sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arthur Tatham, Bodwen, Bolingey, Bowithick, Calenick, Camelford

1855 Quarter Sessions and Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes ...... 24 3. Easter Sessions ...... 58 4. Midsummer Sessions ...... 70 5. Summer Assizes ...... 92 6. Michaelmas Sessions ...... 134

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 5 and 12 January 1855

1. Epiphany Sessions

These sessions were opened on Tuesday last, at , before the following magistrates: J. KING LETHBRIDGE, ESQ., CHAIRMAN Lord Vivian. J.H.T.H. Peter, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. E. Stephens, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. E. Coode, jun., Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., T.G. Graham, Esq. M.P. G.M. Williams, Esq. R Foster, Esq. Augustus Smith, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. J.S. Enys, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. F.J. Hext, Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. H. Thomson, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. E.J. Treffry. N. Kendall, Esq. The Rev. Charles Matthew Edward Collins, of Trewardale, qualified as a magistrate; and Mr. E. Gilbert Hamley, took the oaths on his appointment as Coroner. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Messrs. C.M. Parks, St. Enoder, foreman; F. Arthur, St. Breock; H. Biddick, St. Dennis; G. Brabyn, St. Breock; L. Biddick, St. Breock; J. Coad, ; J. Davey, St. Austell; W.J. Geake, St. Columb; R. Glanville, St. Austell; T. Hicks, jun., St. Columb; W. Hawkey, St. Dennis; W. Jago, St. Austell; T. Jane, Lanhydrock; S. Johns, Lanhydrock; W.M. Knapp, ; J. Knight, St. Columb; J. Littleton, Lanhydrock; R. Martin, St. Austell, Elias Martin, St. Austell; W. Nicholls, St. Columb; J. Osborne, St. Dennis; J. Parnell, St. Austell; J. Penhall, St. Austell. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— Messrs. W. Ford Geake, St. Columb; W.T. Polkinhorne, St. Columb; W. Truscott, St. Columb; R. Trebilcock, St. Columb; J. Varcoe, St. Dennis; J. Warne, St. Columb, H. Williams, St. Columb; J. Wills, St. Breock; J. Williams, St. Breock. —The Queen’s Proclamation having been read, the CHAIRMAN delivered his [charge to the Grand Jury—not transcribed]. THE COUNTY GAOL. VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The Visiting Justices had much pleasure in reporting the continued good order and cleanliness of the Goal and Bridewell. The prisoners were exceedingly healthy; and the Infirmary was unoccupied; but the number in custody during the past year had exceeded the usual average. [The remainder of the report not transcribed] COUNTY ASYLUM.—This being the Sessions at which the annual reports of the Asylum are read, the CHAIRMAN read the following:—

THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN LUNACY. Cornwall County Asylum, August 17th and 18th, 1854. Since the last visit of the Commissioners on the 2nd of May last, 27 patients have been admitted, 17 have been discharged, and 29 have died; 6 dying from dysentery and diarrhoea, 3 from paralysis, 3 from disease of the brain, and the rest from various other causes. There are now 220 patients in the asylum, including three who are out on leave. Of these, 11 of each sex are private patients, and 94 males and 124 females are paupers. Twenty-one patients are registered as being under medical treatment, three as having been placed under mechanical restraint, and two secluded during the last week. Since the last visit of the Commissioners, there appear to have been 13 instances of mechanical restraint, and 41 instances of seclusion, having reference to 26 patients. We observe that the great mortality in this asylum continues to be partly referable to dysentery and diarrhoea. The visitors, as we have understood, have given notice of their intention to apply to the next Quarter Sessions for a grant of £1400 to enable them to warm and ventilate the asylum, and to floor the lower wards with wood instead of the present paving of stone, &c. We think it advisable to move all the patients from the ground floors into the upper wards as far as is practicable, and to use every exertion to improve the ventilation, especially of the single rooms, and the recesses or places set apart for the sinks and water closets. At the time of our coming to the asylum an offensive odour issued from an empty room formerly used as a laundry, and also from a water closet or sink in one of the female wards. The causes of these smells should be at once ascertained and removed, and the refuse vegetables should no longer be thrown into an outhouse near the kitchen. All the wood that has become rotten in the Asylum should be removed and replaced with dry sound wood, and the ceiling of one of the large upper rooms, which fell down some time since, should be immediately restored, and the room itself brought into use. We are informed that lavatories will be erected throughout the asylum; but until these are completed, we recommend that some washing basins be provided for those patients who now wash in tubs and troughs. The wards would generally be much improved by more furniture being placed in them, and by the straw beds being diminished. We think that more cheap publications of a cheerful character are very desirable. At present by far the greatest proportion of books are of a religious tendency only, and these were in the hands of patients afflicted with melancholia. All the female patients, without distinction, should be taken beyond the small airing grounds for exercise regularly, and they should be regularly bathed, which is not the case at present. The visitors do not at present contemplate the introduction of gas into the asylum. The male attendants have been recently supplied with new dresses in addition to their wages, and the female attendants are also to have new dresses shortly. As the visitors are about to make some alterations in the asylum, we recommend to their consideration whether it may not be advisable to remove all the bars, iron doors, and wire work, from the premises, and generally to render the female parts of the Institution as convenient and comfortable as may be. Some of the windows do not open sufficiently to admit a proper quantity of air. The religious exercises and amusements are the same as heretofore. We are gratified in observing the clean, comfortable, and orderly condition of the male wards, and the adjacent grounds. B. W. PROCTOR, ) C. GASKELL, ) Commissioners in Lunacy. Mr. D. P. Le GRICE asked, if the patients were to be removed from the lower floors to the upper, why should the lower floors be boarded? Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said there is not sufficient room in the upper galleries to take them. Mr. KENDALL said there must be a great number of patients in the lower part. MEDICAL OFFICER'S REPORT.—The following report was also read by the Chairman:— To the Committee of Visitors. Gentlemen,— l respectfully submit for your consideration the report of the asylum for the year 1854. During the past twelve months 95 patients have been admitted, viz., 47 males and 48 females. Of these 8 may be considered to have been in an almost hopeless state when they entered. There remained in the establishment on the 30th December 1853, males 117, females 113, total 230. Admitted in 1854, males 47, females 49, total 96; total under care 326. Males. Females. Total. Discharged, Recovered.. 15 19 34 Relieved 6 4 10 Relieved 4 0 4 Died 19 23 42 Total, discharged and dead, 90; remaining under care December 31st, 1854,—236, of whom 14 males and 11 females were private patients. The re-admissions amount to 9 males and 6 females. It is a matter of regret to me that I have to inform you that the deaths exceed in number those of last year by eight. Of these forty-two cases the apparent cause of death may be considered under the following heads:— From affection of the brain and spinal cord as by organic disease, inflammation, and cerebral pressure, one of these patients being affected with atrophy,— six have died from affection of the respiratory organs, two being cases of phthisis, four deaths. From asthma associated with disease of brain, thoracic affection and mania, four deaths. From abdominal affection, as by dysentery, protracted diarrhoea, peritonitis, and tympanitis, associated in the different cases with pulmonary affection, organic disease of the brain, epilepsy, and paralysis, eleven deaths. From constitutional or cachectic debility, associated in the different cases with pulmonic and abdominal affections, mania and paralysis, four deaths. From coma and narcotism with dysenteric affection, and in one of these with mania, two deaths. From general paralysis with mania, two deaths. From scrofula and mania, two deaths. From the debility of age, associated in the different cases with gangrene, bronchial and intestinal irritation, five deaths. From epileptic paroxysm, and one of these with hemorrhage, two deaths. From general dropsy and bronchitis, one death. Total, forty-two deaths. With regard to other causes affecting the health of the patients, the past year has been less trying than the previous one, and with the exception of some cases of severe furunculous abscess, the asylum bas not been visited by any epidemic. Of the diseases which may be considered endemic as regards the asylum, I am endeavouring by the placing of all new cases in particular galleries to prevent the frequency of their recurrence. It is therefore with satisfaction that I find the committee taking into consideration the propriety of substituting boards for the flags in the lower galleries. Permit me also, gentlemen, to repeat the request I made to you last year of again considering the benefit which would be conferred upon the establishment by adopting the mode of lighting by gas, a benefit which I consider would, as the patients under the present system occupy so many hours in their bedrooms, contribute to their mental, if not physical well-being. The iron doors also I feel it my duty to bring again to your notice, as interfering with the efficient duties of the watch. In conclusion, allow me, gentlemen, earnestly to request that you will by all the means in your power, even to the penalty of the law, urge those who are the friends or guardians of patients affected by mental alienation, to send them as early as possible to your asylum after they have been pronounced by their medical attendant to be of unsound mind, so much does success in treatment depend upon the speedy removal of such cases to a house appropriated to the purpose. T. BOISRAGON. VISITORS’ REPORT, January 2nd, 1855.—The Visitors of the County Lunatic Asylum, in making their Annual Report, regret that it is not in their power, as yet, to speak favourably of the healthfulness of the establishment. It will be seen from the Medical Report, presented herewith, that periodical attacks of Dysentery have prevailed as heretofore. The attention of the Commissioners in Lunacy, who have visited the Institution twice during the past year, has been especially given to this most important subject; and many of their suggestions would have been carried out ere this, but for an error in the Architect's or Engineer's estimates, only brought to the notice of the Visitors on the morning of the last Quarter Sessions. Arrangements are now made for flooring all the basement stories with wood, and for adding to the number and efficiency of the Baths and Lavatories, and this at the cost of 500l., for which amount application will, this day, be made to the Quarter Sessions. The Visitors hope that, with the wood floors and a few additional stoves, the temperature will be sufficiently healthful without having recourse to a more elaborate and expensive system of warming and ventilation. The use of gas has been much pressed on the Visitors both by the Commissioners and the Medical Superintendent. The Visitors have not been insensible to the value of the suggestion, but they have been unwilling to incur any expense not absolutely necessary. Happily they have now a small surplus, which will enable them to try the experiment in the female pauper building. They hope also from their own resources to carry out by degrees the substitution of wooden doors for iron. The Visitors beg to call especial attention to that part of the Medical Officer's Report which refers to the great importance of sending patients to the Asylum in the early stages of disease. The visitors have again and again alluded to this matter, and they do hope that the importance of the suggestion will induce attention on the part of those with whom the responsibility rests. The wards are all in excellent order, the patients appear comfortable, and there is still room for about 25 of each sex. The weekly cost of maintenance for the past year has been about 8s. 1d.; the amount received from for pauper patients 7s. Od. per week. NICHOLAS KENDALL, Chairman. Mr. KENDALL gave notice that at the next sessions he will move for a grant of £500 for improvements at the Asylum. [CORONERS’ BILLS.—not transcribed] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The governor reported that nothing had occurred within the prison since the last Sessions to call for any special remark. The prisoners had, with some few exceptions been orderly; but, owing to the number in custody exceeding the usual average, and the continued high prices of food and other articles, the expenses exceeded those of the corresponding period last year. The governor certified that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been as far as practicable complied with. Several of the airing yards and passages required re-paving; some of the roofs continued in a very bad state; some of the floors and roofs of the dormitories required repair; but in other respects the prison continued much in the same state as before reported. [GAOL EXPENSES for the past quarter —not transcribed] BRIDGES. Mr. Pease, Bridge Surveyor, presented the following report:— Bridge.—I am now enabled to report that one arch of the new bridge at Looe is completed, and another is in progress, and the piers for the remaining arches are in an advanced state. I am sorry to add that the contractors continue to experience the greatest difficulty in procuring suitable stone for the work—which difficulty retards the progress that would otherwise be made. WESTERN DIVISION Long Bridge.—The retaining walls of this bridge are in a very feeble state, and repairs to the extent of 10l. or 12l. should be at once effected. Bridge.—Some pointing is required to the abutment walls and retaining walls of this Bridge, the cost of which will not exceed one pound. Berrions Bridge.—Some pointing and slight repairs are wanting to this bridge, the cost of which will not exceed 1l. 10s. Godolphin Bridge.—The bases of the abutments require underpinning, and I strongly recommend the bed of the river under the arches to be paved when the water will admit of its being done—to protect the foundations of the abutment. .—The magistrates of the district have given an order for the repair of the county road at Mylor Bridge, and also for some repairs to the abutments under the arch. This bridge is one of Lot 14 under contract to William Woolcock, of , who, I believe, has left this country; hence the reason of the neglected state of the road. Perran Bridge.—Some slight repair is required to the parapets of this bridge. Sticking Bridge.—Repairs are wanted to the piers and abutments of Sticking Bridge; the road also requires repair; this also belongs to Woolcock’s contract. Bridge.—The magistrates of the district have ordered some repairs to the abutments, cutwaters, and parapets of this bridge, and also to the road over it; the latter was almost impassable for a carriage. This is another of the bridges in Woolcock’s contract. Bridge.—The road of Grampound Bridge is in a very bad state, and it requires a new coating of stone immediately. , and Cornelly.—The same remark applies also to Tresillian and Cornelly Bridge-roads. Those bridges are also in Woolcock’s contract. I presume the court will decide on the course to be taken with regard to the future repairs of the bridges and roads comprised in lots 14 and 15, which were taken by William Woolcock. :—The Magistrates of the district have ordered repairs to Lostwithiel Bridge; the expense of which is £5 9s. 2d. River:—The improvements to the above and below Cornelly Bridge, in aid of which the County agreed to contribute 50l., have been effected in a satisfactory manner. Three Levies will be required at the next Sessions. Some conversation ensued on the subject of Woolcock’s failure to fulfil his contract, in the course of which it was stated, concerning his two sureties, that one had left the country and the other was a pauper.—With reference to the Bridges reported by Mr. Pease, Mr. SAWLE and Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH spoke of Grampound Bridge as being in a disgraceful state—so bad that Mr. Sawle said the County might be held indictable for it; and the Rev. T. PHILLPOTTS observed that Lower Carnon Bridge—also on a main coach road—was in a state equally bad. Some observations followed on a suggestion that the repairs of these Bridge roads should be let by contract to the Trust; but no resolution was come to on this subject, and the CHAIRMAN stated that there might difficulties result (sic) in passing of the Trust Accounts under such circumstances.—On the recommendations in Mr. Pease’s Report, it was resolved, on the motion of SIR COLMAN RASHLEIGH, seconded by the Rev. T. PASCOE, that Mr. Pease do take immediate steps for the repair of the Bridges named in his Report, and for that purpose he be authorized to expend a sum not exceeding 100l. WADEBRIDGE.—On the motion of Mr. KENDALL, seconded by the Rev. R. BULLER, it was resolved that the interest arising from the Wadebridge Fund, be granted to the Wadebridge Gas Light Company for 7 years, provided the Committee of that Company shall cause gas-lights to be erected on the Bridge and keep the same burning at such hours of the night as are required by the Turnpike Act, subject to the Gas Committee’s compliance with the proviso under which this grant is made. PROPOSED APPOINTMENT OF BRIDGE SURVEYOR.—The CHAIRMAN stated that the question of re- appointment of a separate Surveyor of Bridges for the Western Division had been adjourned to these Sessions, to afford the Magistrates generally an opportunity of considering whether the business of both Divisions should be discharged by one or two surveyors.—The CHAIRMAN said he had received a letter from Magistrates of the Western Division of the Hundred of Kirrier, expressing a decided opinion that there ought to be one Surveyor for each Parliamentary Division of the County, and that the Surveyor for the Western Division should not reside farther towards the east than Truro, in order promptly and effectually to discharge his duty. Mr. Le GRICE presented three memorials, similarly worded , from Magistrates of the Divisions of West Powder, West Kirrier, and West ; and a like Memorial from Magistrates of East Penwith was presented by the Rev. T. PASCOE. Mr. Le GRICE said he took the liberty of asserting at the last Sessions that there was a strong feeling among the magistrates in the west that there should be a successor appointed to Mr. Moorman; and those memorials showed that he was justified in his assertion. He saw no reason why a successor to Mr. Moorman should not be appointed. The number of bridges had increased; and if two surveyors were necessary 40 years ago, he could not see why they were not as necessary now. There were no less than 105 bridges under the care of surveyors in this county; and it was impossible for one surveyor to attend to all these; the distance from to the West being 90 miles; from thence to St. Germans 80 miles, and then 50 miles back to Kilkhampton. This distance the poor man would have to travel four times a year, as he was obliged to attend every sessions and give an account of all the bridges; and of course he could not say what repairs the bridges required unless he had seen and inspected every bridge. Mr. Le Grice further remarked that the expenditure on the county bridges amounted to 1000l. a year. Mr. Le Grice also urged that bridges where repairs were ordered should be inspected while the repairs were going on, and not merely when the work was completed; and he concluded by moving that a successor be appointed to Mr. Moorman. Rev. T. PHILLPOTTS seconded the motion. After some conversation on matters of detail, the following resolution, including additions made by the mover and seconder of the original motion was agreed to:—That a surveyor be appointed from the western Parliamentary Division of the county, and that a Committed be named to regulate the salary, due regard being had to the duties to be performed by the Surveyors of both Divisions. The Committee was named as follows:—Sir C. Rashleigh, Bart, Mr. Foster, Mr. Enys, Mr. Phillpotts, Mr. Kendall, Mr. H.M. Williams, Mr. E. Coode, jun., Mr. F.J. Hext, Mr. Pascoe, and Mr. Tremayne; with power to add to their number. THE MILITIA. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, in accordance with notice given at the last Sessions, moved that £37 18s. be granted for the rent of the store-house at Truro for the last year; and that in future a sum not exceeding £50 per annum be granted for the same purpose. Mr. SAWLE seconded the motion; and it was agreed to. LORD VIVIAN said, with reference to Militia grants, he had to bring under notice the Report of the Committee appointed at the last Sessions, relating to Barracks in this County. His Lordship then read the following Report:— In compliance with the instruction of this Court, your Committee have inquired into the subject of the inadequacy of the present quarters and store-houses provided for the Militia of this County as reported by Lieut. Col. Coryton of the 1st. Royal Cornwall Rangers, and by Captain Commandant Trelawny of the 2nd Cornwall Rifles. Your Committee find that the proper strength of the 1st Regiment is 1051 rank and file, of which the greatest number yet embodied has been about 410 men; that the permanent staff consists of an adjutant and 33 non-commissioned officers and buglers; that the number of arms and accoutrements issued, to this time, has been 500; and that the ammunition in stores consists of but 480 rounds of ball-cartridge.—Your committee find that the accommodation at present afforded to this Regiment is inadequate; there is no guard-house, no muster-ground, and the storehouses are capable of containing only 600 suits of clothing and 500 stand of arms. For this regiment then your Committee recommend that a sufficient building for the full strength of the corps should be erected in accordance with the requirements of the act 15 and 16 Vict. to consist of store-room, guard-house, and magazine, and that a ground for muster should be attached to or comprised in it.—Your Committe (sic) find that the proper strength of the 2nd Regiment in 215 Rank and File, of which force the largest number yet embodied has been from 80 to 85; that the staff consists of but one Adjutant, and 7 non-commissioned officers and buglers. Your committee do not deem it advisable to recommend the erection of any buildings for this corps, as they conceive that the number of the permanent staff would be insufficient to protect the arms and ammunition already issued, in the event of the occurrence of any outbreak at any time that the regiment may be disembodied. Signed, on behalf of the Committee, VIVIAN. His Lordship then said: in accordance with a suggestion made at the last Committee meeting, Mr. Kendall and myself waited on the Under Secretary of State to ascertain how far they would relieve us from the responsibility of carrying out the act 15 and 16 Victoria. The Under Secretary of State admitted the danger that would arise from putting a small permanent staff in charge of arms and ammunition; but he said he could not over-ride an Act of Parliament; but if the gentlemen of the County, looking to the facts stated, chose to resist the erecting of a building, it would be for the Lord Lieutenant to report the circumstance to the Secretary of State who would consider whether, under the circumstances, a mandamus should be issued. It is right the magistrates should be in possession of this fact; and it will be for them to consider whether this second barracks should or should not be built. I quite agree that it would be undesirable to erect such a barracks. I therefore fully commend this Report and now leave on the County the responsibility of the ?---. I beg to move that the Report be adopted. (Editor’s Note: Due to the tight binding of this page, parts of the following text are obscured.) Mr. THOMSON seconded the motion; and, after some(?) observations from Mr. KENDALL, the following Resolution was agreed to:—That the Report be adopted, and that a Copy be sent to the Lord Lieutenant. —The Clerk of the Peace’s Bill, amounting to £-? 10d. for expenses relating to the Registration of Voters and a Bill for Printing, £47 5s. 4d. were presented and allowed; as was also another Bill from the Clerk of the Peace, amounting to £55. —On the motion of Lord VIVIAN, seconded by Mr. SAWLE, a committe (sic) was appointed to obtain pl- -? estimates for a building and parade ground at Bodmin, to be reported at the next Sessions. —The CHAIRMAN, to (sic) on the subject of the expenses of the Royal Miners’ Artillery Militia, said it had been put(?) to a Committee of Deputy Wardens—two in each of the Counties of and Cornwall—to decide on the proportion of expenditure to be borne by each County. It had decided that this County should pay five-sixths of the expenses, and Devon one-sixth. —The CHAIRMAN stated that the Act required that every Borough not paying to the County Rates was to appoint two members of its Council to confer with two Justices appointed by the County, as to the proportion of expenditure for the Militia to be borne by such Boroughs. The Town Council of had appointed Mr. Bedford and Mr. Higgs; and he had been informed by the Town Clerks of Falmouth and that two members of the Town Council had been appointed in each of these Boroughs. It would now be for the County to appoint two Justices to confer with them. The Court then proceeded with the Trials of Prisoners. TUESDAY, January 2. Before J. King LETHBRIDGE, Esq. THOMAS HILLMAN pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of spurs, the property of Thomas Metcalf, at , on the 20th January, 1854. (Sentence: one month h.l.) MATTHEW WILLIAMS the younger, was charged with stealing a box of raisins, the property of Samuel Wills and his partners, of Wadebridge, at , on the 1st December last. A second count charged felonious receiving.—Mr. Symons, jun., conducted the prosecution. It appeared that early on Friday morning the 1st of December, William Elford, a wagoner in prosecutor’s employ, went to St. Blazey with a load of groceries, including a half-cwt. barrel of raisins. When about two miles from Wadebridge he found the barrel of raisins missing, and , taking a horse from the wagon, he went back and made inquiries, but could not find the lost property. The next day he offered a reward for the recovery, but without success.—On Monday morning the 4th December, Mr. Samuel Wills went first to the prisoner’s house and then to the foundry where he was at work, and asked him if he had picked up a barrel of raisins; and the prisoner denied any knowledge of such things. Mr. Wills then procured a search warrant, and went with a constable to prisoner’s house. The constable went up-stairs and brought down a large chest, which the prisoner broke open. The prisoner said he was very sorry for it, and offered five shillings to the prosecutor to make it up. Afterwards, on proceeding along the road with Mr. Wills, the prisoner pointed out a place where, he said, the raisins were picked up.—A witness called William Baker, living at Egloshayle, proved his having seen prisoner on the Egloshayle road about 6 o’clock, on the morning of the 1st December, apparently returning towards his house. The prisoner’s statement, in defence, was mainly that the box of raisins was given to him by a man called Philp; but his statements were of a very contradictory character, and the jury found him GUILTY of feloniously receiving. (Sentence: four months h.l.) RICHARD SEARLE, 36, mason, charged with stealing a quantity of deal planks, the property of Messrs. Robert Sharpe and Sons, at St. Mewan, in the month of July, 1854.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution.—George Hallett, the principal witness, stated that he was a mason, and a few months since, worked for Mr. Sharpe at Trewan Bridge in the of St. Mewan. At that time, Hallett and prisoner together took another job from a Mr. Phillips, a cooper, at Trewan, to build a little stable for him; and for scaffolding they used 12 old planks belonging to Mr. Sharpe, that were lying idle in a cutting; they took the planks with the intention to return them in about a fortnight. After building the stable, witness and prisoner placed the planks on the beams. The prisoner, at that time, was working at Viaduct, and witness went to work at Mount Charles; and during that time he heard that the planks were missing, and had some conversation with prisoner about it. The prisoner afterwards went to . There were marks of Mr. Sharpe’s name on the planks at the time they were taken from the cutting. Hallett, on finding that the scaffolding was missing told his master, William Mead, a sub- contractor under Mr. Sharpe; and did not again see the planks until before the committing magistrate.— William Phillips stated that after the building of his stable was finished, prisoner and his brother, on the 24th July, came with a wain and took the planks from the beams in the stable. Witness afterwards saw them in the custody of the constable before the magistrate and identified them as the same as had been used for the scaffolding; but the marks on the sides R.S. had been chopped out.—George Searle, prisoner’s brother, and a mason living at , had lent his brother money at several times. Some time about hay-harvest, prisoner said that Hallett and he had some scaffolding, and as he (witness) had often been kind to him, he might have the planks if he liked to fetch them; and, in consequence, witness went with his brother to Phillips’s and got the planks. Witness took them home, and they lay in front of his house till taken by the constable and Wm. Mead.—The prisoner, when called on for defence, merely recriminated on Hallett, stating that he had received half the money on their sale.—Verdict GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h.l.) WILLIAM HENRY BAWDEN, 27, ROBERT NICHOLLS, 29, and CHARLES JOHN, 33, were charged with stealing two half-crowns and nine shillings, the property of Robert Roberts, from his person, at Truro, on the 26th December last.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson defended Bawden; Mr. Hockin defended Nicholls.—The prisoner John being stated to be deaf and dumb, arrangements were being considered by the Court for conducting the trial as required by law in such a case; but Mr. Stokes stated that he should offer no evidence against John, and the Court immediately directed a verdict of ACQUITTAL in his favour.—The trial then proceeded against Bawden and Nicholls. The main circumstances in behalf of the prosecution were stated in our police report last week.—The witnesses now examined were the prosecutor, Robert Roberts, a cabinet-maker; John Duff, a labourer at the Gas Works; Edward Liddicoat, (all of these three having been drinking at the Coach and Horses, the place of the alleged robbery, in the evening of the 26th December); and Joseph Ward, policeman.—Mrs. Wellington, the landlady, who had given evidence before the committing magistrate, was unable to leave Truro, in consequence of illness; and a medical certificate to that effect was produced.—Robert Roberts stated, that he went to the Coach and Horses between 11 and 12 in the morning of the 26th December, having at that time a sovereign and some silver; he had some beer, and the landlady changed a sovereign for him and he put the silver in his waistcoat pocket. Towards evening he got very tipsy; he went out into the yard, and on his return into the house, in passing a table he knocked down a jug or glass, and on putting his hand into his waistcoat pocket to pay for it, he found that his money was gone.—In the course of the cross-examination of this witness, it came out that on the morning of the 27th December, he was at the White Horse, when a woman, who he was informed was Bawden’s wife, asked him what money he had lost the evening before, and he said he believed about 14s. or 15s.; she offered him 18s. and he took it.—John Duff stated that during the evening of the 26th December, he saw Roberts, who was very drunk, drop two half-crowns, which Mrs. Wellington and witness picked up, and witness saw them put into Roberts’s waistcoat pocket. Afterwards, about half-past 8, Roberts went out into the court, and Bawden and Nicholls followed him. Witness went out too, and saw Bawden search Roberts’s waistcoat and trowser’s pockets, and then hand some money to Nicholls; witness heard that it was silver. Bawden said “I’ve got all the tin the bloat got.” Afterwards they all went back into the house; and Roberts, on putting his hand to his pocket to pay for the broken jug, said “I am robbed;” and witness told Mrs. Wellington that the parties who had robbed him were Bawden and Nicholls. The prisoners were afterwards given in custody to police-constable Ward. Edward Liddicoat, after corroborating Duff’s evidence as to Roberts’s dropping two half-crowns and their being picked up by Duff and Mrs. Wellington, and replaced in Roberts’s pocket, stated that in about 4 or 5 minutes afterwards Roberts went out into the yard. In consequence of something Mrs. Wellington said, witness also went out into the yard, and saw Bawden put his hand into Roberts’s waistcoat pockets, and then saw Bawden push Roberts down against a barrel in the corner, saying “if you are drunk, don’t fall down”; and Bawden lifted him up by putting his fingers in Roberts’s waistcoat pockets. Witness also saw something pass from Bawden to one of the other prisoners, and heard the sound of money. About half an hour before they went out into the yard, Bawden offered him a coat for sale—first for 7s. 6d. and then for 5s.—saying he had not a penny to pay for a pint of beer.—Joseph Ward, police constable, took the prisoners in charge on the evening in question. On proceeding to search Bawden, he produced one half-crown, four shillings, and five pence. Witness searched Nicholls, and found on him a shilling and a farthing.—In cross-examination, Ward said that he also searched Roberts, and found on him 7s. 10d. The cross-examination of witnesses occupied a considerable time, and it brought out considerable confusedness, and some discrepancy in the details of evidence.—Mr. Webster, a master tailor of Bodmin, gave Nicholls a good character for honesty during twelve months that he had been in his employ.—The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, dwelt much on the discrepancies in evidence, and also spoke strongly in reprobation of the prosecutor’s conduct on the day in question. The jury immediately found a verdict of ACQUITTAL for both prisoners. SECOND COURT. Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P. JOSEPH BENNETT, 31, was indicted for breaking and entering the premises of John Grigg, and stealing some pieces of bacon and a tongue. Mr. H. GRYLLS for the prosecution. Mr. John Grigg is a farmer near and has a meat-house attached to his dwelling-house, in which he keeps meat curing. On the night of the 16th of December this meat-house was entered by a hole being made in the top of the roof. A constable of Liskeard, called Humphry, was watching in a lane on suspicion of some robbery in the neighbourhood, and saw the prisoner coming on with a large bag. He laid hold of him, and found in the bag three pieces of bacon and a pig’s tongue which had been stolen from prosecutor’s meat-house. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h.l.) WILLIAM HENRY DUNGEY, a boy of 13, was found guilty of stealing a gun, the property of William Henry Trounce, at St. Ewe, about May last. The jury recommended the boy to mercy on account of his youth. (Sentence: one week h.l.) The court then rose. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3. (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq.) JOHN LEWIS GUNDRY HUNT, was charged with stealing seven caulking tools, the property of Edward Gilbert at Falmouth. Mr. DARKE for the prosecution; Mr. STOKES for the prisoner. The prosecutor is a ship’s chandler at Falmouth, and also has a smith’s shop. Prisoner had been an apprentice at Mr. Matthew’s shop, but in August last he was assigned as an apprentice to Mr. Gilbert, the prosecutor. About two months ago, Hughes, one of the workmen in prosecutor’s ship, made about two dozen of caulking irons, but they were not finished, and they were placed in a cupboard. On the 21st of December it was found that only five or six irons were left out of the two dozen that had been placed in the cupboard. Search was made, and it came out that the prisoner had sold a set of caulking irons to a lad called Trotman, an apprentice to Mr. Blamey, ship carpenter. It appeared that the tools had been taken by prisoner to the smith’s shop of Mr. Matthews (his former master of whom he asked permission) to finish them before he gave them over to Trotman. Mr. STOKES’S defence was, that there was not sufficient identity of the irons as having been seven of the two dozen make by Hughes; and the case, he submitted, being a doubtful one, the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of that doubt, he having borne a good character from his former master, and up to the present time. Prosecutor’s mould was produced in which the irons were made and circumstantial evidence was given at considerable length. Verdict, GUILTY, but the prisoner was recommended to mercy by the jury on account of his youth, and by the prosecutor on account of his mother. (Sentence: three months h.l.) WILLIAM CORNISH, 41, was indicted for stealing a ton of coals on the 8th of August, and on the 10th of August another ton of coals, the property of William Ford, Geake, and others. Mr. G. COLLINS for the prosecution; Mr. SHILSON and Mr. DARKE for the defence. Prosecutor is the manager and principal proprietor of the St. Columb gas works, and prisoner is a farmer in the neighbourhood, who works occasionally with a team of horses. In August last, a cargo of coals was brought into St. Columb Porth; part of the cargo for private persons, and 17½ tons for the St. Columb gas company. Prosecutor engaged with the prisoner for the latter to carry those coals from the vessel’s side to the gas works at St. Columb Porth, which yard the prosecutor had been in the habit of occupying with coals when a cargo arrived for the company, which was generally once a year, and he paid half-a-crown to the proprietor of the yard for this occupation. On the 8th of August, the prisoner and several other parties were at St. Columb Porth with super-phosphate in carts and waggons, which the smack that had brought the coal was to convey to Plymouth. The prisoner went on board, and agreed to buy a ton of coal from Mr. Nicholls the agent for the vessel; but he came ashore and told Richard Matthews, who was also there with a cart, that he had bought six tons of coal, and he agreed with Matthews that he should take one ton to the house of Richard Davy, an innkeeper. Matthews, on receiving the ton of coal from the ship had the assistance of one of prisoner’s horses to help him across the beach, and up the hill; and subsequently prisoner and his son (about eleven years old) having discharged their waggon and cart of superphosphate, were seen to drive across the yard where the gas company’s coal was placed, this yard being merely an enclosure without a gate. When Matthews came down the hill to return prisoner’s horse, he found prisoner’s son (acting under his father’s directions) ready with a cart-load of coal, and he and Matthews went on with the two tons in Matthew’s and the son’s cart, to Davey’s house, who, however, had ordered no coal of the prisoner. After Matthews and young Cornish had gone away, prisoner agreed with a man called Basset to take coal from the company’s yard at Porth to the gas works; and prisoner and Basset drove their waggons there with coal, prisoner having about two tons in his waggon, and Basset about one ton. When they arrived at the gas works, the man who had charge of them was not in the yard, and Basset had unladen his waggon on a heap of other coals before the man returned; but when he came, Cornish, the prisoner, falsely told him that Basset had brought two tons as well as himself, and thus prisoner was credited with bringing four tons. Then on the 10th of August, prisoner brought coals to Robert Higgings; he said they were 18 cwt. but afterwards he charged for a ton, and said he had bought those coals of Richard Nicholls, the agent of the vessel; but Nicholls stated that prisoner had not purchased any coals of him since the 5th of August, when the ton was delivered from the ship to Matthews; and it was also shown that on the 10th, prisoner had been seen on the road to St. Columb Porth, with an empty waggon, the suggestion being that he took the coals sold to Higgins also from the company’s stores.—The case lasted several hours, and at the close of the evidence there was a good deal of argument between the advocates. It appeared that at the last Michaelmas sessions, the same prisoner (Cornish) was, jointly with Thomas Roscorla, charged with stealing two tons of coal from the gas company on the 6th of October. Roscorla was acquitted, but Cornish was found guilty. A point of law, however, having been reserved for the opinion of the Court of Queen’s Bench, the learned Judges decided that the conviction must be quashed, on the ground that as the prisoner had received the goods as a carrier and had not broken bulk, no larceny had been committed. Mr. SHILSON and Mr. DARKE now contended that the present case was similar in principle to the former one, and that the prisoner must again be acquitted, in accordance with the decision of the Court above. Mr. COLLINS was heard on the other side, but the Court thought there was not such a difference between this and the case decided by the Court of Queen’s Bench, as should lead them to submit the present case to the jury, which might give rise to another appeal to the superior Court on the same legal question as before. The CHAIRMAN therefore directed a verdict of acquittal, and the jury returned the prisoner “Not Guilty;” but one of them asked whether they could not find the prisoner guilty of fraud, to which the Chairman replied negatively. There was another indictment against William Cornish and Thomas Roscorla, for stealing coals from the St. Columb gas company on the 7th of October, but on this charge no evidence was offered, and they were directed to be acquitted. The CHAIRMAN said, you will now, William Cornish, be discharged, but no person who has heard the trials can have any doubt of your guilt. You are not legally guilty, but you are morally guilty in the eye of God and of man:—there is no doubt about it. EMMANUEL MORRIS, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 12th of December, a quantity of brass, the property of Mr. Peter Clymo, jun., and others. The brass bearings in question were stolen from Wheal Mary Ann, in . The prisoner also pleaded GUILTY of stealing a quantity of brass from the engine house of mine, in St. Cleer, and Cardon Vale mine in St. Ive, two mines which have ceased working, the brass being the property of Mr. Henry Vatcher and others. He also pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 20th of December last, at Liskeard, a copper teakettle, belonging to Walter Langford. (Sentence: eight months h.l.) JOSEPH HICKS, 29, and JOHN ANSLEY, 39, were found GUILTY of stealing four brass pans, the property of Samuel Jones Langman, at , about the 16th of October. A former conviction for felony in 1850 was also proved against Hicks. There was a second indictment against the prisoners for stealing two brass pans and a bell metal crock from George Brendon, of Lawhitton, but on this no evidence was offered. (Sentence: Joseph HICKS – four years penal servitude; John ANSLEY – six months h.l.) JOHN DINSLOW, 28, was found guilty of stealing a pair of boots, stockings, loaf of bread and piece of beef from a house where he had lodged near Probus, on the 20th of November, the property of John Nottle. Another indictment for stealing a pair of trousers and stockings from John Farbeer, of Probus, was not prosecuted. (Sentence: four months h.l.) JAMES COLMER and THOMAS JOB were charged with stealing 3lbs. of candles from Thomas Tregoweth, and another count charged them as the property of Mr. Meredith and others. Mr. BISHOP for the prosecution. The candles were stolen from Thomas Tregoweth, a miner working at Consols, in October last, the candles having been locked in a chest in the changing house. The two lads, Job and Colmen (sic), were working at the same mine at that time. According to the evidence of a little boy, Job gave Colmer a key to unlock Tregoweth’s chest, and they took the candles and went to Rowe’s beer-house and got beer for them. Large quantities of candles, it appeared, had been missed at the mine from time to time. Both the prisoners were found guilty, but the jury recommended the little boy, Colmer, to mercy. The CHAIRMAN cautioned the little boy who gave evidence, he having gone with the prisoners and partaken of the beer; and he also cautioned the landlord, Rowe, to be careful that he did not continue the practice of taking such articles in exchange for beer. (Sentence: Thomas JOB - four months h.l.; James COLMER - 1 week h.l. and once privately whipped.) BILLS IGNORED.—The following bills were ignored by the Grand Jury:—Against JAMES FOX, charged with stealing a double-barrelled gun from Samuel Mutton, at St. Neot. Against STEPHEN JOHNS, charged with stealing a sovereign from the person of Joseph Burrow, at Truro. Against JOHN JULIAN the older, charged with stealing a piece of apple tree wood from William Cock, of St. Breock. WEDNESDAY, January 3. Before C.B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq., M.P. PHILIPPA PETERS, 17, pleaded GUILTY of stealing various articles of wearing apparel, the property of her mother, at St. Austell, on the 27th November. (Sentence: one month h.l.) ELIZABETH CROOK was charged with stealing a piece of oak timber, the property of the adventurers in Drake Walls Mine, at , on Saturday, the 4th of November.—Mr. J.B. Collins conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: one month h.l.) HENRY MASTERS, 22, a miner, charged with stealing a coat, the property of Joseph Francis, at , on the 16th of June, 1854. It appeared that Masters and his wife lodged at the prosecutor’s house, and that for about a week in June, prosecutor and his wife were absent. On their return, it was found that prosecutor’s chest had been opened and his coat, trowsers, and waistcoat taken away. It was afterwards found that the prisoner had sold the articles named to Mrs. Opie, a second-hand clothes dealer in . The coat was produced in court and identified by the prosecutor and by Mrs. Opie.—GUILTY.— The prosecutor hoped the court would be easy with the prisoner, who was his brother-in-law. (Sentence: three months h.l.) WILLIAM HENRY MARTIN, 15, miner, charged with stealing from the person of Elizabeth Pryor, at Redruth, one half-sovereign and one half-crown, the property of Walter Pryor.—Mr. Hockin conducted the prosecution. Mrs. Pryor stated that in the evening of the 3rd November she was at Mr. Corin’s grocer’s shop in Redruth, and had in her pocket a half-sovereign and a half-crown in a purse. A little boy called Roberts, asked if she had lost any money and, on putting her hand to her pocket, she found that her money and purse were gone.—It appears that with the aid of the boy called Roberts, the prisoner was shortly afterwards found at Mr. Glasson’s, another grocer’s shop; and on his being searched by the constable Hodge, there was found on him £1 9s. in silver and five pence, with a knife and other articles. On the following day, he said that another boy had the purse. He has said, on his being taken into custody, that if nothing were done to him, he would give up the money. The prisoner was found GUILTY, and a previous conviction was proved against him. (Sentence: four years penal servitude.) JOHN RICHARDS, 22, a roper, but evidently not one of this county, was charged with stealing a purse containing two half-crowns, 4 shillings, 6 sixpences, and 6 four-penny pieces, the property of Mary Hawkins Thorne, at Launceston on the twenty-fourth of November.—Mary Hawkins Thorne, the prosecutrix, said she kept a grocer’s shop at Launceston. In the evening of the 24th November, she left her shop and went into the adjoining room to take tea, having, about 10 minutes before, left about 28s. in the till—most of it in a purse, in silver. Whilst she was at tea, she heard a noise of silver, and her sister went out into the shop; witness followed, and saw the prisoner in the shop, and the till, which she had closed, was partly open. She found some silver left in the till, but the purse and some of the money was gone. Witness’s brother came and took prisoner by the collar, and said, “what are you doing here?” He said he had dropped a sixpence inside the counter. A constable was sent for, and prisoner said he would give any thing to make it up. Witness afterwards found the purse and one shilling in it, on the counter.— Elizabeth Thorne, sister of last witness, confirmed her evidence, and stated that on her coming out into the shop she saw the prisoner stretched across the counter, very near the till, in the attitude of reaching it. Thinking it was her brother, witness said “Is that you, Sampson?” Prisoner then rose up and in a composed way said “I have dropped sixpence; have you got any butter?” Witness then called her brother, who took him by the collar; prisoner said he would give any thing to make it up, but her brother said he would take no bribes.—Thomas Martin, a carpenter, who happened to go to the shop door at the time in question to see Miss Thorne’s brother, saw prisoner, when in custody of the brother, throw something over the counter, where the sixpence was afterwards found.—Philip Sambell, police officer, of Launceston, on searching the prisoner, found on him a railway ticket and eight flash cards; but no money. A fourpenny piece had been found outside the counter of the shop. Witness produced the purse, which was identified by prosecutrix.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h.l.) JOSEPH KNIGHT, 18, labourer, charged with stealing a pick, the property of Walter Hicks, lime burner, at St. Austell, on the 29th of November last, GUILTY. (Sentence: two months h.l.) WILLIAM THOMPSON, 44, carpenter, charged with stealing three shirts and two pair of stockings the property of William Gill, at Truro, on the 8th July, 1854. Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution. It appeared that on the 8th July, Miss Elizabeth Gill, residing at , sent the articles to her brother, Mr. Gill at Truro, by Cobeldick the carrier. The articles were safe in the van at the time he left his van in the High Cross, on his arrival in Truro; but on his return to the van, he found they were gone. On the 19th of July, the prisoner went to the lodging-house of Mrs. Woolfrey, in -street, and brought shirts and stockings, which she afterwards gave to the policeman, ; but it was not until some months afterwards that the owner of the property was discovered. The articles produced in Court were identified by Miss Gill, and by Mrs. Woolfrey, and the prisoner was found GUILTY.—The prisoner was then indicted for stealing two handkerchiefs, a pair of drawers, two towels, a shift, a skirt, and a bundle handkerchief, the property of Jonathan Tamblyn of St. Enoder, at Truro, on the 22d of July. These were articles sent from the prosecutor to his daughter at Truro by the carrier, Benny, and, as in the previous case, the property was stolen from a van in the High Cross. The case was very clearly proved by Charlotte Tamblyn, wife of prosecutor, John Benney, carrier, Lucy Woolfrey, lodging-house keeper, William Joseph Nash, Inspector of Police, and John Blake, police-constable.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h.l.) SUSAN DAVIS, 20, wife of James Davis, was charged with stealing a knife and fork, the property of Abraham Shute, at Trewithey, in the parish of Northill, on the 16th of November; the prisoner having been in the prosecutor’s service, till about harvest-time, since which she had married. It appeared that the prisoner had ungratefully taken the opportunity to commit the felony when she had been kindly invited to the house of the prosecutor to have dinner and tea with Mr. Shute.—Verdict, GULTY. (Sentence: one month h.l.) ELIZABETH SAUNDERS, 21, charged with stealing a nankeen purse containing upwards of £15 in money, the property of Charles Trick, from his person, at Stratton, on the 11th of December.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution.—It appears that the prosecutor is a farmer at , and on the 11th December was at Stratton Fair, and in the evening, having a purse and £15 in it, in his pocket, he was leaving Stratton over the Bridge at the lower end of the town, when a woman struck against him and immediately felt that something was taken out of his pocket; he put his hand to his pocket and felt that his purse was gone; he immediately turned round, caught the woman by the shoulder, and charged her with robbing him. That woman was the prisoner. He had never seen her before. A man jumped right across the road, and caught something out of her hand. After an ineffectual attempt with the policeman, to find the man referred to, the prosecutor gave the woman in charge to the policeman.—It appeared, that shortly before leaving the town, prosecutor, at the Ship Inn took a glass of beer, and bought some gloves, thongs, and other things; and, at that time, unknown to the prosecutor, prisoner was within two feet of him, seeing him open his purse, and pay the money, and put back the purse into his pocket.—Of the property stolen nothing had been recovered but a key which was attached to a string round the purse. It appears that policeman George Moore had heard that the purse had been burnt, that a man at Darch’s lodging-house had swallowed three sovereigns, and that the key of the purse had been placed behind the fire place. Moore went to the house and found the key behind the fire-place. It was in the direction of Darch’s lodging-house that the man who snatched the purse and money from the prisoner ran at the time of the robbery.—The key was produced in Court, and identified by the prosecutor.— (This case differed from many charges of robbery from the person by women, in that there was no doubt that Mr. Trick was perfectly sober, and in all respects had conducted himself with unimpeachable propriety).—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: nine months h.l.) SAMPSON NICHOLLS, 14, and WILLIAM KENT, 11, both miners, were charged with stealing one pound of candles and 7 loose candles, the property of Abraham Dunstan, miner, at mine, in the parish of Gwennap, on the 23rd November last.—The case was put to the jury in summing up, as one of doubt as to the ownership of the stolen property being in the prosecutor; and the jury found verdicts of NOT GUILTY. HENRY DARCH, 22, labourer, charged with stealing a quantity of potatoes, the property of Mr. Henry Francis, farmer, at Stratton, on the 12th of November.—NOT GUILTY.—The Court then rose.

