoner for attempting to commit a felony at the shop of Thomas Symons, but it was not gone into. His lordship said there could be no doubt, from the tools found on the prisoner, that he was a regular burglar, and therefore, though there was no evidence of a previous conviction, the sentence must be six years’ penal servitude. THE ATTEMPT TO MURDER A GAOL WARDER Peter O’Brien, 31, seaman, was indicted for maliciously assaulting and wounding, with a sledge hammer, John Bramble, with intent to murder him, at Bodmin County Gaol, on the 20th Jan. last. A second count charged the prisoner with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. It will be remembered that the prisoner was serving his time in Bodmin Gaol, to which he had been committed by the Recorder of Falmouth for housebreaking. He was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment and his time would have expired next January. On the 20th January, the prisoner was at work stone breaking within the precincts of the gaol, Bramble, the warder being in charge of the party. Bramble was standing near the prisoner, and on turning round, the prisoner struck him a blow on the leg with the sledge hammer which he was using. The blow broke Bramble’s leg, and he fell to the ground, whereupon the prisoner struck him another blow upon the knee, and was about to strike a third blow when he was caught by another prisoner named William Buchanan, and the weapon taken from him. He thereupon expressed his regret that he had not murdered the warder. The prisoner on being arraigned, said: I am guilty, but not of attempting to murder him. If I had wished to murder him I might easily have done so with one blow, because I was behind his back. I broke his leg, and therefore it would be a cowardly turn if I did not plead guilty. His Lordship: You plead guilty to wounding the man with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. O’Brien: I intended to break his leg, and that’s all the harm I intended to do him—(laughter.) Mr. Arundel Rogers, who appeared for the prosecution, said, as O’Brien had been indicted for an attempt to murder, he could not withdraw from the prosecution without his Lordship was of opinion that the ends of justice would be served by the pleading guilty with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He thought there was evidence of an intent to murder. His Lordship said he had the power of giving the same punishment for the offence to which O’Brien had pleaded guilty. His Lordship then said, addressing the prisoner: Peter O’Brien, you have pleaded guilty to a most monstrous offence, if not with intent to murder, at least with the intent, as you say, of doing grievous bodily harm; you broke the man’s leg. Whether or not it was your intention to murder him, God only knows. After breaking his leg you struck him again on the knee, and I cannot help having a great suspicion of what you would have done in the third blow when the man was down. It is in my power to inflict upon you the punishment of imprisonment for the remainder of your life, and if the man had died from the effect of your blow, you would most certainly have been executed, whatever your intention might have been at the time of giving the blow. The sentence of the court, under all the circumstances, is that you be kept in penal servitude for 20 years from the present time. The prisoner was then removed from court. He appeared as he had done throughout the case, quite unconcerned. His countenance did not evidence the preponderance of brutal passions such as we so frequently see in determined prisoners. The most striking expression was, on the contrary, one of extreme shrewdness. We understand the warder Bramble is not yet considered to be quite out of danger, and it will be remembered that his wife died soon after the occurrence through the shock which she received. The prisoner did not allege any reason for his act, but expressed a desire “to be hung for” one of the officers; and after the assault he told the Governor of the gaol that he was sorry it was not him (the Governor) whom he had struck. The grand jury made a presentment to the judge, drawing his attention to the praiseworthy conduct of William Buchanan, the prisoner who rescued Bramble, hoping that the case might be represented to the Home Secretary, and Mr. Reginald Rogers, the counsel for the prosecution, again drew his Lordship’s attention to the conduct of Buchanan, at the conclusion of the case. The learned judge said he had no power himself to do anything in the matter, but he should be glad to join in any representation that might be made to the Home Secretary in Buchanan’s behalf, and he had no doubt but that such a representation would be attended to. It appears that Buchanan is an American sailor, who, at the Falmouth Sessions in October last, was sentenced to 21 months’ hard labour for stealing some money belonging to the captain of the ship in which he was employed. There had been a disagreement between the captain and his men, in consequence of the captain paying the men in “greenbacks” instead of in gold or silver coin, and the prisoner seeing some money lying in the cabin, took possession of it. The object of the representation is to obtain a remission of the remainder of Buchanan’s sentence, which will not expire till July, 1866. BREAKING INTO A MINE ACCOUNT-HOUSE Christopher Penaluna, 32, and Joseph Letcher, 29, miners, were charged with breaking into the account house at South Wheal Leisure Mine, in the parish of Illogan, on the 5th of March, and stealing therefrom 8 yards of calico, 6 yards of duck, two yards of sandford, two pieces of swanskin, 40 lbs. of beef, 11 lbs. of veal, 2 lbs. of beef suet, 19 lbs. of sugar, and a quantity of leather, the property of Wm. Pascoe and others the adventurers of the mine. Mr. Cole appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Carter defended the prisoners. It appeared that on Saturday, the 3rd March, the account-house of the mine was locked up, and all the articles emunerated [sic] were left safe. The beef, veal, &c., was in preparation for the account dinner which was to be held on the Monday. However, on the house being opened on Monday morning, all the meat, sugar, &c., had disappeared, and on an examination being made, it was found that the window had been broken, and an entrance effected to the account-house. The prisoners lived about three quarters of a mile from the account-house, and the footsteps of two men were traced across the fields, in the direction of the prisoners’ dwellings, for nearly half a mile. Penaluna’s house was visited by two police constables, who found some pieces of calico, which were identified as portion of the calico left in the mine house. There were some small pieces of suet attached to the calico when found. A pair of boots were found under the table in Penaluna’s house, which were compared with the footprints traced from the mine, and found to correspond exactly with the marks made by one of the men. Some footprints, corresponding to those already alluded to, were also discovered near an old mine shaft in the neighbourhood; and, upon closer examination, the end of a piece of safety fuse was found at the mouth of the shaft, which had been covered over with a furse bush. The police constables pulled up the fuse, and found attached to the end of it a roll of leather, some calico, duck, sandford, and swandown, all of which were identified as portions of the property stolen from the mine. Letcher was afterwards apprehended, and his shoes were compared with the footprints of the other man who had been traced from the mine and found to correspond, but none of the property was found in his possession or in his house. There were a large number of witnesses examined, and Mr. Carter addressed the jury at great length, urging, on behalf of Letcher, especially, the weakness of the evidence, footprints alone not being sufficient evidence upon which to convict a man. The jury found Penaluna guilty, and acquitted Letcher. Penaluna was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. BILLS IGNORED THE ROBBERY OF £570 AT ST. JUST In this case the grand jury took the advice of the judge in his charge, and threw out the bill, and M’Alister was, on the application of Mr. Carter, who was engaged for the defence, ordered to be discharged. The circumstances of the case are so fresh in the minds of our readers, that it is not necessary to repeat them. THE MANSLAUGHTER AT The grand jury also ignored the bill against James Treglown, the younger, for the manslaughter of a youth names William Hosking, at Marazion, on the 27th February. This case the judge also remarked on in his charge, and the circumstances were fully reported in a recent number of the Cornwall Gazette. It will be recalled that the prisoner picked up the boy’s ball, and afterwards struck the boy, who threatened to take the linchpin from the cart, on the face with the whip. Four days afterwards lock-jaw supervened, and the boy died almost immediately. CHARGE OF STEALING A MARE The grand jury ignored the bill against Robert Trenoweth, labourer, who was charged with stealing a mare and a set of harness, the property of Wm. Moyle, at Gwennap, on the 4th January. STEALING FOWLS George Eastlake, 35, and Edwin Eastlake, 28, sawyers, were committed for stealing four fowls, the property of William Wallis, at the parish of Linkinghorne, on the 5th March. The grand jury ignored the bill. PLEADED GUILTY Fanny Best, 26, pleaded guilty to breaking into the dwelling house of Jane Hall, Truro, on the night of the 12th of January, and stealing therefrom a ham, 6 lbs. of lard, and a pair of boots.—Sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. Thomas Crowgey, 17, miner, pleaded guilty to two charges—one of stealing a German silver watch, the property of Peter Toy, at Illogan, on the 30th of December; and various articles of wearing apparel, the property of Alfred Hellings, of Penryn, on the 16th January. To a charge of stealing a gelding, the property of James Collins, at Gwennap, on the 17th of January, he pleaded not guilty, stating that he only took the animal for a ride. There were previous convictions against him, and he was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. Thomas Henry Nicholas, 15, miner, pleaded guilty to stealing ducks at Redruth, the property of Lames Lemon, and a fowl, the property of David Juleff, on the 10th March. Sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. John Rowe, 51, blacksmith, pleaded guilty to stealing a flannel shirt, the property of William Arthur, at the parish of Kenwyn, on the 14th March. Two months’ imprisonment. Samuel Sargent, 37, labourer, pleaded guilty to feloniously and unlawfully marrying one Mary Francis on the 16thth April, 1864, Mary Sargent, his former wife, being then alive.—The judge ascertaining that Sargent had been already two months in confinement, sentenced him to fifteen months’ imprisonment. William Stottern, 17, plumber, pleaded guilty to stealing a silver watch, the property of Nicholas Jenkin, at Marazion, on the 9th March. After cautioning prisoner as to his future conduct, the judge passed sentence of six months’ imprisonment. James Treglown, 20, miner, pleaded guilty to stealing one pair of cotton drawers, the property of Thomas Angove, at Camborne, on the 11thth January.—Prisoner having already been two months in prison, was sentenced to be further confined for four months. Samuel Washley, 29, miner, pleaded guilty to stealing some articles of wearing apparel, at the parish of Kenwyn, on the 1st March, and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. William Trengove, 39, miner, pleaded guilty to stealing two worsted stockings, the property of Thomas Harris, at the parish of Newlyn, on the 17th February, and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. He had only been released from gaol the same morning, and now stated that when he committed the offence his head had gone from him. Susan Williams pleaded guilty to stealing a pawn ticket value 8s., belonging to Caroline Martin, at Truro, on the 2nd February. There was a previous conviction against her. She was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The Court rose about half past nine o’clock. ______

NISI PRIUS COURT TUESDAY, MARCH 21 Mr. Baron Channell, who presided in this court, took his seat upon the bench at ten o’clock this morning, at which time there was a very large attendance of the bar, nearly 30 barristers being present: the cause list was about the usual length, and was as follows:— Plaintiff’s Atty. Plaintiff. Defendant. Def. Attorney. R. Peter. Jose, (S.J.) v. Burnard and another King. aul. Linton, & Holloway. Matthews, (S.J.) v. King Pinniger and Wilkinson. White & Dingley. Sibbald and Ux, (S.J.) v. Webb Peter. J.L. Coad. Lang, v. Hawke [withdrawn] H. Caunter J.B. Collins. Tabb &another, v. Brenton [undefended] Meredith. Boyns. Betesta, v. Michell. Moorman. Downing. Bartle, (S.J.) v. Webb & others. Geach & Franklyn. Downing. M’Keand, v. Narin. Paul and Co. Radcliffe. Rendell, v. Rundle. R.W. Childs. J.L. Coad. Lang, v. Hawke [re-entered] H. Caunter.

RENDELL v. RUNDLE Mr. Lopes appeared for the plaintiff, Wm. Rendell. The defendant, Nicholas Rundle, was not represented, the action being undefended. The action was one of Ejectment, brought to recover some land and premises in the parish of Stokeclimsland.—Verdict for the plaintiff. TABB AND ANOTHER v. BRENTON Mr. Kingdon appeared for the plaintiffs. This was an action brought by the executors of the late Mrs. Northey, who carried on the business of a leather-cutter and dealer, at Tresillian, to recover from the defendant, who is a shoemaker at St. Dennis, the balance of an account, amounting to £84 10s. 2d., due to Mrs. Northey at the time of her decease. The defendant, it appeared, had dealt for some time with Mrs. Northey for leather; and in 1859, 1860, and part of 1861, he obtained goods to the amount of the above sum. In 1862 Mrs. Northey died, and the defendant was called upon by the executors to pay the amount, and not complying, the present action was brought. The defendant did not appear, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff. SIBBALD AND WIFE v. WEBB (Special Jury) Mr. Kingdon was counsel for the plaintiffs; the defendant did not appear. The plaintiffs were Capt. Sibbald, R.N. and his wife, and the defendant was Mr. James Webb. The action was brought to recover damages for breaches of covenant, arrears of rent, and injury done to certain premises. It appeared that the plaintiffs are the owners of a farm at Westcott, near Launceston, of which the defendant took a lease in the year 1847 for 21 years, at £160 a year. The term proposed in the first instance was 14 years, but the defendant wished that it should be for the longer period of 21, to which Capt. Sibbald assented, on condition that at the end of 14 years the farm should be re-valued, in order that it might be ascertained whether the rent paid was a fair value for the land. By this arrangement, it was provided that if it should be found that the rent was too high, it would be reduced, and the tenant would get the benefit of the reduction; but if increased, the landlord would, of course, derive the advantage. The defendant continued in possession until the expiration of the 14 years, during which time the plaintiffs had no complaint to make against him as tenant. The plaintiffs were at this time in Canada, but in 1861 Capt. Sibbald gave notice, through his agent, Mr. G.G. White, solicitor, Launceston, to Mr. Webb, to have the farm revalued in accordance with the terms of the lease. Mr. Kitto was employed to value the farm on the part of the plaintiffs, and Mr. Badcock by the defendant; but as they could not agree, Mr. Lock was chosen by them as umpire, and that gentleman decided that the defendant should pay £183 a year rent during the last seven years, being an increase of £23 a year. The defendant appeared to be dissatisfied with the increase, and he wrote to Capt. Sibbald in Canada, stating that he thought the rent too high, and he wished to give up possession of the farm. To this Captain Sibbald replied, stating that he considered it would not be fair to make a lease for the benefit of one party only; that the defendant was very anxious to have a lease for 21 years, and that he had only agreed on condition that the farm should be revalued at the end of 14 years. Farming would be the best business in the world if rents were to be reduced in bad times, and not raised again in good ones. He was not aware that the defendant offered him a higher rent during the Russian war, when the price of farm produce was high, and he thought it was scarcely fair to ask him now to take a lower rent than the valuers had fixed upon. As the defendant, however, had expressed a wish to leave the farm, and he was unwilling to keep a dissatisfied tenant, he might give notice to Mr. White, and leave at Lady-day, 1862. Instead of doing this the defendant did not give notice till Michaelmas, 1863, and did not leave till Lady-day, 1864. The learned counsel said that he was afraid it would be found that the object of the defendant in remaining was not a good one—that it was merely that he might take all he could out of the land before he gave up possession. He did not manure the land during this period according to the rules of good husbandry, which he was bound to do by the terms of his lease, but took all out of it that he possible could; and when Mr. Kitto and other persons afterwards inspected it, they found that no manure had been put on the land, and that the farm had been racked in every way, and so reduce in value that, although in 1861 its value had increased from £160 to £183 a year, when it was put up to be relet by tender, the highest rent bid for it was £152 a year. The farm was surveyed and valued by Mr. Kitto and others after the defendant had left, and the damage to the land was valued at £236 10s.; damage to the premises, £6 18s. 6d.; and arrears of rent, £77 13s. 2½d., making a total of £321 1s. 8½d. The defendant had pleaded several long please, but he did not appear to defend the action, and had gone to reside in another part of the country. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount sought. BETESTA v. MICHELL Mr. Karslake and Mr. Carter were counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cole for the defendant. The plaintiff was John George Betesta, and the defendant was Mrs. Nancy Michell. The declaration contained two counts. First, it was alleged that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the latter should let to the former from September 29, 1862, a dwelling house, shop, and premises in the borough of Falmouth; that this contract had been broken; and secondly, the usual money counts. To this the defendant pleaded, first, that she did not contract with the plaintiff as alleged; secondly, that before the breach of the contract, the plaintiff had exonerated her from the agreement; and thirdly, never indebted. From the opening statement of Mr. Karslake, and the evidence of the witnesses adduced, the case for the plaintiff was as follows:—The plaintiff is a spirit merchant, living at Falmouth; and the defendant, an old lady, named Mrs. Nancy Michell, at the same place. It appeared that until 1862, she was tenant of the whole of the premises in question which are situated near the Fish-strand, one part fronting into Church-street, and the other on to the Quay, the former being occupied as a spirit shop. Previous to 1862, she had let the other part of the premises to a person named Turner, as a grocer’s shop. It seemed that Mr. Betesta had been for many years at Port Natal, and having made some money there, he had returned to this country to go into business for himself. He ascertained that Mrs. Michell was anxious to retire from business, and on inquiring of her son-in-law, Mr. Olver, builder, of Falmouth, he was informed that £150 was asked for the good will. Subsequently an agreement, prepared by Mr. Olver, was entered into in 1862, by which the plaintiff bound himself to take the shop and premises in the occupation of Mrs. Michell, situate at the Fish-strand, on the same terms and rent as she held them, the rent being 49l. a year for the centre premises; the whole of the stock and fixtures to be taken at a valuation, to be made in the usual way; and the plaintiff to pay down £50 as a deposit, and the remaining £100 on obtaining possession. Mrs. Michell, on her part, agreed to transfer the good will of the business to the plaintiff and to give up possession of the premises in her occupation on the 29th September, 1862, on the terms proposed. Afterwards meetings took place between the parties from time to time, and on the 28th of August, the plaintiff paid £50 in accordance with the terms of the agreement; and on the 29th of September Mr. Olver commenced making a valuation of the stock and fixtures in Mrs. Michell’s spirit shop, and the fixtures in Mr. Turner’s shop, the amount of his valuation being £52 14s.; but this being disputed, the plaintiff employed another person to value them, and a small deduction was afterwards made in the amount of the valuation, and this amount he afterwards paid together with the £100 due for the good will, and all other claims made under the agreement; but from that time to this he had been unable to get possession of the whole of the premises, and it was to recover compensation for the injury he had in consequence sustained, that the action had been brought. Mr. Moorman on behalf of the defendant proposed to Mr. Boyns, the plaintiff’s solicitor, that the matter in dispute should be referred to arbitration, but this was declined, and the action had been proceeded with. In support of the above statement the plaintiff, Mr. Jonathan Bould, and Mr. John Roberts, were called. The plaintiff in the course of his examination, swore that Mr. Olver said to him, Mr. Turner was a quarterly tenant under Mrs. Michell; that the rent which he agreed to pay for the entire premises was £49 a year; and that he was willing to pay this sum, and anxious for Mr. Turner to go out; in cross- examination, however, a second agreement was produced, which had been entered simultaneously with the agreement before referred to, and in fact formed part of it, in which the plaintiff agreed to allow Mrs. Michell to occupy the premises until the 8th of November, 1862, if she should be unable to leave on the previous 29th September; and on the 31st October, eight days before the term of the second agreement would expire, the plaintiff called on the landlord, and requested him to divide the rent in order to reduce the cost of his licenses, agreeing to pay £27 for the part he occupied, and Mr. Turner to pay £22, which they both agreed to do. Mr. COLE submitted that the plaintiff had established no case for the jury. By the first agreement Mrs. Michell covenanted to give up possession of the shop and premises which she occupied only, together with the business carried on in the same, which she had faithfully done. Mr. KARSLAKE said that the word in the agreement was “shops”, showing that she agreed to give up Mr. Turner’s shop as well as the one she occupied. Mr. COLE said that admitting this was so, though in the copy supplied to him the word was in the singular number, yet the plaintiff afterwards agreeing to allow Mrs. Michell to remain until the 8th of November, that Mr. Turner should receive six months’ instead of three months’ notice, and to the rest being divided, had cancelled the agreement. The learned JUDGE was of the same opinion; directed the plaintiff to be called, and informed him that he must be non-suited, as there was no evidence to go to the jury in support of the second plea. M’KEAND v. NARIN Mr. Karslake and Mr. Bullen appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cole for the defendant. Both plaintiff and defendant are Scotchmen, and travelling drapers, living at Redruth, and the present action arose out of a transaction which had taken place between them. It appeared that some years ago, the defendant placed himself under the plaintiff as a sort of apprentice, and he was employed to go certain “rounds”, calling on customers for orders, and afterwards collecting the money due from them. In 1852, the defendant being desirous of commencing business on his own account, the plaintiff, as is usual is such cases, assigned to him a certain round, and appointed him to collect certain debts which were then due, and to pay them in from time to time. Several acceptances were subsequently given by the defendant to the plaintiff for goods and money which the latter advanced to him, and numerous sums paid on account, the result being that on the last sum being paid in the course of last year, there was due to the plaintiff, according to his account, a balance of £40 5s. 3d. from the defendant. Mr. COLE said that the defendant’s books showed a very different result from that. The accounts being of a long and intricate character, it was then agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference; and Mr. T. Cornish, solicitor, Penzance, was appointed the referee. LANG v. HAWKE Mr. Karslake and Mr. Lopes were counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Kingdon appeared for the defendant. This was an action arising out of a share transaction, but the facts did not transpire in court. They were, however, as follows:—Some time ago the defendant sold the plaintiff 100 shares in Wheal Crofty, in the parish of Illogan, at £3 a share. The purchase money was paid on the 18th October, 1863, but the transfer was retained by the defendant until the 18th of January last, and in the meantime the value of the shares had fallen from £3 to about 5s. each. The action was brought to recover the purchase money paid for the shares and damages which the plaintiff had sustained owing to the non-registration by the defendant. The record was withdrawn, upon certain terms, which were agreed to by the parties. The above concluded the whole of the civil actions entered for trial, excepting the special jury cases, which had been fixed for Wednesday, and the Court proceeded with the following TRIALS OF PRISONERS HOUSE ROBBERY AT NEWLYN Thomas Kempthorne, 24, labourer, and Cornelius Woodwards, 21, labourer, were charged with having stolen, on the 22nd January last, at Trewerry Mill, in the parish of Newlyn, two policies of insurance, a lease, a piece of alpaca, three jackets, two waistcoats, five pairs of trousers, an overcoat, a pair of gloves, two pocket handkerchiefs, and one pomatum bottle, the property of Samuel Harris. The prisoners had been arraigned in the Crown Court, and Kempthorne then pleaded guilty to receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen; and on the cases coming before Mr. Baron Channell, he was ordered to stand down, and the trial of Woodwards was proceeded with. Mr. Lyne prosecuted. The plaintiff is a miller occupying Trewerry Mill, in the parish of Newlyn, and on his wife going upstairs to their bedroom, about 6 o’clock in the afternoon, on the 22nd of January, she found nearly the whole of her husband’s clothes were gone. She went down stairs and told him, and on his going subsequently into the mill, he found two pairs of his trousers on the floor. Woodwards was then, and had been for several months, in the prosecutor’s employ, and on his being spoken to, he said that he saw Kempthorne enter a doorway leading from the mill into the bedroom where the clothes were, and that he had not mentioned the circumstance, as he did not like to tell on a friend. Kempthorne was then apprehended, and it was found that he had one of the pairs of trousers on him. He pointed the attention of the police to a certain place, and on the latter going to the spot indicated, he found several articles of clothing, which were all identified by the prosecutor as part of what had been stolen. On the Sunday evening, Woodwards produced a policy of assurance and the stopper of a pomatum bottle, which he said he had found near the place where the trousers had been picked up. At the conclusion of the case, the judge, after summing up, chanced to look at the indictment, and finding that Kempthorne was charged with stealing the property, and not with receiving, said that his pleading guilty of the latter was no answer to the former charge. The jury must say whether, on the evidence, they believed that the prisoners had stolen the property. If they believed that Kempthorne really took the articles, and that Woodwards, though he might not actually have joined in the act, had incited the other to its commission, and stood by while he committed it, he would be an accomplice, and would be equally guilty. If, however, they were of opinion that the evidence did not bring the charge home to both prisoners, then they must find only one guilty; or if they thought that it failed in establishing the charge against either of them, they must return a verdict of not guilty against both. The jury, after a few minutes consultation, returned a verdict of guilty against Kempthorne, and of not guilty against Woodwards. Kempthorne was sentenced to six months’ hard labour. CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. Emma Geach, a young woman apparently about twenty or twenty one years of age, was charged with endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child, at the parish of St. Mewan, on the 13th of February last. Mr. Charles prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. Mrs. Trudgeon, residing at Trelower, in the parish of St. Mewan, deposed that the prisoner was a servant in her employ, and for some time previous to the 13th she observed indications of a suspicious character about her. On the evening of that day the prisoner complained of being unwell, and witness sent her early to bed. Next morning, she eat (sic) her breakfast, and went about her work in her ordinary manner, nothing unusual being observed about her except that she moved about slowly. After breakfast witness had occasion to go into the coalhouse, and on entering she saw a tea-chest with a bag of guano placed on the top of it, and upon this there was a second chest. She removed the chest and the bag in order to ascertain what was in the lower chest, and on looking into it, she saw one of the prisoner’s dresses, wrapped round something. She undid this, and several other wrappers, and at last found inside the body of a newly-born infant. She went into the kitchen, and asked the prisoner what was in the box, when she replied “You know.” On examining the linen of the prisoner’s bed, she found that it had been very much marked, and afterwards washed. The prisoner had not told witness that she was in the family way, nor had she made any preparation for her confinement. Mr. Pearse, surgeon, St. Austell, deposed that on the 15th of February he saw the prisoner at Trelower, and was of opinion that she had been recently delivered of a child. He also saw the body of the infant, which was that of a male child, which had apparently come to its full time. There were no marks of violence, and it appeared to have only breathed very weakly. The prisoner, in defence, said that, some weeks before her confinement, she had bought some calico for that event. She intended to have put the child in the clothes-basket, in order that her mistress might see what had occurred; but, it being washing morning, the basket was full of clothes, and she then placed the body in the box, which she carried into the wash-house, and not the coal-house, as had been stated. She asserted that both her master and mistress knew that she was in the family way. She then called the master as a witness; but, on his appearing, she merely asked him if he did not recollect her telling him that she was in the family way. He denied positively that she had ever done so; but said that he had suspected from her appearance, that she was so, and had mentioned his suspicions to his wife. Mrs. Sarah Vian was also called, and stated that she had known the prisoner for three years, and had never known or heard anything against her before the present charge. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. The Court was then adjourned. CROWN COURT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22 Mr. Justice Crompton took his seat upon the bench this morning at nine o’clock. STEALING FROM A VESSEL AT HAYLE Peter Allen, 27, and Richard Adams, 30, seamen, pleaded guilty to two charges of stealing from the schooner “Betsy James” while lying in the port of Hayle, and stealing two blankets, two cotton rugs, an oilskin coat and legging, an oilskin bag, a suit of black clothes, pair of woollen trousers, a flannel shirt, a pair of boots, and a felt hat, the property of John Gilbert, on the 5th January; and secondly, with stealing from the schooner “Nancy” at Porthleaven, a silver watch, three pairs of woollen drawers, two pairs of stockings and a Guernsey frock, the property of Richard Harry, on the 4th of January. They were sentenced to one year’s imprisonment with hard labour. STEALING FROM THE PERSON Mary Ann Webb, 36, charwoman, James Harris, 35, hawker, and George Williams, 29, also a hawker, were indicted for having stolen from John Matthews, two half-crowns, two florins, and certain smaller coins, at the parish of St. Mary Magdalene, on the 31st Dec. last. Webb pleaded guilty, and Harris and Williams not guilty. Mr. Cole, who prosecuted, said that the woman having pleaded guilty, and it appearing to him doubtful, on looking over the depositions, whether the jury would convict the men, he should not offer any evidence against them. Webb was sentenced to six months’ hard labour, and Williams and Harris were discharged. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AT MARAZION James Treglown, the younger, was then called up, in order that his recognizances might be discharged. Mr. Cole said that the grand jury had thrown out the bill, charging Treglown with the manslaughter of William Hosking and, therefore, he did not intend to offer any evidence in support of the charge. The facts appeared to be, that while Treglown was driving a horse and cart in the township of Marazion, some altercation took place between him and the boy Hosking, who had been playing with a ball on the road. Treglown took the ball, on which the boy tried to strike out the pin of the tail board of the cart, and to let out the coals in it. Treglown then struck out at him with his whip, hitting him, unfortunately, on the face, and in about a week after the boy died of lock-jaw. Treglown was then discharged, the Judge observing that no one could suppose he struck the boy with the intention of doing him serious injury; still, he trusted this case would act as a warning to him to curb his passion in future. ATTEMPT TO EXTORT MONEY AT TRURO Edward Montagu Lark, a boy 15 years of age, was indicted for having, at Truro, on the 27th September last, sent a letter to Elizabeth Thomas, demanding from her, with menaces, and without any reasonable and probable cause the sum of 15s.; and further, with having, on the 7th October, at the same place, caused a similar letter to be delivered to her and making a similar demand. Mr. Tosswell prosecuted, and Mr. Cox defended the prisoner. Mr. Tosswell said that in this case it would be unnecessary for him to trouble the jury with the contents of the letters which the prisoner was charged with sending to the prosecutrix, because his learned friend Mr. Cox, on behalf of the prisoner, did not deny that the letters were sent for the purpose of extorting money from Mrs. Thomas; and admitted that there was not the slightest ground for the imputations made in the letters. He should call Mrs. Thomas, who would swear positively that there was not the least ground for the imputations, which would be all the evidence he could offer. Mrs. Elizabeth Thomas then deposed—I am the wife of Mr. Thomas, and live in Lemon-street, Truro. My husband is abroad. I have known the prisoner from his infancy. I have received two letters demanding money, one in the handwriting of the prisoner and the other bearing his signature. There is not the slightest ground for the statements or imputations in these letters. Cross-examined—I have known the prisoner from his childhood, and I never heard or knew anything against him before this. Mr. Cox said that the prisoner, acting on his advice, would now withdraw his plea of not guilty and would plead guilty; but that he had thought it right in order to afford Mrs. Thomas an opportunity of denying the imputations in the letters, that he should plead not guilty in the first instance. On behalf of the prisoner he now begged to retract the charges made in these letters, and to express his deep regret for having made them. There was not the slightest foundation for them, and the prisoner regretted deeply that he should have been tempted to make them by bad companions. He was now sincerely sorry that he should have ever acted as he had done, and in consideration of his youth and his previous good conduct, he trusted that his Lordship would deal as mercifully with him as possible. He held in his hand a very favourable testimonial, signed by the prisoner’s late master, the minister of the parish in which he resided, and numerous other respectable persons, which testify to his general good character up to the present offence. The JUDGE said that the testimonial would tell against, as well as for the prisoner; because if he had received a good education and training, and had been brought up in a respectable position, of course there was less excuse for his committing an offence of this kind. If the prisoner had not pleaded guilty, there could be very little doubt that he would have been found guilty by the jury. The offence was one of the most grievous a person could commit. The sending of such filthy letters, as the prisoner had done, to extort money, was a most abominable offence, and not long ago it was a capital crime; and although the punishment for it had been mitigated, the legislature still held it to be a very serious offence. The prisoner had pleaded guilty to sending these filthy letters, imputing to Mrs. Thomas most abominable conduct, and if she had not acted promptly, as she had done, the imputation might have stuck to her through life and embittered her future existence. The offence was a worse one than that of taking a pistol, holding it at a man’s breast, and demanding his money. He could not treat such an offence lightly; and had the prisoner been older, he should have felt it his duty to sentence him to a term of penal servitude. The offence was aggravated by the circumstance of its being an entire invention against a lady, and that lady one of his oldest friends. However, considering his age, he was inclined to regard the offence as more the act of a youth than that of a man; and the sentence of the Court was that he be imprisoned and kept at hard labour for eighteen months. OBTAINING MONEY AND FOOD BY FALSE PRETENCES Anthony Philp, 34, a miner, was indicted for having, by false pretence, obtained from Mary Helmen, the sum of 2s. 6d. and two pasties, at Lanlivery, on the 16th of January last. Mr. Clark prosecuted. On the day in question, the prisoner called at the prosecutrix’s house, and said that he had been sent by her son for all the meat she had ready, and all the money she could raise, as he was going to Camborne with his (prisoner’s) goods, and he should want both. In consequence of this representation, she gave him what money she had, 2s. 6d., and two pasties. The son of the prosecutrix deposed that the whole of this representation was false,—that he was not employed to go to Camborne, and never authorised the prisoner to call on his mother for either meat or money. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ hard labour. ALLEGED MALICIOUS CUTTING AND MAIMING AT LINKINHORNE James Smitheram, 31, a miner, was indicted for wilfully and maliciously cutting, maiming, and doing grievous bodily harm to William Turner, at the parish of Linkinhorne, on the 11th of March last. Mr. Cole prosecuted, and Mr. Prideaux defended the prisoner. It appeared that on the day in question, the parties along with others were drinking at a public-house, in the parish of Linkinhorne, the prosecutor and a brother of the prisoner getting very drunk. Afterwards the prosecutor left, and proceeded to the house of the prisoner’s mother, for the purpose of sleeping there, as he had done on previous occasions. While he was undressing, the prisoner came home, entered the bedroom, and a fight commenced. The case for the prosecution was that the prisoner, without provocation, had seized a quart mug and struck Turner on the eye with it, a piece of the pot entering the eye, and completely destroying the sight. The injury which he sustained was so great, that he was unable to attend to give evidence, and his deposition had to be read. Mr. Brown, surgeon, of Callington, was called and described the nature of the injury. He admitted, in cross-examination, that the wound might have been caused by the prosecutor falling, during the struggle, on the mug. This was the defence set up, on the part of the prisoner. Mr. Prideaux contended that the prosecution had entirely failed to establish the offence; but, in order that there might be no doubt upon the subject, he should call the only witness who was present during the row, and who ought to have been called by the prosecution. He then called a sister of the prisoner, who deposed that, during the drunken quarrel that took place between the prisoner and prosecutor, they fell on the floor, and that the injury was then caused. The jury, under the direction of his lordship, returned a verdict of not guilty. INDECENT ASSAULT Thomas Waden, 62, was indicted for an indecent assault on his granddaughter, Eliza Ann Waden, a girl under the age of ten years, near Wadebridge. Mr. Folkard and Mr. Gulson prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. The evidence was of a most disgusting character and showed that not only had the prisoner committed the offence, but that he had also imparted to the girl a most loathsome disease. He was sentenced to two years’ hard labour. MANSLAUGHTER AT PINNOCK William Thomas Lobb, a young man about 18 years of age, pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter, in causing the death of John Crago, by shooting him with a gun, at the parish of St. Pinnock. One month’s hard labour. ATTEMPTED CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH AT ST. GLUVIAS Charity Tresidder, 23, servant, pleaded guilty to having, on the 5th of February, in the parish of St. Gluvias, endeavoured to conceal the birth of her child. Sentenced to a fortnight’s hard labour. BIGAMY David Barry, 35, miner, pleaded guilty to feloniously and unlawfully marrying one Catherine Brien, at the parish of Merthyr Tydvil, his wife, to whom he was lawfully married on the 12th of October, 1856, being then alive. Sentenced to six months’ hard labour. STEALING A DUCK AT ST. KEW George Gilbert, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing a duck of the value of 2s., on the 22nd January, at St. Kew, the property of Thomas Bryant. Mr. Roope prosecuted. The case was proved, and the prisoner was sentenced to two months’ hard labour. STEALING CLOTHES AT PENRYN Frederick Collins, 22, labourer, was indicted for stealing a jacket, a pair of duck trousers, a smockfrock, pair of stockings, and a silk and cotton handkerchief, belonging to John Turner, at the borough of Penryn, on the 5th of February last. Mr. Cox prosecuted. On the evening of Saturday, the 4th of February, the prosecutor went to the Red Lion Inn, at Penryn, taking a bundle containing the clothes in question with him. An inspector of the county constabulary went to Mullins’s on the 8th, to apprehend the prisoner, and found him, upstairs concealed under a bed. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to four months’ hard labour. INDECENT ASSAULT ON A CHILD AT FALMOUTH William Henry Trevelyan, 41, a painter, was indicted for indecently assaulting Elizabeth Fanny Trezise, a little girl, seven or eight years of age, on the 12th of August, 1864. Mr. Bere prosecuted: and Mr. Prideaux defended the prisoner. On the case being opened, Mr. Prideaux objected, that inasmuch as the prisoner had been committed to answer the graver offence, and the judge not having made an order in writing that he should be tried for the misdemeanour, in accordance with the provisions of the Vexatious Prosecutions’ Prevention Act, they were not in a position to try the prisoner for the indecent assault. His Lordship referred to the act in question, and directed the indictment to be quashed, and the prisoner to be tried for the felony. The account given by the girl of the assault varied materially from her depositions before the magistrates, and as her statement was wholly unsupported, Mr. Bere, at the conclusion of her cross-examination, said that he felt the charge could not be sustained; and he should not further proceed with it. The jury then returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. IGNORED BILLS In the case of Ann Pearce, 40, who was charged with robbing Richard Rickard, at the borough of Launceston, on the 10th February last, the prosecutor did not appear, and in consequence the grand jury ignored the bill. The recognizances of the prosecution were ordered to be estreated. The bill against John Broad for the manslaughter of Samuel Johns, at the parish of Antony, was also thrown out; as was that against the inhabitants of St. Austell, for the non-repair of certain highways in the parish. The grand jury found a true bill against James Nicholls, of St. Columb, for a libel, published, we understand, in one of the Plymouth papers, on Mr. Northey of the same place, spirit merchant. The indictment, however, has been postponed. The grand jury concluded their labours between one and two o’clock in the afternoon to-day, and were thanked by his lordship for their services and were discharged. The Court adjourned about half-past four o’clock, his lordship stating that having sat late the previous day, he felt indisposed to do so this afternoon, especially as only two cases remained for trial, one of which was the charge of murder at Falmouth. ______NISI PRIUS COURT—WEDNESDAY Before Mr. Baron CHANNELL The Court opened this morning at 10 o’clock, but in consequence of a consultation between Counsel as to the settlement of an important will case, the business did not commence till half-past 11 o’clock. THE MANUFACTURE OF ARSENIC AT GREAT WHEAL BUSY. ACTION FOR DAMAGES This was an action to recover damages for an alleged injury inflicted through the manufacture of arsenic at Great Wheal Busy mine at . Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Cole, appeared for plaintiff, instructed by Messrs Paul, Linton, and Holloway; and Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon for the defendant, instructed by Messrs Pinniger and Wilkinson. Mr. Cole opened the pleadings. The declaration stated that the defendant allowed certain noxious vapours to escape from a certain stack of chimneys, and to deposit itself on the lands of plaintiff, and by reason of the deposition of that vapour the soil and herbage of plaintiff’s land were rendered poisonous, and certain cattle were thereby destroyed. The defendant first pleaded not guilty, and then that the lands and corn fields are not any of them belonging to the plaintiff, and that the smelting works and copper works were not carried on by defendant as alleged. Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., in opening the case, said that the plaintiff, Philip Matthews, was a farmer living at Sunny House, near Chacewater, in the parish of Kenwyn, and the defendant, Mr. Edward King, was a gentleman carrying on business at Austin Friars, London, and was one of the largest shareholders in Great Wheal Busy Mine. He held between five and six hundred shares in the mine, and was also its purser. Great Wheal Busy is a tine and copper mine on the cost book system. On the 14th September, 1859, the plaintiff, Mr. Matthews, bought a small property near the works of the mine, but there were no arsenic works carried on then. Subsequently, however, the defendants took to manufacturing arsenic, and increased and altered the flue and stacks by which the arsenic was manufactured and carried off, so that whereas before the chimney stack was at the bottom of a valley 100 fathoms from the plaintiff’s house. A long arsenic flue was put in; it would be remembered that arsenic was manufactured by forcing vapour through a flue, whereby the arsenic was deposited in the passage of the vapour. The chimney stack by which the vapour was carried off from this flue, was brought within 50 fms. of the plaintiff’s field. This was done in 1861. In 1862 the plaintiff sowed oats and barley, and in 1863 it was harvested and cut up for fodder. He gave this fodder to a mare, which became very ill, and on being taken to Mr. Jones, a veterinary surgeon at Truro, he saw that she exhibited symptoms of poisoning by arsenic. He accordingly treated her for arsenic and she became better. In 1864, the corn was again cut in plaintiff’s field and given to the mare, when she again became ill, and this time had taken so much arsenic that she died. When she died the body was opened and the stomach was taken to a gentleman named Rowe, who analysed the contents, and found nearly 10 grains of arsenic in the stomach and spleen; 6¼ grains in another part of the entrails, and one-sixth of a grain in the wastings of the jar, making altogether more than 16 grains of arsenic found in the entrails of this mare. The plaintiff also lost a colt and two heifers, and he was subject to a great deal of injury by the escape of arsenic from the defendant’s works. The corn and herbage on the land were perfectly good before the erection of the new chimney stack and flue for the manufacture of arsenic. Directly the flue and stack were put up, however, the fodder was so injured that the cattle which ate it died. This was the case. If the plaintiff could show the jury, as reasonable men, that a certain effect followed from a certain cause, and that cause was the manufacture of arsenic, he would be entitled to compensation. The contents of the animal’s stomach were carefully analysed by a competent gentleman, and he would call the eminent analytical chemist, Professor Taylor, who would tell the jury that the method adopted by Mr. Rowe, was the proper way to test for arsenic, and that from the method adopted what was produced was arsenic, and that it was in sufficient abundance to cause the death of any animal. They could also show that the flue was improperly constructed; that in the passage along the flue there were certain apertures through which the arsenical vapour escaped, and that this vapour as well as that escaping from the chimney stack, when the wind blew west or north-west, deposited arsenic on the fields, affecting the herbage so that the plaintiff’s cattle died. If this was shown, he thought the jury would agree that it was an injury which no person had a right to inflict upon another. They need not be afraid of interfering with trade, for if their verdict was for the plaintiff, they might depend upon it that the adventurers of Wheal Busy would find a way to carry on the manufacture without injury to their neighbours. The first witness called was Philip Matthew, the plaintiff. He stated that the extent of the land in his occupation was 14 acres. He had noticed four or five apertures in the flue from which the vapour escaped. On Saturday week last he noticed that the vapour coming from the top of the stack was “as white as a miller’s hat.” He had seen the same appearance several times. When light winds prevailed this vapour hung about the stack, but when the wind blew strongly it was scattered over his fields. He then deposed to having lost a colt and two heifers in 1862, and a mare in 1864, the deaths, as he alleged, having been caused by this vapour. On one occasion he called the attention of a captain of the mine to the effects produced by the arsenic. He took him to a field and showing him some mangolds, asked him “what meaneth this”—(laughter). The captain answered “surely something hath been here”—(laughter). The tops of the mangolds had the appearance of having been placed close to a fire. They were brown and shrivelled, and when taken into the hand fell to pieces. In cross-examination, the witness said he had not bought the whole of the property, but rented some under Lord Falmouth. The mare was not found in a “costeening” pit, there was no such thing there, but there were “falls” in the ground, and she was found lying in one of those falls or hollows in a croft into which she had strayed. In re-examination he said the fall was only a foot deep. James Ashton Jones, said he was a veterinary surgeon at Truro. He examined the horse and said the symptom were those of poisoning by arsenic. Wm. John Matthews, son of the plaintiff, said he was present when the horse was opened and saw the contents of the stomach placed in a pan and took them to Mr. Rowe, chemist. Mr. Palmer opened the horse and placed the stomach and attachments in a jar which he gave to the last witness. Mr. Sampson Taylor Rowe said he was an operative chemist, a member of the society of Chemists of London, and Chemist to the Local Board of Health at Redruth, where he had resided for 14 years. Had frequently opened animals. On the 26th Sept. last year a jar was brought to him by the plaintiff’s son; it contained the stomach and duodenum of the horse. The stomach had red streaks and appeared to have been irritated by a virulent poison. Cut the stomach to pieces and boiled it in diluted hydrochloric acid. Tested the stomach and duodenum separately. The witness here described at length the process which he adopted as a test for arsenic in the stomach of the horte [sic]. He found about 15½ grains in the stomach of the horse. It was a poisonous dose. The red patches in the stomach were caused by inflammation, and that inflammation was caused by arsenic. He went to the farm of the plaintiff on July 22, 1863, and took portions of the hedges upon which he afterwards experimented and found arsenious acid, or arsenic upon the vegetation. The vegetation appeared as if it had been charred or half burnt. I saw the flue on the 9th March this year and saw what appeared to be arsenical vapour escaping. I smelt it and tasted it. Saw large heaps of manufactured arsenic lying about unprotected in every way. A puff of wind would have scattered it about to a great length. Professor Taylor examined: He said he had heard from Mr. Rowe how he had tested for arsenic. I have no doubt he distinctly discovered arsenic, though the tests are not those usually employed. They are searching tests, and two or three of them the only ones by which arsenic can be found. Arsenic being found in the spleen would show that it had entered the body during life, had been circulated with the blood, and been deposited in the spleen. The presence of 16 grains in the stomach, &c., would represent a much larger quantity taken by the horse, because that in the stomach is the surplus of that which causes death. The portion which causes death goes into the blood, and circulates through the system; that in the stomach does not have any effect except causing inflammation, and I have no doubt from what I have heard that the horse died from the effects of arsenic. Horses never vomit; arsenic can only get out of the body of a horse either through the bowels or through the urine, and in both cases slowly, but what passes through the urine must pass through the body, and therefore produces poisonous action. Quantities of arsenic are sometimes given as a tonic, but not by the highest class of veterinary surgeons. Five grains would be a safe dose to give a horse; if it much exceeded that it would be dangerous. The effect of arsenic upon vegetation is to give it a brown and withered appearance; it causes the leaves to cockle up and wither in the way described by Mr. Matthews. The gravity of arsenic is much greater than atmospheric air, but being divided into minute particles it is by means of a hot current of air carried to a long distance, as may be witnessed in South Wales. From the appearance described in the mucous membrane the animal must have taken it in small quantities. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Karslake the opened the case for the defence at some length, and said he should be able to show that the greatest possible precautions had been taken to prevent the escape of arsenic from the works, as it was to their interest to collect all they possible could for the purposes of Commerce. He should also show that the people in the neighbourhood drank the water and consumed the vegetables grown on the fields without any prejudicial effect. The first witness called was William Pascoe, who said he was surface agent at the Great Wheal Busy Mine. Before the present stack and flue were erected there was a straight flue. The present was a zigzag, and larger, so as to give more surface for the deposition of arsenic. They now got three times the quantity of arsenic from the same quantity of metal that they formerly did. The present stack and flue were put up in 1862. The place into which the plaintiff’s mare fell was a pit three feet deep and six feet long, and seven feet wide. Witness then mentioned several persons who lived in the neighbourhood of the mine, and who had never complained. He collected some grass and heath from plaintiff’s farm on the 18th March, and took it to Mr. Richard Pearce, analytical chemist, of Truro. In cross-examination witness said it had been raining about three days before he collected the grass and heath, but he did not think it had been well washed. The people whom he had mentioned were, all but one, employed by the mine. Thomas Oates stated that he was engineman at the mine. Before the plaintiff came to the neighbourhood, he occupied the land now occupied by the plaintiff. Witness grew vegetables and corn upon the ground, and had very good crops. He now grew vegetables in his garden, within a quarter of a mile of the chimney stack. He consumed the vegetables, and drank the water from the roof of his house without any evil effect, and he never heard of anybody who had suffered in the neighbourhood. Samuel Hocking, Edward Adams, Robert Crews, Thomas Pollard, and John Edwards (general manager of the mine), gave similar testimony. The latter witness said he did not know that any more could be done to consume the smoke than there was at present. In cross-examination, he said that he had no recollection of having said to a person named Seymour that it would be a very bad thing for the mine if the action went against it, and it must be prevented. Richard Pearce, of Truro, said he was an analytical chemist. Received some heath, furze, and grass on Saturday morning; there was about half a pound of furze; tested it, and could not find a trace of arsenic either on the furze or grass; he had used Marshe’s test, which was the best test for arsenic. There was a minute trace in the heath; it was scarcely perceptible—considerably less than the one- hundredth part of a grain. The quantity of heath was about half a pound. Arsenic would not remain in water in the form of a sediment; it would be absorbed by the water. Witness was then cross-examined at some length as to his manner of testing for arsenic. Mr. Karslake then summed up the evidence for the defence, and submitted that the death of the animal was caused by falling into the pit, and was independent altogether of the arsenic; he also dwelt upon the importance of the mine and the precautions taken to prevent the escape of the arsenic. In replying to the whole case, Mr. Coleridge put it to the jury that arsenic was found in the stomach of the animal, and it was proved that the death of the animal was caused by arsenic—then where did the arsenic come from? Why there was no other way by which it could have got into the stomach of the animal except from the defendant’s works. The plaintiff might be a poor man, and Wheal Busy a large concern which it was of great importance should be carried on. But, as he had said in the opening of his case, they need not be afraid of stopping the works. There were abundance of means by which the defendant could avoid the escape of arsenic which they would take care to adopt if the verdict of the jury was against them, and he hoped sincerely that they would b compelled to adopt these improved means. The learned Judge then summed up with great care. He said the defendant had set up three defences to this action:— 1st, “not guilty”; 2nd, that the lands were not the plaintiff’s; and 3rd, that the works were not carried on by the defendant. Now as to the second defence, it appeared to be clear that the plaintiff occupied the land in question, as it did not matter whether he was the owner or not, so as he occupied the land, that defence failed. The third defence also failed, because it was indirectly admitted that the defendant was a shareholder in the mine. There only remained then the plea of “not guilty”, upon which the case must be considered on its merits. Having detailed the effect of the evidence on either side, his lordship said the case was reduced to this; were the jury satisfied that the mare died in consequence of eating food impregnated with arsenical vapour coming from the works of the defendant; if so, they must find for the plaintiff, but if not, their verdict must be for the defendant. After a short consultation, the jury announced their wish to retire, and they were accordingly locked up at half-past seven o’clock. They returned in a quarter of an hour, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £10. WILL CASE JOSE V. BURNARD AND ANOTHER This was a very important case, respecting the validity of a will, but a long consultation took place between the counsel in the morning, and it was ultimately stated by Mr. Karslake that a definite arrangement had been made for the settlement of the case, but the formal agreement had not yet been drawn out. At a later period of the day the case was again mentioned, and the learned judge decided that the first two issues must be formally proved to the jury. Thereupon Mr. Bullar said the plaintiff was Stephen Jose; Millicent Sloggart and Mary Jane Gayer were interveners; and the defendants were John Burnard and Robert Burnard. The issues were first, whether Elizabeth Jose executed a will; secondly, whether when she executed the will, she was in a sound state of mind, memory and understanding; and thirdly, whether the execution of the will was procured by undue influences. Dr. Deane said: Elizabeth Jose, of Woollgarton, in St. Cleather and , near Launceston, died in December, 1863; and the will was dated the 1st December, 1859. The date of execution he did not know as the will was not executed for some days after it was made. He would lay before the jury evidence of the execution of the will, by calling the only surviving witness to it. He would tell them that Elizabeth Jose was, at the time, in a sound state of mind. Mr. John Basset Collins, solicitor, was then called, and as registrar of the Bodmin district Probate Court, produced the original will. James Spar then proved witnessing the will, and seeing the deceased, Elizabeth Jose, sign it. She then appeared to be in a sound state of mind. Mr. John Burnard also spoke to the soundness of the deceased’s mind. Mr. Karslake said he did not now appear in the case, as an arrangement had been effected which would no doubt be carried out. His Lordship then told the jury that this was an issue directed by the judge of the Probate Court, to decide three questions:— 1st, whether the will in question was duly executed according to the statute; next whether the parties professing to have executed the will were in a sound state of mind or not. The plaintiff had proved the affirmative of these two issues, and the jury would have to return a verdict accordingly. Then the third question was whether the execution of the will was procured by undue influence. As no evidence upon that issue is offered by the other side you will have to return a verdict in the negative upon that point. The jury then gave the verdict on each issue as directed. The counsel in the case were Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon for the plaintiff, instructed by Mr. R. Peter, of Launceston; Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., appeared for the intervenors; and Dr. Deane, of London (with whom was Mr. Buller) was specially retained for the defendants. The defendant’s attorney was Mr. W.D. King, of . If the case had come on for trial it was expected to have lasted over two days, as there were 40 witnesses for examination. The court adjourned till 10 o’clock on Thursday morning. ______CROWN COURT—THURSDAY Before Mr. JUSTICE CROMPTON The court opened this morning at 9 o’clock, and was crowded for some time previously, on account of the interest felt in the trial for murder at Falmouth, which it was arranged should be the first case heard this morning. CHARGE OF WILFUL MURDER AT FALMOUTH Albert Julius Wilhelm Rudolff, 22, a Prussian sailor, was indicted for the wilful murder of John Timmins, in the borough of Falmouth, on the 26th November, 1864. The prisoner was arraigned yesterday, when he pleaded “not guilty”, and on the usual privilege being offered to him, of being tried by a jury of half Englishmen and half foreigners, he said he should be perfectly satisfied to be tried by a jury of twelve Englishmen. M. Van Weenen, of Falmouth, was sworn as interpreter, the prisoner being unable to speak English. On being asked whether he was defended or not, he said he was not, but he should like to be. The Judge then assigned Mr. Prideaux for the defence. This morning, the prisoner, through his interpreter, said as the foreigners were present, he would prefer to have half the jury foreigners. Mr. Cole and Mr. Pinder appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Prideaux for the defence. Mr. Cole opened the case for the prosecution. He said the jury were placed in the most serious position that any body of men could be placed, for they had to enquire into the sudden and violent death of one man, and the result of their enquiry might have the effect of causing the life of another man to be ended as suddenly and violently. It was a case of circumstantial evidence, that was, he should not be in a position to give distinct evidence that the prisoner struck the blow from which the unhappy man died, but he would lay such evidence before them as he thought would show conclusively that the prisoner did strike the blow. The facts were these: the prisoner is a native of Bremen, and was a seaman aboard the Germania, which was on a voyage from Gottenburg to Lisbon, when she put into Falmouth through stress of weather. She lay outside the breakwater, and on Saturday, the 26th November, the prisoner with some other shipmates went on shore. About nine o’clock they went to the Stag Inn, Falmouth, where they remained drinking till about eleven o’clock at night, when they were turned out by a policeman. One of the prisoner’s shipmates was named Fitschen. There were also some Englishmen in the house. There had been some quarrelling, and after the men left the house they proceeded down the High street towards the harbour, the foreigners being in front of the Englishmen. On getting opposite Lelean’s eating-house a halt was made, and some quarrelling took place, there was a scuffle, and an Englishman named Pederick, a labourer, stripped to fight. Another Englishman named Annear, interfered to prevent the fight, and it was believed the deceased man Timmins also interfered for the same purpose. At this time the prisoner was seen standing within six feet of the deceased, a knife was seen to glisten, but the witnesses will not swear that it was in the prisoner’s hands, and immediately Timmins was stabbed to the heart, and fell down dead. The moment after the fatal blow was given, a man, dressed like a sailor, wearing a monkey jacket and cap, was seen to run down the street in the direction of the harbour, and in his flight he ran against two men, but none of the witnesses were able to identify that person as the prisoner; though it might be remarked that the prisoner wore a monkey jacket and cap on the occasion. Now, how was the prisoner to be connected with the murder. In this way: Previous to coming on shore, the prisoner, who was in the habit of carrying a knife, was advised by his companion Fitschen not to take it on shore with him, but the prisoner persisted in doing so. That he had the knife on shore was proved by Fitschen, who borrowed it at the Stag Inn, to cut some tobacco, and then returned it to prisoner; and in addition to that the prisoner had some words at the Stag with a man named Richards, who walked towards the table at which the prisoner was sitting, upon which the prisoner said to him, “If you don’t go back I will put this knife through your b___y guts.” Soon after the murder, a policeman named Richards went on board the Germania, but the prisoner was not then on board. The policeman went on board again about five o’clock in the morning, when he found the prisoner on deck apparently asleep. He woke the prisoner up, and asked him if he had been on shore. He replied in the affirmative, but declared that he had no knife on shore with him, as he had lost it overboard as he was going on shore. The constable then searched the prisoner, but could not find any knife, and the prisoner’s trousers being wet, the constable told him to change them. As the prisoner was doing so, the policeman noticed him slip something apparently from his stocking and push it behind a chest on deck. The policeman looked behind the chest, and there found a large knife in a sheath; it was covered with fresh blood at the time it was found by the constable; this was about six hours after the commission of the murder, and Dr. Taylor would tell them that blood would keep fresh that time if kept in a sheath so as to be preserved from the atmosphere. Dr. Taylor would also tell them that it was human blood which was on the knife. The knife appeared to have been wiped, but there were streaks of blood left upon it, and also in the indentation made by the maker’s name. Dr. Bullmore, who examined the wound on the deceased, would say that it was inflicted by such an instrument as the knife in question—a weapon with one sharp side and one blunt side. These were the facts upon which the prosecution relied. He might say upon the question of law that all cases of one man killing another were prima facie cases of murder, and it was for the person charged with taking the life of another to show that the crime was less than murder; but in this case there did not appear to be anything to reduce the crime to that of manslaughter. He was happy to say that the prisoner would have the assistance of one of the most able counsel on the circuit, and in addition to that half the jury were foreigners, so that he would have the most fair and impartial trial that it would be possible to have. The cases proceeded very slowly, and the evidence for the prosecution was not concluded when our last parcel was despatched. The evidence so far coincided with the facts stated in the opening. Mr. St. Aubyn assisted Mr. Prideaux in the defence. We shall give a full report next week. NISI PRIUS—THURSDAY (Before Mr. Baron CHANNELL) MINE SHARE TRANSACTION—BARTLE v. WELL & GEACH This was a special jury case, which was tried at great length at the last assizes, when the jury were unable to agree to a verdict, and was then fully reported. The plaintiff, Mr. William Bartle, resides near Camborne, and the defendants are members of the Stock Exchange, London. The action was brought to recover the sum of £128 15s., being the price of five shares in New Rosewarne Mine, which the defendants had agreed to sell the plaintiff, but which they did not deliver at the time stipulated—the 17th Nov., 1863, and not until the 28th of that month, when the plaintiff refused to accept them. The action turned in some measure upon the [illegible word(s)] in which a figure was made, and on the advice of the Judge, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a special case for the court above. This concluded the Civil business of the Assize, and his lordship then proceeded to try the only remaining case in the calendar—that of AN INDECENT ASSAULT AT CRANTOCK Salathiel Sleeman, a farmer, who had been out on bail, was indicted for indecently assaulting Elizabeth Rickeard, a servant girl, at Crantock, on the 1st of February last. Mr. Karslake and Mr. Pinder defended the prisoner, who is a young man of very respectable appearance. The case had not concluded when our parcel was despatched. (Royal Cornwall Gazette, Friday March 31, 1865.) THE FALMOUTH STABBING CASE The charge against Albert Julius Wilhelm Rudolf (sic), for the wilful murder of John Timmins, at Falmouth, not being concluded when we went to press last week, we were compelled to hold over a report of the termination of the trial till this week. Mr. Prideaux, in opening the defence, bespoke the careful and anxious sympathy of the jury, whom he rejoiced to see were half foreigners, on behalf of his unfortunate client—a foreigner, and alone in a foreign land. The manner in which the proceedings of the court had been managed—and he must say that Mr. Cole had conducted the prosecution with great fairness and moderation—showed that in theory at least the English constitution sought that every accused person should be treated with the utmost impartiality. The charge against Rudolf was of the most serious character—it was that he was guilty of wilful and deliberate murder. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove that crime in all its branches, or else the prisoner was entitled to an acquittal. But here he would remind them of the ease in which lately they had seen that an innocent man had been convicted upon evidence much more strong than that adduced in the present case—evidence so strong as even to satisfy the learned judge who presided at the trial—and yet Serafino Pelizzioni, whose identity had been positively sworn to, had been proved not to be the guilty man. Let them look at the case against Rudolf (sic) as it was presented to them, and see its weakness in all its various points. In the first place there was a total absence of all motive. It was not shown in any way that Timmins and Rudolf had quarrelled, still less that they had been engaged in a scuffle. They had been drinking together amicably in the same public- house, and there was no motive in that. Edward Richards’s statement of the manner in which Rudolf was alleged to have conducted himself at the Stag was utterly unreliable. A man who was so frightened by a threat that his blood boiled and he ran was not a man whose statement of identity was to be depended upon. Then as to the actual commission of the murder. Where was the proof that Rudolf was ever at the spot where Timmins was killed? Those witnesses who proved that they had not seen the prisoner anywhere else than at the Stag proved a great deal in his favour; and the only real evidence of Rudolf’s presence, at the place where the affair occurred, was that of Annear. But Annear had little opportunity of seeing the prisoner at the Stag, and had only a glance from which to speak of his presence in the street. He (Mr. Prideaux) did not admit that the death was a murder. There might have been a fray such as would reduce the crime to manslaughter, but he would not dwell upon that point; his case was that the prisoner had nothing to do with the transaction. It might perhaps be fairly assumed that the man who ran away was the man who killed Timmins, although that did not absolutely follow. But he argued that if that was the man, the circumstances afforded strong evidence in the prisoner’s favour. If witnesses could really have seen the knife glisten in the air and an arm raised, they must have been able to distinguish whether the prisoner, if he were the man who ran away, wore the white trousers which he was sworn to have had on that night. Instead of that, one of the witnesses actually made the statement that the runaway was attired in dark clothes. Then as to the position [sic] of the knife by Rudolf on that evening, that was fully accounted for by his requiring it to cut tobacco, of which there was evidence. Besides, what was more natural than that blood and rust should be found upon the knife of a sailor which was used for every purpose, including cutting meat, raw as well as cooked. If not cleansed it must have the marks of blood and rust on it. The first authority in the land, perhaps in the world, Dr. Taylor, admitted that he could not tell that the blood upon the knife was not that of a hog, or a dog, a rabbit, or a hare. The fact of Rudolf’s possession of the knife ought not, therefore, viewing all these facts, to be allowed to weigh against him. There was evidence that Timmins rushed in between the two men who were fighting; but who pretended to say that Rudolf had done so? God forbid that he should cast a serious imputation upon any other person; but he was not going beyond his duty in showing that so far as the evidence went, there was at least as much reason to suspect some other person as the prisoner. Fitschen was excited; one might suggest some motive for the stab by him. He wished not to be misunderstood. Fitschen had given his evidence fairly and properly; but they were bound to look at the case in all its bearings; and when they found, as they would, that there was not the least ground for bringing the charge home to Fitschen, they would hesitate to convict another against whom the evidence was not so strong. Mr. Prideaux referred to the absence of a witness, Hawke, who had given evidence before the coroner, and who, if he would have strengthened the case, it was fair to infer, would have been brought forward. Having said this much, it seemed to him that the case was reduced to the implied confessions of the prisoner, resulting from his conduct after the fatal occurrence. He contended that there was a total blank as regarded the first part of the case—that before the visit of the policeman to the ship—of all evidence against the prisoner. The character of the wound itself was against the supposition of the prisoner’s guilt. It was one that would have been inflicted by a taller man—and a more powerful man—than the prisoner. Then as to what the policeman said with regard to the prisoner’s statements, was it not probable that a man who spoke English so imperfectly was misunderstood? And was a man to be convicted of murder on inferences drawn by two policemen from imperfectly understood conversation? Mr. Prideaux contended that prisoner was searched when first taken into custody— effectually searched, and that there then could have been no knife upon him. There was no evidence that the knife found was the prisoner’s; Fitschen had admitted that he had one exactly like it, and had said that he could not tell one from the other, except that his knife had no blood upon it. But, supposing that it was Rudolf’s knife, it did not follow that Rudolf committed the murder. There was considerable fellowship among the members of ships; crews; and Rudolf might be screening some one else. But again, admitting that the knife so found was the prisoner’s, what proof was there that the murder was committed with it? If the blood on it were human, it need not therefore be the blood of Timmins; sailors were reckless, and cut their fingers as well as other men. Then again, the good character which had been elicited from the witnesses should weigh in his favour. Mr. Prideaux made a very powerful and effective appeal on behalf of his client; his speech lasting an hour and a quarter. His Lordship, in summing up, pointed out to the jury that they had two questions Roche decide. First, was the prisoner the man who struck the fatal blow; secondly, if so, was the crime which he committed murder or manslaughter. He was afraid that they would find but slight evidence of facts that would tend to reduce the crime, if they thought it brought home to the prisoner, from murder to the lesser offence. They must not decide upon suspicion, or even upon probability, but upon reasonable proof. So much confusion appeared to have existed at the time when the deceased met his death, that it was very difficult to ascertain what the facts relating to the quarrel really were. The theory of the prosecution decided itself into three parts—firstly, what happened before the party went into the street; secondly, what happened at the time of the row; and thirdly and mainly, what happened at the time of the finding of the knife. The most important part of the evidence in the first period was that the jury should see that the prisoner had the knife, afterwards said to be found in his possession, and that its identity was clearly proved. The supposed identity of the prisoner he thought failed very much in that part of the case. The evidence relating to the row was very difficult to understand. Pederick gave an account which was totally inconsistent with Fitschen’s, on the supposition that they were the two men that fought. Whether there were two fights or two knives used—(Fitschen had complained of a stab)—did not appear; and the whole affair was in a great state of confusion. Indeed, if the case for the prosecution depended upon the evidence of what had taken place then, it would utterly fail. It would seam [sic] indeed to be rather in favour of the supposition of the prisoner’s innocence, for it was hard to understand how if the man running away—whom the prosecution theorized to be the criminal—had worn white trousers, as he must have done if he was the prisoner, it should not have been seen by persons who noticed that he wore a monkey jacket and cap, and who saw a knife glisten. The only thing, it seemed to him, in this part of the transaction that pressed against the prisoner was the evidence that he was going down to the place, and the proof, upon Annear’s evidence, that he was within two or three yards of Timmins. The identity of the knife was, as he had said, one of the chief matters for their consideration, and he could not help wishing that the police who had taken possession of Fitschen’s knife had produced it on the trial. It was difficult to understand why they should have kept it if they did not produce it. He next came to what, in his opinion, was the pinch of the case. If the jury thought that the knife had been returned to Rudolf by Fitschen, as stated, and that he was attempting to conceal it with wet blood upon it, there would certainly be a case of very strong suspicion—if not more, that was for the jury to say—against the prisoner. They were told that such a knife as was produced would have caused the wound, and they would have to consider whether they were satisfied that Rudolf’s knife was returned by Fitschen without blood upon it, and that afterwards it was found in prisoner’s possession marked with that which it was perfectly reasonable to suppose was human blood—nothing was said about a pig or other such animal having been killed on board the ship, and they would judge of the probability of such an occurrence taking place in the dead of the night. If they supposed that the knife was the instrument of the murder, and that it was found in Rudolf’s possession, and that he made certain denials, they would have to inquire what was the inference to be drawn from all these facts. It was possible that knife might have been returned to Rudolf after the death of Timmins—there being plenty of time for that. The learned judge then again alluded to the circumstances which might be considered to reduce the gravity of the crime, which he thought looked, if they supposed that Rudolf struck the blow, very much like murder. Referring to the remarks of Mr. Prideaux upon the danger of an erroneous conviction being arrived at upon the circumstantial evidence, his lordship expressed his assurance that from the great care taken in the administration of justice such instances were of a very rare occurrence. The jury would have to decide as men of common sense whether there was any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner; whether in short, the circumstances which had been detailed were inconsistent with the prisoner’s innocence. His lordship then proceeded to read and comment upon the evidence at length, and in conclusion commended the case to the most serious consideration of the jury. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and were absent about an hour, and on their return into court, it was generally thought from their demeanour that they had decided on convicting the prisoner of the more serious charge. In this opinion it was manifest that Rudolf himself shared, his body visibly trembling with emotion, and his face expressing harrowing anxiety. The Clerk of Arraigns (Mr. Chambre) said: Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed on your verdict. Do you find Albert Julius Wilhelm Rudolf guilty or not guilty? The Foreman: We find him guilty—(sensation); guilty of manslaughter, not guilty of murder. We also recommend him to mercy, in consequence of his previous good character. I am requested to recommend him to your mercy by the other party—the foreigners. His Lordship: Then you don’t all agree in that recommendation? The Foreman: Well, yes; I may say we do, my lord. His Lordship: Because it is very near murder, you know. The prisoner was then asked in the usual way if he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, and replied through the interpreter that he had nothing to say, and that he knew he must submit to the decree of the law. His Lordship: Albert Julius Wilhelm Rudolf—The jury have been obliged by the evidence to find in this case that your hand dealt that dreadful blow which has deprived a poor fellow creature of life. I feel satisfied that the jury were right in coming to that conclusion. I felt it my duty to point out to the jury that part of the evidence which I thought inconclusive, but I could not make any supposition consistent with your not having given that blow when I considered the evidence which was given with reference to the knife, and your concealment of it. Therefore I am perfectly satisfied that the jury came to the right conclusion in giving the verdict that your hand dealt the blow. Your crime is verging on murder. There was just evidence enough to weigh with me in leaving it to the jury to say whether there might be some sufficient circumstances which might amount to legal provocation. But your crime was very near murder. I cannot help thinking with the prosecution, that you stood by these men, and that when you saw your friend in some kind of collision, you cam behind and stabbed the deceased in this dreadful way. The jury have recommended you to mercy, and therefore I shall not pass the sentence usually given in such cases, of penal servitude for life or for 20 years; because in cases where the crime differs by a shade only from murder, it is necessary to give a very heavy sentence indeed. But looking at the recommendation, I feel that a sentence of fifteen years’ penal servitude—which is not so heavy as I should have given had there not been that recommendation—is the lowest that I can pass upon you. It must be taught that the use of the knife in this country cannot be permitted. You have had a very narrow escape. But for the effect of some very slight evidence your life might have been sacrificed. In all probability the jury might have found you guilty of murder. Then you must have been sentenced to be hung, and in all probability you would have been executed. It is necessary for the preservation of the public peace and safety that cases of this kind should be dealt very severely with. It is deeply to be lamented that such disturbances should take place between English and foreign sailors—men who have to work together, and who should live peaceably with each other. This practice of bringing knives where it is likely there will be a disturbance must be put a stop to; and the sentence upon you, therefore, is that you be subjected to penal servitude for the space of 15 years. When the prisoner had the sentence explained to him by the interpreter he laughed, but said it was more than he ought to have—that he should be an old man by the time the sentence expired. It was evident, however, that the verdict of the jury had relieved him from a state of terrible suspense. SECOND COURT (Before Mr. Baron CHANNELL) CHARGE OF INDECENT ASSAULT AT CRANTOCK Salathiel Sleeman was indicted for having on February 1st indecently assaulted Elizabeth Rickeard, a servant residing at Mr. Mitchell’s, a farmer, of Crantock, near —Mr. Carter prosecuted; Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Bullen defended.—The prisoner was a farmer, residing near the girl’s residence, and visited there occasionally. On the day named in the indictment he called at the house, and the master was out—the servant being at home alone. The prisoner went into the house, when the offence was said to have been committed. On cross examination it was stated by Mr. Mitchell that he did not live with his wife, and that the girl was the only person living in the house with him. Several witnesses were called who spoke highly of the character of the prisoner.—The jury, after being locked up for about three hours, shortly after 7 o’clock returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was acquitted. The result was received outside the court with great satisfaction by a large party, apparently friends of the prisoner, who escorted him en masse up to the Town Arms cheering lustily. This concluded the business of the assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 7 April 1865