THURSDAY, January 4. Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq. THOMAS WERRY, 28, shoemaker; JACOB HARPER, 31, labourer; and SARAH HARPER, his wife, were charged with stealing 4 five-pound Bank of notes, 17l. in gold, consisting of sovereigns and half- sovereigns, 2 halves of five-pound Bank of England notes, 2 gold rings, and a gold chain; the property of John Knight, from his person, at Truro, on Sunday, the 3rd of December.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence. The witnesses were kept out of court until severally called to be examined. John Knight, the prosecutor, said—I am a traveller with stationery and other goods, and reside at Falmouth. On the 3rd of December, I was at Truro and at the house of Mary Ann Downing; I happened to see her in the doorway of her house; I had known her when she was a servant at a house that I went to at Redruth; she spoke to me first, and I went into her house. At the time I went in, I had in my pocket 4 five-pound Bank of England notes, about 17l. in sovereigns and half-sovereigns, and, to the best of my knowledge, two rings, a gold Albert chain, and two halves of 5l. Bank of England notes, the other halves of which had been sent to a house of business in London. At that time I was sufficiently sober to know what I was about. It was about the middle of the day. When I went in, I felt inclined to take a glass of gin, and I asked Mrs. Downing in a friendly way to take some. At that time, to my knowledge, there were none of the prisoners there. I sent for eighteen pennyworth of gin. I remember drinking two or three glasses and then I became insensible nearly all at once; and I remember nothing more till next morning when I found myself in bed at the Globe Inn, where I stop at; I then found that my purse, and all my money, rings, and chain were gone; it had all been enclosed in a brown Holland purse in my right trousers pocket. I have not seen any of it since.—Cross-examined. I am 28 years old. I did not know the character of the house when I went there. Mrs. Downing and I were no friends. I had drank (sic) about two glasses of beer before I went into the house. A girl, Bullock, came in, and I believe she partook of the gin. She was the person who fetched the gin; I gave her the money first; I gave her 1s. 6d. to the best of my knowledge; there was gin fetched twice, to the best of my knowledge; she fetched it both times. I did not know her before; I dont know that she is a loose girl of the town; I dont know that the house is a house of bad fame. I have no recollection of drinking more than three glasses of gin.—This was on a Sunday; I had got in company with a traveller the night before and had drunk some grog; and I had drunk two or three glasses of beer in the neighbourhood on the Sunday morning; I positively swear that I had drunk no spirits that morning before I went into Mrs. Downing’s. I know my bag or purse was in my pocket when I went into that house; and I am conscious my money was there. I was very tipsy the night before. I am able to swear, to the best of my knowledge, that my money was in my pocket when I went into the house. I had been intoxicated the night before, and was drunk in the morning. On the Sunday morning I got up about 8 or 9 o’clock, and up to the time I went into Mrs. Downing’s, I was at another house in the same court—a house that girls resort to; I spent the Saturday night in that house—a house of ill fame kept by a person called Stevens; I slept with a person there; I was drunk when I went to bed on the Saturday night. From the time I went into Stevens’s house I had not seen my money; but I had felt my purse in my pocket. I believe Bullock who fetched the gin, was a girl of ill-fame; perhaps I had reason for believing it; she was a stranger when she first came into the house. Mary Ann Downing:—I live at Chapel Hill, Truro, and am a widow. On Sunday morning the 3rd of December I saw John Knight in the yard in front of my door, and said “good morning to you, Mr. Knight”; and in a bit, he came in. While he was there, Mary Ann bullock came in; some gin was fetched by Bullock, and then Thomas Werry came in. That gin was drunk and more was fetched. Werry took some of the second lot of gin; Jacob and Sarah Harper also had some of the gin. Knight was sitting on a chair, drinking too; he became rather in a sleepy way; he seemed to be intoxicated a good deal, and fell on the floor. At that time the two Harpers, Werry, Bullock, and myself were there. Jacob Harper heaved Knight up on the chair. Werry was standing on the left side of him; and Bullock was standing near.—I did not see anything taken from Knight. Werry gave me three half-sovereigns, while he was standing on the left side of Knight; I cannot say that I saw him touch Knight’s person. After giving me three half-sovereigns, Werry gave some gold to each of the others. I saw nothing but gold: I did not see any ring, chain, purse, or notes. Bullock then left the room: Werry left next; and then Sarah Harper went into her house; Jacob Harper stopped, and laid Knight on the floor; Knight was then quite insensible. Jacob Harper then went into his house. I should think Knight remained there an hour or better ; I lifted him up and then he went out of my house and into Harper’s. That was about 5 o’clock; he came into my house between 12 and one. The three half-sovereigns which I had, I gave to the policeman Woolcock.—Cross-Examined—I have been a widow 11 years; I was a widow when I lived at Redruth; I have left Redruth about 4 months; I get my living by taking in washing and going out nursing. I know Mary Ann Bullock by sight: I had seen her before that Sunday, but had never spoken to her; she has never slept at my house; there is a house in my court kept by a person called Stevens, to which girls of the town resort; they never resort to my house; I believe Mary Ann Bullock to be a girl of the town; she was in my house with Knight, but was not in Knight’s company when I first saw him. He himself proposed to have the gin, and Mary Ann Bullock fetched it; she went three times. He was so sensible that he knew what money he gave for the gin. Who hocussed the gin?—Witness:—I don’t know what you mean. Who drugged the gin?—I dont know anything about that; I never saw any. How did you manage to make the man so insensible?—I did not manage at all. Who put the stuff in the gin? I don’t know; I never saw anything done. You could not have done it yourself, of course? I should not know what to put.—Mary Ann Knight (sic) sat in Knight’s lap; he knew she was there; I think he pulled her down on his lap, and was conscious of what he was about when he did so; he was sober then; she put her arm round his neck. He was asleep, and perfectly insensible when he fell off the chair. He had been in the company of Bullock about 20 minutes before Harper came in. It was after he had drunk part of the last pint of gin that Knight became in a state of stupor; that may have been about an hour after he came in. He was not sober when he left my house, but was able to walk, and appeared to me conscious of what he was doing. I never saw him after he left my house, and don’t know who put him to the Globe. I was charged with the robbery of the man; and there was some pursuit after Bullock, I believe. Mary Ann Bullock;—I live at Truro; I was at Mrs. Downing’s on Sunday morning the 3rd of December; it was between 11 and 12 o’clock when I went there; at that time Knight and Mrs. Downing were there, and no one else. I went to fetch some gin. I fetched at first a noggin; and then I went three times more, fetching a half-pint each time. When I came back with the second half pint, the three prisoners were there. I took part of the gin and so did all the others. Knight became quite intoxicated. Then there was another pint fetched, by Sarah Harper; Knight gave her a sovereign to fetch it with; she brought back the change and gave it to Knight. After he drank part of this last pint, Knight fell asleep. Werry was by Knight’s side, and said it was as well for him to have a pound in his pocket as for others to have 50. I saw Werry then take out the bag from Knight’s pocket, and then he took out 7l. 10s. out of the purse, and put back the bag into Knight’s pocket. Werry divided the £7 10s. among the parties—£1 10s. each; I had a sovereign and a half. I stopped there a quarter of an hour after that; Knight was still asleep. I went out of the house first, and did not go back again. Cross-examined. I am 17 years old; I have parents; they are in Australia. John Prinn:—I am a potter, working at Mr. Tucker’s pottery, in Truro. On Monday afternoon the 4th December, I saw Jacob Harper; he lives in the same street as I do; I had seen him before. He was very drunk, and I stopped and looked at him; he put his hand in his pocket and took out 6 or 7 sovereigns and showed me and asked me what I thought of that. He is a railway man. Mr. Stokes stated that there were some other witnesses named on the back of the indictment, but he thought it unnecessary to call them. Mr. Childs, however, called William Woolcock, police-constable of Truro, who stated that after this robbery was reported to him he and Mr. Nash went to Redruth after the girl Bullock. The prisoner Werry’s statement before the committing magistrates was put in. In it he stated that he was not guilty, and that he saw Mary Ann Bullock take the bag out of Knight’s pocket, and that she took out of it 8½ sovereigns, which she divided, giving £1 10s. to each of the other four and keeping the remainder herself, and then replacing the bag in Knight’s pocket. Jacob Harper’s statement was that he was not in the house at the time. Mr. CHILDS addressed the Jury. In the first place he urged that there must clearly be a verdict of acquittal as regarded Sarah Harper, inasmuch as whatever she had done was in the presence and (according to legal presumption) under the control of her husband. He spoke of the whole transaction as most disgraceful to every person concerned in it. He then asserted that the only evidence in support of the prosecution was given by two women who, he hesitated not to say, were the really guilty parties; and of their evidence there was not a tittle of corroboration, for it could not be said that the evidence of Prinn—(the only witness, except the policeman, not mixed up in the transaction)—could be considered corroborative, for there was no reason why a man innocent of this robbery, might not have shown him 6 or 7 sovereigns. With regard to Werry’s statement, it could not affect the other prisoners; and as regarded himself, it was merely to the effect that he was a guilty receiver; but he was not indicted for guilty receiving. The Prosecutor, who had been about in a drunken, abandoned state, did not venture to swear that he had the money in his pocket when he entered Downing’s house; and there was every probability that he had been robbed the night before—perhaps by the very witness, Bullock. The CHAIRMAN summed up. His worship directed a verdict of acquittal in favour of Sarah Harper. He then spoke, in the strongest terms, of the disgraceful conduct of the prosecutor and all the parties in the transaction. He said that, formerly an accomplice’s evidence required corroboration; but now the law left it to the jury to judge of the credibility of a witness—whether accomplice or not. It was clear, his worship said, that the woman Downing must have been conscious of the whole transaction, and the same observation applied to Bullock. It was a question if Knight had all his money when he went to Downing’s house on the Sunday; and, from the fact of no notes being spoken to by any of the witnesses, it might be inferred that the prosecutor had been previously robbed. Regarding Bullock as very much in the character of an accomplice, his worship directed the jury to receive her evidence with great caution; but also told the jury that if they believed that the two male prisoners were present, aiding and abetting the felony, that would be sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty, although neither of them had actually taken the money out of Knight’s pocket. Woolcock, the policeman, recalled by the jury, stated that he did not receive the £1 10s. from Mrs. Downing, until the Tuesday evening after the robbery; he having apprehended Bullock at Redruth on the Tuesday morning. The jury found a verdict of acquittal, in favour of Sarah Harper; and found Werry and Jacob Harper GUILTY. The Jury further expressed their wish that the prosecutor and the two female witnesses should not be allowed their expenses. The CHAIRMAN, after making some inquiries of the policeman, told the jury that the prosecutor would not be allowed his expenses; but with regard to the women, he had reason to believe they had no means of reaching Truro unless their expenses were allowed. (Sentence (each): six months h.l.) ELIZABETH GREEN, 30, charged with stealing a sack and a silk handkerchief, the property of John Thomas Dawes, at Truro, on the 9th December. It appeared that on the evening of the day named, the prosecutor, a labourer, was at Truro, having a bundle consisting of a silk handkerchief with a sack in it, which he left in charge of his brother William Dawes.—William Dawes went into the King’s Head Inn, in Lemon-street, and, placing the bundle in the window of the tap-room, remained in the house about three quarters of an hour. He went out from the tap-room and was absent about half an hour, and on his return did not find the bundle there.—Richard Hichens, the ferryman at Tolvern, was in the tap-room drinking with William Dawes. During Dawes’s absence in the other room, one of the party to which the prisoner belonged took the bundle from the window and placed it on the table before him (Hichens). Then he, and the prisoner and her husband were left in the room alone. Hichens asked the prisoner if the bundle was hers; and she said “yes.” She then spoke to her husband; they went out, and in about a minute the prisoner returned alone, took up the bundle and went away with it. In a short time, Wm. Dawes returned, and Hichens told him what had taken place; they then went in search of the prisoner and found her at a butcher’s standing in the market-place. Dawes fetched Mr. Nash, the policeman, who went to the market-place and asked the prisoner where was the bundle she had taken from the King’s Head. After some hesitation she said it was at her house; she gave Mr. Nash the key of her house, and he sent Woolcock, a policeman, who went, and found the bundle on a bed in her house. Woolcock now produced the bundle; and the handkerchief was identified by the prosecutor and his brother.—For the defence, the cross-examination and speech from Mr. Shilson went to show that the prisoner took the parcel by mistake for a parcel of her own, of more value, which it was said she had at the King’s Head.— The jury, however, found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: three months h.l.) COUNTY BUSINESS. —The CHAIRMAN stated that Mr. Gwatkin had written to request the withdrawal of his name from the Gaol Building Committee, in consequence of his recent illness, and the distance of his residence from Bodmin. BRIDGE SURVEYORS.—The CHAIRMAN read a Report from the Committee appointed on Tuesday, to apportion the salaries of the Surveyors of Bridges. It recommended that the salary of the Surveyor for the Eastern Division be increased to 95l., in consequence of the increase in the number of bridges; and that the Surveyor for the Western Division be paid 25l. per annum; but with an addition of 5l., in order to secure the services of an efficient surveyor; and that by “expenses” mentioned in the Surveyors’ agreements are understood all expenses incurred in surveying the existing bridges and roads attached; but not the drawing of plans nor the superintending of any extensive alterations that may be deemed necessary. On the motion of the Rev. T. PASCOE, seconded by Mr. PETER, the Report was adopted; and it was resolved that the Clerk of the Peace be instructed to advertize for a Surveyor for the Western Division. TRIALS OF PRISONERS RESUMED. WILLIAM HENRY BOTTRALL, 23, a miner, was charged with stealing 4 sovereigns, 10 shillings, a silver American coin, a bag, a pocket-book and a bunch of keys, the property of James Thomas, at St. Just in Penwith, on the 1st of December.—Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.— The prosecutor, it appears, lives at , and on Friday evening the 1st of December was at the Commercial Inn, St. Just. On his going into the house he was followed by the prisoner and several other miners, whom he treated with beer. He stayed there about an hour, and on leaving, the prisoner went with him, having his arm around his neck. They went to the Star, and prosecutor ordered two grogs, which the landlady refused to supply, seeing that he was tipsy. Bottrall then said “let us go to Penrose’s house”; and they went there, Bottrall still having his arm round Thomas’s neck. Here Bottrall ordered a bottle of porter; and when payment was demanded, some dispute arose between the two as to payment. But a jug was broken, and Thomas took out half-a-crown to pay for it; and at that time, according to his evidence, the money and other articles described in the indictment were safe in his possession. They continued drinking, Bottrall sitting beside Thomas, and while so situated, Thomas saw Bottrall take his hand out of his (Thomas’s) pocket, and felt his purse taken out. Bottrall immediately ran off, down the steps and Thomas followed and caught him, but Bottrall turned round and kicked his leg and made off, and Thomas saw no more of him that night. Thomas went to his inn, (the King’s Arms) and told the landlady, Mrs. Eddy, that he had been robbed. The next morning he again went to Mrs. Eddy, who asked him if he had had an American coin in his bag. Thomas told her that he had, and that he could swear to it. (But, according to Mrs. Eddy’s evidence, Thomas himself first stated that he had had an American coin, which, being marked, he could swear to positively).—Mrs. Eddy then said she had received the night before, an American coin from Bottrall; she took it out and showed it. Bottrall was then in the room, and one of the men with him asked to see the coin; it was handed round till it came into the hands of a man called Hal, who would not give it up, but pretended to throw it in the fire, and Thomas could not get it again. He stated in Court that he could positively swear to that coin being his, and that it was taken from his pocket the previous evening with his other money.—Elizabeth Tonkin, a servant of Mrs. Eddy, proved that Bottrall came to her house about 10 o’clock on Friday evening, and had a quart of beer, for which he gave in payment the American coin; and she handed it to her mistress.—These were the main facts of the case; but in its details and cross-examination it occupied a considerable time.—The Prosecutor, it seems, is a singular character. To some questions in cross- examination, he replied that he was no conjurer, but had got his living partly by management of mine- engines, and occasionally as a Doctor, in which capacity he had recently travelled through a large part of England with an American gentleman who had a bad leg, and whom, the prosecutor alleged, he had cured; and he also intimated that he had performed other cures. He had also, he said, saved some money, on which he was able, partly to maintain himself.—The Jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h.l.) A VERY UNUSUAL CASE OF MISDEMEANOUR. HENRY ROWE, carpenter, appeared to answer an indictment found against him at the Michaelmas Sessions, 1854, for unlawfully entering into and expelling one Charles Crabb from the possession of a messuage, stable, and yard, in the Borough of Bodmin, on the 24th of August, 1854, and thenceforward unlawfully and injuriously keeping out the said Charles Crabb from the same. Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Darke and Mr. T. Commins, jun., the defence. Mr. SHILSON, in stating the case to the jury, said the defendant was charged with unlawfully expelling the prosecutor from possession of his tenement and with force detaining the same from him. The forcible entry on and detainer of land had been made an offence under several statutes. There were two modes of proceeding in such cases,—by summary jurisdiction, or, as in the present instance, under the statutes of Richard and Henry. The 15th Richard 2nd, cap. 2, first gave magistrates summary jurisdiction in cases of forcible entry. It enacted that, in case of any forcible entry into lands, “the justices shall take sufficient power of the county and go to the place where such force is made, and if they find any that hold such place forcibly after such entry made, they shall be taken and put in the next gaol, there to abide convict by the record of the same justices, until they have made fine and ransom to the King.” To bring the case within that statute, the forcible detainer must have been preceded by forcible entry; it did not provide a remedy for forcible detainer where the entry, though illegal, had been peaceable. To remedy this defect, the statute 8 Henry 6, cap. 9, was passed. These two statutes, however, referred only to freehold; and in order to make them applicable to leasehold lands, the statute, 21 James 1st, cap. 15, was passed. These statutes comprised the law on which the present indictment was framed. As to the facts of the case, Mr. Shilson stated that a person named Rosevear, being about to leave for America, in March 1854, sold the premises in question (situate in Fore-street, Bodmin), to Mr. Charles Crabb, the prosecutor. Mrs. Rosevear, not accompanying her husband, was permitted, by agreement between Crabb and Rosevear, to remain in the house until she was ready to follow her husband to America; and a portion of the purchase-money was retained by Crabb to be paid to the wife. The defendant is a brother of Mrs. Rosevear; and in April last, having been apprised by her, of the death of their father, he came to Bodmin and was taken care of by Mrs. Rosevear for a fortnight, after which, having a bad leg, he went into the Infirmary for 9 weeks. On coming out of the Infirmary, his sister again received him into her house, and assisted him, until the defendant, at length, sent for his wife. Mrs. Rosevear, who has 6 children, then said she could not maintain the whole of them, but she would maintain her brother and his wife for a short time, while they were looking out for a house for themselves. The defendant and his wife continued in the house, Mrs. Rosevear still remaining in occupation and defendant using the stable for the purposes of his trade. On the 24th of August, Mrs. Rosevear went to the stable, and was thrust out by defendant and his wife; they saying that she had no right there, and that the premises were theirs. So much violence was used on this occasion that Mrs. Rosevear applied to the Magistrates. Mr. Crabb also went to the Magistrates, and the Mayor sent a constable with him to the house, but the defendant refused to give up possession. Crabb then took with him a man called John Sleeman and others, and requested defendant to go out of the house peaceably. Defendant said no one should put him out. Crabb then ordered Sleeman to take the things out of the stable, and put the defendant out. Sleeman first put out a wheelbarrow; on which the defendant got a double-barrelled gun and threatened to blow out the brains of any person who removed any article, and regretted that he had not come earlier that he might have put the contents of the gun into Sleeman’s body. On that, Crabb desired Sleeman to desist. The defendant had since continued on the premises; and it was for remedy of this entry and detainer that the present action was brought.—He (Mr. Shilson) did not know what the defence was to be. He believed that Mr. Lobb, the former owner of these premises, was a brother-in-law of Mr. Rowe, the father of Mrs. Rosevear and of the defendant. Rowe, the father, had lent money to Lobb, and as security for payment received the deeds of this property. Subsequently, Rowe the father got into difficulties, and made an arrangement with his son-in-law Rosevear, by which the property was to be passed to him (Rosevear), on condition of Rosevear’s maintaining him during the remainder of his life-time; Rosevear, with the elder Rowe’s consent, obtained an assignment of the property from Lobb; and, as already mentioned, on his leaving for America, sold it to Crabb.—The defendant alleged that the property was his; but, even if the father had held the property at the time of his death, he (Mr. Shilson) was not aware that the defendant could have any claim to it, since he was not in any respect a representative of his father; and certainly he had no right to enter on and detain the premises by force; if he had any good claim, he had his remedy by action of ejectment.—If the facts should be proved, as he believed they would be, the prosecutor would be entitled to a verdict against the defendant; and then it would be for the court to order restitution of the property to the prosecutor. For the prosecution, it was sufficient to prove prima facie that the prosecutor was owner of the premises, and in possession of them through Mrs. Rosevear. This was not a question of title; but only of forcible entry and detainer. Any decision on this case would not prevent the defendant trying his title hereafter. There were then examined in support of the prosecution Mary Ann Rosevear, wife of Matthew Rosevear; Charles Crabb, coach-builder, at Bodmin; and John Sleeman, one of Mr. Crabb’s workmen. Several pieces of documentary evidence were put in:—A lease, dated 30th Sept. 1813, from Lady Morshead to John Bray, of premises including the property now in question; an attested copy of assignment, dated 7th Oct., 1813, from John Belling to John Lobb, of ; an assignment, dated 23rd Sept., 1850, from Lobb to Matthew Rosevear; and an assignment, dated 14th March, 1854, from Rosevear to Crabb. For the defence Mr. DARKE first submitted to the court that there was no case for the jury; but the court, after argument on both sides, decided that the case should go to the jury. Mr. DARKE then proceeded to address the jury. After referring to the language of the indictment, he said the three points which the jury would have to consider, were 1st, was Crabb in actual possession of the property on the 24th August? Next, did the defendant unlawfully enter into possession of it? And, lastly, had he, since, forcibly, unlawfully, and injuriously kept Crabb—not Mrs. Rosevear—out of possession?—To sustain the indictment, it would be necessary to show that Crabb was actually in possession of this property on the 24th August, and had been entitled to possession of it ever since. Reviewing the evidence for the prosecution, Mr. Darke stated that in 1813, Billing made an assignment of the property to Lobb, who, according to Mrs. Rosevear’s statement, appears subsequently to have borrowed money from Rowe—the father of Mrs. Rosevear and of the defendant. Lobb being unable to repay the money he had borrowed, Rowe entered on this property as mortgagee in possession, and so continued till 1848. Meanwhile, as Mrs. Rosevear said, her husband had advanced money from time to time to her father; and in 1848, by arrangement between the husband and father, the husband came and took possession of the property,—the father living there as a lodger; and in 1850 the husband obtains an assignment of the property from Lobb. But Lobb himself had at that time been out of possession of the property for more than 20 years. For more than that time, Rowe the father, as mortgagee, had held adverse possession of the property. Consequently, Lobb could not convey the property to Rosevear. While Rowe the father lived on, and the married daughter was taking care of him, no notice was taken of this state of things; but when the father died, the defendant denied Mrs. Rosevear’s right to reside there, and also asserted that Rosevear had no right to sell to Crabb, because Rowe, the father, having been in adverse possession for more than 20 years, Rosevear’s title from Lobb, the mortgagor, was worthless.—Mr. Darke next adverted to the conditions of the alleged purchase by Crabb from Rosevear. Stating that the consideration was to be £50, he said it was in evidence that that sum was not to be wholly paid until the wife should be leaving for America;—that the wife did not pay any rent to Crabb, but Crabb said the rent was taken into consideration in fixing the terms of the purchase. The bargain therefore was still inchoate; and Crabb was not in possession on the 24th of August; and that being so, the defendant could not be found guilty of expelling Crabb from possession. Mr. Darke next stated that Crabb’s conduct, according to the evidence, was not that of one claiming possession for himself, but of one who interposed on behalf of a woman whom he believed to be injured. Mr. Darke next proceeded to speak of the events that occurred on the day of the alleged forcible entry by defendant; asserting that the forcible entry was in fact made by Crabb and his party; and that, if they had succeeded, Mrs. Rosevear, and not Crabb, would have remained in possession, and she would have been indictable, and not her brother, whom she had permitted to come into possession peaceably.—To find a verdict of guilty, the jury must find that Crabb, (not Mrs. Rosevear) was in actual possession on the 24th August, and not merely was entitled to possession. But he (Mr. Darke) affirmed that Crabb was neither in actual possession, nor legally entitled to possession, on the 24th of August. His title from Lobb was valueless; and his bargain with Rosevear was, that he was not to enter into possession before March next.—Then, as to the charge against defendant, Mr. Darke asserted, on the authority of King v. Oakley, 4 Barnwall and Adolphus, that in order to support a charge of forcible detainer, the entry must have been unlawful; whereas the fact was that the defendant was invited to the house by his sister, who has the right to the property until March next. Again, as to keeping out of possession, it was clear that if on the 24th of August, Crabb was neither in possession nor legally entitled thereto, he could not have been kept out of possession since; and, as for Mrs. Rosevear, she was at the present moment in entire possession of the whole house. The CHAIRMAN, in putting the case to the jury, expressed his regret that such a question as was involved in this case should have been brought before this Court by means of old obsolete statutes, instead of being tried in another court in the ordinary way. The jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. SECOND COURT. THURSDAY, JANUARY 4. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P.) ROBERT EVANS, 21, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a gold watch and a silver watch, the property of Charles Henry Annear, of , on the 23rd of October. A former conviction of the prisoner for stealing shoe-brushes in January, 1854, was also proved. (Sentence: four years penal servitude) JOHN WALLIS MURRISH was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 1st of December, a coat, the property of Benjamin Pearce, in whose house at Gulval he lived as farm servant. (Sentence: two months h.l.) EDWARD TANNER, 45, was charged with stealing 100 lbs. weight of rags, the property of William Pascoe, at Bodmin, on the 9th of December. Mr. GILBERT HAMLEY for the prosecution; Mr. SHILSON for the prisoner. Prosecutor and prisoner were both rag-gatherers stopping at lodging-houses at Bodmin, at the time the robbery was alleged to have taken place. A witness called Moore, shopkeeper, of Bodmin, gave the prisoner a good character for honesty; also Mrs. George, of Bodmin, gave similar evidence.— Verdict, NOT GUILTY. GRACE WILLIAMS, 50, and ELIZABETH ANN WILLIAMS, 23, were charged with stealing a piece of Norway balk, the property of the Redruth and Chacewater railway company. Mr. DARKE for the prosecution, called Richard Thomas Hall, engineer and superintendent of the Redruth and Chacewater railway, who stated that they had lately been widening and altering, and placing fence-work along the line. In June last, witness purchased some timber for gate-posts, of Mr. Pryor, merchant, at . This timber had, as usual, the custom house marks and numbers upon it. On the 11th of December, witness saw four pieces of balk for gate-posts lying within the railway fence, near Ting Tang common. Those gate-posts were part of the number he had bought of Mr. Pryor.—From further evidence it appeared that on Thursday the 14th of December, John Reed, a labourer, saw four gate-posts on the line; and on Friday on going into an outhouse to eat his dinner, he saw there a gate-post, having observed in the morning that one of the four was missing from the line. The outhouse was a dilapidated place at Lane-end in Gwennap, belonging to Francis Uren. The prisoner lived close to this outhouse; and under the same roof lived a person called Welch. On the following Monday morning, Reed went into Welch’s house, and saw two or three short pieces of timber there, of which he gave information to Halse the constable, who went to Welch’s house, and saw there three short pieces of timber, and in consequence of what he was told, went also into the prisoner’s house, and found there also a piece of some Norway balk timber. William Welch, a boy, gave evidence, that he was shown a gate-post, in Uren’s outhouse, by the prisoners, who said they had brought it home, and it would cut up fine Christmas stocks. They promised him part of the timber if he would cut it up into short pieces, which he did, and took some of it into prisoner’s house and some into Welch’s. The three pieces found in Welch’s house were now produced, and identified by George Upton, employed on the railway, as part of one of the four gate-posts that were lying on the line; and he pointed out the mark No. 451 in the timber.— Verdict, both prisoners GUILTY. The CHAIRMAN told John Reed, the labourer, that it was very creditable to him that he should have given information to the railway company as he had done. (Sentence: each two months h.l.) EDWARD THOMPSON MATTHINGSON, 38, was charged with stealing a tin box, on the 9th of October, from John Chenoweth, at Liskeard. Prosecutor and prisoner were working at the time for Mr. Wenmoth, ironmonger, of Liskeard. Mr. CHILDS conducted the prosecution.—Verdict, GUILTY. There was another indictment against the prisoner for stealing 3 pocket knives and 36 files from John Wenmoth, on the 9th of Oct.—Verdict, GUILTY of stealing the files. One of the witnesses in this case, called Libby, had been drinking before he entered the witness box, and was reprimanded by the chairman, who said he was almost of mind not to allow his expenses. (Sentence: three months h.l.) JOANNA LIBBY, 42, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 15th of November, 6 lbs. of flour belonging to Barnabas Colman, of Lanteglos by . (Sentence: three months h.l.) THOMAS ELLIOTT, 38, was charged with stealing at near Liskeard, on the 14th of October, a brass candlestick, the property of William Bawden. Policeman Humphreys gave the prisoner a good character, having known him seven years ago in the marines.—Verdict GUILTY. (Sentence: one month h.l.) WILLIAM DAWE, 35, was indicted for obtaining by false pretence, four pints of beer from Mary Cottle, of Launceston, and a quart of beer from William Atkins. Mr. STOKES called witnesses, from whom it appeared that on the 4th of December the prisoner called at an inn kept by Mr. Cottle at Launceston, where he had four pints of beer, telling the landlady that Mr. Vosper, a butcher known to her, had sent him to have some beer. He told her he worked for Mr. Vosper, and that his name was Jasper, whereas his real name was Dawe; and it was ascertained by Mrs. Cottle on the following Saturday that Mr. Vosper had given no authority to the prisoner to have beer in his name, and that the prisoner was not his workman.—Verdict, GUILTY. On another indictment against prisoner for procuring beer in a similar way from William Atkins, no evidence was offered. (Sentence six weeks h.l.) MARK PEARCE, 41, a mason, was indicted for unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, two rulers and two trowels, with intent to defraud Mr. Wenmoth, of Liskeard. Mr. Childs, for the prosecutor, called George M.P. Daniel, apprentice to Mr. Wenmoth, ironmonger, of Liskeard. The witness stated that on Thursday the 19th of October, the prisoner came to Mr. Wenmoth’s shop, and asked to look at some tradesmen’s rules and trowels. There was another man outside, whom the prisoner called into the shop, and asked him if the rules and trowels shown to him by the apprentice would do. The man (whom the prisoner called Piper) said he thought they would do. Prisoner said his name was Mark Rowe, and that the tools were for Mr. Sharp, the railway contractor, and he asked for a bill, which was given to him made out in the name of Mr. Sharp. After the things were packed up, the prisoner asked the other man to take them, but he would not; he said the prisoner could carry them himself. Cross-examined by Mr. Stokes.—Something was said about discount by the prisoner, and I gave him 2½d. I am sure that Piper was not the man who made the bargain. James Beale, baker at Liskeard, said prisoner came to his shop about nine o’clock in the evening of the 19th of October, and said he wanted a loaf of bread. He stated that he had just come from Bristol, and had an engagement on the railway viaduct near Liskeard. He had no money, and was too late that night to see the contractor; but in the morning, he said, he could get what money he wanted. He wished witness to let him have a three-penny loaf and a shilling, saying there was another man with him, that the loaf was for their suppers and the shilling to pay for their beds. He offered to leave two trowels as security till the following morning, stating they had been purchased in Bristol for 2s. 8d. Witness gave him a threepenny loaf and a shilling, on condition that he should refund it in the morning, and kept one of the trowels as security; but from information, he went the following day, and gave the trowel to police constable Humphreys.—Richard Humphreys, policeman at Liskeard, said he apprehended prisoner at a public-house at Moorswater on the 20th of October, and charged him with obtaining tools from Mr. Wenmoth on false pretences. Prisoner said, you are mistaken, it was a man called Piper. He searched him, and found on him a two-foot rule. He obtained another rule from Mr. George, innkeeper, also a trowel from Mr. Beale, and another from Mr. Stephens, of the Ring of Bells. George Daniel, the apprentice, re-called, could not identify the trowel, because there was no private mark on it. But the rule found on prisoner he could identify positively, as he observed a mark on it when he showed it to prisoner in the shop.—Mr. Paul W. Sharp said he was one of the firm of Messrs. Sharp and Sons, and attended to the eastern part of the line; the viaduct at Moorswater was under his superintendence. He had never authorised the prisoner to obtain goods in his name, or in the name of the firm. The usual practice with them was to give a written order when anything was required, an order by himself or one of their agents; the written order would be sent, and a copy kept of it. It was not usual for the contractors to supply tools to the masons. Cross-examined— We are not answerable for anything that is had without a written order. I am not aware that parties sometimes go for things without such an order. Prisoner says he is employed under a sub-contractor, but I have no knowledge of it myself. Mr. STOKES, for the defence, said the trowel was not identified, and therefore the jury had nothing to do with it. As to the rule, it was very doubtful whether Daniel could recollect it from having a spot in it. The jury should therefore give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt.—The prisoner made a statement, saying that Piper brought the tools, and told him (prisoner) that he would have them allowed for. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said the question for the jury was not one of identity of the tools, but whether the prisoner was the man who obtained the goods under false pretences from the prosecutor. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: three months h.l.) The Court then rose. FRIDAY, January 5. Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq. —The Court this morning proceeded to pass sentence on the prisoners [see individual cases above]. APPEAL. ST. VEEP, appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Darke. FOWEY, respondent; Mr. Stokes and Mr. Bishop. An appeal against an order for the removal of Susan Olford.—Mr. Darke having moved the appeal, Mr. STOKES stated the nature of the respondent’s case. The pauper, Susan Olford, now about 30 years of age, was born in the parish of Fowey, the legitimate daughter of Thomas Olford and his wife, whose maiden name was Elizabeth Wellington. The respondent’s case was that the pauper’s settlement was in St. Veep, derivatively from her husband’s father who was born in that parish.—In support of this case, the certificate of Thomas Olford’s baptism in St. Veep in 1792, was produced by the assistant-overseer of Fowey, Mr. William Lane, and also the certificate of his marriage at Fowey, in 1818, to Elizabeth Wellington. Oral testimony was given by Jane Wilcock, an elder sister of Thomas Olford, and by John Wilcock; and the Court held that the birth in St. Veep parish had been sufficiently proved. Mr. SHILSON then, on the part of the appellants, submitted that the pauper’s husband’s father gained a settlement by hiring and service with a farmer called Isaac —first at Steps, and then at Margate Wood, both in the parish of Bodmin. In consequence of the death of Thomas Olford, and of Mr. Isaac Newton and all his family except one daughter who was bedridden, no positive testimony of hiring could be given; but hiring was implied from the circumstances proved, and especially from the evidence of Thomas Kelly, from Bristol, who, succeeding Thomas Olford in service at Mr. Isaac Newton’s, when Olford was about to be married, was hired at 8l. a-year, living and sleeping in the house as a servant in husbandry. The Court held that settlement in Bodmin was proved. The appellant was granted common costs; there was no maintenance. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 30 March 1855

2. Lent Assizes

At about half past 6 o’clock on Thursday evening the 22nd instant, Mr. Justice Crowder arrived at Bodmin, from via Plymouth. [remainder of two paragraphs not transcribed] Mr. JUSTICE ERLE presided in this court. The calendar contained the names of sixty-five prisoners. The following gentlemen were sworn of the Grand Jury:— Sir W. L. S. TRELAWNY, Bart., Foreman. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., Richard Foster, Esq. M.P. Francis Howell, Esq. John Tremayne, Esq. Edward Archer, Esq. William Rashleigh, jun., Esq. W. Braddon, Esq. G. W. F. Gregor, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. John King Lethbridge, Esq. Day P. Le Grice, Esq. C. H. T. Hawkins, Esq. T. G. Graham, Esq. Francis Rodd, Esq. William Peel, Esq. Frederick Martyn Williams, Edward Stephens, Esq. Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. Michael Henry Williams, John Borlase, Esq. Esq. John Batten, Esq. R. G. Polwhele, Esq. Besides the above, the following magistrates answered to their names:—Sir Henry Onslow, Bart., and W. Hext, Esq. The following Mayors answered to their names:—The Mayors of Bodmin, Camelford, Launceston, East Looe, Lostwithiel, , and Penryn. The following Coroners answered:—Mr. E. Gilbert Hamley, and Mr. Thomas Good. [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY:—not transcribed] TRIALS OF PRISONERS. MARY STEPHENS, 30, was indicted for stealing a silver watch, the property of Elizabeth Spear. Mr. BEVAN, for the prosecution, produced evidence to show that on the 19th of January prisoner slept in a double-bedded room, in Mrs. Spear’s Temperance Hotel, at Wadebridge. Mrs. Spear and her children slept in the same room, and she placed her watch on the table in the room. About six the next morning she got up; the watch was then on the table, the prisoner in bed. Afterwards prisoner came down and left the house, saying her husband was coming by the van, and she was going to meet him. She did not return to pay for meat or lodgings, and prosecutrix missing her watch, suspected the prisoner had stolen it. From further evidence it appeared that prisoner, on the 20th of January went to the shop of Margaret Burton, at Bodmin, where she represented that she was in great distress, and offered to sell her some second-hand clothing. She also offered a watch, and asked 5s. for it, but Mrs. Burton gave her only 4s. Mrs. Burton asked where her home was, and where she was going. She said her name was Stephens, and she was going to the west of Penzance to her friends, and should then be well cared for. Constable Bray, of Bodmin, afterwards came to Mrs. Burton for the watch, which was identified by Mrs. Spear as her property. The learned JUDGE having summed up the case, the foreman of the jury said that one of the jurymen, called Francis Major, was almost deaf, and had not heard the whole of the case; he was also 63 years of age. The JUDGE then told Mr. Major (sic) to send him up, and stated the case to him over again in a loud voice. The jury then found the prisoner GUILTY, and she was sentenced to two months’ hard labour. The JUDGE told the juryman, Major, that he should get the overseer to remove him from the lists, as he was disqualified both by age and want of hearing. Another juryman was then sworn in his place. MARY ANN TUCKER was charged with stealing two pints of milk, the property of her master, Mr. John Dawe, a farmer of the parish of . Mr. ARCHER for the prosecution. It was the prisoner’s duty to milk the cows, and attend to the pigs and calves. She was a weekly servant, and did not sleep in the house. She generally bought a pint of milk daily, and the price was deducted from her wages. On two occasions, the 3rd and 4th of January, her mistress, Mrs. Dawe, saw her throwing milk from a pan into a large jug to take to her own house. Verdict GUILTY.—One fortnight’s hard labour. CHARLES LAWRENCE, 22, labourer, was ACQUITTED of a charge of stealing two fowls from James Davey, at Launceston, on the 10th of March. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, 64, was charged with stealing a smoothing plane, value 4s., the property of Richard Wellington. A witness called Boase was working with the plane in Mr. Wellington’s workshop at Truro, on the 1st of January. He left it on the bench but missed it the following morning. It further appeared that on the evening of the 1st of January, prisoner offered to sell the plane in question to Mr. Edward Cock, builder and innkeeper, Pydar-street, Truro. Prisoner sometimes came to Mr. Wellington’s shop for chips and shavings. Verdict, GUILTY. As the prisoner had already been some months in prison the Judge sentenced him to hard labour for one week. STABBING.—JAMES SYMONS, a little boy, was indicted for feloniously stabbing, cutting and wounding John Tregoning Endean, another boy, in the left side of the body, with intent to maim and disable him; and in a second count he was charged with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Mr. ROGERS for the prosecution, and Mr. STOCK for the prisoner. Mr. ROGERS stated the circumstances of the case, and called the lad Endean, who deposed that he was employed by Mr. Williams, of the Bear Inn, Truro, and was driving a cow home about half-past four o’clock on the 28th of November. Going down Lemon Street, he met James Symons coming out of Charles Street, who tried to drive the cow down Fairmantle Street. He stopped the cow, and Endean asked him what he did it for, on which Symons threatened to give him a kick. Endean said Symons then came up to him as if he were going to give it to him, and he (Endean) then struck him a little by the side of the face, upon which Symons took out his knife, ran at him, and stuck it into his side. He fell away against the railings, and a man came and put him to the Infirmary. On cross-examination, Endean said he had a shovel on his shoulder at the time, and put it down: he would swear that he did not strike Symons with the shovel. Richard Alexander Pearce said a woman was going up Lemon Street at the time. Endean had a shovel on his shoulder, and instead of “glancing” the shovel against the woman, he “glanced” it against Symons; he did not strike him, but it came within two or three inches of him. Symons said he would give him a kick if he did that again, upon which Endean dropped the shovel and gave Symons a blow in the face with his clenched fist. Symons then took out his knife and stabbed Endean. Mr. Bassett, house surgeon at the Royal Cornwall Infirmary, said the boy Endean was brought to the Infirmary on the 28th of November; he had a wound in one of the lower ribs on the left side. The rib had stopped the blade of the knife; it was not a dangerous wound, but it might have been dangerous. Endean was in the Infirmary from the 28th of November to the 8th of December.—William Jos. Nash, police superintendent, went to apprehend the prisoner; found him in his mother’s garden, secreted in a barrel covered over with nets. Cross-examined—The boy’s mother is a widow; witness had never before heard anything against the boy’s character; he had been working as a moulder.—Mr. STOCK, for the defence, submitted that Symons had received provocation, and though that would not justify the use of the knife, it was a circumstance in mitigation of the prisoner’s conduct. He was a little boy threatened and attacked by a boy much stronger and older than himself, and in a moment of passion used his knife, which was a common knife, such as boys usually carry. He submitted that the evidence would not bear out the indictment to its full extent, which was that of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm; and if the jury should be of that opinion, it was still in their power to find the prisoner guilty of the misdemeanour of unlawfully wounding.—He then called William Farr, a baker, who said he had known Symons for some years, and had never known anything unbecoming in his conduct. The learned JUDGE said the provocation used did not justify the use of a stabbing instrument; and if the prisoner had been older, the same allowance would not be made for him, because the drawing of a knife and driving it into the side of another was a thing for which a man should be held fully responsible. The blow in this case was not just on the surface, for it appeared it had been stopped by a rib. He did not think, however, the jury could find the prisoner guilty of the felony of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm; but they would say whether he was guilty of the misdemeanour of unlawfully wounding.—The jury gave as their verdict, GUILTY of unlawfully wounding; and the Foreman said, considering his youth and the provocation he received, we strongly recommend him to mercy. The JUDGE asked the prisoner his age, who said, 13 last January. He then said, you must stand down; I will consider the case, and give the utmost effect I can do to the recommendation of the jury. (Sentence: Six weeks imprisonment) HENRY ALLEN, 17, was charged with stealing half a sovereign from Daniel Collins. The parties were both “under boots” at the Red Lion Hotel, Truro, and slept in the same bed. The half a sovereign was stolen from a purse in Collins’s trousers pocket, placed on the bed on the 9th of January. On that morning prisoner changed a half sovereign at Harvey’s beer-shop in Truro. He paid Mrs. Harvey some money he owed her, and received the change. When taken into custody by policeman Pappin, prisoner said he had not seen a half sovereign for two or three days, and he had paid Mrs. Harvey with a five shilling piece.—GUILTY. Three weeks hard labour. STEALING OATS.—RICHARD SLEEP, 22, was indicted for stealing a quantity of oats, the property of the Rev. Henry Addington Simcoe, at . Mr. COLERIDGE, for the prosecutor, called William Sandercock, hind to the prosecutor, who said the prisoner was one of Mr. Simcoe’s waggoners, and lived about half a mile from Penheale. He had charge of two of Mr. Simcoe’s horses. Every Saturday a bag of oats (24 gallons) was given to each of the waggoners, to supply the horses for the following week. On Thursday the 1st of March, prisoner was drawing stones on the farm, and in the evening witness and Mr. Walter Geake, in consequence of something they were told, went to a waggon house, where in a cart they saw a bag with corn in it. Geake hid himself behind the cart, and witness went on to another house, a machine house, and stopped there. Some time afterwards he heard persons coming, who turned out to be the prisoner and Mr. Geake, prisoner having a bag on his back. Witness told prisoner he must go before Mr. Simcoe. Prisoner refused, and witness took him by the jacket, whilst Mr. Geake took the corn from his back. Prisoner’s horses had been going back for some time. Next morning (Friday) witness went to prisoner’s corn chest, and found only about a quart of oats therein. Each waggoner has such a chest, with lock and key to it.—Thomas Sandercock was in the rookery, and saw prisoner come from the waggon house; he went there, found the corn in the spring cart, and told his father, the last witness.—Walter Geake said whilst he was under the cart, prisoner came and took out the bag of corn, and put it on his back. Witness jumped out and asked him what he had got there; prisoner said oats, and that he had bought it and paid for it. Other evidence was also given, and samples handed to the jury. The prisoner was found GUILTY. In passing sentence, the learned Judge said the line of evidence satisfied him that the prisoner had been plundering from his master for some time. This was out of the common course of stealing, and he should order him to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar months. STABBING.—JOHN MICHELL, 25, pleaded GUILTY of stabbing and wounding James Nankervis, at , on the 19th of September, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. The prisoner expressed his sorrow for what he had done. The learned JUDGE said, you went out to fight, you had several rounds with the man, and then you stabbed him no less than five times, once in such a way that it was attended with some danger. I make allowance for your saying at the time that you were sorry for it, and you have also now pleaded guilty. I take it that you did it in the fierceness of anger that came upon you at the time. I order you to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar months. AMOS LONG, 30, was charged with stealing a bag and a quantity of potatoes, the property of Thomas Seldon, at St. Kew; and ELIJAH LONG, 28, was charged with feloniously receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prosecution, and Mr. COLERIDGE for the prisoners. Prosecutor is a farmer living at St. Kew parish, and the prisoner was in his employ. The potatoes were taken from prosecutor’s potato house, under circumstance detailed by prosecutor’s sister and other witnesses. They were found in Elijah Long’s house; but the learned Judge thought the charge of receiving, knowing them to have been stolen, was not proved against the latter; and a witness being called who gave Elijah Long a good character, the Judge directed his ACQUITTAL. Amos Long was found GUILTY, and sentenced to five months’ hard labour. ANOTHER STABBING CASE.—NICHOLAS ORGAN was indicted for feloniously stabbing and wounding Matthew Warren, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr. Archer conducted the prosecution; Mr. Coleridge defended the prisoner. Matthew Warren said he is a sailor, and lives at . On Christmas day he and others were on the beach close by the sea, playing at bats. The prisoner, Nicholas Organ, knocked the ball up; and witness took it up and threw it at him, that being part of the game. He did not strike him; the ball went out into the sea. Organ said, if I did that again he would run his knife into my bowels, if he would not he would be d----d. I walked towards him, and he towards me; we came close to each other; I then walked back, and he followed me. He had a knife in his hand, I believe open, but am not quite sure of it. When he came up alongside of me, he put the knife into his pocket. I put my hand behind his head and shoved him forward and he fell on the ground. He rose up and threw a stone at me, and hit me on the thigh. I then gave him two blows, one on each side of the head, with the flat of my hand, and knocked him to the ground. On his getting up, he put the knife into my left side, just below the ribs. I afterwards struck him again, and then went to the doctor. I have known Organ many years, and never had any words with him before. Cross-examined—I did not see him paring the bat with his knife; I threw the ball at him pretty hard.—James Behenna who was looking on at the game, corroborated the prosecutor’s evidence. Mr. Ball, surgeon at Mevagissey, said on Warren coming to him, he found a wound under the last rib on his left side; he was holding it with his fingers when he came. It was a serious wound, and he was losing blood at the time freely, and became faint. He was about a month under witness’s care. Witness was afraid the lung would be affected; he believed the knife entered obliquely upward, and wounded the diaphragm; there was a shortness of breathing and falling in of the left side; he could not breathe with that lung as he ought to, but he was now well—Mr. COLEFIDGE, for the defence, said it was a quarrel between the two parties, the prisoner being a great deal younger and smaller than the other, and though that did not justify him in drawing his knife, there was sufficient provocation for the jury to believe that he struck the man in a moment of passion, and not with a malicious and deliberate intention. He therefore submitted that if they found him guilty, it must be for the lesser offence of unlawfully wounding. The learned JUDGE said the crime of drawing a knife and striking it into a man’s side, had come very near in this case to wounding the lungs, and might have had a very serious result. Juries ought to take such cases into serious consideration, because the putting a stop to the practice of gratifying the passions by stabbing, would depend very much upon the way in which they carry out the law applying to such cases. In this case, however, there was something to be said on the side of the lad who had run at the man with his knife, and he then proceeded to comment upon the evidence, after which the jury found the prisoner GUILTY of the misdemeanor of unlawfully wounding, and the Judge sentenced him to six months’ hard labour. RICHARD TREVITHICK WOOLCOCK, 31, was charged with stealing from the person of John Davies, a purse and £1 17s. 6d. his property. Mr. COLERIDGE appeared for the prosecution, John Davies is a sailor of Cardiff, who came to and lodged at Bryant’s Temperance Hotel, where prisoner was lodging also. They went out walking together on Saturday the 27th of January, and went down a lane, where prosecutor taking his purse from his pocket, prisoner snatched it from him, and ran away with it. Prisoner was apprehended at Penzance by John Oulds, policeman, to whom he said he took the purse in a drunken spree, but his sister would repay the prosecutor, and make it all right if he would not appear against him. He said this after the policeman had cautioned him, that his statements might be used against him. Verdict, GUILTY. Three months’ hard labour. JOHN COURTS, 24, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, at St. Blazey, on the 19th of March, two flour bags and half a pound of horse hair, the property of his employer, Mr. Thomas Hitchens, of St. Austell. Sentence, four month’s hard labour. WILLIAM BIRK, 36, was put upon his trial for feloniously receiving the same articles, knowing them to have been stolen, but was ACQUITTED. FRANCIS DADE, 29, was found GUILTY of stealing at Liskeard, on the 17th of March, a pair of trousers and a hat, the property of Prudence Warn.—two months’ hard labour. The Court then rose. ______

NISI PRIUS. At about 12 o’clock, Mr. Justice Crowder took his seat in this Court.—The following was the CAUSE LIST:— Plaintiff's Defts. Attys. Plaintiffs. Defendants. At. Exch. Fifield, v. Fifield, In person. Q.B. Rhodes Rhodes, v. Pomeroy, Carlyon. Exch. Gurney, & Co. Northam & v. Bowden, Peter. other, [S.J.] Exch. Hodge & Hockin Gatley, v. Greenhow, Gammon. Exch. Brimacombe Spear and v. Spurr, Huson. Others