3. Cornwall Easter Quarter Sessions The Easter quarter sessions for the county of Cornwall, were held at the County Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart, (chairman), presided, and the following magistrates were also present:— Sir C. B. G. Sawle, Bart. Wm. Michell, Esq. Lord Vivian. N. Norway, Esq. The Hon. J. C. W. Vivian. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. Col. Peard. —Roberts, Esq. Capt. Peel. J. Trevenen, Esq. Capt. Potter. R. H. S. Vyvyan, Esq. J. Borlase, Esq. Brydges Willyams, Esq. C. P. Brune, Esq. H. Williams. Esq. R. G. Bennet, Esq. E. S. Carus-Wilson, Esq. E. Coode, Esq. E. Beauchamp Tucker, Esq. W. H. P. Carew, Esq. T. R. Polwhele, Esq. R. Foster. Esq. The Hon. and Rev. J. T. Bos- R. Foster, Jun., Esq. cawen. J. Haye, Esq. Rev. R B. Kinsman. J. Hichens, Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. R. G. Lakes, Esq. Rev. Prebendary Tatham. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. J. G. Wilkinson. THE CLERK OF THE PEACE. Mr H.S. Stokes, the newly appointed Clerk of the Peace, having been sworn in in the usual manner, stated that he had received from the late deputy Clerk of the Peace (Mr Shilson) all the documents relative to the county excepting the deeds of property conveyed to the county. He merely mentioned the fact that the Court might instruct him as to the course he should pursue. Mr Shilson entered the court at this juncture, and was informed by the chairman of the statement made by Mr Stokes. Mr SHILSON said Mr Stokes had not applied for the documents in question, and he was not aware that such an application was going to be made to the court. Mr STOKES said he had applied at the office for the documents in general, but be had not seen Mr Shilson. Mr SHILSON said he believed that the appointment of Clerk of the Peace did not necessarily involve that of the County Solicitor; and the application having been made, he thought it due to himself and to the court to state what his views were upon the subject. As he had stated, the office of the Clerk of the Peace did not necessarily involve the duties of the County Solicitor. In the adjoining county of Devon, these duties had always been separate, Mr Drake being the county solicitor and Mr Ford the Clerk of the Peace. It was not even necessary that the Clerk of the Peace should be a solicitor at all. He (Mr Shilson) had been connected with the county as its solicitor for a period of upwards of 20 years; and as to the clerkship of the peace, which had been held by his late excellent partner, Mr Coode, he (Mr Shilson) had no connection whatever, except that he had been appointed as deputy clerk. He had nothing whatever to do either with the appointment or the profits. That being the fact, Mr Stokes applied to him for the county papers and for any assistance which he (Mr Shilson) could render him. He readily gave Mr Stokes all the assistance in his power, and also directed his clerks to do the same, and he rendered up to him all the county papers accordingly. With reference to the papers which Mr Stokes had not received, he did not consider it his duty to hand over those papers except under the direction of the court. The appointment of the Clerk of the Peace was vested in the Lord Lieutenant of the county, but the appointment of the county solicitor rested in the Court at large. If the Court should deem it right to take that office out of his hands, he would most willingly submit. He had never asked for the office; it was placed in his hands unsolicited; he had taken no steps to retain it, and did not intend to take any such steps. Therefore, if the Court wished that the papers in question should be handed over to Mr Stokes, he should willingly bow to the decision. He had, he might add, not retained any documents except those which he held as county solicitor. Lord VIVIAN said the question was, had Mr Shilson been appointed solicitor to the county by the magistrates? If he had, he was clearly justified in retaining the documents; but if not, it became necessary to consider at a future session—not now, because there had been no notice of the matter,—whether it was advisable to keep the offices separate or not. In the mean time, it seemed to him to be essentially necessary that the public documents of the County should be in the possession of the recognised county officer. No one had greater respect for the zeal and integrity of Mr Shilson than he (Lord Vivian) had, but in this matter it became the duty of the court to order that all documents should be in the hands of the public officer, pro. tem., and any gentleman who considered that the office of county solicitor should be separate from that of the Clerkship of the peace could give notice to that effect. He therefore begged to move, that it be a direction of the Court that Mr Shilson give up all the county documents in his possession to Mr Stokes. The CHAIRMAN confessed be was rather taken by surprise by what Mr Shilson had stated as to holding a distinct office as County solicitor. He knew that Mr Shilson had acted in that capacity, but he was not aware of any order of sessions making such appointment. Mr COODE asked what the documents in question were; were they conveyances of police sites? Mr SHILSON said he believed the documents were conveyances of police sites, and some had reference to alterations at the gaol; there was also a piece of ground which had recently been sold to Col. Gilbert. Mr N. NORWAY said he wished to know whether the asylum documents were amongst them, because he thought it would be very inconvenient to interfere with them as there were several matters unsettled. Mr COODE took it that the appointment of the solicitor to the asylum would rest with the committee—(hear, hear). The CHAIRMAN thought the solicitor to the asylum was a separate appointment. Mr SHILSON said there had been no formal appointment in that case any more than in the case of County solicitor. Lord VIVIAN said he did not think it right to go into the discussion at the present session, but he thought that Mr Shilson held the office of County solicitor by virtue of his partnership with Mr Coode, in the usual manner of a partnership. The CHAIRMAN said it appeared to him that the court was in this position—that Mr Shilson held certain county documents in respect of his office of County solicitor, but no account of such appointment appearing in the records of the court, he thought some steps should be taken with the view of giving the appointment to the new Clerk of the Peace at the next sessions. He did not think the question could be discussed at the present session. The only question for the decision of the Court now was whether or not all documents in the hands of Mr Shilson should be handed over to the Clerk of the Peace till a final decision had been arrived at. Lord VIVIAN's motion was then put and agreed to without opposition. Mr STOKES wished to explain that in mentioning the matter to the Court he had no intention whatever of complaining of Mr Shilson. He merely considered that as the documents had not come into his hands it was his duty to mention the matter to the court. Mr SHILSON said he had always acted with Mr Stokes with the greatest possible harmony and good feeling. The subject then dropped. The following gentlemen were then sworn on THE GRAND JURY:— Mr W. Jennings, Wadebridge, foreman. “ F. Arthur, Egloshayle. “ L. Bice, St. Enoder. “ G. W. Cleave, St. Breock. “ T. B. Cock, Tywardreath. “ J. Carswell, Menheniot. “ W. Copplestone, St. Winnow. “ T. Derry, Egloshayle. “ J. Gatley, St. Columb Major. “ J. H. Geach, St. Winnow. “ N. M. Grose, Egloshayle. “ W, Hockin, St. Breock. “ J. Hicks, St. Columb Major. “ J. Hellyar, St. Enoder. “ H. Haines, Sheviock. “ R. Hancock, Sheviock. “ J. Jeffery, Sheviock. “ G. Ley, St. Blazey. “ T. Luscombe, Menheniot. “ C. Palmer, St. Germans. “ N. Rosevear, sen., Sheviock The Royal proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, The CHAIRMAN addressed the Grand Jury. He said: It is highly gratifying to the court to see on this occasion so full an attendance of grand jurors, as indeed I am happy to say is the custom on all occasions in this county, and it is highly important that you should attend to the duties which the county calls upon you to perform. The appointment of a new clerk of the peace has unfortunately been rendered necessary by the removal from amongst us of our highly respected and excellent clerk of the peace, Mr Coode. And although that gentleman has long been removed from amongst us, at least in so far that his active duties have been performed by deputy, you will agree with me that it is only right that I should express the high sense which not only this court but the community at large entertains of the services of Mr Coode, and of the integrity, zeal, and faithfulness with which he discharged his duties. We all most deeply deplore his lamented decease. I may also say that I think that the thanks of the county are due to the Lord Lieutenant for the selection he has made of a successor to Mr Coode, that appointment being vested in the Lord Lieutenant. I think you will agree with me that Mr Stokes, upon whom the choice has fallen, is the only gentleman who, from his high standing, his well-known integrity, and his uniformly gentlemanly bearing, is qualified efficiently to discharge the duties of the office. In the calendar, there are only eight prisoners for trial; and the majority of the cases are of an ordinary character, not requiring any remarks from me. There is only one case of a serious nature, viz., No. 6 in the calendar. One Francis Rowe is charged with wilfully and maliciously wounding Isaac Blackmore, by stabbing him with a knife. In this case, it will be for you to consider whether the prisoner, who is indicted under a particular statute for maliciously stabbing, used the knife in justifiable defence or not, as he seems to have received great provocation. If this calendar were the only indication of the state of crime in this county, it would be a most pleasing duty to congratulate you upon the satisfactory state of the county in this respect; but remember these sessions follow immediately upon the assizes, and a comparative statement of the prisoners for trial at these assizes and sessions with the number at the assizes and sessions of last year, shows, I regret to say, a large increase in crime. In 1864, the number of prisoners for trial at the Lent Assizes was 29, whereas at the last assizes there were 45; and the offences were of a very bad character indeed for this county. Mr Baron Martin was pleased to congratulate us on a former occasion on the absence of crimes of violence to the person, but last assizes we did not uphold that character by any means; indeed, I don't remember any calendar of this county which showed so many cases of violence, and I regret to say that, in many of these cases, drink was the cause of the crimes committed. This fact, combined with my experience as a magistrate, shows me that there is not sufficient surveillance over the drinking houses of this kingdom. I don't think, however, that you can put an end to drink or enforce habits of temperance by Act of Parliament, and it therefore remains for us, by moral and religious education, to instill such principles into the mind of youth as will enable them to refrain from indulgence in drinking habits. The learned judge at the last assizes commented upon some cases in the calendar, which he said were of such a trivial character that they ought not to have been brought before the court. If, however, the learned judge had been aware of the circumstances under which those prisoners were committed, I think he would not have made those remarks, because, though the cases were in themselves trivial, the committals were all after previous convictions, and it was, therefore, the duty of the magistrates to commit the prisoners for trial. With regard to the finances, I find that the expenses of the gaol, for the corresponding quarter of 1864, were £888 19s. 8d.; whilst for the past quarter they were £946 8s. 1d. That appears to be a considerable increase, but it was not so in reality, for the increase was owing to the purchase by the gaol committee of a quantity of rope, about £65 worth, to be picked into oakum by the prisoners, upon which there will be a profit, and which will come to the credit of the county hereafter. The cost of maintenance had, in fact, decreased. The county-rate this time twelvemonths was a farthing in the £; on this occasion it will be a halfpenny in the £; and the police rate, which was then three farthings, will be again three farthings on the present occasion. I may also state that the coroners' bills amounted to £372 for the past quarter, and they were £368 in the corresponding quarter of 1864. The learned Chairman then dismissed the grand jury to their duties. COUNTY BUSINESS. FINANCES. The Chairman read the report of the Finance Committee as follows:— The Finance Committee reported that they have examined the treasurer's account and found the balance to be on The General Account £2,577 8 7½ Police do 3,962 17 2¼ Police Superannuation 205 0 8 Building fund 3,030 3 11½ £9,775 10 4¾ They have also examined and allowed for payment the coroners' and bridge-surveyors' bills. A rate of 16-32nds of a penny is required for general purposes.—Signed, Richard Foster. The report was adopted without comment. The treasurer's accounts as stated in the above report were allowed. A rate of a half penny in the £ for general purposes, and a police rate of three-farthings in the £, amounting to £2,630, were then granted. Mr R. G. LAKES asked whether the police rate intended to be asked for, could not in future be stated in the agenda paper, as was done in the case of the rate for general purposes? Mr E. COODE said that for the rate to be printed in the agenda paper it would have to be stated at the half-quarter, and the Committee would have to hold an extra meeting to do this; and even then they would only be able to give an approximate estimate, which might prove to be incorrect. Lord VIVIAN said that if the rate could be stated in the agenda paper it would be an advantage; and he would put it to the chairman and the committee whether they ought not to undertake the extra trouble in order to meet the wishes of many parties. Mr E. COODE replied that as far as he was concerned, he should be most happy to comply. Still, as he had said, to give even an approximate estimate the police committee would have to meet twice in the quarter; and he would put it to the court whether it would not be better to allow the matter to stand over until the next sessions, in order that the committee when they next meet, might have an opportunity of considering the subject. This suggestion was adopted, and the subject dropped. CORONERS' BILLS. The coroners bills for the quarter were then read over and allowed. They were as follows:— £ s. d. Mr Carlyon for 35 inquests 116 9 4 Mr Jago „ 14 „ 45 11 9 Mr Good „ 18 „ 52 15 6 Mr Hambly 21 „ 72 2 10 Mr Roscorla 25 „ 85 11 3 £372 10 8 For the corresponding quarter of last year, the coroner's bills amounted to £368. COUNTY GAOL. Capt. Colville, Governor of the County Gaol, presented the following report:— My Lords and Gentlemen.—Since the date of my last report, the conduct of the prisoners generally has been good and orderly, the chief exception being that of a convicted felon, who outrageously assaulted one of the prison warders, for which offence he was arraigned at the late assizes and received sentence of 20 years' penal servitude. During the past winter the employment of oakum picking has been advantageously carried on, being found sufficiently irksome as taskwork (and at the same time slightly remunerative to the county) in conjunction with other labour. I certify that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison, have, as far as practicable, been complied with. I further certify that the buildings of the prison are in good order. The report was adopted. The CHAIRMAN next read the report of the Visiting Justices, as follows:— 1st April, 1865. The committee has to report most favourably of the state of the gaol and its officers. The committee have with regret to call the attention of the court to the attack made on warder Bramble, in January last, which has rendered it necessary to employ for the time another warder, and would recommend the immediate appointment of an efficient man. They would also recommend the erection of a shed for breaking stones, at a probable cost of £100. There will be required a sum of £200 for the current expenses of the ensuing quarter. The report was adopted without remark, and on the motion of Mr R. FOSTER, the committee of visitors were re-appointed, with the exception of Col. Cocks, who was stated to be out of the kingdom. The gaol expenses for the quarter were as follows:—Subsistence, £135 17s. 5d.; clothing, £65 6s. 5d.; bedding, £5 8s.; coals and fuel, £98; sundries, £142 4s. 1½d.; salaries, £373 0s. 6d., and other items, making a total of £946 8s. 1d.; but from this had to be deducted certain sums received, which reduced the amount to £912 10s. 1d. The Hall expenses for the quarter amounted to £13 14s. 7d., and in the corresponding quarter of last year they were £10 14s. 8d.