FIFIELD v. FIEFIELD.—An undefended action, in which Mr. Coleridge appeared for Plaintiff; and a Verdict for Plaintiff was directed by the Court. RHODES v. POMEROY.—Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Coleridge for plaintiff; Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Cole for defendant.—In this case, after consultation between the Counsel engaged, a Verdict for Plaintiff was taken by consent, on certain terms, one of which was that execution be stayed till the 9th of November. SPEAR and OTHERS v. SPURR.—Mr. Collier Q.C., and Mr. Cole for plaintiffs; Mr. Karslake for defendant.—The plaintiffs were Christopher Spear, William Spear, and John Spear, merchants, in partnership, at Halton in the parish of St. Dominick; and the defendant was a gentleman in London, sued as a shareholder in Wheal Langford mine. The action was brought to recover a sum of 183l. 17s. 3d., balance of an account amounting to 603l. 4s. 1d. for goods supplied to the mine in the years 1851, 2, and 3.—The defendant pleaded that except as to 10 guineas (paid into court) he was not liable; and that as to the remainder, he had satisfied the plaintiffs’ claim, before the action was brought; and then there was a special plea, that after the money became due, one Wellington Gregory, then an agent at the mine, on behalf of the adventurers paid to the plaintiff certain bills of exchange and promissory notes, which the plaintiff endorsed to certain bankers (the Devon and Cornwall Bank) who, at the commencement of the suit were the holders of the Bills, and entitled to receive the amounts due on them; and that the defendant was still liable to Wellington Gregory for those amounts.—To this, the plaintiffs replied that those bills and notes were delivered to the Bankers merely as agents of the plaintiffs, and having been dishonoured, and still remaining unpaid, the plaintiffs were entitled to receive the amount due on them.—The fact was, (it was stated) that Wellington Gregory had left the country, and the bills drawn by the plaintiffs on him having been dishonoured, the plaintiffs had not been paid a farthing of the amount they now sought to claim.—The plaintiffs’ claim on the defendant, according to their particulars, commenced in April, 1855; but Mr. Collier admitted in his opening that the defendant was not a shareholder until October of that year, and a reduction from the amount claimed was made in respect of goods supplied before that time.—To prove the fact of the defendant’s being an adventurer, Mr. John Robinson Vivian, of Stonehouse, and Mr. Robert Sargent, of , were examined. John Robinson Vivian stated that he was one of the original adventurers in Wheal Langford mine, in April 1851; and on the 28th or 29th October of that year, sold to the defendant, 100-6000th shares in the mine, for £82 10s. 0d, which sum the defendant then paid him. From that time till towards the end of 1852, witness saw defendant at four or five meetings of shareholders in London, and saw him examine the cost-sheets produced; he acted like other shareholders and was very sanguine as to the success of the mine. The plaintiff’s account was spoken of at one of these meetings, in the defendant’s presence; defendant looked over it with other accounts, and no complaint was made.—On Cross- examination, witness stated that Wheal Langford was a cost-book mine; and, it was the practice in cost- book mines to pay every two months. The first time witness saw defendant at a meeting, was in November 1851, at committee-meeting. Witness ceased to be purser of the mine early in 1852, but continued to be a shareholder. Wellington Gregory was purser until January, 1853; Gregory was now gone—nobody knew where. Robert Sargent was formerly one of the lessees of Wheal Langford; but was not a shareholder now. Was at one time agent at the mine; and attended two or three meetings of adventurers in London. At one of those meetings—a general meeting in the summer of 1852—defendant was present and spoke to witness about the expenses of the mine, and about reducing witness’s salary to 2 guineas a month, to which the witness consented. John Spear, one of the plaintiffs, said he was in partnership with his father Christopher, and brother William. They had been in the habit of supplying goods to Wheal Langford Mine, having commenced doing so in April 1851, and the materials were such as were necessary for carrying on the mine. The witness then proved, month by month, the supplies which made up the plaintiffs’ claim.—On cross- examination, the witness stated that he had been a partner since 1849, at which time he was but 18 years old. Had heard his father say he had had bill transactions with Gregory; his father had been paid by Gregory in Bills of Exchange, and some of those Bills had been handed over to the Devon and Cornwall Banking Company; those Bills came back dishonoured, and witness and his partners never got a farthing on them. Two Bills of Exchange were produced and put in evidence; they were severally drawn by Christopher Spear, accepted by Wellington Gregory; and had been dishonoured. One was dated 29th March 1853, and was for £57 7s. 4d.; and the other 6th June 1853, for £53 14s. 8d. Several carriers were then examined, to prove the delivery of the goods supplied by plaintiffs, at the mine. This concluded the case for the plaintiff; and Mr. Collier, on the assumption that Mr. Karslake did not intend to call witnesses for the defence, addressed the jury on the plaintiffs’ evidence, asserting that the plaintiffs’ claim was satisfactorily proved, and that the defendant must reimbuse (sic) himself by proceeding against his co-adventurers. Mr. KARSLAKE then addressed the jury for the defendant; commenting on the non-production of the cost-book, and on the fact that neither Christopher Spear, the principal defendant, nor the captain of the mine, had been called; and affirming that, according to cost-book practice, the debts would have been liquidated every two months; but if Christopher Spear chose to accept another mode of payment—by bills from Wellington Gregory—he must abide by the consequences. Mr. Karslake also submitted—to the Judge as well as jury—that three sums on the credit side of the bill of particulars— which corresponded in their several amounts with previous debit entries—ought to be considered as specific payments in respect of those debts. The learned JUDGE held that any such payment could not be applied to a particular debt, unless there was proof of specific appropriation; and so instructed the jury in summing up. The jury found a verdict for plaintiffs, for 183l. 17s. 3d. minus 10l. 10s. paid into court and two guineas expenses—171l. 5s. 3d.—The amount was further reduced to 145l. 2s. 7d, on a voluntary admission by plaintiffs’ counsel, of a credit which had been overlooked. Mr. KARSLAKE asked leave to move the court above on the point he had suggested, as to specific appropriation of a credit entry, against a debt owing from the mine previous to the coming in of a shareholder; and to stay execution meanwhile. His LORDSHIP said he hardly liked to reserve that point; but Mr. Karslake might move against him; and he would allow execution to issue, only in respect of the smaller sum—145l. 2s. 7d. minus 28l. 5s. 4d., the amount of credits to which Mr. Karslake’s motion and observations applied. GATLEY v. GREENHOW.—Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Karslake for plaintiff; Serjeant Kinglake and Mr. Cole for defendant. The plaintiff in this case was Mr. John Gatley, timber merchant, of Tresillian, near Truro; and the defendant was Mr. Thomas Emerson Greenhow, also a timber merchant, of London. Mr. Karslake having stated the pleadings; Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH proceeded to state the case to the jury:—The action was brought in consequence of a breach of contract, by which Mr. Greenhow agreed to sell Mr. Gatley a cargo of Dantzic red fir timber; together with 8 fathoms of lathwood, about which, however, no question arose. The timber was warranted to be of good merchantable quality; price 32 shillings per load of 50 cubic feet; freight 21 shillings per load; the purchaser to pay duty, sound dues, and other expenses. The cargo, on arrival, was found to contain 8854 cubic feet of timber, making, at 32s. per load, £273 14s. 7d, and, with the lathwood, a total of £300 9s. 7d. The freight amounted to £214 1s 8d.; Sound Dues, 4 guineas; Custom Duties, £72 18s. 9d; making with some other charges, a total of £600 7s.—The contract was in writing, and was of simple proof. On the 12th July, 1854, Mr. Greenhow wrote as follows:— 147, Fenchurch Street, London, 12th July, 1854. Dear Sir, I have a small cargo of Danzic (sic) red fir timber to offer—say about 200 loads, about 30 feet in average length; average about 9 inches square; at 35s. per load; freight 21s.; with lathwood for stowage at current rate, freight 22s. per fathom of 4 feet. Please let me know per return whether you will take this cargo, subject to its being unsold on receipt of your reply. Yours truly, for J.E. GREENHOW, T.A. WELTON. John Gatley, Esq., Bone’s Cellars, Tresillian, Nr. Truro. On July 14th, Mr. Gatley replied, begging to be informed whether the timber offered from Dantzic was fresh and of first quality. On the 15th July, Mr. Greenhow wrote to Mr. Gatley:— “I am not quite sure that the Dantzic Timber I offered to you is fresh, but I think it very probable. The wood is of good merchantable quality. On the 17th of July, Mr. Gatley replied;—offering 32s. per load, for the cargo of timber, subject to its being of good merchantable quality. On the 18th of July, Mr. Greenhow wrote:—“I am in receipt of your favour of the 17th instant, offering 32s. per load, for small Dantzic cargo, which, although a wretched bad price, I reluctantly accept, as I have not time to come down and sell it. The vessel is chartered at 21s. per load for timber, and 22s. per fathom of 4 feet, lathwood, and £2 gratuity to the Captain. The lathwood will be charged you, at current rate, free on board. The name of the vessel is the Bertha Friederick, Capt. Otto, and I expect she will be about loaded. I write to-day to order the vessel to your place. These letters, said Mr. Smith, completed the contract, for good merchantable Dantzic red fir timber, at 32s. per load. On the 29th July, Mr. Greenhow sent to Mr. Gatley documents of cargo, and draft for £300 9s. 7d.—In consequence of an error in the Bill of Lading, Mr. Gatley, with Mr. Greenhow’s consent, retained the draft till the arrival of the Bertha Friederick in ; but, immediately on her being reported at the Custom-house, and before seeing the cargo, Mr. Gatley accepted the Bill and sent it off to Mr. Greenhow. Mr. Gatley was unwell at the time, and his clerk, Gummow, attended to the discharging of the cargo. About 50 loads had been discharged when Mr. Gummow saw that the cargo was a very bad one, and was not good merchantable timber; and he, consequently, so reported to Mr. Gatley. Mr. Gatley went the next day, and his own opinion confirmed that of Mr. Gummow—that the timber was not according to contract; he stopped the further discharging, and wrote to Mr. Greenhow, stating what had been done. Mr. Greenhow replied:— London, 25th August, 1854. “Your favours are duly to hand concerning Bertha Friederick’s cargo. It is of no use stopping the captain from discharging; you had better land cargo, and I will write to Dantzic about it; I never said it was fresh; but it was guaranteed to me of good merchantable quality.” On this, Mr. Gatley sent back all the documents to Mr. Greenhow, and expected to be repaid his money; but Mr. Greenhow sent the documents again to Mr. Gatley, informing him:—“If you stop the vessel it is at your own risk, as you will have to pay the demurrage; it is impossible for you to know what the cargo is until discharged.” Accordingly, the vessel was discharged; and Mr. Sharp was employed to pay freight and other charges. The cargo was examined by Mr. Salmon, a builder, whose opinion agreed precisely with that of Mr. Gatley—that the cargo was not according to contract.—The next document in the transaction was a letter to Mr. Greenhow, from Mr. Gatley’s solicitors—Messrs. Hodge and Hockin: Truro, Sept. 9, 1854. Sir, Mr. John Gatley, of Tresillian, has requested us to apply to you on the subject of the cargo of timber consigned to him per Bertha Friederick, and which he contracted to purchase on your representation that such timber was of “good, merchantable quality,” and for which you now have his acceptance for 300l 9s. 7d. This contract Mr. Gatley has repudiated on the ground of the timber being of very inferior quality, and wholly unfit for his purpose, and of the repudiation you have had prompt notice. After the correspondence that has passed between you and Mr. Gatley, on this subject, we consider it unnecessary to enter into particulars, as you are fully informed on all points. We will thank you to favor us with the name of your solicitor, that we may take the necessary proceedings against you on behalf of Mr. Gatley, for recovery of damages and costs. Yours, &c., HODGE & HOCKIN. J.E. Greenhow, Esq., Fenchurch-street, London. To this, the reply was as follows:— London, 14th Sept., 1854. Gentlemen, Your letter of the 9th instant is duly to hand, but Mr. Greenhow being at present out of town, it cannot be attended to till his return. However, I may mention that Mr. Gatley got what he purchased, and never accepted draft till the cargo arrived, when he could easily have satisfied himself as to quality, (as part would be on deck) before accepting. I am, gentlemen, Yours, &c., For T.E. GREENHOW, T.A. WELTON. Mr. Smith repeated that the fact was, that Mr. Gatley accepted the draft before he had seen the cargo; believing that it was all right. He concluded by saying that the question which the jury would have to decide was, whether the timber was of good merchantable quality. He believed he should prove that it was very inferior; sappy, extremely knotty, crooked, and badly squared; that three-fourths of it was unfit for building, and only fit for mining purposes; and therefore, Mr. Gatley was entitled to recover the difference between the value of the cargo as guaranteed, which would be about 1s. 10d. the foot, and its actual value, when three-fourths of the cargo was worth only 9d. per foot. That difference, on a calculation, would be found to amount to between 280l. and 300l.; and this sum the plaintiff claimed. John Gatley, the plaintiff, was then called. Besides proving the greater part of the correspondence above cited, he said it was on the 19th August—he being unwell at the time—that he heard of the vessel being reported at the Custom-house. His clerk Gummow commenced discharging her; and, in consequence of information received from Gummow, witness himself, on the following Tuesday, went and saw the cargo.—After receipt of Mr. Greenhow’s letter of the 31st August, the cargo was discharged under Mr. Sharp, and witness examined the cargo while it was being discharged. Witness had been in the habit of receiving Dantzic red fir timber. The timber in this cargo was by no means of good merchantable quality. Three parts of it might be termed useless to him; he could not sell it; if he put it on his customers, it would be greatly injurious to his trade. It was sappy, crooked, and knotty; white fungi were growing out of it; the Captain, fearing he should have it thrown back on his hands, had been brooming and brushing it. The fungi seemed to have been caused by the timber lying by saturated in water; and appeared to be what would lead to dry rot. A great part of the timber had scarcely any heart in it. There was not much to complain of as to its squaring; it was squared very nearly as timber of that description was usually. Dantzic red timber was used very largely for building; but this timber was not fit for that purpose; no surveyor would pass it. It was possible that one-fifth of the cargo might be fit for building purposes, by reason of the defects he had described. He would prefer Norway timber which was sold at 9d. a foot. But, supposing it had been good merchantable timber according to contract, he should have sold it at 1s. 9d. or 1s. 10d. a foot. Evidence, strongly corroborative of Mr. Gatley’s testimony, was given by his clerk, Mr. Charles Gummow; by Mr. W. Salmon, builder; Mr. Thomas Mann, builder; Mr. Thomas Olver, jun., builder, auctioneer, &c.; and Mr. Thomas Martyn, merchant, of Wadebridge; all of whom had examined the cargo. Serjeant KINGLAKE addressed the jury for the defence; alleging that the defendant, (a highly respectable merchant and of great experience in the timber trade) had sold, and Mr. Gatley had bought, a cargo of what was known in the trade as undersized Dantzic timber—under 30 feet long, and 9 inches square; and, as such, the cargo sent was, according to contract, good and merchantable; and the learned Sergeant contended that the correspondence which had been put in supported that view of the case. The witnesses examined for the defence were, Mr. Greenhow, the defendant; Mr. William Ray, timber- merchant, of Portsmouth; Mr. Clift, builder, of Devonport; and Mr. Rice Mennel, surveyor and timber- merchant, Plymouth; all of whom examined the timber at Truro, early this morning. Mr. Greenhow stated that he had been in the timber trade 22 years; and had been largely engaged in the Dantzic trade. The timber which he sold to Mr. Gatley, for 32s. per load, was a cargo of undersized Dantzic timber; the market-price at the time was 35s. The cargo sold to Mr. Gatley was of good, merchantable quality—as good as witness ever had pass through his hands, and it was well worth the money. All young timber was more or less sappy. The cargo was not warranted best of its quality; but there was best among it. The best quality of small timber last year was worth 39s. per load or thereabouts, free on board. Was not aware that fungus affected the quality of timber.—In answer to a question from the Judge, Mr. Greenhow stated, that at 32s. per load, the whole cost of the timber, including freight and all charges, would be about 1s. 2½d. to Mr. Gatley. Mr. Ray said the timber was as good a cargo of undersized timber as he could wish to have; he had this year bought two cargoes of the same description; for one of the cargoes he gave 33s. per load; and he thought, if there was any difference, it was in favour of the cargo he had seen that morning at Truro. Mr. Clift said the timber he had examined that morning was good merchantable timber, and contained no rubbish; it was very straight; but all small-sized timber would run sappy and knotty. This cargo was the best small-sized timber he ever saw. He should have been very glad to have such a cargo; but, since that time he had bought largely. Mr. Rice Mennel stated that the cargo was good merchantable small-sized Dantzic timber; and it was not very knotty. Serjeant KINGLAKE addressed the Jury on the evidence for the defence; after which Mr. M. SMITH replied, and the learned Judge summed up. The Jury, after some consultation in Court, were, at 7 o’clock locked up; and at about half-past 8, they returned a Verdict for Plaintiff, for £290 10s. ______CROWN COURT, SATURDAY, March 24. (Before Mr. Justice ERLE) WILLIAM HENRY WILLIAMSON, labourer, (aged 34) pleaded GUILTY of feloniously receiving bread, stolen from Alexander Teague, at Penryn, on the 10th March 1855. HENRY WEST, 46, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing brass, the property of Nicholas Oliver Harvey and others at St. Erth.—On another indictment for stealing brass the prisoner pleaded not guilty. (Sentence: Two months hard labour) JOHN GILL, 31, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Gostwyalk Gard, at Calstock, on the night of the 7th February, and stealing two loaves of bread and a meat stand. (Sentence: 15 months hard labour) SIMON HENDY PERRY, 33, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing 50 lbs. of powder, the property of George Ritson at Truro, on the 21st of February.—He also pleaded GUILTY of breaking and entering a certain building within the courtilage of the dwelling-house of John Palmer, at Truro on the 25th February, and stealing four fowls, the property of the said John Palmer. (Sentence: 18 months hard labour - 9 months on each conviction) WILLIAM SINCOCK, 21, labourer, charged with stealing a set of harness the property of John Lenderyou the younger, of the Red Lion Hotel, Truro, on the 16th January. Mr. Rogers conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Joseph Gill, head ostler at Lenderyou’s Hotel, stated that the prisoner was occasionally employed there to assist the post-boys, and was there almost every day. On the 16th January there was a set of old harness hanging up in the stable; witness had seen it about a fortnight or three weeks before.—Bartlett Pascoe stated that, at the time named he was working at Bartlett’s tinman’s shop in Pydar-street; and on the 16th January, prisoner brought there a set of harness for sale, and said it was sent up by Joe. Witness, supposing he meant Joe Gill, the head ostler, thought it was all right and honest, and agreed to give 3s. 6d. for it; witness paid him 2s. 6d. at the time. The next day prisoner came up for the remainder of the money, and witness asked how Joe Gill came to be sending up for a shilling; he did not know that Joe was so hard up for money; and prisoner then said it was Joe Barnes (an under ostler) who had sent him.—William Joseph Nash, Inspector of Police, produced the set of harness.—Joseph Gill identified the harness as the property of Mr. Lenderyou, and said that neither himself nor Mr. Lenderyou ever authorized Sincock to sell it.—Joseph Barnes, under-ostler, who had also been charged with the robbery and bailed for trial, but against whom the bill had been ignored, was examined by the Judge, in consequence of a statement made by prisoner.—Barnes, in contradiction to the prisoner, stated that he did not take the harness and give it to the prisoner to sell; but prisoner took it himself.—Verdict GUILTY.—In consideration of the length of time the prisoner had already been in prison, the JUDGE passed the light sentence of a fortnight’s hard labour. CHARLES EVANS, 16, and JOHN WATERS, 16, were charged with stealing a canvas tarpauling (sic), the property of George Rawlings, at Kea, on the 11th of January. There was a second count, charging both prisoners with feloniously receiving the property. Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—WILLIAM EVANS, an elder brother of Charles Evans, had also been indicted, but the Grand Jury ignored the Bill.—George Rawlings stated that he occupied a farm in the parish of Kea, and on the 11th January he missed therefrom a tarpauling which he had used for covering a hay-rick.—Richard Hawke, marine store dealer, at Pydar-street, Truro, stated that about half past 6 in the evening of the 11th January, the two prisoners came to his house and offered some canvas for sale. Evans was the person who spoke; the other prisoner being present. Witness gave 4s. 3d. for it, and sold it the same evening to another marine store dealer named Brown, for 6s. 6½d.—James Brown, marine store dealer, in Kenwyn-street, stated that he purchased the tarpauling, and gave it the same evening to policeman Ward.—Joseph Ward, policeman, produced the tarpauling; and stated that when he apprehended the prisoners and told them the charge against them, Charles Evans said he would not any more take the punishment for others, and that he had the tarpauling from his brother William, who called him out of bed in the morning and took him to Chapel Hill where he gave him the tarpauling; in the evening he (Charles Evans) and Waters took it to Hawkes and sold it; and he (Charles Evans) did not give Waters any of the money, but paid for his supper and bed. Jane Beer, lodging-house keeper in -street, stated that Charles Evans and Waters both lodged at her house, and occupied the same bed. About 3 o’clock in the morning of the 11th January, a man called to both the prisoners; and Charles Evans got up and went out; but Waters did not.—John Pritchett, a navy pensioner occupying the house at Rawlings’s farm, on the day previous to the robbery saw the tarpauling on the rick; and, having been accustomed to see it, he identified it by the rings belonging to it. It was also identified by the prosecutor.—In defence, Charles Evans repeated that he had the tarpauling from his brother and that Waters had nothing to do with it besides assisting in carrying it to the marine store dealers.—The learned JUDGE, in summing up, said he thought there was hardly evidence to convict Waters, who appeared to have acted in no other way than as porter, for which he was paid by his supper and bed. The jury found Evans guilty of receiving stolen goods; and Waters, not guilty. Against Evans, there were two previous convictions proved; one at the March Assizes, 1850, for stealing 4 lbs. of copper the property of Elizabeth Coate; and the other at the March Assizes, 1854, for stealing iron the property of Robert Sharp and others. He was sentenced to Six Months’ hard labour. JANE LANCE, 21, and WILLIAM JOHNSON, 24, were charged with stealing a silk handkerchief, the property of John Dingle, from his person, at Truro, on the 22nd February.—Mr. Maynard conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—John Dingle, a stone-mason at , about half-past 10 in the evening of the day named, was walking in St. Nicholas-street, Truro; The girl Lance accosted him, asking him for something to drink; which he refused to do. She still pressed him to do so; and witness feeling something in his pocket, put his hand there and missed his silk-handkerchief which was there a minute before. He accused her of taking it; she said she had not got it; he walked the street with her two or three minutes, hoping to see a policeman; he then took her into a gin-shop, and asked the woman who kept the shop to send for a policeman, but she said she had nobody to send. While standing in the shop, the male prisoner came in and passed between witness and the woman; and the next evening, witness saw his handkerchief in possession of a policeman.—Geo. Pappin, police- constable, on the evening of Saturday the 24th February searched the prisoner Johnson when in custody, and found on him a silk handkerchief, which he now produced.—It was identified by the prosecutor—Verdict, Both GUILTY of stealing.—Sentence, each, four months’ hard labour. WILLIAM WILLIAMSON, 55, baker, charged with stealing 4 sixpenny loaves of bread, and 6 tenpenny loaves, the property of his master, Alexander Teague, at Penryn, on the 10th of March instant. (WILLIAM HENRY WILLIAMSON, 34, a son of William Williamson, had pleaded GUILTY of feloniously receiving).— Mr. Bevan conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Alexander Teague the younger, stated that his father, the prosecutor, was a merchant at Penryn, and carried on a bakery there; and was in the habit of sending out large quantities of bread into the country; the driver being William Henry Williamson; and William Williamson, (the father) was the baker. Formerly the wagon when loading was placed by the kitchen window of the dwelling-house; but lately, by prisoner’s request, the prosecutor had altered the wagon so as to have it loaded in the passage near the bake-house. On Saturday the 10th of March, witness was delivering out bread for the country; he gave out the loaves to the elder prisoner, and the younger prisoner was at the wagon receiving them. Witness delivered ?-- 57s. worth in loaves of various sizes. He then asked the elder prisoner what was the last tally, and he replied that it was 53s. Witness told him he fancied it was rather more, but it did not matter much, as he could count over the loaves again. On this the two men were agitated. Witness had a maund put to the tail of the wagon, and proceeded to count the loaves; in doing so, he found that there were four sixpenny loaves, of the quality baked for shop-sale, and which he was positive he had not given out that morning to the prisoners. Witness accused them accordingly; but they positively stated that he had given out these four loaves. Witness positively denied it; and then they both changed their story and said the four loaves were returned bread of Thursday. Witness said he was sure he had never given out any such sixpenny loaves, and, he believed, no tenpenny loaves of the shop-quality; but he was positive that the sixpenny loaves were stolen. (Prisoner had access to the bake-house at all times except at night.) Witness called out a man and sent the four sixpenny loaves indoors, and there marked them. Witness produced one each of the best sixpenny loaves sent out for the country, and of those baked for shop-sale. Alexander Teague, the prosecutor, corroborated the previous evidence as to the general practice in his bakery business with reference to supplies to the country. On his charging the prisoner with the theft, he after a good deal of shuffling, said he knew nothing about it.—The jury found the prisoner GUILTY.—His lordship sentenced each prisoner to six months hard labour. JAMES GARTRELL, 22, pleaded GUILTY of stealing coals, the property of the Adventurers in South Mine, at St. Cleer, on the 19th of February. (Sentence: one month hard labour.) JAMES MATTHEWS was charged with stealing three sheaves of oats, the property of Thomas Roberts, farmer, at St. Levan.—Mr. Archer conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence—The prosecutor stated that he was a farmer, and was in the habit of letting out cows; he let a cow and a certain portion of land to the prisoner, and the prisoner had also a sufficient quantity of mangold wurzel and of oaten straw to take when he liked, but he was not allowed to take oaten sheaves, with the corn in them, without application to him (the prosecutor.) On the 5th of February, prisoner’s cow had calved, and had a sheaf given her, which witness supposed had been taken from his mow. In the evening of the 6th, witness went to watch his oaten mow; and about a ¼ to 9, witness saw prisoner come from his house and go to his stable, where he had a horse; and he then took three sheaves of oats from witness’s mow and took them to his stable, where the horse was. Witness went to the stable, and found that the prisoner had given one sheaf to the cow and put two sheaves in an empty stall and near a horse. Witness said to him “Jem, you are rather unfortunate to be caught the first night I watched for you.” Prisoner did not say anything. Witness had not supplied the prisoner with any oaten sheaf that night. There was never any arrangement that if the prisoner’s father’s cow calved, he was entitled to take three sheaves of oats. If he wanted any oat-sheaves for his cow, he was to apply to witness for leave.— In cross-examination, witness said that on the day of the alleged robbery the frost was very hard, and all the mangold wurzel in the field was frozen; and that was not a good thing for a cow that had just calved; nor was oat straw very good.—The witness was severely cross-examined as to supposed feelings of hostility in his mind towards the prisoner; and Mr. COLE ably addressed the jury for the defence.— Verdict, NOT GUILTY. GEORGE OSBORNE, 25, and SUSAN OSBORNE, 21, were charged with having in their possession, on the 12th of February, certain pieces of false and counterfeit coin, knowing them to be false and counterfeit coin, and with intent to utter the same.—Mr. Stock conducted the prosecution; Mr. Holdsworth the defence.—William Joseph Nash, superintendent of police at Truro, stated that on the 12th of February, we went with Constable Woolcock to a house in Calenick-street, the two prisoners being at that time in custody at the police station. They went to the house and asked for the key of the room occupied by the two prisoners; they were directed to go to a young woman who occupied another apartment in the same house. The prisoners had been living in that house 8 or 9 weeks. The young girl came to the Police Station with the key, and witness and Woolcock went with the girl, who opened the door of prisoner’s room, and they searched it. While searching a cupboard, one packet fell from a shelf and was taken up by Woolcock; and witness took hold of the other parcel, which he found to contain three florins, two shillings, and one half-crown, which witness now produced.—William Woolcock, police constable, corroborated the last witness, and produced the contents of the parcel which he had taken possession of, namely, a crown-piece, three florins, and two shillings.—Charles Annear, silversmith of Truro, proved that all the coins produced were counterfeit, and all made of the same kind of metal.—For the defence, Mr. HOLDSWORTH addressed the Jury, and called Sarah Street, the girl before referred to, for the purpose of proving that the room occupied by the Osbornes was accessible to other persons. She stated that the room door, when locked, might be opened without a key, and that it lay 2½ inches open; and that the occupants of the house—Green and his wife (the latter now in prison on another charge) might have got into Osborne’s room when they liked, in the absence of the Osbornes. She also stated that the shelf on which the parcels of coins were found by the police was very dusty and cobwebby; as if the coins had been placed there by come (sic) previous lodger; but she afterwards admitted that the shelf was much higher than herself, and that she did not get on anything, to look on the shelves.—Mr. STOCK cross-examined the girl, and then, by leave of the Court, recalled the policeman Woolcock, who stated that when he went to the house, the door of Osborne’s room was very firm, and that the door was locked, it could not be opened, except by force.—The Police-officers, Nash and Woolcock, in answer to questions from the JUDGE, stated their belief that the prisoners were man and wife.—The learned JUDGE consequently directed an acquittal of the female prisoner; and then summed up the case against the male prisoner, remarking that the packets which had been produced were not dirty outside, and the insides contained a powder suitable for keeping the coins fresh in appearance.—The Jury found a verdict of GUILTY against George Osborne; and acquitted Susan Osborne.—Sentence on George Osborne, Six Months’ hard labour.—Before being removed from the dock, George Osborne asked the Judge that Mr. Nash, the police-inspector, should deliver up his watch and some other property to the Governor of the Gaol until the term of his imprisonment had expired; and the JUDGE directed Mr. Nash to do so.— Osborne then said:—My lord, if you never before punished an innocent man, you have done so now.— The JUDGE:—I am of a different opinion. MARK NEWER, charged with stealing a fowl, the property of Henry Lanxon, at , on the 9th September.—Mr. Coleridge conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—Mr. Coleridge, in briefly opening the case, informed the Jury that a servant man of the prosecutor’s, set to watch the farm yard, unfortunately shot the prisoner in the arm, and the servant—named Thomas Hill—had been indicted for wounding; but the Grand Jury had thrown out the bill. He thought it right to mention that the principal witness in this case was the servant-man who had shot the prisoner; but he did not know that this would affect the evidence in this case. The prosecutor is a farmer living at Pill in the parish of Lanlivery; and past 12 o’clock on the night of the 9th September he and his wife were alarmed by the barking of their dog, in the yard. Mrs. Lanxon got up, and looked out of the window, and directed one of their labourers—Thomas Hill—to get up and see if there was any person in the linhay. Hill went there, and called out, desiring any person inside, to come out, or he would shoot him. Hill had taken a gun with him, on leaving the dwelling house. He then went back to the dwelling-house, and told Mrs. Lanxon there was no one in the linhay; but she, having just after the first alarm, heard the gurgling noise of a dying fowl, insisted that there was some one in the linhay, and desired Hill to go there again. Hill did so, and again called out as before, and received no answer; but he believed he saw a shadow towards the key-beam of the linhay; he then called out, as before, desiring any person inside to come out, or he would fire; there was no reply, and Hill fired. Mrs. Lanxon, on this, saw some one get down the shafts of the wagon in the linhay, and go away through the farm yard. On the following morning, a dead fowl, with its neck twisted, was found in the linhay; and on some planks lying across beams just above the wagon were marks of blood, from the man who had been wounded by Hill’s firing the gun into the linhay. This wounded man was the prisoner; who, on leaving the linhay, walked away towards Lostwithiel to a doctor; and on the following day, proceeded to take steps for indicting Hill for the shooting and wounding. This bill, however, was thrown out by the Grand Jury; and Newer was now found GUILTY of stealing the fowl, and was sentenced to six weeks’ hard labour.—It was stated that he had received a large number of shot on the night referred to, in his arm and breast.—The learned JUDGE, in remarking on some portion of the defence, said he did not blame a man, in Hill’s position, when going out at night as he did, for arming himself, when he could not tell who or how many might be waiting to break his skull and plunder the premises. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER.—ELLEN HEALES, 30, was indicted for the wilful murder of her female child on the 4th of August last; and she was also charged with the like offence, on the Coroner’s Inquisition.— She pleaded Not Guilty.—Mr. Buller conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Dayman the defence.—The prisoner—a painfully repulsive looking woman—was allowed to sit. Mr. Buller very briefly stated the outline of the case against the prisoner; and proceeded to call witnesses: As soon as the first witness—Mrs. May—had entered the witness-box, and been sworn, the prisoner fainted and fell off her seat. She was removed from the dock and taken to the prisoners’ room below. She was absent about 10 minutes; and, on her returning into Court, a female from the Gaol Establishment was, by direction of the Court, placed by the side of the prisoner, and remained sitting by her throughout the trial. Elizabeth May, examined by Mr. Buller, said:—I am the wife of William May, and live in the parish of . The prisoner entered my service about the latter end of March, 1854. About three months after she entered my service, I observed from her appearance that she was in the family way. I accused her of being in the family way, and she denied it. In the month of August last, in consequence of something I had heard, I gave directions to some one; and I went up into the bed-room where prisoner slept. The JUDGE:—I don’t know that you need go into details. Did you observe signs that led you to believe that a child had been born? Witness:—Yes, my lord. To Mr. Buller:—I saw the prisoner after that; I accused her of having had a baby, and she denied it. This happened on the 4th of August. She slept in a bedroom by herself. Cross-examined by Mr. Dayman:—The time that I noticed her bed-room was between 10 and 11 o’clock in the morning. No one lived in the house besides me and my family—servants and children. The prisoner had had the business of the house to attend to that morning, by my orders. I saw her that morning about 6 o’clock or half-past 6 o’clock. I had seen her the day before, between 8 and 9 o’clock, when she went to bed. Sampson Pomery:—I am a workman in the service of Mr. and Mrs. May. I remember the 4th of August last. In consequence of directions I received from Mrs. May, I made search on the premises and found a child in the privy. When the Doctor came, I took up the child. Afterwards, in consequence of further directions, I made another search and found something besides, which I also gave to the surgeon. We did not take it up till the surgeon came.—(To the Judge):—We waited till the Doctor came and then took up the child and the after-birth.—Cross-examined:—I was the only person who went to the privy, after my mistress went there. I observed blood about the seat. John Lawer Clarke: I am a surgeon. I remember the 4th of August last. In consequence of an intimation, I went to Quethiock, to the farm house of Mr. and Mrs. May. At first I was shown to the privy, where I saw an infant lying on its right side in the soil of the privy and partly covered by it. I gave directions for it to be taken up, and this was done by Sampson Pomery in my presence. I made an examination of that body. The part which was uncovered by privy soil was marked with blood; and, with that exception, there was nothing particular about the external part. There was no mark of external violence. The cord attached to the child was about two inches in length and appeared to have been cut or torn in an oblique direction. That was all the particular marks that I observed on the child. I afterwards directed search to be made for the after-birth, and that was also found in the same place. The part of the cord attached to the after-birth was about six inches in length, and was severed in a different way from that which was attached to the child. There being so short a portion of the cord altogether, I directed further search to be made for what I believed to be wanting; and a portion of the cord, about 18 inches long, was found afterwards; and the ends of this piece corresponded with the pieces attached to the body and the after-birth. I afterwards examined the lungs and the body generally. The lungs I found to be inflated with air. I examined the brain also; the brain was slightly congested. The passages leading to the lungs contained portions of the soil in which the child had been lying. By the Judge:—From the examination I made, I came to the conclusion that the child had lived after it was born.—By Mr. Buller—I apprehended the cause of death was suffocation by inhalation into the air- passages of the matter of the privy; the air-passages were so obstructed by that matter as to account for death by suffocation.—I afterwards examined the prisoner; and from that examination I thought she had recently given birth to a child. Cross examined.—I did not observe any marks of violence about the child. Labour sometimes comes on suddenly. I saw nothing on the child to make me think the child might not have been born in the privy—not with reference to the child itself. I saw nothing inconsistent with the child having been born there. Mr. DAYMAN:—Does it not frequently happen that labour does come on at a time of that sort?— Witness:—I think it possible to happen so; I have known cases where persons have been so delivered accidently. Mr. DAYMAN.—You say that the lungs were inflated; can you undertake to say that the child had been completely born? May there not be protrusion, and the lungs became partly inflated by the atmosphere?—Witness:—The evidence I have of the child having been born, rests on the stronger ground than inflation merely. Mr. DAYMAN:—I speak of inflation alone.—one full inflation.—Witness:—It is quite possible for a child to have had its lungs inflated, and the child not be born. But in this case, the lungs were very fully inflated. The Judge:—Your impression was that there was such a full inflation as was more likely to be completed after, than during birth?—Witness:—Certainly. John Kempthorne:—I am a surgeon, at Callington. I have heard the evidence of Mr. Clarke; and I concur with it. I think it was a full-grown child. Ann Cook:—I was employed to watch with the prisoner after the birth of the child. I had not much talk with her about the birth of the child. She told me that when she was in labour, she fainted, and how long she lay faint she did not know; but that when she came to herself, the baby was born. I asked her why she did not leave it lie. She said “when I took it up, it was quite dead.” I said “It was a you had not left it lie after you found it dead; for then you would have known the worst of it, but now you dont.” She said she was Irish, and here they was English, and she did not know whether they would bury it, and so she clapped it aside. She said she found it was quite dead, and then she clapped it aside. Mr. DAYMAN then addressed the jury for the defence. The indictment itself called attention to the importance of the case you have to try; it is no less than a charge of murder against the prisoner at the bar; and, as her life is in jeopardy, your attention must the more carefully be directed to the evidence. But, gentlemen, I am very much relieved from the anxiety I should have otherwise felt, by the evidence on the part of the surgeon. It is not for me to dispute that the child was born, or that the child was the child of the prisoner at the bar; but the cause of its death is wrapped considerably in mystery. On the one hand, it is left for you to judge, from the evidence of the surgeon, whether the death might not have been caused purely by accident. He gives, as the result of his knowledge and experience, that labour is often premature—coming on suddenly, when the woman is unprepared, and nobody by to give her advice or to render any assistance. It may be consistent with the evidence adduced, that that took place which occurred to the experienced mind of the surgeon—that the woman retired to the closet for a purpose wholly different from concealing the child, and that while she was there, without any fault of the poor woman, the child might have been born and accidentally suffocated. Therefore, if you were to look to the evidence of the surgeon alone, you cannot state, inasmuch as the surgeon himself cannot state, that the child’s death was not attributable to accident at the moment of its birth. The other evidence is that of the girl herself; for in coming to your verdict, you have but the alternative of the Surgeon’s evidence, or that of the poor girl; and, undoubtedly, on the evidence of the girl, you have nothing on which to found a verdict. Mr. Dayman referred to the evidence of Ann Cook, giving the prisoner’s statement of the circumstances of the birth, and asked if there was any proof that that statement was not true in every respect. There was not a particle of evidence by the surgeon to disprove it; and, if it were true, there must be a verdict of acquittal. There was no mark on the body to sanction the supposition that the girl’s statement was a falsehood made up for the sake of protecting herself against the charge now made against her; and the surgeon’s evidence was, that there was nothing to induce him, after making a most careful examination and inquiry, to believe for a moment, that violence had been offered to the body of the infant. And, if there was nothing to rebut the girl’s statement of the circumstances of the birth, he was sure that the jury would gladly adopt it as the rational solution of the question submitted to them.—The learned gentleman observed that, under this indictment the jury might find the prisoner guilty of concealing the birth of the child; but on that point the evidence was extremely scanty. There was some evidence, it was true, that she wished to conceal it; and to a certain extent did make some attempt to conceal it; but whether there was enough to satisfy the jury that there was a deliberate purpose to keep the birth from the world, and make no discovery of it to any body, it was for them to judge. The learned counsel concluded by leaving the case in the hands of the jury, assured that they would give it all the attention which a case so important to the public and to the prisoner deserved, and that they would give the prisoner the benefit of the considerations he had suggested. The learned JUDGE then carefully summed up the evidence to the Jury. His lordship began by observing that a more important duty could not be imposed on any men than that which they were now called on to perform. On the part of the prisoner it was a charge affecting her life; and, as regarded the public, the crime of Child Murder prevailed to so great an extent that there had been great consideration among those who had to administer the criminal law, with respect to the necessity of making a signal example for the purpose of deterring from that crime.—The mode of death imputed to the prisoner at the Bar was, that the child, having been born alive, was by her, knowingly and intentionally, thrown into that place where by the soil of the place, suffocation took place. If the jury could be satisfied that the prisoner had borne a live child, and then cast it where it was certain to meet its death, and where, according to the surgeon it did meet its death by suffocation, she would be guilty of the murder of the child. The surgeon’s evidence was, that the child, in his opinion, had lived; and had met its death by suffocation in the place where it was thrown. But on the question whether the prisoner knowingly threw it there, the matter was left in considerable doubt; and, from the nature of the transaction, considerable doubt on that question would be probable.—The learned Judge stated the nature of the evidence in the case, and remarked that there was inconsistency between the surgeon’s evidence and the prisoner’s statement to Ann Cook, as to the mode and circumstances of the birth and death of the child. His lordship said, it seemed to him that the grave charge of wilful murder was a matter left in too much mystery and doubt to warrant the jury finding a verdict against the prisoner to that extent. But under the present indictment, the jury could find a verdict of concealment of birth; and it seemed to his lordship that the present case was precisely such a one as the law for the repression of that misdemeanour was intended to meet. There was no doubt whatever, that the prisoner endeavoured to conceal the birth; for she had all along denied the pregnancy, and also denied the birth to her mistress, almost immediately after it had taken place; and it was not till afterwards that she said she had fainted, and that on coming to herself she found that the child was born and was dead, and that she then clapped it aside. The jury, after about five minutes’ consultation returned a verdict—“Not guilty of murder, but guilty of concealment of birth.” The learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, said:—I think you have been properly acquitted on this evidence; though there is not the least doubt that the transaction is involved in such mystery that your life has been in danger during this inquiry. As to the misdemeanour of endeavouring to conceal the birth, and avoid help, and then to dispose of the dead body, in consideration of the length of time you have already been in prison, I order you to be further imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six calendar months. The prisoner, (respectfully):—“Thank you, my Lord.” HENRY ALLEN, 23, was charged with committing a rape on Susan Glasson, at St. Erth, on the 14th January.—Mr. Dayman conducted the prosecution; Mr. Carthew the defence.—The prosecutrix was in her 17th year, and was a servant with Mr. Thomas Berryman, a dairyman, at Trevissowe, in St. Erth. The prisoner was a farm-servant with Mr. Osborne, at Treveneague, in the same parish. The offence charged was alleged to have been committed as the prosecutrix was returning from St. Erth Methodist Chapel, on a Sunday evening; and within a few yards of her master’s house.—The witnesses examined besides the prosecutrix, were Mr. and Mrs. Berryman (her master and mistress), and Mr. James Mudge, surgeon, of Hayle.—The prisoner was found GUILTY.—The learned Judge, passing sentence said:—You stand convicted of this very grave crime on very clear evidence. You watched an opportunity to take advantage of a very young woman, scarcely past the age of childhood and greatly your inferior in strength. It is necessary for me to make a signal example of you; to show that the law will protect, by strong arm, the chastity of woman, and that, through you, it may be known that women, apparently defenceless, are protected by a very powerful arm. I am bound to say that the charge has been brought home to you very clearly; and the sentence I pronounce on you is, that you be transported for 15 years. —The prisoner on hearing this sentence, at first appeared stunned; he then fell away towards the ground, but was caught by the turnkey on duty in the dock, and was borne away below, uttering violent hysteric shrieks and cries. WILLIAM ESCOTT, 19, was charged with committing a bestial offence at Week St. Mary, on the 5th January.—Mr. Carter conducted the prosecution; Mr. Archer the defence.—The prisoner was a farm servant in the employ of Mr. Jeremiah Martin of North Pertherwyn (sic); and was a miserably brutish looking lad, in physiognomy and general appearance.—He was found GUILTY; he received sentence, DEATH RECORDED, and was ordered to be detained in prison until it should be determined what should be done with him. N I S I P R I U S C O U R T SATURDAY, MARCH 24. NORTHAM AND ANOTHER v. BOWDEN.—(Special Jury)—For the plaintiffs, Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE, Mr. CARPENTER ROWE, and Mr. MAYNARD; attorneys, Messrs. GURNEY and Co. Counsel for the defendant, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH, Mr. KARSLAKE, and Mr. ARCHER; attorney, Mr. PETER. Mr. ROWE opened the pleadings. The declaration was, that defendant had converted to his own use, and wrongfully deprived the plaintiffs of gravel, sand, stones, and minerals, dug out of mines of which the plaintiffs were in possession, on the manor of Treveague. Defendant had pleaded first, that he was not guilty; and secondly, that the gravel, sand, stones, and minerals were not in the possession of the plaintiffs; upon these pleas issue was joined. Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE stated the case. The plaintiffs in this action, Mr. William Northam and Mr. John Bennett, were in the occupation of certain tin works on a moor called Treveague Moor, which is part of the manor of Treveague. They held a sett of those tin works under a lease from Mr. Francis Rodd, of . The lease dated 25th of March, 1854, by which Mr. Rodd, as lord of the manor of Treveague, conveyed certain licenses to them to work the pits in question. But for some reason, the defendant Bowden, who occupied some land and works adjoining, without the smallest notice, came upon plaintiffs’ pits, and carried off certain quantities of gravel, sand, and soil, with tin amongst it, which had been raised from the pits by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, as lessees and tenants of Mr. Rodd, had brought this action against the defendant, who, as he (Sergeant Kinglake) was told, was perfectly willing to make reparation, if some other person with a stronger arm had not interfered. He was told it was possible that a more serious question might have to be discussed that day, as to whether Mr. Rodd or Mr. Archer was the lord of the manor on which these tin works were situate. He should however wait to hear what his learned friend had to say on the subject, when he was prepared with an overwhelming case to show that Mr. Rodd had been, by himself and those who preceded him, in every exercise of rights as owner of the soil in question, and that he had a full right and title to make the grant to the plaintiffs. He should first call witnesses to establish a prima facie case, enough to call upon the defendant to answer it; and then if his learned friend should set up anything that required an answer from him, he was perfectly willing and ready to go into that part of the case also.—Mr. M. SMITH here submitted that his learned friend ought to open up the whole of his case in the first instance, and should not be permitted to split it into two parts. Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE said that question was decided in a case at Exeter the other day. The learned JUDGE was of opinion that plaintiffs’ counsel might in the first instance confine himself to a prima facie case; he, however, by request, made a note that Mr. Smith had objected in the opening to the case being divided. The first witness called was one of the plaintiffs, William Northam, who said he lived at Five Lanes, in . In the latter part of 1853, he applied to Mr. Rodd’s steward, and had verbal permission to shoad on the land of Treveague moor, which he always understood was part of the manor of Treveague. He put three men to work there, and in March 1854, had a sett formally granted by deed from Mr. Rodd. (The deed was here put in and read. It granted, in consideration of certain covenants and provisoes, full power and authority to the plaintiffs to dig for all metals and minerals, and, as far as they lawfully may, for gold and auriferous minerals within such parts of the common lands of the manor of Treveague as were delineated and described on a map). The witnesses said they worked on in the winter and through the spring of 1854, sunk three pits of from ten to twelve feet deep, and one of four fathoms deep, where they had a tin load. A windlass was erected for raising the stuff, and underground communications were formed between the pits. Besides the lode in the deep pit, there was shoad tin in the other pits. The stuff raised was thrown up by the side of the pits. About May, 1854, there was so much water, that they could not go deeper without machinery, and that cause stopped them till they could get more strength. In the latter part of September 1854, he found that some of the stuff had been carried away by the defendant, who occupied an adjoining farm called Tregule. Witness had ascertained that there was tin in the stuff carried away. He spoke to the defendant about it, and received a letter from him on the subject. (The letter was put in and read, dated October 3rd, 1854. Defendant therein stated, that as regarded the sand drawn by his horses and cart from Treveague manor, his worthy landlord, Edward Archer, Esq., or any of his agents, were quite ignorant of it. It was taken because it was easier to load, as any other parties may have done who had been in the habit of drawing stone for their own use from the same place for perhaps more than half a century, without molestation, &c.) The witness was cross-examined by Mr. M. SMITH at considerable length. He said he had sold tin from the deep pit where the lode was, but not from the other pits; £1 11s. 9d. worth was sold about Lady-day 1854, about the time they got their sett. Besides the lode in the deep pit, there were ‘shoads’ and branches of tin in the other pits. There were “shoads” in the heaps of sand by the sides of the pits. He could not say whether the two end pits were worked after Lady-day 1854; they were worked after Christmas 1853. (Mr. MORCOM, of St. Austell, one of the special jurymen, asked for the tin bill, but witness said he had not got it; it was carried to London and left there.)—William Downing, a labourer, said he drove Mr. Bowden’s cart out on the common to one of the heaps of gravel thrown up by the side of a pit. Mr. Bowden was there, and directed him where to take it from; it was taken away and used for building purposes. He took the sand or gravel from the outside pit, the furthest from the farm hedge; he did not know anything about any tin being in the sand. (The plan was here examined, and the pit indicated by the witness was stated to be the most southern pit.)—Samuel Sleep saw defendant’s cart loaded, and sand was taken from the heap the furthest from Tregule farm.—Samuel Gregory, a miner, had worked for plaintiffs on the moor of Treveague; came there in the latter end of April last; they were not then working at any of those shoad pits. He saw the stuff taken up from the shoad pits; there was sand and gravel, shoad stone and branch stone in the heaps, some of the branches and the shoads might contain tin. He went there last Wednesday with Capt. Northam, took stuff from each heap, mixed it together, tried some on a shovel, and found some tin in it; but they did not try what came from each heap. Mr. M. SMITH submitted there was no evidence to show that what had been taken was the property of the plaintiffs, and consequently they had no right of action. It was not shown that any stuff was thrown up from the pit in question after Lady-day, 1854, when the lease was granted. That lease only granted a right to the produce of future workings; the previous verbal permission did not pass the soil, and what was thrown up it, which in fact belonged to Mr. Rodd, if owner of the soil, and therefore Mr. Rodd, and not the plaintiff, should have been the party to the action. To this Mr. Serjeant Kinglake replied, that Mr. Rodd’s verbal authority and permission gave the plaintiffs possession as against a wrong doer, such possession as would enable them to maintain an action against a wrong doer. The learned JUDGE agreed with Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, but reserved the point at the request of Mr. Smith, and also a second point,—that the tin removed was not a chattel. On these points he would have the opportunity of moving the Court above. Mr. Smith also called attention to the fact that the record was different from the declaration, the word “minerals” having been omitted from the latter. The Judge made a note of this point also. Mr. Smith further urged that there was no evidence of the slightest intention by defendant to take minerals, the sand or gravel having been carried away for building purposes. Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE addressed the jury, stating that this was a common form in which to bring such actions, to put forward the tenants when the landlords were the real parties in the contest. If his friend could show that Mr. Archer was entitled to the soil of this manor, he had abundant proofs to meet that case; but his learned friend did not venture to move in that direction, because he knew what would immediately be the result. With regard to the defendant’s intention, the question was not what he intended, but whether he took that which was in the possession of the plaintiffs at the time. As to the question of damages, he did not ask for any great amount; as a protection of the plaintiffs’ right was what they chiefly sought for. Mr. M. SMITH next addressed the court and jury. He said if the question at issue had been fairly raised the action would not have been brought in this form. To try an important right to a large moor of 1,300 acres, it was better to have the two gentlemen face to face, than to raise the question in this indirect way between tenants. It was done to get some advantage over Mr. Archer, but he (Mr. Smith) would not enter upon that question at present, it should be decided at a future time; and whenever it came for trial, he was greatly deceived if from the documents before him Mr. Rodd would not have to meet a most serious case. He then referred to the question of damages, and submitted that one farthing would be quite sufficient, as it could scarely (sic) be said that the tin in the stuff carried away was to be found in any appreciable quantity. The learned JUDGE summed up the case, and put it to the jury whether they were satisfied, from the evidence, that in the sand or gravel carried away there was mineral, or that it was without mineral. Mr. HENDY, of Trethurffe, the foreman of the Jury, asked what amount of damages would carry costs. The JUDGE said that £5. The jury then retired, but soon returned into Court, and the Foreman said they were of opinion that the sand carried away contained a small portion of tin; and their verdict was for plaintiffs, with five shillings damages. The learned JUDGE certified for costs, observing that he thought this was one mode in which the right in dispute might have been tried. This concluded the Nisi Prius business of the assizes, and the following trials were proceeded with before Mr. Justice CROWDER. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JAMES BARNETT, 16, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of shoes from Thomas Moyle, at Redruth on the 1st of March. Sentence, two months’ hard labour. RICHARD JAMES, 22, was charged with stealing a pair of shoes from Samuel Jennings, at Perranzabuloe, on the 27th of December. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. WILLIAM SCOTT, 23, was indicted for stealing fourteen sovereigns from the dwelling house of George Radford, the money of James Boyd. Mr. BEVAN appeared for the prosecution. James Boyd stated that he is a seaman, and was paid off on the 5th of January, at Falmouth, from the ship “Americans.” He was paid £35 in sovereigns and half-sovereigns; and prisoner, who was a shipmate, was paid off the day after, and received £18. They went to lodging at Radford’s boarding house the day after they came ashore. Prosecutor had a chest in his bedroom, with seventeen sovereigns in it, the chest being locked and lashed. On Friday night, the 12th of January, prosecutor and prisoner went to Newcome’s beershop at Falmouth, and slept there that night in separate bedrooms. Prosecutor placed his trousers on a chair, with the key of his chest in one of the pockets. Before he got up, prisoner came into the room, and sat down on the chair, and talked to prosecutor, who was having his breakfast in bed. Prisoner then went away, but afterwards returned and again sat on the chair where prosecutor’s trousers were placed; and prosecutor afterwards found the key of his chest, which had been in his trousers pocket, lying under the chair. When he went to his lodgings at Mr. Radmore’s, he found his chest unlashed, but still locked; and on opening it he discovered that all his money had been stolen excepting three sovereigns. The suggestion was, that he had taken prosecutor’s key from his trousers pocket, in the bedroom at Newcome’s, and brought it back again to the room when he returned there. Several witnesses were examined, and corroborative evidence given. Verdict, GUILTY.—Nine months’ hard labour. WILLIAM CUNDY, 21, was charged with stealing six fowls, at Bodmin, on the 5th of February, the property of William Salmon. GUILTY.—Six months’ hard labour. MARY GRENFELL, 50, was ACQUITTED of a charge of stealing a cotton shirt, the property of Mary Eddy, at St. Just in Penwith. JOHN SAUNDERS, 39, was charged with stealing ten lbs. of candles, on the 16th of December, the property of his employer, Thomas Symons, a chandler at Praze, in .—GUILTY. Six months’ hard labour. CHARGE OF PERJURY.—WILLIAM HOSKING WHITING was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury in the County Court of Cornwall, held at Bodmin on the 3rd of May, 1854, in a certain action between him and . The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Cole; attorney, Mr. Bishop; Counsel for the defence, Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Kingdon; attorney, Mr. J.B. Collins. This case excited great interest, and the Court was excessively crowded throughout the trial. At the request of Mr. COLERIDGE, all the witnesses were ordered out of Court till called for. Mr. COLE stated the case to the jury. He said he had to ask for their patient attention, because the case was one of considerable importance both to the prisoner and to the public. He need hardly tell them that there were few crimes more dangerous to society, and often more difficult to detect, than the crime of perjury. He regretted to state that since the introduction of the new law, by which plaintiffs and defendants are allowed to give evidence in their own cases, perjury had increased to a most lamentable extent; and it therefore became necessary, whenever a case of that kind could be established against a person, that he should be brought to justice if possible, and meet with that punishment with (sic) his crime deserves. It would be for the jury to say, after hearing the evidence brought before them, whether the crime of wilful and corrupt perjury had been clearly made out against the prisoner at the bar. Mr. Cole then stated the circumstances of the case, and called witnesses, from whom it appeared that the prisoner is a cattle dealer and innkeeper residing in Bodmin. In November, 1853, there was a large sale at Lanivet, near Bodmin, for disposing of cattle, the property of Mr. Deeble Peter Hoblyn, a gentleman in the neighbourhood. Amongst others, a Mr. John Rogers, a cattle dealer, attended the sale, and purchased forty sheep, and a Mr. Lillicrap purchased. At the same sale, the prisoner purchased thirty-one sheep. An agent of Mr. Hoblyn gave permission to Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lillicrap to put their sheep (ninety-one in number) into one of Mr. Hoblyn’s fields. The sale took place on Wednesday the 2nd of November, and the sheep remained in the field till the following Monday, when one of Rogers’s men and Lillicrap’s boy were sent to drive the sheep to St. Cleer, a distance of ten miles. Instead, however, of driving only the ninety-one sheep, they drove away all they found in the field, which included the thirty-one which the prisoner, Whiting, had bought at the sale. A day or two afterwards, Whiting told Rogers his sheep had been driven to St. Cleer, and he asked Rogers to bring them back, but he did not do so. The sheep were placed in a field belonging to Mr. Harvey of St. Cleer, who afterwards brought an action in the county court of Liskeard against Mr. Whiting, for recovery of 12s. for the keep of his sheep, and he obtained a verdict for that amount with costs. After this, Whiting brought an action in the Bodmin county court, to recover damages from Rogers, incurred, as he alleged, in consequence of his sheep having been driven to St. Cleer by Rogers’s man. He claimed in the county court £1 19s., which included the cost of keep he had been made to pay by Honey (sic), and the law charges attending Honey’s action against him; and he further claimed, by reason of the removal of thirty-one sheep at 4s. per head, £6 4s., making his claim altogether £8 3s. The 4s. per head claimed was because of injury which he stated had been done to the sheep, and the loss he had sustained in consequence, when they were afterwards sold. It was because of these statements in the Bodmin county court, that he was now indicted for perjury. The case for the prosecution was, that Whiting, in the county court, gave evidence on his own behalf as plaintiff against Rogers, and that he swore that the sheep were reduced in value through being driven to St. Cleer. That he bought the thirty-one sheep at Mr. Hoblyn’s sale for £62, and that after they had been driven to St. Cleer, he sold eleven of them to a stranger at Liskeard for £12 5s.; and the remaining twenty he sold to a Mr. Matthew Thomas, of for £45, and no more, making £57 5s. That three of the twenty he sold to Mr. Thomas were foot-sore, and could not be driven away, and he had allowed Mr. Thomas for them; and that those three were disposed of to a butcher in Bodmin, but who the butcher was he could not tell. To show that these statements were false, Mr. Matthew Thomas, cattle-dealer, of Camborne, was now called, who stated that in November, 1853, he bargained with Mr. Whiting, at the Cornish Arms Inn, Bodmin, for nineteen sheep at 51s. each, making £48 9s., for which he gave a cheque; and that on the following Saturday he bought a ewe sheep of Mr. Whiting for 36s., making altogether £50 5s. for the score. That the twenty sheep he bought were all driven away; that none of them were killed at Bodmin by any butcher, and that he never received any drawback for any sheep of his killed in Bodmin. On cross-examination, however, he stated his belief that the twenty sheep he bought were not all of one lot; and that he selected them himself from thirty or forty which were in a field. In support of the prosecution, Mr. Rogers, cattle dealer, Bodmin, gave evidence, and Mr. Bishop, solicitor, Fowey, who was attorney for Mr. Rogers in the county court action brought against him by Mr. Whiting. Mr. Bishop produced some notes of evidence he had taken at the trial, and stated that he applied for a new trial on behalf of his client, but the Judge of the County Court said he was too late with his application. He then filed affidavits, and the Judge said, if what the affidavits stated were true, it was a fit case for a prosecution. An indictment was therefore prepared against the prisoner at the last assizes; a warrant issued for his apprehension, and his then attorney made an appointment for him to surrender, but he was not to be found, and did not surrender till four months afterwards. The other witnesses for the prosecution were Mr. Richard Billing, farmer, who was foreman of the jury when the case Whiting v. Rogers was tried in the county court, and who also provided some notes he made at the time; Mr. Matthew Thomas, cattle dealer, Camborne; Mr. John Bate, landlord of the Cornish Arms, Bodmin; John Jessie, a driver in the employ of Mr. Thomas; and William Harris, a constable of Bodmin. Mr. COLERIDGE addressed the jury for the defence in a very able speech. After referring to the respectability of the prisoner, and stating that he was far above any temptation to commit such a crime as had been imputed, he submitted that Mr. Whiting had been very hardly dealt with, inasmuch as after his sheep had been driven away without his consent, Mr. Rogers, whose man had driven them, refused to bring them back, and consequently Mr. Whiting had been sued for their keep. This he thought he ought not to pay for, and he therefore sued Mr. Rogers for the amount, and the damages he had sustained. Mr. Bishop appeared for Mr. Rogers in the County Court, but Mr. Whiting conducted his own case, his attorney being absent. He was an illiterate man, and perhaps did not present his evidence so clearly as a man of better education might do. He made (according to the prosecution) a statement that he sold twenty sheep to Mr. Matthew Thomas for 45l., whereas in fact he sold them for 50l. 5s; and he made that statement; as they say, in order to bear out his claim for damages. This criminal indictment is then preferred against him, by which he is prevented from saying anything in his own behalf, and as no depositions are taken before a magistrate, the counsel who act for him know nothing of the statements that may be made against him, until they come out in open court. If, however; an illiterate man is to be prosecuted for perjury, because in the County Court he may make a mistake, in some calculation of figures, or through confusion or irritation of mind, when under cross-examination by an attorney, and may not be so clear as he would desire,—if a man under such circumstances is to be prosecuted for perjury, then the system of law, whose object is cheap and speedy justice, would be nothing less than a curse to the Country. He would, however, undertake to show them that Mr. Whiting did not, at the trial in question, make any false statement; that the case for the prosecution was a misrepresentation of what he then said, or what he meant to say, and which they might conclude from various facts was his real meaning. He (Mr. Coleridge) should prove by witnesses the real state of the case, which was, that Mr. Whiting bought thirty-one sheep of Mr. Hoblyn; that those thirty-one were driven away from Bodmin by Mr. Rogers’s man, but that three of them broke down by the way, and were put into a field at the Mount, about five miles from Bodmin; that of the remainder, eleven were sold to a man at Liskeard, and the seventeen left of the thirty-one bought by Mr. Whiting at Mr. Hoblyn’s sale, were part of the lot of twenty to be sold to Mr. Matthew Thomas, of Camborne, the other three by which he made up that lot, being sheep of his own which he had not bought of Mr. Hoblyn. It was therefore perfectly true that he sold twenty sheep to Mr. Matthew Thomas for £50 5s., but it was not true that those twenty were all of Mr. Hoblyn’s stock, nor did he state so in the County Court; only seventeen were of Mr. Hoblyn’s stock, and it was those seventeen which he stated he had sold for £45. This would meet the first part of the charge, which was, that Mr. Whiting swore he had sold twenty of Mr. Hoblyn’s stock for £45, whereas he had sold them for £50 5s. Then the second allegation was, that he falsely swore that three of the sheep sold to Mr. Thomas were taken back, and sold in Bodmin to a butcher, and that those three were allowed for to Mr. Thomas. Now it would be proved by a butcher called Bray, of Bodmin, that three foot-sore sheep were sold to him by Mr. Whiting; and it would be shown that those sheep were part of the lot of thirty-one bought of Mr. Hoblyn. What therefore Mr. Whiting meant to say in the County Court (though he might not have clearly expressed himself), was, that twenty of Mr. Hoblyn’s sheep would have been sold to Mr. Thomas, if three had not been foot-sore, and that those three were sold to a butcher in Bodmin. The learned Counsel remarked that the jury in the County Court gave Mr. Whiting a verdict of £2 3d. when his claim was £8 3s., but their verdict (as some of them would state) was given independently of any disbelief of Mr. Whiting; they estimated, as farmers, the damage which they supposed the sheep might have sustained by the journey to St. Cleer. Mr. Coleridge also drew attention to some figures in the notes produced by Mr. Bishop as having been taken by him in the County Court, and that the figures 17 were there, which, though Mr. Bishop could recollect nothing in connexion with them, most likely (the learned Counsel submitted) referred to a statement by Mr. Whiting at the trial that he sold seventeen of Mr. Hoblyn’s stock for 45l. Mr. Coleridge said it was evident that Mr. Whiting had been misunderstood by some persons in the County Court, though there were others who understood him correctly, whom he would call as witnesses; and he believed that after the jury had heard those witnesses, their verdict would establish Mr. Whiting’s character as being thoroughly unsullied and unimpeached. The following witnesses were then called for the defence:—Mr. Charles E. Pearce, auctioneer, of Bodmin, who was in the County Court at the trial; Mr. Mark Guy, farmer, of Endellion, who gave evidence at the County Court hearing; Richard Wilton, who drove the sheep to St. Cleer; William Pearce, who lives at Mount, when the tree foot-sore sheep were placed in the field; George Whiting, son of Mr. Whiting; William Bray, the butcher at Bodmin who had the three foot-sore sheep; Mr. Charles Hicks, of St. Mabyn, one of the jury at the trial in the County Court; Mr. Henry Mills, farmer, St. Mabyn; and Mr. Walter Lawry, another of the jury in the County Court. Witnesses to character were then called. Mr. William Stephens, of Bodmin, had known Mr. Whiting from 15 to 20 years; had had many business transactions with him, and had found him to be a very honest man. On Cross-examination he said he never heard of Mr. Whiting having been convicted of defrauding a turnpike gate. Mr. George Wright, of the brewery, at Bodmin; Mr. Toms, of ; and Mr. Williams, farmer, of Truro, who gave the prisoner a good character; and Mr. Coleridge said he had a great many to the same effect. Mr. COLE replied on the part of the prosecution, contending that Mr. Whiting was not misunderstood in the County Court, and did not give his evidence there under any mistake. He said it was clear Mr. Whiting did not lay his case plainly before the County Court. He claimed 8l 3s. damages; whereas it was now part of the defence that he sold seventeen sheep for 45l., eleven for 12l. 5s., and the three to the butcher for 5l. 19s. 6d., making 63l. 4s. 6d.; thus shewing a gain of 1l. 4s. 6d. on the price he gave for them, 62l.; and yet in the County Court he claimed as damages 8l. 3s. The learned JUDGE summed up the case at great length, and remarking on the evidence, said there were witnesses to show that the prisoner did use, in the County Court, the language charged in the indictment; whilst there were also several witnesses on the other side, to show that they did not understand his language in that way. He could not exactly see that the prisoner made a fair claim in the County Court, for by the sales now stated he would appear to have profited instead of lost. (Mr. COLERIDGE here suggested that the claim in the County Court was for the profit which Whiting calculated he should have made on the sheep, if they had not been driven to St. Cleer.) The learned JUDGE said, however that might be, whether his particulars of demand in the County Court were correct or not, it did not affect the special charge in the present indictment, which turned upon the question, whether he swore he sold the twenty sheep of Mr. Hoblyn’s stock for £45, or the seventeen for £45. He then read over the evidence, and said it appeared to him difficult to arrive at so serious a conclusion as that the prisoner had committed perjury. The jury, however, would consider the whole of the circumstances, and if there were doubts in their minds, would give the prisoner the benefit of those doubts. The jury retired from the Court at ten minutes past eight, and were absent thirteen minutes. The FOREMAN then returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. Great applause and clapping of hands was immediately heard throughout the crowded Court; upon which the learned JUDGE rose from his seat, and said,—this is extremely indecent in a court of justice; if I can detect any person so forgetting himself, I will commit him. The Court then rose. THIRD COURT. (Before Mr. W.C. Rowe, Q.C.) RICHARD MARTIN, 23, was charged with stealing on the 1st of August last, at the Railway Terminus at Truro three calico flags, the property of William Docton. It appeared that the flags were left at the station after being used at a teetotal festival at St. Ives, and the prisoner was at the time in the employ of the West Company as porter. It was not until upwards of five months after, that they were found by Mr. Nash, the superintendent of police, at the prisoner’s lodgings, Chapel Hill, Truro. Mr. MAYNARD conducted the prosecution, Mr. HOLDSWORTH the defence. Verdict, GUILTY. Sentence, Two months hard labour. There was also another count in the indictment, but no evidence was offered in support of it. ELIZABETH HOCKING, 18, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 1st of February last, at Roche, one pair of shoes, the property of Joseph Best. Sentence—Two months’ hard labor (sic). FRANCIS HAWKINS was charged with stealing, on the 10th of January last, at Kenwyn, two pairs of trowsers and one jacket, the property of George Pearce.—GUILTY, Three months hard labour. HANNAH McGUINNESS, 23, and GEORGE HARRISON, 21, were charged with stealing a quantity of pork, the property of Henry Perrow, at Truro, on the 6th of February last. Prosecutor keeps a butcher’s shop, at Truro, and on the evening in question the pork was hung up in an open passage in his house, to which access might be had from the street. Information was given to Mr. Nash, who went and found the pork at the prisoner’s lodgings in Truro. The case was clearly made out against both prisoners, and the jury returned a verdict of GUILTY. Sentence, each three months’ hard labour.—GEORGE HARRISON was also charged with stealing three silver tea spoons and several other articles, the property of Ann Player, at Truro, on the 3rd of February last. The charge, as in the last case, was fully proved against the prisoner; the jury found him GUILTY, and he was sentenced to nine months’ hard labour. There was also another charge against the prisoner for stealing a silver guard chain, the property of Henry Player, at Truro, on the same day. No evidence was offered on this indictment. The Court then rose. ______MONDAY, March 26. (Before Mr. Justice ERLE.) —At the opening of the Court this morning, the learned JUDGE passed the following sentences: [see individual cases above] IMPORTANT CASE OF FELONIOUS RECEIVING.—GEORGE BETTINSON, 16, & ELIZABETH WARNE 60, were severally charged with stealing five sacks, the property of John Reed Rowe, the master of the prisoner Bettinson, at Penryn.—In another count the prisoner Warne, was charged with feloniously receiving the sacks. Bettinson pleaded guilty; and Warne not guilty, and the trial of the indictment against her was proceeded with; Mr. Cole conducting the prosecution; and Mr. Stock the defence.—Mr. COLE briefly stated the case to the jury, and proceeded to call witnesses:— John Reed Rowe:—I am a flour-merchant, carrying on business at Budock Mills, near Penryn. I have stores at Penryn, and discharge cargoes from vessels at Penryn Quay to the mills, about the sixth of a mile distant. In January last the prisoner Bettinson had been working for me as an occasional carter. About that time I missed at least 50 sacks. The mode of business for Bettinson was, that when engaged in driving the horse and cart he would go and return from the Quay to the mills about 29 times a day. Five sacks was the quantity for a cart load; he would take five full sacks to the Mills, and ought to bring back five empty sacks to the Quay to be loaded; and in this way, he had access to the Stores, and often there are as many as 30 sacks thrown over the stairs from the upper stores down to the floor where he would take the sacks from. Occasionally there might be empty sacks kept there, but not of necessity. The prisoner is a marine-store dealer at Penryn; her stores are about 100 yards from the Quay where my vessels unloaded. On the 14th February last, in consequence of some information I had received, I went to Mrs. Warne’s stores; she had a shop on one side of the road, and stores on the other side. Jarrett, the policeman, was there; he shewed me a bundle of sacks there, several of which were mine; I was able to identify them; several of them were nearly new. I said to Mrs. Warne, “Where did you get these sacks from?” She hesitated again and again, as I repeated the question; but at last she said “I bought them of Bettinson.” I said, “Which Bettinson?”—She said “the young Bettinson;” leaving no doubt in my mind that the prisoner Bettinson was the party in question. After that, I went with Jarrett and he apprehended Bettinson, and he was committed for trial. Some other sacks were afterwards shown me by Jarrett, and I identified them as my property.—Cross-examined:—I have been in trade as a miller about 12 years, and have a decent business now; I send out a good many sacks—thousands in the course of a year. Sometimes, some of my customers particularly request that the sacks should be sent plain; and then I send them without mark. When there is no particular request, I send the sacks marked with my name. It sometimes happens that they are not returned to me; if they are not returned, we levy a fine of two Shillings for each bag, on the customer; we never profess to sell the sacks, but in case they are not returned, we debit the customer with 2s. for each sack; but it is seldom we get paid for them. I have never myself sold any sacks to Mrs. Warne. It is probable that the foreman at the Mills may have sold some old sacks to Mrs. Warne, for rags. I have known Mrs. Warne for 10 years; she carries on a pretty extensive business, I am sorry to say. She and her husband before her have carried on the marine store business for some years.—Re-examined:—I never sold any sacks except such as were worn out, and as rags. The marine store dealers give but about a halfpenny a lb. for old sacks. Alfred Hopwood Jarrett, policeman, at Penryn:—On the 14th of February last, I went to Mrs. Warne’s house, to search for some other property; I first searched the room where she usually transacts her business; I did not find what I was looking for there. I then asked her for the key of her other stores on the opposite side of the road; after some reluctance, she went and unlocked the door. When I got in, I saw a great quantity of property there; a portion of it very unusual to see in Marine Stores. A new sack first attracted my attention. There were a great many sacks in that store; 12 or 14 in that particular store. Seeing the newness of appearance of the first sack I saw, I was induced to examine it minutely, and in it were several other sacks; and on the sacks inside I discovered the name of the prosecutor on two of them. I asked Mrs. Warne for her book. Marine store dealers are, I believe, bound to keep a book and to enter their purchases. She replied that she had no book. I asked her for the party’s name of whom she purchased those sacks, and I repeated that question to her many times. She declined to tell me; she said “I cannot tell you; dont be hard upon me; say nothing about it.” She appeared to be exceedingly agitated, and shook from head to foot. Whilst I remained in the stores, she repeated two or three times about my not being hard with her, and that I was to say nothing about it. On leaving the stores, I again asked her the party’s name of whom she purchased the sacks; she again said, “I can’t tell you.” I then told her I should feel it my duty to bring the case before the Magistrate for not having complied with the statute in keeping a book, with the party’s name from whom she purchased the articles. She then told me that she purchased them of Bettinson. I then went and made inquiry of the prosecutor, respecting the various property I had seen; I afterwards returned with the prosecutor to the prisoner’s, and got the key from her and went again to the stores. I showed the prosecutor the sacks that I had found; two of them were instantly identified by him; his name was on them in very conspicuous letters.—On leaving the stores I locked the door and kept possession of the store in which those sacks were. The next day—the 15th February—both Bettinson and Warne were committed for trial. After Mrs. Warne’s committal, I went to her stores and made another search. I found a great quantity of bales of sacking, upwards of 20; and I should imagine that each bale weighted a cwt. or a cwt. and a half each; in those bales I found a portion of the prosecutor’s sacks, cut up. The bales were tied up, ready to be conveyed away; I opened some of them, and found in them portions of sacks belonging to the prosecutor. The sacks were cut up in pieces; and portions of a particular sack I now produce were in two different bales. I have put these pieces together, to match; and will do so now— (The witness laid out on the table several pieces of sacking, each about 2 feet by 18 inches in size, on the double, and the pieces so cut as to separate the letters of the words J. R. ROWE, KENNAL MILLS. The sack was marked on both sides, outside; and was also marked inside. The witness also produced two entire sacks, marked J. R. ROWE, BUDOCK MILLS; which he found inside the first sack that attracted his attention; these being all that he found bearing Mr. Rowe’s name.)—The prosecutor also produced and exhibited to the jury, a large wooden marker with which the impression of his name and address was made on the sacks. Jarrett stated that, with the prosecutor’s sacks at Mrs. Warne’s, he found altogether 20 bales, each weighing about 150 lbs. of sacking, cut up in pieces and ready to be removed; should think there were altogether, probably about 1,000 sacks. (Mr. Rowe stated that each sack weighed nearly 5 lbs.)—Cross- examined:—When I first went to Mrs. Warne’s, I had to ask her several times before she went to the stores with me; she showed reluctance, but made no particular observation; when I came to her house, I told her I wanted to look for some ?--- sacks. She knew me as a constable.—When she told me she kept no book, she also told me as her reason that she could not write. Some portion of the sacking which I found in her stores was old; but the greater portion was new.—Re-examined:—The greater part of that which was new was cut up, and packed in bales; and, in some cases, I found portions of the same sack in different bales. Mr. Rowe, recalled, identified the sacks produced, as his property, and said:—I should certainly not have sold sacks in that state; some of them had not been filled above twice, I should think. No other person would think of selling such sacks; for while there was a piece of such sacking left, it would be taken to mend other sacks.—Cross-examined:—The sack produced, cut up, cost two shillings, or 2s. 2d. when new; and would be worth 20 pence now. Sometimes it may happen that a customer may not return a new sack; but I don’t relinquish my property therein; I do not levy the fine unless there is an admission by the customer that he has lost it. I am sorry to say that persons are in the habit of losing my sacks, where I have not levied the fine. I do not know if the sacks now produced were lost sacks or not, but I hold that I have a right to my sack in any case, whether lost or not.—Re-examined:—Whether it was from me or not, I lose my sacks; I have lost 50 sacks during these two months, and I have no return whatever from my customers of any of those 50 sacks. Mr. STOCK then addressed the jury for the defence. He suggested that Bettinson’s plea that he was guilty of stealing some sacks was no proof that the sacks now before the court had been stolen and, if so, of course the prisoner Warne could not be found guilty of feloniously receiving them. And again, although the prosecutor had sworn that he never sold those sacks, it did not follow that other persons into whose possession those sacks came might not have sold them; and it was quite possible that these(?) sacks came into Mrs. Warne’s possession without having been stolen at all. The learned Counsel further asserted that the evidence did not support the suspicion of concealment of the sacks, or of obliteration of marks. There was also, no real resistance or refusal by Mrs. Warne to the constable’s search; and there was no proof whatever that the sacks had been purchased for less than their real(?) value. Evidence had been imported into this case of the ton or a ton and a half of sacks being found in the prisoner’s stores; but the jury’s attention must be confined to the subject of the present indictment, and there was no proof that that property had been wrongly come by. If the sacks had been old ones, it was clear that there could have been no imputation against the prisoner. It was only because some of the sacks were new that suspicion attached to her; but, in an important charge of felony, a jury must require positive evidence, and must not be led by suspicion merely. The learned JUDGE then summed up; and the Jury, after less than a minute’s consultation, returned a verdict of GUILTY. ELIZABETH WARNE was again indicted for stealing, on the 20th of January, a quantity of sacks, the property of James Mead and another, at Penryn; and on a second count she was charged with feloniously receiving the same. Mr. COLE said he would not have taken up the time of the Court and jury by proceeding on this second indictment, if he had not thought the interests of justice required that he should prove the extent to which the prisoner had carried on her practice of feloniously receiving stolen property; and also the extreme cunning which in this instance, she had practised by cutting up the sacks into small pieces, and particularly by cutting out the marks(?) of the owner. James Mead.—I am a flour-merchant residing in the borough of Penryn. I have in my stock a great quantity of sacks—several thousands. During the last year I have lost about a thousand sacks. In consequence of information I got from Jarrett, the police officer, I went to the prisoner’s stores on the 14th of February; I was shown some pieces of sacking by Jarrett, and I recognized these(?) as part of my sacks. I asked prisoner “who cut these sacks?” and she said “I did.” I observed “Why did you cut up the sacks in this way with my name on them so conspicuous? If you had brought these sacks to me I should have been glad to purchase them at a price four times as much as you will realize in the way you will now sell them.” She made no reply. We went out of this store into the dwelling house just the opposite side of the road, and there I saw a great number of loose(?) sacks not cut up, and I said to her “from whom did you have(?) these sacks?” She made no answer. I said “you must know from whom you had those sacks, and to whom they belong; tell me.” She became very agitated, and said “forgive me, and I will not do such a thing again.” I identified a very considerable quantity of stuff cut up, as being(?) portions of my sacks. I had not sold them, nor authorized any person to sell them.—Cross-examined:—I never(?) sell my sacks; but in many cases they are not all returned to me.—Re-examined:—I lose my sacks, but don’t know how. I asked the prisoner how often her store had been cleared out. Prisoner said, “two or times (sic) a year.” I asked how long it was since it was last cleared out! She said it had been cleared out about the fall of the year. Jarrett, the policeman, produced, as a specimen, ?--- portions that made up one of the prosecutor’s bags. There were five pieces; besides the portion from the middle of the bag, which was cut into smaller pieces, and bore the letters of the prosecutor’s name.—He stated that he found(?) the pieces in different bales. He further produced pieces of at least 20 other sacks belonging to Mr. Mead, each portion having part of prosecutor’s name; and he stated that he had left at Penryn innumerable portions of other sacks. Witness stated that when he asked Mrs. Warne about these sacks, she said she could not say(?) where she got them, but begged him not to say anything about it.—Cross-examined:—I took to the prisoner’s stores several persons interested in property I found there. Mr. Hicks, a flour merchant, recognized some of the sacking as having been sold by him to the prisoner.—Re-examined:—Mr. Hicks’s sacking was very old; it was only(?) fit for old junk. Mr. STOCK addressed the jury for the defence, affirming that, in this case, there was no proof of the principal felony, and that it was possible the property received by Mrs. Warne had not been stolen. The learned JUDGE reminded the jury that there was a count for stealing, as well as for receiving. The jury found a verdict—“GUILTY of receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen.” Mr. COLE stated that there were two other indictments against the prisoner, for stealing large quantities of ?--- from other prosecutors; but he did not purpose to offer(?) evidence on them. The learned JUDGE sentenced the prisoner Bettinson, to twelve months hard labour.—In sentencing Elizabeth Warne, the learned JUDGE said:—With respect to you, Elizabeth Warne, at last your guilt has been brought home to you. I say, at last; for I gather from these transactions that your premises have long been a place for receiving stolen property; and you have the deep and atrocious guilt to answer for, that your premises and your conduct have given encouragement to such men as the one who now stands beside you to turn from the path of industry and honesty to plunder their masters, knowing that at your premises some reward may be given them and security from detection be obtained. I think you have to answer for far deeper guilt than that man has who stands beside you. You have long pursued your career, but you must now expect misery; for, be assured, misery is the consequence of crime. Proof has been given to my satisfaction that you have been carrying on the receipt of stolen goods; and I must pass on you the utmost sentence which the law allows for this offence—that you be transported for 15 years. On the application of Mr. Cole, the learned JUDGE ordered restitution of the property involved in this case, to the several owners. On further application by Mr. Cole, the learned JUDGE addressing Jarrett, the policeman, said, “it appears to me that you have done your duty in this case in a very exemplary manner; and therefore I award you FIVE POUNDS, as a reward for the zeal and diligence with which you have done your duty”.— The policeman of course, respectfully thanked his lordship. JOHN LAITY, and JOHN LAITY the younger, (father and son) were indicted for feloniously breaking and entering a barn within the courtilage and farm-yard of Trevabyn, in St. Hilary, on the 5th of March, and stealing 7 Cornish bushels of oats and 7 sacks, the property of John Laity. In a second count, the prisoners were severally charged with feloniously receiving the property.—(Jenifer Laity, wife of the elder prisoner, and Joseph Oliver, his farm servant, had also been indicted; but the bills against them were ignored by the Grand Jury). Mr. Bevan and Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Buller the defence. Both the prosecutor and the elder prisoner were farmers, living on the borders of Mount’s Bay, about 3 miles from Marazion; they were namesakes and old acquaintances, but not related; and up to the time when the present felony was charged, the two prisoners, as was freely acknowledged by the prosecutor himself, had borne unimpeachable characters; and both father and son, but especially the latter, presented a very respectable appearance in Court. Laity, the prosecutor, occupied Trevabyn farm; and the elder prisoner occupied Lower Colenso farm about 1½ mile distant, by direct road; though there were by-roads between the two farms, considerably longer; the main road led from Marazion to Hayle, passing through the village of and some hamlets; while the by- roads were clear of villages, though passing by some detached houses. Both parties kept horses and wagons; the prosecutor as many as 16 or 17 horses. The situation and arrangements of both prosecutor’s and prisoner’s premises were explained to the Jury by means of plans. As to the main facts of the case, it appeared that on the 26th of February, the prosecutor purchased from Mr. Thomas Roberts, farmer, of St. Levan, 20 Cornish bushels of oats; 10 of the bushels and sacks were lodged in the barn, and the remaining 10 in an unoccupied dwelling-house forming part of the premises. Both buildings were locked; and on Sunday morning the 4th of March, after previous removal of 3 bushels, 7 bushels in sacks were still remaining in the barn. On Monday morning the 5th of March, a labourer was sent to the barn to take out another bushel; and on going there, he found that all the oats and sacks were gone, and he experienced considerable difficulty in using the key of the barn-door lock. On this, a search was made for tracks of any person or persons who might have been there. The barn-door opened into a mowhay; but, near the door had been placed a heap of turnips, and consequently, at this spot the straw was not so thick as to prevent the earth receiving impressions of footsteps; and the tracks were observed of two men—one with nails, and the other without. These tracks were traced, to and fro, through a meadow, and to place where there were other marks that showed the oats had there been put into a cart; and the marks of cart-wheels, with peculiarities in their wear and deficiency of brads by which the strikes were fastened, were traced on by-roads, from and to Colenso farm. It happened that the Friday and Saturday had been dry days, and the weather was also dry until past 12 o’clock on Sunday night, after which time the roads got into a state fitted to take the prints of a horse and of wheels; and it was further proved that the impression of the cart-wheels returning into Colenso farm- place was stronger than that of the out-going wheels; leading to the inference that it passed out empty and returned loaded; the exit and the entrance being by different ways. The parties making search, then, looking round Colenso farm yard, found a cart with earth about its body, and oats sticking to parts of the earth; and on some earth in the bottom of the cart were marks as of sacks having rested there. But on the cart so found, were broad wheels, not suiting the wheel tracks which had been observed. The body of the cart, however, was dirty and considerably wetted; while the broad wheels on it were dry, and there was a mark on one of them which attracted attention,—there was a mark as if a man with a duck frock on had pressed his knee against the nave, to force on the wheel. That would indicate that the wheels had been recently changed; and, on searching around the mowhay, the prosecutor found two narrow wheels that were wet, and thus far answering to the condition of the cart. Changing the wheels, it was found that the narrow wheels fitted exactly to the cart, and also corresponded precisely with the wheel tracks before observed, as leading to Trevabyn farm yard and thence back to Colenso. After this, it was thought advisable to have a search warrant. The farm-house at Colenso was divided into two parts, perfectly distinct except as to one door-way on the floor; and in the part of the house occupied by the boys of the family and the men-servants, there was found in the bed-room of the younger prisoner a quantity of oats. (A sample of these oats was submitted to the jury, together with samples from the stock of Mr. Roberts of St. Levan, and from the prosecutor’s lot of 10 bushels which had been placed in his dwelling-house; and evidence was given of peculiarity in the oats sold by Mr. Roberts to prosecutor, as to their imperfect kerning from having lain a long time).—It was proved by a witness called Symons living near one of the bye-roads referred to, that about half-past 12 o’clock on the Sunday night, he heard a horse and cart going along trotting, in the direction from Colenso to Trevabyn, and the voices of two men in the cart; and, according to another witness named Burgan, he, about 2 o’clock, heard a horse and cart on the other by-road, in the direction from Trevabyn to Colenso, and apparently loaded. There was little travelling on these roads even by day; and it seemed quite out of course to hear travelling there between half-past 12 and 2 on Sunday night.—The oats found in the younger prisoner’s bed room on the Monday morning were not measured till the following day; and then it was found that instead of 7 bushels there was about 6. In explanation of this apparent discrepancy, the learned Judge suggested the possibility that parties interested in disposing of the property might have given oats to animals on Colenso farm; and his lordship remarked on the fact that the sacks had not been found, and on the probability that they had been quickly deposed of as being more easily capable of identification than the oats.—The oats being thus traced, the prosecutor, having first seen the elder prisoner on the Monday morning ploughing on his farm, afterwards spoke to him on his coming into the house to dinner; and the prisoner asked him if he had ever heard any thing dishonest of him. The prosecutor replied, “I have not; but I complain of your keeping such a dishonest lot about you.” The prisoner at this time said he had only one sort of oats; but, after dinner, he said he had two sorts. (The inference was suggested that, in the interval, he had been informed of the discovery which had been made in his son’s chamber). The prosecutor, in his testimony on this part of the case, added that at this time the elder prisoner said very little and seemed cast down.—As regards the younger prisoner, there was evidence that on the 3rd of March, he told a wagon-driver called Michell that they (the Laitys, of Colenso) were giving their horses nothing but stew (turnips), and that they had no oats thrashed for them. It was also proved that the man Oliver, who had been indicted with the two prisoners, had been in the employment of the prosecutor and knew all the arrangements of his farm; and that at the time of the alleged robbery he was in the employ of the elder prisoner and slept in the same room with one of the sons; and the suggestion, on the part of the prosecution, was, that Oliver probably supplied the information as to prosecutor’s oats, and was one of the two men whose voices were heard in the cart on the Sunday night.—The above being the main facts in the case for the prosecution, it was alleged in defence that the two prisoners were men of previously unimpeachable character, and their position and circumstances were such as to rebut the supposition of their being driven to such a crime as was charged against them, either by want or any other motive. Witnesses were called to prove that neither of the prisoners was out of their house for the night. It was not imputed by the prosecution that the father was out; and as regards the younger prisoner, his elder brother, Henry, stated that he and his brother John went to bed together about half-past nine on Sunday night; and that he (Henry) not sleeping for the night, could state that John was not out of bed for the night, and that he heard no sound, in the night, of a cart or any thing else. A younger brother, Zaccheus, who slept in the room with the servant Oliver, stated that he heard nothing whatever in the course of the night; and similar evidence was given by a female servant, Catherine , who slept in the other part of the house.— Henry Laity further stated that the oats found in his brother’s bed room had been in that room five or six weeks before the 5th of March, and that they came from his father’s mowhay, and were thrashed in his barn, and that he (Henry) helped to winnow them. He also stated that his father grew two sorts of oats in his field, Potato oats, and Polands; and that these were placed in different parts of the same mow; that oats had previously been kept in his bed-room, and that none were ever kept in the lumber- room.—With regard to the condition of the cart referred to in the case for the prosecution, this witness stated that it had been used on the Friday for carrying dung, that the shafts had been broken off, and that the narrow wheels used when carrying dung had been changed on the Saturday for broad wheels for water-carting.—This evidence was, however, contradicted in greater part by witnesses for the prosecution.—The whole case was very carefully summed up by the learned Judge.—The jury consulted together in their box, for about a quarter of an hour; and returned as their verdict that both prisoners were guilty of receiving stolen goods.—Sentence deferred. The case occupied upwards of 8 hours; and the Court rose at about half past 8. The case excited some interest, from the respectability of the prisoners; but the details of its evidence were intricate and wearisome. ______TUESDAY, MARCH 27. (Before Mr. Justice Erle.) THE CASE OF STEALING OATS.—The learned JUDGE passed sentence this morning on John Laity and John Laity the younger, who were convicted yesterday of feloniously receiving oats stolen from Mr. John Laity, of Trevabyn, St. Hilary. The learned JUDGE said,—John Laity the younger, you stand convicted of this offence on evidence which leaves no doubt in my mind of your criminality. I see standing at the bar the son and the father, and I have not the least doubt that the son is the man who is deeply culpable. You, the son, with another, or with others, I believe I am justified in saying, are at the bottom of this atrocious crime, committed without the least need or anything of the kind as a palliation on your part. Placed in a respectable position, belonging to a respectable family, you go out and take your neighbour’s property, and from the course of the transaction I cannot but think that this was only a part of a habit of crime; and then, when you are brought to answer for it, you bring almost every member of your family, and children of a tender age, wilfully to perjure themselves to screen you. For such an offence, I cannot but order that you shall undergo penal servitude for four years.—With respect to you John Laity the elder, I am convinced that you have been rightly convicted according to law. When a felony such as this has been committed, it is the duty of every honest man to side with the honest part of the community, and to let a criminal be brought to justice; but I cannot fail to perceive, if you had done that duty, you would have done it under circumstances extremely painful. You would have had to sacrifice your son, perhaps to sacrifice a person standing if possible in still nearer relationship to you. I am told by the prosecutor and by those concerned for you, and it was proved at the trial, that up to the hour of this transaction, you have been reputed a thoroughly honest man, and were, as far as I am informed, in fact, a thoroughly honest man. It was that man at your side, and another man against whom there is not sufficient evidence, but who at a future day may be brought here,—it was others who were at the bottom of this transaction, and when the property was brought to your house, you chose to violate the law rather than to take the sad alternative of sacrificing your nearest relations. I am assured that you are a person of high respectability, and I hope I am justified in the belief that the transaction was done without your guilty compliance, and that you had not the least intention of violating the law. The verdict and conviction are right, but under the circumstances I feel the public will think I have not done wrong (my own mind goes to that opinion) in saying that by that verdict and conviction law and public justice have been satisfied, and that I am not required to pass a sentence more than in fact nominal in relation to the crime. I order you therefore to be imprisoned for one week. CHARGE OF RIOT AND ASSAULT.—HENRY ROWE, carpenter, JOHN COLEMAN, cordwainer, THOMAS STEPHENS, cabinet-maker, and JAMES BLAMEY, miner, were indicted for unlawfully breaking and entering a certain house in Bore Street, Bodmin, on the 22nd of January, in the peaceable possession of Edward Cocking, and for forcibly expelling him from the premises. In another count, the prisoners were charged with riot; and in a third count with assaulting Edward Cocking. Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. BULLER appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. STOCK for the defence. Mr. COLERIDGE had commenced stating the case for the prosecution, when Mr. STOCK objected to the question of title being entered upon in trying the case, and this led to a conversation between the court and the learned counsel, which ended in a suggestion by Mr. COLERIDGE that his lordship should read over the depositions of two of the witnesses, Rosevear and Cocking; after doing which the learned JUDGE said,—I most distinctly state that if what these witnesses have deposed to be now proved, I shall recommend the jury to acquit the prisoners, because it appears to me to be a case of doubtful title, a dispute between the parties, where each party is forcibly standing upon what he believes to be right. I think it is a question which ought to be tried before a civil tribunal. If Cocking should prove what is here put down, I might say to the jury that the scenes of violence had better be avoided, but as to the parties being guilty of a misdemeanour against the Queen’s peace, I should not be justified in so putting it; and if notwithstanding that they should be found guilty, I should discharge them with a nominal fine.—Mr. COLERIDGE said, after this intimation from his lordship, he certainly should not offer evidence on the part of the prosecution.—His LORDSHIP then directed the jury to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY, which was accordingly done, and the prisoners were discharged. BURGLARY.—JOSIAH TUCKER, 19, was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of John Worth Pearse, at Bodmin, on the night of the 20th of July last, and stealing £22, a cash box, and two neckties. Mr. Cole and Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; Mr. Carter defended the prisoner. The prosecutor in this case, at the time of the burglary and robbery, carried on business as a draper in Fore-street, Bodmin, in partnership with his father, Mr. Thomas Pearse. The prisoner was apprentice to George Best, a blacksmith, living in Coach’s Lane leading out of the Fore-street, just above Oliver’s Hotel.—The case was one of circumstantial evidence, and, as many as 17 witnesses being examined for the prosecution, it occupied the court nearly six hours. According to the evidence of members of Mr. Pearse’s family and of an assistant, it appeared that on the night of the 24th July, the doors and shutters of the shop had been securely fastened; but the cash-box, locked, was left on the desk, where it was seen as late as 11 o’clock by Henry Pearse, a younger brother of John Worth Pearse, who went into the shop at that hour for a key, which he found lying on the cash-box on the desk.—(The usual practice was to remove the cash-box into John Worth Pearse’s bed-room, inside the shop.) About 6 o’clock on the following morning, Lewis Pearse, another younger brother of J.W. Pearse, on getting up, went out of the house at the back and thence round to the front, and saw that one of the shop-shutters was taken down; it was the lower of the three shutters in front of the door which formed a straight line at night from window to window. He went into the shop at this entrance, and thence to his bed-room, where he informed his bed-fellow, Julyan, an assistant, of what he had observed; and in a very short time Mr. Worth Pearse came and examined the shop and premises, and found that the cash-box, which had been left on the desk, was stolen.—In the course of the preceding day, Mr. Thomas Pearse, father of Mr. Worth Pearse, had been to the cash-box and taken out £10, leaving £22, in sovereigns and half- sovereigns, with a large proportion of silver, and especially of six-penny and fourpenny pieces.—At about 10 minutes past 5 o’clock the following morning, William Bray, son of James Bray, horsekeeper, was at Bree’s Shute, near the stables in Bell Lane, and he was certain that at that time there was nothing in the shute; but in about 5 or 10 minutes, on the boy Bray coming again to the shute, to wash his hands, he saw, lying on the grating of the shute, a cash-box, which he took to his father in the stables; and the father put it in the bean-chest and afterwards delivered it to the constable Harris.—With regard to this part of the case, Henry Bonady, a shoemaker, living in Fore-street, nearly opposite Bree Shute Lane, stated that he got up at 20 minutes past four on the morning in question, and was engaged the next hour in washing his windows (that being the commission day of the Assizes); he went three times to Bree’s Shute for water, at intervals of about 10 minutes after each time; this would bring on nearly 5 o’clock, and the witness swore that at that time there was no cash-box in the shute. It was also proved by Mr. Worth Pearse that after making inspection of the shop premises on the morning of the robbery, he went down Bree Shute Lane with the constable Harris, and there found some papers, and a piece of blotting paper with his writing on it, which had been in the Cash-box the night before—The first witness, in order of time, to any conduct on the part of the prisoner implicating him in the charge alleged against him, was Mrs. Mary Ann Wallis, wife of Mr. Thomas Wallis, ironmonger, living in Fore-street, opposite Mr. Pearse’s; she stated that she had known the prisoner from a boy, and that about 3 o’clock in the morning of Sunday—the night but one before that of the burglary—she heard noises as of knocking or the forcing of some bolts, or something in that way; she got up and looked out at her bed-room window, which was open, and she saw the prisoner standing close by the door-shutters of Mr. Pearse’s shop, and, with both hands, pulling out the bottom part of one of those shutters sufficiently wide to enable him to look in at the side; he then put back the shutter level with the others, and walked away up the street in a stooping position.—(With reference to the possibility of removing one of these shutters from the outside, it was proved by the constable William Thomas Harris, that by pressing in one shutter and pulling out the next, of these at the door-way, where the centre or key shutter was placed, it was possible to move a shutter; he stated that this was repeatedly done by hand, by way of experiment by suggestion of Mr. Charles Pearse, architect, on the morning when the burglary had been discovered. The next important witness affecting the prisoner by evidence of his conduct was Mrs. Christiana Best, wife of George Best, the prisoner’s master. She stated that the prisoner lodged in his master’s house, and therefore received no wages, and that he was found in clothes by his father-in-law; he went to bed about 10 o’clock on the night of the 24th July; about half-past 11, there being much lightning, she went into the room in which the prisoner and a fellow-apprentice slept, for the purpose of moving a looking- glass, which, it appears, Mrs. Best considered was in danger from the lightning; on her entering the room, both lads appeared to be fast asleep, but the prisoner was sleeping on the bed with all his clothes on, except his shoes; he had on a dark velveteen coat and dark corduroy trowsers; the following morning at breakfast time, Mrs. Best asked him what was his reason for lying on the bed with his clothes on; he answered that he had relaxed bowels, and that he kept on his dress in order to be ready to go out, as he had been obliged to do twice that night; there was no privy or water-closet in the house.— George Best, the master, stated that the prisoner came to his work at 6 o’clock on the morning of the burglary, but he made no complaint of his having been unwell in the night, until breakfast time when Mrs. Best made enquiry of him as above stated. Mr. Best further stated that, just about day-break on the morning of the robbery (when the sun rose shortly after 4) he heard footsteps in and from the prisoner’s room, and, as he believed, he heard the prisoner go out of the house; and in about ¾ of an hour he heard the footsteps of a person returning into the house and going to the prisoner’s chamber.— Jane Chapman, a servant of Miss Martyn, in Fore-street, living nearly opposite the lane in which Best lives, stated that on the morning of the burglary she had got up early to prepare for washing; and, hearing a noise of navvies passing down the street about 4 o’clock, she went to the fore door, and saw the prisoner lounging against the wall at the entrance of the passage leading down to Mr. Best’s; he had on a black velvet coat and a dark-coloured cap.—Henry Rowe stated that, about 5 o’clock, he came from Bore-street into Fore-street; and, down the passage leading to Best’s, he saw two young men, apparently in conversation; one of them was the prisoner, and he appeared to be taking something from his pocket and handing it to the other; they stopped there two or three seconds and then, seeing that they were observed, they came up the passage towards the street.—Henry Bonady, in addition to his evidence previously referred to, stated that about 5 o’clock, as he was washing his windows, he saw Caroline May, (another witness in the case) driving down the street on her way home from St. Kew; and shortly after that he saw the prisoner, dressed in black velvet jacket and dark cloth cap, standing between Oliver’s Hotel and Bree Shute-lane. This evidence of Bonady’s as to the time when he saw Mrs. May, was important inasmuch as she, relying on her own clock, was very positive that it was about half- past 5 when she drove down the street. Caroline May, dealer in fruit &c., stated that she was at St. Kew on the 24th of July, and was returning down the Fore-street, Bodmin, in a donkey-cart, on the morning of the 25th; she passed Mr. Pearse’s shop at about half-past 5; she saw that a shutter was down; she looked into the shop and saw a shortish man there with a dark, short coat on, but she could not tell who the man was; at this time she saw Mr. Bonady at his shop cleaning his window.—It appeared that, after the date of the robbery, there was a considerable change in the habits of the prisoner. From the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Best, it appeared that for some weeks before the 24th of July, he had been working without wages, as his master lodged and boarded him; and, in further proof of his want of money, his fellow-apprentice, Thomas Rogers, stated that the prisoner had owed him, from the Christmas preceding, sixpence, and though Rogers frequently asked him for it, he could not get paid, until after the date of the robbery. After that date, Rogers saw the prisoner in possession of money, and especially, of a considerable number of sixpenny and fourpenny pieces; and on the 31st of July, the prisoner counted out, in the blacksmith’s shop, in the presence of Rogers, 8l. 8s., consisting of sovereigns, and half-sovereigns, and silver.—Both this witness Rogers and Mr. and Mrs. Best stated that after the date of the robbery, the prisoner purchased a variety of articles of clothing and a watch; on one occasion he was seen tossing with a half-crown; and, on some occasions subsequent to the robbery, his master had observed him intoxicated, which, it appeared, had not been the case with him previously. A curious instance of luxury and extravagance, after the robbery, was deposed to by the witness Rogers—that prisoner pre-paid him sevenpence for cleaning his boots for six weeks!—At the time the prisoner was apprehended by the constables Harris and William Bray, on the 7th August, at his master’s workshop, Bray told him what he was charged with, and asked him if he had any money; prisoner replied that he had none. Bray then said, “if I find any money here then, it is not yours?” and to this the prisoner assented. Bray then found in his bed-room, various articles of new clothing, which he produced; and stated that, in one of the pockets of a new waistcoat he found a watch, and in the other pocket a purse containing two sovereigns, three half sovereigns, three shillings and three sixpences. The learned JUDGE, in summing up, submitted the case as one of strong circumstantial evidence against the prisoner; and the jury, in less than five minutes, returned a verdict of GUILTY.—Sentence, four years penal servitude. This concluded the business of the assizes. The following bills were ignored:— JOSEPH BARNES, indicted with William Sincock, for stealing harness, the property of John Lenderyou the younger, at Truro. WILLIAM EVANS, indicted with Charles Evans and John Waters, for stealing tarpaulin, the property of George Rawlings at Kea. THOMAS HILL, charged with shooting and wounding Mark Newer, at Pill, in the parish of Lanlivery, on the 9th of September. JOHN LAPHAM, THOMAS KENDALL, JOHN KENDALL, EDMUND WHITING, and FRANCIS MOORE, indicted with four others against whom true bills were found, for a riot, and for assaulting Edward Cocking, and expelling him from possession of a dwelling-house, in Bore-street, Bodmin. JENNIFER LAITY and JOSEPH OLVER, indicted with John Laity, and John Laity the younger, for stealing oats. HENRY SPURRELL—Bestiality. ______—Mr. Justice Erle proceeded, on Tuesday morning, to Taunton, via Plymouth.—Mr. Justice Crowder was unable to take the journey till Wednesday forenoon. His lordship looked unwell on his arrival at Bodmin; and, after his return, on Saturday evening, from the Court to the Mayoralty-house, he was unable to leave his rooms during the remainder of the Assize.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 6 April 1855

3. Easter Sessions These Sessions were opened on Tuesday last, at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— JOHN KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman. Lord Vivian Thomas Hext, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bt. E. Coode, jun., Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. T. J. A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. E. Stephens, Esq. C. B. G. Sawle, Esq., M.P. W. C. Rowe, Esq. Gordon W. F. Gregor, Esq. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. John Tremayne, Esq. J. Thomas H. Peter, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. J. Borlase, Esq. C. G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. W. R. C. Potter, Esq. Colonel Polwhele S. Nowell Usticke, Esq. J. S. Enys, Esq. R. Johns, Esq. H. Prynn Andrew, Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. H. J. M. St. Aubyn, Esq. Rev. C. M. Edward Collins W. Rashleigh, jun., Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. F. J. Hext, Esq. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. Morris Wilton, foreman. — Richard Coomb, Bodmin. — Simon Cook, St. Martins. — Charles Curtis, St. Winnow. — Matthew Doney, St. Cleer. — William Grose, St. Kew. — Joseph Grigg, . — John Hoyle Geach, St. Winnow. — Edmund Harry, St. Mabyn. — William Jeffery, St. Winnow. — William John Lucas, Bodmin. — Francis Mabley, St. Minver. — Nicholas Moon, St. Winnow. — William Penrose, St. Teath. — Frank Parkyn, St. Veep. — John Rickard, St. Mabyn. — Philip Riddell, Cardynham. — Abraham Scantlebury, West Looe. — John Sleeman, St. Neot. — Robert Thomas, East Looe. — Thomas Williams, St. Mabyn. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— Mr. R. H. Andrew, St. Mabyn; and Mr. James El--?. Bodmin. After disposal of the usual preliminary business, the CHAIRMAN delivered his charge to the Grand Jury [not transcribed] [Page damaged and a portion is illegible, including CORONERS’ BILLS.] GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE LAST QUARTER:— Subsistence £325 4 5 Clothing 88 9 9 Bedding 31 16 10 Fuel 64 17 9 Sundries 99 15 5 Salaries 306 9 0 Pensioned Warder 6 0 0 Paid prisoners on discharge 7 18 6 Expenses of Sessions 16 19 0 Female Singers 1 0 0 Whipping 0 15 0 Paid to the Bodmin Town Council 2 2 0 951 9 10 Credit for maintenance of Thomas Hearle, a deserter 1 1 6 Total current expenditure 950 8 4 Repairs 3 12 8 £954 1 0 Hall expenses, 9l. 18 0d. GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor, in his report, read by the Chairman, stated that he had much satisfaction in being able to give a favourable account of the prisoners, as regarded both their health and behaviour. The late inclement season had prevented his proceeding with mining stone for forming the new road, as fast as could be desired; but he was now using every exertion in getting on with the work and hoped soon to make further progress.—Attached to the report, was the the (sic) governor’s usual certificate—that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with. Several of the airing yards and passages required re-paving; some of the roofs continued in a very bad state; and some of the floors and partitions of the dormitories required repairs; but in other respects the prison continued very much in the same state as before reported. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF PRISONERS FOR TRIAL AT THE EASTER SESSIONS, 1854 and 1855:— 1854 1855 For Felonies, in custody 4 11 For Misdemeanours 2 none For Breaches of the Peace 2 1 For Vagrancy none 1 REFORMATORY INSTITUTION.—Mr. CARPENTER ROWE said that he, with many of his brother Magistrates, had heard, with great pleasure what the Chairman had stated in his Charge, touching the importance of Reformatory Schools, in order to carry out better, the act relating to juvenile delinquents. As no other magistrate had mentioned the subject, he would venture to ask the Chairman to give them any information he had received on the subject; which might possibly lead to some action on the part of this County. The CHAIRMAN read some correspondence on the subject of the proposed Central Reformatory Institution in Devon, for the four Western Counties, and of a proposed Refuge for Discharged Prisoners; to which objects some subscriptions had already been received.—The Chairman observed that Mr. Tremayne and Canon Rogers had subscribed towards the Reformatory Institution in Devon, and stated that if contributions towards it were made in Cornwall, he should be glad to contribute his mite. He thought it would be useless to attempt to establish a Reformatory for Cornwall alone. Mr. CARPENTER ROWE ventured to suggest that perhaps the matter was now ripe for this County taking action upon it, He had just come from among those among whom the matter had been very much considered. At all the Assizes throughout the West of England, the amount of juvenile crime had been very much commented on; and he was afraid there was no County in which more juvenile crime appeared than in Cornwall; and the more so, because of all the Western Counties, it happened to have the most incommodious gaol. Last year there were in the Bodmin Prison, no less than 78 prisoners under the age of 17. He apprehended that all these were in prison exposed to every sort of pollution, and that this must continue so for the next 3 or 4 years; because, if the new prison were commenced at once, he supposed it would not be completed before that time. It was a matter of urgent necessity that something should be done to stem the torrent of crime, and, he might venture to say to redeem the position of this county. No doubt, in this county, education made great advances at an early period; but he ventured to say that the returns for the three western counties were much in favour of both Devon and Somerset, in comparison with Cornwall. The calendars were before him; and the result was that, comparing the numbers, he found that, in Devon, the number returned as not able to read or write was just one-sixth of the prisoners; in Somerset, one-third; in Cornwall, at the last Assizes, there was rather less than one-half, not able to read or write. He did not mean to say that this return was conclusive; no doubt returns varied very much and this might be quite an exceptional case. But he mentioned it as a prominent circumstance. When he came to this circuit some years ago, this county was considered far in advance of its neighbours with respect to education; but we were now hardly keeping pace with them. In Devon they had the Training Institution, and they had now established this school; in Somerset they had a very extensive reformatory establishment at Kingswood, set on foot by a benevolent individual. He would venture to hope that some of his brother magistrates—particularly those who were in the habit of visiting London—would be inclined to act on the suggestion of Sir Stafford Northcote and put themselves in communication with him. Any efforts which he (Mr. Rowe) could contribute, he should be very happy to afford. He did not think it was fair to fix it on the magistrates alone. He was bound to say that the large Mining Establishments in Cornwall were largely interested in this question. They, bringing together a large number of young people to carry on their works,— they were the people, before God and man, bound to come forward and supply an antidote for that mischief which must occur from their herding young children together. He believed he spoke the opinion of magistrates of the Western Counties with whom he had been in communication; certain he was that the judges on the bench, much interested in these matters, had at heart the carrying out this plan. At present it was a matter to be carried out only by private exertion. The schools were to be established by private exertion; they were to be certificated by the Government, and then the magistrates at Petty Sessions, instead of sending young prisoners to the gaol at Bodmin, to be mixed up with every sort of pollution, would be empowered to send them, after a fortnight's imprisonment, to these Schools. And, what was more important still, was, that the principle of parental responsibility would be established. He knew that in large towns there were parents guilty enough to train their children to crime, or negligent enough to allow them to fall into crime, and he thought these were the very people whom the law ought to deal with. He did not wish to make any definite motion on the matter; but he did think that when Devon, Somerset, and Dorset were exerting themselves, Cornwall would be wanting to itself if it did not do something in the matter. Some conversation, mostly inaudible at the table, took place between the Chairman, Mr. Robartes, and Mr. Rowe. At its close we understood the CHAIRMAN to say he presumed he might write to Sir Stafford Northcote, informing him that the subject had been mentioned here, and favourably received. BRIDGES. The Chairman read the following Report from Mr. Pease, for both Divisions:— EAST DIVISION. Looe Bridge.—During the severe weather which prevailed in January and February months, the work at the new bridge was necessarily all but suspended. Operations were, however, resumed as soon as the weather permitted, and I am happy to add that four arches (being one half the number) are finished, and the piers for the other arches are nearly high enough to take the centres. A third instalment of 500l. has been paid to the contractors. Trekerna.—Some repairs are wanting to Trekerna Bridge, the cost of which will be about three pounds. WESTERN DIVISION. Those bridge roads which I reported at the last Sessions as being at that time in a bad state of repair, were rendered so much worse by the frost and snow, that the 100l. granted at the Sessions was inadequate to put them in a proper state; therefore, those only of them which were in the worst state have been effectually repaired, viz.:— Grampound Bridge Road. Bissoe Bridge and Roads. Higher Carnon Bridge and Roads. Lower Carnon ditto. Mylor ditto. Perran Bridge ditto. The following roads have, through want of funds, been only partially repaired, viz.:— Sticking Bridge Roads. Bridge Roads, and Tresillian ditto. The total amount expended on those bridges and roads is about £130, from which, if we deduct 20l. for repairs effected under an order of the magistrates of the district reported at the last Sessions, the amount is reduced to 110l. as the sum expended since the Sessions, which sum exceeds the amount granted by £10. This extra outlay could not be avoided. Ponsanooth Bridge Roads, which at the last Sessions were in a state not to be complained of, became so bad after the frost that some repairs could not be dispensed with. Cornelly.—l have had stone prepared for Cornelly Bridge road; but, as the piece of road most wanting repair is at the east end of the Bridge, and belongs (as the late Mr. Moorman informed me) to Tregony; and not to the county, to repair, I declined to do any thing to that road without an order from the Sessions. Longbridge.—The magistrates of the district have certified to a bill for repairs to Longbridge, amounting to 13s. 6d. The CHAIRMAN stated that he received a letter from Mr. Pease, concerning the bad state of the Bridge Roads in the Western District after the frost and snow. 100l. was granted at the last Sessions for their repair, but this was found insufficient. Mr. Pease applied to him for advice; he replied that he could not give an official order, but he had no doubt the Bench had such an opinion of his (Mr. Pease's) judgment, that they would confirm such expenses as he deemed necessary. It appeared, however, that the sum granted had been exceeded by no more than 10l.— Mr. ENYS said the excess was not so much as he had expected. THE LATE BRIDGE SURVEYOR.—The CHAIRMAN stated that on the accounts of the late Mr. Moorman, there was a balance due to the County; but a claim had been set up by his representatives. That claim was embodied in a letter which he (the chairman) had received. Probably two or three gentlemen would retire and read those papers. Mr. GREGOR and the Rev. T. PHILLPOTTS left the court to consider this matter; and on their return the CHAIRMAN stated that they had gone through the accounts and found that a balance of £37 10s. 4½d was due to the County.—The CHAIRMAN directed that the balance be paid over to Mr. Hickes, successor to Mr. Moorman. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—The CHAIRMAN read a letter from Mr. Gifford, Inspector of Weights and Measures for the Launceston district, resigning that office, having been appointed to a clerkship in a Bank. Mr. Gifford thanked the Magistrates for the kindness and courtesy he had always received from them, and offered to render any assistance in his power, in the inspection of weights and measures brought to his residence, until the appointment of his successor. The CHAIRMAN took the opportunity of stating that Mr. Giffard (sic) had been a very useful officer; had kept his diary very well ; and had been very attentive to the duties of his district. On the motion of Mr. SAWLE seconded by Mr. GREGOR it was resolved to advertise in the County Papers for a successor to Mr. Gifford. COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM.—Mr. Kendall stated that he gave notice at the last Sessions, on the part of the visitors of the Lunatic Asylum, that they would now require 590l. for certain improvements. He should state that on a former occasion Sir Colman Rashleigh gave notice for 1100l., but on the morning of the Sessions when it was intended to ask for that sum, it was found there was a considerable error in the estimates, and that application was withdrawn, and he (Mr. Kendall) gave notice for 500l. In the mean time the Committee had had an estimate made of such improvements as had been suggested, again and again, by the Commissioners in Lunacy. He was sorry to say that that estimate amounted to a very large sum of money—£3737. It was hoped that by employing the labour of the Establishment, including that of patients, a considerable reduction might be made from that amount, but he should be wrong if he led the County to expect that they could carry out the improvements essential to the comfort of the patients for less than about £3000. One large item of that was for heating and ventilating the radiated building. That had been again and again pressed on the Committee by the Commissioners, but there had been such various opinions as to the mode in which it should be done, that the Committee had thought it prudent to defer it for a time. But the patients had again and again suffered from dysentery, which the Commissioners thought it was possible arose from damp and cold of the asylum, that the Committee felt they could delay that alteration no longer. They put themselves in communication with one of the best men in England—Mr. Haydon of Troubridge—whose estimate was £895.— Then there was certain flooring— a sort of cement— which the medical men said ought to be removed and wood substituted. This would involve a large sum, (about £170.)—When they began, they hardly knew to what extent they might go. He was requested by the Committee to apply now for £500, and to give notice of application at the next Sessions for another £500; and it was not improbable that at the following Sessions he should ask for a third £500. The large estimate he had named (£3737) included the lighting the building with gas, by means of a gasometer built on the premises; but the committee thought it probable they might come to an arrangement with the Bodmin Gas Company for a supply of gas; in which case the Committee would have to supply fittings only, and not a gasometer. But, still, he thought the County must look forward to an expenditure of about £3000, if they would carry out all that was recommended by the Lunacy Commissioners. They laid very great stress on baths and a large supply of hot water ; and the estimate for that purpose was £860. The Domestic Superintendent, however, believed that a large saving might be made on this estimate; and the Committee had written Mr. Haydon requesting him to attend their next meeting, on that subject. In reply to Mr. Le Grice, Mr. KENDALL said the £500 for which he now moved, and the other £500 for which he now gave notice, was for heating and ventilating, and for wooden floors.—He added that there was another considerable item which he had not touched upon; he did not see the necessity of it; the Commissioners had requested that all the doors, which were now of iron should be taken down and replaced with wooden doors. In answer to some observations and questions by Mr. Stephens, Mr. KENDALL said the first application of the £500 he now moved for would be to providing wooden floors; and the balance would be carried on for other improvements that would already have been commenced but for the error in estimate to which he had referred. He added that, as far as the Committee could see, they would require to lay out about £1500 in about 9 months; and probably about £3000 altogether. Mr. ROBARTES thought wooden floors were absolutely necessary for the health of the patients; and also that there was necessity for a better system of warming and ventilation than there was at present in the Asylum. With respect to gas, he thought that might be dispensed with, or at least postponed. Mr. KENDALL said the Committee had generally deferred the gas question, as the least important; but the Commissioners again and again adverted to the cheerfulness of gas as part of their curative system.—Mr. Kendall further stated that the reason why the Commissioners recommended the substitution of wooden for iron doors was that the creeking (sic) noise of the latter, at night when the medical men visited the wards, awoke and disturbed the patients. There were between 2 and 3,00 of these doors. Lord VIVIAN hoped Mr. Kendall would not lead the Magistrates and the public to believe that they were going to give in to all the opinions and wild notions of the Commissioners. He, for one, would not comply with their recommendation to substitute wooden doors for iron; he did not think it essential. The CHAIRMAN asked whether iron doors were not placed with the approbation of the former Commissioners?—Mr. KENDALL replied that all improvements now must be submitted to the Commissioners; but he believed that it was not so in olden time. In reply to Mr. Rowe, Mr. KENDALL said the estimate for gas was £902; but, if the Committee made their arrangements with the Bodmin Gas Company, that outlay would be reduced to about 300l.; and in answer to the Chairman, Mr. KENDALL said the estimate of 3,737l. did not include the anticipated expenditure for change of doors. Lord VIVIAN said the Committee had no estimate for the doors; and he, as one of the Committee, would not consent to adopt that recommendation. It was preposterous that those Commissioners should be coming down finding fault in this way. They came down every time to find fault of some sort. It was quite right the public should know in what way those Commissioners acted. The noble lord instanced the refusal of the Commissioners to allow the windows to be grated. The other night, he believed, some 2 or 300 panes were smashed by the patients. The Commissioners, however, would not allow iron gratings before the windows; he did not know why; he never heard any reason for it. Mr. SAWLE:—If the Commissioners did not find fault Othello's occupation would be gone. Mr. KENDALL explained that formerly Lunatic Asylums were made as as (sic) much like prisons as possible; but now, as much as possible like private houses; and it was a question between the outlay for broken glass, and the cure of patients. Mr. ENYS strongly suggested that, before asking for any specific sum of money, the Committee should state precisely what they wanted to do, and get their plan sanctioned by the county. After some irregular discussion, it appeared, from a statement made by the CHAIRMAN, and assented to by Mr. KENDALL, that the main items of proposed expenditure, are:—heating and ventilation, £895; wooden floors, £170; Baths and Lavatories, £860; Gas, £902; and that altogether an expenditure of upwards of £3000 was anticipated.—After some further conversation, to a great extent in repetition of former statements, it was moved by Mr. KENDALL, seconded by Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, and agreed to—that the heating and ventilating the radiated building be effected at a sum not exceeding £895.— Mr. KENDALL was about to submit a motion, for the sanction by the Magistrates of the proposed introduction of gas, when the CHAIRMAN suggested that it would be preferable for Mr. Kendall to take now the £500 for which he had moved, and to apply it on account of the heating and ventilating; and at the next Sessions, submit the several items of the proposed improvements and the several estimates, for approval by the Magistrates. Mr. KENDALL accepted this suggestion; obtained an order for £500; and gave notice of motion for other £500 at the Midsummer Sessions. APPOINTMENT OF SURVEYOR OF BRIDGES FOR THE WESTERN DIVISION.—The Chairman stated that testimonials had been presented on behalf of nine candidates for this office:—According to precedent in the case of the appointment of Mr. Pease, in 1847, as surveyor for the Eastern Division, a Committee of Magistrates retired to consider the testimonials.—On the return of the Committee, Mr. GREGOR said they had looked at the testimonials, and they recommended Mr. Hickes for the office, because, as he was Surveyor of the Turnpike Roads in the Division, he would have better opportunities than any other person, of inspecting the Bridges. There were three candidates, whose testimonials were very satisfactory:—Thomas Hickes, William Carah, and Thomas Olver. Rev. T. PHILPOTTS:—I beg to propose that Mr. Hickes be appointed Surveyor for the Western Division. The main reason which induced us to recommend him beyond others is simply this:—The salary offered, unfortunately is but small, and we could hardly expect a supervision of 22 bridges, at a considerable distance, except from a man whose business led him into the neighbourhood of the bridges. As to Mr. Olver, l am happy to add my testimony to his perfect fitness for the office; Mr. Hickes is equally competent, and has this advantage—that in the district of roads which he so efficiently supervises there are no less than 8 county bridges on the main line of turnpike road; there are three within a very short distance of the road; and three others within very easy reach; but falling entirely out of reach of Falmouth or any part westward, without making a special journey. H. P. ANDREW Esq:—I beg to second the motion. I have known Mr. Hickes from the time of his coming to Truro as Surveyor of the Truro Turnpike Roads; and I think all who pass over those roads must be satisfied that they have been kept in a condition beyond others, not only in this County, but in other parts of the Kingdom. I have also known Mr. Hickes in other matters, connected with buildings, as Road Surveyor; and there also he has shown that degree of ability that, I think, quite justifies me in seconding his appointment as Surveyor of Bridges for the Western Division. There being no other candidate proposed, Mr. Hickes was appointed. THE MILITIA.—Lord Vivian read the Report of the Committee on Militia Stores, as to the plans and estimates for the necessary buildings and parade ground at Bodmin or its vicinity. The Report stated that the Committee had received a plan and estimate for store rooms &c. proposed to be built for the Royal Cornwall Rangers; the estimate amounted to £1600. The Committee, considering the existing state of the Militia and the uncertainty as to the intentions of Government with regard to that force, thought it unadvisable to incur such a material cost until the Government had distinctly declared its intentions.— The Report was adopted. CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS.—The Committee appointed to consider the Testimonials of Candidates for the conveyance of prisoners from Launceston to Bodmin, reported that though Mr. Sambell, police officer, was a very respectable man, they thought that a policeman ought not to be a contractor for the conveyance of prisoners; the policeman's duty being to attend to the peace of his town. The Committee recommended that Mr. Short's tender be accepted; and their recommendation was adopted. COUNTY BUSINESS.—Mr. STEPHENS gave notice that at the next sessions he would move that the Chairman be requested to proceed to no business, after the first day of Sessions, that is to be determined by votes of the Magistrates. BRIDGE REPAIRS.—The CHAIRMAN stated that two very heavy tenders had been received in answer to advertisement for a Contractor for repairing the following Bridges:— Lot 14, Bizza, Mylor, and Ponsanooth.—Lot 15, Calenick, Grampound, Cornelly, Tresillian, Higher and Lower Carnon, Sticker, , and Perran Foundry.—The decision of the Magistrates was postponed, considering that the tenders were very high, and expecting that the new Surveyor of Bridges would be able to attend to the repairs of the bridges in those two lots until the appointment of a person to repair them. TUESDAY, April 3. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JAMES HILL, 17, carpenter, and JOHN THOMAS, 17, stove-fitter, were charged with stealing five eggs, the property of John Geach, at Levathen in St. Breock, on Sunday the 1st of April. It appeared, from the evidence of the prosecutor's sister and housekeeper, that considerable quantities of eggs and poultry had recently been stolen from the premises; and Charles Lightfoot, a lad in prosecutor's employ, being set to watch, caught the prisoners in the act of stealing eggs on Sunday last, from the bullocks' house.— GUILTY— Fortnight's hard labour each.—A Bill against Charles Hill, aged 19, for the same felony, was ignored. ELIZA WEEKS, 18, was found GUILTY of stealing a plaid cotton dress, the property of Mary Thomas, at Saint Austell, on the 27th of March. The felony was committed on a fellow-lodger.—Sentence, Two months hard labour. WILLIAM EDWARDS was charged with stealing on the 2nd of April, one sovereign, the property of the Rev. Philip Sankey, of St. Columb.—Mr. G. B. Collins conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Elizabeth Ann Sankey deposed:—I am the wife of Mr. Sankey, curate of St. Columb. Yesterday, the 2nd of April I was in my parlour; and placed 5 sovereigns on the chimney piece: that was soon after 11 o'clock in the morning; I left the room about ¼ to 12, leaving the money on the chimney- piece. In about 10 minutes after that I returned, and I found that one sovereign was gone. While I was out of the room, my servant Mary Jane Reynolds came to me.—Mary Jane Reynolds:—l am a servant of the Rev. Philip Sankey. Yesterday, I heard a knock at the door, and, when I came down, the prisoner had opened the door and was in the hall; he desired me to ask the lady if she wanted to buy any rhubarb; I looked into the parlour at the right hand side of the Hall, and there was no one there then; when I had looked into the parlour, I closed the door; the prisoner was then in the Hall; I then went up-stairs to my mistress, to ask her if she wanted to buy any rhubarb, and on my return down stairs, I found prisoner coming out of the parlour; he was a little more than half way in the room; and was coming towards me from the chimney-piece. He asked me to go upstairs with a stick of something black; I did not do so. He then bade me good-morning and went away. I had not gone into that room in any other way than I have spoken of after Mrs. Sankey had left it. There was only one other servant in the house; and she was upstairs dressing Miss Sankey to go to walk.— Henry Coumb, policeman of St. Columb:—I apprehended prisoner at a lodging-house in St. Columb; there was another man with him, who, prisoner said, was his partner; prisoner had a box of rhubarb with him; I searched prisoner, and found on him two sixpences, a four penny bit, and 8½d. in copper, but no sovereign; I then said to the other man, "as you are his partner, I must see what money is in your possession;" he put his hand in his pocket and took out several sovereigns and half sovereigns and some silver. I asked the prisoner how he accounted for his partner having so much money, and he having scarcely any; and the prisoner replied "I always give my money to my partner."—Rev. Philip Sankey:—l did not take any money from any chimney piece in my house, yesterday; I was in the room about half past eleven, or a little later, and I then went out of the house, and did not return till about half past 12. Mrs. Sankey was in the room when I was there about half past 11.—The Chairman in summing up, observed to the jury that, if they believed the evidence, every person belonging to the house was accounted for at the time of the alleged robbery. The Jury found a verdict of acquittal. JOHN CLEMENTS was acquitted on a charge of stealing two rabbit gins, the property of Sir William Berkeley Call, Bart., from a field, in the month of September last. JOHN JEFFERY, 22, miner, was charged with stealing on the 27th March, a sixpence, the property of Joseph Chapman and John Magor. The felony was committed in the shop of Mr. Nicholls at St. Columb, where Joseph Chapman, a little boy about 7 years old, went to buy some barm; and the prisoner stole his sixpence which he had placed on the counter.—GUILTY— Three months hard labour.— The prisoner had been indicted for assaulting the constable who apprehended him; but this indictment was not pressed. JANE JEWELL, 28, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of boots and a bed-sheet, the property of Samuel Bawden, at Truro, on the 22nd March.— Sentence, One Month hard labour. THOMAS SEARLE,21, labourer, charged with stealing a shirt, a pair of trowsers, and a waistcoat, the property of Oliver Glanville, miner, at Phoenix Mine, in the parish of , on the 22d October last. The prosecutor, on the day named, went to his work underground, about 2 o'clock. In the morning of the same day prisoner came to the mine to see for work, and was engaged by a man called Vincent to go underground with him; they came up about the same time that the prosecutor went underground; they went into the changing-house, and there Vincent left the prisoner. When the prosecutor came up, he found his clothes missing. Prisoner did not come to his work on the mine next day, as he had engaged to do, but in February last was in the employ of Mr. Blackford of Morrice Town, Devonport; where a Devonport constable named Perry, went on the 3d of that month, and in the prisoner's absence, received a shirt from a servant girl there, who said it had been left there by the prisoner. Perry afterwards apprehended prisoner at the Keyham Works and took him to his (prisoner's) house, where he was shown a waistcoat and trousers answering the description of the stolen articles. He stated that all the clothes were his, and that he bought the shirt at Liskeard for 2s 6d.—The constable produced the various articles in Court and they were identified by the prosecutor.—GUILTY. Two previous convictions, both at the March assizes 1854, were proved against the prisoner; on one of which he suffered 4 months, and on the other 3 months imprisonment; so that it appeared he had just been liberated, when he committed the present felony.— Sentence, Four Years’ Penal Servitude. THOMAS WILLIAMS, 67, miner, was indicted for breaking and entering a certain building, within the courtilage of the dwelling-house of John Jeffery at Kea, on the 20th of March, and stealing a bag containing a half bushel of barley, about a half bushel of ground barley and oatmeal mixed, about a half bushel of seed potatoes, a guano bag, and a gander, the property of the said John Jeffery.—ln a second count, the prisoner was charged with simple larceny; and in a third count, with feloniously receiving.— Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution.—John Jeffery, the prosecutor, stated that he was a small farmer residing at Wheal Whidden Downs in the parish of Kea, and had a dwelling-house, an outhouse adjoining, but with separate entrance, and a little ground. He kept in the outhouse, corn, potatoes &c.; and at night it was always locked. On Tuesday morning the 20th March, he saw in the outhouse the articles named in the indictment, except the gander which was in the courtilage. He went to bed about 5 o'clock on Tuesday evening, being unwell, and on the Wednesday morning, the goose made an alarm and he went out into the courtilage about half-past 6 and saw that the lock of the outhouse was scat open; he then went into the out-house and found that the various articles he had spoken of were missing; and the gander was lost also. He gave information to Mr. Veale the constable; and next saw the articles (except the gander) at prisoner's house on the following Friday.—John Veale, constable, stated that he went to prisoner's house in the forenoon of Friday, and saw the prisoner, his wife, son, and 2or 3 daughters. The old man was upstairs. When witness told the others what he was come for, they said they had nothing there and the house should not be searched. He then called the old man, who came down. Witness found nothing down-stairs; but on going up-stairs, found a bag which answered the description of the one in which prosecutor's barley had been; it was in an old tea-chest; in another box were several goose wings, two of which were fresh and white. (The prosecutor's gander was white). Under the bed-tie he found half-a-bushel of barley in a bag; and in another bed some ground barley and oatmeal mixed; in a corner of the room was a bag of potatoes in which the old woman was sitting. He then took possession of the articles, and the prosecutor identified all, except the wings. William Matthews, also a constable of Gwennap, assisted last witness in the search, and now corroborated his evidence; adding that the prisoner was sleeping on the bed where the bag of grain barley was found. The prosecutor identified the articles.—The prisoner, in defence, repeated what he had often stated in the course of the trial—that he knew nothing of the robbery, and that if any of his family did it, he knew nothing of it. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, directed that the jury that, as master of his house the prisoner was legally responsible for what was in it; and then spoke of the nature of the evidence, as affecting the prisoner personally. the jury found the prisoner Guilty of stealing, on the second count.— Sentence, Eight months hard labour. SAMUEL POLSUE, committed on the 7th of March, for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards his father, Joseph Polsue, of Polglaze, Fowey. The father appeared, and, in answer to questions from the Bench, made several statements concerning his son's idleness and violence, and in conclusion, swore that he was still in bodily fear of him. Under these circumstances, and the prisoner being still without sureties for his peaceable behaviour, he was ordered to be remanded. The CHAIRMAN, however, admonished the father that it was his duty, before the next sessions, seriously to consider whether something could not be done to settle the differences between him and his son. ELIZABETH TOY, 28, committed as an incorrigible rogue, at Penryn, was discharged; no one appearing against her. APPEALS.—WEDNESDAY, April 4. KEA, appellant; Mr. Hockin. CALLINGTON, respondent; Mr. Shilson. An appeal entered and adjourned at the last Sessions, against an order for the removal of a pauper called Polkinhorne and family. Mr. HOCKIN moved to quash the order with common costs, by consent on the part of respondents. Mr. Shilson consented.—Order granted; £5 costs, and no maintenance. , appellant ; Mr. Shilson. , respondent; Mr. T. Commins. Mr. SHILSON stated that in this appeal there had been a special case before the Court of Queen's Bench, argued on the 8th of November last, and decided in favour of appellants, by quashing the order of removal. On the authority of the statute 12 and 13 Victoria, section 11, Mr. Shilson moved that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench be entered by this Court of Quarter Sessions, as if it were an original judgment of this Court.—Mr. Commins consented, on the part of Stithians, but opposed the granting of any costs, as the Court of Queen's Bench had not awarded any.—Mr. Shilson admitted that he could not claim costs.—Order granted as moved. St. ENODER, appellant; Mr. G. B. Collins and Mr. Chilcott. KENWYN, respondent; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Hockin. Appeal against an order for removal of Sophia Blight, from the parish of Kenwyn to St. Enoder; the order made by the Rev. T. Phillpotts and H. P. Andrew, Esq., and bearing date the 7th December 1854.— Among other admissions in the case, stated by Mr. Shilson, was one by the appellants, that the pauper's father, John Blight, was born in the appellant parish. This was the settlement alleged by the respondents. The pauper was 12 years of age and was now in the Truro Union, charged to St. Enoder. Mr. COLLINS, in opening the appellants' case, stated that he admitted that the pauper's father was born in the parish of St. Enoder, and this would give a prima facie settlement there unless he could set up an anterior settlement elsewhere. The first ground of appeal was that the said Sophia Blight was not at the date of the order, nor at the present time, legally chargeable, and that she being under 16 years of age, relief granted to her should be considered as given to Mary Ann Blight, her mother. (4 and 5 Wm. 4, cap. 76, s. 56). It was therefore, he contended, incumbent on the respondent parish, to account for the mother, who was not mentioned in the order.—After hearing argument, the Court overruled this objection. Mr. COLLINS stated that his next round of appeal was that the pauper had a derivative settlement in St. Agnes, from her great-grandfather, Scipio Blight, who, it was stated in the ground, was settled ln the parish of St. Agnes, inasmuch as he was lawfully possessed of a leasehold tenement situate at or near Whitdown in that parish, and resided and slept in the said parish of St. Agnes, for 40 days. Mr. SHILSON objected that no settlement by estate could be set up on this ground; inasmuch as the ground of appeal gave no information to the respondent, when or in what manner Scipio Blight became possessed of the tenement; and he (Mr. Shilson) further contended that in this case—in which there was in fact, no ground—the Court could not amend. To amend such a ground as this would be, in fact, to make a new ground; which was beyond their worships' power. Their worships might amend defect of form, but not defect of substance. Mr. COLLINS stated that he should show that Scipio Blight was possessed of this leasehold tenement, and that on his death in 1818 it descended to his son Andrew Blight, the pauper's grandfather. He also contended that the information given in the ground of appeal was all that, under the circumstances, it was in the appellants’ power to give, and that it was sufficient to enable the respondents to make all necessary inquiries; and that the statement in the ground of appeal, that Scipio Blight was lawfully possessed of an estate, implied that it was such an estate as would give him a legal settlement. Mr. HOCKING contended, on the contrary, that the respondents had been misled by the insufficient ground of appeal; and that the Bench had no power to amend the ground to the extent that would be necessary—which would be, in fact, to draw a new ground. Mr. CHILCOTT, for appellant, urged that the Court would properly infer from the appellants' statement that Scipio was lawfully possessed of a leasehold tenement, that he had such a leasehold as would give him a legal settlement in St. Agnes; and he further contended that the appellants had given the respondents all the information which it was in their power to give, under the circumstances of the case, so as to enable the respondents to make inquiries into the facts, in the locality. The appellants themselves could not get the date of the lease to Scipio Blight, and consequently could not give it to respondents; but the appellants showed the descent of the property to the son Andrew, in 1818, and Andrew's subsequent occupation of it. Mr. SHILSON replied; and the COURT held that the ground would do; not amended. Mr. COLLINS then examined the following witnesses to prove birth settlement of Andrew Blight, in the parish of St. Agnes:— Thomas Delbridge, mason, aged 77; Mary Juleff, daughter of Scipio Blight and sister of Andrew; and Ann Blight, widow of Andrew.—The certificate of Andrew's baptism in St. Agnes was put in evidence. The Court held, after argument on the evidence, that the birth settlement of Andrew Blight, In St. Agnes, was sufficiently proved. Order quashed; 5l. costs; no maintenance. ST. MAWES HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT.—Mr. CHILCOTT applied to the Bench for their certificate of the completion of St. Mawes Pier, which has recently been re-built. The St. Mawes Pier and Harbour Act, for re-building the Pier at St. Mawes, which had become very dilapidated, received the royal assent on the 2nd Jany. 1854. The 3rd section of that act incorporated a Company for the purpose of improving and re-building(?) the harbour and re-constructing the pier and quay; and with this act was incorporated the general Act relating to Harbours, Docks, and Piers; and by the 26th section of this General Act it was provided that the certificate of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions should be evidence that the works had been completed. He proposed to call two witnesses to prove the fact of the completion of the works at St. Mawes, and then to ask the Chairman for a certificate. Thomas Olver, jun., stated that he was a surveyor and contractor at Falmouth. Last year an Act of Parliament was obtained for re-building St. Mawes Pier. He prepared the plans submitted to Parliament, and subsequently became the contractor for the works. Those works were now completed, fit for public use, for the reception of vessels and landing of goods. The works had been completed in a substantial, proper manner. James James stated that he resides close to St. Mawes, and had taken great interest in the re-building of the pier; he believed he was next to Mr. Carlyon in promoting the undertaking. He was a shareholder in the company. The work was now completed, and he was satisfied with the way in which it was done. Mr. CHILCOTT handed to the Bench a plan, showing the nature of the improvement.—ln answer to the Chairman, Mr. Chilcott said he believed that without the certificate applied for, the company would have no difficulty in collecting tolls for the use of the pier; but the act required that the certificate of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions should be obtained. By the 25th Section of the General Act, he apprehended that when the works of any such harbour, pier, &c., were completed, the company might take tolls; and, by the next Section, the certificate of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was to be taken as evidence that the works were completed. Mr. COODE, junr., remarked that the object of obtaining the Chairman's certificate was to avoid the necessity of calling witnesses of the completion, in every ease where the company might enforce toll. Mr. JAMES stated, in reply to the Bench, that the pier had been rebuilt on the old foundations; it had been finished about 3 months, and was accessible to vessels at all times of tide, both for loading and discharge. There remained no work of importance to be done. The CHAIRMAN having observed that the two witnesses who had been examined were both interested in the receipt of the certificate; Mr. CHILCOTT said it was difficult to get other evidence, as most of the principal people of St. Mawes were shareholders.—The CHAIRMAN asked if the evidence of traders, or of captains of vessels, might not be procured?—Mr. JAMES stated that every captain of a vessel knowing St. Mawes, would state that he was quite satisfied that the completion of the works was a very great convenience. The proposed rate was very small—only 1s. on each vessel coming there. Mr. OLVER, in reply to questions from the Bench, stated that, before the improvement, the quay had washed down and filled up the basin; and, in reconstructing the pier, the basin had been cleared of this deposit, and deepened 5 or 6 feet. The quay had been rebuilt on the old foundations according to the plan approved by Parliament. The approaches were all complete , and all that had been done had been under sanction of the Admiralty; the Admiralty had inspected it since its completion. Mr. CHILCOTT said every assistance had been given to the work by the Admiralty and its architect. The CHAIRMAN said he had no doubt all the work had been properly done. The only question in his mind was, whether the Court ought not to have had witnesses not so much interested in obtaining a certificate as were the two witnesses examined. Mr. JAMES stated that he was as much interested in vessels at the port, as he was as a shareholder in the company. In reply to Mr. Rowe, Mr. CHILCOTT said the capital of the company was divided into £5 shares. We understood that the certificate was granted. DIVERSION OF ROAD.— A certificate by C. W. Popham, Esq., and the Rev. W. Thomas, magistrates, approving of certain alterations and diversions of roads near Wendron Church-town, was presented for confirmation by the Court of Quarter Sessions.—Mr. Shilson appeared to support it —Mr. HOCKIN appeared on behalf of two ladies—Mrs. Kempthorne and Mrs. Childs—interested in land proposed to be taken for the purpose of the proposed alteration, to state that their consent had not been given; and he contended that if the consent of parties interested in land affected by any such alteration had not been obtained in writing, the whole proceedings were absolutely void; and he would ask whether, under such circumstances, the Bench would sanction the proposed alteration by allowing the magistrates' certificate to be read. If the proceedings were, as he contended, nugatory, then the parties objecting need not appeal. He would add that the ladies whom he represented had no desire to prevent the alteration; but they wished for some compensation for the damage to their property. Under these circumstances, he objected to the certificate being read. Mr. SHILSON stated that proper notices of the proposed alteration had been duly published, by advertisement and otherwise; and Mr. Hockin 's clients had had notice. According to the statute, any person aggrieved in such a case was at liberty to appeal to Quarter Sessions, by giving 10 days' notice to the Surveyor. By the 91st section of the Act, if no appeal were made, or if being made, it should be dismissed, then the Justices were to make the order for diversion of road, and that order was to be binding on all parties. He now moved for such order for making this proposed road. Mr. HOCKIN stated that the advertisement was merely that the certificate of the two Justices who had inspected the road and proposed alteration would be lodged with the Clerk of the Peace on the 5th of March; there was, by that advertisement, no means of knowing who the two Justices were, and the notice to his clients that the certificate would be filed on the 5th of March was by letter dated as late as the 24th of February. Mr. Hockin added that he was prepared to say his clients were willing to leave it to any proper surveyor to estimate what damages they sustained by the stopping up their field. After some further discussion, the certificate of the two justices was read by order of the court; and the court then made an order for the proposed alteration and diversion of roads; subject to the conditions of the 82nd section of the Act, under which the question of compensation is left to be decided by a Jury, if the parties cannot agree. This concluded the business of the sessions. ______John St Aubyn Esq., of Devonport, this day qualified as a Magistrate. ______PROPOSED REFORMATORY ESTABLISHMENTS.—With reference to this subject, mooted on the first day of Sessions, we understand that although it could not be dealt with as County business, the chairman and several other magistrates—Mr. Tremayne, Mr. Robartes, Mr. Sawle, Mr. Rowe, and others—agreed to meet in London in May, for the purpose of conferring with Sir Stafford Northcote and other Devonshire Magistrates on the subject.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 6 and 13 July 1855