COUNTY BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr S. W. Jenkin, the surveyor of bridges in this division, reported that he had no special application to make at this time. The arches and face walls of several bridges required to be pointed and repaired, but as this would be best done later in the summer, he proposed to apply for the necessary grants at the midsummer sessions. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr Hickes, the surveyor of bridges for this division, was sorry to have to report that a portion of the guard wall on the western side of the road at Longbridge, had been by the heavy gales through the winter washed down to the extent of 90 feet, and which he estimated would cost about £14 for rebuilding. The work, however, could not be done till summer, as a large portion of the foundations was covered with water. Since the wall on the western side had been down some evil disposed person or persons had thrown about 50 feet of coping from the wall on the eastern side of the road and also broken down part of the wall, the repairing of which, he estimated, would cost £1 16s. Mr JENKINS stated that at the last sessions he had been requested to watch the interests of the county with respect to the Launceston, Bodmin, and Wadebridge Railway, where they proposed to cross and alter the Tresarrett and Ruthern bridges; he had seen Mr Galbraith, and the company had agreed to comply with the provisions of the act of Parliament, which would remove all objections. Mr HICKES referred to the injury done to the parapet wall at Longbridge, a quantity of the coping of which had been maliciously overthrown. In reply to questions from the bench he stated that he had not on this occasion taken any steps to discover the perpetrators of the offence. He was sorry to say that this wanton mischief had been so common of late, not only in the case of the county bridge, but in respect to the turnpike trusts also. It was suggested that Mr Hickes should be authorised to offer a reward for the discovery of the depredators; but no motion to that effect being proposed, the subject dropped. Mr Jenkins said he had received a letter from Mr Smith, complaining that the wall of bridge had been thrown down, and that if the county would offer a reward he would join in the expense. The Chairman thought the county could not join with a private gentleman in such a matter. The reports were then received and adopted. COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM. Mr POLE CAREW handed in the usual formal reports respecting the state of the Asylum, but they were not read. He moved that they be received and printed, which was agreed to nem. con. Mr CAREW then moved that the notice of motion which he had given, that a sum not exceeding £1,000 for insuring a sufficient water supply to the Asylum, be respited to the next sessions. This motion was also agreed to. Mr CAREW then gave notice that he should move at the next session, that authority be given to the committee of visitors to obtain all necessary parliamentary powers of bringing a supply of water from West Penbeugle to the Asylum. The Rev. J. J. WILKINSON said he thought an offer had been made by a Bodmin Water Company to supply the asylum with water. Mr CAREW said that some intimation of the kind had been given, but nothing tangible. He understood, however, that the matter had been revived, and if so the committee would be most happy to treat with the town. Mr R. G. LAKES said that every obstacle had been thrown in the way of the committee in regard to the amount of compensation asked by the proprietors for bringing the water from Penbeugle Pounds had been asked where pence were sufficient—(hear, hear)—and he trusted that if the Bodmin people came forward they would be able to throw the Penbeugle scheme overboard altogether. The CLERK of the PEACE stated that he had received an offer from a party to lend £1,500, part of the sum required for enlarging the asylum, at 5 per cent. interest, but that morning he received a communication from his agent, stating that the Public Loan Commissioners were prepared to advance the whole sum of £5,000, if the security were shown to be satisfactory. The question, therefore, was whether, under these circumstances, the committee would take the loan of £1,500 at 5 per cent. at once. Lord VIVIAN asked how long the committee thought it would be before they would require the whole sum. Mr CAREW said it would be at least 12 months; but they would require £1,500 between this and Michaelmas. Mr COODE suggested that the Clerk of the Peace should examine the Lunacy Act, and ascertain how far the committee had power to mortgage the county rate for the purposes of the asylum. He apprehended they had no such power. Mr LAKES thought the less money they borrowed the better; he recollected on a previous occasion two men were sent down—one of whom had to sign his name to the deed, and the other to see him sign it, for which he charged eleven guineas—(laughter). This was one of the greatest impositions he had ever seen. The CLERK of the PEACE thought the general county rate could not be mortgaged for the asylum. After some more conversation it was resolved that the sessions should be adjourned till the 18th April for the purpose of making the necessary arrangements for borrowing the money from the Loan Commissioners, when the questions relative to the power of the Court, to borrow on the security of the county rate, could be considered. POLICE REPORT. Mr E. COODE read the report as follows:—At a meeting of the County Police Committee, held at the Chief Constable's Office, the following members were present:— Edward Coode, Chairman. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Sir C. B. G Sawle, Bart., Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, J. T. H. Peter, Esq., D. P. Le Grice, Esq., J. Trevenen, Esq. The expenses of the last quarter were examined and approved, and the vouchers for those of the previous quarter were reported by the Chairman. A police rate of three farthings in the £ is recommended for the present quarter. CALLINGTON.—Tenders for building this station were examined, but none being quite satisfactory to the committee, they decided to invite further tenders against next sessions. TREGONY.—The building of this station is postponed for the present, as it appears to be still an open question where the magistrates of the district will ultimately resolve to hold their petty sessions, and the amount of accommodation required will depend to some extent on their decision on this point. HEAD QUARTER'S STATION.—The tender of Mr Joseph Marshall, of , for the building of this station for £3,139 was accepted (subject to the approval of the Court) on his entering into the proper contract with security to the satisfaction of the county solicitor. ST. CLEER AND MENHENIOT.—The committee regret to report that these stations are in an unsatisfactory state. The walls take wet, which may be partly owing to their very exposed position, and the drainage and ventilation of the prisoner's cells are defective. Mr Goodyear estimates that the evils can be remedied for about £175, and the committee recommended that he be allowed to expend not exceeding that sum, subject to the approval of the Chief Constable. HEAD QUARTER'S STABLES.—The committee recommended the stable yard to be paved, which was not provided for in the contract. Mr Goodyear presented his bill for £79 12s. 11d. since May last for superintending buildings, preparing plans, and travelling expenses, in examining sites, reporting on repairs, which the committee recommended for payment. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—The Chief Constable presented a list of days for stamping and adjusting weights and measures throughout the county, which is attached to this report, and which the committee recommended for adoption. The Chief Constable also recommends that Inspector Marshall be appointed additional inspector of weights and measures for the whole county, so as to be ready to supply the place of any inspector who may be temporarily disabled. No additional expense whatever will be incurred by this appointment. ST. AUSTELL STATION.—The piece of cob wall which was allowed to remain as part of the boundary of this station has fallen down. Mr Goodyear was instructed to arrange for rebuilding it with stone, and at the same time to build up one of the gateways in the front wall, and enlarge another to admit a cart. .—A temporary wooden lock-up is recommended in the building now rented by the county, on condition that it is to be removed when their tenancy ceases. .—A small cooking stove in the sergeants' quarters was ordered. CASE OF MARSHALL v. THOMAS.—Inspector Marshall, as the nominal complainant in this case, in which the conviction of the petty sessions at Callington was quashed on a case sent up to the Queen's Bench, has been threatened by the defendant's attorney, with proceedings for non-payment of costs amounting to £23, under an order of the court. The complaint was for an obstruction to the highway by the district surveyor, and it appears to the committee from what they can learn, to have been a case of gross carelessness and disregard of the safety of the public. Although it is not to be doubted for a moment that the conviction by the magistrates was properly, on technical grounds, reversed by the judges, yet the committee cannot discover that any blame whatever attaches to the county police, or to Inspector Marshall in particular; and the committee feel that under no circumstances should he be allowed to bear the charge. The payment of the money out of the police rate would be, on the other hand, a great hardship on the ratepayers; yet as the chairman of petty sessions at Callington is understood to be abroad, and cannot immediately be communicated with, and as Inspector Marshall is in danger of arrest or distress on his goods, if the money be not immediately paid, the committee are reluctantly compelled to ask for an order on the county treasurer to advance the money (under protest) as the only means of averting a great injustice for the present. An order of committee will be necessary to enable the clerk of the peace to execute the conveyance of the field lately sold, part of the head quarters' site at Bodmin. Signed EDWARD COODE, Chairman. Mr COODE, in answer to a question from Mr Lakes, said the police station at Bodmin would be a large one, as it would be the principal or central office of the county, in which the chief constable and the deputy chief constable would have their offices, in addition to the superintendent's office and the lock-ups. It would cost, as stated, a considerable sum, but as soon as they could get into the station they should save the rent of the present offices (£10 a year) as well as £12 a year for the inspector. Mr LAKES considered it wrong that any officer in the force should be placed in the position that Inspector Marshall had been placed. After a few observations from the Chairman and other magistrates relative to this case, The Hon. and Rev. J. T. BOSCAWEN asked a question relative to a charge made by the clerk to the magistrates of the St. Austell petty sessions on prosecutors for the subsistence of prisoners. Mr E. COODE said he had the bill before him, and the charges were made by the magistrates' clerk, to whom he did not think any blame was attributable, though he must say that he was not before aware that any such charge was ever made on prosecutors. He found that there was one charge of 7s. 6d. and two of 11s. each made on prosecutors for the subsistence of prisoners; but he believed that nothing had been paid to the county treasurer, the clerk was waiting to see how the matter would be decided by the sessions. Mr J. COODE, county treasurer, said that the sums stated had been paid to the Clerk of the Magistrates, and he should have paid it in to the credit of the police, but he had not done so. He understood that gentleman held the account till the matter was brought before the sessions and discussed. Mr E. COODE said the fact was, he believed, the Magistrates' Clerk was aware there was some irregularity about the charge. Mr ROWSE, clerk to the magistrates' clerk, stated that he had made similar charges before, and in every instance the money had been handed over to the county police. The CHIEF CONSTABLE said he had never received any such sums. Lord VIVIAN remarked that these conflicting statements complicated the matter very much, and he moved that the matter be referred to the Police Committee for consideration, and that they report the result to the next sessions. This motion was agreed to, and the report was adopted. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT. The Chief Constable, Colonel Gilbert, laid before the court the quarterly return of crime committed in this county so far as known to the county police; also a return showing the number and distribution of the force. Since the last sessions, the head-quarters' stable has been finished, and is now occupied by the county horses. He had merely to add that the general conduct of the force continued very satisfactory. The report was adopted. MAGISTRATES FOR SECOND COURT. Sir C. B. G. Sawle, Bart., and Mr J. Trevenen were appointed to preside in the second court. PERRANPORTH BRIDGE. The CHAIRMAN said a memorial had been received from the parish of Perranzabuloe, asking the county to erect a new bridge at Perranporth, the old one having been greatly injured by the recent storms. No notice had been given in the agenda paper of the subject, and the Court, therefore, were not in a position to direct anything to be done in the matter. He thought the proper course would be to give notice that the memorial should be considered at the next sessions. Sir C. G. B. SAWLE said the county never took under its care bridges of that kind, unless the inhabitants first erected the bridge, and the surveyor reported that it was in a fit and proper condition, and that the inhabitants made a transfer of it to the county. The consideration of the memorial was accordingly deferred. THE FALMOUTH QUARTER SESSIONS. The CHAIRMAN said it appeared that the borough of Falmouth were very anxious to give up their quarter sessions, and to join with the county. The notice of their intention, however, was issued too late to be included in the agenda paper; but Sir C. Sawle, considering with him that the matter was of considerable importance, suggested that the notice should be inserted in the advertisement in the newspapers, and this was accordingly done. He might state, however, that this step was not resolved on in consequence of the intimation received from the inhabitants of Falmouth, but owing to a communication received from the Home Office. It was proposed to give power to abolish the sessions at Falmouth, and to throw the borough into the jurisdiction of the county for prison purposes, in a general bill now before Parliament. He then read the correspondence which had taken place on the subject, as follows:— Falmouth, 23rd February, 1865. Sir, I have the honour to acquaint you that, for many very cogent reasons, the Town Council of this borough and the burgesses thereof entertain a strong desire that clauses shall be introduced into the Prisons' Bill now before Parliament, for the purpose of abolishing the quarter sessions now held in and for this borough, in order to the same being united to the to the (sic) county for all prison purposes, and it is very earnestly desired that this object shall be attained at the earliest practicable moment. E. W. Cox, Esq., the recorder, fully concurs in the necessity of the suggested measure, and has kindly intimated his intention not to apply for compensation on the abolition of the court over which he presides. I have, &c., WILLIAM CARNE, Mayor. The Right Hon. Sir G. Grey, Bart., M.P. The CHAIRMAN—I understand that Mr Cox has since withdrawn his intimation, and that he does intend to apply for compensation—(laughter). Westbourne-street, 11th March, 1865. Sir,—I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 8th inst., transmitting, by direction of Sir George Grey, for my report theron, a letter from the Mayor of Falmouth, expressing the desire of the council and burgesses of the borough that clauses should be introduced into the Prisons' Bill now before Parliament, for the purpose of abolishing the quarter sessions of the borough, in order to the same being united to the county for all purposes. In reply, I beg to state that I see no objection to complying with the wish expressed by the Mayor, as there appears to be no prospect of bringing about the erection of a sufficient prison for the exclusive use of the borough. I am, &c., JOHN G. PERRY. Whitehall, 15th March, 1865 Sir,—Having laid before Secretary Sir George Grey your letter of the 23rd ult., expressing the desire of the Town Council of Falmouth that the borough should be united to the county of Cornwall for all prison purposes, I am directed to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a report from Mr Perry, inspector of prisons for the Southern district, on the subject, and to acquaint you that if the authorities of the county and borough should concur in the proposed arrangement, Sir George Grey will introduce into a bill, now before Parliament, the accompanying clauses, with a view of effecting the desired object. I am, therefore, to request that you will confer with the Clerk of the Peace of the county, to whom a communication has also been addressed from this department, and report the result to Sir George Grey. I am yours, &c., The Mayor of Falmouth. W. WADDINGTON. Whitehall, 15th March, 1865. Sir,—I am directed by Secretary Sir George Grey to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a letter from the Mayor of Falmouth, expressing the desire of the Town Council of Falmouth that that borough should be united to the county of Cornwall for all prison purposes, together with the copy of a report thereon from the inspector of prisons for the southern district, and the copy of a letter and its enclosure, which has been addressed to the Mayor on the subject; and l am to request that you will lay those papers before the next Court of Quarter Sessions for the county of Cornwall, and report the result to Sir Geo. Grey. I am, your obedient servant, H. WADDINGTON. The Clerk of the Peace for the county of Cornwall. On the 18th March, Mr W. J. Genn, the town clerk of Falmouth, wrote to Mr Stokes to say that an intimation had been received from the Home Office that a copy of some clauses regarding the borough of Falmouth, proposed to be introduced into the Prisons' Bill, had been sent to the Clerk of the Peace for the information of the county justices, to be submitted to them for their concurrence. The bill had, he understood, been referred to a select committee, and it appeared to be necessary that the matter should be attended to without delay. Under these circumstances, he was desired to acquaint you that if the justices should require explanation on any point connected with the clauses in question, he should be happy to attend them on any day of the assizes, if it should be convenient, to supply any information that might be in his power to afford. The CHAIRMAN in continuation, observed that as he understood it, the gaol at Falmouth would be abolished, and all the prisoners for the borough would be sent to the county sessions for trial, and the inhabitants would then be rated for prison purposes the same as the other parts of the county. The area of Falmouth was but very small, only about 40 acres he understood, and the amount that would be obtained from it in the shape of rates would not anything like pay the cost which would be entailed by the prisoners being sent to the county gaol. The number of prisoners committed to the Falmouth borough gaol during the seven years ending Sept., 1864, was as follows :— Summarily Year. For trial. Convicted. Total. 1858 8 115 123 1859 6 71 77 1860 9 57 66 1861 4 109 104 1862 7 59 66 1863 3 83 86 1864 8 77 85 Total for the seven years 607 Some of the prisoners included in the above returns were committed to Bodmin. The Government said to the people of Falmouth "Your gaol is not in a fit state for the reception of prisoners," but the corporation had no money with which to improve it. Truro was admitted into the county under similar circumstances, notwithstanding it was then stated that the expense would be greater than the rate the inhabitants would have to pay. At present, the county magistrates had no power to act in the borough of Falmouth, but by the act before Parliament it was proposed to give the county magistrates concurrent jurisdiction in the borough. It was only fair to state further, that the rateable value of the parish, or county part of Falmouth, through the docks, hotel, &c., had been doubled during the past few years. Mr LAKES questioned, with the present burdens on the county, that they were in a position to undertake any fresh burden. Sir C. B. G. SAWLE said that they had taken Liskeard and other places under similar circumstances. The CHAIRMAN said that being the case he did not see how they could refuse Falmouth. Mr W. GENN, in answer to questions from the Chairman said that the expense of the gaol at Falmouth had been entirely defrayed by rate. The municipality altogether cost somewhere about £900 a year, but that included the cost of police and other expenses. Their position was this. The extent of the borough was about 40 acres, and they held jurisdiction over a large extent of the water. On one side was the parish of Falmouth, the docks, the hotels, &c., and on the other side the parish of Budock; the rateable value of these two parishes had, within the last ten years, doubled, and of course the county got the advantage of that, and the borough of Falmouth the disadvantage. The inhabitants, however, felt that it was not fair that they should have all the disadvantages, and as the county was gaining largely by the increased value of the rateable property in Falmouth and Budock, they thought that in common fairness the county should bear a portion of the burdens. Mr LAKES supposed that at all events the hands of justice would be strengthened, as at present the borough was so poor that they were afraid to prosecute people who did anything wrong—(laughter). Mr LE GRICE asked if the county would have the gaol as a police-station or lock-up, supposing the proposed alteration was carried out? Mr GENN could not say that they would. Mr LE GRICE—What would become of the gaol then? Mr GENN—There was a clause in the bill which provided that the gaol should be disposed of by sale as other similar public buildings were. The CHIEF CONSTABLE said it was very desirable that the gaol should be held by the county, because the present lock-up would not be sufficient. The CHAIRMAN read the clause in the bill, giving the corporation power to sell the gaol, and said he thought a clause ought to be substituted for that to transfer the gaol to the county. Lord VIVIAN moved that the sessions assent to the bill conditionally, that clause four, authorising the Council to sell the gaol, be omitted, and that in lieu thereof a clause be inserted conveying the gaol to the county, to be used as a lock-up; and that a further clause be inserted, bringing the borough under the control of the county constabulary. Mr E. COODE could not assent to the last clause of the motion, because by bringing a populous place, like Falmouth, under the control of the county police, would neceesitate (sic) the employment of two or three additional police constables, and would consequently throw a burden on the county. Mr LE GRICE said that if the motion would increase the expense of the police, he should vote against it. Mr E. COODE would move as an amendment that the court dissent from the proposition. He could see no ground to justify their assent. Lord VIVIAN asked Mr Coode to consider what would be their position supposing the amendment was carried. If the bill should be passed in its present shape after their dissent, they would be in a worse position than if they had assented and got the clause inserted. If they could be sure that by adopting the amendment, the bill would be thrown out, then it might be very well to adopt the amendment, but he thought their merely dissenting would go for nothing, and the bill would, in all probability, be passed in its present shape. If they intended to oppose the bill, it would necessite (sic) the employment of counsel, and they all knew what cost that would entail. Sir C. B. G. SAWLE thought it ought to be explained that the bill in question was not a private one but a public measure. It would not, therefore, be referred to a Select Committee of the Commons or Lords, but to a Committee of the whole House; and it would be the duty of our members to object to the clause, and get it altered. The CHAIRMAN said Lord Vivian was about to alter the last clause in this motion, as the Chief Constable had explained that when any place applied for a number of the county police they would have to pay the expenses; whereas, if they were appointed by the county, without such application, the ratepayers generally would have to pay the expense. Lord Vivian said that having allowed a number of towns to join the county for prison purposes, it would be unfair to Falmouth to refuse the same privilege. If we were to "hang them up” now, they would not again have the chance of joining the county except by a special Act of Parliament. He then altered the last clause of his motion, as follows, "provided that the borough apply to be placed under the control of the County Constabulary." Mr H. WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Mr COODE moved as an amendment, that the Court dissent from the bill, and that the county members be requested to oppose it in Parliament. Mr J. TREVENEN seconded the amendment On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of 1, there being 8 for the amendment and 9 for the motion. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr R. FOSTER gave notice of his intention to apply at the next sessions that a sum not exceeding £100 be granted for the erection of a shed for stone breaking at the gaol. Mr LAKES gave notice that he would move at the next sessions that the subject of separating the office of County Solicitor from that of Clerk of the Peace be considered. This concluded the county business. T R I A L S O F P R I S O N E R S. FELONY AT CALLINGTON. Mary Ann Cradock, a woman about 30 years of age, who had been out on bail, was charged with having stolen, on the 29th March, a piece of alpaca, a piece of ribbon, and two comforters, the property of Wolf Emden, a travelling draper, of Stonehouse, who kept a stall in the Callington market. The missing property was found in the prisoner's possession, by Mrs Harris, wife of Superintendent Harris. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to two months' hard labour. Mr Childs prosecuted, and Mr Jenkins defended the prisoner. STEALING LEAD AT TRURO. William Palmer, aged 18, a domestic servant, and Wm Martin, a stonemason, about the same age, both of Truro, were indicted for having, on the 6th March, stolen about 50 lbs. of lead from a dwelling house in Truro, the property of Lord Falmouth. Martin, who stated before the magistrates that he had been led away by Palmer, and that he should not not (sic) have committed the theft but for Palmer's persuasion, pleaded guilty, and Palmer pleaded not guilty. Mr Marrack appeared for the prosecution. Palmer, who had but recently been discharged from prison, where he had been sent for a petty theft from his employer, was employed by Mrs Gunn at the Tregothnan offices in Truro, to assist the servants with the view of giving him an opportunity of retrieving his character. On the evening in question, however, he was seen by Grace Endeen, one of the servants, on the roof of the washhouse, in company with Martin. The latter was cutting the lead from the roof, and Palmer was holding it. Another servant who was called by Endeen also witnessed the act, but neither of them interfered with the prisoners at the time. Afterwards, however, Endeen mentioned it to Palmer, when he said it was wood which they were cutting. However it was afterwards found that the lead had been taken, and on the 21st March P.C. Gerrish received information of the robbery. Gerrish at once made a search at the marine stores, and at Teague's, in Kenwyn-street, he found 23 lbs. of lead which corresponded with that which had been taken from the house, and on reference to the book, it appeared that this lead had been sold by Palmer on the evening of the 6th March, the day of the robbery. The jury found Palmer guilty, and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labor. The Chairman said there was nothing against Martin's previous character, and he was inclined to believe the statement that he had been led away by Palmer; his sentence would therefore be three months' imprisonment with hard labour. STEALING BOOTS AT PROBUS. Ann Thomas pleaded guilty to stealing a pair of boots, the property of Sarah Passmore, at Probus, on the 24th March. The prisoner asked to be allowed to enter the prosecutrix's house in order to warm her child, and managed to steal the boots before leaving the house. Sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. SECOND COURT. Before Sir C. B. G. SAWLE, Bart., chairman, and Mr J. TREVENEN. BREAKING INTO ST. IVES RAILWAY STATION. Richard Trevarton Edwards, 21, miner, was charged with breaking into the St. Ives station of the West , on the 27th March, with intent to commit a felony. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that the station was locked up in the usual manner about ten o'clock on the night of the 27th March, but a woman who was passing the station at a later hour heard a noise inside, and communicated with the station master, who, on arriving, found the prisoner in the house. The cash drawer was broken open, and a pane of glass was broken from one of the windows, through which the prisoner had apparently entered, blood being found on his hands and on the cash drawer. The prisoner was found guilty, and this being his seventh conviction, he was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. STEALING TIMBER FROM A MINE. John Keverne was charged with having stolen on the 21st and 22nd March, a quantity of timber, the property of John Temby and others, the adventurers in the Rosewarne United Mines, in the parish of Crowan. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution. Timber had been missed from the mine at different times, and with the view of discovering the thief, some timber was marked. On the 21st a portion was missed, and then a watch was set, and the prisoner was seen to carry some away. The policeman on watch followed him, and found a quantity of missing timber at the prisoner’s house. The jury found the prisoner guilty. The prisoner received an excellent character, and he was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour. VAGRANCY. Thomas Hawken, jun., 26, labourer, wand (sic) indicted for unlawfully wandering about in the neighbourhood of St. Blazey, not having any visible means of subsistence. Having been previously convicted as a rogue and a vagabond, he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. BILLS IGNORED. Mary Emma Bescombe, 14, charged with stealing a silver watch and guard, the property of Wm. Ford, at Padstow, on the 31st March. Francis Rowe, 21, charged with unlawfully and maliciously wounding Isaac Blackmore, by stabbing him with a knife at Boscastle, on the 25th March. This concluded the trials of prisoners. APPEAL. EDE v. HAWKER.—This was an appeal against an affiliation order of the justices of the borough of Bodmin. The appellant, Frederick Ede, was a young man, about 20 years of age, living with his uncle, Mr Saunders, of Coldlogged, , near Bodmin, and the respondent, Maria Hawker, a girl of 17 years of age, lived with her mother, at Fletcher's Bridge, near Bodmin. The order of affiliation was made on the 30th (sic) February last. Mr Childs, instructed by Mr Cummins, appeared for the appellant, and Mr Collins for the respondent, who was deaf and dumb as far as understanding or making herself understood to an ordinary person went. Her friends, however, asserted that her affliction had been caused by illness some years ago, and that she could make herself intelligible to them, and could also understand what they said. Her sister was accordingly sworn as interpreter, but the evidence given through her was not satisfactory to the Bench, and the order of affiliation was quashed. This concluded the business of the sessions, and the court rose about 7 o'clock.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette Friday, June 30, 1865

4. Cornwall Midsummer Sessions The General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for this county were commenced at the County Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday morning last, when the following magistrates were present: Sir C. B. G. Sawle, Bart., Chairman. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart, R. G. Lakes, Esq. J. J. Rogers, Esq., M.P. Captain Potter. Hon. Captain Vivian. E. Carus-Wilson, Esq. N. Norway, Esq. Captain Morshead. W. Michell, Esq. Colonel Peard. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. Major Trelawny. John Hichens, Esq. Captain Collins. Edward Coode. Esq., W. Williams, Esq. J. Trevenen, Esq. Rev. J. J. Wilkinson. N. H. H Lawrence, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. Captain Trist. Rev. R. B. Kinsman. Captain Horndon. Rev. A. Tatham. Major Grylls.

The usual formal business having been disposed of, the following were sworn as THE GRAND JURY. J. S. Henwood, Lanivet, Foreman. D. Bradbury. W. Bray, North Tamerton. D. Baily, North Tamerton. N. Boyle, St. Just. W. Ching, Bude. T. Congdon North Tamerton. T. Chappel, St. Buryan. W. Clarke, St. Ewe. T. Dinnis, Week St. Mary. C. Ellis, jun., St. Leven. John Gorle, Ashton. P. Grenfell, St. Just. J. George, jun., Endellion. H. Harvey. J. Hicks, Menheniot. T. Ivey, Poughill. E. Johns. T. Johns, St. Just. J. Lyle, Lancells. J. Lawry, Tregarsick. B. Manuel, Tywardreath. H. Petherick, Bude. The CHAIRMAN charged the grand jury to the following effect. It was utterly impossible to report him fully, as a great portion of his remarks was inaudible to the reporters. He said that it was always a pleasing thing to the gentlemen who presided in that chair to have to congratulate them on behalf of the county on the attendance of a full grand jury at these sessions, especially as at the present season of the year persons in the position of the grand jury had many calls on their time and attention at home. Therefore it was creditable to the county that on this occasion they had attended in such numbers. With respect to the calendar, it was more numerous than at that time twelvemonths. Last year the number for trial was 21, whereas at the present sessions the number was 30; of these, 24 were for felony, and six for misdemeanour. The gentleman who presided at the Midsummer sessions last year congratulated the jury on the fact of crime having decreased in the county; but he could not congratulate them with respect to the diminution in the number of prisoners for trial at these sessions. At the same time it was a matter of congratulation that with the exception of two cases, to which he should hereafter refer more particularly, all the cases in the calendar were mere ordinary charges of stealing without violence, in none of which would any particular question arise, and he thought they would have no difficulty in dealing with them. Now, with regard to the great features of the calendar, they are the same as he had had to remark on before, namely, that all the prisoners were either persons of no education or of a very low one, showing that the criminal population of the county was the most ignorant part of it; and he hoped that the efforts which were now being put forward to educate the lower classes would result in the decrease of crime, and that as instruction was dispersed among them, they should find the number of prisoners for trial in the calendar at these sessions decrease. But there was one fact that was apparent, namely, that since the alteration which had been made in the dietary table at the county gaol, there had been a gradual decrease in the number of commitments, showing that the reduction in the quality of the dietary and in the discipline had had considerable effect in diminishing the number of prisoners committed to the county gaol. Another satisfactory thing connected with the calendar was that none of the prisoners, except one, was under the age of 16 years, and they did hope that those institutions which were now, he was glad to say, becoming general over the country—juvenile reformatories—had had a beneficial effect on juvenile crime in the county. Another fact which was highly creditable to the county was this—they had in this county a large mining population, and that population contrasted most favourably with the populations in other counties as regarded the number of persons committed; and when they contrasted the nature of their offences, the result was most favourable for Cornwall. The two cases to which he had referred were, first, that of John Neal, who was charged with unlawfully and maliciously wounding Elizabeth Varcoe, and the clause under which he presumed the prisoner would be indicted was the 20th section of the Act for offences against the person, which stated that every person unlawfully wounding another, and who tried to inflict personal injury with a weapon, should be subject to indictment for misdemeanour. Now, the facts of the case were somewhat peculiar. It seemed that the prisoner and the prosecutrix were fellow servants in the same house, and on the day in question they were larking together. The prisoner asked her for a towel. She did not comply, and he then took down a gun and said—"If you don't get me a towel, I will shoot you,'' pointing the gun at her. It exploded, inflicting very serious injury. Now, the indictment would contain two counts—one for maliciously wounding, and secondly, for a common assault; and before they could find a bill on the first count, it would be necessary to show that some malicious intention existed on the part of the prisoner. Of course it was wrong and very wicked for any man to take down a loaded gun and point it at another, causing a very serious wound. Fortunately for the prisoner, the prosecutrix recovered from the effects of the injury, and would attend in order that the case might be investigated. On the second count, he believed there could be no doubt that the pointing of a gun at another, although done without any malicious intention, was an assault in law; and if it should appear to them that it was not a malicious act, yet it must be apparent that to point a gun at another was a very reckless and wicked one. They would take the case into their consideration, and if they should be of opinion, on the evidence, that he had some malicious intent in what he did, it would be their duty to find a true bill on the first count. With regard to the second case it was that of John Quentrall, who was charged with feloniously assaulting Josiah Grangey, at the parish of Illogan, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. It appeared that the parties had a slight quarrel, and the prisoner took a pitchfork, inflicting a very serious injury on the prosecutor. Sir Colman Rashleigh had just called his attention to a section of the act which enacted that if the jury were satisfied the stabbing and wounding had not been done wilfully and maliciously, and that the proof of intent failed, still, if there was sufficient evidence of the stabbing, it was open to the jury to convict the prisoner of unlawfully cutting and wounding. The whole of the evidence in this and other cases would be brought before them, and they would find accordingly. It had been usual as these sessions to explain to the grand jury the state of the finances. A rate of three farthings in the pound would be required for general purposes. The rate this time twelvemonths was a halfpenny in the pound, so that the one now to be asked for would be a farthing higher. The police rate granted at these sessions last year was a halfpenny in the pound, and the police rate now to be asked would be of the same amount. He then dismissed the grand jury to their duties. FINANCE COMMITTEE. The CHAIRMAN read the report of this committee as follows:—Members present—Sir Colman Rashleigh, Sir Charles Sawle, Mr Nevill Norway, and Mr Rogers. The committee have the honour to report that they examined the coroners' accounts, and the accounts of the surveyors of bridges for the past quarter, and recommend them severally for payment. They also recommend payment of the following bills which have been examined by the committee, viz.:—

For registration of county voters under old act £39 5 8 Same under act of 1865 17 10 10 56 16 6 West Briton advertising same 2 5 0 Mr Stokes, Clerk of the Peace, for cost of ) removing county records from St. Austell ) 10 0 0 to Bodmin ) They have also examined the tenders for printing the list of county voters for three years, and recommend the acceptance of the tender of Mr John Gill of Penryn, for £35 17s. per annum. The committee have further examined the charges for fitting up the new record office at Bodmin, rendered necessary by the appointment of Mr Stokes as clerk of the peace, and after an inspection by them of the premises, they recommend that £100 be allowed by the county towards the expense of fitting up the office, and that one half of the rent of the premises be in future allowed by the county from the date of their occupation. The committee examined the treasurer’s accounts, and found the balance in his hands to the credit of the county to be:— On the general account £2,636 5 11½ Police account 1,781 17 1½ Ditto superannuation 171 0 0 Ditto building account 2,995 10 9 £7,584 12 10 The report was passed and the accounts allowed, excepting £100 recommended for the fitting up of the new record office, and of the allowance for rent respectively, of which it was necessary to give notice, and it was accordingly postponed till next sessions. A rate of ¾d. in the £ for general purposes, amounting to £2,830 17s 1d ; and of ¾d in the £ for police purposes, amounting to £2,620 7s, were ordered to be made. CORONER’S BILLS. The following were the coroners' bills for the quarter: No. of inquests No. of corresponding Amount inquests Amount Coroners qr. 1864 £ s. d. past year. £ s. d. Mr. Carlyon 30 104 5 4 21 92 9 10 Mr. Hamley 14 50 15 10 24 80 13 10 Mr. Roscorla 26 83 3 9 18 77 12 3 Mr. Good 14 14 16 6 9 39 11 6 Mr. Jago 26 66 19 3 15 49 3 3 110 £360 0 8 87 £339 10 8

The Chairman said this showed a considerable diminution on the expenses of the past quarter compared with the corresponding one of 1864, and the amount was also less than 1863, when the number of inquests was 94, and the amount charged £351 1s. 3d. COUNTY GAOL. VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The CHAIRMAN read this report:—The Visiting Committee have to report very favourably of the state of the gaol and house of correction, and that the buildings are in a good state of repair. In accordance with the order of last sessions, the committee have selected James Arnold (late sergeant, 73rd Regt. Foot), out of eighteen candidates, as a proper person to fill the office of assistant warden at a salary of 15s. per week. The clerk having applied for an increase to his present salary of £60 per annum, the committee, considering that he has discharged the duties of his office for two years satisfactorily, and that his salary is insufficient, beg to recommend that an addition of £10 per annum be given him. The engineer (Angwin) having filled his situation for five years to the entire satisfaction of the committee, they, in order to retain his services, recommend that his salary be raised from £1 per week, to £1 4s. The committee have to report that the water-course which supplies the prison has been polluted by cattle grazing in fields through which the water passes, before it enters the county reservoir; and it has been quite unfit for use for more than a week past. The same injury to the water having been caused last year by similar means, the committee deem it right to call the attention of the Court of Quarter Sessions to the matter, with a view to some steps being taken to permanently prevent a recurrence of such a nuisance. The sum of £220 will be required for the expenses of the gaol during the ensuing quarter.—Signed, C RASHLEIGH, C. B. GRAVES SAWLE, and NEVILL NORWAY. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH drew the attention of the Court to the filthy state of the water at the county gaol. He had had an opportunity of inspecting it on Saturday, and it was totally unfit to drink, or indeed to be used for any domestic purpose, being rendered foul by the deposit from cows, which were allowed to enter the leat by the tenants of fields higher up the stream than the gaol. Last year the same complaint had to be made, and the matter was remedied by the tenants of the fields in question. They had a letter from one of them on this occasion, to say that no permanent remedy could be had without erecting a fence to the leat. He (Sir Colman) thought it was the duty of the party creating the nuisance to erect the fence. He (Sir Colman) suggested that the nuisance officer of the corporation of Bodmin be required to put a stop to the nuisance, and that the Court should give the committee power to take the necessary steps, if the nuisance were not abated. It was intimated that the corporation officer had already taken the matter in hand, and the matter was allowed to drop. The report was then agreed to. The RECORD OFFICE.—Mr J. J. Rogers. M. P., gave notice, on behalf of Mr Foster, of that gentleman's intention to move, at the Michaelmas sessions, for a grant of £100 for the purpose of putting up the new record office, and that £12 a year be paid annually towards the rent. GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—Captain Colville, governor of the county gaol, presented the following report:—"Having now completed my fifth year as governor of the county prison, I am glad to be able to repeat in this report the favourable opinions formed at the commencement of my duties at the Midsummer sessions, 1860, of the new gaol and its interior arrangements in the different departments. The stability of the works has now been well tested; and the annual reports published by her Majesty's inspectors of prisons, testify to the efficiency of the arrangements of the several wards, &c. I would, however, beg to call attention to the injury done by cattle to the water, on which the whole establishment (both officers and prisoners) depends for all purposes; and which requires some immediate steps to be taken to remedy, and so prevent more serious evils arising from the continual pollution of the stream. The conduct of the prisoners generally, since the date of my last report, has been good and orderly. The usual certificates required of me, I have the honor to annex." The certificates stated that the rules and regulations had been carried out and that the buildings were in good repair. GAOL EXPENSES.—The CHAIRMAN read an abstract of the expenses of the county gaol, from which it appeared that the gross total expenses for the past quarter amounted to £791 13s. 5d., against £770 14s. 9d. in the corresponding quarter of last year, showing an increase of about £20. There remained, however, to be deducted from the account, the sum of £125 12s. 7d., receipts for junk made into oakum by the prisoners. This left the net expenses, £666 0s. 10d. HALL EXPENSES.—The Chairman stated that the expenses of the county hall for the past year, amounted to £8 19s. 7d., against £4 11s. this time last year. THE NEW STONE BEEAKING SHED AT THE GAOL.—Sir C. RASHLEIGH, on behalf of Mr R. Foster, moved that the notice given by that gentleman to apply for £100 for the erection of a stone-breaking shed at the gaol, be respited till next sessions. There was a new Act of Parliament which might materially affect the question, and it was desirable to see its operation before proceeding further.— Agreed to. The reports on the COUNTY BRIDGES were next read and agreed to. THE LUNATIC ASYLUM. Mr NEVILL NORWAY moved, in the absence of Mr Pole Carew, that the notice of motion given by that gentleman for a further sum of £1,000 for raising a sufficient water supply to and for the asylum, be respited till next sessions. Agreed to. Mr R. G. LAKES moved that the notice of motion for authority to obtain an Act of Parliament to bring in water from Renbeagle to the Lunatic Asylum, be respited till next sessions. His name had been appended to the notice in mistake for that of Mr Pole Carew, and therefore he moved for this respite, though he must say he differed from the committee on the matter, and hoped that they would re- consider the question with a view to coming to an arrangement with the Bodmin Water Company, which he believed there would be no lack of money to carry out. Mr NEVILL NORWAY did not think that Mr Lakes' motion would suit the committee, who wished to have powers conferred upon them at the present sessions, to go to Parliament, if necessary; for if the question was adjourned till next sessions, a whole year would be lost. The committee were quite willing to treat with the Bodmin Water Company, though he (Mr Nevill Norway) did not see much prospect of the company being carried out. However, they could still withdraw from Parliament if any favourable arrangement could be come to. Mr Norway took the opportunity of reverting to a sweeping statement made by Mr Lakes at the last sessions, that the land-owners were taking advantage of the committee, and demanding pounds where pence were sufficient. Now, though that was the case with respect to some landowners, he felt bound to say that Mr Robartes, Colonel Gilbert, Captain Edyvean, and others, had met the committee in the most handsome and liberal manner; and they therefore felt somewhat aggrieved at the general nature of the remark made by Mr Lakes. Sums amounting to nearly £800 had been demanded by the committee, and he thought they could obtain an Act and compensate the parties interested at less cost. After some further discussion, Mr LAKES agreed to move for powers to go to Parliament for an act, in accordance with the terms of Mr Pole Carew's motion. It was seconded by Mr NEVILL NORWAY, and agreed to with only one dissentient, Mr E. Coode, who considered that the county were going to all the expense and that the subscribers were not paying their fair share. Mr E. COLLINS complained that the proceedings at private meetings of the asylum committee had been made public and had been commented upon in the press. He considered that the communication of such matters out of the committee was very improper and a breach of privilege. He, however, entirely exonerated the officers of the asylum from the charge. In conclusion, he stated that he did not intend to serve any longer upon the committee. Mr NEVILL NORWAY gave notice that he should move at the next sessions that the question of the proper proportion to be paid in aid of repairs, &c., by the county and by the subscription account, on behalf of the Lunatic Asylum, be brought before the Court, with the view of effecting a rearrangement. POLICE REPORT. Mr COODE read the report of the Police Committee as follows :— "Monday, June 26, 1865. The county police committee held a meeting at the Chief Constable's office; present—Edward Coode (chairman), Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Sir C. B. Graves Sawle, Bart., J. T. H. Peter, Esq., J. J. Rogers, Esq., M.P.. T.J. Trevenen, Esq., W. Potter, Esq., Revds. A. Tatham and R. B. Kinsman. The expenses incurred during the last quarter were examined and approved, and the vouchers for the present quarter reported by the Chairman to be correct. A police rate of three farthings in the pound is recommended for the present quarter. BUILDING FUND.—The balance in hand on this fund is £2,995 10s. 9d., a sum which will not be sufficient to meet the expenses of the police stations now in progress, or about to be commenced. It will, therefore, be necessary for the court to consider whether the remaining stations required shall be provided for by another loan, or by payment out of the current rates. The instalments on the present loan amount to £500 per year, and the interest will exceed £400; this last amount, of course, progressively diminishing every year. Two questions were referred to the police committee at the last sessions, and have been fully considered by them. 1st, as to the practicability of inserting a notice in the agenda paper of the amount of police rates to be asked for at such sessions. 2nd, as to the alleged payment to the magistrates' clerk at St. Austell, of certain fees for sustenance of prisoners and keeping in custody, by Mr Tremayne as prosecutor in a case of night poaching, and whether the same were paid over to the superintendent of police. As to question first, the committee report that the question has already been discussed by them on a former reference, and they feel the same difficulties as they did on that occasion, viz.: that to accomplish this object, a meeting would be necessary some three weeks before each sessions, which would in all probability be but thinly attended. That it would be impossible at such a meeting to examine and approve the quarter's expenses, which would not be in a complete state. And that without such an examination of the quarter’s expenses, it would be impossible to arrive at anything more than a conjecture as to the amount of rate required. As to the second question, the committee find that the statement made at the last sessions that the said fees had been paid by the prosecutor to the magistrates' clerk was an error, acknowledged to be such by the prosecutor's solicitor. It seems, however, to have been the practice at St. Austell (and probably in other divisions), to charge the said fees to prosecutors, on the ground that they appear to be authorized by the recognized table of fees. This certainly should not be the case, as in all cases where they are not paid by the defendant, a charge is made by the chief constable on the county rate. The mistake has been caused by the particular items not being set out in full in the returns made to the chief constable, so that he may doubtless have received unawares on account of the police, money erroneously charged to prosecutors under the above heads. No blame whatever is attributable to the magistrates' clerk in the present case, who doubtless conceived himself to be acting up to the letter of his instructions, nor on the other hand to the chief constable, who could not have been aware that the police fund was receiving money erroneously charged. No private individual has profitted (sic) by the mistake, but the money has gone to the police rate. It is, however, a practice that ought immediately to be remedied, and the committee have suggested to the chief constable measures which they trust will prevent any recurrence of it. CALLINGTON STATION.—The tender by Messrs. Harvey for £1,344 is recommended for acceptance, on their entering into the usual contract with proper security. ST. ALLEN AND MENHENIOT.—The means proposed by Mr Goodyear to remedy the damp and bad drainage of these stations are being proceeded with, and are likely to effect the object. HEAD QUARTERS STATION.—The paving of the yard has been completed. ST. AUSTELL STATION.—The cob-wall which fell down has been replaced by a stone wall for the sum allowed by the last sessions. LOSTWITHIEL.—A temporary wooden lock-up has been provided on the terms suggested at that sessions. REDRUTH.—There seems to be a prospect very soon of obtaining a site for a station at this place on reasonable terms, which is very much wanted. THE AGRICULTURAL MEETING AT DEVONPORT.—An application has been made by the Mayor of Devonport to be allowed the services of 30 of our county police for a few days for the above- mentioned meeting. Subject to the approval of the Court, the committee think the application might be granted, but that a sufficient sum should be paid to the police fund to give the men their full allowances for special duty, and also to cover their pay during the time they are so employed.— EDWARD COODE, Chairman. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said that although his name was attached to the report, yet he was only present a very few moments at the meeting of the police committee yesterday, and had not an opportunity of considering the report, and he should like to know what evidence had been produced before the committee to justify them that it had been the practice at St. Austell, and probably in other divisions, to charge the fees for the maintenance of prisoners to prosecutors. He had had a list of the fees charged at the various divisions before him, and he could only find that in one instance had such a charge been made, namely, at St. Austell. Mr COODE replied that it was admitted by the magistrates' clerk that a charge had been made for the maintenance of prisoners, and he stated that he thought he was justified in doing so by the table of fees. He did not mean to say that there was any direct evidence of such a charge having been made by magistrates' clerks in other parts of the county; but it seemed to be the opinion of the committee that if the cases of other magistrates' clerks were investigated, it would he found that some of them had made similar charges. He could bear testimony to the fact that the clerk at St. Austell had thought the charge was right and proper under the table of fees, and it seemed probable that as one had done it under such circumstances, others might have fallen into the same mistake. Mr LAKES said that when the account was made out, Mr Rowse handed the statement to him and asked him if it was right, and he replied that it was. These fees were paid over doubtless in a lump to the Chief Constable, who was not consequently aware that the amount included sustenance money. That gentleman had stated that on no occasion had he received any money for the maintenance of a prisoner before his committal, and this had alarmed Mr Rowse, whom he believed to be as respectable a man in his position as there was in the county. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said he was authorized to state that on no occasion had the Chief Constable received any money for the maintenance of a prisoner except in the case referred to at St. Austell. With respect to the application for the 30 policemen for the Agricultural Meeting at Devonport, it would seem an illiberal thing to refuse them, or that they should demand five shillings a day for each man if they consented to send them. Mr COODE explained that the committee wished the Chief Constable to make a calculation as to what would be the expense of 30 men when engaged on extra duty in order to be a guide to them as to the sum that ought to be asked. They only wished the expense of the men to be paid while on duty out of the county, and not to make any profit from their services on the occasion. Mr EDWARD COLLINS considered that there was no evidence to justify the words in the report— "probably in other divisions,'' and he moved that they be struck out. The Hon. Capt. VIVIAN was of opinion that it was undesirable to adopt in any report language of this kind on mere surmise. It they possessed direct evidence on the point, let them by all means state the fact, but if it was a mere surmise, then he thought the words ought not to be retained. He seconded the motion of Mr Collins. Mr COODE said he had no objection to the words being expunged, but at the same time if he were called upon to state what was his own relief with reference to this matter, he should say that he had no doubt whatever in his own mind that it had been the practice at other petty sessions to charge prosecutors with maintenance of prisoners before commitment. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH agreed with Capt. Vivian, that no statement like that referred to should be made on mere surmise. It was stated that it had occurred twice at St. Austell, but the chief constable had gone carefully through the book, containing the list of the fees received on account of the police, and he was only able to find one case in which such a charge had been made. On the question whether the words referred to should stand part of the report, being put, there were 9 in favour of their being retained, and 11 against. They were consequently struck out. The CHAIRMAN said that the next matter in the report that required consideration was the statement that the balance in hand on the police building fund was £2995 10s 9d, which the committee stated was not sufficient to meet the current expenses of the police stations now in progress or about to be commenced; and that it would be necessary to consider whether the remaining stations required should be provided for by another loan, or by payment out of the current rates. Mr J. T. H. PETER said that it appeared to him the mode adopted to meet the requirements of the Act of Parliament, of borrowing money, was injuriously operating on the present generation; and the question was whether they ought not to request their members to move in parliament for a modification of the existing law on the subject of these police stations, so as to allow of their being erected in the same manner as was done in Ireland, and also in Wiltshire. He had it on good authority that in Ireland, a country which was far more disturbed than England, adequate buildings for the police were erected at much less expense than here, and also in Wiltshire; and he thought that some steps should be taken by their members to obtain the authority of parliament for the erection of such police buildings as were there sanctioned. In answer to Sit Colman Rashleigh, Mr COODE said that in his opinion if they had progressed with the work of erecting these police stations by means of the rates without loans, there was no doubt that they should have done so more slowly than at present; but still sufficiently fast to satisfy the Government Inspector of prisoners. He found that the county was now paying in instalments of loans and interest for these stations £900 a year. The amount had been larger than this, because as the instalments were paid the amount of interest decreased. The average amount which they had paid for the years 1862, 1863, and 1864 was £1694 per annum, and they were now taxing the ratepayers to the extent of £900 a-year, for the payment of instalments and interest of the money that had been borrowed on account of these erections. If they had set aside a sum of £1,000 a year out of the rates as a building fund, they would have acted, in his judgment, more wisely, as they should have saved the £400 a year which they now paid for interest. The question was whether they should continue the present system, and rest on the rates which might be raised, instead of borrowing the money required. The CHAIRMAN said that it appeared they were saddling the county for generations with a heavy debt on account of these buildings, what with the payment of the instalments of the principal and the interest. It had, therefore, become a question of serious importance whether they ought not to adopt some other mode of raising the money that might be required, and he thought it would be well for some gentleman to move that the question of borrowing a further sum of money for these Police buildings should be referred to the finance and police committees, for their consideration. Mr ROGERS suggested that the Police Committee should be invited to meet the Finance Committee and discuss the subject at the intermediate meeting of the latter, after the October Sessions, so that they might lay the information obtained before the Epiphany Sessions. It was then arranged that the two committees should be called together on the same day at Mr John Coode's office, at , in order that they might consider the subject, after which the report was adopted. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT. Colonel Gilbert, Chief Constable of the county police, reported:—In conformity with the 2nd and 3rd Victoria, cap. 93, sec. 17, I have the honour to lay before you the quarterly 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. An application having been made to me by the Mayor of Devonport, asking for the services of 30 of the police of this county during the visit of the Agricultural Society next month, I went to Devonport and saw the Mayor on the subject. After discussing the matter fully with him, I told him I thought this county would assist him, provided the customary expenses were paid, which I told him would amount to 5s. per man per diem. This he is willing to pay, and this sum would more than cover the extra expense to which the men would be put. VISITING JUSTICES. On the motion of Sir C. Rashleigh, seconded by Mr Nevill Norway, the visiting justices to the county gaol were re-appointed. CALLINGTON POLICE STATION. Major Trelawny gave notice that he should move, at the next sessions, that a magistrates' room be built at Callington in connection with the new police station. MAGISTRATES FOR THE SECOND COURT. At this stage of the proceedings, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Colonel Peard, and Mr Trevenen, were appointed to preside in the second court. THE FISHERIES OF CORNWALL. The Chairman read a letter from Mr T. G. Bating, Under Secretary to Sir G. Grey, enclosing the report of Mr Ffennell, the Government Inspector of Fisheries, as to the effect of the close and open times fixed by the Act 24th and 25th Vict. cap. 109, with regard to the capture of salmon in the fisheries of Cornwall. He referred to the law fixing the close and open season, and to the power given by the 18th section of the Act to the Home Office, upon the application of the Justices at Quarter Sessions assembled, "to extend or vary the time during which it is permitted to take salmon." He next referred to the discontent of the fishermen of Cornwall, with the restrictions to discontinue fishing on the 1st of September, and the application that was made by the magistrates to the Home Office on a former occasion to extend the fishing season beyond that time, which led to the inquiry held by Mr Eden in Cornwall, and his recommendation that the time should not be extended. He then called attention to the evidence taken by the Royal Commission in Cornwall in 1860, on the subject of the condition of the salmon fisheries of Cornwall, and the state in which they are now found by the evidence which he had obtained during his inquiry in January last, (which was fully reported in this paper at the time) stating, that "it was quite clear from the evidence given in the former inquiry" that the is hopelessly poisoned at present, and has been for several years, perhaps for the last twenty, and that, what few fish that may be captured outside the harbour are bred somewhere else; that the number has been greatly diminished, and that no close season has been observed till recently. The witnesses of the better class (he observed) who appeared before the commission in 1860, all recognized the expediency of an earlier closing of the fishing season; and the lower class of fishers, to a man almost, advocated fishing at all times when a fish was to be found in the river. Pretty nearly the same state of things exists at present. The river Fowey is totally destroyed by mines; there are no fish to be found in it now. Some fish in other streams not polluted, pass outside the harbour's mouth, and in December and January, are coasting about in the vicinity of these streams, or it may be that they belong to some of the South Devon rivers. There are men at Polruan , who take sea fish of different kinds, and having boats and gear, are naturally anxious to take salmon also. Those men proposed to me that if they were allowed to fish during December and January for salmon, that they would give up their seans to the police to be kept by them for the whole of the other part of the season, as a security that they would not fish. The Camel is not poisoned. The waters from a mine which entered that river lower down some few years since, are not now injurious, as the mine is not working. The fish have been protected to a very considerable extent, and have greatly increased within the last two years. As the increase becomes manifest, the fishers become impatient of restraint, and wish to return to their old habits. Some of these men are located on the tidal waters; others above. The latter have been the most destructive. They pursued the fish throughout the winter with the torch and spear upon the spawning beds, and do so still when they can evade the vigilance of the police, who have rendered most valuable assistance in the suppression of this evil practice. These people asked to be allowed to fish up to Christmas, and many of them think they propose to make a great sacrifice by not demanding to be allowed to continue through January. Many of the upper classes not going so far, propose that the fishing season should be extended to the 1st of December. It is supposed by some that this indulgence would put an end to poaching; but others hold a very different opinion, and I fear that the 'salmon hunters,' as those who work with the torch and spear are called, would not be very scrupulous about the matter, and would be very reluctant to abandon the chase on the spawning beds during December and January. “There is nothing peculiar in the habits of the salmon in the Camel or other streams in Cornwall. The spawning season is the same as in all other rivers. The time of entering the Camel is the same as in other rivers of similar size. The peel, as they call the sea trout, begins to come up in June. The salmon is a little later. A few of these summer fish only make their appearance at present because the early spawning fish have for many years been killed. If closing early be observed for a while, there will be a proportionate increase of fish in June and July; and this has already been evinced in the market at Bodmin, after two years only of partial protection; for the law was not enforced in Cornwall for a year or more after the Act of 1861 passed, and even then to a very limited extent; so that the Act has not yet had a fair trial. "Fish will never enter the Camel in February, as in larger rivers, where they have sufficient 'holding water' in summer, such is the wonderful law of instinct which cautions them not to try a summer abode where they could not obtain shelter from the sun or concealment 'from numerous enemies;' and although such small rivers are called ‘late' in regard to the commencement of fishing, and a claim often made, that the fishing season should be extended as a compensation, all practical men divested of selfish or interested motives agree that under such circumstances, the short fishing season is quite as exhaustive of the stock which should be reserved for brood as the longer one in a large river; for the fish are confined within a narrower space, rendering the power of capture more facile, and they come in together in more accumulated quantity. "Throughout Ireland there is a great variety of rivers, some of them varying quite as much as does the Camel from the larger rivers of England, with regard to the time when the fish enter them, and there, in a few rivers, the open season has been extended from the 1st of September to the 15th, and in one solitary instance to the 28th. In Scotland, by a late arrangement, under a special commission the 10th of September is the latest day allowed for small rivers. It is urged that in Cornwall the fish are in good condition up to Christmas. This is not the case. Heretofore they have been sent to London, no doubt, in the winter months, and obtained, I believe, a fair price; but their final destiny was Paris, where salmon of any description has been saleable. "To show the rule by which the quality of the fish is judged in Cornwall, I beg to refer to the extract from Mr Francis John Hext's evidence which I have before quoted. He says:—"We draw the line between a fish that is working, and a fish that has not commenced. Our rule is that a fish is good that has not commenced spawning. In conclusion, Mr Ffennell states:—"I do not think that the fishing season should under any circumstances be extended beyond the 10th or 15th September, being the limits fixed in Scotland and Ireland with the exception of one very small river in Ireland allowed to fish to the 28th September. This river is the sole property of Lord Downshire, and the extention (sic) was pressed upon the commissioners in Ireland principally upon this ground, and I believe it was not expedient to do so. The short fishing season in several of the small rivers of South Devon has been productive of much good, and is now acknowledged to be right in principle; and many who were at first opposed to the rule, now highly approve of it. There is no reason, in my mind, why Cornwall should be excepted, and I recommend that no change should be made at present. The fish have already increased very considerably in the Camel, and if protection be rendered to them in the spawning season, they will continue to multiply, and will be found, if properly sought for, in the summer months in high condition by fishing further out in the tidal waters than has heretofore been the practice. But if fishing be permitted in the narrow tidal channel, and upon the spawning beds during October, Nov., and Dec, it is impossible that a sufficient stock of brood can be maintained; and the Cornwall salmon fisheries must remain the very worthless thing which they have so long been. I should be disposed to recommend an addition of 10 or 15 days in September, as is done in similar rivers in Ireland and Scotland, were it not that I believe the indulgence would be quite despised by the fishermen in Cornwall, who ask to be allowed to fish throughout November at least. Therefore I think it more expedient to give the early closing principle, now so universally recognized as the right one, a full and fair trial." THE COUNTY SOLICITORSHIP. Mr LAKES said it would be remembered that at the last session Lord Vivian stated that, the two offices of Clerk of the Peace, and that of the county solicitor, were separate and distinct offices, but that he thought they ought to be held by the same person. He (Mr Lakes) had given notice that he should bring the matter before the court, in order to give it an opportunity of deciding whether the offices should be held by separate persons or both be held by the Clerk of the Peace. He had no feeling on the matter himself, and left it entirely in the hands of the court. Mr E. COLLINS thought the Clerk of the Peace, holding as he did the county documents, being acquainted with the county business and always on the spot, was the most suitable person to hold the office of county solicitor. Capt. VIVIAN read a letter from Lady Vivian, on behalf of Lord Vivian, who was prevented from attending the court by indisposition, stating that, on the ground of economy, and also as a matter of justice to Mr Stokes who had been given to understand by Lord Vivian when he accepted the office and agreed to come to Bodmin to reside, that the county solicitorship went with the clerkship of the peace. Mr E. COLLINS moved that the clerkship of the peace and the county solicitorship be held by the same person, and Capt. VIVIAN seconded the motion. Mr E. COODE could not understand how there could be any economy in having the two offices held by the same person, inasmuch as the work done as county solicitor was charged for separately; and he thought the fact of the Clerk of the Peace being trustee for the county, and having his name inserted in all trust deeds, was one of the strongest reasons against the amalgamation of the offices. Of course it would be useless to make a motion on the matter in opposition to the feeling of the court, but he could not help saying that the offices had always hitherto been separate, that Mr Shilson had transacted duties of county solicitor for many years to the satisfaction of the court, and it seemed somewhat of a slur upon him now to take the appointment from him. Sir C. RASHLEIGH said Mr Shilson had admitted at the last session that he had never had a regular appointment to the office by the court. But he (Sir Colman) wished to approach the consideration of the matter not as personal between Mr Stokes and Mr Shilson, but as a matter of principle. He thought it would be decidedly more economical to have one lawyer than two, and much more beneficial to the county always to have their solicitor on the spot at Bodmin. For Mr Shilson personally he had the highest respect, and must acknowledge the great ability with which he had performed his duties whilst connected with the county. Mr J. ROGERS, M.P., said he could not give a silent vote on the matter. He thought it was greatly to the advantage of the county to have the offices of the county clerk and county solicitor connected; and he thought it was not quite clear that they had hitherto been separate, as Mr Shilson and the late Mr Coode were partners. With regard to the objection made by Mr Coode, with respect to the Clerk of the Peace being trustee for the county, it was one of the commonest things in the world for a solicitor, when appointed as trustee, to have a clause inserted in the trust enabling him to make the full professional charge for work committed to the trust. He could not, however, forbear mentioning the great appreciation he had of the services of Mr Shilson in his connection with the county as deputy Clerk of the Peace, and he regretted extremely that circumstances over which the court had no control had severed their connection in an official capacity. However, he believed the present arrangement an economical one, and thought the county were indebted to the noble Lord Lieutenant for the appointment he had made. Mr SHILSON having obtained permission to say a few words, stated that it would be in the recollection of the Court, that when asked a question on this matter at the last sessions, he stated that it was not his intention to moot the question at all; and as soon as the notice of motion was given by Mr Lakes he requested that gentleman to withdraw it. He (Mr Shilson) therefore begged to disclaim any connection whatever with the question before the court. He, however, begged to thank the court for the very flattering manner in which his name had been mentioned. Mr LAKES said he had no personal object in the matter one way or other, but merely brought it forward to give the court an opportunity of arriving at a decision. The CHAIRMAN also expressed his high appreciation of the services of Mr Shilson, and his approval of the appointment made by the Lord Lieutenant, the sole object of which was, he believed, the benefit of the county. The motion was then put and carried unanimously. Mr STOKES warmly thanked the court and the Lord Lieutenant for the confidence placed in him. With regard to Mr Shilson, he must say that he had experienced nothing but the greatest friendship from him ever since he had known him, and since he (Mr Stokes) had undertaken the office of Clerk of the Peace he had received every possible assistance from Mr Shilson and his clerks. Sir C. RASHLEIGH said that now the Clerk of the Peace had been appointed, it became the duty of the Court to consider the mode of payment—whether by fees, as hitherto, or by fixed salary. He therefore begged to move that a committee be appointed to consider and report to the next sessions as to whether it is desirable to pay the Clerk of the Peace by salary or by fees. If by salary, to recommend the amount at which such salary should be fixed; to draw up a scale of fees for the Clerk of the Peace's guidance. That the committee ascertain the amount of fees received annually by the Clerk of the Peace during the last ten years, and the amount paid to him annually as law costs for work considered extra to his office as Clerk of the Peace. Subsequently, the Chairman read two resolutions to the same effect, which had been passed by the boards of guardians of the Bodmin and St. Austell Unions, copies of which had been sent to him, declaring that the demands upon them for police and county rates were by no means justified, and that the justices be appealed to to secure economy in the expenditure, especially in the county buildings. No discussion ensued on the subject of the resolutions. Mr Northmore Herle Pierce Lawrence, of Launceston, qualified as a magistrate of the county This concluded the county business, and the Court proceeded with THE TRIALS OF PRISONERS. FIRST COURT.—TUESDAY. Before Sir C. B. G. Sawle, Bart. WOOL STEALING AT CALSTOCK. George Verco Hoyte, aged 51, labourer, was charged with stealing a sack and four fleeces of wool, the property of Harry Reginald Trelawny, at the parish of Calstock, on or about the 12th of June inst. Mr Childs prosecuted. Guilty; six months' hard labour. Elizabeth Smith, alias Lane, was acquitted on a charge of stealing, at St. Austell, on the 17th of June, a pair of boots, a cotton shirt, a scarf, and 7s. 6d. in money, belonging to James Smith. SHOP ROBBERY AT REDRUTH. Amelia Gribble, who had been admitted to bail, was indicted, first, for stealing a piece of calico, the property of Mr Robert Williamson, draper, on the 4th or 5th of May, at Redruth. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and she was sentenced to two month's hard labour. A LUNATIC PRISONER. John Rowe, aged 51, blacksmith, was charged with stealing goslings, the property of John Merrifield, in the parish of Luxulyan, and of Philip Hore, in the parish of St. Austell, on the 20th May. Mr D. H. Shilson prosecuted. The prisoner when placed in the dock, was handcuffed, and it was evident that he was of unsound mind. The question was whether he was in a fit state of mind to plead to the indictment. Mr J. Ward, the medical officer of the county gaol, and Capt. Colville, the governor of the gaol, considered the prisoner to be of unsound mind, and altogether incapable of pleading to an indictment. The jury found accordingly, and the Chairman directed the prisoner to be detained in custody during her Majesty's pleasure. APPEALS. Charles Williams, v. the Local Board of Health of the District of the Parish of Madron.—Appeal against the district rate made on the 31st October, 1864. Small v. the Same.—Appeal against the Highway rate, made on the 26th November, 1864. The question in these two appeals is as to the boundaries of the parish, and there are cross appeals at the Quarter Sessions at Penzance. It had been agreed to state a special case for the opinion of counsel, and papers are now before Mr Cornish, for the purpose of preparing it. That gentleman now moved that the appeals be respited till next sessions, to afford time for the opinion to be obtained; and Mr H. D. Shilson for the respondents, consenting, the appeals were accordingly adjourned. SECOND COURT.—TUESDAY. Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Colonel Peard, and J. Trevenen, Esq. STEALING WEARING APPAREL AT REDRUTH. Sarah Carne, 23, charwoman, was charged with stealing one flannel petticoat, a cloth jacket, a hair net, and a stays body, the property of John Laity, at Redruth, on the 31st May. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that the prosecutor, a miner, who lived alone in a little cottage, met the woman in the street, and though a perfect stranger to him he invited her home, according to his evidence, to keep house for him, but, by the prisoners account, to live with him. On the third day she left taking with her the articles named, which she stated the prosecutor had given her. The jury were locked up three or four hours on this knotty point, and at length acquitted the prisoner. STEALING MONEY AT . Selina Strike, 15, servant, was charged with stealing £29 17s 3d, the property of her master, John Littleton, farmer of St. Stephens, by Saltash, between the 3rd March and 22nd April last; and Grace Runnalls was charged with receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen. Mr Bryan, of Plymouth, appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that the prosecutor kept his money in a drawer in his bedroom The case was clearly proved. Runnalls was sentenced to 15 months hard labour. Strike was sentenced to six months' hard labour. STEALING MINERS' CLOTHING. Thomas Harris, 22, labourer, was charged with stealing a flannel shirt, the property of John Thomas, and a calico shirt, the property of Richard Tippett, on the 8th June. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecutors. The prosecutors were miners working at North Downs mine, in the parish of Redruth, and the shirts were stolen from the change house. Sentenced to three months' imprisonment. FIRST COURT.—WEDNESDAY. Before Sir C. B. G. Sawle, Bart. STEALING ROPE AT HAYLE. Tobias Michell, 19, labourer, was charged with stealing a quantity of rope, the property of Sandys Vivian and Compony (sic), of Hayle. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that the rope was found on the premises of a marine store dealer named Northmore, to whom the prisoner sold it. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to three months' hard labour. The court afterwards severely lectured Northmore for his conduct in buying the rope, as, living so near the prosecutors, he must have known the character of the rope used by them. If he were not careful he wound (sic) find himself in the dock as a receiver. He was an encourager of theft; if there were no receivers there would be no stealers.