4. Midsummer Sessions These Sessions opened at Bodmin, on Tuesday the 3rd instant, before the following Magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., chairman; Sir W.L. Trelawny, Bart. H. Thomson, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. E. Stephens, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. S. Davey, Esq. Gordon W.F. Gregor, Esq. J. Borlase, Esq. E. Archer, Esq. W.P. Kempe, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. F.J. Hext, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. F. Glanville, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. Thomas Hext, Esq. Rev. E.J. Treffry. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. R. Johns, Esq. Rev. J. Glanville. R.G. Bennet, Esq. Rev. James Glencross. E. Coode junr., Esq. Rev. J. Perry. William Colston, Esq., of Kennegie, and the Rev. John James Wilkinson, of Lanteglos by Camelford, qualified as Magistrates.—Mr. Good and Mr. Jagoe took the oath on their appointment to coronerships. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:—Messrs. James Gatley, St. Clements, foreman; George? Beauchant, ; John Bailey, Kenwyn; Richard Best, St. Columb Major; Thomas Brewer, ditto; Oliver? Carveth, St. Allen; Josiah Croggon, Grampound; J---? Cobeldick, Mawgan; William Cayser, ditto; George R----?, St. Anthony in Roseland; Thomas Hicks, ditto; J---? Hernaman, St. Clements; Richard Hugo, St. Feock; Thomas Slocombe Hall, St. Marys; Joseph Hicks, St. Columb Major; Samuel Lawry, St. Anthony in Roseland; Nathaniel Lewarne, St. Columb; John Darke Ma----?, ; John Dyer Macdowall, do; William Pla----?, St. Columb Minor; Henry Jenkin Rouse, St. Columb Major; Robert Sowden, St. Mary’s; John Saunders, St. Issey. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:—Mr. John Tabois Tregellas, Kenwyn; Mr. Thomas Thomas?; Mr. William Tom, Padstow; Mr. James Vy---?, Padstow; Mr. Hugh Williams, St. Issey; and Mr. Richard Griffin, Padstow. After the reading, by the Clerk of the Peace, of the Queen’s Proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and for the preventing and punishing of vice, profaneness and Immorality , the CHAIRMAN delivered the following charge to the Grand Jury:—[not transcribed]. VISITING JUSTICES REPORT. —The Visiting Justices reported the continued condition of the prison; that in many parts it wanted repair; that the prisoners were health and orderly, and that the Infirmary had been unoccupied for many months. [CORONERS’ BILLS. —not transcribed.] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor reported that nothing had occurred within the prison since his last report to call for special remark. The prisoners, with some exceptions, had been orderly. The hospitals continued unoccupied, and the health of the prisoners was excellent.—Annexed to the Report was the Governor’s Certificate that the Rules and Regulations for the government of the prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with. Several of the airing yards and passages required repair; some of the roofs are in a very bad state, and also some partitions and floors of the dormitory. —The comparative statement of Prisoners for trial at the Midsummer Sessions 1854 and 1855, was next read. The general result was that in 1854, the number was 55; and the present number, 45.—In reference to Bail Cases, the CHAIRMAN complained that in many cases, the Magistrates had omitted to send depositions to Mr. Everest; for(?) cases dealt with by magistrates so long since as the first week in June, and even in May, no depositions had been received. He had more than once endeavoured to impress on magistrates the importance of forwarding case documents. [GAOL EXPENSES—not transcribed] BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION. (First part, covering Looe Bridge, Key Bridge and Wenford Bridge, not transcribed due to tight binding) —New Bridge.—Some repairs are wanting to New Bridge, the expense of which will probably be about ten pounds.—Tremmaddock.—This bridge requires pinning up and pointing, which I think may be effected for one pound.—Draw Bridge.—The cutwater of Draw Bridge wants some repair, the cost of which will be about ten shillings.—Stratton Drains.—The twenty pounds granted by the Sessions to the Stratton Sanitary Committee in aid of improving the drains in and near the County Bridge roads at Stratton has been paid.—Three levies will be required at the next sessions. (It was afterwards found that Mr. Pease required but two rates. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. HICKS, Surveyor for the Western Division, reported that part of the guard wall on the north side of Bridge requires to be taken down and rebuilt at a cost of 5l. 17s. Mr. Hicks also reported estimated cost for repairs of the following bridges:—, Berriow, Godolphin, Long Bridge, Chyandour, Sticking, Ponsanooth, Lower Carnon, Calenick, Tresillian, Grampound, and Cornelly. Most of these estimates were of small amounts; the total being 36l. 15s. The largest was for repairs to the guard wall of Long Bridge, £13; and 2l. 7s. 6d. for repairs to the coping and guard walls of Grampound Bridge. Lot 12, the Surveyor reported, is under contract to William Callaway, at 3l. a year, and the roads are in bad repair. Lot 13 is under contract to Richard Hosking at 35l. a year; the amount for half a year due to him on the 1st of May, 17l. 10s. has not been paid. Mr. Hicks would not recommend that any money should be expended for any repairs (except at Calenick) until after the Autumn Sessions. He recommended that the work for bridge repairs should be done at once.—There was one levy wanted. LOWER CARNON BRIDGE.—Mr. Hicks called attention to the water lying on the road at Lower Carnon, caused by accumulation of sand and mud from the mines. He had called the attention of the Trustees of the Truro Turnpike to the subject; and the general opinion was, that the road should be raised, jointly by the trustees and the county.—Capt. Kempe concurred in this view; but said there was a difficulty as to the proportion in which the expenses should be borne.—In accordance with the suggestion from the CHAIRMAN, it was resolved that Mr. Hicks be directed to communicate with the trustees of the Truro Turnpike and the magistrates of the district, with respect to the state of Lower Carnon Bridge, and to report at the next Sessions; no magistrates from Carnon district being now present. LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE.—In answer to questions from Mr. KENDALL, Mr. PEASE stated that the parapet walls of the bridge were constantly being broken down by timber waggons passing it, and the contractor had been put to considerable expense for their repairs, which expense had been met, about 12 months since, by contributions from magistrates of the neighbourhood.—Mr. KENDALL also spoke of the bridge, which is very narrow, being greatly damaged by the causes spoken of; and, on his motion, it was resolved that Mr. Pease be requested to report on the bridge at the next Sessions. MILITIA.—Sir. W. TRELAWNY, after alluding to the expenses on the County which the war involved, said his brother magistrates had endeavoured to stave off the cost of providing accommodation for the Militia; but the Minister at War had now written to him, that the magistrates must, and ought immediately to proceed to provide accommodation for the 2nd Militia Regiment, at Launceston. The building at Bodmin, for the 1st regiment, was in progress; and it was his duty now to ask that a committee be formed of magistrates living near Launceston to proceed immediately to provide accommodation for the 2nd regiment; the committee to consist of Mr. Lethbridge, Mr. Pearse, Mr. Rodd, Mr. Archer, and Sir William Call. The letter from Lord Panmure, (which was read by Sir William Trelawny) was dated May 30th, and appeared to have resulted from applications addressed to his lordship by Mr. Salisbury Trelawny, Captain Commandant of the 2nd regiment, at Launceston.—The Act, under which provision of accommodation by the County Magistrates is required, is the 17th and 18th Victoria, cap 105; and the accommodation therein named consists of an orderly or guard room, a magazine, and a sufficient yard or place wherein the men may be mustered for the issue and return of their arms, accoutrements, and stores. Mr. KENDALL drew attention to the report presented by a Committee of County Magistrates, of which Lord Vivian was Chairman, at the last Sessions—that the Committee, having received a plan and estimate for the store-rooms proposed to be built at a cost of £1600, the Committee considered that, in the present state of the Militia and the uncertainty of Government as to that force, it was undesirable to incur that cost until the Government had more completely declared its intentions. The Committee must now either stultify themselves by abandoning that Report, or they must fly in the face of the War Office. He wished to know the penalty if they should adopt the latter alternative. The CHAIRMAN thought the penalty would be the issuing a mandamus. Sir W. TRELAWNY said the last threat was, that the Ordnance would send down their own officer to do the work, and charge the expense to the County. The CHAIRMAN was not aware what power the Ordnance had to do so. After the reading and commenting on correspondence preceding Lord Panmure’s letter, the CLERK of the PEACE read a minute from proceedings of the Committee of Magistrates concerning the proposed building at Launceston. It stated that the proper strength of the 2nd Regiment (at Launceston) was 215 rank and file; of which the largest number yet embodied was from 80 to 85; that the staff consisted of one adjutant, 7 non-commissioned officers and a bugler; and that the committee did not think it desirable to recommend the erection of any building for this corps. This report was made at the Epiphany Sessions, and had been sent to the war office. Mr. KENDALL expressed his conviction that, under the circumstances which had been laid before the government, a mandamus would not issue against the Magistrates, if they delayed providing the accommodation spoken of. He also stated, as the result of inquiries he had made, both in the House of Commons and elsewhere, that the government were about to make some new arrangements with reference to the Militia. He therefore thought it would be unwise to incur a cost now, which, possibly, under those new arrangements, might prove to be useless. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH added that the government were about to erect barracks for one-tenth of each Militia regiment; it having been decided that if any regiment be removed from its county, one- tenth of the force should remain at head-quarters; and at the present time very few regiments were left in their own counties. Incidentally, the CHAIRMAN quoted from a return recently furnished by order of Parliament; and from which he showed that the expenditure by Cornwall for militia purposes had been very moderate as compared with other counties.—In reference to Mr. Kendall’s opinion that the County would be safe in delaying the expenditure for a time, the CHAIRMAN observed that the pressure was from Lord Panmure.—To this Mr. E. COODE, jun., said he should like to know what power Lord Panmure had in the matter; he had looked at the Act, and could see no other way of proceeding than by mandamus; to which, of course, the magistrates might shew cause. After some further desultory discussion, Mr. KENDALL moved that the consideration of the matter be postponed; and the CHAIRMAN suggested that Lord Vivian and the members for the county should wait on Lord Panmure, and state what were the views of the magistrates on the subject of his lordship’s letter. Finally, a resolution, moved by Mr. KENDALL and seconded by Mr. E. COODE, jun., was agreed to, to the following purport:—The Lord Lieutenant having called our attention to Lord Panmure’s letter of the 30th May last, and proposed a committee of the members for the Eastern Division and the magistrates in the neighbourhood of Launceston to proceed immediately on his lordship’s views, it is resolved, as an amendment, that Lord Vivian and the members for the Eastern Division have an interview with Lord Panmure, to express the disinclination of the county to incur a large expense for the second corps at Launceston, for so small a body of militia. INSPECTOR OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—At an early period of the day, the CHAIRMAN said that among the agenda was the appointment of an Inspector of Weights and Measures for the Launceston District, in place of Mr. Gifford. There were a great number of testimonials, and he would suggest that a few magistrates should look them over and report generally which appeared best among them; but, of course, that would not preclude the proposition of any candidate. The Chairman’s suggestion was acted on; and Mr. KENDALL now reported that the Committee found that, of the candidates for the office, 15 were without testimonials; one testimonial was considered “moderate”; two were “good”; two “very good”; and two were “of the highest character”. The two “very good” referred to Mr. Gray and Mr. Paynter; and the two highest were those of Mr. Burt and Mr. Pearce. On behalf of the Committee, Mr. KENDALL requested that the testimonials produced by Mr. Burt and Mr. Pearce be read.—The CHAIRMAN accordingly did so. Those in favour of Mr. Henry Burt were from Mr. Archer, the late Mr. Phillips, of Landue, Mr. Gurney, of Launceston, Mr. J. King Lethbridge, Mr. Rodd, of Trebartha, Rev. E. Polwhele, Rev. J.B. Messenger, and the Rev. Charles Rodd.—Those for Mr. John Turner Pearce were from Mr. W.R. Derry, Mr. W.S. Tate, of London, Mr. Branwell, now of Penzance, but formerly of Launceston, the Mayor, Justice, Alderman, and many of the Town Councillors of Launceston, the Minister and Churchwardens of St. Mary’s Launceston, and Mr. Pearce, magistrate.—The CHAIRMAN spoke very highly of both candidates, as highly respectable men.—In answer to questions.—Mr. Henry Burt was stated to be an auctioneer; and Mr. J.T. Pearce a grocer. Apparently, some of the magistrates held that Mr. Pearce’s trade was an objection to his filling the office of inspector. Mr. H. Burt was proposed by the Rev. T. PASCOE, and seconded by Mr. STEPHEN DAVEY. Mr. J.T. Pearce was proposed by Sir WILLIAM TRELAWNY, and seconded by Mr. E. STEPHENS. There were 20 hands held up for Mr. Burt; and this result placing Mr. Pearce in an obvious minority, Mr. Henry Burt was declared elected. THE COUNTY ASYLUM.—Mr. KENDALL stated that he gave notice at the last Sessions for 500l. for heating and ventilating the radiated building at the Asylum. He had had some idea of now giving notice for more money; but, as the Committee did not meet last Wednesday, he was not in a position to give notice; and therefore he merely asked for the 500l. for which he had already given notice. Mr. Kendall stated in answer to the Chairman, that the proposed expenditure of 1000l., for the purposes named had emanated with the Committee; and they were carrying out as economically as they could, what they considered to be essentially necessary. The CHAIRMAN said it was compulsory on the Magistrates to attend to the recommendation of the Commissioners, but not to those of the Committee.—Mr. STEPHENS, however, said he was not aware that the recommendations of the Commissioners were compulsory.—The CHAIRMAN, in support of his opinion, cited the language of the Act of Parliament.—Mr. KENDALL said the committee were of opinion that the Commissioners were right in their recommendation of improvements in the way of heating and ventilating. The £500 asked for was granted. Mr. STEPHENS repeated that he thought the whole responsibility rests with the Asylum Committee, and not with the Lunacy Commissioners.—Mr. ARCHER, concurring, thought in that case it was in their discretion to grant the money or not.—Mr. KENDALL said it was fair the County should know that besides the 500l. now obtained, the committee would probably require £500 or £600 more to enable them to do all they required. But, to carry out all that the Commissioners required, would cost about 4000l. Mr. ARCHER.—Are not you as good judges as the Commissioners of what ought to be done? Mr. KENDALL.—We think we are; and therefore we ask for £1,500 instead of £3,700. In the course of the preceding conversation on Asylum matters, Mr. STEPHENS complained that printed copies of the year’s accounts of the Asylum for the year ending December, 1854, had not yet been circulated among the magistrates. He had that day made inquiry of Mr. Hicks, the clerk, who told him that the statement of accounts was sent to the printer as long ago as March, and that the reason of the delay was that the Doctor’s report was not ready. It was only to-day that he (Mr. Stephens) knew this; he mentioned it as coming from Mr. Hicks; but, at the same time, as far as he (Mr. Stephens) had known, Dr. Boisragon had been most attentive in every respect, and he (Mr. Stephens) had never had the slightest occasion to find fault with him. It seemed, however, to be his fault that this delay had taken place; and he (Mr. Stephens) thought it most undesirable that there should have been such delay. Mr. STEPHENS asked Mr. Hicks if he had called Dr. Boisragon’s attention to the subject. Mr. HICKS stated that he had called Dr. Boisragon’s attention to it, twice lately. Dr. Boisragon’s answer, the last time, was that he had been very much occupied in altering some of the details of the dietary; but that this subject should now have his attention at once. As far as he (Mr. Hicks) was concerned, he had done all that the law required of him, and gave the account to the Printers last Sessions Mr. STEPHENS stated that, as one of the Committee, he wished to lay the matter before the Justices of the County as soon as possible. —The next business on the Agenda was a notice given at the last Sessions, by Mr. STEPHENS,—to move “that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions be instructed not to proceed with any election, or the transaction of any business, which is determined by the votes of the Justices of the County in Quarter Sessions, after the first day of the Sessions.”—Mr. STEPHENS, having, he said, consulted with brother magistrates on the subject, withdrew his motion; and the CHAIRMAN, referring to minutes of the County Business of Sessions since he became Chairman, in 1838, showed how little business, and that comparatively unimportant, had been transacted on the second day. He added that it would be always his desire, as it was no doubt the wish of the magistrates generally, to avoid the transaction of County business on the second day; but occasionally, it might happen to be unavoidable. COUNTY GAOL.—Mr. KENDALL gave notice that at the next Quarter Sessions, he would ask for power to raise £20,000, in addition to the £5,000 already granted, for carrying out the new buildings at the Gaol. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. WILLIAM STACEY, 34, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 24th of June, a quantity of envelopes and halfpenny books, the property of John Knight, of St. Columb Major. (Sentence: two months h.l.) FANNY HAM, 24, was charged with stealing a fagot of wood belonging to Mary Landrey, at St. Columb Minor, on the 26th of June. Verdict GUILTY, but recommended to mercy. (Sentence: one month h.l.) MARY ANN COUCHE was charged with stealing a hen, on the 31st of May, the property of Samuel Rogers, at Callington. Mr. CHILDS, for the defence, represented that the accused knocked down the fowl with a brush because the prosecutor’s fowls had been annoying her, and that she had no felonious intention. The jury deliberated a considerable time, and then found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended her to mercy. (Sentence: two months h.l.) PASSING COUNTERFEIT COIN.—JOHN RUNDLE, 17, was indicted in three counts, for uttering counterfeit florins at St. Austell. He pleaded GUILTY to one of the charges for passing a counterfeit florin to Eliza Mennear on the 5th of April. Mr. SHILSON for the prosecution, called witnesses, from whom it appeared that on the 28th of March, about ten at night, the prisoner went into the shop of Rebecca Truscott, at St. Austell, and asked for half an ounce of tobacco. He tendered for it a two shilling piece, and received as change 1s. 6d. in silver, and 4½d. in copper. He left the shop, and some time after, Mrs. Truscott found that the florin was a bad coin. On the evening of the 5th of April, prisoner went to the shop of Caroline Scantlebury, at St. Austell, and had half a pound of ham, for which he paid a bad florin, and received as change 1s. 6d. in silver and 1½d. in copper. On the same evening (5th of April) prisoner again went to the shop of Mrs. Truscott, bought half an ounce of tobacco, and tendered a two-shilling piece to Mrs. Truscott’s sister, Eliza Menear, who was then in the shop and served him. She looked at it, and thought it was bad, and called her sister, who recognised the man as the same who had passed to her a bad florin some days before. He was then given into custody of police constable Hart, to whom he said that he received the bad coins from a tall Irishman. Mr. John Broad, a silversmith, was called, and stated that the florins produced were base coin, all three cast in one mould, not made with a die, and that there was no silver in them. Verdict, GUILTY on both counts. (Sentence: twelve months h.l.) THOMAS DARCH, 36, was charged with stealing potatoes from Henry Francis, of Stratton. Prosecutor had a field of potatoes, which was afterwards tilled to wheat, but some gallons of potatoes had not been gathered up, but had been left lying about the field. The prisoner was charged with stealing some of these, and the jury found him GUILTY, though the foreman said they had some difficulty in considering it a felony, as the potatoes were lying about the field in that way. A former conviction for breaking and entering and stealing a peck of wheat in 1850, was proved against the prisoner, for which at the assizes in July 1850, he was sentenced to seven years transportation. It was stated by Mr. Everest that the prisoner had been liberated on a ticket of leave in December last. (Sentence: three months h.l.) The Court then rose. SECOND COURT. Before Sir COLMAN RASHBEIGH, Bart. GEORGE HARRIS, 15, pleaded Guilty of stealing eight hen’s eggs, the property of Richard Congdon, at Quethiock, on the 29th of April. (Sentence: two weeks hard labour.) PHILIP HARRIS, a miner, was indicted for stealing a jacket, the property of Thomas Kemp, a miner, working at Butterton Mine, in Menheniot. The coat was taken from the boiler-house, while prosecutor was at work under ground as long ago as November 1853; and the prisoner was seen wearing it on the 18th June, 1855. There being no evidence to connect the prisoner with the property in the interval, the CHAIRMAN directed an acquittal, ,on the ground, that in that long lapse of time, there were many ways in which the prisoner might have honestly obtained the coat. JOSEPH NANCE, 16, pleaded guilty to the charge of assaulting Mary Hancock, at St. Ewe, on the 15th of June, with intent &c., &c. (Sentence: six months h.l.) DAVID MOOR, was found guilty of stealing a saw, the property of John Slade, innkeeper, at . He was recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor, and handed some testimonials of character to the Chairman. (Sentence: one month h.l.) This Court then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, July 4. Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq. —William Pryce Michell, Esq., of Tavistock, qualified as a Magistrate for the County of Cornwall. JOHN ROBERTS, 35, a miner, was charged with stealing a quantity of wood fencing and other timber, the property of Robert Sharpe and Sons, railway-contractors, at St. Mewan, on the 19th of June.—The prisoner, it appears, lives near the Cornwall Railway, and also near the residence of Mr. Edwin Stevens, a farmer, in St. Mewan. On the 19th of June, Mr. Edwin Stevens, in consequence of having seen prisoner’s wife and another woman at the railway, obtained the assistance of two police constables from St. Austell, and searched the prisoner’s house; they found there some 25 pieces of railway fencing and 5 sleepers; part of which had been used for building an outhouse in prisoner’s garden. The prisoner, on being apprehended and charged, said he had been to work, and did not know what the women had been doing. The sleepers were identified by William Hitchins, in the employ of the Cornwall Railway Company, by means of marks of the metals which had rested on them. Hitchins could not positively swear to the pieces of fencing, but stated that they had been pickled in creosote, like other railway fencing.—William Brooks, employed in the superintendence of a portion of the works and labourers on the Railway, stated that the prisoner worked under him six weeks, about two months since, witness never gave prisoner any timber; nor leave to take any.—The prisoner’s defence was that part of the sleepers were given to him by a driver on the Railway named Brown, for assistance rendered by him on a rough day, in loading; another part was allowed by Brooks, to be taken off the road by any person who chose; while the fencing, he said had been given to the women by a man called “Black Jack.”—GUILTY. (Sentence: three months h.l.) ANNA ROBERTS, 32, and DINAH BRAY, 19, were also charged with stealing a quantity of wood fencing and timber, the property of Messrs. Sharpe and Sons.—Mr. Edwin Stevens stated that on the 19th of June, he saw the two prisoners come to the Railway and break out a quantity of fencing and carry it away; and they then came a second time and did the same.—On being closely questioned by Mr. Shilson, who conducted the prosecution, the witness repeatedly stated that what the prisoners took was from the sound, unremoved fencing, and that they did not take away any fencing, that was loose and previously broken.—On this evidence of the property stolen being attached to the freehold, the prosecution could not be sustained, and, by direction from the Court, the Jury returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL.—The prisoners, however, received a reproof and caution from the Chairman. HENRY STRICK, a carpenter, was charged with stealing, on the 30th of April, 5 lbs. of iron nails, the property of John Davey and others, at Gwennap. In a second count he was charged with feloniously receiving.—Mr. Stokes (for Mr. Darke) conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Shilson the defence.—James Francis, a miner working at Wheal Buller, stated that about 8 o’clock in the morning of the 30th April, he went to the cupboard in the powder-house to look for a hilt, and there saw an open brown-paper parcel of hatch nails. The cupboard was locked; the key was kept by a boy called Vincent. Witness told the captain of the mine of what he had seen, and then went to look for the boy Vincent, whom he found at his home, and then went on to Strick’s house, with Vincent, and told him that some one had stolen some hatch nails from the mine, and he (witness) was sent after him. Strick said “Yes; you shall have them;” he then went up stairs and brought down a brown paper bundle of hatch nails of the same sort as witness had seen at the mine. Strick said, “Here’s the nails I had of the boy,” and he asked the boy to give him back the money; and Vincent gave him some pence. Strick said that he gave the boy a few pence, thinking the nails were stolen property, to try to find out who the property belonged to. Witness took the nails, which were new ones, and carried them to his house; the following morning he took them to the mine, and thence to Redruth, and delivered them to the police constable Hodge. The witness was cross-examined as to custody of nails during the night, when he alleged they were in his possession; and also as to the boy Vincent, of whom he said he had heard that he had been before the magistrates for something else, since this affair of the nails.—John Vincent, 15 years old, deposed:—In April last I worked at Wheal Buller for a fortnight, under last witness. On the 30th April, at 8 o’clock in the morning, I saw Francis there; I was in the powder-house putting candles and other things in the cupboard. I put in the cupboard some nails which I got from the material house of Wheal Buller; I had helped myself to them. I put them in the cupboard, in brown paper. I went under ground that day to work with Francis; and on coming up in the afternoon I went to the cupboard and took out the nails; I took the nails to Strick at his shop, and said to him, “Mr. Strick, I have brought you a few nails.” He said, “How much do you ask for them?” I said, “five-pence.” He told me to put them on the bench, and I did so. That was the bundle of nails which I had taken from the mine in the morning. Strick asked me where I got them; and I said, “at the mine.” I then went and changed a six-pence for him; and he gave me five- pence. I had known Strick for years.—Mr. Stokes:—Did you ever sell him nails before?—Mr. Shilson objected that this question could not be put, with a view to shew guilty knowledge, inasmuch as the second count of the indictment described the goods to have been received by the prisoner, not as stolen by some other person, but inferentially, as stolen by himself, as stated in the previous count.—It was held by the Court that the indictment could not be amended; and on this, it was decided not to proceed further on this indictment, but to prepare another.—The CHAIRMAN directed the jury that, under these circumstances, they must find a verdict on acquittal on the present indictment. HENRY EVANS, 20, charged with stealing one iron rivet, and three iron screws and nuts, the property of the Company; and also two iron dogs and part of a hinge of a railway wagon, the property of Anthony Ritson, at Kenwyn, on the 15th of June.—Mr. Stokes, for Mr. Darke, conducted the prosecution:—George Payne, policeman on the West Cornwall Railway, stated that on the 15th of June, about 10 in the morning, he saw the prisoner near Calenick, crossing the line several times, and stooping, picking up something. Witness went up to him, and overtook him in the wood, and asked him what he was doing on the line; he said he was going to Truro. Witness told him he knew very well that he had no business there, and collared him. About 7 or 8 yards from him, on the ground, were several screws and nuts, which witness took possession of; prisoner had also a bag under his arm. Witness took him to the spot where the nuts and screws were, and charged him with stealing them from the Company; he made no reply. Witness afterwards searched his pockets, and found in his jacket pocket an iron dog. The day previous, witness had seen screws and nuts lying on the ground near, where workmen had left them. They were not there on the 15th.—Richard Williams, blacksmith of Newham, identified the nuts and screws, and a dog, as having been made by him for Mr. Ritson. The hinge he could not swear to, but it belonged to a railway wagon. GUILTY.— A previous conviction at the Cornwall Assizes in 1850 was proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: six months h.l.) SUSAN OSBORNE, 21, and SARAH STREET, 15, were charged with stealing one sovereign, about 2l. 12s. 0d. in silver, and pieces of copper coin, the property of Mrs. Ursula Millett, at Truro, on the 9th of April.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution.—The prosecutrix deposed:—I keep a shop in New Bridge-street, Truro; about two o’clock in the afternoon, the two prisoners came to my shop, and purchased a pair of boots; one of them took the boots, and the other paid the money; they gave me a sovereign, and I gave a half sovereign and a half-crown change. I put the sovereign in paper in a bag, with some silver and pence, in the till, where I had taken the half sovereign from in the prisoners’ presence. They then went away, and I went upstairs; and about two hours afterwards I went to the till and found the money gone.—Phillis Cock, wife of Mr. John Cock, on the 9th of April, kept a grocer’s shop, next door to Mrs. Millett’s. About 2 o’clock, I saw the two prisoners come out of Mrs. Millett’s shop, and go over the bridge; they soon came back, and Osborne stood by my window a short time near Mrs. Millett’s door, and very soon, the other prisoners came out of Mrs. Millett’s shop to her, and they went away again together.—William Woolcock, police-constable, received information from Mrs. Millett, in the afternoon of the 9th April, and went to Osborne’s house, the other prisoner living there also. He asked them if they had been in a shop buying a pair of boots; they said they had not been in any shop that day. On that, he proceeded to search the room, and in a box at the foot of the bed found a pair of new boots such as Mrs. Millett had described; he also found some silver and pence scattered on the bed, and 8s. 6d. in silver on Osborne.—William Joseph Nash, Inspector of Police, stated that he went with last witness to Osborne’s house, and found in a small box 5s. 6d. in silver and 4d. in copper. One of the six-pences and also one of the pence were peculiar, and corresponded exactly with Mrs. Millett’s previous description of them. The coins being produced, the peculiar ones were identified by Mrs. Millett, who stated that she had particularly remarked their peculiarities. After considerable discussion, the jury found both GUILTY. (Sentence: Susan OSBORNE 6 months h.l.; Sarah STREET 5 months h.l.) BENJAMIN CHYNOWETH, 16, was indicted for stealing 9s. 7½d., the property of John James, at Falmouth, on the 2nd of April; but the prosecutor being called on his recognizances, did not appear. PRISCILLA PERRYMAN, 17, charged with stealing 4 books, value 7s., the property of Samuel Lake, book- seller, at Truro on the 25th of April.—Mary Lake, daughter of prosecutor, stated that she assisted in her father’s shop, and that in the afternoon of Tuesday she saw on the counter three books, of Cooper’s Works, and are called the Basket of Flowers, which she missed on Wednesday morning. Had seen prisoner in the shop twice before the Tuesday but not on that day. Mrs. Elizabeth Bradford stated that she was at her mother’s pawnbroker’s ship, between twelve and one on the 25th of April, when the prisoner brought four books in to pledge; but, as they were new boks (sic), and witness thought they could not belong to a person in the prisoner’s condition, witness took them out of her hand, and asked where she got them. She answered that two were given her by her aunt, whom she offered to fetch, and two by young men. Witness desired her to fetch her aunt; and she went away, but did not return. Witness then gave information to Mr. Nash.—William Joseph Nash deposed to his receiving on the 25th of April from the last witness four books which he now produced; and which were satisfactorily identified by Mrs. Bradford and Miss Lake.—GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h.l.) ELIZABETH PETERS, 21, charged with stealing a chemise and a pair of stockings, the property of Sarah Anderson, at the parish of Saint Gluvias, on the 3rd of May, was found GUILTY; and a previous conviction was proved against her; at the Epiphany Sessions 1853, she was found guilty, under the name of Elizabeth Cornish, of stealing a satin gown, the property of William Hoskin Whiting, of Bodmin. (Sentence: twelve months h.l.) ELIZABETH MUNDAY, 20, pleaded GUILTY of stealing at Liskeard, on the 6th of April a cotton dress, the property of Ann Trevena. (Sentence: four months h.l.) JAMES KENT, 40, schoolmaster, charged with unlawfully obtaining, by a false pretence, the sum of 10s. 1d., from Ann Benallick, at St. Austell, in the month of June, 1854;—the pretence being that he was authorized to receive the tithe rent charge in respect to the vicar’s tithes due to the Rev. Fortescue Todd of St. Austell—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Ann Benallick deposed:—I am the wife of William Benallick. On the 5th June 1854, prisoner came to my house with my husband, and he said “I am come for tithe money.” We searched for the printed paper demanding the tithes, and I said I did not think he had brought any for the last half-year. My husband was called away, and he went with him and returned alone, and told me that the money must be got in and the books made up by 10 o’clock next morning, and if I would give him a bit of paper he would give me a receipt. I asked him if he was authorized to receive tithe-rent. He said he was, and that no one would demand it of me again. I dont recollect that he said who had authorized him to receive the money; but I know that he was employed by Mr. Carlyon and came from his office. It is in respect of vicar’s tithes that Mr. Carlyon collects. After having paid this money to Kent, we heard there was a 10 days notice of distress issued out against my husband for not paying his tithes; the year’s tithes had not been paid in; there was a half year due at the 1st July 1853, and another half the 1st January, 1854; after having paid the prisoner the 10s. 1d., I ascertained from Mr. Carlyon that my husband’s name was in arrear for the year’s tithes. I have since ascertained that Kent was not authorized to receive the money. I paid him the money because he told me he was authorized to receive it. Edmund Carlyon:—I am a solicitor at St. Austell, and collect the small tithes for Mr. Todd. The prisoner was in my employ in 1853; I employed him to deliver tithe notices and other matters. Some time in 1853 I discovered that he had been receiving money: I think in the latter part of 1853. I had not given him any authority to receive money; certainly not. When I first employed him, I cautioned him against receiving money; his duty was simply to deliver notices; not to receive money. I think his employment began with the collection of the tithes due July 1852. I was in the habit of receiving tithes at a stated place—one of the Inns; but arrears were to be paid at my office. All sums above 10 shillings were to be paid at the Inn; and sums under 10s. and all arrears were to be paid at my office. Having discoved (sic) in 1853, that the prisoner had been receiving moneys, I told him I was sorry to find that he had been receiving moneys and not accounting for them, and that if I ever found any thing of the kind occur again, he should be discharged, or should suffer for it, or something to that effect. He then assured me that there was nothing more—that he had told me every thing, and that I should never find any thing of the kind occur again. Mr. William Benallack, of St. Austell, is one of the tithes payers; in July 1853 there was a sum of 10s. 1d. due from him for a half-year’s tithes; I never received anything from him either for that half year, or for the subsequent one to the 1st January 1854.—In cross-examination, Mr. Carlyon said he had not the slightest doubt in his own mind that it was in the latter part of 1853 that he desired the prisoner not to collect any moneys; but he would not swear it might not have been in the early part of 1854.— When I spoke to him about his having received moneys, he said 16s. or 17s. was all that he had received. After the caution I continued to employ him to serve notices.—Re-examined.—I have since found that he has received 27 or 28l. in small sums that never have come into my hands; and that, notwithstanding the two cautions I gave him not to receive money—first, when he came with me, and again in the latter part of 1853. Edwin Marrance, clerk with Mr. Carlyon, deposed:—When I came with Mr. Carlyon in the spring of 1853, I found Kent in his employ. It is my duty to attend to the Tithe matters. It was Kent’s duty to take out notices, but not to receive money. William Benallick is one of the tithe-payers on the book; on the 1st January 1854 there appeared to be due from him 1l. 0s. 2d., for two half-year’s tithes; that sum is still due; I have never received it. In January 1854, I sent, by Kent, a notice to Benallick demanding the 1l. 0s. 2d.; not receiving it, I afterwards sent a ten-days notice of distraint by Kent; that was about the latter part of May 1854; I sent the notice in duplicate, and desired him to return me one copy with service endorsed on it. I asked him several times for the duplicate; he told me it was in his house; but he never returned it. He told me that the reason why he was not paid was that Benallick had put by the notice and it was quite forgotten, but Benallick would call at the office and pay it. No distress was enforced, and the 1l. 0s. 2d. still stands in arrear in our books.—Cross-examined. Since I have been with Mr. Carlyon, I have found that Kent had been receiving sums of money; I demanded of him a list of the sums he had received; he gave me a list, but I afterwards found that that list did not contain all he had received; he paid me over some moneys, after I found out he had received them. I never gave the prisoner a list to collect by; I gave him a list of arrears to be paid at Mr. Carlyon’s office. The sums he paid me as having been received by him amounted to about 17 shillings. I believe he never levied any distress after 1853; the last time I delivered him any ten-days notices of intention to distrain was in May 1854; I then gave him about 60 or 70, out of which he returned me only about 15 or 20 endorsed. Rev. Fortescue Todd stated that he was Vicar of St. Austell, and Mr. Carlyon collected his tithes. I never gave authority to the prisoner to receive tithes, and never had any communication with him touching receiving. I never gave him any authority whatever to act for me in respect of tithes. For the defence, Mr. STOKES addressed to the Court an objection on the Indictment. In a charge of false pretence, the evidence must square in all respects with the allegations of the indictment. The indictment alleged that the prisoner pretended to Mrs. Benallick that he was sent and authorized by Mr. Carlyon to collect the money; but, according to the evidence, he said he was come for the tithe money, and did not mention Mr. Carlyon’s name.—Mr. SHILSON replied that it was not at all necessary that the pretence should be in words at all; an act done was sufficient.—The COURT held that the indictment would do. Mr. STOKES then addressed the Jury, stating that the case relied mainly on Mr. Carlyon’s evidence; he submitted that the original caution not to receive moneys was waived by subsequent conduct towards the prisoner; and that Mr. Carlyon’s uncertainty as to the time when he gave the second caution ought to be construed in the prisoner’s favour. The jury found a verdict of GUILTY. There was another indictment against prisoner for obtaining, by false pretence, the sum of 11s. 9½d. from Elizabeth Wilton, at St. Austell.—The circumstances of this case were said to be precisely similar to the preceding case, and the indictment was not proceeded with. (Sentence: six months h.l.) JAMES HOSKEN, was charged with stealing 6 cwt. of hay, the property of Thomas Green, at St. Breward, in January last.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Darke the defence.—The prosecutor and prisoner were farmers.—Down to Michaelmas 1853, Mr. Green occupied a farm called Irish’s in St. Breward; and on his then quitting it, he was succeeded in the tenancy by Mr. Hosken, the prisoner. By arrangement, a hay rick, a mow of oats and other things belonging to Mr. Green were left on the farm; and the charge was, that, in January last, it was discovered that a quantity of hay had been stolen from the rick by the prisoner for the feeding of his cattle; the hay not being cut down in the ordinary way, but pulled out at the side.—The case for the prosecution occupied the court nearly two hours; but, after hearing one witness for the defence—Mr. Badcock, surveyor—the court and jury felt satisfied that there was no probability of conviction. Mr. Badcock, being agent for Sir Henry Onslow, the landlord of the estate in question, stated that the homestead of the farm was within gun-shot of Roughtor Moors, and with fences in a very neglected state, so that the cattle from the Moors might easily break in to the farm place; and the cattle of the Moors were very wild.—The jury returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL. ELIZABETH ROWE, 22, charged with stealing a sovereign, the property of Jenefer Lewis, at Penryn, on the 14th of June. Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution.—The prosecutrix is a widow, and on Wednesday the 13th June, prisoner came to her house to lodge; in the course of the evening she stated to Mrs. Lewis that she was a servant to Mrs. Wombwell, of the menagerie, which was then at Penryn; she showed her purse and said she had no money, but that next morning she should get some of her mistress. On her promise to pay next morning, Mr. Lewis provided her with tea and other refreshments. About 9 o’clock, the prisoner went out, and returned at a quarter before 12, and slept in the same room with Mrs. Lewis, who, on getting up first next morning, left the prisoner in bed, there being no other persons in the room but Mrs. Lewis’s grandchildren, under 7 years of age. In a chest of drawers in the bed-room, Mrs. Lewis had seen about 6 o’clock on the Wednesday evening, 3 sovereigns, and 7s. in silver, in a locked drawer, the key of which was put in the next drawer unlocked. On the Thursday morning prisoner came down stairs about 8 o’clock, and went out almost immediately; she returned in about 20 minutes, bringing some victuals, and saying that her mistress had let her have 1l.; she showed her purse, saying she did not now want money; paid for her night’s lodging, and gave Mrs. Lewis’s children money. After breakfast she went out and returned with a new apron and new stockings. About one o’clock on the Thursday, Mrs. Lewis found that a sovereign was missing from the chest of drawers. Evidence was given by several shopkeepers’ assistants of purchases made and paid for by the prisoner on the Thursday; and Mrs. Wombwell stated that the prisoner had never been her servant; that she never saw her previously to seeing her before the Magistrates; and had never paid her any money whatever.—Alfred Jarrett, policeman at Penryn, proved that he apprehended prisoner on the Thursday, at a public-house at Falmouth. She then declined to answer a question put to her as to her having been a servant to Mrs. Wombwell, and denied that she had changed any money that day.—It had been proved by Miss Trevena, daughter of Mr. Trevena, grocer, that the prisoner changed a sovereign there between 8 and 9 o’clock in the morning.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h.l.) Towards the close of the day the Grand Jury were discharged. The following Bills had been ignored:— MARY ANN AUSTEN, stealing 4 lbs. of beef from Joseph Fuge, at Liskeard. BENJAMIN CHENOWETH, stealing 9s. 7½d, the property of John James at Falmouth. JOHN PINFOLD, stealing bread and a silk handkerchief, the property of Elizabeth Francis, at Bodmin. The Grand Jury also ignored a Bill of indictment against the inhabitants of St. Columb Major, for a nuisance. SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY JULY 4. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) WILLIAM ANDREW NICHOLL, 18, pleaded GUILTY of stealing five pounds, the property of his master, Henry Ivey, at , on the 23rd of March. The prisoner also pleaded GUILTY of embezzling and stealing the sum of 6s. 6d., the property of Henry Ivey, at Ludgvan, on the 21st of April. (Sentence: two months h.l. for the 1st offence; four months h.l. for 2nd offence.) JAMES TRESIDDER, 20, a miner, was charged with stealing a store sow, the property of James , of Gwennap. Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs defended the prisoner. Prosecutor lives at Carvannal in Gwennap, and on Friday the 11th of May had a sow pig, which he saw at half-past eight in the morning outside his farm-yard gate. That day he missed his pig, and could not find her till the following Monday evening, when in consequence of information he went to Redruth, and was shown the pig by Tregoning the policeman. It further appeared that on Friday the 11th of May, at Redruth market, John , a pig dealer of Helston, bought a pig of a young man whom he swore to be prisoner. Prisoner told him his name was Richards, and asked 3l. for the sow, but subsequently sold her for 2l. Retallack purchased the pig in conjunction with a man called Francis Jose. Three witnesses, John Retallack, Francis Jose, and Walter Trevena, swore that the prisoner was the man who had sold the pig and was paid for it. The prisoner was apprehended about a fortnight afterwards by policeman Tregoning; he was then working at Wheal Buller.—Mr. CHILDS, for the defence, closely cross-examined the witnesses for the prosecution, and called witnesses on the part of the prisoner with the view of showing that Tresidder was not the man who stole the pig, but that the witnesses against him were mistaken as to his identity. The witnesses called in behalf of the prisoner were his father, his brother, and Ann Selina Rogers, his sweetheart. Mr. DARKE replied to the evidence given for the defence, and the Chairman having summed up, the jury found the prisoner GUILTY. (Sentence: nine months h.l.) JOHN DEACON, 19, was indicted for stealing a silver watch, the property of his master, Richard Steed, at St. Erney, on the 28th of May. Mr. G. HAMBLEY conducted the prosecution. Mr. Steed is a farmer, and had engaged prisoner as a servant. Prisoner came to his house on Friday the 15th of May, and on the following Monday asked permission to go to Callington for some clothes. He went from the house and did not return. On the Thursday after, Mrs. Street missed a silver watch from the house; and it was shown by evidence that it was sold by prisoner to a man at fair on the 29th of May,—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h.l.) SARAH THOMAS, 19, pleaded guilty of stealing 3l. 7s. 5d., the property of Anthony Nankivell, at Phillack, on the 10th of May. She also pleaded guilty to a charge of having been convicted of felony at the assizes, March, 1854. (Sentence: nine months h.l.) RICHARD DALLEY, 19, a seaman, was charged with stealing a trunk containing articles of wearing apparel and jewellery, the property of Arthur Wade, at St. Breock. Mr. SIMMONS conducted the prosecution, and Mr. SHILSON the defence. It appeared from the evidence that Mrs. Wade, wife of Mr. Wade, of Forrabury, surgeon, had been on a visit to friends at Slades-bridge, in Egloshayle, and on Friday morning, the 20th of April, when she was about to leave, she packed up various articles of clothing and jewellery in a trunk, which was locked and corded, and sent by Body, a carrier, to be left at the Commercial Hotel, Wadebridge, that it might remain there till the next morning, when she intended to arrive from Slades-bridge. The box contained a satin dress, silk scarf, pocket handkerchiefs, collars, gold rings, brooches, and a variety of other articles. She went to Wadebridge the next morning, and found that her box had been broken open, and its contents stolen; the empty box was then in the passage of the Commercial Hotel.—William Tippet, the landlord of the Hotel, said he saw a box addressed to Mrs. Arthur Wade, , in the passage of his house about one o’clock in the day on Friday, April 20th.— Mary Ann Collins, wife of Samuel Collins, a constable of St. Breock, lives opposite the Commercial Hotel, Wadebridge, and said that on Friday night between eleven and twelve o’clock, she saw a man in the street with a box. She saw the same man at the door of the Commercial Hotel before that; he was wearing a cap, and carried a box towards the quay. Joseph Pendrea stated that about five in the morning of the 21st of April he was at the railway dock at Wadebridge, and saw a box lying on the mud, about 15 or 26 feet from a vessel called the “Thomas and Elizabeth. He went down and picked up the box, and found a few small articles in it. He inquired of persons if they had lost such a box, and at last took it to the Commercial Hotel, where the ostler recognised it as Mr. Wade’s. Cross-examined—There were several vessels at the quay; the box was out in the middle of the dock. Samuel Collins, a constable, went on Saturday the 21st of April, with Capt. Bird, of the Thomas & Elizabeth, and Mr. Tippet, of the Commercial Hotel, to Padstow, where the vessel was then lying. Prisoner was a seaman on board, and the constable found in prisoner’s berth in the forecastle a great many articles, which Mrs. Wade identified as her property. Prisoner said he bought the articles at Wadebridge of a man who first asked him 10s. for them, but sold them for 3s. They were in two bundles, and were sold to him as men’s clothing; he did not open the bundles till next morning, and then was surprised to see what he had got for his money. On cross-examination the constable said the articles were exposed to view in the forecastle, so that any person on board might have seen them. Mr. Tippet, being Cross-examined, stated that there was a public thoroughfare through the passage of his house; he did not recollect having seen the prisoner there.—Captain Bird corroborated the constable’s evidence as to what was found on board the ship, and the prisoner’s statement. Prisoner was taken into custody and had been in gaol awaiting his trial since the 21st of April.—Cross-examined—Prisoner had been with witness seven months; he brought a good character with him, and he had always found him an honest, sober, and industrious person, and superior to sailors generally. Prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrate, that he had bought the goods of another man for 3s. was also put in as evidence.—Mr. SHILSON then addressed the jury for the defence. There were two counts, one for stealing, and the other for receiving the goods “as aforesaid stolen.” Mr. Shilson submitted that the second count was bad, as it charged the prisoner with receiving goods which he had himself previously stolen. In this view the Court concurred. Mr. Shilson then addressed the jury, contending that there was no proof that the prisoner was the person who took the box and goods from the Commercial Inn.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY. CHARLES LAWRENCE was charged with stealing a fowl from James Davey, at Launceston, in March 1855.—GUILTY. (Sentence: one month h.l.) RICHARD HALLIGEY, 73, a wheelwright, was indicted for stealing an axe, two saws, two augers, four chisels, a square, two planes, and other articles, the property of Alexander Reynolds, of Penryn. Prisoner was in the employ of prosecutor, who had missed various tools before Christmas last, and it was at last found that prisoner had sold the tools in question to Mrs. Brokenshir, of Penryn, who keeps a shop and buys old articles.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: three months h.l.) JOSEPH NICHOLLS, 13, pleaded guilty of stealing a shirt, and a pair of socks, the property of John Paine, at Roche, on the 17th of April. The prisoner also pleaded guilty to a charge of having been twice previously convicted of felonies. (Sentence: four years penal servitude.) SARAH ROBINS, 17, pleaded guilty of stealing three sovereigns and about seven shillings from the person of Simon Mitchell, at Truro, on the 28th of April. (Sentence: six months h.l.) WILLIAM MATTHEWS, 22, was charged with receiving the same prosecutor’s money, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. STOKES conducted the prosecution. Simon Mitchell, who lives at St. Erme, stated that he was at Truro on Saturday night the 28th of April, and went with Sarah Robins into Martins’ beershop in River Street. The prisoner Matthews and others were drinking at another table in the same room. Prosecutor took out his purse to pay for the liquor that he and Robins had, and he said that he saw Robins whispering to the prisoner. He went out of the room to go to his lodgings, and was followed by Robins into the passage of the beershop, and robbed of his purse containing three sovereigns and about 7s. She gave a “hollow” at the time, and Matthews and the others came out. Prosecutor said, when he was robbed he had hold of Robins, and Matthews told him to let her go, saying that if he did not he would knock him down.—Police Constable Prater gave evidence that when he came to the spot, Matthews and his gang were ill-using the prosecutor. He took Matthews into custody, who used bad language, and denied that he had any of the prosecutor’s money. On searching him he found 2s. 2d. in his possession.—Robins had made a statement to Prater as to what she had done with the money, but Prater could not give this because the statement was not made in the presence of the prisoner. The girl Robins was therefore put into the witness box, under a recent act of parliament which allows a prisoner who had pleaded guilty, to give evidence against a prisoner included in the same indictment who has pleaded not guilty. Robins, however, in her evidence, denied that she told Prater she gave the money to Matthews; if she did say so, she was tipsy at the time, and if she said so before the magistrates, it was because she was frightened. She now said she lost the money in the crowd. The CHAIRMAN thought there was scarcely sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge against the prisoner, but he left it for the consideration of the jury. Verdict, Not GUILTY. WILLIAM LOGG, 51, was charged with stealing six cabbages the property of Jane Pryor, at Launceston, on the 17th of June. After witnesses had been heard, the CHAIRMAN directed an acquittal, on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to convict of felony, though the prisoner might have been punished at petty sessions for trespass.—Verdict NOT GUILTY. The court then rose. THURSDAY, JULY 5. Before J. King Lethbridge, Esq. CHARGE OF POISONING HORSES.—JOHN MILLS, 19, ,was indicted for having, on the 4th of May, unlawfully and maliciously killed a horse, the property of John Bone. In a second count the prisoner was charged with having unlawfully and maliciously killed two horses, the property of the same prosecutor. Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence. Mr. DARKE said he should only have to direct attention to the second count of the indictment. The inquiry was of considerable importance, because the offence charged was that the prisoner, being a servant of Mr. Bone, had poisoned two of his horses by administering arsenic to them. The evidence, he said, would be of a circumstantial nature, and after stating the facts, he called the following witnesses. John Bone said he resides at Bodriggy, in Phillack; he has a farm, and contracts with the West Cornwall Railway for horsing the Hayle branch, for conveying trucks from the wharfs up to the station. He had eight or ten horses employed about this work; they sleep at his farm, and usually go to work about six or seven in the morning. There was a stable where his horses were fed at breakfast and at dinner time. There were no stalls in the stable, but a rack for the hay, and a manger all the length of the stable. The manger is divided into two parts, and two horses can easily be fed in each division. He had particularly requested that the horses should be fed in the inside division, because they would then be out of the draught from the door; he was not quite sure that he had spoken to the prisoner about that. On Friday morning, the 4th of May, he sent horses to work at the railway, about seven o’clock; one of the horses was driven by the prisoner, and another by George Eustace. They were large cart-horses; one cost him 35l., the other not quite so much, but was equally valuable. He had had them six or seven months, and they had not been ill before; when they left in the morning they appeared to be in perfect health. He saw them at three o’clock that afternoon at their work, and they appeared all right, but at five o’clock, the horse driven by Eustace was brought into the farm yard looking very ill. The horse soon fell down, but got up again and went into the stable. Within a few minutes he was told that the other horse (which had also been brought in) had fallen down in another stable; he was just like the other, frothing at the mouth and groaning. Prosecutor sent for a farrier, but shortly afterwards both horses were dead. On the next morning (Saturday) Superintendent Armitage, of the West Cornwall Railway police, came to prosecutor’s house, and the horses were opened. Prosecutor observed that the under part of the stomachs was very much inflamed. Armitage took away both stomachs. On Saturday evening prosecutor delivered out food for the horses for Sunday to the prisoner; he came for a bundle of hay, which he rested on a mowstead, and said, “Master, was the arsenic in with the ground meat in the belly of the horse?” Prosecutor replied that he believed it was; before that nothing had been said by him about arsenic. Cross-examined—When prosecutor gave out the meat for the horses on Friday morning, it was in one sack for both horses. The stable belongs to the railway company, but no other horses but prosecutor’s are put into it. When the horses were opened the farrier said he believed they were poisoned, but he could not tell what with. Prisoner’s brother had been in prosecutor’s employ and had driven his horses; but he had discharged him on the Saturday night previously, and George Eustace came in his place. The brother lives at , from half to three quarters of a mile from the stable where the horses were fed; prosecutor had discharged the brother for flogging and illusing his horse. Prisoner had been in his employ six or seven weeks; he had no quarrel with the prisoner, and had nothing against him.—Other evidence was given in the case at considerable length. I appeared that at dinner time on the Friday, Eustace took the horse that he was driving to the stable near the railway, and put some hay in the inside part of the rack, over the place where the horses usually have their corn. He then went to his dinner, and on his return saw the prisoner standing just outside the stable door. The horses were then eating in the outer part of the stable; he asked prisoner why he fed them there, and he grumbled something in reply; witness did not know what he said. They afterwards went out and worked the horses two or three hours, when they became ill, were taken home and died. Mr. Bone suspected that all was not right with regard to the horses, and sent a telegraphic message to Penzance, in consequence of which Superintendent Armitage came up, as before stated, and the horses having been opened, he took the stomachs and a small quantity of ground oats and chaff which were found in the outer part of the manger, to Dr. Montgomery, who on a careful analysis reproduced arsenic in the metallic state from the ground oats and chopped straw, and found also, by similar means, a large quantity of arsenic in each stomach, sufficient to have caused the death of a horse in a few hours. It further appeared that there are arsenic works about a mile from the railway, and that the arsenic is put into barrels, and conveyed in carts to the railway, where it is put into the trucks. On Thursday the 3rd of May, about nineteen tons of arsenic were brought down, and put in trucks near the railway stable, and on examination Superintendent Armitage found that some arsenic had escaped from one of the barrels. The trucks were afterwards sent on to Truro, and in the train more of the arsenic was shaken out of one of the barrels, and Sholl, a porter at the Truro station, found that a hole had been made in one of them large enough to admit the top of a man’s finger. It was stated by a witness that when the barrels were loaded to take to the railway they were perfectly sound. Another witness called Cook, stated that he was taking his dinner in a shed near the stable on the Friday, and he did not see any one go into the stable during the absence of the prisoner and Eustace when they went to their dinners. The constable, James King, who had the prisoner in custody on the following Wednesday, stated that he said to him, “Eustace will be a strong witness against me, because I did meat the horses that day in a different place from what I ever did before, and I’ll be bound he’ll tell for me.”—Mr. SHILSON strictly cross-examined the witnesses, and amongst other facts elicited that Eustace had found a handkerchief in the outside manger when he entered the stable with his horse at the dinner time, and that he was in the stable before the prisoner came there with the other horse. Also that prisoner’s brother, who had been discharged from prosecutor’s service the previous Saturday night for ill-using a horse, had been apprehended for this offence, but was discharged when the case was heard before the magistrate. Mr. SHILSON then addressed the jury, contending that it was a case of mere suspicion against the prisoner. There was no proof that he had been directed to feed the horses at the inner manger. Eustace had been only a few days in prosecutor’s employ, and he could not say whether it was more usual to feed in one place than in another. At this time of the year it is most likely they would be fed near the door. There was no reason why a person should commit such an act as poisoning in the outer manger more than in the inner division. As to the question of prisoner to his master on Saturday evening, whether there was arsenic found in the horses’ stomachs, that question arose from suspicions that the horses had been poisoned. Armitage having been told by Richards that there was arsenic on the quay. As to the statement of the constable King of what prisoner had said to him, it differed from the constable’s evidence as taken before the committing magistrate. The words “I’ll be bound he’ll tell for me” were not in the depositions, and he (Mr. Shilson) submitted that such words were not likely to have been used by the prisoner. The probability was that some person came into the stable and placed the arsenic there whilst the prisoner and Eustace were at work in the morning, between eight and twelve o’clock, and that that person left the handkerchief, for which no owner had been found. The ground corn and hay were left in the stable during that time, and the door was not locked, and was most probably open. The prisoner could not have got the arsenic from the barrels that morning, because they were not brought to the railway till ten o’clock, and he went to his work at eight; if he got it, it must have been the day before; but there was nothing to show that the barrel might not have fallen against a nail, and the hole have been made in that way. The prisoner had had no quarrel with his master, and there was no reason why he should have poisoned his horses. The CHAIRMAN then carefully summed up the case, and the jury, after some minutes deliberation, returned the prisoner NOT GUILTY. HENRY STRICK, a carpenter, was charged with having feloniously received about 5 lbs. weight of nails, which had before been stolen by some evil-disposed person, the property of John Davey and others, adventurers in Wheal Buller. This case had been partly heard on the previous day, when it was stopped on a point of law, and a new trial directed by the court. We gave the greater part of the evidence last week. In addition, the boy Vincent who stole the nails, now said that he had previously on two occasions stolen small quantities of nails when he worked at Wheal Basset, and sold them to the prisoner. Mr. SHILSON cross-examined the boy, and submitted that there were circumstances which showed that he ought not to be credited. He also called witnesses who gave the prisoner a good character as an honest and industrious man. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. SAMUEL POLSUE, 33, was remanded at the last sessions, for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards his father, Joseph Polsue, of Fowey. The father now appeared against him, and said he was still afraid of him. Mr. EVEREST said it was his opinion the man was insane, and if he were again remanded he should take steps to get him removed to the asylum, where, under the act of parliament, his father would have to maintain him. The CHAIRMAN said that was the better course to be adopted.—The prisoner was then remanded. ELIZABETH SMITH, 23, was committed for want of sureties, in a breach of the peace towards Mr. John Nicholls, of St. Columb Major. The CHAIRMAN told her, as no one appeared against her, she would be discharged. The Court was aware of the circumstances under which she had been brought there, and he trusted that when she was discharged from custody she would conduct herself quietly and peaceably towards the individual who had been the means of bringing her there. If she received provocation, she was still not justified in breaking the peace.—The prisoner then promised that she would conduct herself peaceably, and was ordered to be discharged. JOHN CULLUM was committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards his wife, at St. Austell. The wife did not appear against him, and he was discharged on promising to behave kindly and peaceably towards her in future. APPEALS. MINE, appellant, Mr. DARKE; St. JUST IN PENWITH, respondent, Mr. SHILSON.—This was an appeal against a poor rate levied on Mr. S.T. James and the adventurers of by the overseers of St. Just in Penwith. Mr. DARKE for appellants, said respondents would consent to amend the rate by striking it out. The dues of the mine were rated and had been paid on up to the present time; but being reserved in money the rate, in the present state of the law, could not be enforced. The mine was now about to do as many of its neighbours did, and the parish had no alternative but to strike out the rate.—Mr. SHILSON said he consented, on the part of the overseers, that the rate should be amended by striking out the assessment, which was accordingly done without costs. , appellants, Mr. DARKE and Mr. HOCKIN; BREAGE, respondents, Mr. SHILSON (for Messrs. Grylls and Hill). Mr. DARKE said this was an appeal against the settlement, and an order for maintenance of Samuel Varker, a pauper lunatic, about eight years of age. The settlement was adjudged to be in Sennen upon an order of removal granted in 1817 or 1818, for the removal of James Varker, the grandfather of the pauper, with his then family, from Breage to Sennen; and John Goninan Varker, the father of the pauper, was one of the children then removed with the grandfather. Appellants admit this settlement in Sennen, but they set up that John Goninan Varker obtained a settlement by estate in Breage, and they say that the boy Samuel Varker is entitled to that settlement. The ground of appeal was that James Varker, the grandfather of the pauper, died in Breage in 1836, and at time of his death was possessed of a dwelling house and tenement in Breage, as a tenant from year to year; that he made a will, and appointed his son, John Goninan Varker, one of his executors; and that John Goninan Varker entered upon the estate, and gained a settlement by estate by forty days residence. Appellants and respondents had agreed upon a statement of facts, on which the legal points of the case would be argued.—Mr. Darke then handed in the statement, which was that the pauper, Samuel Varker, now aged about eight years, is the son of John Goninan Varker, who was the son of James Varker. That James Varker died in the parish of Breage in February 1836. That at the time of his death he was in the occupation as tenant of a dwelling house and some land in the parish of Breage, at a yearly rent under £10 a year, for an interest which would not expire till Michaelmas 1837; and that he made a will (of which a copy was included in the statement of facts agreed to, and which will, besides some small bequests, appointed his wife and two sons (pauper’s father and another brother) to be his executors]. The statement of facts further proceeded as follows:—That the will was proved by Mary Varker, wife of James Varker, and J.G. Varker, two of the executors named in the will. That J.G. Varker resided on the tenement with his mother for more than forty days after the decease of his father, and after the probate of the will. That from Michaelmas, 1837, Mary Varker took a lease of the premises for fourteen years, at a yearly rent below 10l. That J.G. Varker was maimed in 1838, and afterwards continued to reside with his mother on the tenement in Breage till about August, 1849, when he went to Glasgow. That he was hired and employed as a working engineer by a person called Teague residing in Cornwall, to go to Glasgow to do certain work there for him. That at the time he left Breage he did not know how long he should be employed about the work. That he went to Glasgow, and after finishing the work which he was first employed to do, he continued to work there for Teague until April, 1851, when he returned to Breage. That during all that time he received his wages from Teague. That when he went to Glasgow he left his wife and family residing with his mother on the aforesaid tenement in Breage; and when he returned to Breage, he returned to his wife and family, and continued to reside with them on the said tenement with his mother until the expiration of her lease. That during his absence he from time to time remitted money to his wife in Breage for the maintenance of herself and her family; and that, save as aforesaid, he has not been absent more than ten miles from the parish of Breage.—These were the facts on which it was agreed the case should be argued, and it was agreed that neither party should apply for costs. Mr. DARKE contended that an estate coming to an executor, was sufficient of itself to confer a settlement on the executor, even though the testator had only a tenancy from year to year. It was admitted that the tenancy the old man possessed was one that continued till Michaelmas, 1837, and the executor, J.G. Varker, was therefore possessed of the estate from February, 1836, the time of the old man’s death, till Michaelmas, 1837, more than a year and a half; the executor, J.G. Varker, had consequently gained a settlement by estate in the respondent parish. The next question, however, was whether the settlement by estate had been retained, for he admitted that under the circumstances, if the father had lost the settlement by estate, the son had also, as previously to that time he had not been emancipated. The question was, whether J.G. Varker’s going to Glasgow to work was such an absence as would break the settlement, the act of William the Fourth rendering it necessary that for a man to obtain a settlement by estate, he should not have ceased to inhabit within ten miles of the estate. The subsequent acts provided that a man should not be removed from where he had resided for five years preceding. He (Mr. Darke) contended, however, that the inhabitancy referred to in the first mentioned act was not the same thing as the residency referred to in the subsequent statutes; inhabitancy means a man’s domicile where his family and home are, whilst residency means his personal residence. In the present case it was evident that though the man went to Glasgow to work, his domicile continued to be in Breage, for his wife and family remained there, and he occasionally sent them the means of subsistence. The case of Rex. v. Wissendine, 11 Law Journal, p. 45, was the only case decided on that statute, and he submitted that the principle involved supported the views he had now urged upon the court. But even supposing that inhabitancy and residence were held to be synonymous, he would still contend, on the authority of the decisions under the subsequent statute respecting the five years’ residence, that there was no breaking in the settlement by estate of J.G. Varker. The three leading cases under the subsequent statute were Queen v. Tolkesten, Queen v. Stapleton, and Queen v. Brighton. Mr. Darke referred to reports of these cases, and submitted that the principle involved was, whether at the time a man leaves his place of settlement, there was an intention on his part to be absent for a temporary purpose, or to make a permanent residence elsewhere. Applying that principle to the present case, he said it was clear that when J.G. Varker went to Glasgow, his intention was not to get a permanent residence there, but to return, after his job of work was finished, to his family at Breage. He finished one job, and was then employed about another, and was absent from August 1849 to April 1851, his wife and family still remaining in Breage. Mr. Darke said the case Queen v. Stapleton, 22, Law Journal, would probably be relied on by respondents, but Queen v. Brighton decided that a mere absence under a contract does not of itself destroy a settlement. If the absence was intended to be only temporary, as in the present instance, he submitted that there was no disruption of the settlement.— Mr. HOCKIN followed on the same side, and also referred to the question of executorship, observing that the law vests the leasehold property of the testator in his executor, who might thereby gain a settlement by forty days residence after the probate of the will. He cited cases on the point, and also argued that the same applied to a joint execution, though no case had been decided on that question.— Mr. SHILSON addressed the court for respondents, saying his friend Mr. Darke had drawn a fine distinction between the meaning of the words residence and inhabitancy. He cited King v. Wissendine, to show that the meaning was the same, and said the legislature in various instances had treated the two words as synonymous. He submitted that the case of Queen v. Stapleton ran parallel with the present case, except that there the man was absent four years, and in the present case, one year and eight months. In Queen v. Stapleton, a man residing with his wife and family in one parish, took a situation as porter of a union in another parish, remained there four years and was then discharged, and returned to his wife and family; and the court held that that was a break of residence, though the wife and family had continued to reside in the first named parish. It was said by Lord Campbell that the man had formed a contract or engagement by which he was not his own master, and was unable to return until the expiration of the contract. And so it was in the present case, and the continuing at Glasgow for a year and eight months could not to be held (sic) to be for a temporary purpose. In Queen v. Brighton the absence of the nurse was only for six weeks; that was held to have been temporary, but the absence in the present case was more than three times as long as that.—The CHAIRMAN thought the porter’s contract was not like going to Glasgow to execute a job of work. Rev. T. PASCOE added, that in the case of the porter there was no intention to return home unless he was discharged. Mr. SHILSON said the man, Varker, could not have come home until the expiration of his contract with Teague. Mr. DARKE said they did not know that; he was employed in Glasgow as a working engineer by Teague, who lived in Cornwall, and when he went he did not know how long he should about the work. The CHAIRMAN thought that was very different from a definite contract, as in the case of a shepherd, cited by the Judges, who had gone to Australia under a contract to remain for ten years, but intending then to return. The Court decided against the respondents on the question of a break of residence. Mr. SHILSON applied for a case on the point, but it was refused. He then referred to the other question, stating there was no case to show that one of two executors could gain a settlement by estate; and asked the court to grant him a case on that point, but the application was refused. The order was then quashed without costs. The court then rose. THURSDAY, July 5. Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. JOHN SECCOMBE, 24, a miner was charged with stealing money, the property of Hugh Williams, at Liskeard on the 15th of May. Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—The prosecutor was a miner, of Hayle, and having been to Bristol with an intention of proceeding to America (which intention he was induced to relinquish) he, on the 15th of May, with a comrade named James Glasson, travelled by Kellow’s omnibus from to Liskeard, and on the journey drank two quarts of beer between them. On arriving at Liskeard, Williams had 8 sovereigns in his porte-monnaie; both he and Glasson swore that they distinctly saw the money in different compartments of the porte-monnaie; besides this, Williams had some loose silver in his pocket, Glasson had 2l. 10s. of his own in his own pocket. At the door of Kellow’s Office stood another miner, called Edward Rowe, who at their request went with them to the London Inn, where something was had to drink, and thence showed them to an eating-house—Cook‘s, where all three dined, at Williams’s cost; after dinner they adjourned to Webb’s Tap, where, still at Williams’s expense, they drank grog. Whilst sitting thus in the tap, Seccombe (also a miner) came in. Williams asked him to drink; Seccombe said he had no objection to drink, but he had no money; Williams, however, said that was no difference; they did not want him to pay. Seccombe then joined them, and the party sat drinking from about 4 o’clock till between 7 and 8, till they got into various degrees of intoxication—Williams, it appears, being “farthest gone.” Towards the latter part of the evening, the party went from the tap into the Bar, and had wine; and on their return into the tap, Williams boastfully displayed his purse; on which Seccombe said “you had better take care of your purse, or let me have it till morning”; and took the purse out of Williams’s hand. Rowe rose up and said:—“What do you want the man’s money for; let him take care of his money, and you take care of yours.” Hereupon, Seccombe threw back Rowe on the laps of some other men sitting in the tap, and shortly afterwards went out for a few minutes. On his return, he talked of his not wanting to sponge upon any body, saying that he could spend his sovereign as well as any body; and took up nearly a half- pint of wine, and drank it off. Very soon afterwards, he left, and rambled homewards “as if the street was not large enough for him”. The remainder of the party also left soon after him; and Williams and Glasson were conducted by Rowe to lodgings for the night.—Besides Williams, Glasson, and Rowe, the witnesses examined were John Sara, a moulder of Truro, who had walked up from Truro to Liskeard on the day named; James Northcott, a shoemaker of St. Neot, and Uriah Thorne, a horsekeeper of Liskeard; and there was no imputation that these three men were not sober. About 9 o’clock the some (sic) evening, Richard Humphreys, policeman, went to prisoner’s house—(he lived with his mother)—and found him in bed quite drunk and unconscious. Humphreys searched his clothes, and found in one of his pockets a bag containing 3 sovereigns, a half-sovereign, two florins, a half-crown, five shillings, a sixpence, and a penny.—For the defence, Mr. STOKES submitted to the Jury that the evidence was not reliable as to 8 sovereigns having been seen in Williams’s purse on his arrival in Liskeard. But, assuming that the money was there, he contended that there was no proof of felonious intention on the part of Seccombe, when he took the purse from Williams, or that he did it with any other intent than to take care of it and return it, as, most probably, he would have done the next morning; up to the time of the constable’s search, Seccombe clearly had had no opportunity of returning it, and, in fact, incapable of doing so, the constable finding him drunk and unconscious. In proof of the prisoner’s character for honesty(?) and generally good conduct, satisfactory evidence was given by Mr. Richard White, Bodmin, Mr. J--? Kendall, shopkeeper, of Liskeard; and Mr. James Vivian, miner, of Liskeard, who stated that the prisoner maintained his mother.—The Jury retired for consultation and in about an hour returned into Court, and gave a verdict of ACQUITTAL. PHILIP MITCHELL, marine store dealer at Penryn, was charged with stealing on or about the 6th of May 26lbs. of lead, the property of John Field Dyson, plumber and brazier at Penryn. In a second count, the prisoner was charged with feloniously receiving. Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution, Mr. Hockin (for Mr. Shilson) the defence.—John Field Dyson, the prosecutor, stated that on the 5th of May he had a quantity of lead pipe; and on the 29th of May, Jarrett, the policeman, showed him some lead; two pieces, which were parts of an elbow of an old lead pipe, witness recognized as his property, the remainder consisted of new pipe, cut up into small pieces. Had never sold any of the lead to any person, nor authorized any one to sell for him. The old lead, which he could identify, he had taken from Messrs. Bolitho’s tanyard, on putting up some new pipe, and gave Messrs. Bolitho credit for it in account, as 14lbs. weight.—Alfred Hipwood Jarrett, police-officer at Penryn, stated that on the 28th of May he went to the prisoner’s house to make search for other property, and at the top of the stairs found a dark closet, in which were several empty bags(?) lying over a bag containing two pieces of old lead pipe, and several short pieces of small new pipe. He asked prisoner of whom he purchased it; prisoner did not say, but referred him to his book. On examining the book (which witness produced) he found an entry of one “John Williams” as having sold lead to him on the 15th of May, the 12th of May, and other occasions; and in one entry John Williams was said to be of Gluvias, but there was no price(?) carried out against any of the entries. Witness had been at Penryn twelve months, and had made every inquiry for such a person as John Williams of Gluvias, but could not find that there was such.—This witness produced two large(?) pieces of old lead piping, and about 20 small pieces of new piping. The old lead was identified by Mr. Dyson; and of the pieces of small piping, he said although he could not swear they were his property, he did not know that other persons in the neighbourhood had any new piping of the same size and kind; it was used for the water-works. He had missed a piece of such small piping, about ?--- long. No man in his employ was authorized to sell lead; his wife or daughter might occasionally sell old lead. Caroline Dyson, prosecutor’s wife, and Elizabeth Dyson, his daughter, deposed that they had never sold to any person, any of the lead now produced.—Mr. Hocking addressed the jury for the defence, insisting that, as the prisoner was indicted for stealing the property of Mr. Dyson, they must confine their attention to the old lead, as Mr. Dyson could not prove that the new was his property; and as to the old lead, there was nothing in the appearance to induce the prisoner to be suspicious of the manner in which it had been obtained by the person who sold it to him. Mr. Hockin also called the following witness:—Ann Wheeler, a widow, living at Penryn, swore that she was at the prisoner’s shop on an early day in May, when a man came in and sold him 15 lbs. of lead at 1d. per pound; the man gave his name as “John Williams of Gluvias”. This witness’s testimony was considerably damaged on cross-examination and the Jury found the prisoner Guilty of receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen. (Sentence: twelve months h.l.) JOHN Mc.DIARMID, 21, marine store-dealer, charged with stealing 14 lbs. of brass, the property of ?--- and others, the Adventurers in Boscaswell Mines, at St. Just in Penwith, on the 23rd of April—There was a second count for felonious receiving.—Mr. Hockin conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence.—Capt. William Noell deposed that in April last, he was agent at Boscaswell Downs Mine, the property of Mr. Edwin ?--- and others. The mine had been partially abandoned about 2 years. On the 28th April, he went to look at the engine, and discovered that certain brasses belonging to it were gone; among them three out of four top-locks of the arbours, of peculiar shape. He also discovered that the engine-house had been entered by some one at -wheel pit, where a piece of timber had been knocked out. Witness produced for the purpose of comparison, the top-lock that was left on the engine. Six weeks before the 28th of April, witness had inspected the engine, and left it complete.—Besides the three toplocks, he missed on the 28th of April, two ornamented cylinder tops.—In cross examination, the witness admitted that Boscaswell Downs were uninclosed, and an open thoroughfare in a populous district; and also that at the Hayle Foundry, where the Boscaswell engine was made, brasses of similar kind were made for engines of like cylinder.—Henry Williams, constable, at St. Just, on the 21st of April, saw prisoner in the evening, at Leggo’s Beer-shop near Boscaswell Engine-house. Witness lived next door to the Beer-shop; when prisoner came out of Leggo’s, witness watched him go with a boy, towards Boscaswell Village. Witness walked after them. The boy jumped over a hedge. Witness overtook the prisoner, and told him if he bought anything of those boys, he should take from him whatever he bought. Witness went back to his own house, and in about 10 minutes saw prisoner come again to Leggo’s beer-shop.—George Watt, who carries on a smithery and foundry at Penzance, stated that on the 23rd of April, prisoner came to him and sold him some old iron, and asked him to bring some old brass, which he had in a bag, and showed him a piece.—John Oulds, policeman, of Penzance, stated that on the 1st of May, he went to the prisoner at St. Just, and told him he was a police officer and was come to inquire about some stolen brass. After some denials by the prisoner that he had had any, he said he ought not to take the blame for other parties—that he had it of a chap of the north (meaning the north part of the parish), but did not know his name, and that his wife sold it at Penzance, to the “little Irishman,”—meaning “Camford.” Witness asked him if he had made an entry of it in his book; and he said he kept no book. On the same day, witness went to Bristol, and there found, in the possession of James Camford, a marine store dealer living at Penzance, some pieces of brass which he now produced. Witness produced the pieces of two top-locks, two cylinder tops, and a steam valve; and stated that on the 5th of May he compared the valve with the fittings of the boiler and found them to correspond.— James Camford stated that, at Bristol he handed over to Oulds, the last witness, some pieces of brass which he had bought at Penzance of prisoner’s wife. The pieces now produced were very like them.— James Watt, recalled, stated that the piece of brass which the prisoner offered him was similar to one of the cylinder tops now produced in pieces.—Capt. Noel, clearly identified the top locks, pointing out a peculiar hollow in their under parts; and stated that the cylinder tops were similar to those on the engine at Boscaswell.—Verdict, “Guilty of receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen.” (Sentence: twelve months h.l.) [printed as Mc.DARMAID under Sentencing] CATHERINE BRAY, 18, employed in a mine, was indicted for obtaining, by a false pretence certain quantities of starch, figs, tea, flour, and butter, from William Buzza, at St. Cleer, on the 25th June.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution.—William Buzza, the prosecutor, stated that he was a miner living at Combe, in the parish of St. Cleer, and kept a grocer’s shop. On Monday the 25th of June prisoner came to his shop and asked for an ounce of tea, ¼ lb. of starch, ¼ lb. of butter, ¼ lb. of figs, and ¼ peck of flour. His daughter, Ellen, served her with the groceries, and witness with the flour. The prisoner did not pay for the goods, but said she was living with her cousin, Mrs. Catherine Kinsman, who had sent her for the goods, and to her they must be put down. Mrs. Kinsman was a customer, and there was, at the time, an account against her in his books. Witness charged the goods to Mrs. Kinsman, and prisoner took them away. Prisoner said she was going to work at West Caradon Mine.—Ellen Buzza confirmed her father’s evidence.—Catherine Kinsman, wife of John Kinsman, living near Tremar Combe, stated that the prisoner was her cousin, but had never lived with her; and witness did not, on the 25th of June or at any other time, authorize her to take up any goods whatever, to be charged to witness.—Richard Humphreys, policeman of Liskeard, apprehended prisoner on Wednesday the 27th June at a house in Church-street, and charged her with obtaining goods under false pretences; she said, yes, she had some goods, and she was willing to let William Buzza have her clothes to keep as security till she could get some money to pay him; and she was going to work at a mine.—The prisoner, who wept bitterly during her trial, stated that, about a fortnight since she was at her cousin’s, Mrs. Kinsman’s, keeping a child for her; that Mrs. Kinsman asked her if she had any thing to eat, and told her to go to Buzza’s and take up the things, and she (Mrs. K.) would pay for them; prisoner added that she had no father or mother, nor any one else to care for her, but she was going to get work at West Caradon mine, and would have paid her cousin.—The Jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended her to mercy on account of her youth. (Sentence: six months h.l.) FRIDAY, July 6. Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq. [SENTENCES OF PRISONERS—see individual cases above] This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, August 3 1855

5. Summer Assizes The business of the Assizes opened in each Court at 10 o’clock on Thursday morning, the 26th of July. Mr. Justice Williams presided in the Crown Court. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— W. Rashleigh, Esq, foreman. J.B. Messenger, Esq. Gordon W.F. Gregor, Esq. E. Stephens, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. Thos. Pearce, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. W.P. Kempe, Esq. J. Thomas H. Peter, Esq. F.J. Hext, Esq. R. Graves Polwhele, Esq. J. Borlase, Esq. W. Braddon, Esq. T.S. Bolitho, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. F.M. Williams, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. T.R. Avery, Esq. S. Davey, Esq. M.H. Williams, Esq. W.D. Horndon, Esq. W.R.C. Potter, Esq.

Augustus Smith, Esq. and the Rev. C.M. Edward Collins answered to their names, but were not sworn. The Mayors of the following boroughs were called:—Bodmin, Camelford, Falmouth, Helston, St. Ives, Launceston, Liskeard, East Looe, West Looe, Lostwithiel, Marazion, Penryn, Penzance, , , Tregony, and Truro. The following coroners were also called:—Mr. Hamley, Mr. Hichens, Mr. Carlyon, and Mr. Jago. – Mr. Good was also in attendance. After the reading of the Queen’s Proclamation for the encouragement of virtue, the learned JUDGE delivered the following charge to the grand jury.—[not transcribed] TRIALS OF PRISONERS. CAROLINE KEAST, 16, described on the Calendar as “employed in a mine,” pleaded GUILTY on a charge of burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Pascoe, at Camborne, on the night of the 28th June, and stealing various articles of clothing—some the property of William Pascoe, miner, and others the property of Alice Pascoe, single woman.—Sentence, one year hard labour. WILLIAM THOMAS, aged 36, a miner, charged with stealing a silk pocket handkerchief, the property of William Trelease, also a miner, working at Tokenbury Consols mine, in the parish of St. Ive, on the night of Saturday, the 7th July. The handkerchief was stolen from the sump-house, which was unlocked, and was the next day found by the constable, on the prisoner’s person, concealed under his shirt; suspicion of the prisoner having been occasioned by information given by the engine-man, who, through the night, was at the engine-house about 100 yards from the sump-house.—Prisoner was found GUILTY, and was sentenced to two months hard labour. MARY ANN WILLIAMS, 26, needle-woman, and JAMES GILBERT, 28, tailor, were charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Samuel Pearce, a labourer, living at Roseveth, parish of Kenwyn, on the 23rd of June last, and stealing a cotton dress, a handkerchief, and a steel brooch, the property of the said Samuel Pearce. The prisoners were also severally charged with feloniously receiving.—We have so recently given the particulars of this case in one of our Truro Police Reports, that we need no report the evidence now adduced.—The jury found BOTH GUILTY.—Two previous convictions were proved against the prisoner Gilbert. In the first he had been convicted at the Midsummer Sessions, 1850, under the name of James Rouse, of stealing clothing. In the second he had been convicted at the Midsummer Sessions, 1851, in his present name, of breaking into the dwelling house of William Robins, and stealing a watch, and was sentenced to seven years transportation. He was at the present time a ticket-of-leave man. Against the female prisoner it was proved that at the Midsummer Sessions, 1847, she was convicted of feloniously receiving a dress, and was imprisoned till the rising of the Court. There was now another indictment against Williams for stealing, on the 29th of June, a pair of boots, the property of Richard Treffry, at Kea; and also against Gilbert, for breaking and entering the dwelling- house of Thomas Hewett, at Roche, on the 6th of July, and stealing a pasty and 2l. 7s. 6½d. Neither of these indictments, however, was prosecuted. Gilbert was sentenced to six years penal servitude; and Williams to four years penal servitude. JOHN PRISK, a very little boy, pleaded GUILTY to a charge of feloniously putting on the West Cornwall Railway some stones, and an iron bar with intent to obstruct a locomotive steam-engine on the West Cornwall Railway, on the 22nd July.—Sentence deferred. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, aged 9 years, pleaded GUILTY of stealing three pocket-knives, the property of Edward Isaac, at St. Blazey, on the 9th June.—Sentence deferred. In reference to this case and the preceding one, Mr. BERE, a barrister, informed the Court that the Devon Reformatory was open to boys committed from Cornwall. Prisk was sentenced on Saturday, to six months hard labour; and Williams, on Friday, to be privately whipped and discharged. SOLOMON HOSKING, 15, blacksmith, was tried and ACQUITTED on a charge of stealing a duck, the property of Mr. William Harvey, of Trelissick, in St. Erth, on the 17th July. BENJAMIN RICHARDS, the younger, was charged with stealing a piece of wood, the property of the West Cornwall Railway Company, at Phillack on the 11th July. Mr. Yonge (for Mr. Coleridge) conducted the prosecution; the prisoner had no counsel, but was himself very active in the cross examination of witnesses.—It appeared that about 10 o’clock at night of Wednesday the 11th of July, John Bone, a station clerk at Hayle, met the prisoner with a piece of wood under his arm, and which had the appearance of a railway break. Bone was struck with its appearance, and, putting his finger into a hole in the wood, he questioned the prisoner, who said it was given to him by his father-in-law, James . The next morning, Bone observed that the wagon 203 had no break, as it ought to have.—John Davis, a clerk in the employ of the Railway Company, stated that it was his duty to load and unload wagons at the Copperhouse wharf, and on the Wednesday and the night following, wagon 203 was there. Early in the afternoon of Wednesday, he had seen prisoner about the spot. This witness was with Bone, the previous witness, about 10 o’clock on the Wednesday night, and corroborated his testimony.—James Hayes, the prisoner’s father-in-law, positively denied that he had, either on the 11th of July or at any time in his life, given the prisoner any wood.—John Richards, a carpenter in the employ of the Railway Company, and whose duty is principally to attend to the breaks, stated that on the 11th of July he had seen that wagon 203 had a break, as he examined that waggon and passed it for use. That break was afterwards missed on the same day. There were two sorts of waggons on the railway; those made at Carn Brea, and those made at Bromsgrove; wagon 203 was one of the Bromsgroves.—Thomas Youlden, a policeman in the employ of the Railway Company, at Hayle, in in consequence of some information he received, went to prisoner’s house on Thursday the 12th of July, and not finding him at home, went to Bodriggy Lane, took him into custody, and put him to the station. Afterwards returned to prisoner’s house, and thence to the house of Mrs. Matthews, from whom he received some pieces of wood which he delivered to Armitage, the Superintendent of Police.—Armitage produced two pieces of wood, affixed to a piece of iron which he took from wagon 203, and with which, he stated, that they matched exactly in the screw-holes &c.—The witness John Richards, on examining the pieces, stated that they formed parts of a break, and that the iron belonged to wagon 203.—Jane Matthews, wife of John Matthews of Hayle, lives about two doors from prisoner’s and bakes for the neighbours. On Thursday 12th July, she received some pieces of wood, brought to her by prisoner’s little boy, about 4 or 5 years old, and which she delivered to Youlden.—John Williams, a carpenter, stated that the prisoner lived in part of his house. About 6 o’clock in the morning of the 12th of July, witness saw prisoner chopping up some wood with a hatchet, and observed that there was a hole through it—that the wood was good— and that there was a mark of iron about the hole.—Emily Thomas, who lives opposite the prisoner, saw Youlden go into prisoner’s house between 11 and 12 o’clock of the 12th of July, and then leave the house; and in about 20 minutes afterwards she saw prisoner’s little boy go from his house with some sticks in his pinafore, and carry them to Mrs. Matthew’s. One piece that showed outside the pinafore was similar to that now produced, but she could not positively say it was the same. In defence, the prisoner endeavoured to shew, by cross examination of witnesses for the prosecution and by the testimony of his own witness, William Lawry, (who like himself was employed under the company as a driver) that breaks which were worn out, or which split in working, were frequently given to him, by the witness John Richards, the breaksman; and Lawry swore that condemned breaks were given to him and to prisoner, on the Saturday previous to the 11th July. This however, was most flatly denied by John Richards, who swore that never in his live had he given to the prisoner or to Lawry any break or any wood of any kind.—Some other points urged in defence were contradicted no less positively by witnesses for the prosecution; and after a long trial, the Jury found a verdict of GUILTY; and the prisoner was sentenced to six months hard labour, the learned Judge observing that the offence had been considerably aggravated by the nature of the defence set up. MARY MITCHELL, aged 37, a servant, pleaded GUILTY of stealing ¼ lb. of tea, the property of William Dingle, at Liskeard, on the 14th of July.—She also pleaded GUILTY of stealing a riding whip, the property of Mary Searle, at Liskeard, on the 28th of April.—Three months hard labour. FRANCIS DURDEN, 34, French Polisher, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a tenon saw, the property of John Hicks Vivian, at Redruth, in the month of June last.—Four months hard labour. WILLIAM LETCHER, 28, pleaded GUILTY of stealing three ducks, the property of Thomas Harris, at , on the 23rd or 24th of March last.—To another indictment charging him with stealing one duck, the property of James Whitta, at Illogan, on the same day, he pleaded NOT GUILTY; but this indictment was withdrawn.—Two months hard labour. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, 13, rag gatherer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing one lead rough and pipe, the property of William Rickard, at Redruth, between the 5th and 20th of July.—Three months hard labour. CUTTING AND STABBING.—JOHN MACKAY, 25, an American mariner, was charged with feloniously cutting, stabbing, and wounding Neils Hansen, a Danish mariner, on board the barque Perseverance, lying in the port of Falmouth, on the 21st of July. Mr. Bevan conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Mr. Bevan having stated the case to the Jury, adduced the following evidence:— Thomas Guppy, surgeon, deposed:—On Saturday night last I was called on board the barque Perseverance lying in Falmouth harbour. I saw lying on the floor of the cabin a man with his head bound up: I took off the bandage; there was a large wound at the back of the head—a cut, about 4 inches long; a shorter cut or gash on the right side of the head, and a stab on the left side. They appeared to be wounds made with some sharp instrument. There was much blood, but the wounds were not very severe. Hanson was lying in a sleepy state, apparently from liquor. I was present before the magistrates when a knife was produced; the wounds on Hanson’s head were such as might have been made with that instrument. To inflict the wounds would require considerable force. George Julyan.—I am chief constable at Falmouth. I went on board the barque Perseverance on Saturday night and saw prisoner on board, and the man Hansen lying on the cabin deck. I received a knife from the captain of the ship; the knife was bloody and had hair on it. (Witness produced the knife). I took the prisoner in custody. Thomas Kelly, chief mate on the barque Perseverance. I was on board on Saturday night. About 11 o’clock, Hansen and Mackay came off to the ship; Hansen was very drunk, and Mackay rather tipsy, but still in a state to know what he was about. When they came on board I was on deck. We hoisted up the boat, and then I told Hansen to go below; he refused to do so; he came forwards, and Mackay, who was standing before him on the poop, stopped him and said “go below.” Hansen said he would not. They took hold of each other and had a scuffle; and I separated them. I shoved Hansen down on the main deck, and as soon as he got there, he said to Mackay, who was standing on the poop: “I am as good a man as thee, Jack, and I shall go below when I like”. On that, Mackay told him if he did not hold his noise, he would boot his d—d head off. With that, Mackay got in the main rigging and began to kick away at Hansen; but I can’t say if he actually kicked him or not. I went and separated them again. Then Mackay came down on the main deck from the rigging and they took hold of each other, against the pump. I had hold of Hansen, trying to keep him back, and by the glimmering light from the cabin window on deck I saw prisoner put his hand behind him and produce a knife. He wore a belt round his waist and carried a knife in a sheath in the belt. Sailors usually carry a knife for various purposes on board. I let go Hansen, and tried to stop the blow with the knife, but was too late. I did not see Mackay strike with the knife more than once. I had hold of his arm when he struck, but could not prevent his striking at Hansen’s head. I struggled with him, and the knife fell on the deck; it was bloody and on putting my hand to Hansen’s head, I found it was bloody. Hansen did not fall on deck, but leant against the rail. I examined his head 3 or 4 minutes afterwards and found it was completely smothered with blood. There was nothing the matter with his head when he came on board.—When the knife fell on deck, I let go Mackay’s arm and caught up the knife and threw it inside the cabin door. Mackay was then leaning against the main rigging; the Captain came out and took hold of him and asked him why he used his knife; and he replied that his hand was bad and that he used it to any one when his hand was bad. The Captain then went ashore, and brought back the policeman and the doctor. Mackay came up from below, when I ordered him. Whilst the boat was ashore for the constable he attempted to go into the cabin, but I would not let him. He said for three cents he would cut the bloody son of bitch’s throat and hang for it. At this time, the wounded man was lying on the cabin deck. The prisoner’s hand was bad.—I never saw but one blow struck; but I dare say, while I had hold of his arm, the other blows might have been given by him.—Verdict, GUILTY OF UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING.—Sentence deferred.—On the following day, he was sentenced to One year’s Imprisonment. A SINGULAR CHARGE.—JAMES MOON, carpenter, and landlord of a respectable way-side inn at Trerule Foot, near St. Germans, on the turnpike road between Liskeard and Torpoint, was charged with wounding William Perkins, on the 23rd April, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; Mr. Coleridge the defence.—The case excited interest, from the prisoner’s respectability of position and character, and also from the direct conflict of evidence it involved.—The prosecutor, William Perkins, at the time of the assault, was a private in the Sappers and Miners at Plymouth. He deposed:—On the 23rd April, a Monday evening, I was walking from Plymouth to Liskeard in company with William Richards, who was in the same regiment with me. We went into the prisoner’s public house. I called for three glasses of gin and water for me, Richards, and another young man. We could not have it, because the mistress was not in. That was between 7 and 8 in the evening. I had a penny worth of tobacco, and in about 5 or 10 minutes she came in, but she would not let me have any thing till I paid the money. I then had a glass of gin, and paid her for that and the tobacco, at the bar. I then went and sat down to have a smoke. We asked the mistress to bring three glasses more, and she said she would; I gave her a shilling and we had two glasses of gin and one of rum, which was put on the table for us three. Then I went out and bought a pound of cheese. When I came in, I sat down as before, on the left. There were two men sitting by the fire; one of them the young man who came in with me, and Richards. I saw Mr. Moon come into the room close behind me, and I had not had time to put the cheese on the table before I received a blow on the top of my head. (Witness pointed out a mark of the blow, shown by loss of hair). I fell down cross Richards, who shoved me one side and got up to take Mr. Moon in hand. After that I got out of the room as well as I could, but I was blood all over. After I got outside, a woman took me down to the house and there I washed. I afterwards met with some young chaps, and gave them three shillings to take me home, and I got home to Devonport, at about 6 o’clock in the morning, and was billeted at the Military Inn. I was put to the Military Hospital, and recollect Mr. Gifford, the policeman, seeing me there the following day.—Cross-examined.—Mr. Galway, the doctor, attended me; he is not here. (Mr. Galway, it appears, has gone to Corfu). I was a little worse for liquor when I first got to the house, but very little. (The witness was closely questioned by Mr. Coleridge, in anticipation of circumstances to be proved in defence; and he positively denied, one after another, the various statements put to him. Towards the close of his cross-examination he said he was present before the magistrates when Mr. Galway, the surgeon, was examined; and heard him say that he (prisoner) was such an arrant young liar that he would not believe a word he said. By the Judge.—Mr. Galway saw him, twice a day—morning and evening—for a fortnight. Robert Gifford:—I am now chief of the Sunderland and River Wear Police. In April I was Superintendent of the Devonport Police. On the 24th of April, I went to the Military Hospital, and saw there Dr. Galway who is now in Corfu, Lieut. Brown who is gone out to the Crimea, and the prosecutor. The prosecutor was in the surgery; I saw that he had a cut about 2 inches long, on the right side of his head. It was a clean cut, and I remarked to the doctor that it looked like a sabre cut. On the same day I went to the house of the prisoner at Trerule Foot, about 8 or 9 miles from Torpoint. I said to him, “you are charged with cutting and wounding, on Monday last, a private in the Sappers and Miners named Perkins.” He replied, “I only put him to doors; he struck my wife, and I have done no more than any man would do; but I will swear I did not strike him with any thing.” I took him into custody; and I found in his house a small chopper, which I now produce. It is in the same condition now that it was when I found it; there is a reddish stain on it. (The chopper was handed to the Judge for examination). I found the chopper in an open cupboard in a room at the right on entering the front door. In my opinion, an instrument of that kind would make such a wound as I saw on Perkins’s head. I have been in the police 11 years. William Richards, a private in the Sappers and Miners, and companion of the prosecutor on the 23rd April, generally confirmed his evidence, and stated that Moon put him (Richards) out of doors; but that Perkins went out of his own accord, and then Moon threw out his coat after him and he walked away. Mr. COLERIDGE addressed the jury for the defence, and called the following witnesses:— William Sambell:—I am a farm servant in the employ of Mr. Olver, in the parish of Liskeard. On the 23rd of April, I saw the two men, Perkins and Richards, at Antony, and walked with them towards Liskeard. They had some beer at Antony, and some grog at and Polbathick; and at Polbathick were getting drunk and disorderly. They went to a shoemaker’s where one of them had his shoes mended; and there they had a quantity of beer. I went on with them to Trerule, and went in with them to Moon’s house. They came in and sat down and asked for some gin and water and a pennyworth of tobacco. After Mrs. Moon came in, they said they would have the grog, or else they would not pay for the tobacco, and there was a dispute between them and Mrs. Moon. Mr. Moon came in soon after, and told them to be quiet. Perkins asked him if he was the landlord, and Moon said yes. Perkins then said, be d—d if they wouldn’t clear the house and would fight any man in the house, and they didn’t care if ‘twas the landlord. Perkins then went up to fight Moon, rose up “to ensue battle,” threw away his coat and hat, and said “come on, damme, comrade, let’s be at ‘em.” Mrs. Moon tried to interfere between Perkins and her husband; and then a man named Benorthen interfered between Mrs. Moon and Perkins. I saw Mr. Moon then put Perkins out of the house, and come back for Richards.—There was a little boy of Moon’s there; I heard him say if any one of them struck his mother he would throw the bellows at him; and afterwards I heard the little boy say he had thrown a stone at one of them and cut his head.—Cross-examined.—I had some beer with the two men at Antony, and also some gin at Polbathick; they paid for two pennyworth for me; they were not particularly drunk then. I saw then cheese brought in at Moon’s; when Perkins brought it in, he said he was so b—ring drunk that he could not cut it, and he asked Mrs. Moon to cut it for him; and she did so. It was after that that Moon came in and Perkins took off his coat to fight him. I saw Moon put out Perkins, and heard a scuffle in the passage, which I believe was Mrs. Moon trying to keep him out. William Benorthen, labourer, living in St. Germans parish. I had been in Moon’s house about 5 minutes when Perkins, Richards and Sambell came in. When they came in Mrs. Moon was not there, but Mary Moon was, and she said she would not draw them any thing because they appeared quite tipsy. After that Mrs. Moon came in, but would not draw them anything for a brave bit; they then began to swear and said if she did not give them something to drink, they would remain in the house and have a bed there. They then went and fetched some bread and cheese, and Mrs. Moon cut it for them; they sat down, but began to damn and swear and to throw the bread and cheese about the house, and Mrs. Moon picked it up and gave it to them again. After a bit they wanted some more drink, and Mrs. Moon said she would not let them have more. They damned and swore, and soon afterwards Moon came in. Perkins said he did not care a d—n for any body, took off his coat, and went in to fight Mr. Moon, and Mrs. Moon, I believe. I went up and interfered, and caught Richards by the coat, and held him while Moon put out Perkins, and then Moon came back and put out Richards. I saw Moon put out Perkins; he had no weapon of any kind whatever. After Perkins and Richards had been put out, and all was over, I saw Moon’s little boy come in, but did not hear him say any thing. William Bartlett, a boy:—I live at Trerule Foot, and work at Wheal Mary Ann. In the evening of the 23rd April, I was playing cricket in front of Mr. Moon’s public house; I heard some noise in the passage, and saw Mr. Moon’s little boy James crying; he came over to me and took up a stone. I went over with him to the passage. I saw Perkins and Mrs. Moon in the passage; Mrs. Moon was on her knees getting up, and Perkins was lying on the ground. I saw James Moon throw a stone right in upon the man Perkins, on his head; and when he got up I saw there was a cut on the back of his head and blood on the back of his waistcoat.—Cross-examined. The stone was about half as big as my hand; I did not take notice of its shape. James Moon, a little boy just turned 12 years of age, deposed:—I am the son of Mr. Moon. I remember Perkins and Richards coming into father’s house on the 23rd April, and their having words with mother. I threatened to heave the bellows at them, if they touched my mother. After that, father came in and there was a scuffle between father and the prisoner, and Richards and Sambell and Benorthen. Perkins was put out of the house and tried to come in again to the passage where mother was, and he threw down my mother in the passage. I then went, got a stone, and hove it at him and hit him right on the side of the head as he was getting up from the ground in the passage. It was a thin flat stone. I saw him afterwards put out, and go away; and then father came back and put out Richards. Benorthen held back Richards in the settle, till father had put out Perkins. Mary Moon, wife of Mr. Moon’s brother. I was at the house on the 23rd April, when Perkins and Richards came in. They were very tipsy; they asked me for two glasses of gin and cold water, and I would not give it them; I told them I thought they had had enough already. I fetched them a pennyworth of tobacco, and asked them to pay for it. They said they would not until they had had some gin and water. Mrs. Moon came in afterwards, and there was a dispute between them and her about beds; they insisted on having beds and said they were billeted there. When my sister-in-law came in I went away and did not see any thing of the fight. Robert Gifford, recalled by Mr. Coleridge, said he should think the wound he saw on Perkins’s head, might have been produced by the edge of a slate. Cross-examined.—I heard the boy give his evidence, and think if he threw a piece of slate, pretty sharply, the distance he spoke of (from the witness-box to the wall behind the Chairman’s bench), he might have made such a wound as I saw. The following witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent character as a quiet and peaceable man;—Mr. William Cole, farmer of St. Germans; Mr. Wm. Henry Tapscott, merchant; Mr. Claridge, landlord of the Eliot Arms, St. Germans; Mr. Jonathan Hill, land agent at ; Mr. William Murray, sheriff’s officer, Liskeard; and Mr. George Hare, farmer, Quethiock. After reply and summing up, the jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The Court then rose. The grand jury were discharged this day at about half-past six. The following bills had been ignored:— John Milligan, charged with feloniously killing and murdering William Dawson, on the high seas, by discharging at him a gun loaded with powder and bullets, on or about the 29th November last.—(Three sailors—important witnesses in this case, named Barnard, Wilson, and Johnson, were not present when called on their recognizances. We understand they had sailed to distant parts of the world.) Richard Mugford and Richard Rowe, charged with maliciously and feloniously setting fire to a quantity of furze, the property of Henry and Thomas Rowe, at . NISI PRIUS COURT. THURSDAY, JULY 26. The learned Judge, Mr. JUSTICE CROMPTON, took his seat in this court at ten o’clock. The following was the Cause List:— Plaintiff's Attys. Plaintiffs. Defts. Defts' Att Chilcott Gilby v. Permewan Sandys. Gurney & Cowlard Davy v. Lillicrap Radcliffe. Peter Broad v. Sloggett Hawker. Hichens and Son Lady Sandwich and v. Harris and Rodd and another son Co. Grylls, Hill Tyacke Britton, Clerk, [S.J.] v. Griffith, and Hill Clerk Boase Fookes and others v. Symons Moone. Same Same v. Same Same