HOUSE BREAKING AT TRURO. Anthony Stewart, 22, mason, was charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Richard Phillips, at Truro, on the 10th of March, and stealing therefrom three pairs of boots. Mr Marrack appeared for the prosecution. It was shown that the entry had been effected into the house and that the boots had been stolen, but two sisters, Eliza Code and Mary Code who live at Newbridge, in the parish of Kenwyn, who were the only witnesses to connect the prisoner with the robbery, did not answer to their names, and the case consequently broke down. The jury under the direction of the court, acquitted the prisoner. The recognizances of Eliza Code and Mary Code, were estreated. The prisoner was then indicted on the charge of breaking into the warehouse of Ferdinando Behenna, dyer, River-street, Truro, and stealing therefrom two coats and one cape, on the 25th March. Mr Marrack again appeared for the prosecution. The prosecutor, Mr Ferdinando Behenna, stated that he left the goods safe in his shop on the evening in question, but on the following morning he found that an entry had been made from the courtlage through an aperture in the wall, by forcing the framework which protected it. He had seen the prisoner loitering about the street in the front of his shop on the previous day. Eliza Code, one of the witnesses whose recognizances had been estreated, was also a witness in this case, and now answered to her name. In excuse for not appearing before she said she “did not know how the time was going." She now gave evidence that the prisoner was a sweetheart of hers, and that sometime in March, she could not say what day, the prisoner brought her two coats and a cape, and asked her to take care of them for him. She accordingly locked them up in her box. Police sergeant Riggs, of the Truro borough police, apprehended the prisoner at Baldhu. The prisoner, on seeing the policeman, ran away, and made violent efforts to escape. The prisoner was found guilty, and having been previously convicted of larceny, he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour. CHARGE OF STEALING A HORSE CLOTH AT ST. COLUMB. John Hugo and Deeble Hawkey, of St. Austell, were indicted for stealing a horse cloth, from a stable at the New Inn, St. Columb, on the 1st of June, the property of John Finnimore. Mr Marrack appeared for the prosecution, and Mr H. Shilson defended Hugo. It appeared that the prosecutor left a horse rug in the stable, in which a horse belonging to the prisoners, who are cattle dealers, was placed. About 12 o’clock at night the prisoners had their horse put into the trap, and Hugo took the rug away to St. Austell. The defence was that it was raining very fast and the rug was taken to keep off the rain, with the intention of sending it back the next morning; and it was shown that Hugo spoke to a carrier at St. Austell next morning about taking the rug back to the New Inn. Before, however, he could deliver the rug to the carrier, both he and Hawkey were apprehended on the charge of theft. Hugo received an excellent character, and as there was no evidence against Hawkey, both prisoners were acquitted. SHOOTING A GIRL AT ST. EWE. John Neal, 16, farm labourer, was indicted under three counts—first, for unlawfully and maliciously wounding Elizabeth Varcoe; secondly, for doing her grievous bodily harm; and thirdly, for a common assault. The grand jury threw out the first count, and, therefore the prisoner was only arraigned upon the two minor counts. Mr Shilson appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Marrack for the defence. Mr Shilson opened the case at some length and explained the nature of the law on the question. The facts of the case will be fresh in the memory of our readers. On the evening of the third of May, the prosecutrix, a young woman, about 18 years of age, the prisoner, and other farm servants were in the back kitchen of Mr Bennett’s house, at Tregunna, St. Ewe. They were laughing and joking with each other. The prisoner having washed his face, asked the prosecutrix to get him a towel. She told him to take that which the other boy had used. Prisoner said "If you don't get the towel, I'll shoot 'ee." The girl, however, only laughed at him, when the prisoner again said, "If you don't get it, damn 'ee, I'll shoot 'ee," at the same time taking down a gun which was upon a rack overhead, which he pointed at the girl in a clumsy way, not putting it to his shoulder, but holding it out in both hands. The gun immediately went off, and a portion of the charge struck the girl on the side of the face and neck, upon which she fell to the floor senseless. It appeared that it was accidental on the part of Mr Bennett to leave the gun loaded, and that the boy knew it was generally unloaded. The girl was dangerously wounded, and Mr Costerton, surgeon, of St. Austell, said if the wound had been the eighth of an inch deeper, death would have been instantaneous. She is now, however, out of danger and appeared to give evidence. Mr Marrack ably addressed the jury for the defence, contending that the case was simply one of misadventure. It was quite clear that the gun was usually put away unloaded, and that the poor boy thought it was unloaded. There was an absence of all ill feeling or malicious intention; it was all done in jest, a very foolish jest of course, but evidently quite a misadventure. It would no doubt be a lesson to the boy for his life; he had already had sufficient punishment for his folly, and he hoped the jury would set him free. Mr Marrack also commented upon the conduct of Mr Bennett, the owner of the gun, in leaving it in the kitchen loaded. It was a very culpable thing to do and he was quite as much to blame as the boy. The CHAIRMAN pointed out to the jury that there was no evidence of any previous quarrel or ill- feeling between the parties, but the contrary; but the law was this, that if a man makes use of dangerous weapons in a careless and wanton manner, and any injury is the result, he is guilty of an assault. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault, and having already suffered one month's imprisonment, he was sentenced to one day's detention. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN AT ST. AUSTELL. Ann Davis, 34, and Emma Sanders, 19, were charged with passing three counterfeit half crowns, on the 21st April last, at St. Austell. Mr Shilson appeared for the prosecution. The uttering was clearly proved against the prisoners, and they were sentenced to six months' hard labour each. BREACH OF THE PEACE AT PENZANCE. Walter Treaven Boyns, 35, fisherman, who was committed by the Penzance magistrates for want of sureties to keep the peace towards his wife, was brought up, and nobody appearing against him he was discharged from custody. SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh Bart., and W. Trevenen, Esq.) POCKET PICKING AT TRURO WHITSUN FAIR. Thomas Wilson, 27, carpenter, and James Storey, 30, carpenter were indicted for having, on the 7th of June, at Truro, stolen from the person of Charles Davis, a canvas bag, containing six half-sovereigns. Mr Marrack prosecuted. Wilson pleaded guilty, and Storey not guilty. Prosecutor is a farmer, residing in the parish of Gwennap, and on the 7th of June he was at Truro, at the Whitsun fair. The Chairman said he felt great doubt whether there was any case against Storey to go to the jury. The fact of Wilson having pleaded guilty ought not to prejudice the prisoner; nor ought the circumstance of his being seen standing in a fair, where there were several thousand persons, next to a pickpocket, to criminate him.—The jury found Storey not guilty. Wilson was sentenced to six months' hard labour. CHARGE OF OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. William Stephens was charged with receiving, by false pretences, the sum of 15s. from Ann Lobb Moorman, on the 7th of June, with intent to cheat and defraud Valentine Richards, of Port Isaac. Mr Commins prosecuted. After hearing the evidence, the chairman did not think it was such a false pretence as was contemplated by the act of Parliament. The prisoner did not tell Mrs Moorman that he came for the money on behalf of the prosecutor, and she had not paid him on any such representation. The jury acquitted the prisoner.

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. Elizabeth Martin, aged 56, was charged with receiving from Frederick Hildebrand, on the 12th or 13th of September, 1864, at the parish of St. Erth, a silver watch, knowing the same to have been stolen. Mr Cornish prosecuted, and Mr Marrack defended the prisoner. The jury retired to consider the evidence, and after about an hour's absence they returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to nine months' hard labour. CUTTING AND WOUNDING AT ILLOGAN. John Quentrall, who had been out on bail, was charged with feloniously assaulting Josiah Grangey, at the parish of Illogan, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr Cornish prosecuted, and Marrack defended. The prisoner was found guilty. The Chairman said that, taking into consideration the prisoner's previous good character, and that he might have received severe provocation, he should only sentence him to four months' hard labour. AN IMPUDENT IMPOSTOR. Frederick Belbin, aged 31, scale maker, was charged with unlawfully and knowingly, by certain false pretences, obtaining goods and monies to the amount of £1 5s. 6d., from from (sic) Charles Couch, of the Queen's Head Inn, Liskeard, on the 7th of June. Mr Childs prosecuted, and Mr Cornish defended the prisoner. The prisoner was convicted and sentenced to eight months' hard labour. The Grand Jury ignored the bill against Mary Annn (sic) Hicks, charged with stealing from the person of John Downing, at the parish of Redruth, on the 9th June a purse and 15s 6d in money, his property. PLEADED GUILTY. John Manuel, 47, cooper, to stealing a mare, saddle and bridle, the property of Salathiel Sleeman, at the parish of Crantock, on the 4th April. There was a previous conviction against the prisoner, who had been sentenced to three years' penal servitude for sheep stealing. He was now sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. Thomas James Williams, to stealing horse rugs, harness, and other articles, the property of various people in the parish of Lanivet, on the 19th April. He was sentenced to six months' hard labour. Thomas Williams, aged 18, labourer, pleaded guilty to having, on the 24th or 25th of April last, at the parish of Gwinear, stolen the carcase of a bullock, the property of James Tyack. One month's hard labour. Edward Hocking, aged 17, a sailor, pleaded guilty to stealing from the schooner "Sarah," lying in Par harbour, on the 2nd of May, a concertina, a box, and a serge shirt, the property of Nicholas Pentreath.—Three months' hard labour. James Johnson, 20, a sailor, pleaded guilty to stealing, on the 20th April, from a vessel called "The Ant," lying at the time in Bude Canal, a quantity of wearing apparel, belonging to William Stapleton. He also pleaded guilty to two other similar charges; and was sentenced to two months' hard labour for each offence, making six months altogether. Edward Medlin, aged 34, pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a warehouse and stealing a bag containing money to the amount of about £11, on the night of the 25th of May, the property of Messrs William Naylor and Edward Clifton Carne, at the parish of Falmouth. Sentenced to 12 months' hard labour. Thomas William Selley, aged 17, seaman, pleaded guilty to stealing a canvas bag containing wearing apparel, the property of John Dingle, at the parish of Feock, on the 20th of May.—Three months' hard labour. The business of the sessions concluded shortly after five o'clock.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette Friday, August 4, 1865

5. Cornwall Summer Assizes The summer assizes for the county of Cornwall were opened at Bodmin, on Wednesday last, the judges being the Hon. Sir James Shaw Willes and the Hon. Sir H. S. Keating, two of the justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas. Their lordships arrived at the Bodmin-road station from Exeter shortly before three o'clock, and were met by the High Sheriff, J. M. Williams, Esq., who was attended by his chaplain, the Rev. W. Willimot, of St. Michael Carhayes. The under sheriff, Mr John Coode, and the county clerk, Mr Wm. Coode, were also in waiting to receive their lordships. The judges having taken their seats in the carriage of the High Sheriff, which was drawn by four horses, they were driven to Bodmin, the under sheriff and the county clerk following in a second carriage. At Pryor's Barn, just outside the town, the judges were met by a party of the county constabulary and the trumpeters, who accompanied the carriage to the Mayoralty House, which they reached about four o'clock. Their lordships alighted here, and were waited upon by the Mayor of Bodmin, Mr Hichens, Mr Oke, the ex- Mayor, and the Rev. J Wallis, the vicar. After remaining about 10 minutes, Justice Willes re-entered the carriage of the High Sheriff, and was driven to the County Hall, where Her Majesty's Commission of Assize was opened in the usual manner. His lordship was then driven to Bodmin parish church to attend divine service. The Rev. J. Wallis read the prayers, and the Rev. J. W. Hawksley, curate, the lessons. The sermon was preached by the Rev. W. Willimot, who took for his text the 1st chapter and 15th verse of the Gospel by St. James:—"Then when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." Mr Justice Keating remained at the Mayoralty House, after his arrival in Bodmin during the afternoon. The calendar contains the names of 27 persons for trial, and although none of them are charged with a capital offence, yet several of the cases are of a very serious character. There are three cases of manslaughter, viz., James Kerby, charged with the manslaughter of James Tangye, at Camborne; John Hicks, charged with the manslaughter of Edward Craze, at Redruth; and Joseph Maddern, for the manslaughter of Richard Cargeege, at St Just in . There are two cases of concealment of birth, namely Elizabeth Edwards, concealing the birth of a child at Stokeclimsland; and Philippa Bennet, for the same offence at Liskeard. The other offences are—John Curgenven, one of the coast guard, for bigamy at the parish of Portlemouth; Charles Gummow, for a rape at Padstow; Elizabeth Coath, for uttering counterfeit coin, at Liskeard; John Aggett, charged with an unnatural offence at the parish of Paul; Mark Jackson, stealing a cornet, at St. Austell; Richard Rickard, not attending before the grand jury at the last Lent Assizes to prosecute Ann Pearse; John Gill, stealing coal at St Ives; John Langdon, stealing ale from his master at Gwennap; Nicholas Knuckey, jun., removing two tons of copper ore at Wheal Basset mine, the property of the adventurers; Elizabeth Ann Docking, stealing a silk dress and other articles, at the parish of Probus; Joseph Pethick, stealing a watch belonging to George Budd. at ; Alice Goldsworthy, stealing a pair of boots at Illogan; Henry Tregenza, stealing a coat and a handkerchief at Gulval; William Harris, stealing five sacks from the Co., at Redruth; William Henry Harris, stealing cloth at Redruth; Henry Lake and Robert Lake, stealing rail blocks, and ship-carpenters' materials, at Falmouth; John Cock, stealing two sovereigns at Gwennap; John Collins, obtaining a silver watch, &c., by false pretences, at St. Mellion. CROWN COURT.—THURSDAY. Justice Willes took his seat on the bench in this Court shortly after ten o'clock this morning, and the court having been opened, the names of the magistrates of the county were called over. The grand jury was then sworn, after which his lordship delivered his charge. NISI PRIUS COURT, THURSDAY. Mr Justice Keating presided in this court, which was opened at ten o'clock. The cause list was heavier than usual, ten causes having been entered for hearing, five of which were special juries, and two, it was said, undefended. Some of the former, it was anticipated, would occupy considerable time. The following is the

CAUSE LIST. Defendant's Plaintiff's Atty. Plaintiff. Defendant. Atty. Q.B. Palmer J.K. Skyrme, v. Yeo. Thomas Martin. and others, Q.B. Turnstall, Same, Same, Same. P.O.

C.P. Lawrence, v. Lord Falmouth Hodge, Hockin, Gurney, C. & K. [S.J.] and ors. & Marrack.

C.P. Same, Same, v. Same, Same. [S.J.] Prob. Tippett, Preston Wallis, v. Tippett, Same. [S.J.] Paull, Linton & Prob. Letcher, v. Argall, J.G. Chilcott. Holloway, J.L. Peter, Q.B. Mills, v. James, Downing. Trevenen, C.P. Kitto [S.J.] v. Watson, T. Southgate. v. Gard and Bridgman & Eales Q.B. Hill, another, Son. Q.B. Hocken, Preston Wallis v. Hocken G. Hensman. [S.J.]

PALMER AND OTHERS v. YEO.—The plaintiffs were the executors of a late Mr Palmer of Ross, Herefordshire, and an action was brought on a promissory note for £475 given by the defendant Mr Yeo of Tynemouth. The defendant did not appear to prove the pleas which he put on record, and a verdict was given for the plaintiffs, for the amount of the note and interest. TURNSTALL—V. YEO.—This was a second action to the above, and a verdict was given for the plaintiffs for £475 the amount of the promissory note and interest. LETCHER v. ARGALL—This was a will cause, and had just been opened when our report left. ______The commission having been opened on Wednesday, the 2nd instant, as stated in the Royal Cornwall Gazette of last week, the business of the Assizes commenced on Thursday morning in both Courts. CROWN COURT. (Before Justice Willes). The learned judge took his seat in this court at ten o'clock, being attended by the High Sheriff of the county, John Michael Williams, Esq., of Carhayes. The following magistrates answered to their names:—Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, Sir C. Rashleigh, Bart., Sir C. B. G. Sawle, Bart.; Messrs T. B. Bolitho, R. Davey, M.P., W. H. Davey, R. Foster, R. Foster, jun., J. Haye, D. W. H. J. Horndon, J. Hichens, N. Kendall, M.P., N. Kendall, junr., N. H. P. Lawrence, N. Norway, W. R. C. Potter, Colonel Peard, W. H. Peel, C. A. Reynolds, F. Rodd, J. J. Rogers, J. Trevenen, E. B. Tucker, F. M. Williams, M.P., E. Brydges Willyams, M. H. Williams ; Revs. S. Symonds, and J. J. Wilkinson. The following also answered:—The Mayors of Bodmin, Lostwithiel, and Penryn. Coroners:—Messrs E. G. Hamley and J. Roscorla. The following gentlemen were sworn as the grand jury:—Sir C. Rashleigh, foreman; Sir C. B. G. Sawle, Messrs N. Kendall, R. Davey, J. J. Rogers, R. Foster, F. Rodd, Prideaux-Brune, C. A. Reynolds, E. Brydges Williams, D. W. H. J. Horndon, J. Haye, J. Batten, F. M. Williams, F. J. Hext, N. Kendall, jun., N. Norway, W. R. C. Potter, W. P. Mitchell, W. H. Davey, Col. Peard, J. Trevenen, and F. G. Enys. The proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, The learned JUDGE delivered a brief charge to the grand jury. He congratulated the jury on the lightness of the calendar, which was undoubtedly very creditable to the county when the amount of population was considered. It was indeed exceedingly light, and it would not be necessary for him to detain them at any length. There were three cases of manslaughter to be brought before them, but neither of them was of a serious character. In one of them a person riding a horse was said to have ridden too fast, and to have thus unfortunately caused the death of a foot passenger. He observed that the evidence in the case was not very easy to reconcile. There was evidence that the prisoner was trying to pull in the horse, and that was met by evidence that he was able to pull up and return shortly after the collision took place. They would consider whether there was conclusive evidence to shew that the horse could have been pulled up before the collision occurred. It might be that upon all the facts they would consider it a case which would be properly inquired into in that court. Their experience in horses as well as men would suggest to them the reason why he had made those remarks. In the second case of manslaughter two boys had been fighting, one of them unfortunately fell, and was killed by the shock. They would have to consider how far the death of the boy—he observed by the calendar the youth was only 15 years of age—was traceable substantially to any unlawful act on the part of the lad who survived, and consider whether it was necessary to put him upon his trial. The third manslaughter case was one in which they would probably find a bill. It was a case in which a sick—a dying—man was struck by the prisoner, who picked a quarrel with him, and who afterwards struck a woman who was standing by. They would find in number 24 a case of a novel kind. A person named Collins was charged with having obtained from a man named Cundy a watch under false pretences. The latter appeared to have been boasting of the favours which he had received from a young woman; and Collins, it seemed, had threatened to summons him before the magistrates as a witness in a charge to be preferred against Collins himself arising out of a similar assertion. Money was promised to Collins not to do so; and at last he received the watch instead of a sovereign on condition that he should not summons Cundy. This was certainly a case of very odd character, and he begged the jury to consider how far the matter really came within the law of false pretences. There was another case to which he should refer which he need only describe by saying that it was number two in the calendar. They would find that in that case the person who made the charge was the only witness who sustained it, and that she did not appear to have given information of the crime until four days after it was alleged to have occurred. The case, however, was one of a kind in which as a rule it was absolutely requisite for the purpose of obtaining a conviction on the evidence of one witness that information should be immediately given. In conclusion, the learned Judge congratulated the jury and the county on the full attendance on the grand inquest. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. STEALING BOOTS. Alice Goldsworthy, 20, needlewoman, pleaded guilty to stealing a pair of boots, the property of Richard Dunkin, at the parish of Illogan, on the 22d July. His Lordship: How came you to steal the boots? You seem to be educated, for I see you write your name as well as I write mine. Prisoner made no reply, and was sentenced, it being the first offence, to one month's imprisonment. SMASHING AT LISKEARD. Elizabeth Coath, 42, charwoman, was indicted for feloniously uttering one counterfeit florin to Mary Bartlett, at Liskeard, on the 25th March, and another to Kitty Ford, at the same time and place, knowing both to be false and counterfeit, and also with having, at the same time, a counterfeit half- sovereign in possession; she having been convicted of a similar offence at the Devon Lent Assizes of 1863, in the name of Selina Harris. Mr Stock, Q.C., prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. The facts of the case were very simple and clear. Prisoner uttered the coins to Bartlett and Ford in the Liskeard market, and was apprehended some short time afterwards at the Liskeard Railway Station, as she was about to leave the town. When taken into custody she gave up several silver coins, all of which were good, and which she said was all the money she had. She denied having any bad money; but on a search being made the counterfeit half-sovereign was found concealed in her bosom, where the police officer who took her had seen her hide something. When the coin was found she asked the female searcher to say nothing about her; and then gripped her hand so hard that she forced her nails in and made the blood come. The defence was that Coath knew nothing about the badness of the florins, and that the half-sovereign was picked up by her on her way to the station. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and she admitted that she had been committed previously, but said that although she had been guilty on former occasions she was not guilty now. His Lordship said he felt compelled to say that Coath seemed quite a hopeless character. Five times she had been sentenced, and in 1863 it had been thought necessary for a similar offence to sentence her to four years' penal servitude, because persons who went about defrauding the public, and tempting people to pass the coin over again, were rightly considered by law to be worthy of an exceedingly severe sentence. It appeared, however, that although she was committed for four years, she was let out on the ground of ill-health after little more than a year had elapsed. If he again passed sentence he could not give her less than seven years ; but, looking at what had happened, he believed that the Court would ensure her being locked up for a longer time by sentencing her to a period of imprisonment. She would therefore be imprisoned for two years. THE ST. COLUMB LIBEL CASE. James Nicholls, St, Columb, surrendered and pleaded guilty to two indictments charging him with unlawfully publishing, on the 20th and 22nd February, in the Western Daily Mercury, defamatory libels in letters against William Henry Northey and others. Mr Cole said: I appear, your Lordship, for the prosecution; and I beg to state that the prisoner has done everything that could possibly be expected from a person in his position. It seems that he was led into the publication of the libel—which certainly was of a very serious character, and led to the question whether a young gentleman many years ago had shot himself, or whether he was shot by another gentleman now in a very respectable position in life—and that now he has made every inquiry, and is fully convinced that he was entirely wrong. He has therefore published a very full retractation (sic), entirely exculpating the gentleman against whom he had published this libel. Under these circumstances, the prosecution will be content that the prisoner shall be bound over in his own recognizances for two years, to come up for judgment if required. His LORDSHIP, addressing Nicholls: Of course, you are content; this is the most lenient course that could be taken towards you. Mr Nicholls said that he was, and having entered into his own recognizances in £50 on both of the indictments, was discharged. STEALING LIQUOR AT GWENNAP. John Langman, 35, shoemaker, and William Cookman, 16, the same trade, were indicted upon two charges, the first being for stealing half a gallon of ale, some spirits, and two bottles of porter, on the 29th of May, and the second for having on the 3rd of July stolen the sum of 10s, the property of John Thomas, their master, at the parish of Gwennap. The prisoner Cookman pleaded guilty, but the other prisoner denied the charge. Mr St. Aubyn appeared for the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended. From the evidence adduced with reference to the first charge, it appeared that the prosecutor was a shoemaker and licensed victualler, carrying on business in St. Day, and the prisoners were in his employ—the former as a journeyman, and the latter as an apprentice. At the time mentioned in the indictment a servant of the prosecutor's was absent from the kitchen for a short time, and on returning thither she saw the prisoner Langman at the cupboard, which contained a quantity of bottled porter. She saw him with a bottle of porter in his hand, and on asking him what he was doing he replied that she was not up to his movements. He left then with the porter in his possession, and being unable to lock the door, she acquainted the prisoner with the fact, whereupon he produced a key, which he said would open the door when greased. Without doing anything, however, to the key, she opened the door easily. The prisoner Langman afterwards proceeded to the courtyard, where he was joined by Crookman (sic), and they drank the porter together. The former afterwards went into the bar and procured a small jar of spirits, and half a gallon of ale, which prisoners drank between them. The evidence as regards the second case went to show that on the 3rd of July the prosecutor was at breakfast when the prisoners entered and confessed that they had extracted a half-sovereign from a chest of drawers in an upstairs room. By subsequent occurrences it was conclusively proved that the robbery had been committed, and that the money had been changed by the younger prisoner.—The jury found Langman guilty, and his Lordship having warned him, passed a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour; and Cookman was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. EXTENSIVE ROBBERIES AT FALMOUTH. Henry Lake, 25, seaman, and Robert Lake, 28, marine store dealer, pleaded guilty to three indictments for larceny, namely, to stealing on the 5th of October a sail and a reef tackle block; and on the 12th ult., a fir spar, the property of Wm. Lean, in the parish of Budock; and also to stealing oak plants and timbers, the property of John Haley, the younger, Falmouth, on the 26th April and 17th July. Mr Cox appeared for the prosecution. His Lordship said he must visit the offences of the prisoners with some substantial punishment. The theft of the sail was much aggravated by the fact that to get it they had broken into a lock-up cabin, and the other articles were such as must, of necessity, be exposed to depredators, and these especially required the protection of the law. The prisoners were equal in guilt, but he thought it would be better that they should not come out of prison together, and would produce that effect, not by adding to the sentence of Henry Lake, but by taking from that of Robert Lake. Henry Lake would be imprisoned for 8 months, and Robert Lake for 7. CLOTHES STEALING. Elizabeth Ann Docking, 22, servant, pleaded guilty to stealing one silk dress, one skirt, and one piece of patchwork, of the value of £4, the property of James Trembath, at Probus, on the 5th July, and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Henry Tregenza, 25, labourer, pleaded guilty to stealing a coat and handkerchief, the property of John Downing, at Gulval, on the 19th July, and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. STEALING MONEY AT GWENNAP. John Cock, miner, was indicted for stealing two sovereigns, the money of Eliza Bennett, at Gwennap, on the 8th July. Mr Charles prosecuted, Mr St. Aubyn defended. Mrs Bennett keeps a public-house, which on the afternoon of the 8th ult. was filled with miners, who were having a "jollification" over "survey-day." Amongst the company was a miner named Soper, who went for a few minutes out of the room in which he had been drinking, leaving a couple of sovereigns on the table covered over by a quart pot. He had not been gone long when the money was discovered by the servant, and taken to her mistress for security. Then Cock went to Mrs Bennett and said the sovereigns were his, and that he had accidentally left them on the table; and she believing his story gave them to him. He was drunk, but knew what he was about; and when taken into custody a few hours after said he knew that the money was not his, and that he should not have taken it if he had not been drunk. The main defence was that there was not sufficient evidence as to the identification of the property in the sovereigns; and that prisoner had been too drunk properly to know what he was about. Witnesses were also called who spoke to his good character. The jury found that the money had been obtained by the prisoner under false pretences, which they afterwards enlarged to a verdict of guilty of larceny. They recommended him, however, to mercy, and he was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. CHARGE OF STEALING SACKS. William Harris, 47 , labourer, was indicted for stealing 5 sacks, the property of the West Cornwall Railway Company, at Redruth, on the 7th ult. Mr Oxenham prosecuted. Harris is a servant in the employ of the company, to whom the duck sacks—which are used for carrying copper ore—belonged. They were traced to his possession, and he said he had taken them—with one exception—to make aprons for himself. The exception was a bag which he had taken to carry potatoes, and was going to return it. A witness stated that persons employed like the prisoner in carrying coals to mines were supplied with slops and aprons by the company; but that it was usual for the men to take old sacks and get them made up into aprons for themselves. The old aprons were returned. The jury acquitted him. PILFERING AT A FIRE AT REDRUTH. William Henry Harris, 17, labourer, was charged with stealing five yards of tweed cloth and two yards of mole-skin, the property of James Vine, at Redruth, on the 1st ult. Mr. St. Aubyn prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. It appeared that on the 1st of July a fire broke out at the prosecutor’s shop in Redruth and the premises were almost totally destroyed. The property, however, was partially saved, and the prisoner assisted in extinguishing the fire, for which the prosecutor made him a present of a piece of cloth. A quantity of cloth, however, was discovered to be missing, and in consequence of information subsequently received, a search of the prisoner’s residence was made by the police, but the missing property was not discovered there, but was given up subsequently by the prisoner. In defence, the prisoner stated that when he rendered assistance at the fire he divested himself of his coat, which he lost. Seeing a quantity of injured cloth lying about, he was told by a person whom he understood to be in Mr. Vine’s service, to take some to cover himself with, which he accordingly did, believing that he was not doing anything which rendered him open to punishment. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner also admitted a previous conviction. His lordship said that the explanation which the prisoner had attempted to give was no justification for the committal of a theft, and he had very wrongly taken advantage of the opportunity afforded him by the fire. He was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment in the house of correction, with hard labour. A PLEA OF POVERTY. John Gill, 46, pleaded guilty to stealing 70 pounds of coal, value 1s. 6d., the property of William Runnalls, at St. Ives, on the 9th ult.; and also to a former conviction for burglary after a previous conviction. With tears he protested that he had been led to commit his present offence by poverty. His wife had died after in illness of nine months, and he had four dear little children to protect and care for. His Lordship said that he found that the former conviction was ten years ago, and that so far as the court was aware prisoner had conducted himself well since. This fact in a great measure removed the effect of his former conduct, which otherwise would most probably have caused him to be sentenced to penal servitude. The present theft was a small one, but people could not be allowed to steal coal in any quantity, and he would be committed for three months. THEFT AT . Nathaniel Cole was indicted for stealing on the 24th of April a pair of boots, the property of Joseph Pike.—Mr. Oxenham prosecuted.—The boots were taken from a shed at some tin stream works in the parish of Altarnun, where they had been used by the prosecutor, a tin streamer, in his work. They were sold by the prisoner to John Lang, at Priddicombe, about—as Lang stated, in answer to a question as to the period of the year—“the time the spring geese.”—The jury finding Cole guilty, he said that “if he was convicted, he should be convicted an innocent man.”—The learned judge remarked that when first he came upon the Bench and heard prisoners make such statement, he had entertained some doubts lest both jury and judge might have been mistaken. But as his experience widened he had found that those who thus slandered the jury were always the worst of characters; and so it proved in the present instance, for Cole had been in prison no less than eight times. Once he had been confined for false pretences, and at other times for neglecting to maintain his family, twice for fraudulently enlisting in the militia, and once for absenting himself from training. For the present offence he would be imprisoned for eight months. BIGAMY.—IMPORTANT LEGAL QUESTION RESERVED. John Curgenven, 45, coastguardsman, was indicted for feloniously marrying Eliza Hardy, at the parish of Portlemouth, on the 9th July, 1862, his former wife being then alive. Mr. St. Aubyn prosecuted; Mr. Prideaux defended. Richard Curgenven, of Ruanlanhihorne, (sic) deposed that on the 1st of September, 1852, he was present at the marriage of his sister, Charlotte Langdon Curgenven, with her cousin, the prisoner, in the parish church of Veryan. They then went to Ireland, where prisoner was serving in the coastguard. In the following June his sister came back to her father’s, and in January, 1854, she again left to go to her husband, at Portsmouth, to which place he had been removed. She, however, came back again about two months after, and had remained in Veryan apart from the prisoner ever since. Cross-examined: Witness’s sister came back from Portsmouth when prisoner went away in the fleet. Prisoner had been in the Black Sea and Baltic during the Russian war. Eliza Hardy stated that on the 9th of July, 1862, she was married to the prisoner at Portlemouth, Devon. Prisoner had told her he was a widower. He was a commissioned boatman in the parish. She had lived with him ever since up to the time of his apprehension. Cross-examined: He had always treated her kindly. He never said he had received a letter from his father stating that his former wife was dead. Edward Vincent, parish clerk of Portlemouth, proved the second marriage, and Mr. Superintendent Compton produced copies of the certificates of the two marriages. When before the magistrates prisoner stated that the charge was correct. Mr. Prideaux submitted that there was no case to go to the jury; but that the prosecution, in compliance with the decision in the Queen against Briggs, a case which was even stronger against the prisoner than the present one—and the judgment of his lordship himself thereon—were bound to prove a knowledge on the part of Curgenven that his first wife was living within 7 years, and this they had not done. His Lordship said the law upon this point could not be too nicely understood. The Act of Parliament did not make a second marriage in the lifetime of both parties to a former one valid. The law of England did not legalise polygamy under any circumstances. It was a common error to imagine that after seven years parties might legally marry again. All that the law provided was that after a certain period—seven years—had elapsed, a husband or wife having no knowledge that the other party to the former marriage was alive, might marry again with impunity; but that did not legalise the ceremony if the other party was living at the time of its performance. Some discussion took place between his lordship and the learned counsel as to the bearing of the case cited, which it seemed did not decide whether or not the burden of proof of knowledge rested upon the prosecution, but ruled that the jury having found that a woman indicted for bigamy had had no knowledge within the seven years before her second marriage—though she had the means of ascertaining—she could not be convicted. At length his lordship went to consult his brother judge upon the point raised. His Lordship on returning said:—My brother Keating thinks that I ought to ask the jury whether in their opinion the prisoner, at the time of the second marriage, was in bona fide ignorance of his wife’s existence during seven years. If they decide that, then of course there will be an end of the matter; but my learned brother thinks that if they find a verdict adverse to the prisoner, the point raised is of such importance that I should reserve it, following the course taken by Sir John Coleridge in the case to which Mr. Prideaux has referred. Mr. Prideaux then, admitting the two marriages, addressed the jury, contending that there was no evidence whatever that Curgenven had any such knowledge as had been spoken of. His Lordship having carefully summed up, After a brief consultation the foreman said the jury found the prisoner guilty. His Lordship: Then I must ask you this question—Do you believe that within seven years before the second marriage the prisoner knew that his wife was alive? The Foreman: We feel satisfied that he ought to have, if he did not know it, being married only in the next county. His Lordship: I am afraid I did not make the matter perfectly clear to you. [The Foreman: Quite clear, my lord.] The question that I must put to you is this: Did the prisoner know that his wife was living within seven years before the second marriage? The Foreman: We have no doubt but that he did, my lord. His Lordship: Then the point must be reserved. Mr. Prideaux: I must ask your lordship not only to reserve the point as to the way in which you left the case to the jury, but also whether, on the question of knowledge, there was any evidence to go to the jury. His Lordship: I am going to reserve the point whether the burden of shewing that he did know falls upon the prosecution, and the proof that he did not upon the prisoner; and also whether there was any evidence of proof that he did know. Prisoner was then admitted to bail, himself in £20, and one surety in £10, to appear for judgment, if called upon, at the next assizes of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery for the county. The points reserved will, in the mean time, be decided by the twelve judges. Unless their lordships should take the view adverse to the prisoner, the matter, so far as he is concerned, will end where it is. His Lordship explained to the jury that there was no fault found with their verdict; but that the question was raised against his ruling that there was evidence to go to them. NO BILLS. The grand jury ignored the bills preferred against Mark Jackson, 30, blacksmith, for stealing a cornet, the property of John Gould Baker, at St. Austell, on the 1st of June. Joseph Pethick, for stealing a watch, the property of George Budd, at Egloskerry, on the 7th ult. John Hicks, 15, miner, for the manslaughter of Edward Craze, at Redruth. John Collins, for obtaining by false pretences from Richard Cundy, at the parish of St. Mellion, on the 28th June, a silver watch and a metal chain. Charles Gummow, 26, miner, for a rape on Frances Sleeman at Padstow, on the 29th March. The Court adjourned until nine o’clock next morning. FRIDAY, AUGUST 4. John Aggett, indicted for having committed an unnatural offence at the parish of Paul, on the 21st of April, was acquitted. Philippa Bennett, 18, servant, was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, for concealing the birth of her child, at Liskeard, on the 22nd of July, to which offence she pleaded guilty. Henry Edwards, 38, sawyer, was indicted for assisting Elizabeth Edwards, 35, charwoman, in the concealment of the birth of her child at Stokeclimsland, on May 21. Elizabeth Edwards was indicted for the offence of the concealment, to which she pleaded guilty. Mr. Carter and Mr. Haye prosecuted. Inspector Harris went to the prisoner’s house in consequence of certain rumours having been afloat that the woman Edwards had been delivered of a child. He searched the house, and subsequently discovered the body of a child up a chimney. With difficulty the bundle was got down, and it was found to consist of a quantity of straw bound together with strips of the bottom of a dress, and in the middle of the bundle the dead body of a child.—Prisoner said he had nothing to say as he was innocent and knew nothing about it, the female prisoner adding, “That’s true, sir; he knows nothing of the case, I can stake my honour.”—Mr. Carter argued that the female prisoner would have been unable to have placed the body in the place and manner it was found. His lordship said that from the evidence it was very possible that the female prisoner could have done it. There were also women in the house at the time of the birth, and from the first the woman had persistently stated that the man knew nothing about it. The evidence produced was insufficient in point of law, and he considered it would be wrong in point of law to convict the prisoner. His lordship then directed the jury to return a verdict of acquittal, which was at once done. In addressing Elizabeth Edwards his lordship remarked that what he had just said in another case of concealment of birth about the youth of the prisoner, would not apply in her case. He was sorry to say that the kind of offence for which she was indicted was much more common than some ago, and he was in doubt whether the Legislature would not have to consider the whole subject, with a view, if possible, to take away the inducements for concealment of birth, which there was much reason to think existed in many cases. The Court must therefore pass upon her a substantial sentence. His lordship then committed the prisoner to six months’ imprisonment. FELONIOUS REMOVAL OF COPPER ORE. Nicholas Knuckey, jun., was indicted for feloniously removing or concealing two tons weight of copper ore, the property of William Roberts and others, with intent to defraud them at Wheal Basset mine, in the parish of Illogan, in July, 1863. Mr. Cox prosecuted, and Mr. Arundel Rogers defended. Mr. Cox, in opening the case, remarked that the offence was one known as “kitting.” The custom in letting to miners was in what were called pitches to persons called tributers, and it was by the richness or poorness of the ore that the tributer’s money was regulated. The offence for which the prisoner was indicted was formerly brought before the court in an indirect form, charging the parties with conspiracy to defraud or of obtaining money under false pretences. But by the Criminal Law Consolidation Act kitting was made a specific offence. Four persons has (sic) been concerned in the affair, but had run away, and only the prisoner had returned. Witnesses were called who stated that they went into the mine one night for the purpose of watching, and saw Nicholas Knuckey and three others, and discovered the ore concealed for the purpose of taking it away.—Mr. Roberts, manager of West Wheal Basset Mine, saated (sic) that prisoner and others had a pitch at the end of the forty-two fathom, and two men named Martin and Williams had a pitch to the east of prisoner’s pitch. The manager then read from the sett book shewing that the pitch worked by the prisoner and his brother was taken at 13s. 4d. in the £. He went underground with others on the 21st of July, and found a place worked in the bottom of the 42 fathom level, and discovered ore concealed in two places. The ore found was out of prisoner’s limits, and he had no right to work it. He found a sack and some tools in the sink near, marked No. 24. He compared the ore found with that in prisoner’s pitch, and it was different, but it resembled that in the sink. All four men ran away the day following the discovery, and neither of them completed their work. The value was regulated by the actual money the ore fetched. The ore in the prisoners’ pitch would have fetched about 2s., so that the prisoner, if he could have substituted the ore, would have made in every £ the difference between 2s. and 13s. 4d. John Jenkins said when he went down in company with others on the night in question, he saw four persons with lights at the 42nd fathom. The persons were named Martin and Williams, and the prisoner and his brother. Mr. Rogers, in defence, argued that if suspicion were pointed to anyone it should be against Martin and Williams. The identity of the prisoner had not been proved sufficiently clear to justify the jury in convicting, and when they added to this the fact that the ore could be of no value to the prisoner, unless he could have induced the manager of the mine to certify that it had come from his pitch, he thought the only verdict they could arrive at, would be that of acquittal. It was now two years since the offence was committed, and the prisoner on returning home had been apprehended for it, while another of the persons charged had been seen walking about in Redruth nine months, and was not interfered with. The Judge, in addressing the jury, said that undoubtedly, according to the evidence, somebody had worked ore which they had no right to, and the question was whether the prisoner meddled with one of the guilty parties. The jury, after some consideration, returned a verdict of guilty. Six months’ imprisonment. THE FALMOUTH FISHHOOK CASE. Wearne Ivey, aged 32, was indicted for unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm to and upon James Garland, at the parish of Falmouth, on the 26th July. Mr. Herman Merivale prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor, James Garland, deposed that he was a rope-maker, living in New-street, Falmouth, and on the night of the 26th July, while in bed, he heard a loud talking near his door. He looked out of his window and saw the prisoner quarrelling with his mother and a neighbour. He told the prisoner to go home, and as he did not do so, he told him that if he did not go away he should come down and make him. To this the prisoner replied—“Do, Jim; come down, and I will wait for you.” Prosecutor then got up, and went downstairs to the prisoner. He still refused to do (sic) away, and prosecutor stepped on to a low bank, and put his hand on the prisoner’s shoulder to induce him to go. Instantly after he felt a sharp pain in his nose, and on going to a light near, he found a fishhook run through the end of his nose. The fishhook produced. It was about three inches long, and full as thick as a bean straw, being what is termed a conger fishhook, and a truly formidable looking article. Mrs Ann Hamilton stated that she was standing outside her door with a neighbour who was waiting for her husband, about eleven o’clock on the night of the 26th July, when the prisoner, who was in liquor, came up, and asked them what they were waiting for, and on their telling him to go home he used very insulting language to them. The prosecutor hearing this, put his head out of his bedroom window, and told the prisoner that if he did not go away, and cease to insult his mother he would come down to him. Robert Huddy, a mariner, said that about eight o’clock in the evening of the 26th, he saw the prisoner hold up the fishing hook, and say he intended to hook some one with it that night. Mrs Ann Fenton corroborated the evidence of the prosecutor and other witnesses, and added—That when the prisoner struck the fish hook into the prosecutor’s nose, he exclaimed—“Bone for Bone. You have now got your mark, and I’m going to bed.” The prisoner, in defence, denied that he had purposely struck the hook in the prosecutor’s nose, and said that it had been accidently run through it during the scuffle which took place. As he was passing Mr. Garland, on his way home, she called out there goes drunken Ivey, and this annoyed him, which was the reason of his speaking to the woman. The Judge left it to the jury to say whether they considered the act on the part of the prisoner was a wanton one, or, as he had intimated, an accident. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. MANSLAUGHTER AT ST. JUST-IN-PENWITH. Joseph Maddern, a boy, 16 or 17 years of age, on bail, was indicted for the manslaughter of Richard Cargeege the younger, at the parish of St. Just-in-Penwith, on the 19th of July last. Mr. Prideaux prosecuted, and Mr H. Cole defended. Under the advice of counsel, the prisoner withdrew his former plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty. Mr PRIDEAUX said it was felt to be a duty to prosecute for the protection of the public, but, at the same time, he was requested strongly to recommend the prisoner to mercy. Mr COLE said he was assured by the prisoner that the occurrence was purely a misadventure. The Judge said the prisoner had acted wisely in withdrawing his plea and pleading guilty, as according to the evidence in the depositions, the case was clear and simple. The prisoner was riding a horse at a rapid rate and rode over a persons (sic) causing his death. There appeared, however, to be some question as to whether he could have stopped the horse at the time, and he thought that justice did not require that he should be further locked up. He should require him to find two sureties of £10 each for his good behaviour for six months. The required recognizances having been entered into, the prisoner was discharged. MANSLAUGHTER AT CAMBORNE. James Kerby, 34, miner, was indicted for the manslaughter of James Tangye, at the parish of Camborne. He was also charged upon the coroner’s inquisition with the same offence. Mr Lopes prosecuted, and the prisoner was defended by Mr Cole. Mr Cole suggested that a similar course should be adopted in this case as in the last. The prisoner had suffered two months’ imprisonment, and he was in such a condition at the time the offence was committed that he did not know what he was doing. The Judge said that the two months’ imprisonment was for the blow to the woman, but there was still the blow to the deceased, which it was alleged had caused, or at all events hastened, his death, which the prisoner had still to meet. Mr Cole said that they might in reality be considered one and the same occurrence, as they took place at the same time. The man, while under the excitement of liquor, struck the deceased a blow which accelerated his death, but he understood that the medical gentleman who attended him doubted whether it was the cause of his death, as he was in such a state that he must have died, supposing he had never been struck. The Judge said that the prisoner must take his trial. Mr Lopes, in stating the case, explained the law of manslaughter, which was a felonious killing, without malice, and supposing a person to have committed an unlawful act which was the cause of death, the person would be liable to punishment for manslaughter, providing the jury were satisfied that the proximate and immediate cause of death was the unlawful act, or that death was accelerated by it. He designated the blow which the prisoner had struck the deceased as one of the most unprovoked, cowardly, and unmanly he had ever heard of, as the evidence would prove. Lydia Tangye, residing at the Unicorn Inn, Camborne, stated that she remembered seeing the prisoner come to the house on the 29th of May last. He asked for some ale, which she refused to give him as he had been quarrelling with another man, and he said he would go into the bar, but she would not allow him. He, however, insisted on doing so, and abused her very much; the deceased hearing this came into the bar, and asked her to let him persuade the prisoner to go home. He went to the accused, who, when at the door, asked him to fight, but the deceased replied “No, I could not fight a worm.” Without any provocation the prisoner knocked the deceased down, and he became insensible. She interfered, when the prisoner knocked her down also. The deceased did not speak and was put to bed immediately. He did not leave his bed afterwards, and expired on the following Friday. Previous to this he was ill from consumption, but during the last four or five weeks he had been improving. On the day subsequent to the assault she saw the deceased in bed, and observed congealed blood issuing from his nose, a cut being also visible behind the ear. The prisoner and the deceased were always excellent friends. In cross-examination the witness stated that it was when she refused the prisoner liquor that he became excited. Emily Prideaux, a young woman residing at Camborne, corroborated the latter part of the preceding witness’s evidence. Lavinia Harris, the sister of the deceased, deposed to similar facts, in addition to which she stated that the prisoner ran away and she followed him and overtook him, whereupon he said that he would not have treated her like it. She told him she would rather he had done it twice to her than once to her brother in the state he was in. At the same instant a policeman appeared, and the prisoner decamped and pushed her away from him. She afterwards saw a quantity of blood on her dress, which she believed to have come from the prisoner’s hands. Cross-examined—The surgeon came to see her sister the same evening, but he did not see the deceased until the next morning, as witness did not apprehend anything serious. The deceased was in a state of stupor the next morning when she visited him, with congealed blood on his mouth. Luke Greet, an ostler at the Unicorn Inn, substantiated the previous evidence, and on being cross examined by Mr Cole, stated that the deceased drank a portion of a glass of ale after he had been struck, and also spoke, requesting his sister to go to bed, saying that he himself should go there, as he felt poorly. Philip Vincent, a medical practitioner, Camborne, and who attended the deceased (who was consumptive) twelve months previous to his final illness, stated that he was sent for the next morning to see the deceased, and found him insensible and suffering from concussion of the brain, and unable to articulate anything. He examined the deceased externally, and found a wound behind the ear. Visited him on the two following days and found him insensible, and the latter day he was convulsed. Considered him to be in a very dangerous state, and in consequence Mr Hutchinson, by his advice, was also called in. After his death on Friday afternoon, he, Mr Hutchinson, and Mr Mudge made a post mortem examination of the body. There was great extravasation in the muscles of the face. Internally they found about an ounce of clotted blood on the brain. In witness’s opinion such a blow as that which had been described which (sic) have produced this, and caused death. The effusion of blood on the brain was the cause of death. There was a rupture of the substance of the brain, which could not have been caused by mental excitement. The lungs were diseased, but not so much so as to cause immediate death. The kidneys were also affected, but not so far as to cause death. In cross examination, Mr. Vincent stated that the deceased was very consumptive, and his lungs were greatly diseased; in fact, so much so that he was of opinion that if nothing had happened he would not have lived through the winter. In his then delicate health, a severe blow might have produced fatal results, while in the case of a healthy person a worse blow might be struck without permanent injury. What he said was, that some external violence, such as the blow described, had caused the rupture—the rupture, the effusion of blood on brain, and the effusion, death. Had known the prisoner from a boy, and had never heard anything against his character before. He always appeared to be a well-conducted, good-hearted man. Superintendent Miller, of the county constabulary, stationed at Camborne, deposed that the prisoner came to him on Tuesday the 30th May, and said that he understood there was a warrant out against him for the little affair at Tangye’s the night before. Witness told him there was, and that if he would come inside the station he would read it to him. The prisoner did so, and when witness had read the warrant to him he said he was very sorry he had struck either the deceased or Miss Tangye— that he was very drunk at the time, and had received four or five blows, and was making his way out of the house when he did it. Cross-examined: He appeared to be very sorry for what he had done. Up to this time had always considered the prisoner to be a well-conducted man. Mr Cole said he did not intend to produce any witnesses to endeavour to disprove a particle of the evidence which had been adduced. The jury had heard from the witnesses that had been called for the prosecution, that the prisoner had always borne an excellent character as a quiet, peaceable man, and there were several other persons in court ready to depose to the same fact, but he did not think it was necessary to call them. It was evident that this was one of those lamentable cases which sometimes happened, where a man of irreproachable character and inoffensive disposition took a glass more than he should do, and something occurring to annoy him, he struck a blow, little thinking of the consequences that might follow, and that it might result in the death of a fellow creature. As to the statement of Mr Lopes, that it was one of the most unprovoked, cowardly, and unmanly assaults he had ever heard of, he would merely say that it was what lawyers designated “piling up the agony,” and he hoped the jury would pay no attention to it. The jury, after some consideration, found the prisoner Guilty, and strongly recommended him to mercy. The Judge—I suppose, gentlemen, you think the case as one partaking more of the character of an assault. The foreman—we do, my Lord. The Judge said he entirely coincided with the verdict and the recommendation of the jury, both of which were very proper. He had often had occasion to wish that some different name could be applied to those lesser offences of the kind, rather than include them all under the general term of manslaughter, within the general clauses. Certainly the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted was manslaughter in point of law. The prisoner had received a very good character and the jury recommended him to the merciful consideration of the court. He had already been very properly imprisoned two months for striking the sister of the deceased, and he thought that justice would be satisfied by sentencing him to one month’s imprisonment more, with hard labour. NON-ATTENDANCE TO PROSECUTE. Richard Rickard, 60, labourer, was charged with not attending before the Grand Jury, at the Lent Assizes, to prosecute and give evidence in a case against Ann Pearse, for stealing his watch. His Lordship said he supposed prisoner had got into bad company, and his watch was stolen. He was then ashamed to come forward and give evidence and his recognizances had been forfeited and his goods distrained, and prisoner had been confined since April 26. He hoped the case would be a warning to others who might be bound over to prosecute. Lord Chief Justice Erle had used his jurisdiction in a similar case and discharged a prisoner, and he thought he should be acting properly if he followed such a precedent. The prisoner was then discharged, having been in gaol 14 weeks. This concluded the criminal business of the assizes, and the court rose shortly after five o’clock. ______NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Keating). His lordship took his seat upon the Bench at ten o’clock on Thursday morning, and the business of the Nisi Prius Court was proceeded with. After the two undefended causes of “Palmer and others v. Yeo,” and “Turnstall v. Yeo,” had been disposed of, the following cases were proceeded with:— DISPUTED WILL CASE FROM ST. AGNES. LETCHER v. ARGALL. Mr Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr Cole (instructed by Messrs Paull, Linton, and Co.) for the plaintiff; Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Buller (instructed by Mr. J.G. Chilcott) for the defendant. This was a disputed will case, plaintiff bringing the present action to establish the validity of the will of W.H. Argall, of St. Agnes, innkeeper, the defendant claiming to set up a former will made in 1861. Mr Coleridge opened the case. The property in dispute was worth between £600 and £700. The testator made a will in September,1861, and on the 4th of April, in the following year. A plea was set up by the defendant that the second will was not the testator’s, that it was not executed under 1st Vic., c. 26, and that the deceased was not of sound memory and understanding at the time. The second will was signed by the testator in a barn before witnesses, and in due form, but was kept secret until after testator’s death, he alleging as a reason for so doing that there would be no peace at home with his two daughters. Witnesses who were present on that occasion would state that they had never heard, until after his death, that the testator was out of his mind. The following witnesses were then called.— Richard Jenkins: I am a carpenter and builder, living at St. Agnes. I knew the late William Henry Argall, and did his work for him for eight or nine years before his death. On the 4th of April, William Henry Argall, the younger, came to me, and in consequence of what he said to me, I went to the house of Mr James. After waiting there about 20 minutes, Mr James and young Argall came in, and I then went up with them to old Mr Argall’s. We met Mr Letcher on the way, coming from Mr Argall’s. We then proceeded to the testator’s, whom we saw. He appeared to be in a sound state of mind. I asked him how he was, and he said that he had been poorly for a few days. We remained there talking about 20 minutes, the conversation being principally between him and Mr James, about some oats. Mr James and Mr Argall went out to the barn to see about the oats, and I went with them. I had at this time received the will now produced from young Argall, and I gave it to the testator when we got to the barn. I knew that I was going to the house to witness the execution of the will. Old Mr Argall said that he thought the barn would be a good place to sign it in, as he did not want the girls to know anything about it. He put on his spectacles and began to read the will, one or two words which he could not make out being explained to him. Young Argall came in while he was so engaged, and when he had finished reading, he put the will down on an oak chest. The son then asked if he should read the will to his father, and he replied that he might please himself. The son then read the will to him, after which he said—Now, father that is what you ordered me to have done for you, is it not? and the old man replied—Yes, it is as I wish. Old Mr Argall appeared at that time to understand perfectly what he was doing. I never saw him in any other than in a right and sound state of mind, and never heard that there was anything the matter with him till after his death. He said that his son James’s children ought not by right to have anything, as James had had more than his share already; but that the £5 mentioned in the will would be just acknowledging them. A pen and ink was then produced by young Argall, and the old man signed the will in my presence and the presence of Mr James. After he had done so, he said I do not wish the girls to know anything about the will, as he should not have any peace if they did, and he wanted to live the remainder of his days as quiet as possible. He said to me and Mr James, you had better sign the will as witnesses, and he gave us the pen, and we signed it in the presense (sic) of the old gentleman. After this I and Mr James remained in the barn, and helped to sift the charnock out of the oats; and old Mr Argall returned to his house in a short time. When we had finished we returned to the house, and drank two pints of beer with young Argall. Cross-examined—Before we went into the barn none of us said a word to the old man about the will. The son brought the pen and ink with him into the barn. Solomon T. James—I am a farmer in St. Agnes. I recollect seeing Mr Letcher and Wm. H. Argall on the 4th of April, 1862. They waited on me at a mine in the neighbourhood, and I went to my own house, which is about a quarter of a mile from old Mr Argall’s. Mr Jenkins and Mr Wm. Henry Argall went up with me to the testator. We went in and called for a pint of beer. He said that if we had any particular business to do, we were to go into another room. We conversed with Mr. Argall, and I spoke to him about some oats. I told him that the oats I had, had not been properly cleaned, and I said to the daughters they must clean them or I would not take them. The daughters declined to clean them, and the testator said—come, Solomon, we will go and clean them. We then went to the barn; on entering which, the old man said—“This is just the place for me to sign my will in.” Mr Jenkins then produced the will from his pocket. The witness proceeded to corroborate the evidence of Mr Jenkins to witness it. Had no more interest in this will being set up than the other, and had nothing whatever to do with the testator’s son, William Henry Argall. Cross-examined—I did not then remain to sift the oats, but left Mr Jenkins and the two Argalls in the barn. I do not know that I saw the old man again from that time to the time of his death. The testator had got the will and was reading it, when the son entered the barn. He said that the will stated the two children of James were to have £5 each, and he did not intend them to have anything; but in the conversation which afterwards took place, he said let it be as it is. I saw him several times between Christmas and this 4th of April, and his mind did not appear to be in any way affected. He was a business man, and appeared quite capable of transacting his affairs. William Henry Argall—I am an inkeeper (sic) and wheelwright, at Petersfield, in the parish of St. Agnes. I am the son of the testator. I remember in February, or the beginning of March, 1862, I received a message from my father. I went to him, and he said that he thought he was not long for this world, and I being the eldest son at home, he thought he had better make his will. I asked him who he wished to prepare his will; he said Mr Rowse. I saw Mr Rowse, but he declined, as he did not make wills where there was any large amount of property. I told my father, who said he did not care who made it, if it was properly done. I then mentioned Mr Newton, and he then made no objection. He gave me some instruction. He said that he should give the eleven of us all alike; but as the eldest had had £300 when he went to America some years before, he should have no more. He said that his wife was to have the whole of the profits arising out of the estate during her lifetime and widowhood— that James Stephen Letcher and Mr Wm. Langdon were to be the executors, and he asked me to ask them if they would stand. I saw them both, and told them what my father had sent me for, and they said they had no objection whatever to act. I also saw Mr Newton, who agreed to prepare the will, and I communicated to him the wishes of my father, and he prepared a draft of a will, according to the instructions my father had given. I showed this to my father, and he made some trifling objection. I went back to Mr Newton and told him, and he wrote another draft making the alteration my father required. I took this to my father and read it to him, and he said that is what I want. I took the draft back to Mr Newton, and told him that that was what my father wanted, and he afterwards prepared a proper copy. I took this to my father on the 3rd of April. The next day he desired me to go for Mr Jenkins and Mr James, and I went and saw them, and told them my father wanted to see them. They went to my father, and I heard him say to them that they had better to go into another room if they had any business to transact. Before we got to the house, I gave the will to Mr Jenkins. On our arrival, Mr James and the testator had some conversation about some oats. Mr Jenkins, Mr James, and my father then left and went into the barn, and as my sisters refused to go and sift the oats, as they said they were busy, my mother requested me to go and assist my father to sift them, and I went into the barn. My father had, before this, requested me to bring pen and ink with me in order that he might sign the will, as he did not wish my mother or two sisters should know anything about it. When I got to the barn, my father was reading the will, and when he had finished, he requested me to read it over to him, and I did so. He said that is what I want—it is what I ordered—this will make peace and quietness now, and after I am gone. (Mr Coleridge.—He was mistaken there.) I then gave him my pen and ink, and he signed the will, saying this is my act and will. Mr James and Mr Jenkins then signed it as witnesses. My father then gave the will to Mr James and desired him to keep it till after his death, as he should have no peace from the girls if they knew of it. I believe my father was of perfectly sound mind at the time, and in fact up to shortly before his death. I saw him frequently down to the time of his death in June, and in my opinion he remained in a competent sound state of mind until a few days before his death. About a fortnight before his death, I visited him, taking with me my little son. He was then in bed, but he knew the little child, and he told his wife to give him a penny for the child. She refused, and afterwards when I went down stairs, she said that if she “caught the old Bill (meaning me) upstairs again with the boy she would break his neck.” Cross-examined:—I positively swear that the testator was of sound intellect and in his usual state of mind up to within a few days of his death. Mr Karslake handed him a letter, on looking at which he admitted it was in his handwriting. Mr Karslake: You say that he was of perfectly sound mind when he signed this will. Now, I ask you, is it true that on the 2nd of January, 1862, you wrote to your brother (quoting from the letter) not to “wait for father to write you, for the old man will never be able to write another letter. He was very totalish—don’t know from one minute to the other what he is about.” Witness: I never wrote that, I never said that. Mr Karslake: But you say that the letter is in your handwriting. Witness: When I said so I had only looked at the head of the letter; but on looking at it further, I do not believe that it is my handwriting. I do not recollect having written it. Mr Karslake: Do you mean to swear that it is not your handwriting? Witness: I do not think that it is—it is not like my writing. The Judge: Witness—I would have you be cautious. Witness: I do not believe I wrote that in my life. Will you swear that it is not your writing?—I do no not believe that it is. We do not want to know what you believe—will you swear that it is not your writing?—I will—I swear I never wrote that letter, and that it is not my writing. Not a word of it?—No. By the Judge—Not the signature?—No; not to my knowledge. Mr Karslake—I do not ask you about your knowledge. Do you mean still to swear that you never wrote the letter? I do. I do not recollect writing to my eldest brother at all. Mr Karslake—I do not ask you about your eldest brother. Did you write that letter?—No. Not a word of it?—If I did not write any of it, I could not, of course, write a word of it. The witness, then, at the request of Mr. Karslake, proceeded to read the letter, and having gone through a short portion, he said—I do not want to read any more of it. I will swear I never wrote a word of it. It is neither my writing or inditing, and I defy you to produce any letter from me like this. It is totally unlike my writing. Mr Karslake—Then how was it that you swore twice that it was in your handwriting?—I had not seen my brother James for many years, and he never wrote to me. I now swear that I did not write that letter, and my handwriting can be produced. Mr Karslake—And so it will, I can tell you, and it will be proved. The Judge—You must know you (sic) own signature. Witness—Well, my lord, if that is my writing I can only say that I do not know it. Mr Karslake—And you mean to swear that the mind of the old man was at this time in as sound a state as ever you saw him in your life?—He was, and especially at the time he signed the will— (laughter). In the course of further cross examination, he said he lived at Wadebridge 18 years, and was unfortunate in 1851. He would swear he never heard of his father trying to strangle his mother, neither had he heard him say he was not married to witness’s mother. He would swear that he had not indemnified the executor for bringing this action. Re-examined by Mr Coleridge—My brother James, I believe, is in America, and my brother John is, I think, in Australia. The learned Counsel then read the letter in question, which was as follows:— St. Agnes, January 7th, 1862. My dear brothers—James and John,—Now, I suppose you will be surprised to receive a letter from me—now nearly 14 years has elapsed since you and me have ever seen each other, or have heard from each other. The fact is, I was over to father’s on Sunday last, and there I saw a letter from John; but it was after I had made several enquiries about it, and in perusing over that letter, I found that James had been a long time neglected—that he had not received a letter from home for a long time. So this is the reason I have taken it on me to write a short epistle. Now, in the first place, what I am going to write is about our aged parents. Now father has been about twelve months ill; in fact we thought he never would have got over it; but he have recovered a little; but during his illness, mother and the maidens, Bet and Jint, have no doubt have (sic) got over father and he have signed off everything to them; but the old man says he will take a Bible oath he don’t know anything about it if he has done it. So the stir has been very great, home. It is about twelve months ago when we discovered it first, and I did not know until last Sunday but what there was a regular correspondence carried on between you, James, and father. So this is the reason I have taken the liberty to write you a few lines. John said on his note that you would, he think, come home, if father would write. If you have any inclination about coming home, don’t wait for father to write you, for the old man will never be able to write another letter; he is very totalish—don’t know from one minute to the other what he is about. Nancy James said she had a good mind to write you; but I suppose has (sic) I have wrote you that must suffice now. I don’t know what I can say more, only I should be very glad to see you; and when I tell the old man about any of the boys, he cries, and says he shall never see them again, and especially Ned. He tell about Ned a good deal. Now, you knows what is best for yourself, wether (sic) you can afford to come home. If you can and wish, don’t wait to be wrote to again; for we should be glad to see you. Now the old maidens is very anxious for father to sell Mingoose Downs; but I hope he want. Now, I can’t say any more about this, only I should be glad to know where you are coming or not. Now, I am writing Frank the same time I write you. His address is—Grass Valley, Nevada County, California. Now, I don’t know Ned’s address; but I should be glad for you to send him word how father is. Now, mother is capital; that is all I shall say—in health I mean. Now, I am living in Goonlaze, next door to Wm. Parnal, renting a shop, carring (sic) on business, that is my address now. His daughter has a husband called Stephen Tredinnick. Can you say anything about him. Has the (sic) have not heard for years from him. Now, Ben desires me to ask where tis a good place for he or not, and he tells me to give his best love to you all, and to Alexander Stephens. So I must conclude by giving my kindest love to you all, Uncle Richard Argall as well. Your affectionate brother, W.H. ARGALL. Witness—I recollect writing a part of the letter to my brother John, but not the whole of it or anything like it. At the date of the letter I did not know whether my father had made a will or not. There was a dispute between my sisters and me about that time, and the girls said they had “nicked” us all, so that their bread was buttered, and their water was sure. I first heard about the other will from by brother Ben. I was at my mother’s one evening, and while there, my sister Betsy said, in the presence of a company of men who were in the house, “We girls are sharp enough to ‘nick’ you all.” I afterwards spoke to my father about what she said, and said that he knew nothing as to what she referred to. I asked him if they had “nicked” us, and done what they had said about the will, and he replied no; not that he knew of—that die when he might, they would all share alike. He then knew what he was about perfectly. Mingoose Downs was part of his property, and I heard that my sisters wished him to sell it, but he refused, saying, let it all remain for the children. Mr. J.S. Letcher deposed—I am one of the executors and trustees under the will, dated April 4, 1862. Mr W.H. Argall came to me and asked me if I would act as an executor for his father, and I replied that I would rather not, but still as Mr Argall was an old friend of mine, I would not make any objection. I saw old Mr Argall after this and spoke to him about his property. He said that he wished it to be equally divided among his children with the exception of his eldest son James, who had had his share, and that he should like me to act as his executors. I promised him as an old friend that I would do so. I called upon him on the morning of the 4th of April, and spoke to him about the will. His two daughters and Mrs Argall passed backward and forward to the room where we were sitting, and when they did so, he said “hush,” stating that if they heard of this will he should have no rest. He told me that he had promised to go to Mr James’s to sign it, but that he was not able, and that if the witnesses would come to his house, he would go into some place and execute it. I then left, and on my was (sic) back, I met Mr Jenkins, Mr Wm. H. Argall and Mr James. I had never heard or seen the will, and I requested that it should be read as I did not like to consent to act as executor to a will, the nature of which I did not know. It was handed to me by one of them, and when I had read it, I gave it back to them. I considered the testator to be of sound mind at the time. I never observed anything to be the matter with him, and I had known him for 40 years. He was poorly in health at this time, but perfectly sensible and right in his mind. I have no personal interest in any shape or form in this matter, and I am not mixed up in any way with Mr Wm. H. Argall. Richard Stephens, collector of taxes, and a shopkeeper at St. Agnes, deposed that he had known the testator for 30 years, and that he was always considered to be a shrewd intelligent man. Saw him in April, 1860, and he then appeared to be perfectly sensible and to know what he was about. At this stage of the case, Mr Coleridge said he was happy to inform his Lordship and the jury that the parties had come to an arrangement among themselves. The terms of the agreement were that the will which it was now sought to be set up should be withdrawn; that the first will of old Mr Argall should be admitted to probate, and that the costs which had been incurred should be paid out of the estate. Mr Karslake said that the first will left the property to the testator’s widow for her life, and then it was to go to his imbecile son, Joseph, and his two daughters, but by the second will which it had been attempted now to set up, the old woman would have had the property for her life, and at her death the estate would have been divided amongst the eleven children. The second will had now been withdrawn, and the former one would be admitted to probate, and the taxed costs would come out of the estate. His Lordship, addressing the jury, said that it had been agreed there should be a verdict for the defendants, upon terms which had been arranged between the parties. He was glad that they had come to this agreement, because had a protracted ligitation (sic) taken place between them, the whole of the estate might have been swallowed up in legal expenses. The jury then found a verdict for the defendants, on the terms agreed on. DEPOSIT OF MINE RUBBISH. HILL v. GARD AND ANOTHER. Mr Karslake, Q.C. and Mr Beer, (instructed by Mr Eales) were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Coleridge Q.C., and Mr Lopes (instructed by Messrs Bridgeman and Son) appeared for the plaintiffs (sic). This was a case raising an important question under the Assessionable Manors’ Act of the , as to whether the refuse slag out of the mines in setts granted by the Duchy may be desposited (sic) on the wastrel or demense lands:—The mine in question was the Old Gunnislake mine in the parish of Calstock. As the question was one purely of law, it was agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff, subject to a special case for the opinion of the court above. ACTION OF EJECTMENT. HOCKEN AND OTHERS v. HOCKEN AND OTHERS. Mr Karslake, Q.C., and Mr H. Buller (instructed by Mr Preston Wallis), appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr Kingdon instructed by Mr Hawker (acting as agent for Messrs Hensmen), were council for the defendants. This was an action of ejectment brought by Ann Hocken and two other persons, against the defendants, William Hocken and two others, all of whom reside in the parish of Michelstow (sic), by Camelford, to recover possession of some land in that parish, and forming part of the ancient Duchy manor of in Trigg. Owing to the complicated nature of the case, an arrangement was made, the effect of which was, that it was agreed the record should be withdrawn, subject to a special case to be afterwards stated, and argued before the court above next term. MINE SHARE TRANSACTION. MILLS v. JAMES. Mr Karslake, Q.C., and Mr Kingdon (instructed by Mr J. L. Peter) were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr H. Buller (instructed by Mr Downing) were for the defendant. Mr Karslake stated the case. He said—The plaintiff is an auctioneer and high-bailiff of the county court at Redruth, and the defendant a mine broker and share dealer living at Redruth. The action was brought against Mr James for not having transferred in proper form a share bought, through the agency of another person, of Mr James, and of which he gave a transfer, signed by him, but which, when presented for registration, was refused, in consequence of acts done by James himself. Mr T. Mills, the plaintiff, deposed—I am an auctioneer at Redruth, and the defendant is a mine share broker and dealer at the same place. I have known him for several years, and have had various dealings with him for shares. There is another share broker at Redruth named Martin Edwards. In the month of April I asked the latter to buy a share for me in Wheal Seton mine. The price I agreed to give was £207, and the share was to be delivered at the end of the month. That is the usual settling day in mine transactions, but as the last day of the month happened to be on a Sunday, I met Edwards on the Monday, the next day, to settle with him for it. I met him at the Mining Exchange at Redruth, and told him that I was prepared to settle with him. He asked me if I would take his transfer of the share, or the transfer of his principal. It (sic) said I would take the original transfer, that of his principal, of course. He then filled up my name in the transfer produced and handed it to me. I saw the signature, Abraham James, as the seller of the share, and thinking it was all right I gave Mr. Edwards my cheque for £202, which with the £5 dividend that had been declared on the share made the price of £207 agreed upon. This took place on the evening of Monday, the 1st of May. The mail had then left Redruth, but the following morning I sent the transfer to Mr H.T. Tilly, the purser of the mine, at Falmouth, in order that it might be registered. On the evening of the 3rd of May, I received a letter from Mr. Tilly informing me that he returned the transfer of the share from Mr. James to me, as Mr. James at that time held no share in Wheal Seton mine. On the following morning, the 4th, I saw Mr. Edwards and asked him the meaning of the transfer being returned to me. He said he would go and see Mr. James, who must make the share good, as the transaction was as fair a one as had ever been made. I afterwards on the same day saw the defendant, and asked him the meaning of the transfer being returned to me of my share in Wheal Seton. He said—you have nothing to do with me, sir; and you may do your worst. I replied—I have your transfer of the share, and unless you make it good within half-an-hour, I shall proceed against you for the amount. He said, very well, and passed on. Mr. Edwards paid the cheque I gave him into the bank the morning after he received it, and I have lost my money, as I have not got the share. In addition to this share, I had bought directly from the defendant five shares in the same mine, the delivery to be on the same morning, for which I paid him £965. These were duly registered in my name. Cross-examined—Mr James did not tell me that he was in the unhappy condition of having lost his money owing to the failure of Mr Kendall; nor did he say that Mr Kendall had given him a cheque which had been returned dishonoured, and that he had lost the money for the share. I am a member and one of the committee of the Redruth Mining Exchange, and know the rules of that institution. I bought this share subject to the rules and regulations under which shares are held in wheal Seton mine, but not to the rules and regulations of the Exchange. The defendant is also a member of the Exchange, and on the committee, and Mr Edwards is also a member, but not on the committee. Mr Tresidder, managing clerk to Mr H.T. Tilly, of Falmouth, the purser of Wheal Seton, produced the transfer ledger of the mine. He deposed—On the 1st of May, six shares in the mine stood in the name of Mr James; but on the 2nd, I received a transfer of five of them from him to Mr Mills, and the transfer was accordingly registered in the usual manner. I remembered receiving by post, on the 2nd, a transfer of another share from Mr James to Mr Mills, for registration. I found that there was no share then standing in the name of Mr James. I had, shortly before receiving the letter, registered a transfer of a share from Mr James to Mr Bone. Mr Bone came himself about five o’clock with the transfer, and the post was delivered about six o’clock. I registered the transfer to Mr Bone as soon as it was brought to me, and consequently there was no share remaining in Mr James’s name when the letter enclosing the transfer from Mr Mills was received. Mr Martin Edwards—I am a mine sharebroker at Redruth, and know Mr Abraham James, the defendant. He was formerly a mine sharebroker, but he is now a mine agent. I have been in the habit of doing business with Mr James, having sold shares to him from time to time for two years or so. In April last, I sold him a share in Wheal Seton. The bargain was that the share was to be delivered, and the money paid at the end of the month. On the 29th of April, Mr James asked me if I knew where he could get a share in Wheal Seton mine, and I told him I thought I did. In the course of conversation he told me that he had sold six shares in the mine to Mr Mills. I asked him whether Mr Mills had taken up the five shares he had sold or not, and he said so (sic), but he believed Mr Mills would do so before the day was out. In the course of the afternoon of the same day, I again met Mr James, and I asked him if he had got a Seton share yet, and he said no. I told him that I knew of a share for sale, and if he would give enough for it he could have it. He said he would buy it if I would sell it low enough. He asked what it could be bought for. And I said £198. He said that he could not give so much as that, and we then parted. Afterwards he came to me again, and I told him that Mr Kendall was the seller of the share. Mr Kendall was then leaving Redruth for Camborne, and he asked me to cross over the line to the down platform and ask him what he would sell the share for. I did so, and Mr Kendall said the lowest price he would take was £197. I told Mr James this, and he said—it is rather too much—that he could not afford to give it, and he offered £196 10s. I refused to take it, and we parted. I told him that I should have to pay Mr Kendall £197 for it, and then there was my profit, so that the lowest I could take was £198. After considering a few minutes, he said he would take the share at that price, and he asked me for a transfer. I requested him to stop till Mr Kendall came back, which he would do in an hour’s time, but he said that it would be great convenience to have the transfer at once, as he was sending some other transfers by that post to Mr Tilly, and he wanted to enclose this one. I thought the matter would be all right, and I gave him my transfer of the share. I had previously told him I had sold a share to Mr Mills, and I gave him a transfer for one of my own shares. Nothing was said about how I was to be reimbursed for this share, as I merely gave my transfer, until Mr Kendall returned. I afterwards got Mr. James’s transfer of the share from Mr Kendall, and when Mr Mills gave me the cheque for £200, I handed him the transfer. The transfer is in the usual form adopted in these transactions. It is a common practice for owners of shares in a mine, when they wish to part with them, to sign a transfer like that, and to leave a blank for the name of the purchaser, to be afterwards filled in, and to place this transfer in the hands of a broker. The document may then pass through several hands before it gets into those of a purchaser. I have seen this done both at Redruth and Camborne. I have seen one- third of the shares transferred in this way. Mr Coleridge objected to this evidence, as the witness did not mean to say that this was the general custom or mode of conducting business, but only as to an arrangement occasionally adopted. Examination continued—I cannot say that I have ever had a transfer like this from Mr James before. I gave the cheque for £198 which I received from Mr James to Mr Kendall, and I placed the cheque which I received from Mr Mills to my own account with the bank. Mr Mills afterwards informed me that the transfer had not been registered. On the evening of the first or second of May, Mr James came to my house, and asked me what transfer I had given Mr Mills. I told him his transfer which Mr Bone had passed to Mr Kendall. He asked me if I was sure of that, and I replied that I was perfectly sure. He then said—that is right—I am very glad of that. Mr Bone is the station master of the West Cornwall Railway at Redruth, and has, I believe, bought and sold shares in mines. Very likely he has had dealings with Mr James, but I am not sure of that. Cross-examined—I had bought two shares during the month from Mr Lanyon, and when Mr James pressed me to let him have the transfer, I gave him a transfer of one of these shares. When I got the transfer from Mr Kendall, I left him that also, so that he received two transfers in respect of the one share he had bought from me. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Coleridge submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. The evidence only proved that Mr Kendall had parted with a share to Mr Edwards, the broker, who in turn had parted with it to Mr Mills, who paid him for it, and consequently, Mr Edwards was the person against whom the action ought to have been brought. The share belonged to Mr James, who had entrusted a blank transfer to Mr Kendall, but as the cheque of the latter was dishonoured on being presented at the bank, Mr James had immediately transferred the share to another person. It had been attempted to be shown that it was customary to deal with transfers in the way described, but the evidence had failed to establish this point, as Mr Edwards only ventured to say that one-third of the shares were bought and sold in this manner. His Lordship thought that there was some evidence to go to the jury on the point. Mr Coleridge then addressed the jury for the defence. He submitted that the real question which they would have to decide was—who was to sustain the loss which had been occasioned by the act of a third party over whom Mr James and Mr Mills had no control, and who had acted most dishonourably by not paying for the share which he had bought—whether was (sic) Mr James or Mr. Mills to be the sufferer through the dishonesty of Mr Kendall? It was perfectly true that in the month of April there was a dealing with a share in Wheal Seton mine. Mr Kendall was anxious to purchase a share, and he bought one of Mr Bone. The latter had obtained it from Mr James, the defendant. Mr Bone told Mr James what he had done, and paid the defendant for the share and obtained from him a blank transfer, which he parted with to Mr Kendall, who was to settle for the share on the 29th, but before that day, Mr Kendall had obtained the share, and he afterwards parted with it to Mr. Edwards, who again sold it to the plaintiff; and the question shortly after arose as to the delivery and registry of the share. On the 29th of April, Mr Kendall was asked by Mr Bone to pay for the share, as the latter had had to hand the money for it to Mr James. Mr Kendall gave a cheque for the price of the share, and on this being presented at the Devon and Cornwall Bank at Truro, it was dishonoured; and it appeared that when, on the Saturday, Mr Kendall gave that cheque, he had been told by the bank that no more of his draughts would be honoured. In giving the cheque to Mr Bone, he knew he was giving him a mere piece of waste paper; and the question was whether Mr James, who had originally parted with the share which went to Mr Kendall, and for which Mr Kendall had never paid, or Mr Mills, who had bought it through Mr Kendall and Mr Edwards, was to lose the money. If Mr Kendall had honoured his cheque, everybody would have been paid, and there would have been an end of the matter; but as this has not been done, it was unreasonable to suppose that Mr James should be made the victim, as he had had nothing to do in the transaction with either Mr Kendall or Mr Mills, and he submitted that the real party to whom the latter should look was Mr Edwards, who might then seek his redress from Mr Kendall. Mr Edwards stood in this position, he was the person who had dealt with Mr Kendall for the share as principal; he admitted that he bought the share from Mr Kendall and that he transferred it to Mr Mills; he had been paid the price of the share by the latter, and he got the share from Mr Kendall, but inasmuch as Mr Kendall had never paid for the share—that there had been a suspension of the register, and the persons who had got the transfer never made themselves owners of it by sending the transfer to the purser for registry, the person who had received Mr Kendall’s dishonoured cheque, very properly desired to prevent the transference of the share for which he had never been paid, and he proceeded to Falmouth and had it registered in his name. He contended that the transaction respecting the sale of the five shares by Mr James to Mr Mills had nothing to do with the matter in dispute, and ought not to have been mixed up with it, the transaction having been duly completed on both sides; neither had the dealing between Mr Edwards and Mr James for the single share in the mine, and why it had been imported into it he was at a loss to conceive. It was a share which had been parted with by Mr Lanyon to Mr Edwards, and sold by the latter to Mr James, who had paid for it in cash, and there was an end to the transaction. On the ground then, that an action could not be brought against a man with whom no dealings had taken place by the party aggrieved, he submitted that if any person was to suffer in this transaction, it ought to be the person who dealt with Mr Kendall, namely, Mr Edwards. He submitted that Mr. Edwards felt that he was the person really liable, and this would account for the manner in which he gave his evidence. He knew that he had got the share from Mr Kendall and had sold it to Mr Mills, and that instead of paying Mr Kendall for the share with Mr Mill’s cheque, he gave him another and paid the latter to his own account. He urged that under the circumstances the jury must rest satisfied that it would be unjust to find by their verdict that Mr. James must be the victim in a transaction in which he had taken no part. He then called the following witnesses:— Mr John Bone deposed—I have been in the habit of holding shares jointly with Mr James. In April last, I held several shares with him in Wheal Seton mine. The shares were standing in his name in the cost book, but I had an equal interest in them. I remember seeing Mr Samuel Kendall on the 8th of April, and I sold him a share for the end of the month, which is the usual purchase. The price was £206. Nothing was said by Mr Kendall as to his acting for some one else in the transaction, but I sold the share to him as the principal. I gave notice to Mr James immediately after of what I had done, and I returned to him a cheque for £200 which I had received from him, on his handing the transfer of the share to me. On the 29th of April, I went twice to Mr Kendall’s office, but could not see him, but after banking hours he came to me. He said that he had come for the Wheal Seton share. He took a cheque from his pocket and handed it to me, and then asked for the transfer of the share. I was about to give it to him, when I asked him if he could do any business respect of the share, and I offered him £127 for it back again, the value of the shares having by this time fallen, so that there need be no transfer required at all. He wanted £198 10s., but I told him that that was more than the market price, and I could not give it. He then handed me the cheque, and took the transfer and went away. The cheque was drawn bp (sic) himself on the Devon and Cornwall Bank at Truro, and was for £201, which with the dividend due on the share of £5, made £206, the price. I kept the cheque till the Monday, and then sent it, along with some money of the railway, to be paid into Messrs Bolitho’s bank, and on the Wednesday it was returned to me dishonoured. I heard of the circumstances in which Mr Kendall was in on the Tuesday, and I immediately telegraphed to an officer of the railway company at Penzance to request that the cheque should be presented at the bank at once. On the following morning it was sent to the Devon and Cornwall Bank at Truro, when the manager sent it back again. I mentioned the circumstance to Mr James on the Tuesday, and we thought that it would be better to transfer the share from Mr James’s name. I then went direct to Falmouth, and presented the transfer of the share from the (sic) Mr James to myself and had it registered. I heard that Mr Kendall had become bankrupt about ten o’clock on the Tuesday morning. Mr A. James, the defendant, deposed: I have dealt in mine shares, sometimes on my own account, and sometimes jointly with Mr Bone. In the beginning of April we had some shares in Wheal Seton mine, but none of them were entered in the share ledger in either Mr Bone’s name or mine. Two of the shares were in the name of Mr Lanyon, and the others in the names of Mr Ward and Mr Jackman. They were purchased for delivery on the 15th of April. On the 8th of April I saw Mr Bone, who informed me of his sale of the share to Mr Kendall, and on the 17th I gave him this transfer. I knew at that time that the share had been sold to Mr Kendall for delivery on the 29th of April. The object in giving the transfer was, because sometimes persons want a share before the settling day, and it was delivered to Mr Bone in blank, in order that he might deliver it to Mr Kendall, if he required it before the settling day. Mr Bone then handed me back a cheque for £200, which I had previously given him. There was still a joint share account between us. I heard no more about the matter until Saturday the 29th. I know Mr Martin Edwards perfectly well. I did not employ him to sell my shares in Wheal Seton mine, but on the 29th I bought a share from him in this mine. On that day I met Mr Martin Edwards and asked him the price of a Wheal Seton share. He said £198 10s. I bid him £197 for it, and he said he could not supply it at that price. I told him that I wanted to purchase a share for cash, and the utmost I would give for it was £198. He said—you shall have it. I asked him whose it was, and he said—Mr Lanyon’s. I said let me have Mr Lanyon’s transfer, on which he handed it to me. Nothing was said at that time about Mr Kendall, and his name was not mentioned. I went by the five o’clock train from Redruth to Camborne. This transaction between me and Mr Edwards had nothing whatever to do with the transaction which has been referred to between Mr Bone and Mr Kendall. I had the share from him and paid him for it then and there; and it has since been transferred to Mr Mills, to make up the five shares I had agreed to sell him. These five shares were all delivered to him on Monday, the 1st of May, and the share I bought from Mr. Edwards was to make up the number. I saw Mr Mills on the Saturday and the Monday morning, but not a word passed between us respecting this sixth share. I think that Mr Mills told me on the evening of the 1st May, that he had another transfer of another share of mine in Wheal Seton. I said—Indeed! I am rather surprised at that. I heard of Mr Kendall’s stoppage on Tuesday, the 2nd May. Mr Bone was very much annoyed about the transfer of the share in blank which he had given to him. I told him to be quiet a bit, and I then said to him that there was no time to lose—that the only protection for both would be to transfer the share out of my name into his; and he started at once for Falmouth. On the evening of the 3rd I saw Mr Mills again. He said to me—“What are you going to do with this matter?” I asked—“What do you mean?” He replied—“With respect to the Seton transfer.” I again asked him what he meant. He replied—“I hold your transfer for one share.” I asked—“Of whom did you buy it.” He said of Mr Martin Edwards. I asked him—“Did you pay for it?” and he said yes. “Then,” I said, “go to him for the completion of the bargain. I know nothing of the transaction, and have nothing to do with the matter.” He said—“Have you not? you will soon see whether you have or not;” and he went off with a fling. The writ was issued on the 4th of May. On the Tuesday evening I saw Mr Edwards. I went to his house, and I believe he was going to bed. I knocked at the door, and he came down. I asked him if he received a transfer of a Seton share of mine in blank. He said that he had. I asked him to whom he had passed it? and he said to Mr Mills. I said—Very good; and on that we parted. Mr Henry E. Gibson, manager of the Devon and Cornwall Bank at Truro, deposed that Mr S. Kendall had an account with the bank in the early part of the present year, which he had overdrawn considerably—above £1,000—by the end of April. On Monday, the 1st of May, saw the plaintiff at the bank office in Truro, and he told witness that he had a conversation with Mr Kendall, and he had ascertained that he (Mr Kendall) had a large number of cheques out, which he was afraid he would not be able to meet. He told Mr Kendall before the 1st May that his account was greatly overdrawn, and that no more cheques of his would be honoured. Mr Coleridge summed up, after which Mr Karslake replied on the whole case. He Lordship deferred his summing up until the next morning, it being then half-past six o’clock, and the Court adjourned. FRIDAY. Before Mr Justice Keating. The court opened this morning at half-past nine o’clock. MILLS v. JAMES. His Lordship proceeded to sum up on the evidence in this case, which had been adjourned from the previous evening. He said that the question he should ask the jury was whether the contract in this case was made with the authority of the defendant. That the plaintiff, Mr Mills, did purchase a share, which he supposed to be from the defendant, could admit of no doubt, but his notion upon the subject would not bind the defendant unless the latter authorised the contract to be made with the plaintiff; and he (the learned Judge) should ask the jury whether, upon the evidence, they were of opinion that the contract was made with the authority of the defendant. Inasmuch as the case presented some peculiarities, he should give leave to the learned council for the defendant to move the court above on the question. However, he would not trouble them on that point, but the simple question he should leave to them was whether the contract was made with the authority of Mr James. They would observe that the facts upon the point were these:—When Mr James handed the transfer to Mr Kendall, the name of the purchaser was omitted. It would be for the jury to say whether Mr James did not, at all events, intend that Mr Kendall should have the share, because he took the money from Mr Kendall, or rather he took his cheque, then supposed to be good money, though it afterwards turned out not to be. Did he intend Mr Kendall to have the share which was so sold to him? He supposed the jury would not have much doubt that he did have that intention. The name of the purchaser was omitted, and without that it would be quite incomplete. It would, therefore, be for the jury to consider, whether, by giving this transfer with the purchaser’s name omitted, and taking the cheque, they did not believe that Mr James intended to give authority to some one to fill up the name of the purchaser in that transfer. If they should be of opinion that the contract was not made with the authority of Mr James, he was entitled to their verdict, because no contract could bind a man unless it was so made; but if they believed that the transfer of the share was made with his authority, they must find a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury, after about a quarter of an hour’s deliberation, found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. DISPUTED WILL. TIPPET v. TIPPET This was a probate case. Mr Karslake, Q.C., and Mr Bullar were for the plaintiff, instructed by Mr Preston Wallis, of Bodmin; and Mr Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr Cole for the defendants, instructed by Messrs Hodge, Hockin, and Marrack. Mr Bullar opened the proceedings. He said that the plaintiff was Elizabeth Tippett, and the defendant George Tippett. The issue to be tried was whether the last will and testament of Charles Tippett was duly executed, and whether the said Charles Tippett was of sound mind at the time he executed the will. Mr Karslake, in stating the case, said Mrs Elizabeth Tippett sought to sustain the will of her late husband Charles Tippett, who lived at a place called Gurtla, in the parish of Luxullion (sic), and who died on the morning of the 5th of February, 1856. The will which Mrs Tippett sets up was made on the morning in question, a few hours before the husband’s death. Mr Charles Tippett, who was 42 years of age at the time of his death married in 1844. He was then a working miner. In September, 1852, he emigrated to Australia, and in 1855, his wife, who had been left behind, joined him there. They went to the gold diggings, and it appeared that while the husband dug for gold, the wife kept boarders, and between them they succeeded in amassing a sum of money amounting to £1,200, the wife having contributed as much as the husband to the common funds. They then returned to Cornwall in the year 1860, and settled at Gurtla. Here Mr Tippet (sic) was taken ill in February last, and a person named Hillyar, an assistant to a surgeon in that neighbourhood, was called in to see him. Mr Hillyar considered that Mr Tippett was dangerously ill, but as he was perfectly sensible, and wished to make a will, settling his property on his wife, Mr Hillyar, very properly, under the circumstances, drew out the will, which was duly executed and witnessed by two men named Henry Hick and Joseph Trigg. The will was as simple as any document could well be. It purported to be the last will and testament of Charles Tippett, of Gurtla, in the parish of Luxulyan, a farmer, and bequeathed, after the payment of his debts and funeral expenses, all his goods and chattels and property of every description to his wife absolutely, and made her his sole executrix. Under these circumstances he was at a loss to know why the will was disputed by the deceased woman’s brother; but he believed it was reported that Mr Hillyar, who drew out the will and assisted the deceased in the disposition of his property, now says that the deceased was not at the time in a fit state of mind to sign the will. If that were so he never heard of anything more irregular or unaccountable. However, if his learned friend put Mr Hillyar into the box they would then hear what he had to say. The learned Connsel (sic) then called the following evidence for plaintiff. Henry Hick, a shoemaker at Luxulyan, said he knew the deceased, Mr Charles Tippett, for three or four years before his death. He lives at Gurtla. I saw him on Sunday the 5th of February. I remained pretty nearly all night. Mr Tippett appeared to be in a right state of mind. Between twelve and one o’clock Mr Hillyar was there, and they were talking about making a will. He went up stairs into the testator’s room and I followed. Hillyar said to Mr Tippett “you are very ill; I cannot do any more for you. I understand you have not made any settlement for your wife; do you intend to bequeath all your property to her.” He said “yes.” Then Mr Hillyar asked if he should make his will, the testator said “yes.” My wife was in the room at the time, a man named Grigg was in the house. Mr. Hillyar wrote the will in the room and read it out to Mr Tippett, who was breathing hard, but stopped his breath as well as he could and listened. Mr Hillyar then asked him if he was satisfied with that as his will, he said “yes.” Tippett signed the will in my presence and in that of Joseph Grigg and Mr Hillyar. We then all three signed our names in the presence of the testator. He died about twenty minutes before seven o’clock on Monday morning. Cross-examined: The testator wrote his own name. The doctor steadied his hand. I did not hear him say anything while I was in the room but “yes.” I am sure he said “yes.” He said it with all his might. The doctor did not hold the testator’s hand and write the name; he merely steadied the hand. The will was only read once. Afterwards the deceased asked for Elizabeth. I asked him if he wanted his wife. He said “yes.” I called her up, and the testator grasped he hand, drew her towards him, and kissed her. Joseph Grigg, a farmer, at Luxulyan, said he was present on the night in question. He spoke to Mr Tippett, who knew him as well as ever he did in his life. Heard Mr Hillyar read the will to him. Mr Tippett was quite sane. Conversed with him several times and saw nothing wrong about him. He was 42 years of age. Witness signed the will and saw the testator of the other witnesses sign. Cross-examined: Went up stairs before Mr Hillyar wrote the will, and saw Mr Tippett sign. Did not see the Doctor take his hand and write with it. Rebecca Grigg, wife of last witness, knew the deceased four years. Heard him speak on the night he died about the disposal of his property. Mrs Tippett said to him “my dear, your’e very ill, ain’t you.” He said “yes.” Mrs Tippett then said, “you have not done for me as you said you would.” He looked up against her and said “my dear, all is yours—the cattle and everything here, and the ground they stand on—everything is yours.” He then appeared to be very comfortable. That was about one o’clock on the morning on which he died. He appeared quite sensible. I attended him, and when I spoke to him he answered me sensibly. Cross-examined by Mr Coleridge: The deceased appeared to be very comfortable and composed in his mind. Mrs Tippett examined: I am the widow of the late Chas. Tippett; was married in the year 1844. In September, 1852, my husband, who was a miner, went to Australia. In 1853 I went to join him. He had then £30. He was at the diggings when I went out, and I then kept lodgers, and he continued at the diggings till we had saved £1200. In 1860 we came back to Cornwall; and my husband gave £650 for Gartla. Mr Geo. Tippett was my husband’s brother. I believe he lived at Tavistock; he was never at Gartla but once. My husband died of scarlatina in February last. I never knew him to have any illness before in his life. He was only ill about a week. He always told me I should have all the property. He said during the week he should send for somebody to make a settlement. He told me “the cattle and the ground they stand on—everything is yours.” The Rev. Cuthbert E. Hoskin, vicar of Luxulyan, examined: I knew Mr Tippett. Saw him on the Friday before he died. He was our overseer. I conversed with him then. He was perfectly rational. I have seen the deceased’s signature several times. He used to write his name in the parish book. The signature in the will is extremely like his. This completed the plaintiff’s case. Mr Coleridge said the case for the defendants was that the deceased, Charles Tippett, did not make his will till he was in such a weak state of body and mind as to be incapable of communicating to any bystander what, if anything, was passing in his mind. He did not say that the deceased was insane or anything of the kind, but that his vital power had so far departed from him at the time the will was made, that he was incapable of knowing the effect of what was being done. The fact was that when the deceased was in the exercise of his full bodily and mental faculties he never made any provision for his wife, and it was not till he was too weak to exercise his faculties that the settlement was made. If they looked at the signature purporting to be that of the deceased and compared it with the body of the document which was in Mr Hillyar’s handwriting, they would find it, notwithstanding Mr Hockin’s statement, to be extremely alike. The real truth was, as they could hardly doubt, that Mr Hillyar, thinking very probably that he was doing right, drew the will from the instructions of the wife. He considered, no doubt, that as there were no children, and as she had borne the heat and burden of the day with her husband in Australia, and helped to make the money, she was the proper person to enjoy it. Of course, this was a case which appealed to the sympathy of both of those who had wives and who had not, and if he (Mr Coleridge) had ventured to cross-examine the poor woman when she appeared in the witness box, he would have been looked upon as an unfeeling brute; but this was not the way in which a jury should look at the case, because they must recollect if they supported a will trade in this irregular way by Mr Hillyar, however good his motives might be, they must support wills made in the same way by other persons whose motives were very different. The government had been compelled to legislate most strictly to prevent persons being taken advantage of in their dying moments, when their faculties were weak, and they were subject to influences which would not affect them at other times. This case might be a hard one; he admitted that it was a hard one, and he himself sympathised with the wife; but nevertheless it was the law, and there would be an end to the safety of all property, and of everything else, if persons were to allow their feelings and passions to get the better of their sense of justice and right. Mr Coleridge then commented upon the extraordinary fact that his learned friend had not called Mr Hillyar, the man who made the will, and upon whose conduct and character the validity of the whole transaction depended. He would, however, inform him that this case was defended solely in consequence of correspondence which the brothers of the deceased had had with Mr Hillyar; they would never have thought of disputing the will, had not the account which Mr Hillyar gave of it been so very unsatisfactory and suspicious. Mr Hillyar said: I am a medical assistant to Mr Berryman, general practitioner, living at St. Austell. I have been his assistant about fourteen months. I remember being sent for to see the deceased on the 1st February last. He was suffering from scarlet fever. On the Saturday following he was a great deal better. Was sent for again on the Sunday night when he found the deceased in a state of muttering delirium. I stayed all night with him, I went down stairs to see his wife and told her he was in a very dangerous state. She said something about a will in consequence of which I went up stairs again, and then I found the deceased out of bed, and sitting on the corner of the bed. He was constantly speaking about the work on the farm or one thing or other. After some persuasion I got him into bed, and he lay with his head to the foot of the bed. Mr Grigg or Mr Tippett asked him who I was, and after a little while he said I was the doctor. I then gave him some stimulant and applied mustard plasters to the calves of his legs, which rallied him somewhat. I then went down stairs and left his wife with him. It was between 12 and one o’clock when I arrived at the house. I wrote the will about four or five oclock. The wife complained to me that no provision had been made for her, and that her husband intended to have given her all the property. It was in consequence of what she said to me that I wrote the will. I first asked him if he wished to leave his property to his wife, and he made a gesture which I construed to mean yes. I cannot swear that he knew at the time what was passing. Considering the state he was in I should think he did not. After I had written the will I read it over to him and asked him if that was the disposition he wished to make of his property. He again answered by a gesture, and not by words. The will was signed by the deceased with my aid. I took hold of his hand and held his finger and thumb between my fingers. In fact I wrote the name, the pen being in his hand. By Mr Beauchamp Tucker, a juryman: Did he ask you to do that? Witness: Well, I think I asked him if I should and he gave me to understand that I should do so. Cross-examination continued: I cannot undertake to say that the deceased was in the full possession of his mental faculties at the time he signed the will. It might have been an hour or an hour and a half afterwards when he died. He was almost in a dying state when he signed the will. It was the first time I ever did such a thing, and I should not have done it then if it had not been for the importunities of the wife; I was in a very painful position, and my feelings were overcome. Cross-examined by Mr Karslake: The signature to the will is mine. Knew at the time I signed it, that I professed to have seen it signed by a person going out of the world. I wrote the will in consequence of something that the wife said to me. Q. Did you say to the wife downstairs that you thought her husband dangerously ill, and ask if he had made any settlement of his property? A. I might have done so. Q. When you went up stairs you say you found the deceased out of bed. Now did you find him sitting up in bed with his feet in a warm bath with mustard in it? Witness (after some hesitation): I think he was. Q. That is what you called out of bed is it? Now did you not advise the persons who were attending upon the deceased that it would be better to put mustard plasters on the calves of his legs! A. Yes. Q. And then he was put to lie down in bed again. A. Yes. Q. Is that what you call finding him out of bed? No answer. Q. After he was got in bed you left him for the purpose of allowing his wife to talk to him? A. Yes. Q. Did you hear him talk to her? A. I cannot say that I did. Q. Can you say that you did not? A. No. Q. How long did she remain up stairs? A. It might have been a quarter of an hour. Q. When she came down, did you ask her if any settlement of her husband’s affairs had been made? A. Yes; and she said no, and that it was his wish to settle everything upon her. Q. Did you then go up and ask him if that was his intention? A. Yes. Q. Did you say to him: So it is your desire that your wife shall have all you possess? A. I did. Q. And he made a gesture of assent? A. Yes. Q. Having made the will, he was propped up in bed, the will was read to him, and he signed it? A. Yes. By Mr Coleridge: It was about three hours after I went to the house that I made the will. Deceased had been getting weaker every hour. By the Judge: You say you read the will over to the testator? A. Yes, my lord. His Lordship: What did you read it over to him for? A. That he might know the contents of it. His Lordship: Did you think him capable of understanding the contents? A. I cannot say that, sir. His Lordship to Mr Coleridge: Can you go any further with this case. Mr. Coleridge observed that, as he had said before, the cause of the will being disputed at all, was owing to the very unsatisfactory communication made to the brokers of the deceased by Mr Hillyar; but after the evidence he had now given—he (Mr Coleridge) could hardly go any further with the case. The jury then found for the plaintiff, amidst some slight evidences of approbation. DISPUTED RIGHT TO MINING PROPERTY. NORTHMORE HERLE PIERCE LAWRENCE v. LORD FALMOUTH AND OTHERS. This was a case of considerable importance, involving the right to a large portion of Lord Falmouth’s mining property, and having great interest in a historical point of view. There were about forty witnesses to be examined on the part of Lord Falmouth, including Mr Hardy, the well-known palæographist, who attended for the purpose of interpreting the ancient deeds which were to be produced. Mr John Smith, keeper of records of the Court of Probate, brought down a series of wills of the Boscawen family, dating back to 1641, and the court was positively crammed with huge boxes containing deeds and documentary evidence of various kinds. It was therefore anticipated that should it be possible for the case to proceed, the hearing would occupy several days. Mr Coleridge, Q.C., Mr Lopes, and Mr Pinder, appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Messrs Gurney, Cowlard, and Kempson; for the defendants, Mr Karslake, Q.C., Mr Buller, and Mr Kingdon, instructed by Messrs Hodge, Hockin, and Marrack. Mr. Pinder opened the pleadings. He stated that the action was one of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff, Northmore Herle Pierce Lawrence, against the Right Hon. Evelyn Viscount Falmouth, William Vivian, Edward King, and Nicholas Harvey, to recover possession of one undivided share in some tin mines lying or being within the right of certain mines known as Great Wheal Busy, as at present worked and carried out under certain downs or commons at Chacewater, in the parish of Kenwyn. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff, and that was the issue to be tried. Mr COLERIDGE, Q.C., opened the case for the plaintiff at considerable length. In the course of his remarks he said, the case the jury were about to investigate was one of considerable importance, both from the nature of the rights involved in it, and the large amount of property with which those rights were connected. As they had heard, it was an action to recover an undivided share in a portion of the mine or mines under the Downs of Chacewater, a large outlying part of the parish of Kenwyn, near Truro, and underneath the whole of which had been for a great number of years a large quantity of mineral treasures worked and to be worked. The plaintiff sought to recover the portion for which this action was brought, as the result of evidence of various kinds. He (the learned counsel) should lay before them a long, somewhat complicated, but, he trusted, a complete and satisfactory, title upon paper and pedigree, tracing from the time of Henry VIII. down to the present time, and showing that Lord Falmouth and the present plaintiff, Mr Lawrence, originally came from the same stock, and that at the time of King Henry VIII. this property was held by their common ancestor, and that by a series of deeds and a number of dealings, the property had passed into the hands of Lord Falmouth on the one side, the plaintiff, Mr Lawrence, upon the other, and, to a small extent, to Mr Treffry. On the map which he placed before them the whole of the property in question was delineated. It was divided by two lines—the one from Chacewater towards a mine called Wheal Fat, which was the limit of the Wheal Busy Mine, and the limit of that portion of the property now sought to be recovered. There was the subject matter of a second action, which, when they had got to the end of this, it would be quite time enough to consider. Now those divided portions were, at the time of Henry VIII., held by one person. The claim which Mr Lawrence made in respect of the northern and southern portions were not precisely identical, for, whereas upon the northern portion near the road from Chacewater to Redruth he claimed one-third of the dues coming to the Lord for the working of these tin mines, on the south he was only able to substantiate a claim to one-twelfth, and they would see when the document was before them that with regard to the mines upon the north he had always claimed and always received a third of the dues; and with regard to the mine on the south, he had always claimed and received one-twelfth of the dues paid in respect of that mine. The Wheal Busy sett included substantially the whole of this portion in dispute. The plaintiff did not deny that the surface of the whole of Chacewater Downs, both north and south, was the property of Lord Falmouth. He did not dispute that but for the series of deeds and acts which he was enabled to lay before them, Lord Falmouth would be entitled, according to the common law, to the whole of the land under the surface of the Chacewater Down, because by common law, when a man owned the surface of land he owned the space which it covered up to heaven, and usque ad inferos. The plaintiff’s contention was this— that the common ancestor of himself and Lord Falmouth, in the reign of Henry VIII., was possessed of the whole of this Chacewater Down, and other considerable properties, including amongst them the Manor of Trenowth, seven or eight miles distant from Chacewater, and other properties. He was the owner in fee of the whole of the property, and by various dealings which took place the whole of the surface of Chacewater Down came into the possession of the Boscawen family, the ancestors of Lord Falmouth, and the manors of Trenowth and Prideaux became the absolute property of the ancestors of Mr Lawrence—the Herle family, of whom Mr Lawrence was the sole representative. At the time when the partition of the property, which was originally undivided, took place, although the surface of these downs passed to the Boscawens, and Trenoweth and Prideaux to the Herles, there was a reservation in all the mines and minerals, and therefore in the mines and minerals under the surface there had been no severance, as they were then held in common by the coheiresses, and there had been no deed of partition from that time to the present. The mines in respect of which the plaintiff claimed these dues were tin mines of great antiquity, as would be found by the names of Killifreeth, Killicor, Creeg-Brawse, Goon-Chace, which they would find occurring again and again in the deeds which would be laid before them. Killifreeth, Killicor, Creeg-Brawse were still existing names, and had continued to be known ever since the time of Henry VIII., in 1538 or 1539. He should be able to show, he thought, with unusual completeness the undoubted possession of portions of this mine, from 1588 down to 1856 or 1857, by Mr Lawrence or his ancestors. The first document that would be produced was an inquisition post-mortem of the 30th of Henry VIII.—in 1538—on the death of a gentleman named Nicholas Carminowe, and which set forth that his two daughters—his only children—Philippa and Elizabeth, were seized in fee as his co-heiresses of certain properties, including Killifreth, Creegbrawse, Nancealvearne, Goon Chace, and Killicor. Elizabeth was stated to be aged 21 and the wife of Nicholas Herle; and Phillippa to be aged 19, and the wife of Hugh Boscawen—the ancestors respectively of Mr Lawrence (the plaintiff) and Lord Falmouth. The next document were two fines, the one of the 30th and the other of the 37th of Henry VIII.; the result of which would be that one moiety of the property inherited by the daughters would have passed in tail to Mr and Mrs Boscawen and the other moiety in tail to Mr and Mrs Herle. After these deeds there was a blank, as would naturally be expected in dealing with such very ancient documents—a blank which lasted, at least as far as the plaintiff was aware, from the 37th of Henry VIII. to the first of Elizabeth—1558. Of the latter date there would be produced an inquisition post mortem on the death of Nicholas Herle, which recited the fine of the 30th Henry VIII., and also a deed between Nicholas and Elizabeth Herle and Hugh and Philippa Boscawen which stated that Thomas Herle, the son of Nicholas, was his next heir. Next they had a document of the 19th of James I. (1621), which recited a deed of the 12th November, in the 12th year of James I., and which was a settlement of the manor of Trenoweth, on the marriage of the son and heir of Thomas Herle, on his marriage with Loveday Glynn. It appeared then that there was a deed of partition which was recited by which the whole of Trenoweth became vested in the family of the Herles in exchange as he supposed for what at all events was a part of the arrangement whereby the surface of the land under which the present mines were worked became vested in the family of the present Lord Falmouth. Thus Trenoweth and some other property vested in the Herles; and the rest, including Killifreth, Goon Chace, and Killicor, in the Boscawens. But the jury would see from the documents that there was in the deed of partition a very careful reservation of the tin mines, which therefore vested as before in the families of Herle and Boscawen in equal and undivided moieties. They had divided the rest of the property; but probably it had been found that it would be inconvenient and difficult to divide the mines, and therefore this reservation had been made. The next deed was dated the 18th September, 1672. It was a settlement upon the marriage of Nicholas Herle, and stated that Edward Herle, of Prideaux, was the settlor; and the property dealt with included, besides the manor of Trenoweth, Killifreth, Creegbrawse, and Nancealvearne, situate and lying in Kenwyn, with other messuages, “part and parcel of or annexed to the said manor or barton of Trenoweth.” This deed was thus very important in giving evidence of the perception of dues in respect of the mines, because it dealt with them as appertaining to, or being part and parcel of, the manors or bartons of Trenoweth, or of Prideaux. Another very important phrase was used in this settlement— the words and “appertaining to Landue.” Mr Herle was spoken of as of Landue, and there would be evidence given of the receipt of one-third of the dues by the family of Landue, in whose right and as whose successor Mr Lawrence now sought to recover. That settlement would be placed before them, and, in passing, he might say that they would find the seals upon it had been obliterated, but the explanation was exceedingly simple. Mr Lawrence, the plaintiff, was a great antiquarian, and was aware that it was a very common thing in old deeds to put a coin under the seal, he cut open those seals for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there were any coins within them. Under this settlement of 1672 it appeared that four generations of the family of Herle enjoyed the property— Edward Herle, the settlor of 1672; Nicholas Herle, the person upon whose mareiage (sic) the settlement was made, and who was the first tenant under the settlement for life; Edward Herle, his son, the first tenant in tail; and fourth, a gentleman named Northmore Herle who in 1736 made a will by which he left the property to a number of Miss Kendalls, the deaths of whose descendants he should be able to account for. As soon as he had done all this, the pedigree of Mr Lawrence would, he thought, be completed with a reasonable certainty, from Mr Carminow, the original holder of the property in the time of King Henry 8th, to the present time. But, intermediately, there were two recoveries: one by Edward Herle in 1714, the 13th year of the reign of Queen Anne, and another by Northmore Herle in 1737, in the 10th year of the reign of George 2nd, and in those recoveries—and at great length in the deeds alluding to the uses of those recoveries—were important words pointing out that they were dealing with the property, part of which the plaintiff now sought to recover. These recoveries did not really present any new feature in the case, and he would pass on to the will of 1736. This was a will of Mr Northmore Herle, who described himself in it as Northmore Herle, of Landue, who bequeathed to his mother Elizabeth, and Nicholas Kendall, of Lanlivery, the manor and barton of Landue, the manor and barton of Prideaux, the manor and barton of Prideaux (sic), the manor and barton of Trenowth, his moiety of Endeal, and all other lands, hereditaments, and parts of manors; also, he bequeathed all his tin mines and whatsoever mines he held, to the said Elizabeth and Nicholas Kendall, their heirs and assignees for the purpose hereinafter mentioned, i. e., that they should stand possessed of them in trust for and to the use of his sisters-in-law, Jane Kendall, Elizabeth Kendall, Ann Kendall, Sybilla Kendall, Hannah Kendall, and Charlotte Kendall, for ever. Therefore, they would, upon the death of the testator, Northmore Herle, become possessed, as joint tenants, of these various estates, and amongst others, all the tin mines, which then belonged to Mr Northmore Herle. There were six Miss Kendalls to be accounted for, and out of that number three were married and three were unmarried. Some left issue and one or two did not; but he was in a position by means of 60 or 70 certificates to dispose of all the Miss Kendalls, and all their descendants, and to show that in 1788, the property became vested in Mr Humphry Lawrence, the father of the present plaintiff, and some persons of the name of Pierce, but at the present time, the shares of the Pierces, by certain arrangements, were vested, in the plaintiff, with the exception of some very small portion, which it was not material for the present purpose to distinguish. Therefore, whatever came down in these various deeds to Northmore Herle, and whatever passed by the will of Northmore Herle, in 1736, he should be enabled to satisfy the jury was now vested in the plaintiff, Mr Lawrence. The question would be—What did belong to Mr Northmore Herle and what passed by his will? That must be proved in another way and by other evidence, as explaining and corroborating the documentary evidence he had opened to them. That was the documentary evidence, and that was the title, so far as it rested upon mere deeds, of Mr Lawrence’s property which he sought to recover. He should prove that the whole of the property of Nicholas Carminowe was originally in the hands of his two daughters, one of whom married Hugh Boscawen, and the other Nicholas Herle, and that they remained, as far as appeared, holders of undivided moieties of the whole until the time of Queen Elizabeth, when by a deed of partition the property was severed, with the exception of the tin mines which were specially reserved, and which therefore remained undivided; and it would likewise be found that in 1672, and again in 1736, both their divided and undivided properties were dealt with by the Herle family by apt words; and whatever properties had been so dealt with by the settlor of the former, and the testator of the latter, date, were now the right of the plaintiff. This in words was what Mr Lawrence claimed, and what he could show that he had enjoyed. They would observe the property had originally been in the ordinary condition of property; that was to say, the owner of the soil was the owner of the mines beneath; and, ordinarily speaking, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, if they found an estate divided between two parties the operation would be to carry to each both surface and underground rights. It was usual to divide land vertically, but in point of law there is no reason why it should not be divided horizontally—nothing to prevent one party owning the surface, and another the ground from ten feet to 100 feet below the surface; and that that was done was familiar to every one that lived in a mineral country. In Cornwall, for instance, if a mine contained a sufficient proportion of gold and silver, it belonged to the Crown, although the surface might not; and there were other cases in which the soil was in the hands of one proprietor and the subsoil in the hands of another. He understood it would be said that no act of ownership had been performed, but they could expect in a property of this description to find the same constant habitual interference and exercise of right of ownership that they would naturally expect to find where the surface was the matter in question. When a man held a field it was a very strong thing to be able to say that he had exercised no right at ownership. Where the exercise of right of ownership was perfectly easy, such an observation would be of great weight, but they could not make the same observation, with the same weight, where the property in dispute was mineral property, for this reason, that in a hundred cases the mineral might not be worked at all, and where worked in 99 cases out of 100 the minerals were not worked by the owner of them; they were worked by persons who did that which the owner would seldom do, viz., speculate on the risk of profit or loss. Therefore, it was obvious they could not expect that active interference and that constant exercise of acts of ownership which, where the property was on the surface and not material, they were entitled to expect, and did find, in point of fact, and therefore if a person to substantiate his right to minerals had to show acts of ownership, no mineral property would be safe. In Cornwall, where these mineral treasures existed to so large an extent, all sorts of difficult complications were introduced into mineral property. They were all aware, or at least had heard, of the old custom of tin bounding, and all Cornishmen, or those who professed to know anything about mining, were aware that it was the commonest thing in the world for three classes or three divisions, as it were, of mineral property going on together. There was the ownership of the lord, the ownership of the bounder, and the ownership of the mine owner. The consequence was that all sorts of disputes and complications arose, but there could be no doubt, in point of law, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the possession of the bounder was the possession of the lord, and the bounder working under the lord, rendering tin toll to the lord, was occupying as the lord’s tenant, and his occupation was the lord’s occupation. Mr Coleridge then quoted the description of bounding given in the case of Rovers v. Brenton. This states that it is a custom engrafted upon the ownership of the soil; and that if a man had under his land minerals, which to discover and bring to the surface originally required capital, skill, enterprise, and combination, and either did not himself raise them, or allow them to be raised, he would not be allowed to lock them up from the public; or that if he had not by enclosure dedicated the land to other purposes, any miner had a right to mine underneath, on the condition of rendering a certain portion of the profits to the owner of the soil. The land to be bounded, it was to be observed, must be wastrel. Before the bounder could take possession, notice had to be given in the stannary court, where the owner might still interfere to preserve his right entire; but if he abstained from doing so it might be considered that he consented, and that the toll to be rendered was a sufficient satisfaction. There could be no doubt that in point of law, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, the possession of the bounder was the possession of the lord; and that no statute, no disability, could begin to run against a lord so long as with the consent of the lord a bounder was in possession the property (sic) under him. In customary tenures, the minerals belonged to the lord, and not to the owner of the surface. Bounders were in the habit of making leases of their bounding rights, and such a lease made in 1842, of one of the mines in question, would be produced. Wherever bounders exercised their rights they were bound to pay a certain proportion of the stuff raised as an acknowledgment of the property in hand to the lord of the soil; and when they made a lease, the parties who worked the mine would have to pay a proportion both to the bounder for his rights and to the lord for his ownership. The proportion varied; but a common rate was one-twelfth or one- thirteenth. In the mines in dispute, seven thirteenths of the total dues went to the bounder, and six- thirteenths to the lord—in this case the representatives of Carminowe. The mines had never been severed, and supposing that they had been in one hand, the whole of that six-thirteenths would have gone to one person, but the property being in the two daughters, they would expect to find that the amount had been equally divided between them; and this had been the case. He could show that from 1741 down to 1853, the six-thirteenths had been paid to those who represented the co-heiresses of Nicholas Carwinow—Lord Falmouth taking one-half, Mr Lawrence one-third, and Mr Trefry the other one sixth. This would be as strong a proof of documentary paper title as could under the circumstances be presented. After the property had been bequeathed to the Kendalls, an administration suit had been instituted in Chancery—some of them, he presumed, being minors—and he should lay before the jury the receivers’ accounts under that suit in part proof of the perception of dues. These accounts terminated in 1758, and then for some years documentary evidence was not forthcoming, the Miss Kendalls’ affairs possibly having been neglected. From 1792 to 1852 he should however, be able to show by document after document he believed without a single gap, an unbroken perception of dues from these mines under the downs of Chacewater, and the production of an unbroken series of tollers’ accounts. He should also be able to show by evidence taken from Lord Falmouth’s own books that their proper share of the dues had been continuously paid to the use of the family of Landue. He could not see how it could be shown that this one fact was not of itself conclusive as to Mr Lawrence’s rights, for he could not understand that Lord Falmouth would suffer the payment of money except upon a legal foundation. The books of Mr Williams of Scorrier he should also refer to in proof of the continued perception of dues by Mr Lawrence’s predecessors. Mr Coleridge then read extracts from these sources in which the payment of the dues to the Landue family was plainly set forth. He especially referred to items in one of the toller’s books of the payment for him on Mr Lawrence’s account to the overseers of the parish of Kenwyn, of poor’s and highway rates, and of land tax, in respect of his property situate in Kenwyn. No man was liable to pay poor rates unless he was an occupier for soil, and as to land tax, the very name spoke for itself. The value of this piece of evidence would be seen when he stated that Mr Lawrence owned no other property in Kenwyn than that which he now claimed. Lord Falmouth, with other gentlemen, had, it would be remembered by the inhabitants of Cornwall, tried conclusions with the bounders, who did not like the notion of going to law with his lordship; and he believed that in 1844 or 1845, the greater portion of the bounders on Lord Falmouth’s property were got rid of. The bounding question was one in which Mr Lawrence, like other gentlemen, had felt considerable interest, but Lord Falmouth being most largely interested in these mines the plaintiff had been quite content to leave the matter in his hands, and let him fight the battle as long as the bounders remained on the property. Of course so long as the perception of dues remained through them with their consent to Mr Lawrence, their possession was his possession, and Lord Falmouth and himself were equally represented by them; and when Lord Falmouth first of all expelled the bounders there was nothing at all to call Mr Lawrence’s attention to the fact that his lordship disputed his title, nor that it had been disputed when Lord Falmouth was disputing that of the bounders. The learned counsel said he understood that it had been suggested that there was some mingling up of the plaintiff’s claim with that of the bounders, as if he were in fact an irregular bounder, and was got rid of with the real bounders. The accounts would however shew that from first to last the rights of the bounders, and those of Lord Falmouth and Mr. Lawrence, were kept distinct from each other. He (Mr Coleridge) could hardly imagine, inasmuch as there had been no severance from the time of Henry VIII., and no claim had been before 1856 set up by Lord Falmouth to hold in severalty that which for centuries had been held jointly, that the statute of limitations could be introduced into the case; but if it was set up, of course, neither from a court of law nor court of honor could anything more than bare justice be looked for. But he thought it would turn out that the statute could not arise; because, as he was informed, there was no working of the mines from 1843 or 1844, when the bounders ceased to occupy, until 1856, when Lord Falmouth claimed to grant the sett in his own right. Undoubtedly his lordship had then claimed a severalty in the property adversely to the plaintiff, and from that time the latter had had the fullest notice that his right was disputed. But that was not 20 years ago, and nothing done since could in the least affect the question. Mr Coleridge concluded by remarking that the action had commenced in 1863, but had been put off from time to time, and that he apprehended it must now go to a different tribunal, where the effect of the enormous bulk of documents could be considered. The learned counsel’s address occupied over two hours. His Lordship said he had listened attentively to the clear and able speech of Mr Coleridge, the length of which required no apology, but he was at a loss to see how they could take the opinion of the jury on the case. They could scarcely hope that the jury would be able to give due weight to the documentary evidence, and it was utterly impossible that it could be properly examined and looked over by them. Mr Karslake concurred in this view, observing that he had many hundred documents to produce, including 800 leases alone. It must necessarily be a question of law by and by, and he had not the least doubt that after his Lordship had got all the documents in court upon his notes, it must still come to a special case. His Lordship said that was the usual course adopted in such cases, and he did not see any reason, from the opening of the learned counsel, why the usual course should not be adopted here. Mr Coleridge said he had no objection whatever to the course suggested, but it was his duty to open the case as clearly as possible. His Lordship said it was the clearness with which the learned Counsel had opened the case that enabled him to come to the conclusion that he ought not to go on with the trail. Mr Karslake said he thought it desirable that the question of the admissibility of evidence should also be referred. After some further conversation his Lordship addressed the jury. He said they had heard the very clear and lucid opening of the case by the learned Counsel, and they must themselves have perceived the immense difficulty of trying the case by a jury. That it would be possible to try the case he did not deny, but that it would be possible to try it satisfactorily he meant most unquestionably to deny, for it would be impossible for any jury to take into consideration the immense mass of documentary evidence which it was proposed to put in, and to give to each document its due weight. It seemed to him, therefore, that the parties had very properly agreed to refer the case, and the jury would accordingly find a verdict for the plaintiff pro forma, subject to a special case to be agreed upon between the parties themselves. It was also agreed that the question of admissibility of evidence should be reserved for the court above, and that the second action should be a remanet. POISONING BY ARSENIC. KITTO v. WATSON. In this case, the plaintiff, William Kitto, sought to recover £80 10s damages from the adventurers of Wheal Grylls mine, Breage. Mr Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr Bullar, applied for plaintiff, instructed by Mr Trevenen, of Helston; Mr Karslake, Q.C., and Mr A. Rogers, for the defendants, instructed by Mr Tufnell Southgate, of London. Mr Bullar opened the pleadings. The declaration charged that the defendant wrongly caused to issue from a burning house works in the parish of Breage, carried on at Wheal Grylls mine, certain vapours of a poisonous nature, in consequence of which the cattle and stock of the plaintiff were injured and died. Mr Coleridge said the plaintiff was a farmer named Kitto, occupying an estate close to the defendant’s mine, Wheal Grylls. In the burning house attached to that mine a great deal of arsenic was set loose, which might be collected and sold, as it was a very lucrative article, and its loss was a thing which no well-ordered mine would permit. But they all knew that people were not always the best judges of their own interests, and very often had to be forced to do that which, for their own sakes, they ought to have been the first to do. For the last two or three years the plaintiff had found that his stock, which were depasturing in the neighbourhood of the burning house, became deteriorated in quality. One valuable cow had died, and others had materially deteriorated in value, from the quantity of arsenic which had been deposited on the herbage, and which they had eaten. The prevailing wind was a westerly one, and for a considerable portion of the year the fumes from the burning-house were blown over the plaintiff’s fields, and the arsenic which was allowed to escape was deposited on the herbage. Amongst other stock the plaintiff had a pure Jersey cow which he had imported and which took the prize at one of the cattle shows; but having partook of the herbage she became ill and died. Remonstrances were made to the captain of Wheal Grylls mine, by whom some flues were made with the object of preventing the escape of the arsenic, but, either from faulty construction or design, they did not answer, and the arsenic continued to escape as before, and no sort of satisfaction or compensation could be obtained from the mine. The learned Counsel then read some correspondence which had taken place, in which Mr Watson, the nominal defendant, seemed to think the loss of the plaintiff’s cow a good joke; and, in conclusion, said that it was not to be endured in this country that a man should damage the property of his neighbour with impunity. The jury would no doubt have evidence that the defendants did all they possibly could to prevent the escape of arsenic, but in his (the learned counsel’s) experience he never knew a case in which a verdict was given against a company, but they somehow managed to prevent the nuisance complained of, and carry on their works as profitably as they did before. In this case, indeed, the profits would be greater, because the valuable commodity which was now allowed to spread over the plaintiff’s fields to the injury of his stock, would be collected and be remunerative to the mine. It was all moonshine to tell him it could not be done. People at one time said they could not burn their own smoke, and that they could not prevent the escape of deleterious acids from soap works, but when the Legislature interfered it was done, and so it would be in the present case. The jury need have no fear that the mine would be shut up, and people thrown out of employment; they need have no fear but the defendants would find a way to carry on their works without injury to their neighbours. The learned counsel then called Wm. Samble, a builder and architect, of Helston, who testified to the accuracy of the plan produced. The nearest part of the plaintiff’s field to the works is 220 yards in a north-easterly direction. The height of the chimney stack is 32 feet. The top is whitish, and is worn away by the arsenic coming out Cross-examined by Mr Karslake: St. Aubyn and Grylls Mine is a considerable distance from the plaintiff’s land. I never measured it. Don’t know the quantity of arsenic yielded at Wheal Grylls Mine is so small as not to be merchantable. Mr John Kitto examined: I am the plaintiff in this action. I reside at Carnegie, in Breage; occupy 45 acres. Part of the boundary of my farm is Rosudgion Common, upon which Wheal Grylls Mine is situated. Before 1862 there was no burning house there. The smoke from the burning house first went up the chimney stack of the mine. I was obliged to turn my cattle out of the field near the mine. After I complained about it, they put up a separate chimney, and then told me it was all right, and I might turn the cattle back again. The cattle, however, got bad again, and lost their milk. I called for the assistance of Mr Wm. Richards, a cattle doctor. In 1862 I imported a thoroughbred Jersey bull and cow. The cow fed in the field with the other cattle. She lost her “profit” and died on the 29th July, 1864. Mr. Richards saw her three days before she died, and said he could do nothing for her. I have three other cows now bad, and several growing animals. They lose all their flesh, and their ribs are bare and their back bones stick up like a saw—(laughter). I had the Jersey cow dissected and the stomach put in two jars, one of which I took to Mr Herapath, and the other I offered to Capt. Rogers, so that he might satisfy himself of the poisoning, but he would not take it. I complained many times, and Mr Watson promised to stop the poison going over the land, but said he could not allow anything for the cattle. I told him I had seen a “freeth” over the top of other mine chimneys to catch the arsenic—that is a triangle stuffed with furze. Mr Michell then ordered Captain Rogers to put up a “freeth” and to buy a donkey to put on my field to see that there was no arsenic before I put on my cattle. The arsenic kills donkeys; it has killed a pretty many about there—(laughter). I have now torn up the field; I have not been able to graze it since 1862, because the cattle began to get bad after they had been on the field two or three days. The field has been no use to me since that time. Cross-examined by Mr Karslake: I fed the Jersey cow in the field next the mine; it is called “the croft” field. It is four acres. I know of some ponds near the burning house, but I don’t know that the farmers take their cattle to drink the water from these ponds. Capt. Rogers told me that they were not allowed to drink from the ponds, except the water that had run away and been filtered through the ground. A man named Curnow has a cottage and garden about the same distance from the mine as my field. He may eat the vegetables grown on the garden. The Jersey cow was dissected by a cattle doctor named Armstrong. I did not send the contents of the stomach to Mr Herapath till October, though the cow died in July. I buried the jar in the garden in front of my door, about a foot under the ground. I never saw any arsenic on the vegetation, but when I put the cattle on the field they got bad, and when I took them off again they got well. I bought the Jersey cow and a bull in 1862, and put the cow on the Croft field. She soon got bad, and I was obliged to remove her. In 1863 I took the first prize with her at the Penzance cattle show, and a first prize with the bull also. When I brought her back from the show, I put her on the croft again; she soon got bad and never recovered. Re-examined: Curnow told me he never eat anything from the garden without carefully washing it. He works in the mine. I did not send the jar for analysis at once, because I hoped to come to terms with the mine. Mr Armstrong said he had been a cattle doctor for 54 years, and had had the misfortune to attend about 130 which had died from eating arsenic. I attended the plaintiff’s Jersey cow. I saw she had been poisoned by arsenic. I dissected the animal after she died. In the third stomach there was a large quantity of arsenic which was glistening on the food; the fourth stomach was worn thin, and there were several holes in it. I took out the stomach and put it in two jars—one from the mine and the other to be sent to Mr Herapath. There was 8 lbs. of stomach in each jar. Cross-examined by Mr Karslake: I saw the cow on October 5th, 1863, and again on July 13th, 1864. Cut her open on the 30th July. Q. Did you try for arsenic with a red hot poker—(laughter). No, I had no occasion that time, though that will do—(laughter). I sent it to a better man. Mr Karslake: Well, I want to say he is a better man, but I believe he is a very good one.—Witness: I have sent him lots of stomachs, and he always gives satisfaction—(laughter). Mr Karslake: That is, he always finds arsenic—(renewed laughter). Charles Andrews, a farmer, deposed to seeing the cow opened by Armstrong, and the contents of the stomach put into two jars, sealed and buried in the garden. Saw Kitto take up the jars in October, and take one of them to Bristol. I have known Mr Kitto some years. He has farmed that farm about 14 years. His cattle used to be in good condition, but since 1862, his cattle have looked very bad and lose their milk. I have not suffered by means of my grass being poisoned, but I have now six cows bad from drinking the water flowing through my fields from the mine. Cross-examined: The smoke from St. Aubyn Grylls comes over our fields. My cattle may have drunk from the ponds at the mine last year, but I did not send them. William Richards, a cattle doctor, said he attended the Jersey cow in 1862 and 1863. Considered that she died from arsenic. I have seen her scores of times. I saw her in July 1864. Just before she died she looked very weak, but was so far gone that I could not tell the symptoms. I have a small interest in the mine. Cross-examined: When I saw the cow in 1862, she had the appearance of being poisoned. She was a beautiful cow. Recommended Mr Kitto to put her away from the arsenic into some other land. Mr. Jones, veterinary surgeon, living at Marazion, said Capt. Rogers of Wheal Grylls, brought be (sic) a grains to analyse. I found some yellow stuff in it which I considered to be arsenic, and Capt. Rogers himself said it was arsenic. He took some away in an envelope. I did not know where the grains came from. Mr Wm. Herapath said I live at Bristol, and have devoted my time to analytical chemistry. On the 8th November last, I received from Mr Kitto the remains of an animal in a jar. It was in a very decomposed state. It was therefore difficult to identify but not difficult to analyse. I could make out the appearance of the third stomach. I obtained arsenic from three or four of the folds. The arsenic is disengaged from the mundic by burning, it goes up as a vapour and condenses as a sublimate. If carried by the wind and deposited upon herbage it would make it poisonous. I visited a case in Wales the other day, where the vapour was carried half a mile. Some of the symptoms described are those of poisoning by arsenic. Emaciation, and going off of the milk are symptoms of poisoning by arsenic. I am familiar with the mode of preventing the escape of arsenic. Mr Karslake objected to evidence being given by Mr Herapath on this point, and after some discussion Mr Coleridge did not press the matter any further. Cross-examined: The crystals of arsenic are heavier than water and would go to the bottom. About one part in 100 would be dissolved. The crystals were so minute that they were not visible to the naked eye. They might, however be seen when deposited in large quantities on leaves in the shape of a white powder. By the Judge: It is supposed that arsenic given in very small doses is a tonic, and will make the coat of an animal smooth. Ladies use it in Styria to improve their complexions. Arsenic of itself does not injure vegetation unless deposited in large quantities. The holes mentioned as being in the fourth stomach were caused by arsenic and showed that the animal had died from secondary causes rather than primary. William Vellanoweth, a wheelwright, who has some fields south of the stack, said his animals had suffered from eating arsenic. His horses and bullocks got scoured, and he complained to Capt. Rogers. Cross-examined: I have seen the arsenic lying on the ground. Mr Karslake: Did it look like snow? Witness: Yes, it fell like snow as the smoke blew over—(laughter). I have seen it lie on the grass as I passed along the road. At this point the court was adjourned till Saturday morning. SATURDAY. Before Mr Justice Keating. The court opened this morning at half-past nine o'clock, and proceeded with the case of KITTO v. WATSON. Joseph Pope, farmer, examined: Went to see Mr Kitto’s stock, and valued the total loss which he has sustained at £80 10s. It arose from loss of milk and depreciation in value of stock through poisoning. The witness was then examined at some length by Mr Karslake as to the various items. By a juryman: Some of the stock were in fair condition, and others were not. Francis Carter, farmer, who made the valuation in conjunction with the last witness, gave evidence to the same effect. The valuation did not include the loss of the Jersey cow, because she was dead and the valuers did not see her. But Mr Kitto put her down at £18. Cross-examined: When valuing they considered that the depreciation in the value of the stock was the result of poisoning by arsenic, and they valued accordingly. Had never seen the stock before. Joel Trounson said he had some land near the common, and about the same distance from the burning house as Mr Kitto’s land. Found his cows affected when foraging upon these fields. They were dreadfully scoured. Had been obliged to remove his cattle to other fields. Also found his pigs suffer. For two years he could not rear any young pigs, and the sow which fed in those fields lost her brood. Cross-examined: Farmed the land for 20 years, and never had his cattle affected before. This concluded the plaintiff's case. Mr Karslake then opened the case for the defendants. He said it was a very important case indeed, not alone to the defendants, but to the county of Cornwall, for mining must be carried on in this county, or its wealth would be destroyed, and the contracts(?) and even the livelihood of hundreds taken away. If mine proprietors put up their burning houses in appropriate places, and used every possible means to prevent the escape of arsenic, obtaining the best engineering advice at command, he submitted that that was all that could be required of them. In the present case the jury would see that the burning house had been placed so as to be as far as possible out of the way, being in the middle of a common. His learned friend had told them that had they found a verdict for the plaintiff, there was no fear but that the defendants would find a means of preventing the escape of arsenic, and still be able to carry on their works as usual; but he thought they would always find men like Mr Kitto, if they learned that damages could be sustained against the mine, who would, on the slightest pretence, be running to the mine to claim damages for their half-starved and diseased cows. The fact was that this mine was one in which very little arsenic was disengaged in the process of burning, and they would hear from the witnesses that the quantity was so small as to not to be merchantable. Mr Karslake then commented at length upon the evidence for the plaintiff, and drew attention to the fact that they did not hear a word of the vegetation being injured in any of the fields in the neighbourhood of the mine. He criticised the items in the valuation, and concluded by saying that the issue that the jury had to try was whether the cow had died by arsenic which it had taken up in the croft field, but there was also a very material question which they would have to take into consideration—Had the defendants done all they could possibly do, and used every possible precaution to prevent the escape of arsenic. John William Pike, surveyor, of Camborne, was examined to prove the plan put in by defendants. There were three ponds marked on the plan, one of which was within 300 feet of the burning house. Cross-examined: The ponds are north-east of the stack. They are artificial, and are supplied by artificial launders. The water is pumped up from the mine and runs into the ponds. Don't know how it escapes from them. James Pope examined: Have been agent at Wheal Grylls nearly six years, and also at East and Great Grylls. They are about half-a-mile apart, and I live about half way between them. The burning house was erected in 1862 and began in the middle of May in that year. It is a tin mine. There are four chambers in the flue for catching the arsenic. We take every precaution for preventing the arsenic coming out. We don't sell the arsenic, we get so little of it. What is deposited we remove and put down an old shaft. We have done the best we can do to prevent escape, and we don't believe any takes place. Other mines in the neighbourhood burn with fewer catch chambers than we use. When the wind is light we put a damper on the flue which causes the vapour to go a shorter way. This is done because there is not sufficient draught in the long flue. I keep cattle, but they have not suffered at all. Curnow has two little meadows, which he had in grass in 1863. I bought it from him for the nine horses. It was cut green and eaten, and I then put my sheep and cattle on it. In 1864 we had the grass again for the nine horses and I again grazed it. None of the horses, sheep or cattle were injured by it to my knowledge. Cattle drink at the ponds. Last year was dry, and cattle were driven a distance of two miles to drink the water, and never heard of any harm being done to them. The water collected from the top of the count-house is drunk by many people. Many gentlemen have it when they take a glass of grog or have tea at the mine. Cross-examined: As far as I know, the original flue was sufficient. The arsenic is not collected in sufficient quantities to sell. I don't know why the additional flues were erected. I have never heard any complaints. I have kept my stock in Curnow's fields. Never lost any stock. I did lose two calves. I then sold one of the cows. I fed the other in the house. Did not lose my calves through the burning house. It is a general rule in the west to lose the calves—(laughter). We catch the water from the count-house in a large barrel. We can't catch water enough for pot water—we fetch the most of it from Germoe, the adjoining parish. Never put a furzebush at the top of the chimney. Have seen that done elsewhere. The counting-house is north west of the burning-house. Re-examined: The water escapes from the ponds through a sluice, and then runs over the dressing floors and thence down to the sea by a water-course. The two calves I lost were never alive. They were not born alive. The sea is about a mile from the mine. Edward Rogers examined: I am Captain of Wheal Grylls, East Wheal Grylls, Great Grylls, and Grylls Wheal Florence. The whole length of the flues at Great Wheal Grylls is 417 feet. I consulted an engineer as to the best mode of constructing the flues. The flues are cleared out once in two months. I am quite sure the quantity of arsenic deposited is not sufficient to make it a saleable article. There are collecting chambers in the short flue as well as in the long one. We always use the long flue when the wind is strong enough to cause sufficient drought. Had seen as many as 100 cattle drinking at the ponds at once. About 7 or 8 men, 30 or 40 girls, and 16 or 17 boys work in and near the burning house. The whole number employed at the mine is 226. We keep two horses. These were fed two years in succession from the middle of May to August, on the grass from Curnow's meadows. They did not suffer from it. I have never seen any deposit whatever upon the fields in the neighbourhood of the mine. Never saw anything like snow except it was snow. Never had any complaint from anybody but Kitto. Never saw the crops at all injured, or looking any worse for the smoke from the burning house. Never saw the Jersey cow. Kitto complained to me at different times about it, and said he had ever so many cattle injured. I heard of the cow's death, and heard of the cow being opened, but not till after it was opened. Afterwards, Kitto asked me if I would have a jar containing a portion of the cow's stomach. I said I would not have it. If he had sent for me to see the cow opened I should have gone. I know Grylls St. Aubyn. The stack of the burning house of that mine is 1,000 feet from the nearest of Kitto's fields on that side. The burning house on that mine is not so much used as ours, and they don't burn so much ore at a time. I have not seen the flues, but I believe they are not so long, nor are there so many chambers as in ours. They don't sell the arsenic. Took some grass to Mr Jones, the veterinary surgeon at Marazion. I did not tell him I believed the dust he obtained from it was arsenic. It was a light brown colour. I declared to him that I did not believe it was arsenic. The wind blows from all quarters at the mine. Cross-examined: Never heard any complaint from anybody but Kitto. Trounson never complained to me, and I never heard that he had complained to anybody else. Kitto often complained. I told him I should do my best to stop the poison. I then built a longer flue, but not in consequence of his complaint. I did not think there was cause for the complaint, but had the flue built to keep Kitto quiet. We always use the long flue when the wind is blowing west or north-west—that is when it is blowing towards Mr Kitto's croft—(laughter). Always have the best draught when it is blowing in that direction. There are sometimes cracks in the flue, and I send a man to mend them. Mr Kitto told me he thought it would be a good thing to put a triangular top and put in some furze. I said I would do my best to stop the poison. I cannot say whether this was after the long flue was built. I took the grass from Kitto's croft field to Jones. Jones did not experiment upon the grass at all. I experimented upon it in his presence. Jones said the stuff got from the grass was arsenic. I said I did not think so, because it was brown. I took it all away; I have not got it now; it is lost or something—(laughter). In re-examination, the witness described how he boiled the grass, and then took the liquor away and placed it over a spirit lamp till it was reduced to half a noggin. Mr Jones then put something into the liquor, which had the effect of precipitating a powder to the bottom of the glass. Mr Jones then said “that's arsenic," but witness did not believe it was, because it was a light brown colour, and he had seen lots of arsenic in his time. Charles Curnow examined: He said he was an engineman working at Wheal Grylls. Reside in a dwelling house close to the croft field, and have a garden. Have lived 60 years in the house. Grow potatoes, leeks, onions, and cabbages; eat them myself. We catch water from the house, but don't drink it. Fetch water for drinking from Germoe. I can't say that I discovered anything injurious since the erection of the burning house. Cross-examined: Wash the vegetables well before we use them. I had a donkey; but I believe there has been a false report brought in court, that I had a donkey poisoned, but it is not so. The donkey used to graze upon the common; but it is now kept on a field a brave way off. Re-examined: In 1862, the police threatened to take all the donkeys from the common; before that, the donkey was on the common. John Curnow, a miner working at Wheal Grylls, had lived under the same roof as the last witness for 65 years, and his father before him. Had found nothing to ail his constitution. Never saw any arsenic lie upon the ground. Cross-examined: The leaves of the potatoes decay like they have done for many years. When the wind blows from the north-west, I can smell the arsenic. The top of the chimney of the burning house is white, and the top of the chimney of the engine house is black. James Foss, farmer, said the nearest part of his land was about 200 yards from the mine. Had 16 bullocks and three horses. My house is about 400 or 500 yards from the count-house. Never suffered in any way from the burning house. Cross-examined: Am in business as well as being a farmer. The mine does not deal with me, but some of the people deal with me. The mine is of great benefit to the neighbourhood. Had a cow that went off her milk a couple of years ago; but she got well again. Did not tell Mr Trounson I suffered from the arsenic. Never complained to anybody that I had been injured by the arsenic. Henry Gartrell examined: I am a farmer in St. Buryan, and farming 300 acres of land. Went on the 14th July, 1865, over Mr Kitto's farm. Have been used to cattle all my life. I looked at the cattle on the farm. There were working oxen, three cows, nine sheep, and three pigs on the farm; some others, Mr Kitto told us, had been removed to another farm; Mr Kitto was not at home. The burning house was at work then; the smoke was going a little to the north east of Kitto's land. I examined carefully to see if there was any deposit of arsenic, but I could not see any traces of it. The vegetation did not appear to be injured. Kitto's stock was in low condition, but otherwise looked healthy. I should have had no hesitation in buying the cattle myself at the time. There was nothing to lead to the idea that they were being poisoned. The pigs and sheep looked healthy and in good condition. Examined the fields in the locality of the mine, and found the crops looking as well as in my own locality, where there is no mine. This farm lies high and exposed to the wind. A high bred Jersey cow ought to have shelter; they cannot stand exposure. Cross-examined: The croft field was in oats, so that nothing was fed there. I could not see the slightest thing amiss with the cows except they were in a low condition. I did not give Mr Kitto notice that I was coming. I was only asked to come by Capt. Rogers the day before. Did not know Mr Kitto would be from home. Capt. Rogers said he did expect to find him at home. Did not go to see the portion of the stock which had been removed. Saw two red cows and a pied one. They were healthy. Edward Hire, a veterinary surgeon living at Penzance, examined: Had been in practice two years. Went over Mr Kitto's farm with the last witness, and examined the cattle very carefully. They were in a perfectly healthy state, but low in condition. There was no sign of disease about them. The pigs were in capital condition. Could not detect any deposit on the fields. Sheep in good condition. The crops looked capitally. Cross-examined: Went over with Mr Rogers on the part of the mine. I have seen many cattle dying of arsenic and also dead. A practical man could tell directly the appearance of a cow dying from arsenic. But even a doctor might be deceived. My attention was not called to any particular cow. Did not go to Mr. Kitto's other farm. Re-examined: There was not the slightest appearance of poisoning by arsenic on the cattle I saw. This concluded the case for the defendants, and Mr Karslake proceeded to sum up the evidence. Mr COLERIDGE having replied upon the whole case, The learned Judge, in summing up the evidence to the jury, said the rule of law was that every man must use his property so as not to injure his neighbour, and if they were satisfied that the plaintiff was injured in the exercise of his property by the act of the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. It was not every trivial inconvenience that the law looked upon as an actionable nuisance, but such inconvenience as would materially affect a person in the enjoyment of his health or property. If either of these was affected, it was such a nuisance as entitled the plaintiff to come into court. If the property of the plaintiff had been seriously and sensibly affected by the act of the defendants, it was no answer to say that those acts had been beneficial to themselves or to others, or that they have conducted their business in the best possible way: all that may be true, but the law says a man has no right, for his own benefit, or for the benefit of others, to conduct a business even in the best possible way he can, if in so doing he inflict injury on others. Therefore, the real question for the jury was, aye or no, was the escape of the arsenic from the works of the defendant the cause of the injury which had been sustained by the plaintiff. His lordship then carefully detailed the evidence bearing upon the point, and concluded by saying that the question the jury had to decide was simply, had material injury resulted to the plaintiff from the works of the defendants in respect to his cattle, or property of any sort; if they were satisfied of this, then the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict, and they would find for him for such damages as they thought he ought to receive. If, on the other hand, they thought the case he had laid before them was either fictitious, or that the damage he had sustained was applicable not to the defendants, but to some other cause, then the defendants were entitled to a verdict. The jury were locked up at a quarter to four o'clock, and at half-past six returned to court with a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 40s. The judge immediately certified for costs. This concluded the business of the Assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette Thursday, October 19 1865

6. Cornwall Michaelmas Sessions The quarter sessions for the County of Cornwall, were held at the Shire Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday. Mr John Jope Rogers (chairman) presided, and there were also present:— Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. } Sir C. B. Graves Sawle, Bart. } Chairmen T. J. A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. Col. Coryton. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. Capt. Horndon. P. M. Williams, Esq., M.P. Edward Collins, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. N. Norway, Esq. Major Grylls. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. J. Trevenen, Esq. Samuel Borlase, Esq. E. Coryton Roberts, Esq. Capt. Peel. Horton Davey, Esq. F. J. Hext, Esq. T. K. Polwhele, Esq. Richd. Foster, Esq. Wm. Pryce Michell, Esq. Edward Coode, Esq. George Williams, Esq. John Haye, Esq. E. Beauchamp Tucker, Esq. Thos. Bedford Bolitho, Esq. Francis Gilbert Enys, Esq. John Hichens, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson, Capt. Trist. " W. Maskell, Capt. Scobell. " Thos. Pascoe, R. H. S. Vyvyan, Esq. " J. Glencross, R. G. Bennett, Esq. " W. B. Bullock, Col. Peard. " C. M. E. Collins, Capt. Morshead. " J. B. Kinsman, S. N. Nowel Usticke, Esq. " V. F. Vyvyan, Capt. Kelley, " S. Symonds, C. W. Popham, Esq. " Hon. J. T. Boscawen, F. Rodd, Esq. " G. Coryton F. V. Rodd, Esq. " R. R. Wright, D. P. Le Grice, Esq. " A. Tatham, R. G. Lakes, Esq. " Thos. Phillpotts. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. The following gentlemen were sworn in as magistrates:—The Rev. C. M. Edward Collins, Mr Francis John Hext, and Mr William Maskell. The CHAIRMAN said he would call the attention of the court to the proposed election of a surgeon to the county gaol in consequence of the announced intention of Mr Ward to resign. He wanted to know if the court had any objection to place the testimonials, of which he had a large number, in the the (sic) hands of the visiting committee of the gaol, in order that they might retire and examine them and report upon them at a later period of the day. There were five candidates for the appointment— namely, Messrs. Couch (Bodmin), West (Bodmin), Marrack (Liskeard), Mudge (Bodmin), and Preston. He (the chairman), thought it would be impossible for the court properly to consider the testimonials, and if the visiting committee would take them into consideration first, there would not only be a saving of time, but the merits of the testimonials could be more fully investigated. The suggestion was concurred in by the court. The CHAIRMAN said he was sorry to announce that the business of the court was very much delayed by the absence of the panel for the grand jury, which it was the duty of the Under Sheriff to produce. The Under Sheriff, Mr Coode, he understood, had intended to be present at the proper time this morning, but from some unexplained cause he had not arrived. The court could not call the grand jury, or proceed to business till the panel was before it, and he thought the Under Sheriff should know that he was liable to a penalty for the non-performance of his duty. THE CATTLE PLAGUE. The CHAIRMAN then read the following circular which he had received from the Home Office:— Home Office, Whitehall, October 12, 1865. I am directed by Secretary Sir George Grey to inform you that it has occurred to him that it may be desirable that the attention of the justices of the county at Cornwall should be directed, at the approaching quarter sessions, to the order of the heads of the Privy Council of the 22nd ultimo, with reference to the cattle plague. Under section 19 of that order, the justices acting in and for any petty sessional division (whether in ordinary or special sessions) can, by notice, make it unlawful for persons to bring or send during a specified time animals as defined in the order, or any specified description thereof, to any market or fair in their division. This power has already been exercised in several instances, but it has been represented to Sir George Grey that the advantage to be derived from it will be materially impaired if, while the power is exercised with reference to some markets or fairs, no action is taken with respect to others in the neighbourhood. It is clearly desirable that various local authorities should, as far as possible, act in concert, with a view to the effectual exercise of this power; and Sir George Grey will be happy to be the means of communicating, if necessary, between the justices of the county of Cornwall and other local authorities as defined in the order, with respect to any proceedings which the justices may think it expedient to take on this subject. As it is obviously important that ample information of any order made for the purpose of preventing animals being sent to any market or fair, should be given to the public, not only in the immediate neighbourhood of the market or fair, but also in the districts from which the market or fair is supplied, I am to suggest that means should be taken for the widest possible circulation of such information by means of the Chief Constables of the county or counties concerned, or otherwise as the justices may think expedient.— l have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant, T. G. BARING. To the Chairman of Quarter Sessions for the county of Cornwall. Accompanying the letter was a copy of the order of Council of Sept. 22nd, which has already been published in this paper. The CHAIRMAN said the subject was worth their serious attention. As far as he could at present ascertain, no authenticated case of plague had occurred in Cornwall. He had heard that the plague had broken out at Padstow, but he had not yet seen sufficient evidence to authenticate the disease which had occurred there as the plague. Whilst this was a subject for congratulation, it ought not to prevent their taking all the precautionary measures which they could possibly do, in order to prevent the outbreak or spread of the disease. He was not aware that the Home Office intended to address the Courts of Quarter Sessions on the subject. Of course, it was a good way of bringing the matter before the public, but he did not think the Court had any power to take action in the matter. He was, however, willing to hear any proposal which any gentleman might have to make on the matter. No proposal was, however, made, and the matter dropped.

The grand jury panel having now arrived, the following gentlemen were sworn upon the jury:— Mr S. Anstey, Menabilly, Foreman, " C. T. Andrew, " Roger Bate, Lanteglos, " Wm. Boney, Treforda, " D. D. Badcock, Swannacott, St. Mary, " S. Brown, Polruan, " J. Bawden, Mawnan, " H. Cossentine, Trevedda, Lanteglos, " J. T. Davies, Tregear, Mawgan, " Edwin Geach, Trewince, " J. Gaved, Burngullow, " G. George, Pennant, " H. Hocken, Barnoak, " S. Jose, Lanteglos-by-Camelford, " Wm. Jane, , " Wm. Jewell, Burshill, " E. Johns, Lanivet, " J. Rogers Moon, Liskeard, " N. Moon, St. Winnow, " Hart Nicholl, Penhile, " Thos. Proctor, Calstock, " Robert Pollard, Menheniot, " Peter Sandry, St. Ervan. The Royal Proclamation against vice and immorality having been read by the Town Clerk, The CHAIRMAN (Mr J. J. Rogers) addressed the Grand Jury. He said: Gentlemen of the grand inquest,—It now becomes my duty to make a few remarks, first upon the calendar, and then upon other topics of interest to the rate-payers, and, thirdly, to notice the Acts of Parliament which were passed during the last session. With respect to the calendar, I am happy to say that, although in point of numbers it is considerably in excess of the corresponding period of last year, yet, when we come to examine the evidence, it will appear that most of the cases are of a very trivial character, and will not therefore occupy your attention any great length of time; nor are they of such a character as to make it appear that any retrogression has taken place in the moral character of the county during the quarter. The number of prisoners for trial and under sentence, now in gaol, compared with the corresponding quarter of last year, are as follow:—We have now for trial a total of 29 prisoners, whilst last year we had as (sic) this time only 16. But there have been committed, under the criminal justice act, during the past quarter, fewer than last year, namely, 15 this year against 24 in the corresponding quarter of last year, and 2 this year, under the juvenile offenders' act, against 3 last year; making a total of 46 against 43 in the corresponding quarter of last year. So, that taking the whole criminal return for the quarter, there is only an excess of three, compared with the Michaelmas quarter of last year. This, I think, is, upon the whole, a favourable state of things, because I am informed by the governor of the gaol that the increase is due, in a great measure, to the increased number sent to gaol for short periods, under the Refreshment act, for disorderly conduct. These persons were previously either fined or placed in stocks; therefore, I think we may congratulate ourselves that our criminal returns are not at all unfavourable. With regard to the cost of maintaining our prisoners in gaol, I am happy to say that the weekly cost per head has further decreased. Last year there was a reduction on the previous year, and now there is a further reduction from 2s. 2½d. to 2s. ¾d. (sic) per head weekly. This of course makes a considerable total. The expense of maintenance of prisoners is now very much below what it was before the new gaol was built, and this we may set against the heavy charges which the ratepayers have had to sustain in consequence of building this establishment. With regard to the reformatory results of the new gaol system, although there is no apparent result with regard to the re- committal of old offenders; yet I think we may look forward to the time when the regulations which have become law, and will come into force on the 1st of January next, and under which the visiting magistrates will have power to deprive prisoners of some of the comforts which they have hitherto enjoyed, and which we hope will operate favourably in deterring from crime. We can, of course, hardly expect that these things will have much effect upon old offenders, but we may very reasonably hope that parties who have not yet become hardened in crime will be deterred by the knowledge of strict regulations which will be in force. The cases in the calendar, as I have before stated, do not require many remarks from me, but there is one or two cases to which I will call your attention. The first case to which I shall call your attention is No. 10 in the calendar, in which William Malachy Proctor is charged with embezzling various sums of money the property of his master. In this case you will have to consider whether or not there is evidence sufficient to bring the case within the purlieu of the law, becauses (sic) it is not the mere holding in hand money which constitutes embezzlement. The chief evidence in the case is that of the prosecutor, and you must be satisfied that there was such an arrangement between him and his clerk that the latter was bound to hand over the money at a particular time. On looking over the depositions there does not appear to me to be evidence sufficient to justify a conviction for embezzlement, but, of course, the matter may be brought out much clearer to you in oral evidence. The next case to which I would draw your attention is that of William Coger Beckerleg, who is charged with assaulting with intent; it will be for you to see whether the young woman can speak to the man's identity with such certainty as to warrant you in sending him down for trial. Here again you will have the person before you, and you will be better able to judge than I am from the depositions, which are not always the best guide. There is another case which has come in this morning, and is called an attempt to stab; it appears from the depositions, which are very imperfectly drawn up, that it is a very disreputable drunken squabble between women, in which Sarah Williams held up a knife and threatened to stab the prosecutor. There was not any blow struck, but of course you are aware that it is not necessary that a blow should be struck in order to constitute an assault; if I hold up in your face a weapon or even my closed fist it is an assault in the eye of the law. There is another case of an unusual character against a woman for abandoning her child, and the charge also affects another person who is her brother-in-law. There is a new law which makes it a felony for any person to abandon a child so as to place its life in danger or its health in danger of being permanently injured. Therefore if you are of opinion that either of these results were likely to follow the exposure of the child by the prisoner, it will be your duty to send them for trial. I will now refer to such matters of finance as are of interest to the county. In the first place there are the coroner's bills, from which, when compared with the corresponding quarter of last year give the following result:— Qr. ending Sept., 1865. Qr. ending Sept., 1864. Inquests. Amount. Inquests. Amount. £ s. d. £ s. d. Mr Carlyon 28 96 5 10 27 103 1 10 Mr Hamley 22 76 13 4 11 53 16 4 Mr Roscorla 37 100 19 3 28 83 4 3 Mr Good 10 40 9 6 16 52 3 6 Mr Jagoe 15 56 0 3 20 52 17 3 Total 112 £370 8 2 102 £345 3 2 thus showing a decrease in the number of inquests and in the expense. You will learn by and bye, from the reports of the Finance Committee that there will be 22-32nds of a penny asked for this time for general County rate against 26-32nds of a penny last year, or a reduction on the County rate of 4- 32nds. The police rate, however, is increased from 20-32nds of a penny last year to 24-32nds now, thus making the total asked for exactly the same as that granted at the Michaelmas Sessions of 1864. The Gaol expenses this quarter amounted to £828 6s. against £779 19s. in 1864, and the hall expenses to £6 8s. 4d. against £11 in the corresponding quarter of last year. It only now remains for me to allude to those Acts of Parliament, which have been passed during the last session, and which are of particular interest to the ratepayers of the County. There are only fourteen chapters of which I deem it necessary to speak. The first is chapter 18, which is an Act for the amendment of criminal evidence and practice. It is for the purpose of assimilating the practice in criminal trials with that which prevails in cases at nisi prius. The 25th section introduces alterations of practice in cases of such rare occurrence that I will not trouble you with the details, and in some respects very desirable amendments have been made. Chapter 35 is an act for the amendment of the regulations respecting police superannuation; the 3rd section authorises limited annuities to be granted in lieu of annuities for service under 15 years. The Act will affect both county and borough police. Chapter 36 is the County Voters' Registration Amendment Act, which alters the time for giving certain notices, and authorises the award of costs against frivolous objectors. It requires the objector to notify the ground of his objection, and simplifies proceedings. I think it right here to remark that overseers have been very negligent in complying with the requirements of the act this year. It is their duty to see that the returns are made by the 1st of September, or otherwise the revising barristers will be put to great inconvenience. I hope the mention of the fact from the chair will have the effect of causing overseers to be more careful next year. Chapter 60 makes owners of dogs liable for damages for injury done to cattle, without its being necessary as heretofore to give proof of the mischievous or vicious propensity of the dog or of neglect on the part of the owner. Chapter 75 is an Act for facilitating the more useful application of sewage, particularly with regard to purposes of agriculture; and it authorises the ''sewer authority" to construct sewers and other works in proportion to the requirements of the district; but the most important portion of the act to us, is that which refers to rural parishes, where the vestry is constituted the "sewerage authority," and invested with all the powers conferred by the act. Chapter 79 is the Union Chargeability Act, by which all cost of relief, burial, vaccination, and registration are charged to the common fund of the union, after the 25th March, 1866; and chapter 82 gives power to guardians, instead of overseers, to remove, appeal, defend, &c.; chapter 83 makes further provision for the public safety, in the event of locomotives being used upon the highway; chapter 99 gives to County Court judges jurisdiction in equity, where the value is not over £500; chapter 103 is the Falmouth Gaol Discontinuance Bill, under the powers of which the Falmouth sessions will be discontinued from the 1st January, 1866— from which time also there will be no recorder, no coroner, and no gaol, but there will still be a separate commission of the peace. The act provides that the present gaol establishment should be vested in the Clerk of the Peace for the county, and that the justices may use it as a look-up, so long as they require it, and then to be sold and vested for the benefit of the borough. Chapter 119 continues the Salmon Fisheries Act (1861), to October, 1866; and chapter 121 is an amendment of the former act, and the fourth section empowers the justices in Quarter Sessions to apply for the formation of a fishery district. If appointed, a fishery commission of three justices shall appoint a board of conservators. Three special commissioners are appointed by her Majesty, and appeals are provided for from the justices to the Quarter Sessions, and from the special commissioners to the Court at Westminster. Chapter 126 is the Prisons Law Consolidation Act, which contains a schedule (104) for the government of prisons; its regulations will, in some respects, be more stringent than heretofore, and there is power given to the governor and to the visiting justices to deprive the prisoners of certain comforts which they now possess. It is hoped that the additional strictness which the act presents will have the effect of preventing crime. Chapter 127, which is the last to which I shall allude, is the Small Penalties Act, by which justices in petty sessions are empowered to imprison persons who were brought before them and were unable to pay small penalties. In conclusion, the learned Chairman gave some further instructions to the jury, and then dismissed them to their duties.

COUNTY FINANCE. The CHAIRMAN read the report of the Finance Committee, as follows:— The Finance Committee having examined the Treasurer's Account find the balances in favour of the county to be— On the general account £4,531 17 6½ Police account 2,069 19 3 Police superannuation account 240 19 5 Police building account 2,120 10 9 The asylum building account 2,500 0 0 Total 11,463 6 11½ A rate of 22-32nds of a penny is required for general purposes. The following bills have been examined:—The bill for the late Clerk of the Peace; the bills of the present Clerk of the Peace for general purposes; the expenses of the loan to the asylum, 20l. 11s. 6d.; the expenses under the Registration Act, £50 8s. 7d.; the bills of the Bridge Surveyors, and also the bills of the several coroners, and are recommended for payment. The Bridge Surveyors' bill will require £100 for expenses during the present quarter. Signed—RICHARD FOSTER. The Treasurer's account, which was read by the Chairman, showed a balance of £4,931 5s. 4½d. in his hands to the credit of the county. A rate for general purposes of 22-32nds of a penny in the £; and a police rate of 24-32nds of a penny in the £ were then granted. Mr RICHARD FOSTER moved that £100 be granted for the expense of fitting up and furnishing the County Record Office at Bodmin, and that £12 be paid annually as rent of that office. The motion was seconded and carried. On the motion of Mr LE GRICE, seconded by Colonel PEARD, the Finance Committee were re- appointed. The Coroners' bills, as stated by the Chairman in his charge to the grand jury, were then allowed. COUNTY GAOL. The CHAIRMAN next read the report of the Governor of the County Gaol as follows:—My lords and gentlemen,—l have the honour to lay before you the usual statement showing the increase or decrease in the number of prisoners committed to the county prison during the past year, as compared with the preceding twelve months, and which shows on the present occasion an increase in the male criminals, but a decrease in the female criminals, and in the debtors of both sexes, as follows:—For the year ending Michaelmas, 1865—criminals, 539 males; 151 females; total, 690. Debtors—males, 62; females, 12; total, 74. For the year ending Michaelmas, 1865—criminals, males, 463; females, 184; total, 647. Debtors—males, 102; females, 32; total, 134. The proportion of prisoners re-committed (including any previous imprisonment, however remote,) during the year ending Michaelmas, 1865, as far as can be ascertained, is as follows:—1865—Males, 1 in every 2.87; females, 1 in every 2.23. 1864—Males, 1 in every 2.87 , females, 1 in every 2.78. This shows that, notwithstanding the reduction made in the dietary in the year 1862, old offenders average a large number amongst the committals to the prison. It is, however, to be hoped that the provisions of the New Prison Act, which will come into operation on the first day of February next, may in some measure make the residence within the gaol less attractive to this class. Habitual criminals should, if possible, find a stricter discipline awaiting them on every recommittal. The county would then, perhaps, be saved much expense in conveyance and other charges in the cases of some prisoners whose names appear on the gaol books now, who have been 12, 26, and even 47 times committed for different offences. The conduct of the prisoners generally has been good and orderly since my last report. The usual certificates required of me I have the honour to annex. The expenses of the gaol during the past quarter amounted to £828 6s.; and the hall expenses to £6 8s. 4d. The report was received and adopted, and the expenses allowed. VISITING JUSTICES' REPORT. The following report was presented from the visiting justices to the county gaol:— The visiting committee beg to state that the health of the prisoners during the last quarter has been good, that the prison rules, as they believe, have been fully carried out, and that quiet, order, regularity, and cleanliness have prevailed. Warder Symons has resigned, and Colour-sergeant Thomas Collins, late of the Marines, has been elected, subject to the approval of the magistrates in your sessions assembled. Warder Harrison has resigned, and Henry Lowden, late sergeant in the Royal Artillery, has been elected, subject to approval as above. Since his election, some doubt has arisen as to his health, and the committee recommend that he remain on trial for three months, before his election his (sic) confirmed. The committee are very sorry to report the resignation of the medical officer, Mr Ward, to whose zeal, ability, and valuable services, the committee are anxious to bear testimony. The testimonials of the medical gentlemen who are candidates for the vacancy are presented to the court unopened, as the committee found no precedent for opening and reporting on the same. The committee are anxious to receive instructions as to the best mode of dealing with Mr Badgery, who is the occupier of a field above Fairwash, through which field the water which supplies the gaol flows. The right of the county to the water does not extend above Fairwash. Above this point the water is frequently made offensively foul by Mr Badgery's cattle. Mr Badgery refuses an entrance into his premises or to come to any arrangement by which the water may be kept pure. The committee think the schoolmaster is inadequately paid, and recommend an addition of £10 per annum. The sum of £280 will be required for the current expenses of this quarter.— N. KENDALL, chairman. Mr N. KENDALL was then understood to say, but the noise in court was so great that it was impossible to hear him distinctly, that some days since the prisoners in the gaol were found to be suffering from illness, and on making inquiries he ascertained that the water was very foul. The Visiting Committee wished to know how they were to proceed under the circumstances with regard to Mr Badgery, who refused to come to any arrangement with them on the subject, though they could at a very slight expense prevent the water from being polluted. The CHAIRMAN—Is the water from Fairwash, the only supply to the gaol? Mr KENDALL—It is; and it is highly necessary that we should receive instructions from the Court as to how we are to proceed in order to prevent the water from being polluted in future; because Mr Ward is of opinion, that if we were to be visited by such another dry and hot season as the last, and the water to the gaol should be again rendered so foul as it had been, the consequences might be very serious. Whether the landlord will interfere to prevent Mr Badgery from allowing his cattle to pollute the stream, or whether the Court have the power to do so, I am not prepared just now to say. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said that not only would Mr Badgery not do anything himself, but he would not allow the Visiting Justices to do anything to keep the water pure. He moved that the Visiting Justices should be authorised to confer with the Clerk of the Peace on the subject of the pollution of the water for the gaol, and to take such steps in the matter as they might deem necessary. This was seconded and carried. The Visiting Justices of the gaol were then re-appointed. Mr RICHARD FOSTER then withdrew the notice of his intended application for a grant of £100 for the erection of a shed for breaking stones at the gaol, on the ground that the Prisons' Law Consolidation Act, which would come into operation next year, would cause considerable alteration to be made in the treatment of prisoners; and he moved that the whole question of the employment of prisoners, and the facilities for imposing hard labour in the gaol as at present constituted, be referred to the Visiting Justices, to report upon it at the next sessions. This was agreed to.

THE ELECTION OF THE SURGEON. Mr N. KENDALL reported that the visiting justices had examined the testimonials of the candidates for the office of surgeon of the gaol, in compliance with the request of the Court. There were five candidates for the situation, namely, Mr Preston, Mr Couch, Mr West, Mr Marrack, and Mr Mudge. With respect to Mr Preston his testimonials were very high; but he stated that, being a half-pay surgeon in the Royal Navy, it was possible, though not very probable, that he might be again called into active service. The committee were of opinion that this settled the matter as far as he was concerned. The testimonials of Mr Couch were of the highest character, as were also those of Mr West. Those in favour of Mr Marrack were equally good, though it ought to be mentioned that none of them were of later date than 1856, and there was none from any person resident in Liskeard, where he lived. As to Mr Mudge no testimonials in his favour were before the committee, so that in point of fact the committee considered there were only three candidates in reality before them. Major GRYLLS said that in reference to Mr Kendall's remark as to none of Mr Marrack's testimonials being of later date than 1856, he could state from his own knowledge that that gentleman could easily have obtained them down to the present time from numerous persons in Liskeard as well as elsewhere, who knew him; and he felt certain that there were many gentlemen present in court, who could bear the highest testimony to Mr Marrack's professional ability and high character. Still, as the magistrates who had attended for the purpose of supporting the election of Mr Marrack found that if proposed, he would be in a decided minority, they had thought it right on their own responsibility, to withdraw his name. Mr KENDALL explained that he did not wish in the remark he had made to express the slightest doubt of Mr Marrack's fitness for the office or of his professional ability. It was then arranged that three candidates, Messrs. Couch, Preston, and West, should be considered as being before the Court, and that the plan of formally proposing and seconding them individually should be disposed with. Mr KENDALL considered that while this course was adopted the magistrates present should be at liberty to state the reasons which led him to vote for the one or other of them. While the testimonials of Mr Preston, Mr West, and Mr T. Q. Couch were all of the highest character, it ought to be stated that among those in favour of the latter gentleman was one from the governor of the gaol speaking in the highest terms of the attention and ability with which he had discharged the duties of assistant or deputy surgeon of that establishment. As a visiting justice he (Mr Kendall) also had had frequent opportunities of observing the manner in which he had discharged the duties of assistant medical officer to the gaol. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said that he had been one of the visiting justices during the whole time that Mr Couch had acted as assistant medical officer, and he also could bear testimony to the very efficient and satisfactory manner in which Mr Couch had discharged the duties. Sir C. B. G. SAWLE likewise concurred in all that been said in favour of Mr Couch, and spoke highly of that gentleman's abilities as a medical practitioner. It was stated that the salary attached to the office was £100 a year, having been increased two years ago, and that the surgeon was required to visit the gaol every day. Mr KENDALL said that he had received a note from Capt. Colville, the governor of the gaol, stating that under the new act the duties of the surgeon would be even more onerous than at present. The three candidates were then put, when the hands of 37 magistrates were held up in favour of Mr Couch. For Mr Preston only one magistrate voted; and for Mr West 17 hands were held up. The CHAIRMAN then said that according to the standing orders the decision of the Court was in favour of Mr Couch, and he then formally declared that gentleman duly elected the surgeon of the gaol. The CHAIRMAN then read the following reports:—

SURGEON'S REPORT. In forwarding my report of the condition of the prisoners submitted to medical treatment during the last twelve months, it affords me the greatest satisfaction to be enabled to state that at no former period of my connection with the gaol do I ever remember such a long continuance of good health. The cases had been fewer in number, and especially on the female side, and of trivial importance. Four cases only had been sent to the infirmary of the establishment, and I am pleased to add that the same good health continues to prevail. October 17, 1865. JOHN WARD, Surgeon. CHAPLAIN'S REPORT. The following Report was presented by the Chaplain of the Gaol:— My Lords and Gentlemen,—I beg to lay before you my annual report. It will not be necessary for me to trouble you with any lengthened statement on the subject of educational requirements, and the religious and moral conduct of the prisoners on their admission into gaol. In these respects I recognize but little difference from year to year; and this is a point of some importance, as it seems to show as a rule that crime does not exist in association with an improved state of education, taking education to mean the union of useful knowledge with sound religious instruction. The results of the past year, as regards the impression made upon the crime of the county, are to some small extent apparently favourable. The number of prisoners sent to gaol is somewhat less than last year; and it is certainly a satisfactory circumstance that this decrease follows upon a corresponding one the year before. The re-commitments, however, are this year as high, within two, as those of last year, and I regret to say that the heavier offences—the felonies—are more numerous. The inference, of course, is unavoidable, and, I fear, not favourable to the gaol as a system of discipline deterrent in its character. Still, though unfortunately more numerous than last year, the cases of recommitted felony bear but a small proportion to the smaller offences, being about 1 to 3; but this, again, has its unfavourable side, inasmuch as the lighter the offence the less dread it would seem to argue of the gaol as a place of punishment. l am sensible that so far as the gaol is shown by these facts to fail in deterring men from committing crime on coming back from prison, the religious and moral as well as the penal element in its system of discipline is involved in that failure. I acknowledge it, and can only express my great and sincere regret at it. The accounts I have received this year of the children sent from the county to reformatories are not quite so good as last year. It would seem that after a time former evil habits re-appear, showing at once how early in life such habits may become confirmed, and how difficult they are to cure. I make this observation with a view respectfully to represent to the Court, the great importance of sending children of criminal propensities, especially when such propensities are the result of bad bringing up, to reformatory institutions, as near the beginning of their course as possible, and also of sending them for the longest possible periods. The disadvantage of not doing this, has been painfully exemplified this year in the case of three boys, the oldest of whom will appear before you for trial this session. These boys have been in gaol respectively twice, thrice, and five times. In the first-mentioned case the boy was first convicted when he was 9, and he is now 12. In the second case, the first conviction was at the age of 12, and the boy is only now 13, and in the third case the first conviction was at the age of 11, and the lad is now 16. It is a matter of great thankfulness that the facilities for dealing with these poor children in the first stages of their career are now much increased by the establishment of industrial schools recognised and aided by Government. These schools meet cases not embraced by reformatories. By the Industrial Schools Act it is competent for justices to send to those schools mendicant children under fourteen years of age; and children under the age of 12, and not previously convicted. There is also an excellent provision for detaining those children in the workhouse instead of the gaol, in the interval between their conviction and their transfer to the industrial school. This interval, however, must not exceed seven days. I have been thankful to witness, during the past year, the many proofs the better disposed prisoners have given of the value they set upon the school instructions. Instances have occurred in which a prisoner, on his discharge, has laid out part of the money he brought with him into gaol, in the purchase of a book, instead of spending it at a beershop; others, again, have asked to have books bought for them out of similar money, during their imprisonment. The result has been exactly what might have been expected—increased docility, fewer prison offences, and general improvement in the tone of mind and behaviour. What I have thus stated will be the best testimony to the intelligence and efficiency with which the schoolmaster discharges his duties. The schoolmistress is also very painstaking and attentive to her duties. My own ministrations have been, in all respects, as heretofore; and while it may be hoped that the good seed of God's Word, sown even in a gaol, may not all be lost, it would be unsafe to speak of results which at best must be doubtful, till tested by the after conduct of the prisoner.— Yours faithfully, W. F. EVEREST, Chaplain. The reports were received and adopted. COUNTY BRIDGES. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr Hickes, the bridge surveyor for the Western Division reported as follows:— Tregony.—The road will require stoning, which I estimate will cost £2. Cornelly.—The road will require metalling, which I estimate at £1 15s. Trevemper.—The road will require cleaning and stoning. I estimate the cost at £3 10s. Bolingey.—The road will require cleaning and stoning, which I estimate will cost £1 10s. Perran. The road will require stoning. I estimate the cost at £1. Mylor.—The road will require cleaning. I estimate the cost at 15s. Bissoe.—The road will require cleaning and stoning, which will cost £1 10s. I beg to call your attention to the state of this bridge. The arches are nearly filled by sand and silt from the mines. I have received a letter from Mr Hill on the subject which I beg to lay before you. Gwithian.—There is a large accumulation of sand on the road, which I estimate will cost £3 to remove. St. Erth.—The road will require some repairs which will cost about 15s. Godolphin.—The road will require cleaning and some repairs, which I estimate will cost £1 10s. Longbridge.—The road will require cleaning which I estimate will cost 10s. Chyandour.—The road will require cleaning, and some repairs, which I estimate will cost 10s. Newlyn.—The road will require cleaning and stoning, and the side drain to be opened, which I estimate will cost about £3 15s. Berions—The road will require more repairs, which I estimate will cost £1 10s. EASTERN DIVISION.— Mr Jenkin reported that he had no special application to make this time for the bridges in the Eastern Division. An order was here made for printing an abstract of the county financial statement for the year ending September, 1865. Mr Hickes, surveyor of bridges, stated in answer to Mr Le Grice, that he was afraid he could not improve the drainage of Bissoe Bridge, unless they could adopt some plan to prevent the tide from throwing up the sand. He had received a letter from Mr Hill, in which he complained that the arch was so filled up so as to impede the passage of the water during wet weather, and if a remedy was provided by raising the arches of the bridge his fields adjoining would be ruined. Mr Hickes said there were four or five mines above the bridge, the silt from which was washed down by the floods and had filled up the arches. THE COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM. Mr W. H. POLE CAREW said that the notice of motion which appeared in the agenda, for an application for a grant of £1,000 for voting a sufficient water supply for the purposes of the asylum, was given at a time when it was thought they could do without an Act of Parliament. At the last sessions, however, the Court authorised the Visiting Committee to take the necessary steps for obtaining an act for bringing in water from Penbeugle to the asylum; and under these circumstances he should withdraw the notice for the present, as the visitors could do nothing in the matter for three- quarters of a year, and the application could be renewed when they knew accurately what money would be wanted. Mr Shilson had been taken into consultation, and the Parliamentary agents had advised them as to the course which ought to be taken. According to these directions, the committee had now to submit plans of the proposed water works to the Court, and also estimates of the expense; and if these should be approved of, the chairman would be asked to affix his name to them. The committee had to meet on a previous day, when the plans were approved of, it being found that an ample supply of pure water could be obtained from Penquite. The estimate of the cost was as follows:—Construction of reservoirs (Nos. 1 and 2), to contain together 200,000 gallons of water, £350; mains and laying, £810 9s. 6d.; sundries, including stop cocks and fittings, £39 10s. 6d.; total £1,200; commission to mill owners and others, £100; estimated cost of Act of Parliament, £700; grand total, £2,000. These estimates had been furnished by Messrs. Jenkin and Trathan, engineers, of Liskeard. Mr Carew said that the natural fall of the water without the aid of machinery would raise the water 800 feet above the cill of the asylum. Sir C. RASHLEIGH said there was another thing which he thought ought to be mentioned, and that was, that if it should be necessary the supply could be continued on to the gaol. The levels would permit it. Mr POLE CAREW said they were advised to wait till they went to Parliament, when they might, if necessary, introduce a clause to that effect. They were also advised that the compensation for the land would be trivial if they possessed Parliamentary powers. In answer to Mr Coode, Mr CAREW said the committee had no reason to anticipate that any opposition would be offered to the granting of the act. They had found that the only gentleman from whom opposition had been anticipated— Mr Hext—was, on the contrary, inclined to treat the county in a very liberal manner. Sir C. B. GRAVES SAWLE moved that the report of the committee of the lunatic asylum presented to the Court, and the plans and estimates therein referred to, having been taken into consideration, be confirmed; and that the committee of visitors be ordered to take immediate steps to obtain a better supply of water than exists at present for the asylum, and to make the necessary application to Parliament for an act to authorise the same. Capt. LIDDELL, R.N., asked permission to say a word with regard to the Bodmin water company. Some doubt had been experienced as to whether the company intended to apply to Parliament for an act to enable them to carry out their works, but he could assure them that the intention to do so was expressed two years ago; they only delayed in order that £1,400 might be subscribed in the town, to show the feeling of the inhabitants with regard to the scheme. They had now got as much as £2,500, and there could be no doubt that the company would go to Parliament. Plans were being prepared by Messrs. Jenkin and Trathan, and the necessary steps were being taken to go to Parliament. He, therefore, thought it would be a great misfortune for both parties to go to Parliament, as it would be throwing a large sum of the county funds away by the asylum, considering that the company would be able to supply the asylum, gaol, and the town of Bodmin. The water would be taken from Penbeugle, at a lower point, and would be pumped up by machinery. The water had been analysed, and proved to be of the very best quality; he might say the best in the world. Sir C. B. G. SAWLE said that before the court could take the matter into consideration, it was necessary that they should have an assurance which would satisfy them that they would not be thrown over again; the magistrates had heard that a company was about to supply Bodmin with water, and, although they were greatly in want of a supply for the asylum, and the Lunacy Commissioners strongly urged that we should provide one, yet the committee had held their hands for two years, wailing for the water company to carry out their project; and now, when the committee were about to go to Parliament, they were told that the company was established, and was also about to apply for an act. Captain LIDDELL said that two years ago a deputation waited upon the visitors, and said that before they went to work they wished to know who were to be their customers. Considering that the asylum consumed such a large quantity of water, they were anxious to know if they would take it from the company. The reply then was that they could not wait, and he had no hesitation in saying that if they had received any encouragement from the asylum committee, Bodmin would have been supplied with water twelve months ago. They were, however, now in a position to go to Parliament, and there was no doubt that they would do so. Mr NEVIL NORWAY said that he must correct Captain Liddell. Two years ago nothing was said about going to Parliament, but it was then proposed to supply the water by means of a limited liability company. He thought the scheme of the company was objectionable, proposing to take the water from the spot where the rivers formed a junction. The asylum committee proposed to take the water from the fountain head while the company proposed to take it a mile and a half below the source, and consequently it was liable to be polluted whilst traveling that distance. In the next place he understood it was proposed to charge the asylum £80 a year for the supply, whilst the committee could carry out their own scheme, act and all, for £2,000, have the purer water, and be independent— (applause). Capt. LIDDELL asserted that the water from both sources had been analysed, and that from which the company proposed to take it was pure and softer than the other. With regard to the cost the asylum could not supply themselves for £80 a year, and there was no danger of the water being polluted, for that would be provided against by the act of Parliament. Mr POLE CAREW said he had no recollection whatever of anything definite in regard to the company having been submitted to the committee; on the contrary, the company always appeared to be a sort of shadow, which eluded them every time they attempted to grasp it—(applause). He thought they could not now abandon what they had done, and depend on any unformed company, for he could only look upon Captain Liddell's speech as "touting" for the company. He asked the Court to look upon the two schemes; the asylum proposed to bring water in by its natural flow, and the company by means of machinery, and he left it to the magistrates which was the preferable plan. The motion was then adopted. Mr POLE CAREW said that Mr Nevil Norway had at his request consented to withdraw his notice of motion which he had given for these sessions that the question of the proportions to be paid in aid of repairs, &c, at the asylum by the county and by the subscription account would be brought before the court with a view to effect a re-arrangement of such proportions. He had requested Mr Norway to do so because they were in a transition state in consequence of the additions to the asylum, and the whole question would therefore have to be taken into consideration at a future time. He was perfectly sure that the subscribers had been paying more than their share towards the repairs, &c. He then stated that he had to report that William Boundy, who had been an assistant at the asylum for 25 years and was 56 years of age, had applied to the visiting committee for a pension. His nerves are so shaken that it would be absurd for him to remain any longer in his situation, and they had accordingly granted him a pension of £20 a-year, a (sic) subject to the approval of the court. His wages had been £30 a year, with board and lodging, which they put down at £55; the pension would not be a third of his wages. Mr E. COODE had no objection to the pension being granted, but he did demur to the whole of the money being taken from the county rate. COUNTY CONSTABULARY. Mr E. COODE read the report of the police committee as follows:— At a meeting of the Police Committee held to-day, it was resolved that a Police rate of ¾d. in the £ be recommended for this quarter; that steps should be taken for raising the sum of £2,000 by loan on the security of the police rates, for the purpose of providing police stations. CALLINGTON STATION.—Mr Goodyear reports that the contract is signed, and that the works are proceeding satisfactorily. HEAD QUARTERS' STABLE.—A bill from Messrs Truscott, Ham, and Dawe, for paving and boarding the harness-room, which were not included in the contract, and some slight alterations in the entrance, which were considered necessary, was examined and approved; the amount was £20 11s. 1d. BLUE ANCHOR.—Mr Goodyear reports this station not yet completed, though nearly 12 months have elapsed beyond the time allowed under the contract, which expired October 23rd, 1864. The contractor is liable to a penalty of £5 per week for delay. The committee recommend that the matter be placed in the hands of Mr Stokes to enforce the penalty. HAYLE.—The Chief Constable reports that a suitable site can be obtained here on easy terms for a station which is very much wanted. COUNTY SOLICITOR'S BILL.— Mr Stokes's bill for charges connected with the contracts for the stations at Callington and head quarters, amounting to £24 5s. 9d., was examined and approved. The following sums should be transferred from the county rate account to the credit of police rates:— Conveyance and subsistence of Prisoners £179 2 3 Coroners' allowances 47 10 0 Weights and measures 17 11 5 £244 3 8 SUPERANNUATION FUND.—There will be a sum of £240 19s. 5d. to be invested as heretofore for the quarter. EDWARD COODE, Chairman. Mr E. COODE also read the following report:— At a meeting, held on the 19th day of September last, at St. Austell, in accordance with a proposal at the last quarter sessions that the joint committee of police and finance should take into their consideration the best mode of paying for future police stations, whether by loan or otherwise; present, Sir C. B. G. Sawle, Hon. and Rev. T. Boscawen, W. H. Pole Carew, John Jope Rogers, Edward Coode, Francis Rodd, J. T. H. Peter, Richard Foster, James Trevenen, Robert G Lakes, Esqrs, and Capt. Norway, R.N. The following resolutions were agreed to by the committee, viz., that the committee recommend to the Court of Quarter Sessions to raise by loan £4,000 to complete the stations already in hand. That the committee further recommend that the police committee be advised to proceed as slowly as possible in negotiating for any more sites or building any more police stations for the present, except those stations which are absolutely necessary, in their opinion, for the reasonable and efficient working of the police force. Mr COODE then moved under the notice which he had given in the agenda, that steps be forthwith taken to raise the sum of £2,000 for providing stations for the county police. He had also to announce the resignation of Mr W. R. C. Potter from the committee, and to move the appointment of Mr J. Hichens in his place. Mr R. G. LAKES asked whether the head quarters police station at Bodmin had been erected on a more extensive scale than any other station in the county. It appeared to be so, and if so, was there any reason why it should have been done. Mr E. COODE said he certainly knew of no reason why it should be built in a more extensive style than any other station, but he knew that the committee had not provided one inch more accommodation than was required. He believed Mr Lake's question applied to the external portion of the building, and upon that point he ought to state that he believed it was the opinion of the police committee that if, after having provided all the necessary accommodation required, they could at a small outlay render the building somewhat tasteful and ornamental, they ought to do so. Being the central station they thought it should present a creditable appearance, by making it a tasteful station instead of a very ugly one, which he must say the St. Austell station was—(laughter). The Rev. J. J. WILKINSON asked the cost of the building? Mr COODE said the contract was £3,300; the site was purchased in three different portions; the whole amounting to £709 2s 3d; but a portion of the ground had afterwards been re-sold to Col. Gilbert for £120, so that the cost of the site was £589 2s 3d. Mr LE GRICE: How much land was there; was it an acre altogether? Mr COODE said he did not know the exact quantity, but it must be remembered that there were buildings on the land when purchased, and it was sold by auction; a professional valuer was employed to value the property, and it was bought by a person who was quite unknown to the people of Bodmin; it was not known that the County was bidding at all for the property; and the price given was within a trifle of the valuation. Further than that, the price at which it was purchased for the county was only £2 more than had been offered by a private individual. Mr LAKES was much obliged for the explanation, but he could not understand why such an ornamental building should be erected at Bodmin, whilst the St Austell station was as ugly as it was possible to make it. He understood the plan of the latter station was submitted to the secretary of State for approval, and that being so he could only say that gentleman must have a very extraordinary taste—(laughter). Mr COODE said that the plans of were not only submitted to the Secretary of State, but to the Court of quarter sessions, and if the magistrates had taken the trouble it was open to them to inspect them. Mr LE GRICE thought that £589 for the purchase of less than an acre of ground was a most extravagant price. Mr GOODYEAR, the contractor, in reply to a question, stated that the difference in the expense of building the head quarter station with faced stone in the present style, and that in the style of an ordinary building, with rough unfaced stone, would be from £120 to £150. Mr POLE CAREW said that had he thought that economy had not been considered in the erection of police stations, he should most certainly have objected to so plain a station being erected at . The CHAIRMAN to Mr GOODYEAR: Suppose the building had been erected of rough granite, would the difference be £150? Mr GOODYEAR replied that if built of all granite, however rough it might be, it would have cost many hundreds of pounds more. Mr T. S. BOLITHO urged that a police station ought to be provided at Penzance, as there was no place in the County where one was more required. He thought the building which had been used as a borough gaol, might be obtained on very easy terms for the purpose. He moved that the chief constable be desired to ascertain whether a police-station was not required at Penzance, and if so, that he ascertain on what terms the borough gaol might be obtained for the purpose. Mr E. COODE said it was the first time he had ever heard that there was the least chance of their obtaining the building, or of a police station being so greatly required at Penzance. Mr BOLITHO replied that there was no population of equal extent in any other part of the county without a police station. There were 50,000 inhabitants in the district, and the nearest police station was at Camborne. Mr COODE: But Penzance is a borough. Mr BOLITHO: That has nothing to do with my application; we want a police station for the districts beyond the borough. The subject then dropped, and the report was adopted. The motion for raising the £2,000 was then agreed to. CHIEF CONSTABLES' REPORT. The CHIEF CONSTABLE laid before the court the returns of crime committed in the county so far as is known to the County Constabulary; also a return showing the number and distribution of the force. The pressing necessity of a lock-up at Hayle and Redruth has long been felt. At the former place a site can be obtained on very advantageous terms, and I fear, if not now accepted may be lost to the county for ever; and as I have for many years been trying to obtain a site at Hayle, I trust the court will not suffer this opportunity to be lost. The report was received and adopted.

MAGISTRATES' ROOMS AND POLICE STATIONS. Mr E. COLLINS, in accordance with a notice given by Mr H. R. Trelawny, moved that a magistrates' room be built at Callington, or in part of the new police station to be there erected. He said that some time ago a committee was appointed to report on the accommodation afforded to magistrates in petty sessions. That committee reported that Callington was one of the places where the magistrates had to hire a room. As a new station was to be built there he thought a room ought to be provided by the county either in connection with the station or adjoining. Col. CORYTON seconded the motion. Mr LE GRICE said: I think it would be very inexpedient to consent to the motion of Mr Collins that the magistrates should be accommodated with a room in the police-stations for the transaction of public business. The police stations have cost the county such an immense sum of money that, in my opinion, the magistrates would act very unwisely to do anything which might lead the public to suppose that, in consenting to expend so large a sum on the police stations, they had been actuated with a desire to benefit themselves. I have no objection for rooms to be erected where magistrates may carry on the business of petty sessions, but let them be independent of these costly police stations. Mr R. H. S. VYVYAN quite concurred with the remarks of Mr Le Grice, and thought the funds of the County were not in such a condition as to bear any further expenditure. Mr E. COODE reminded the Court that this room could only be provided under a special Act of Parliament, and the expense would come out of the County rate and not of the police rate. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH considered that Mr Le Grice was quite wrong in stating that those rooms were for the accommodation of the magistrates; the magistrates were only a small body compared with witnesses, prosecutors, and defendants, and therefore he thought the rooms were more for the accommodation of the public than of the magistrates. It was to be regretted that provision had not been made for the erection of such rooms in conjunction with the police stations originally, when it could have been done without great expense, whereas now to provide rooms would involve considerable outlay. He must also impress upon them that if they consented to build the room at Callington they would be called upon to erect many similar rooms throughout the County, and on that ground he should oppose the motion. On the motion being put, 13 voted for and 15 against it, and it was declared to be lost. Mr T. S. BOLITHO suggested that an arrangement ought to be made with the Cornwall Railway Company for a regular yearly sum equal to what had been expended for the passage of police constables on the line, as it would be a great convenience. He also thought it would be advisable for the chief constable to have a pass. The Chief Constable said he had spoken to Mr Cockshott on the subject, and it was proposed that the yearly average paid by the police to the company for the previous two or three years should be ascertained, in order to arrive at a fair charge. The average, however, was found to be so small that it could not be entertained. With respect to the granting of a pass to himself, he had endeavoured to impress this upon the secretaries, but he had not got an answer. Sir C. RASHLEIGH thought it desirable for many reasons that the Chief Constable should have a pass over the line. The Chief Constable stated that he believed there was not another similar officer in the kingdom who had to pay in travelling over a railway. The subject then dropped. MAGISTRATES FOR THE SECOND COURT. Sir C. B. G. SAWLE, R. G. Bennett, and J. T. H. Peter, Esqrs., were appointed to preside in the second court. PAYMENT OF THE CLERK OF THE PEACE. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH thought it very desirable that the salary of the Clerk of the Peace should be placed on a distinct and permanent basis, and as a gentleman had now been appointed to the office, he begged to move that the Finance Committee be directed to consider and report to the next session as to whether it is desirable to pay the Clerk of the Peace by salary or by fees; if by salary, to recommend the amount at which such salary shall be fixed; or to draw up a scale of fees for the guidance of the Clerk of the Peace; that the committee ascertain the amount of fees received annually by the Clerk of the Peace for Cornwall during the last ten years and the amount paid annually to him as law costs for work considered extra to his office of Clerk of the Peace. He did not think the matter could be referred to a more appropriate body than the Finance Committee, because they were acquainted with the Finances of the county. Sir G. B. SAWLE seconded the motion, which was agreed to nem con. THE SALMON FISHERY. Mr LAKES presented a petition from the fishermen of Fowey and Polruan, asking to be allowed to take the salmon in the salt water of the harbour. There were, they asserted, a great number of salmon in the harbour, but they would not go up the river because the water was so polluted. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH objected to the matter being reopened. He knew that two very large salmon had been caught very high up the Fowey river. This concluded the County business. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. FIRST COURT. [Before JOHN JOPE ROGERS, ESQ., M.P.] UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN AT CALLINGTON. Jane Redmonds, 15, shopkeeper, was indicted for uttering a counterfeit shilling at Callington and a counterfeit half-crown at Tavistock. A former conviction for a similar offence at Plymouth was proved against her by Inspector Thomas, of the Plymouth police force; and this ousting the jurisdiction of the court of quarter sessions, she was ordered to be kept in custody till the assizes.— Mr Childs appeared to prosecute; Mr Jenkins to defend. ROBBERY BY A SERVANT AT ST. AUSTELL. Christiana Harry, 16, servant, was indicted for stealing a crinoline, a seal skin jacket, a silk umbrella, a hair bracelet, steel buckle and band, black buckle and band, a pair of kid gloves, a gold locket, a handkerchief, and a scarf, with other articles, the property of Richard Best and another, at St Austell, on 28th ult. Mr Shilson prosecuted. Harry was servant at Mr Best's for nine days. When she left, the articles charged were missed, and when apprehended the property was found upon her. She was found guilty, and sentenced to four months' imprisonment. A FARMER CHARGED WITH STEALING HAY. Abiezer Harvey was indicted for stealing a small quantity of clover hay, the property of John Warne, at Southhill, on the 7th and 8th ult. Mr Childs appeared for the prosecution; Mr Nicholls defended. The parties are neighbouring farmers. Warne has a plot of land on Gulverton Common, and from this, it was alleged, the hay was taken. Prosecutor said he had given Harvey on one occasion some hay, and that subsequently, having watched, he saw him help himself to a little more. The taking was corroborated by two other witnesses. The defence was that permission had been, as prisoner understood, given to him to take a little hay for the purpose of keeping his horse quiet. This he had done; and done it openly. Was it to be supposed that a man in Harvey's position would steal such a trumpery amount of hay; or that if he intended to thieve he would do so in broad daylight?— The jury without hesitation acquitted the prisoner. SECOND COURT. Before Sir C. G. B. SAWLE, R. G. BENNETT, and J. T. H. PETER, ESQS. CHILD DESERTION AT POLRUAN. Mary Ann Carroll, 27, needlewoman, and John Heifer, 32, labourer, were charged with unlawfully abandoning a child under the age of two years, whereby the life of the child was endangered. Mr Cummin (sic) appeared for the prosecution. P.C. Ham stated that he was on duty at Polruan, in the parish of Lanteglos, on the 18th September, when he found a child of about three months' old lying in the road. He gave the child into the custody of a girl and went in pursuit of the mother, whom he found near Napleford, about three miles from the spot where the child was found. On charging her with desertion she said it was her brother-in-law, John Heifer, who left the child in the road. In consequence of this Heifer was also arrested. The only witness, however, who could connect the prisoners with the offence—a man named Jacobs—did not answer to his name, and afer (sic) being called in the usual form his recognizances were estreated. The Chairman then directed the jury to acquit the prisoners, as there was no evidence to convict them. The prisoners were accordingly acquitted. The Chairman seriously cautioned the female prisoner as to her future conduct. CHARGE OF FOWL STEALING AT ANTONY. Charles Rideout, 32, and William Brady, 18, labourers, were charged with stealing three fowls and a drake, the property of John Creber, farmer, of the parish of Antony. Mr Marrack appeared for the prosecution. The evidence against Brady was that he was found in the prosecutor's outhouse on the morning upon which the fowls were missed. The prisoner stated that he had slept there all night, as he had nowhere else to go, but he had done nothing wrong. He was allowed to go, but the fowls being afterwards missed, the prisoners were apprehended. The only evidence against Rideout was that he was seen in the company of Brady on the morning in question near a place where some fowls' feathers were afterwards found. Both prisoners were acquitted. FIRST COURT.—WEDNESDAY. Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq. A HORSE RIDING MANIA. Mary Jane Harris, aged 19, a girl who had a somewhat "flighty" appearance, was charged, on two several counts, with "stealing and leading away" a donkey, and with "stealing and leading away" a mare, and a further count charged her with stealing a bridle. Mr H. D. Shilson appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. The donkey case was first heard, and it appeared that William Greenslade, a labourer, of St. Dennis, placed a donkey in a stable on the 11th February, and missed it the following morning. The donkey was found the same day in the prisoner's possession by P. C. Goodman. The prisoner said she had taken the donkey from the Common, thinking that it belonged to a Mr Hocken, who had told her he had lost his donkey. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended her to mercy. The prisoner was then charged with stealing a mare, the property of John Best of St. Stephens in Branwell, on the 11th August. The prosecutor turned four horses into a field, from which he afterwards missed a bay mare. A farm labourer, named Wm. Williams, saw the prisoner riding the mare across the country on the same day. She was gallopng (sic) the animal across the fields and over hedges, and as he saw that she was ill-using the mare, he took her from the prisoner. The prisoner had a horsewhip in her hand. The mare was cut about her legs and other places. This witness in answer to the Chairman stated that he had seen the prisoner previously ride a horse about the country which she had taken from a field, but she returned it he believed. She had a reputation in the neighbourhood of not being quite right. The prisoner's father, James Harris, a labourer, was called and stated that his daughter lived with him. She was a good girl, but when she was six years old she had a fall, and severely injured her head, and since that time she had been "strange" at times. She would, when in these strange fits, go out and take a horse, or a donkey, from a field and ride it about, but would afterwards take it back to the field "safe and sound." Afterwards when spoken to about her conduct she would cry, and say she would never do it again. The Chaplain of the county gaol was called and stated the prisoner had been in gaol about two months. He had not noticed anything peculiar in her conduct, but her mind was certainly weak, and she was deficient in reasoning power. The Chairman, having consulting with the magistrates on the bench, said that after the evidence which had been given respecting the prisoner's intellect, she could hardly be looked upon as accountable for her actions at times when she had these fits upon her. He should, however, order her to be detained in the county gaol another week, in order to give the medical attendant of the gaol an opportunity of examining her, and also to give her friends, or the parish, an opportunity of making arrangements for her detention. It might still be possible by proper treatment to strengthen her mind, notwithstanding the length of time which had elapsed. CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT AT CALSTOCK. Wm. Malachy Proctor; of Calstock, was charged with embezzling two sums of money, the property of his master, Thomas Martin Matthews, wine and spirit merchant, of Plymouth. Mr Marrack appeared for the prosecutor and Mr Childs and Mr Nicolls for the prisoner. The case for the prosecution was that the prisoner was engaged in February last, as traveller for the prosecutor, to solicit orders and receive money on the condition that he had six per cent. on all money received for the prosecutor, and that he forwarded the money by the first post after he had received it. However, in August last, Mr Matthews met the prisoner by appointment at Callington, and then the prisoner admitted that he had received various sums, amounting altogether to £58, which he not paid over. Afterwards the prosecutor discovered that there was upwards of £94, which the prisoner had received and not accounted for. In cross-examination a very complicated story was brought to light, from which it appeared that the prisoner was a brewer carrying on business for himself, at the same time that he was agent for the prosecutor. In May last, he became insolent (sic) and was committed to Bodmin gaol. The prosecutor appeared to have acted in a most friendly manner towards the prisoner, lent him £50 to get him out of his difficulties, and in other ways acted the part of a staunch friend and it was not till August, when he discovered that the prisoner had been receiving the money and not accounting for it, that he preferred the charge of embezzlement. It was also shown that prisoner sent in an account to prosecutor in which he claimed a balance in his favour. The Chairman then stopped the case, saying that he could not see any evidence to justify him in sending the case before the jury. Mr Matthews seemed to have acted in an extremely friendly way towards the prisoner, and it was no doubt hard upon Mr Matthews, but still the evidence at present could not bear out the charge of embezzlement. Mr Marrack agreed with the Chairman, and said he would not proceed any further. The prisoner was then acquitted. AN ENGLISH GENTLEMAN. John Johnson, a miserable looking individual, who gave his age as 39, was indicted for "coshering," or being an "incorrigible rogue." Fortunately for him, unlike the "Irish gentleman," who was recently sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for a similar offence, the act which specially applied to Irish "gentlemen," or persons who wouldn’t work, was not applicable in his case. Mr H. D. Shilson, who appeared for the prosecution, stated that the indictment was framed under the 5th Geo. IV. In the 4th section, it was enacted that any person wandering abroad without any visible means of subsistence, and not being able to give a good account of himself, shall be considered as an idle and disorderly person, and being subsequently convicted of the offence, shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond. The 5th section of the same act states that "every person committing any offence against this act, which shall subject him to be dealt with as a rogue and vagabond, such person having been at some former time adjudged so to be and duly convicted thereof; and every person apprehended as a rogue and vagabond, and violently resisting any constable or other peace officer so apprehending him, and being subsequently convicted of the offence for which he shall have been so apprehended, shall be deemed an incorrigible rogue with the true intent and meaning of this act; and it shall be lawful for any justice of the Peace to commit such offender to the House of Correction, there to remain till the next quarter sessions." Then the 10th section provided, "that when any 'incorrigible rogue' shall have been committed to the House of Correction there to remain till the next quarter sessions, it shall be lawful for the justices of the peace there assembled to examine into the circumstances of the case, and to order, if they think fit, that such offender be further imprisoned in the House of Correction, and be there kept to hard labour for any time not exceeding one year from the time of making such order, and to order further, if they think fit, that such offender (not being a female) be punished by whipping at such time during his imprisonment, and at such place within their jurisdiction, as according to the nature of their offence, they in their discretion shall deem to be expedient." Mr SHILSON then produced certificates of five different convictions, beginning in 1858, for begging, disorderly conduct and for being a rogue and a vagabond, and also evidence to show that the prisoner was begging on the 5th September at Stratton, and that, on the girl in charge of the house refusing to give him anything, he behaved in a violent and disorderly manner. Capt. COLVILLE, governor of the gaol, in answer to a question, said the prisoner was well able to work, but he did as little as possible— (laughter). He appeared to belong to the three counties— Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall,— but was never known to do any work in either. The CHAIRMAN said it was disgraceful for an able-bodied man to permit himself to fall into such a habit of idleness. He should commit him to hard labour for six months to see if that would have any beneficial influence upon him. He hoped the new regulations might affect him a little. STEALING A WATCH AT ST. AUSTELL. George Northey, 21, labourer, was charged with stealing a silver watch, the property of Elizabeth Ann Coom, at St. Austell, on or about the 12th August, 1865. Mr H. D. Shilson appeared for the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr Preston Wallis. From the evidence adduced, it appeared that the prosecutrix, who lives at Boldventure, St. Austell, kept the watch in a jug on the dresser. The prisoner was a neighbour, and was in the habit of visiting the house. Prosecutor saw the watch safe on the 22nd July, but as she had no occasion to go there again till the 23rd August she did not miss the watch till that date. The prisoner had visited the house in the meantime, but she could not say that he knew where she kept the watch. A person, however, said to resemble the prisoner, sold a watch to a watchmaker in St. Austell, which turned out to be the watch stolen from the prosecutrix, and the prisoner was proved to have had the same watch in his possession at Fowey, by a girl named Perry, whom he was courting, and who took it from him in fun and kept it two or three hours. She stated that the watch produced was the same which she took from the prisoner, and the prosecutrix identified it as hers.—Mr PRESTON WALLIS very ably addressed the jury for the defence, contending that the prisoner was not in any way connected with the robbery. The girl Perry only identified the watch by means of an ornament on the back, which was no doubt on hundreds of watches, and Mr Truscott, who had purchased the watch, did not swear that prisoner was the man who sold it. The jury, however, found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to three months' hard labour. STEALING A COAT AT TRURO. Elizabeth Johns, 56, was charged with stealing a coat, the property of John Benny, at Truro, on the 2nd October. Mr Marrack appeared for the prosecution. Mrs Benny, wife of the prosecutor, stated that she lived in Rosewin Row, Truro, and the prisoner, who lived near her, used to come to the house to buy potatoes. Witness hung the coat up on the Monday morning, and did not miss it till Thursday; it was then found at Mr Behenna's, pawnbroker, where the prisoner had pledged it. The defence was that the prisoner had found a parcel in the street, containing the coat. She was found guilty, and sentenced to three months' hard labour. BREACH OF THE PEACE. Andrew Andrews, who had been committed to gaol on the 5th October, in default of finding sureties to keep the peace towards John Daniel, of , was brought up and discharged, no one appearing against him. DIVERSION OF A ROAD. Mr COMMINS moved for the diversion of a road called Bendown Road, in the parish of Morval, and the usual formalities having been observed the diversion was ordered accordingly. EXCISE APPEAL. WILLIAM ANDREWS APPELLANT v. SAMPSON ROWE, RESPONDENT.—This was an appeal againt (sic) a decision of the justices in Petty Sessions at Truro, namely, the Rev. T. Phillpotts, Rev. J. Perry, J. T. H. Peter, W. T. Chappel, E. S. Carus-Wilson, Esqs., made on the 26th Sept. Mr Childs appeared for the appellant, who is a supervisor of Excise for the Truro district, and Mr Marrack for the repondent (sic), the owner of a van running between Truro and the Indian Queens. Mr Childs having read the magistrates' order of dismissal and stated that the evidence on the matter, and the order of dismissal having been communicated to the Board of Inland Revenue, Mr Andrews had been instructed to appeal, drew attention to the Clauses of the Act of Parliament bearing on the question, which enacted that no van carrying passengers, which was not a licensed stage carriage, should be driven at a greater speed than four miles per hour, and then called Albert Walter Bazeley, who said: I am an officer of the excise at Truro. I received instructions from the collector on the 7th June, in consequence of which, I went to Sampson Rowe, at High Cross, Truro, where he had a van. I got into the van at the Union Hotel; there were seven or eight people in the van at the time. Rowe drove the van away towards Ladock. I had never been on the road to Ladock before. When I came to the first mile stone on the top of the hill, I noted the time, it was 12 minutes to nine o'clock. I proceeded in the van to the public house at Ladock; when I got there, I asked Rowe his fare; he said 6d., and I paid him. I saw a mile-stone just before I arrived at the inn, I saw the 7th mile stone; I then looked at my watch, and it was 10 o'clock; that would be at the rate of 5 miles an hour. I did not notice any other person but myself take any note of time. Cross-examined by Mr Marrack: My occupation is not altogether to inform against people—only when I am directed to do so. I was a stranger at Truro; had never been on the Ladock road before. Did not notice any of the mile-stones between the 1st and the 7th. Noticed the 7th mile-stone after I had got out of the van and paid my fare. I will not swear it was not 8 o'clock before I left Truro. It was a light night. I did not know where the mile-stone was; I intended to go to Grampound, and missed my way; in coming back I discovered the 7th mile-stone. There were 11 or 12 persons in the van. I was sitting on the right hand side of the van; my back was towards the mile-stones. By the CHAIRMAN: I went into the public-house to look at my watch after I got out of the van. Some passengers got out and walked up the hill from Truro; can't be sure whether they got into the van again before coming to the first milestone or not. Mr CHILDS said that was the case for the appellant, and he had only to remark that no doubt his learned friend would speak strongly of the conduct of Bazely (sic), as being that of a spy, and probably there would be a feeling against him on the ground that such conduct was repugnant to an Englishman, and such like; but he could say that Bazely was ordered to do what he had done, and he merely performed his duty. Complaints had been made by keepers of licensed stage carriages, who felt aggrieved that parties who did not pay for a license should be allowed to drive at such a rate. Here it was shown that Rowe had driven at the rate of five miles, an hour, and he therefore submitted that the order of dismissal was wrong. Mr MARRACK said there was no proof that Rowe was the owner of the van, and he submitted that the Crown were bound to prove the ownership. The Bench overruled the objection. Mr MARRACK then addressed the Court on behalf of the respondent. He reminded them that the case had received the attentive consideration of five magistrates when it was brought before the petty sessions, at Truro, and that they had decided that it had not been made out. He should prove by the evidence of three witnesses that the van left Truro at eight o'clock at night, and did not reach Ladock till ten, thus showing that two hours had been occupied on the journey between the two places. He felt satisfied that on the evidence which had been adduced the Court would not consent to reverse the decision of the petty sessions, and thus sanction the attempt which was made to impose a penalty of £20 upon the respondent. He called Francis Frances, farmer, of St. Enoder, who stated that he was a passenger by the van. It left the High Cross, Truro, at eight o'clock, stopped for a minute or two to take up passengers at the Union Hotel. Between Truro and Ladock the van was driven very slowly, arriving at the latter place at ten o'clock. Mr Rowe is a careful driver, and he drove slower than usual on this occasion, owing to his suspicions of Mr Bazeley. John Geach, a farm labourer, residing at St. Columb, and David Googe, a clay manufacturer, of St. Enoder, confirmed this evidence in every particular. The Court retired to consider their decision, and, after an absence of about an hour, the Chairman stated that they had given the case the fullest consideration, and had come to the conclusion that the decision of the petty sessions should be reversed; but they gave no costs, and remitted the penalty to £5, being the lowest sum to which they could reduce it. BASTARDY APPEAL. THOMAS DAVEY, the younger, appellant; ELIZABETH ANN GILBERT, respondent.—Mr Nicholls, of Callington, appeared for the appellant; and Mr Marrack and Mr Preston Wallis for the respondent. This was an appeal against an affiliation order made by the magistrates at the petty sessions at Callington, whereby the appellant was adjudged the putative father of a bastard child of which the respondent had been delivered, and ordered to pay 1s 6d a week towards its support. The appellant having been called, was subjected to a severe examination, both by the respondent's advocate and the court, and after hearing the evidence, the court, without retiring, dismissed the appeal with costs. The business of the sessions concluded shortly after six o clock, and the court rose. SECOND C0URT.—WEDNESDAY. Before (Sir C. B. Graves Sawle, Bart.) CHARGE OF ASSAULT. Sarah Williams was charged with assaulting and threatening Mary Jane, single woman, at Kingsand on the 4th instant. Mr Marrack prosecuted. The parties evidently, both belonged to a disreputable class, and on the day in question they appeared to have been drinking along with persons of both sexes at the house of a man called Bryant, at Kingsand. They all got tipsey, and a quarrel having arisen, the prisoner seized a sharp pointed knife, and threatened to run it into the prosecutor, who seemed to have given her no provocation. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy; and she was sentenced to a to a (sic) fortnights hard labour FELONY AT ILLOGAN. Charles Faull aged 30, was indicted for stealing two steel springs, two iron clips, four iron glens, three coupling irons, three bolts, and one wood block, the property of Edward Bawden, at the parish of Illogan, on the 28th of August. Mr Cornish prosecuted, and Mr Jenkins defended the prisoner. Guilty; sentenced to six months' hard labour. FELONY AT TRURO. Samuel Rice, 16, blacksmith, and Joseph Rickard, 19, labourer, were charged with stealing a quantify of iron, of the value of 2s., the property of Jacob Beer, at the borough of Truro, on the 15th September. Mr Marrack prosecuted. Prosecutor occupies a yard at Lemon-quay, Truro. He had frequently missed articles from the yard, and in September he discovered that some iron had been removed. The iron was traced to the prisoners, who were found guilty. Rice having been already convicted 4 times, he was sentenced to seven years penal servitude. No previous conviction having been proved against Rickard, he was only sentenced to three months' hard labour. UNLAWFUL ASSAULT. William Trebilcock, 21 miner, was indicted for having, on the 6th September, at the parish of Kenwyn, unlawfully assaulted Rebecca Kent, with intent to ravish her. Mr Jenkins prosecuted, and Mr Marrack defended the prisoner. The prosecutrix, a young woman in delicate health, residing at Beer- street, in Kenwyn, had been out for a walk on the evening of the 5th September, and about eight o'clock she was returning home from a neighbour's house. On the way she was joined by the prisoner, whom she had known about a twelvemonth, and they walked on the road together for about three- quarters of a mile. The prisoner then made a disgraceful proposal to her, and on her indignantly ordering him to go about his business he threw her down and criminally assaulted her. She resisted, and screamed murder "when he knocked her mouth full of blood." Her screams brought a man named Nicholas Plint to her assistance, on whose approach her assailant rose and walked away. The defence was that the prosecutrix was mistaken as to the prisoner being her assailant; guilty of common assault; six months' hard labour. ASSAULT AND ROBBERY AT KENWYN. George Kimburn, aged 17, miner, and Richard Curtis, alias John Dawe, of the same age, also a miner, were indicted for assaulting and beating Michael Chester, at the parish of Kenwyn, on the 10th of October. Mr Marrack prosecuted. The prosecutor is a farm labourer residing at Kea. On the 9th of October he visited Truro, and fell in with the prisoners with whom he continued drinking until a late hour. They slept together in a linhay at Idless that night, and next morning they went to Powell's beerhouse and had some drink. Afterwards, on passing over the common, the prisoners began to ill- treat the prosecutor, and demanded money from him, and he, to induce them to desist, gave Curtis, half-a-crown. After this they knocked him down, beat him until he became insensible and took from him another half-a-crown. The jury found the prisoners guilty. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said that the prisoners ought to have been indicted for robbery, but as they had been convicted of a common assault only, the sentence on Curtis would be two months,' and on Kimburn of one month's hard labour. PLEADED GUILTY. John Merrin, 38, miner, pleaded guilty to stealing an alpaca umbrella, at the parish of Redruth, on the 12th of August, and was sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment. John Roberts, alias Thomas Derbyshire, 54, weaver, to stealing a pair of stockings, the property of Thomas Allen, at , on the 28th August; and a cotton shirt and flannel shirt, the property of Richard Evans, at Lewannack (sic), on the 29th of the same month.—One month's imprisonment. Elizabeth Williams, 38, servant, to stealing a quantity of articles at Redruth, including two umbrellas, flannel, canvas, and braid and stuff.—Sentenced to two month's imprisonment. Jane Barrett, 33, mine worker, to stealing an earthenware pan and some flannel, the property of Joseph Watts, at St. Austell, on the 2nd instant.—One month's imprisonment. Thomas Williams, 18, labourer, was indicted for stealing some agricultural implements at Gwithian, on the 18th August, the property of Trezize Richards. He not only pleaded guilty to this, but to a former conviction, and was sentenced to six month's imprisonment. Sarah Ann Murphy, 27, charwoman, pleaded guilty to stealing wearing apparel. A previous conviction was proved, and she was committed for three month's (sic). The Court adjourned until nine next morning. BILLS IGNORED. The grand jury threw out the bill preferred against William Cogar Beckerleg, for assaulting Elizabeth Trathen, with intent, at St. Ives, on the 23rd of August. Elizabeth Simmons, 29, to stealing a pair of boots at Redruth. Six months' hard labour. William Stribley, 22, to obtaining by false pretences, at Bullerswell, in the parish of Bodmin, certain monies from John Searle and his wife, with intent to defraud. Three months' hard labour.

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