GILBY v. PERMEWAN. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE and Mr. KARSLAKE; attorney, Mr. CHILCOTT. For the defendant, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH and Mr. BULLAR; attorney, Mr. SANDYS. Mr. KARSLAKE having opened the pleadings, Mr. M. SMITH, for the defendant, stated that it was his duty to proceed first with the case, because, though Mr. Permewan admitted the amount of the claim made upon him, he pleaded a set-off, and alleged that a larger amount was due to him from the plaintiff. Mr. John Gilby is a gentleman living at Beverley, in Yorkshire, who had been an adventurer to a considerable extent in mines in Cornwall, Devonshire, and other parts. Mr. James Permewan, the defendant, is an auctioneer, mine sharebroker, and purser of mines, residing at Penzance. The action was brought to recover £94 10s. the price of twenty-seven shares in Wheal Tremayne, which Mr. Permewan had sold, and which were claimed by Mr. Gilby. It was not disputed on the record, that Mr. Permewan was not liable for the amount claimed; but on the other hand he set up a counter claim, to the amount 134l. 15s. for services which he had rendered to Mr. Gilby, and for calls that he had paid for Mr. Gilby in North Ding Dong and St. Aubyn and Grylls mines. Mr. M. SMITH called as a witness Mr. James Permewan, the defendant, who stated that his connexion with the plaintiff commenced about the end of 1853; plaintiff first wrote to him when he was purser of North Ding Dong, plaintiff being then a shareholder. In January 1854, he went to London, and met plaintiff there by appointment. Plaintiff wanted to consult him about the different mines in which he was engaged. Plaintiff was connected with twenty or thirty mines; principally Cornish mines, but some also Devon, Welsh, and Cumberland mines. Defendant advised him to get out of some as quickly as possible; to try to sell, or if he could not, to relinquish the shares. He was at that time several days with plaintiff; saw him in the mornings, and each day went about the city to see if purchasers could be obtained for some of plaintiff’s shares. Plaintiff told him at that time he was to look to all his mines in Cornwall, and said he should be happy to pay him for his trouble. Defendant gave further evidence, and also put in letters he had received from plaintiff, to show that he had acted at plaintiff’s request, and on his authority, in reference to various mines in which plaintiff held shares; that plaintiff in November, 1853, had sent him a proxy to attend West Treasury meeting in his behalf; that he went with Captain White to inspect West Abraham at plaintiff’s request, and that he undertook journeys to Marazion, Balnoon mine, Hayle, and Redruth, on account of plaintiff’s mines. The letters put in on the part of defendant showed correspondence with him by plaintiff in reference to West Treasury, Wheal Mary, , Wheal Fanny, West Darlington, Trefusis, , East Seton and Maude, North Ding Dong, Trebarvah, and other mines. Witness stated his expenses on some of the occasions when he had acted for plaintiff, and said there were many things that he had not charged for. There were altogether about forty separate items in defendant’s set-off, and after he had given evidence in regard to seven or eight of them, and the case had already occupied a considerable time, the learned JUDGE asked if it was intended to go on with the proof of each particular charge. Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE said he had an answer, on the part of the plaintiff, to almost every item. The learned JUDGE then strongly repeated an opinion he had previously expressed, that it was a case more fit to be decided by reference than in court. Mr. M. SMITH said it had been the desire of the defendant to have the case submitted to a proper reference for decision. It was then agreed that the cause should be referred to Mr. Saunders, of the Western Circuit; and the jury were directed to give a verdict for the plaintiff with damages as claimed, subject to the reference as agreed on.—Verdict accordingly. DAVY v. LILLICRAPP.—Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. CARPENTER ROWE and Mr. COLERIDGE; attorneys, Messrs. GURNEY and COWLARD. For the defendant, Mr. COLLIER and Mr. KARSLAKE; attorney, Mr. RADCLIFFE. Mr. COLERIDGE said the plaintiff was Mr. James Davy, and the defendant Mr. Charles Lillicrapp; the declaration alleged that defendant had slandered the plaintiff; to which defendant had pleaded that he was not guilty. Mr. ROWE stated the case to the jury, to the effect that the plaintiff is a respectable yeoman and large farmer in the parish of Lawhitton, and that on the 31st of July he attended the St. Stephens fair, near Launceston, where he met with the defendant, who is a cattle dealer at Tamerton Folliott, near Plymouth, and who, in the fair, when surrounded by a great number of farmers and others, made an accusation against the plaintiff, which was the cause of the present action. He accused plaintiff of having stolen one of his lambs, sent for a constable to take him into custody, charged him with being a rogue and a thief, and repeated his accusations in the most reckless manner, after the fullest explanation had been given to show his mistake. He had since made no apology or reparation, and this action was brought to recover damages for the slander and imputations so recklessly cast on plaintiff’s character. Mr. Rowe called as witnesses, the plaintiff Mr. James Davy, Thomas Stripling, a constable of St. Stephens parish; George Wyse, a farmer who was at the fair in question; Richard Davy, son of the plaintiff; and Henry Hender, a farmer and butcher, who was also at the fair. It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff lives at Bamham, in Lawhitton, about half a mile from Launceston; that on the 31st of July, last year, he sent his son to St. Stephens fair with sixteen lambs and two sheep, which he had reared himself, and which had never been out of his keep. Plaintiff’s son penned the lambs, and soon afterwards the defendant, Lillicrapp, came to the spot, and pointing to one of them said it was his property. Plaintiff’s son said it was his father’s property; to which Lillicrapp replied, you stole that lamb from Camelford fair. He went into the pen to take , but plaintiff’s son would not let him. Defendant pointed to a mark on the lamb, and said that was his mark. It was a ram lamb, and on cutting there had arisen a swelling, which was obliged to be often dressed, and a wool mark was make in the near “pin,” that this lamb might be readily distinguished from the others when they wanted to dress its wound. Plaintiff’s son turned up the lamb, and showed defendant the inflammation. The constable was sent for by defendant, and came to the pen. After this had passed between defendant and plaintiff’s son, plaintiff himself came into the fair, and saw a crowd of farmers and others, about two hundred. Lillicrapp, he said, was there, and a lot with him, and he came up, and said to him (plaintiff) “Oh, you have my lamb down in your pen, and you are the rogue that stole him from me at Camelford fair.” He said that in so loud a tone that all around could hear it. I told him that my son had marked the lamb on account of the cutting, and offered to go to the pen and show him the mark; but he did not come after me when I went to the pen. Thomas Stripling, the constable who was sent for by defendant, said he went to the pen, and found many people around it. Plaintiff’s son was there, and defendant pointed to the lamb and said to witness, “you take the lamb and the man.” Witness said, “if you will take the lamb and give it into my charge, I will take the lamb in charge, and the man also.” Defendant hesitated and would not do it, and witness then refused to take plaintiff’s son into custody. He heard defendant say to the young man, “you are a rogue, it is my lamb, and you know it.” He said that many times over, and said he lost the lamb from Camelford fair. After that, defendant talked in the same way to witness about it in a public house, when 20 or 30 farmers were in the room, who could hear what he said. Further evidence was given, on cross-examination of the witnesses, that it was customary for butchers to put a wool mark on their sheep; that this was the only lamb of plaintiff’s marked in that way, which was done for a particular purpose, and that defendant said it was his mark. Plaintiff admitted that he had never any quarrel with Lillicrapp, who was a perfect stranger to him; and that he never asked him for any apology, but told his attorney what had taken place in the fair, and left the matter in his hands. Plaintiff also said, after he had explained about the mark to defendant, the latter said no more to him.—After hearing the evidence for the plaintiff, the learned JUDGE made a suggestion to the counsel, which resulted in a withdrawal of the record. The learned Judge, addressing the jury, said, the parties had come to an agreement to close the case. No doubt the plaintiff was a most respectable man, and nobody could have dreamt for a moment that he stole the lamb. The defendant was equally respectable, but coming to the fair, and finding a lamb which he thought was his, he became very angry, and used words, which on reflection he would be sorry for. The parties had now agreed to withdraw the record. Mr. COLLIER, for the defendant, said he was glad the case had come to this conclusion. His client was a highly respectable man, and the reason he had made no apology was, that he most strenuously denies that he ever made use of the words imputed to him; he never made any accusation of felony against the plaintiff or his son, and he does not insinuate any imputation now. He (Mr. Collier) trusted that both parties would leave the court without the slightest imputation on their characters. The case was thus concluded. BROAD v. SLOGGETT.—Mr. Collier and Mr. Karslake were counsel for the plaintiff; attorney, Mr. Peter; Mr. Serjeant Kinglake and Mr. Kingdon, for the defendant; attorney, Mr. Hawker. The evidence in this case was continued to great length, but the main facts were the following. The plaintiff is Mrs. Jane Broad, the widow of Mr. Thomas Broad, who was drowned in 1848. He had rented of the defendant, Mr. Sloggett, a magistrate and merchant of Boscastle, a farm of about forty acres, called , in the same neighbourhood. On this farm there was a quarry belonging to Messrs. Rosevear and Sloggett, who were in partnership, and Thomas Broad was employed by them to work at this quarry with his cart and horses. Thomas Broad had occupied Mr. Sloggett’s farm from 1834 till his death in 1848, at a rent of 20l. per year, and had also been in the habit of dealing with Messrs. Rosevear and Sloggett for corn and other articles. It was the usual practice for Thomas Broad to come to a settlement with Mr. Sloggett every lunar month, taking into account the quarry work he had done for Messrs. Rosevear and Sloggett, the articles he had had of them, and the rent due from him monthly on account of the farm. Sometimes, Mrs. Broad said in evidence, the rent allowed for the month was 1l. 10s. and sometimes 1l. 12s. (Mr. COLLIER explained, that the rent being 20l. a year, it would be for thirteen lunar months 30s. a month for eight months, and 32s for five months). Mrs. Broad said, when the accounts were settled, there was generally a balance in her husband’s favour, except perhaps in seed time, when they might get a little into debt, but would pay it off in a month or two after. Thomas Broad was drowned in 1848. Mrs. Broad was allowed by Mr. Sloggett to continue on the estate after that period, and she stated that on the first monthly pay-day after her husband’s death she went with her son William to Mr. Sloggett’s office, where she saw Mr. Sloggett, and asked him if her husband owed him anything; on which he said the accounts should be looked over, and if her husband owed anything she should have a bill; that on the next monthly pay-day she went to the office with her son Thomas, to again settle for the quarry work, &c., and she then again asked Mr. Sloggett if he had any bill to present on account of any debt of her husband, and he said, no. Mrs. Broad said she continued to hold the estate until September 1853, when she wished to give up the farm and quarry work, and arranged, with Mr. Sloggett’s consent, that the estate should be taken by a Mr. Strout, who was to take the stock at a valuation. The stock was valued at 125l. odd on the 16th September, 1853, and on the 21st of September the occurrence took place, which gave rise to the present action. Mr. Sloggett went on that day to the farm at Bowithick, with Mr. Tinney, the captain of his quarry, and Mr. Treleaven, who was then a clerk of Mr. Hawker, attorney, of Boscastle. Mr. Strout, who was to take the farm, was also present; and the account given by Mrs. Broad of what took place was as follows. Bowithick is a lone house, and nobody was then in the house with her. When Mr. Sloggett came in he said, I have a demand here for 160l., bating 1s. 5½d. I said, Mr. Sloggett, you know I don’t owe you a farthing. He said, I know you don’t owe me a farthing, neither have I any claim upon you for the money, but since you have got so much, I will have it. I said, I cannot pay you any money, Mr. Sloggett, if I don’t owe you any; what do you look for this money from me for? whose debt is it? Mr. Sloggett said, it is money your husband borrowed of me in old time. I began to cry, and said, I must go after my children, or somebody must fetch them. The nearest of my sons was then about a mile and a half off, working. I was going out at the door, and saw two men standing there. I turned back, feeling myself faint with the fright, and sat down by the table about a quarter of an hour crying. I said, I have worked hard and lived hard, and now Mr. Sloggett you are come out to put me on the parish. I spoke to William Strout, and told him to pay me the money for the things he had bought. Mr. Sloggett said, Oh, that won’t do at all, I will have 60l., and if you don’t put your name to a paper the man has got at the table, I will throw you to doors, and take everything you are possessed of. I said I cannot write my name, I am shaking so. Then I thought for a moment what the consequence might be if my sons came in and saw me crying amongst so many men, and I would try to write down my name to have them be gone as quickly as possible. I then put my name at the bottom of something, and Strout paid over the £60 to Mr. Sloggett; they left some papers which were afterwards put in a work bag, I suppose by my son, and the accounts were not found till May this year. Strout afterwards paid me the remaining £65 of the valuation money. I left Bowithick the same day. My husband’s accounts with Mr. Sloggett were all burnt by my son, except two of the papers; he burnt them about twelve months before we left Bowithick. The witness, Mrs. Broad, was Cross-examined by Mr. SERJEANT KINGLAKE, and asked whether Mr. Sloggett did not say, after her husband’s death, there was a large amount due to him from her husband, but that she might go and try to do with the farm, and if she found she could not continue there, the stock must belong to him. She replied to this question, that she did not recollect anything about that. She also said she did not hear Mr. Sloggett say, if she would consent to Strout paying him £60 out of the proceeds to the valuation, he would forgive her all the rest. She said she left the estate, partly because she was unwell, and partly because Mr. Sloggett would not pay more than 2s. a day for the work of a horse in the quarry. William and Thomas Broad, sons of plaintiff, were also examined. Thomas said he burnt the old bills because they were mixed up with others which he was searching for.—John Small, a quarryman of Tintagel, said he had seen the greater part of old Broad’s accounts in his life-time, and there were frequent allowances for rent in them, from £1 10s. to £1 12s. monthly. Mr. COLLIER also put in as evidence the accounts left by Mr. Sloggett at plaintiff’s house and the agreement signed at plaintiff’s house on the 21st of September, which was as follows:—“I, the undersigned, William Strout, hereby agree to pay, on behalf of Jane Broad, the sum of £60, which she acknowledges to be due to William Sloggett for the rent of Bowithick estate; and I, the undersigned Jane Broad, do consent to the foregoing; this to be a satisfactory settlement, as witness our hands this 26th day of September, 1853.” Signed with the mark of William Strout, and with the names of Jane Broad and William Sloggett; witness, Joseph Tinney. In remarking on the plaintiff’s case, Mr. Collier said it was an oppressive and tyrannical action to call upon a poor lone widow, and by threats of turning her out of door, to extort her signature to a memorandum by which she signed over £60 to the defendant. They laid before her a voluminous account, which she could not understand in a week, and would not allow her time to send for her sons, but told her she owed £159, and by threats extorted her signature to the agreement. He trusted, however, that a jury of her countrymen would enable her to recover the £60 which had thus been obtained. Even if it were proved that her husband owed a large amount to Mr. Sloggett at his death, she was not answerable for that amount, for she had never administered to his effects. On the part of the defendant, Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE addressed the jury, stating that there was not the slightest ground for any imputations of discreditable conduct, such as had been cast on Mr. Sloggett by his learned friend on the other side. Mr. Sloggett was 82 years of age, a man of the highest respectability, and of a humane and charitable disposition; and the present was a wicked attempt on the part of the Broads to deprive him of his just due. Thomas Broad had been in the occupation of Mr. Sloggett’s estate a number of years. There was a sort of mixed account between the parties, consisting of the trade account (the goods supplied to Broad,) the rent payable by him, and the work he performed in the quarry; and at the time of Thomas Broad’s death, in 1848, the balance due from him to Mr. Sloggett was £163 12s. 9d. It became then a question whether Mr. Sloggett should allow the widow to continue on the estate, and do the quarry work as heretofore. He might have put in a distress to sweep the premises of the property on them, but that would have caused the ruin and devastation of the family, and probably have sent to widow to the parish. It was because Mr. Sloggett was a humane and charitable man that he had not done this. She had an interview with him shortly after her husband’s death, and entreated him to allow her to remain on the farm, and to continue the carrying work at the quarry. He told her that there was a heavy amount due from her husband for rent, and she must pay it off by small instalments, and told her the conditions on which she might remain on the farm. In September 1853, she was about to leave the farm, on account, as she told Strout, of her sons being such drunkards that she could not go on with them. It came to the knowledge of Mr. Sloggett that she was about to remove. He turned to his books and found there was a balance due to him £159 17s. 6½d. He went to her house, and finding the valuation of her stock came to 125l., from motives of humanity he said, though you own me 159l., if you pay me 60l., I will forgive you the rest. After some hesitation she began to cry, and said her husband was always getting her into difficulties through not taking care of his property; but when one of the persons present said the offer was above fair, she put on her spectacles and signed the agreement. He should call Mr. Sloggett, who would state it was utterly untrue that he ever told her there was no account against her husband; and he should show by other witnesses that there was no threat or violence used towards her to induce her to sign the document. The books would be produced to show how the 159l. were made up. As to the accounts left at her house having so long been in a bag, he asked if the jury could believe that story, and he suggested also that the old bills had been burnt purposely. He submitted that they could not possibly believe that Mr. Sloggett would rob a forlorn widow of 60l. by fraud and extortion when the money was not owing to him. The court then rose. FRIDAY, JULY 27. BROAD v. SLOGGETT.—Defendant’s case was proceeded with this morning by calling of witnesses, the first being Mr. James Nicholls, book-keeper of Messrs. Rosevear and Sloggett, who stated the mode in which the accounts were kept between Thomas Broad and the defendant. The witness also produced a paper which he said contained a correct abstract of the general accounts between the parties, as contained in a number of ledgers laid upon the table in court. From this abstract it appeared that the amount due from the firm of Rosevear and Sloggett, on the trade account, to Thomas Broad at the time of his death, was 34l. 13s. 11d.; but on the other hand, there was due for rent from Thomas Broad to defendant, 198l. 6s. 8d., thus leaving a balance due to Mr. Sloggett of 163l. 12s. 9d. Witness said, after Thomas Broad’s death, the old accounts went on; he continued to enter the accounts with Mrs. Broad as before with her husband. At the time of Mrs. Broad leaving the farm in September, 1853, the final balance owing from Mrs. Broad was 159l. 18s. 6¾d. After Thomas Broad’s death Mrs. Broad came to the office monthly about her account, and witness had frequently heard Mr. Sloggett speak to her on the subject of the farm and her husband’s debt. He would say to her, something must be done, Mrs. Broad, there is a heavy balance owing on the rent account; you must pay a little more than your actual rent monthly, and that is the way to liquidate it. He then settled upon 1l. 12s, per month as the sum she should pay, instead of 1l. 10s., which on thirteen lunar months in the year would make 16s. that she would pay annually towards her husband’s balance. She did not pay throughout all her time at 1l. 12s per month. Witness had also many times heard Mr. Sloggett complain to Thomas Broad of his being in arrear, and he always replied, there’s my stock. On cross-examination the witness said, since Thomas Broad’s death there was nothing owing by Mrs. Broad on her own accounts, but there was a small balance in her favour. The witness was also cross-examined at some length about a difference between the abstract from the ledgers he now produced, and the statement of account left with Mrs. Broad on the day she signed the document. It was pointed out by Mr. COLLIER that there was a difference in the items, but the witness said the total amounts were the same, and that the variance in items arose from a different mode of making out the two accounts.—Mr. Sloggett was next called, and said he was nearly eighty-two years of age. The late Thomas Broad owed him a considerable amount of rent, and in his life- time he had spoken to him about the arrears. He had four horses, sheep, and other things, and household furniture. After her husband’s death Mrs Broad came to him and complained of being left a widow in distressed circumstances, and requested him to let her continue as her husband had, for the benefit of her family. He consented that she should go on. He told her, as long as she could do good with the farm she might keep it, but she must do something towards reducing the heavy balance that was left by her husband, and that she might hold on the stock as long as she could do good with it. He never told her that there was no account against her husband. He consented that Strout should succeed her in the farm, and he heard about the valuation of her stock. He said, I went to her house in September, 1853, with Tinney and Treleaven, Mr. Hawker’s clerk. Strout did not go with me, but came in whilst we were there. I laid a statement of the account between us on the table before Mrs. Broad, and said the balance is £159. She said she was not aware of such a heavy balance, and she should come to the parish after working hard. I said, I don’t wish for you to do that, I’ll take 60l. as a full balance of the account and lose the rest. She then cheered up, and consented to that arrangement. I knew the stock had been valued at 125l. She signed the paper, and was then to receive from Strout 65l. Strout had come in, and he took her order to pay me the 60l. and paid me immediately. I never used any threat of any kind to her. I did not say, as she stated, I know you don’t owe me a farthing, neither have I any claim on you, but since you have got so much I will have it. She did not say, I can’t pay you money if I don’t owe you none. I never said it was money your husband borrowed of me in old times; he never borrowed a shilling of me. I did stay I would distrain if she did not agree to sign the paper; but I did not tell her if she did not put her name to the paper I would throw her out of doors. I never heard her say her hand was so shaky she could hardly write her name. On cross-examination witness admitted that Strout probably expected he was coming there. He did not lend Strout any part of the 60l., or the 65l. he afterward paid to Mrs. Broad. He considered she was holding a continuation from her husband. He did not give her more time to go through the accounts because she would have then carried off the whole of the money. If there had been a mistake in the accounts, she might have it corrected on pointing it out afterwards. He did not hear her ask for time to send for her sons. Joseph Tinney, William Strout, and Edward Treleaven were also called, and corroborated Mr. Sloggett as to what took place in Bowithick house on the day when Mrs. Broad signed the agreement. Mr. Strout added, that she gave to him as her reason for giving up the farm, that her sons were in the habit of drinking, and she was afraid to stay in the house with them. Strout, and Bray, one of the valuers, also said that when Strout paid Mrs. Broad the 65l., she made no complaint of the 60l. having been extorted from her a few days previously; she said nothing about it. Treleaven, clerk to Mr. Hawker, said he drew up the agreement between the parties, in the house, and she signed it willingly. Mr. Sloggett was mild with her, and said he should be sorry to distrain. Another clerk called Brown, employed by Messrs. Rosevear and Sloggett, said Mrs. Broad came to the office on the 27th of September, to be paid for some quarry work, &c., and she then made no complaint of what had taken place previously about the 60l. Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE addressed the jury for defendant, submitting that after the evidence he had adduced by several witnesses, they could not believe the story told by the plaintiff. It was said by his learned friend on the other side, that she was not liable for her husband’s debt, but that would depend upon what was the honest understanding between the parties. Mr. Sloggett would never have allowed her to continue on the estate if there had been any understanding that her husband’s liability for rent was to have been set aside. Mr. COLLIER also addressed the jury for plaintiff, reasserting that her signature to the memorandum was extorted from her by threats, and saying it was unfortunate for his client that old Broad’s account had been burnt. The learned JUDGE summed up the case, and in the course of his remarks on the evidence said one could scarcely suppose that a landlord, unless he believed that there was some rent due, would go to rob a woman in this way of her money. It was however for the jury to consider whether the old rent was really due; because if it was not, plaintiff paid the money under a misrepresentation of facts, and the verdict must be in her favour. But if they thought the old rent was really due, and that there was a fair understanding between the parties about the stock remaining on the premises, and that defendant was claiming on the old account, and that, she understood that without any fraud or imposition—in that case he would recommend the jury to find for the defendant. At the same time, if they did so, he would ask them to say whether they thought the money was paid by her under a threat to distrain. In his opinion the landlord would not have a right to distrain for the old rent, because at the husband’s death there was an end of his tenancy. Still defendant having threatened to distrain, even when he had no right to, would not necessarily make void the agreement Mrs. Broad had signed; because though the landlord might not have the power to distrain for the old rent, he might proceed for its recovery in other ways. Though she had not administered to her husband’s effects, she having interfered with the property might be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court as an executrix in her own wrong. The threat to distrain when there was no right to do it, he (the learned Judge) therefore thought did not necessarily make void the agreement. If, however, the verdict was for the defendant, that point would be reserved for the court above. They would therefore say, if they found for the defendant, whether they believed the money paid by plaintiff monthly was intended by her to be applied to the old or the new account, and also whether or not the agreement was signed under a threat of distress, because those points would make a difference in law on the subject. The jury consulted about a quarter of an hour, and then the Foreman said, we are not satisfied with the way in which the rent and trade accounts were kept, and we find a verdict for the plaintiff for 60l. The learned JUDGE, at the suggestion of Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE, asked the jury whether they thought any rent was due from the old man, Thomas Broad? One of the jurymen replied, if any rent was due, defendant ought to have put in his claim at the time of the old man’s death. The jury then repeated their former verdict.—It was stated in Court that a new trial would be applied for at the next term. LADY SANDWICH and ANOTHER v. HARRIS and SON.—This was an action of ejectment, and defendants not appearing, the learned JUDGE directed a verdict for the plaintiffs. By agreement between the learned counsel, (Mr. M. SMITH for plaintiffs, and Mr. COLERIDGE for defendants) execution was ordered to be stayed for one month. FOOKS and OTHERS v. SYMONS.—In this case, a verdict for plaintiff was taken by consent, subject to terms. In another cause, in which the same plaintiffs and defendant were concerned, the record was withdrawn. BRITTON, Clerk, v. GRIFFITH, Clerk.—This was a special jury case, Mr. TYACK being attorney for plaintiff, and Messrs. GRYLLS, HILL & HILL for defendant. After the special jurymen had been waiting for the trial nearly two days, it was announced that the record was withdrawn, all matters in dispute between the parties being referred by Judge’s order, to Mr. Stock, barrister. This concluded the Nisi Prius business of the assizes. Mr. Justice CROMPTON then proceeded with the trial of the prisoners. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. FRIDAY July 27.—Before Mr. Justice CROMPTON. RICHARD ROBERTS, 46, was charged with stealing, on the 30th of June 11 lbs. of tallow, the property of her Majesty. Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE and Mr. POULDEN conducted the prosecution. Prisoner was an able seaman, and what is called a shipkeeper on board H.M. ship “Arachne,” lying in ordinary in Hamoaze. It was his duty to take charge of all the property in the ship. On the 30th of June his wife, Elizabeth Roberts, went to the shop of Mr. Lear, a tallow-chandler, in Whimple Street, Plymouth, and offered to sell him 11 lbs of tallow. He saw that it was Russian tallow, and put questions to her, when her answers excited his suspicions, and he sent for a police officer named Parsons, and inquiries subsequently made led to the apprehension of the prisoner. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. ELIZA WEEKS, 19, was charged with stealing a purse and 5s. 6d., from the person of John Gill. Prosecutor is a labourer living at , near Truro. On the 16th of July, he was at the Britannia Inn, Truro, went there about eleven at night, and left about twelve. He was much intoxicated, and going up Prince’s Street he fell on the pavement, and into the gutter. He lay there until aroused by a policeman, he believed about an hour after. He then missed his purse and money, and in consequence of what he said, police constable Ward went to search for the prisoner, apprehended her, and charged her with picking Gill’s pocket of his purse and money. She said she had no purse, but the policeman found that she had one, and told her to take it out. She did so; it contained half a crown and 3s. in silver, and it was identified by prosecutor as the purse he had lost. Prisoner had been seen in the streets between eleven and twelve that night. Verdict, GUILTY. A previous conviction was also proved against the prisoner. Sentence FOUR MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR. The court then rose. CROWN COURT, FRIDAY, July 27. Before Mr. JUSTICE WILLIAMS. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER. MARY ANN HAWTON, aged 23, described as of no occupation, and a most repulsive and offensive looking woman, was indicted for the wilful murder of her male child on the 25th of May, in the parish of St. Blazey. In another count she was charged with the wilful murder of a male child of some person unknown. She was also charged on the Coroner’s Inquisition.—The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. She was allowed to sit, and during the greater part of the trial, hid herself from view of the court, and was apparently in considerable distress of mind. Mr. Bevan and Mr. Cole were counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. Carter for the defence. Mr. Bevan succinctly and temperately stated the nature of the case to the jury, and proceeded to call witnesses:— James Combe, a little boy, 9 years old, deposed. I work at West Par Consols, and remember on a Saturday afternoon coming from my work. I know St. Blazey Highway Bridge. I got on to the stream of water there and saw a child lying across the leat, caught in a bramble. I ran in and told my brother John of it. We came back and my brother took it up and put it down on the bank. He then went away for the constable, and I stayed by the child till the constable came.—Cross-examined. This was about 4 o’clock in the afternoon. When I saw the child, I was standing on the hedge; there is a pathway on the hedge. There were houses near; just touching. I could not have seen the child from the road, nor without getting on the hedge. John Combe, an elder brother of last witness:—I remember being called by my brother on Saturday the 26th May, about 4 o’clock. Where my brother called me to, is about 100 yards below St. Blazey Highway bridge; the stream runs down to it. When I got to the place, I saw the child lying across the leat; a stick preventing it from swimming down the stream. I stepped across the leat, and took up the body and laid it on the bank. It had on nothing but a shirt, a waistband, and a napkin. As I took it out, I observed a blow in the head, just behind the ear. There was a plenty of people came there; some one went for the constable; and I and my little brother stopped there till the constable came. We wrapped it up in a little sheet, and carried it into the Miners Inn.—Cross-examined. The stream is not very wide; I could stride it; and it is very shallow. It runs higher than the road, so that a person walking on the road does not see the water. I was working about 10 yards off, and had not noticed any one in particular pass there.—I did not observe more than one mark of a blow on the head, and no mark about the body. The stick that stopped the body was a kind of withey, not growing, but confined at each side of the stream. The turnpike road crosses the St. Blazey Highway Bridge, farther up the stream than where the body was found. I live at Mount Charles, which is about 1½ mile from St. Austell. John Vickery.—I am one of the constables of St. Blazey parish. I know St. Blazey Highway bridge. I was called there on Saturday 26th of May, and I found a male child lying on the side of the river or leat. The child had on clothes as has been described; it had a shirt, a waistband, and two napkins. It was a very thin child, and I saw a mark on the back part of the head. I took it to the nearest inn—the Miners’ Inn; and took it upstairs in a room and fastened the door, and there I left the child and went for the coroner. I saw the child the next morning; Mr. Taylor, the surgeon, was there then; it was the same child I had left there, and in the same state. William Taylor.—I am a surgeon at . By order of the coroner, I went to see the body of this child on Sunday morning the 27th of May. I saw the body of a child from 3 to 4 months old, in a small room upstairs at the Miners Inn. I was taken there by the last witness. The child had on a sort of shirt, and a coarse kind of napkin. I removed the shirt and the napkin and examined the body very carefully. The child was rather thin, but not particularly so—not below the common average of children of that age. There were no marks of bruises about the body whatever. But on examining the head, at the back part, there was one large bruise, and on the fore part two small marks or bruises; these were very slight. I removed the scalp very carefully, and under the large bruise some extravasated blood was found. In my opinion and judgement, that extravasated blood must have been caused during life. The fact of extravasated blood being found under a bruise would indicate that the bruise had been inflicted during life. I would not swear that it was so; but I believe it is considered a certain indication by the profession generally; and I consider it so myself. There must be circulation of the blood to cause extravasation—for the blood to be poured out from the vessels. I think the effect of such a blow at the back of the head would have been sufficient to kill a child of that age. The other two marks were of less serious character; and there was no blood extravasated under them; I don’t come to any conclusion whether they were inflicted before or after death; I can form no opinion. The skull was fractured under the blow at the back of the head. The brain was in perfectly healthy state. The other main organs of the body were all in a healthy state. The stomach contained milk in a partial state of digestion—I believe it was human milk; but I did not analyse it, and cannot say if it was milk of any particular animal. I judged from the state of the body that it had been in the water from 20 to 30 hours. It is difficult to say to a few hours; no decomposition had begun. Cross-examined.—I should think if the body had been in the water as long as 48 hours, decomposition would have taken place; but that would much depend on the season of the year; decomposition would take place more rapidly now than in the early part of the year. Decomposition would not take place so speedily in a child, in which the flesh if pure, as in a gross and fat person.—It is impossible, I think, to state positively the age of a child, from 3 to 5 months; children vary much in size; I said this child was about 4 months old; I would now say, it was from 3 to 5 months; I should hardly say it was six months old.—I found milk in the stomach, as if food had been administered recently; digestion had just commenced.—I do not swear positively as to the cause of death; I decline to do that; I say, as far as my belief and judgment go, that, however that bruise was caused, the extravasation of blood under it indicates that the bruise was inflicted during life. I give my opinion that death was caused before the child reached the water, and that death was not caused by drowning. There was no mark of a knife or any other instrument having been used; and no mark about the throat of strangulation or compression. In a child so young, the bones of the skull are very soft and compressible. I cannot say that a woman with both hands could have crashed the head so as to compress the skull together; I do not think so; the skull is very hard at the back of the head; it is the hardest part of all ages. In my practice I have known instances of children jumping from the arms of persons holding them, and falling on the ground; infants are apt to spring like that. It is possible that if this child had fallen on a stone in the highway, this blow might have been caused, and such an injury inflicted. Mr. Carter:—If a person had been standing on the hedge and the child had fallen over, that would more than account for the death?—Witness:—I dont know the height of the bridge. Of course there would have been a fall of several feet. Is your opinion formed from the extravasation—the ecchymosis?—Yes. Do you mean to say that ecchymosis might not have been caused if the child had fallen into the stream—whether, if the death had been instantaneous, there would not have been time for a small quantity of blood to flow?—Yes, I think it would be possible. So that if the child fell into the stream and was carried on by the current, blows and extravasation might have been caused?—If the child fell on a stone from any great height, that might cause extravasation. Of course, in drowning, the blood remains in a semi fluid state for a considerable time?—The blood remains in a more fluid state in death by drowning than in death from any other cause. The JUDGE:—Do you mean to say that extravasation might have been caused by drowning?— Witness:—No, my lord. Mr. Carter:—What extent of extravasated blood was there?—Witness:—Very little; just sufficient to colour. I believe discoloration is quicker in children than in adults?—Yes. The two other marks you speak of—do you suppose they were caused after death?—They were slight, and they may or may not have been caused after death. You give us no information either way?—Neither way. Were they so slight as to be perfectly harmless?—They were slight. What was the general appearance of the body as to the surface of the skin?—It was pale and cold. That is an indication of drowning, is it not?—No; any body would be pale and cold after being dead so many hours. Were the eyes open or shut?—They were open. You examined it internally?—Yes, very minutely; the heart was full, but not distended in any way. It is a very common thing for children of that age to be seized with sudden convulsion or spasm?— Children are subject to convulsive fits. There would be no internal marks if such a thing had occurred?—No. The dress was of the usual kind, worn by children of the poor?—It was unusually poor; the napkin was very carefully pinned. Re-examined.—Mr. COLE:—My friend has asked you about blood remaining in a fluid state after drowning; but, though it remains fluid, it does not circulate?—Witness: No. I understood you to say that the blow was at a part of the skull particularly thick?—Yes. Mary Crowle:—I live near St. Austell; about a quarter of a mile from the town. I recollect two women coming to my house on Wednesday the 23rd of May. Prisoner was one of them; each of the women had a child. Mary Ann Hawton told me that hers was 4 months old; and the other told me hers was about 10 months.—Mary Ann Hawton told me she was going to Callington to her brothers. My husband took them in a timber wagon, coming on the road from Tresillian; they were very tired. Mary Ann Hawton told me she was to wait with me till my husband came. She and the other woman and the two children stayed at my house from Wednesday night till Friday morning. On Thursday night they went into the town and lodged; they came back to me on Friday morning about 10 o’clock and stayed with me till ½ past 11. When they came on Wednesday evening I got them some tea, and also got some food for the babies. I nursed Mary Ann Hawton’s baby; I gave it suck from by breast, and had an opportunity of seeing how it was dressed. It had on a frock with blue ground and little white flower pattern; a shirt; a belly-band, and one napkin, put round the lower part of the body; I saw some of the things washed by Mary Ann Hawton; I saw her wash her baby’s napkin. While they were at my house I saw Mary Ann Hawton treat her child not kindly; she beat it; and I reproved her for it; she beat it on the side of the head with her open hand. I said, “Don’t beat the baby; the baby don’t know what you are beating it for.” I did not see her beat it on the head more than once; but I saw her beat it once on the arm with the open hand. The other woman also saw her do so, and found fault with her. On Friday morning, about half-past 11, they left the house. Mary Ann Hawton told me she was going to Lostwithiel; and the other woman said she was going to Callington. I next saw that child on Saturday night, the 26th of May, dead, at the Miners’ Inn public-house, near the bridge. I am sure it was the same child. Mr. Sambells, the constable, was there, and Combe, and others. The child at that time had on no frock or flannel. It had on a shirt and belly-band; I can’t swear they were the same. It had on a napkin, which was the same I had seen on the child at my house. I could not swear to anything except the napkin. John Vickery, constable, recalled, produced two napkins, which he said he had taken from the child, and had had in his custody ever since. He also produced other articles, all taken from the child’s body. Mrs. Crowle was desired to pick out the napkin which she had observed on the child, and had seen washed by Mary Ann Hawton. She did so, and said she knew it by a sort of pocket in it, and which, she said, was unusual in articles of the kind. She said she had taken particular notice of Mary Ann Hawton’s three napkins, all being made this same way; and that the prisoner left one at her house, which she now produced, and which was made in the same way. Witness added:—I have no doubt that the child I saw dead was the same I had seen in my house.—Cross-examined. I knew it to be the same child by its appearance. There is a great difference in the appearance of a child when dead from what it had when living; but at the time I saw this child there was no difference; it was not discoloured, and it looked as if sleeping. I could see it was the same child by the features. I took particular notice of this child while it was in my house. I have not since seen any such frock as was worn away by this child from my house. The other child had on a stuff frock, but I cannot say what colour; I never took particular notice of that other child’s inner clothing; it might have had a napkin of the same sort as that which prisoner’s child wore. The women told me they came from the Truro Union; perhaps the clothes they had were supplied by the Union. They left my house about half past 11 on the Friday morning, and it was after 10 o’clock on Saturday night that I saw the dead child. The child cried pretty much in my house. Re-examined.—I did not have so much to do with the elder child as with the younger; I had the younger child in my hand, and nursed and suckled it. By the Judge:—I saw prisoner beat the child. The child was cross and troublesome; she could not keep it still. I said I supposed it was sore from having been carried so far, and therefore was restless. I don’t know that the prisoner made any reply to that. The child was remarkably restless; not constantly so, but occasionally, for 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour at a time. Elizabeth Jane Peters (a little girl):—I live near St. Austell. I remember on Friday morning the 25th of May being in St. Austell-street. I saw a woman there with a baby; she was coming along behind me; she asked me whether I had found a purse; I said, no, she then asked me if I would hold her baby while she went to look for it. That woman was the prisoner at the bar. I took the baby and stopped there with it for half an hour. The woman went down the street. I waited half an hour; she did not come back; I then went home to my mother and gave her the baby, and she took it and went after the woman.—Cross- examined. I don’t know what o’clock it was; but I had not had my dinner. She searched her pockets and went along the street looking for her purse. I had not seen her before, and did not know who she was. I never saw any other woman and child. Elizabeth Peters.—I am the mother of last witness. On Friday morning the 25th May my little girl came home to me with a baby, a trifle after 12, or it might be near one. My child was crying. In consequence of what she told me, I went on the Lostwithiel road, and found the prisoner, who owned the child.—I said to her “what made you leave your baby; you good-for-nothing woman?” She answered that she had lost her purse and 20 shillings in it; and had come on that road to see for it. I told her she ought not to have left her baby behind; she said she liked her baby and was coming back for it again. I had given her the child before that, when I first met her; and she took it kindly as a mother would. She came back with me towards Mount Charles. I had found her near the Railway Bridge. I had sent my little child on in front of me and I saw her meet the woman. I know St. Blazey highway bridge; that is about 1½ mile farther on from St. Austell than the Railway Bridge. If she had gone on in the direction she was going when I overtook her, she would have come to St. Blazey Highway Bridge. Cross Examined—I live about half a mile out of St. Austell, towards Charlestown. She had gone about ¾ of a mile, or it might be a mile from St. Austell when I overtook her. If she wanted to go away from the town she might have gone a great deal farther than that from the time she left my daughter. Sophia Trebilcock—I am the wife of William Trebilcock, of St. Austell. On Friday the 25th May last, I was going on the road near St. Blazey Highway. I passed over St. Blazey Highway Bridge, and came on towards St. Austell. I saw the prisoner on the bridge resting her foot against the wall, or hedge. I passed her. She had on a large cape, and as I passed her I heard a child crying under it. She was carrying the child on her right arm. I can’t be certain if she had any thing on her left arm or not. I should say that was from ½ past one to 2 o’clock. I noticed the woman and am certain it was the prisoner. I passed on and left her there.—Cross-examined:—The child was crying, and I supposed she was giving it the breast. I don’t believe she had any bundle on her arm. I saw nothing but what I supposed was an attempt to give the child the breast. By the Judge:—As I passed, the child cried, and she rested her foot on the hedge, and was fumbling and using her hands as a woman would do who was going to give a child the breast. I heard her speak to the child. I observed the woman particularly, and have no doubt it was the prisoner. Thomas Sambells.—I am a policeman at St. Austell. I received some information about the death of a child and went in pursuit of a woman; I had received a description of her, and I apprehended her at a place called the Factory in the parish of Menheniot, at her brother’s house, on Monday, the 28th of May. Westlake, another policeman, was with me; he stood outside; when I went in, I spoke to the prisoner and told her she must go with me, as she was charged with destroying her child. Westlake stept (sic) in and said, “where is your child, Mary Ann?” She said “I have buried it.” I then took her in custody.—Cross-examined.—Her brother is a miner. I have known him a great many years, and the family,—the mother, two brothers, and this girl. I knew them in Tavistock. I don’t recollect any brother called Edmund that died in a state of idiocy or insanity. I have removed from their neighbourhood about 10 years, and have seen but very little of them since. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. CARTER addressed the Jury, at considerable length, in behalf of the prisoner. He began by remarking on the seriousness of the charge, involving the punishment of death; and he contended that juries were not only justified but were bound to consider the fact in connection with the evidence submitted to them. He argued that, as in cases of suicide, the guilty party was now rarely held to be of sound mind at the time he committed the deed of self-destruction, the same reasoning might be applied, with more force, to a mother destroying her child. If, in this case, he could have felt there was proof of murder having been committed by the prisoner, he would have tendered evidence of insanity. (The learned Judge interposing with an objection to such observation, unless evidence of insanity was to be offered, Mr. Carter considered that in a case of this kind he was justified in the course he had adopted; and he trusted that if the jury should be of opinion that murder had been committed, they would call upon him to give evidence as to the prisoner’s state of mind. The learned Judge told Mr. Carter that if he intended to give evidence of insanity, he must do so at once).—Mr. Carter stated that in his opinion there was not such evidence of murder as would justify him in calling evidence of insanity; and he then proceeded to review and comment on the evidence for the prosecution. There was no evidence, he said, of harsh treatment of the child by the mother beyond a little slap or two with the open hand; and there was no proof of her having expressed a desire to get rid of the burden of the child; nor was there any reason that she should do so; her having gone into the town to lodge on the Thursday night was proof that she had money, and there was no doubt she had been supplied with some money on leaving the Union House; and there was no reason for supposing there was any untruth in her statement to the little girl Peters, that she had lost her purse; nor any ground for doubting that she meant to come back for her child. If she had wished to get rid of the child, she might, after leaving it with the little girl Peters, have gone off very much farther than she had gone, when she was overtaken by Mrs. Peters and her daughter; and Mrs. Peters proved that the prisoner then received and treated her child kindly, as a mother would.—Mr Carter next alleged that there was much uncertainty on the proof of identification of the child, either by dress or features. But, assuming the dead child to have belonged to the prisoner, he adverted to the evidence of Sophia Trebilcock, in proof that at that time, a little more than two hours before the body was found, the prisoner was apparently giving suck to the child, but in a position and under circumstances of difficulty; and he suggested the probability that the child might, as the mother’s arms were encumbered, have sprung off and fallen on the stony ground; and so the fatal blow and the extravasation would be accounted for; or, in the difficult position in which the woman was, the child might have fallen or have sprung into the water from the bridge; and if the death was so caused, the jury must not find a verdict of murder, merely because of any mode in which the body was afterwards disposed of. In this case there could be no motive to avoid shame, as in the destruction of a new born child. There was an absence of proof of premeditation or malice aforethought on the part of the woman towards the child; and therefore, even assuming that the evidence offered by the prosecution in respect of identity and other circumstances was satisfactory, the utmost extent of the verdict should be that of manslaughter. He contended, however, that there were reasons for doubt in the minds of the jury as to the evidence generally. The learned JUDGE then summed up; his lordship directed the attention of the jury to three enquiries: 1st, whether the child found in the water was the same as the prisoner had had at Mrs. Crowle’s;— Secondly, whether it met its death by violence from the prisoner at the bar; and thirdly, whether that violence was inflicted under circumstances that warranted a verdict of murder, or only of manslaughter. With reference to the third question, if they thought death was caused by the blow at the back of the head, and that that blow was inflicted with the intention to cause death, or some serious permanent bodily harm, that would amount to murder. But if they thought that in a moment of irritation at the restlessness of the child, she inflicted this blow, without intention to cause death or any serious permanent bodily harm, then they would find her guilty of manslaughter.—In the course of summing up and commenting on the evidence, the learned Judge remarked that the surgeon’s testimony that death was caused by the one blow at the back of the head offered a presumption in favour of the prisoner— that death might have been caused by accident; but, more strongly, that if she inflicted the fatal blow herself, she did it in a moment of passionate irritation, and not with deliberate intention to kill the child. In that point of view it was also important that the surgeon deposed that there were no other marks of violence about the body; and also that the child had been recently fed—a fact which was confirmed by the evidence of Mrs. Trebilcock. The learned Judge also pointed the attention of the Jury to the evidence of Mrs. Crowle that the child was a very restless one, and that the mother was much excited at this restlessness, even in the presence of other women. The Jury, after about 5 minutes consideration, found the prisoner GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER; NOT GUILTY OF MURDER. The learned Judge passed sentence as follows:—Mary Ann Hawton; the Jury have taken a merciful view of your case. I don’t know what your conscience is telling you at this moment as to whether their verdict has rightly acquitted you of the crime of Murder. But this I know—that the crime of Manslaughter in your case draws very close indeed to the confines of murder; and I shall pass sentence on you accordingly. The sentence of the Court is that you be TRANSPORTED BEYOND THE SEAS FOR THE TERM OF YOUR NATURAL LIFE. JOSEPH GILES, 32, blacksmith, pleaded guilty of stealing four brass bearings, the property of the adventurers in Great Roughtor Consols, at St. Clether, on the 25th June.—A respectable looking man, under whom the prisoner had been tenant, and who had known him for 9 years, gave him a good character as an honest quiet man. The learned JUDGE said he had no doubt that the witness said was perfectly true, but he could not say that it mitigated the prisoner’s offence. It was the very circumstance of his having a good character that procured him, as a blacksmith, the means of stealing the property of the Adventurers.—Sentence, six months’ hard labour. JOHN MACKAY, convicted yesterday of cutting, stabbing and wounding Neil Hansen, on board the barque Perseverance, at Falmouth, was now sentenced to One Year’s Imprisonment. ROBBING A DEAD BODY.—MATILDA GAY, 35, and CONSTANTINE TRIPCONEY, 62, shoemaker, were charged with stealing about 10 sovereigns from the body of a dead person unknown, at St. Keverne on the 31st May.—Tripconey was also charged with feloniously receiving. In the indictment, the property was, in legal form, laid in the Bishop of Exeter.—Mr. Cole and Mr. Kingdon conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stock defended Matilda Gay; Mr. Coleridge defended Tripconey. In opening the case to the Jury, Mr. Cole reminded them of the wreck of the barque John on the Manacles, in the early part of May; and stated that the bodies of many persons drowned on that occasion were cast ashore for some time afterwards, and it was with reference to one of those bodies that the circumstances arose which led to the present prosecution. John Pentecost deposed:—I reside at St. Keverne. On the 31st of May, about ½ past 11, I was on the sea shore at St. Keverne Lowlands, with Thomas Downing and James Richards. I saw a dead body floating on the water, and we three landed it and carried it to the top of the cliff and put it on the grass. The body—a female—was very much putrefied and had on a gown and stays and plaid skirt. We covered it up as well as we could; we did not examine it much, but I saw James Richards touch the stays where a piece was sown on the left side; I myself saw that piece. We left the body and went down under cliff, thinking we saw another body. About 5 minutes after we left the body on the grass, we saw two women, a man, and a little boy go up to it. At that time I was about 40 or 50 yards from the body. The prisoners were two of these persons. I saw Matilda Gay stooping over the body as if looking over the clothes. We went up to those people, but before we reached them, they went away. These parties were Philippa Martin, Matilda Gay, Tripconey, and his grandson, a little boy. When we got up, the four were got on a brave way down the meadow; we overtook them, and I asked the woman Gay what was the matter, as she appeared to be hurried. She said she was hurried at having seen the body, as it was so putrefied and the bones out; and I told her she had no business to have been so near it; it was not fit to be seen or touched. Tripconey was close by when this conversation took place. She and Tripconey then went away and I and Downing and Richards went to the body and found that a hole had been broke in the pocket of the stays; it was not torn when we left it before. By the pocket, I mean the square piece sewn on the outside. There was a hole torn in it, and some paper had been taken out; there was some paper on the corpse, and some still hanging about the pocket. During all this time, I am certain that no persons were at the bodies, but the prisoners and two others I have mentioned.—Cross-examined by Mr. Stock:—I travel round the cliffs sometimes; but not with the intention of taking wreck or anything of the kind. I went out that morning, merely for pleasure, as I had not much to do at home. We placed the body above high-water mark—right on the grass.—When James Richards touched the stays, he said, “there’s something here”; I said I would advise you not to touch it till the carpenter comes to make the coffin. We did not take any other body out of the water, but the one I have spoken of; but I saw something like human ribs down on the rocks.—Cross-examined by Mr. Coleridge:—I did not see Tripconey touch the body; he was the other side of a low hedge, a little distance from the corpse, and looked over.—Re-examined. I was working at a mill at this time; but mills are not always working in our country; they have not stream to keep them always at work. Five shillings were given by the parish authorities for each body landed. I received no five shillings, and did not hope to get any. Thomas Downing corroborated last witness, and stated that Philippa Martin did not go within 20 yards of the body till he and his companions came up from the cliff. I saw Matilda Gay stooping over the body for about five minutes; I went towards her, and when I got within about 10 yards of her she ran away. Pentecost and Richards went after the prisoners; I stopped and looked at the body and saw that a pocket was torn on the left hand side of the stays; I saw Richards examine the pocket. About one o’clock the same day, I saw the prisoners. I said to Tripconey “What have you took away from that dead?” He said “My dear man, I never took nothing.” I said “I don’t know, Constantine, whether you took anything; but I know there’s something gone, but what it is I can’t say.” He said, “If you’ll not believe me I’ll go out to this woman with you.” I went with him to Matilda Gay, and said to her “I don’t know whether you have taken any thing, but there’s something gone from that dead; what it is I can’t say.” She said she had nothing. Then I said to her, “I know there’s something gone; and if you don’t return it before morning, you shall have something after you.” She made no answer, and went away. No other person had been near the body from the time we placed it on the grass till I saw the pocket was gone.—Cross- examined by Mr. Stock:—I am an agriculturist; I was not at work that day, because I was poorly; but I was at work the day before and the day after. I did not mean to take any money myself; if I had got any I should have taken it to the overseer or churchwarden: I never had any money or property whatever from the wreck. I never saw any body in the water but that one we landed. Cross-examined by Mr. Coleridge:—I know Tripconey had been unwell and unable to work for a brave while—By Mr. Cole:— What we call the cliff is but 2 to 3 feet high. James Richards, a mariner, living at St. Keverne, gave evidence confirmatory of portions of the preceding. He said the pocket on the stays was nearly the size of his hand. He said—I felt it; it seemed to contain coin, and from the weight in a little space I thought it was gold. In my judgment, there were about 15 or 16 pieces of coin there.—When we got towards the prisoners after we came up from the cliff, Tripconey fetched a bit of a run, and called to his little grandson:—“Peter, Peter, I am going home.” At that time Matilda Gay was running over a lay field. We followed them, and as I got about 10 yards from them, I saw something pass from Gay to Tripconey. When we got up to them, Gay got against a hedge and said she was so frightened at seeing the dead woman’s arm that she did not think she should ever be good again. I said the body was very bad to see, and not fit to touch, and, what business had she there? I then went back to the body and saw that there was a three-cornered hole torn in the pocket, which, was of yellow nankeen and appeared to have been strong. There was then no coin in the pocket; but there was some paper, and also some paper lying on the body. I reported the finding of this body to Mr. Griffith, the clergyman, the same afternoon, about 5 o’clock. Philippa Martin.—I am a widow living at St. Keverne. On the 31st of May I went down to the Lowlands with Matilda Gay; when we got there we saw Tripconey. Before I got on the beach I saw a body. While I went on the beach, Gay went to the body, but I did not see what she did to it; she did not stay there long. While I was on the beach, I saw her go into the field after she came away from the body. I went after her, and Trip came up to us just afterwards. I heard him say to Gay “They are coming; put the money in my hand.” I saw money—gold—in Gay’s hand; I did not see it counted, but it appeared something like 10l.; it was sovereigns, and I believe one half sovereign. Gay put the money into Trip’s hand. At this time, Pentecost, Downing, and Richards, came up; I heard Gay say she was hurried, because Trip had called her to see the body. The three men went away, and I went on with prisoners towards home. As they were walking on, Trip said “a good day’s work;” and he said to me that I might have a part of the money if I liked. I said I would have nothing to do with it; and I did not take any, either then or at any other time. After that Trip left us and went on with Gay. I said to her that I did not think it ought to have been done. She said that people had said she had got loads of things, and she had got none, and one might be as right as the other. After that I went home; I live not far from Gay. Trip lives three or four miles from me. In the evening, about 8 o’clock, he came to my house and asked me if I had any turf to sell. I never sell turf. He also asked me where Abraham Gay, (Matilda’s husband) lived; and I showed him. He said he was feared that there would be law or something about the money; and he asked me if I would take my oath that I knew nothing about it. I said I had not got none of the money, and I never saw Matilda take it, but that if I was called forward, I must speak the truth. He then left me and went away.—Cross-examined by Mr. Stock.—I had no particular reason for going on the beach, when Matilda asked me; I never went there to do no roguery; I did not find anything, and I cant say that I went to look for anything particular. I was not more than a yard off when I saw the money handed by Gay to Trip. I can’t swear how many sovereigns there was; but I need not be afraid to swear there was 7. Gay is a labouring man and lives about half a mile from me; he has several children; I never knew any harm of his wife, the prisoner. Re-examined:—As far as I can judge, there was about 10 sovereigns; but not having seen the money counted, I cannot swear distinctly. Rev. Edward Griffith.—I am vicar of St. Keverne. In the afternoon of the 31st of May, I had some information relative to this body being found. I got my information from James Richards; and in consequence of what he told me, I wrote for a warrant. In the evening, about 11 o’clock, Tripconey came to me at my house and said he had some money for me. As he was taking out the money, I asked him where he got it. He said it was money that the woman had taken from the body. I don’t recollect that he named any woman. He gave me 4 sovereigns and two half-sovereigns, and said that the woman offered to come and swear before me that that was the whole amount she had taken from the body. I gave the money to Captain Wake, the Inspecting Commander of the district. Capt. Wake, Inspecting Commander of the district of St. Keverne. I received 4 sovereigns and 2 half- sovereigns from the Rev. Mr. Griffith, and I have them here. Cross-examined by Mr. Stock.—This was a month and one day after the wreck. A great quantity of property from the barque had come ashore during that time. I had issued hand-bills, and instructed the Coast Guard to give notice that people taking the property would incur a penalty of £100.—By the Judge:—I received this money from Mr. Griffith on the 4th of June; the wreck was on the 3rd of May. The notice of penalty was published about a fortnight after the wreck. Henry Collins Mills, clerk to Messrs. Grylls, Hill, and Hill. I acted as Magistrates’ Clerk and took the depositions, when the prisoners were committed. After the committal and after the magistrates had left, Gay made a statement in my presence. She was excited and turned round to the male prisoner and said “ ‘Tis all your fault, Tripconey; you pointed with your stick where the money was, and you told me to take it; and you know I gave you £9 10.” Tripconey made answer:—“ ’Tis bad enough as it is, don’t make it worse.” This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. STOCK, to the Court, objected that the property was not properly laid in the Ordinary, the Bishop of Exeter, and that it ought to have been laid in the person (whoever that might be) who was entitled to waste or treasure-trove on the St. Keverne coast.—The learned JUDGE, after hearing arguments on either side, disallowed the objection and held that the property was properly laid. Mr. STOCKS then addressed the Jury, on behalf of Matilda Gay. He observed that with the exception of the testimony of the Rev. Mr. Griffith and Mr. Mills, the whole of the evidence was open to the gravest suspicion (sic), because given by parties who themselves had been, in intent as least, equally criminal with the prisoners, with respect to the property in question. He did not, however, charge them with having had intent to commit felony; and assuming that all their evidence in the case was true, he affirmed that it did not prove felonious intent on the part of the prisoner Gay, who, doubtless, at the time she took the money, honestly believed she had as much right to it as any other person; and when, afterwards, she found she had done wrong, she handed over the money to Tripconey for Mr. Griffith. If she had intended to commit a felony, it was improbable she would have committed the act within sight, as was proved, of the three men, Pentecost, Downing, and Richards. Mr. COLERIDGE also addressed the Jury and, besides urging, as Mr. Stock had done, that there was no proof of felonious intent on the part of the prisoners, alleged that there was no evidence of concert between the prisoners. The learned JUDGE then summed up, and, after explaining the matter of form by which the property was laid in the Bishop of Exeter, as entitled to possession of property of a deceased person until administration was taken out, directed the jury that the real question for them in this case was, whether it was proved to their satisfaction that the prisoners, either or both of them, took the property of this deceased woman, dishonestly, and with intention to deprive the true owner, whoever that true owner might be, and appropriate it to their own use. The learned Judge further explained the bearing of the indictment on the prisoners as charged—in the first place as stealers; and in the next place, in respect to the charge against Tripconey as a felonious receiver; and proceeded to state and comment on the evidence. The jury, after some consultation in their box returned a verdict finding both prisoners guilty—the woman of stealing, but that they were not aware that they were committing a felony. The JUDGE said the question for the jury to consider was whether the prisoners took the money dishonestly, with intention, as he had already said, to deprive the true owner of it, whoever that owner might be, and appropriate it to themselves. After various observations from the Jury, which showed clearly that they were not all agreed in either view of the case, they retired for consultation; and in about three quarters of an hour they returned to the Court. On being asked by the Clerk of Arraigns if they found Matilda Gay guilty or not guilty, one of the jury said, “we find her guilty of taking the money, but strongly recommend her to mercy.”—The JUDGE.—Do you find her guilty of stealing the money?—The Juror.—We find her guilty of taking the money.—After some further consultation, a Juror, in answer to an observation by the Judge—“well, you find her guilty of stealing the money”—said:—That was the opinion we came to, that she was to be found guilty of stealing the money, and be recommended to mercy; that was the decision of all hands, I believe.—Tripconey also was found GUILTY, and recommended to mercy; but the Jury did not state on which count they found their verdict. Sentence was deferred; and on Saturday morning, the learned Judge sentenced Gay to Three Months hard labour; and Tripconey to Three Months Imprisonment, and, in consideration of his age and infirmities, without hard labour. The learned JUDGE, on passing sentence, said he was willing to comply with the jury’s recommendation to mercy as far as he could; but it was right the population of this county should know that he who dishonestly plunders a dead body will be punished as a thief. ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY.—JAMES TIPPETT and HENRY VIAL, constables of the parish of Camborne, were indicted for that they, as such constables, having had in their custody one Joseph Quintrell, on a charge of felony, in disregard of their duty had suffered and permitted him to escape and go at large.— Mr. Archer conducted the prosecution; Mr. Coleridge defended Tippett; Vial was undefended. Charles Read.—I am clerk to Messrs. Rodd, Darke, and Cornish, who act as magistrates’ clerks to the Camborne Bench. On the 26th June I attended the Camborne Petty Sessions, acting for Messrs. Rodd, Darke, and Cornish. On that day, two prisoners, Joseph Quintrell and Richard Selwood, were brought up in custody charged with burglary. They were remanded on that day, Tuesday, to the following Friday, both prisoners being given into Vial’s custody by warrant, which warrant I produce. (The warrant was handed to the Clerk of Assize to be read; and he stated that it was dated the 26th of June, and was directed to the constables of the parish of Camborne—to apprehend Joseph Quintrell and Richard Selwood for Burglary). On that warrant, continued Mr. Read, they were given into the custody of Vial. On the following Friday I again attended the Petty Sessions; Quintrell was not brought up, but Selwood was.— Cross-examined by Mr. Coleridge:—This warrant was delivered to Vial, with Quintrell and Selwood, and was returned to me by Vial on the Friday. Thomas Rundle:—I am constable of the parish of Camborne. Tippett also is a constable. I recollect Selwood and Quintrell being taken into custody on the 25th June on a charge of burglary. I was present at their first examination on the 26th June; they were then remanded, and were given into the custody of Vial; but Vial and Tippett both had charge of him that day. On Wednesday night I believe Quintrell was in Tippett’s custody; I saw him and Tippett together in a room, and no other person in the room. On the Thursday, I was called on by Vial to take charge of Selwood for the night. Quintrell was in a room upstairs in Tippett’s custody. When I went up stairs with Selwood, I heard Vial give directions to Tippett to handcuff Quintrell and make him secure for the night. That was between 10 and 11. In a few minutes after that I went to bed. On my way to bed, I passed through the room where Tippett and Quintrell were; I observed that Quintrell was handcuffed, but not to Tippett. I believe Vial did not sleep in the house that night. Between 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning, Tippett came into my room and said the boy was gone. Tippett called Quintrell the boy: he was between 17 and 18 years of age. I asked him what he meant. He said the robber was gone, with his handcuffs on and naked. Quintrell has not since been re- taken. I know Quintrell’s parents quite well; I saw them in that house on the Thursday night between 10 and 11, while Tippett was in the room with him; and no other constable with them.—Cross-examined.— There were some other persons in the room on Thursday night besides the father and mother of the prisoner and Tippett. When Tippett came into my room at night, he said the boy was gone with his handcuffs on and naked, but that he (Tippett) had his clothes; and I saw the clothes.—Re-examined: I knew it was Quintrell’s clothes, because I had seen him wearing them that day. Mr. COLERIDGE submitted that there was no evidence whatever against Tippett; and in this view the learned JUDGE concurred, observing that there was no proof of any authority given except to Vial, or that Tippett knew what Quintrell was in custody for. Mr. Read was recalled for cross-examination by Vial. Vial asked him:—When the two prisoners were remanded and you gave them over to me, did I not tell you that I had no place to keep them in?— Witness:—I don’t recollect. Did you not tell me that we were to have constables to assist?—Witness:—I did; I told you to take the prisoners to the lock-up. Did I not tell you that our lock-up was not a safe place? Witness, to the Judge:—He did tell me that he had no place to put them in, and that there was not room enough in the lock-up for two prisoners. I told him to get proper assistance, and to put the prisoners in the lock-up, alternately at nights. Did I not tell you, Mr. Read, that our lock-up was not trustworthy; and you told me that we was to keep them as well as we could? Addressing the Jury, Vial said he gave the prisoners in charge—Selwood to Rundle, and Quintrell to Tippett, to secure them at night, and told them to handcuff the prisoners to themselves. These constables were paid constables, like myself. I went home to bed, being very tired, as I had not been in bed several nights; and about 4 o’clock on Friday morning I was called. The learned Judge directed the Jury to acquit Tippett, as there was no proof in any legal duty having been imposed on him. With respect to Vial, the question was, whether, under the circumstances, he had used proper diligence. There was no doubt that Quintrell was put into his charge; it appeared there was no sufficient quarters for keeping both the prisoners; and Vial was instructed by the Clerk to be magistrates to put each of them alternately into the lock-up at night and to get assistance. Accordingly Vial got the assistance of Tippett, and he was the man to blame for the escape of Quintrell. As regards Vial, the question was whether he was, or was not, guilty of culpable neglect of duty in handing over his prisoner to Tippett. The jury found each of the defendants, NOT GUILTY; and they were immediately discharged. MARY WILLIAMS, a young woman, was indicted for burglary at the dwelling-house of Emma Tonkin, in the parish of Gwennap, and stealing butter, soap, and other articles.—Emma Tonkin:—I am the wife of a miner, who went to America, twelve months since, and I live at in the parish of Gwennap. Jane Ould lives with me. On the 28th of May, about nine in the evening, I went out to see my sister-in-law. I locked up my cottage and saw the windows safe. I came back with Jane Ould about 10 (sic) 10 o’clock; it was a beautiful moonlight night. I saw a young lad in my house handing out bread and butter and soap, and other things, through the window to the prisoner who was standing outside, placing the things in her bag. I called to her; she attempted to run away, giving me a slap in the face. I ran after her, and catched her, and she begged me to forgive her; and she dropped some break and butter out of her hands. Jane Ould fainted, and I was obliged to let the prisoner go in order to assist her. I then went into my cottage, and found that the window sash had been taken out and put on the floor, and 4 panes of glass were broken to pieces. Jane Ould gave corroborative evidence—John Veal, constable of Gwennap, went in pursuit of prisoner on the 29th; but did not succeed in finding her for some weeks; at last he found her at Pendennis and apprehended her, telling her that he had a warrant against her for housebreaking; she said she did not know anything about it. In answer to a question from the prisoner, Mr. Veal said that her mistress at the Canteen at Pendennis gave her a good character, saying she had conducted herself very well during the time she had been there—about a fortnight.—Verdict, GUILTY.— 8 months hard labour. C R O W N C O U R T. SATURDAY, July 28. LOSS OF THE EMIGRANT SHIP “JOHN.” TRIAL OF CAPTAIN RAWLE. This trial excited great interest, and the Court was much crowded throughout the day. The learned Judge, Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, took his seat on the bench at nine o’clock, and the following were the jury sworn in the case of Captain Rawle:—George Ayre, foreman; Henry Adams, Richard Michelmore Budge, John Cottle, Joseph Reed Garland, Nathaniel Hurrill, Richard Hockin, Thomas Ivey, Philip Keast, Stephen May, John Rowland, and Thomas Sturtridge. The counsel for the prosecution on the part of the Crown were Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE, Mr. COLLIER, Q.C., and Mr. COLERIDGE; attorneys acting for the Treasury, Messrs. EASTLAKE, of Plymouth. The counsel for the prisoner were Mr. SLADE, Q.C., and Mr. KINGDON; attorney, Mr. PRESTON WALLIS, of Bodmin. The captain of the “John,” when at the bar, appeared to be fully sensible of the critical position in which he was placed. Several times during the day he manifested considerable emotion, particularly when his counsel, Mr. Slade, was addressing the jury in his behalf. Captain Rawle is a man 34 years of age, and has a florid and healthy-looking countenance. He has been in prison between two and three months awaiting his trial, but appeared to be nothing the worse for it. The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS said—EDWARD RAWLE, you are indicted, and also charged by the Coroner’s inquisition, with feloniously killing and slaying Eliza Hallet, on the 4th of May,—are you guilty or not guilty? The prisoner replied, NOT GUILTY. Mr. SLADE applied to the Judge to have all the witnesses in the case ordered out of court until called for, which was accordingly done. Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE then stated the case to the jury. The prisoner at the bar was charged with the serious offence of manslaughter; and the charge was brought before them under circumstances which will require their very anxious consideration. The charge was not only a serious one as regards the prisoner, but it was serious as regards the public in general. He would first state his opinion of the law as bearing upon the case, which they would afterwards have laid down to them by the learned Judge. The offence of manslaughter in this case was charged under circumstances which tend to prove that death was brought about by the negligence of the prisoner at the bar; that is, that he did not exhibit a proper skill, diligence, and care in the discharge of the duties imposed upon him, and that by reason of the absence of that competent skill and ability which he should have displayed, he brought about the death of Eliza Hallet, the person who is mentioned in the indictment. He apprehended the law to be, that in this country, if an individual fills any office, or has to execute any employment, he is bound to bring thereto competent skill and ability for the discharge of its duties. By competent ability, however, he did not mean any extraordinary degree of ability, but that common ability which was necessary for the discharge of his duties; and if upon any particular occasion, mischief,—or, as on this occasion, death, has resulted from the absence of the display of that ability, it becomes evident, either that the man did not possess it, or that he was negligent and did not use it on that particular occasion. In either of those cases, should injury arise, the law will hold him criminally responsible for the consequences.—The learned Counsel then drew attention to the facts of the case, stating that in May last, the prisoner was Master of the barque “John,” 464 tons register, bound from Plymouth to Quebec. Between three and four in the afternoon of Thursday the 3rd of May, the ship sailed from Plymouth, with 263 steerage passengers on board, principally small farmers, mechanics, and labourers, with their wives and children. There were five cabin passengers, and the crew consisted of nineteen, including the captain and officers. The learned Counsel described the direction of the wind and courses steered by the helmsmen from the time the vessel left Plymouth till she struck on the Manacle rocks, off the coast of St. Keverne, in this county. It would be important to take notice of what were the duties of the captain. He should say it was the captain’s duty to be superintending the course of the ship, and that if he gave an order, it was his imperative duty to see it was properly executed. There were the lives of a large number of people in his charge, and he was bound to see that when he gave orders they were properly carried out. It would nevertheless be proved, that on one occasion, when orders were given to steer W.S.W., the ship was actually steered more to the westward. She left Plymouth between three and four in the afternoon, and struck on the Manacle rocks at about ten o’clock the same night. The weather was fair, with a calm sea and favourable wind, and though some statements would be made by the witnesses about its being somewhat hazy, it would be shown that there was light sufficient to see the land all the way down, and that there was nothing in the weather that in the most remote degree had any connexion with the fearful disaster that resulted. When the ship settled on the rock the tide was receding, and the passengers thronged the deck, and questioned the captain as to the predicament they were in. His answer was, that they must wait till the morning, and then all would be saved. For a time after this the passengers were calm, thinking the captain knew better than they did; but later the tide began to rise on the deck, and seeing the danger they then called upon the captain to launch the boats. He did not, however, do anything of the kind; and this being the state of things, the water rose, and the people thronging the poop, chiefly women and children, were swept off, sometimes four or five, sometimes ten or a dozen at a time, by the waves breaking over the vessel. So it continued till the morning, when the quarter boat that went from the ship when she first struck having reached , boats came from the shore further to windward, and rescued those that remained, that had got into the rigging, and the result of this unfortunate shipwreck was the loss of 195 lives, amongst whom was Eliza Hallet, the subject of the indictment. Now out of this would arise another question. He had told them that they had first to consider whether there had not been negligence on the part of the captain, and a want of skill and ability in the navigation of the ship prior to the time she struck. But there would also arise a second question, whether the captain used that activity and energy, and proper conduct, which it was his paramount duty to have used when the ship got into difficulties and endangered the lives of the passengers. He (the learned counsel) believed it would be shown that there had been negligence throughout; that if the captain gave orders he did not see them executed; that the vessel took a wrong course, and that if there had been ordinary ability, and inspection, and care, this would not have happened;—and secondly, that it having happened, he did not, by diligence and proper activity, launch the boats, and by doing that which it was his duty to have done, enable the passengers to escape from the frightful danger in which they were placed. The learned counsel then described what took place with regard to the boats, and said it would be stated by the witnesses, that if at an early period after the vessel struck, when it was calm, there had been a proper use made of the boats, the probability was that the whole of the lives on board might have been saved. As to the navigation of the ship, a witness would point out to them that the course she took was a wrong one from beginning to end; it was what was called a westward course, and it inevitably led to the Manacle rocks. He had said that the orders as to the steering were not exactly carried out; but even if they had been, the vessel, for reasons that would be explained, would have been almost in the same peril. The lights ought to have been kept in view, but were not; and the vessel, if steered a proper course, would have been four or five miles south of the Manacles at ten o’clock at night, instead of at that time striking upon the rocks. He then called the following witnesses:— William Goodwin, examined by Mr. COLLIER.—I was first mate of the “John.” She was a barque of 464 tons register. She sailed from Plymouth on Thursday the 3rd of May, between three and four in the afternoon, bound to Quebec. The crew and captain were nineteen. There was a man called Elliott who shipped as boatswain, and acted as second mate. There were some cabin, and a number of steerage passengers. It was moderate weather when we started, the wind about N.N.W. I was on deck when we started, and so was the captain; Andrew Elder was at the helm. We went past the , the first headland on the way from Plymouth. (A chart was here handed to the judge. There was also on the table a wooden model of a barque, to illustrate some of the technical points of the evidence). Witness said, I remember the ship coming near to the Deadman point, the next headland. She got to the Deadman about eight o’clock; she was then between four and five miles from the Deadman Point. When the captain is on deck he has charge of the vessel; if the captain goes below, the officer of the watch has charge of the vessel. If it was my watch on deck, I, as first mate would have charge; but if the captain was on deck, it was not my duty to interfere in regard to the ship steering her course. About half-past eight I was told by Curry, who was at the wheel, that her course was W.S.W. About the same time that Curry said this, the captain and second mate were walking the poop, and the captain said, “We are steering now, Mr. Goodwin, W.S.W.” I then looked at the binnacle, and found her head was W. By S. ½ S., that is, half a point more westward than W.S.W., the course the captain told me. Nothing more occurred till I left the deck, about half past eight, and turned in. Before I got asleep I heard them pulling at the ropes, trimming the sails, but I could not say what ropes were hauled. The next thing was that I was awoke by her striking the rocks; I supposed it to be about ten, or after ten at night. I felt a shock, and thought the vessel had run against another. My berth was in the cabin on deck; I went out of the cabin door, saw Elliot first, and asked him what was the matter? He replied, she has run against the Manacle rocks. The captain was then upon the roundhouse ladder, which takes to the roundhouse or poop deck, about six feet above the main deck. At the time I came on deck it was hazy, but you could see the loom of the land; I could not estimate the distance. A number of passengers were on the deck directly. I ran down the half-deck and pulled down a lamp to light it for the passengers. I pulled up one of the loose boards, and found there were six or seven feet of water in the ship. I came on deck and ran to the wheel, and on trying to heave the helm up, I found the rudder was gone. I sung out to the captain that the rudder was gone, and his order was to trim the yards and run her in shore. She ran as far as she would go before she sunk; the ground stopped her. I could not tell how far she ran from the place where she first struck; from what I have seen since, she struck the second time and settled down about 400 yards from the shore. The captain ordered the port anchor to be let go, which was done; in my judgment it was then low water. When she stopped, the water was all over the main deck, I should say eighteen inches or two feet deep. The roundhouse deck or poop was five or six feet out of the water. The captain gave orders to get the boats out, and the quarter boat was first lowered, a boat about sixteen feet long, which would hold twelve or fourteen people, and did not rest on the deck, but was swung up by tackles. Five persons got into the quarter boat; Curry, who was at the helm, was the only one of the five that I knew. I could not see whether the captain got in. The boat was hanging alongside by the painter a very short time; but the painter broke and the boat drifted away; I saw no more of her. We then went to try to get the life-boat out. I had heard the captain order to get all the boats out; I did not hear him give any particular order about the life-boat; he gave a general order to get all the boats out. We stove the life- boat in getting her over the rail, which rendered her useless. Those who helped to get out the life-boat were Rowe, Corry, Andrew, Elder, and myself, and four or five others that I did not know. There were two seamen on board, one called Curry and the other Corry; Curry had gone away in the quarter boat. The life-boat having been rendered useless, we attempted to get out the long-boat, but the captain told us we had better stop till daylight. The JUDGE—Was that after the accident to the life-boat! Witness— Yes. The long boat after that remained in the tackles. We were raising the long-boat from the deck when the captain spoke about her, and said you had better leave her till morning. We accordingly left her. There were “chocks” for her to rest in; she was not quite out of the chocks, but was lifted a little from the deck, and as the tide made, the sea swept her away.—The JUDGE—When was that?—Witness—I could not estimate the length of time in the condition we were in; I suppose it was an hour after.—Mr. COLLIER—Supposing she had been left on deck, would she have been more secure?—Witness—When the tide made she would have been swept away, if ever so fast. Mr. COLLIER—Had you any other boat? Witness—We had a pinnace; I don’t know what became of her. Mr. COLLIER—How many would the ship’s boats hold? Witness—The quarter-boat about twelve or fourteen; the long-boat about thirty-five; the life-boat about thirty; the pinnace from sixteen to twenty, or more. After we were prevented from lowering the long-boat, the captain gave us orders to go up aloft and furl the sails, and we did so. When we came down from stowing the sails, the water was all over the main deck; when I was going aft towards the cabin, it was higher than my knees at that time. A number of passengers were on the roundhouse (or poop) deck at that time, and some in the mizen and main rigging. The round-house deck was crowded all over with men, women, and children; the greater part of the women and children were there. The tide was then rising, and continued to do so. I was on the round-house deck as the tide continued to rise, and remained there till almost day light. It was daybreak I suppose about half-past three. A little before daylight I left the round-house deck and went to the maintop, because I expected the weight of the sea would break the round-house deck. When I left the round-house there were twelve or thirteen feet of water over the main deck. The round-house deck had become quite loose, working up and down the mizenmast, and the waves dashed all over it. (The wooden model of the “John” was here produced, and the round-house deck, &c., pointed out). Whilst I remained on the round-house deck numbers of people were washed off by the waves; also through the “guys” breaking, the mizen boom gave away; the blocks became unhooked, and the mizen-boom swung from side to side, and by its swinging swept people off the round-house deck. Before I left, they were all swept away, men, women, and children, from the round-house deck, and I remained there alone for a short time, and then was joined by two others. I had hold of the trysail rope, which kept me from being washed away. I don’t know what became of the two others that joined me, on the round-house deck. I watched for a time when it was a little smooth, and then ran across some boards and got into the main rigging. I did not see the captain until I got into the maintop; he was on the starboard side of the maintop. The last time I had previously seen him was when we came down from stowing the sails; he was then against the capstan on the main deck, standing up to his knees in water. The long boat had not then been washed away. I did not see him after that, or hear him give any orders. After I got into the maintop, I remained there till I was taken off by the boats from the shore, a good bit after daylight. The captain and crew were all saved. The vessel did not make any signals of distress that I saw. I saw no guns, rockets, or blue lights on board. Cross-examined by Mr. Slade—I have been other voyages with Captain Rawle; was with him all last year. I was with him two voyages to America; his conduct was always that of an able seaman. He was perfectly up to his work, and a good seaman; the passengers and owners were quite satisfied with him. The ship “John” had come round from Cardiff before she sailed from Plymouth; I came round in her. She had been to Cardiff to be repaired, and was there better than two months. She had a new kind of compass put in her. We left Plymouth between three and four, and were about a mile and a half from the land on rounding Rame Head. It was high tide about 30 minutes past 6 at Plymouth that evening. The tide flows in the channel three hours later than along shore. The consequence is that we have a flood tide to the eastward in mid channel for three hours, while it is running to the westward, ebbing, in shore. Mr. SLADE—That being so, was it judicious for a seaman to take a west course after rounding the Rame Head, regard being had to the state of the tide and wind? Witness—Yes. You have told us the wind was N.N.W. when you started; then you were on a wind! Yes, as close as we could go when we started. Was the course judicious, and what an able and experienced seaman would take with the wind from that quarter?—Yes, because he would carry the ebb tide with him. Was it a very hazy night?—Yes. Was it possible to see lights that night?—It could not have been possible. They are fifty miles off the Rame Head?—Yes. I am told they only show at fourteen miles distance? Witness—I don’t think you could see the Lizard lights of a very clear night above twenty miles; it was quite out of the question on such a night as this; I did not see any downfall of snow or rain that night, but it was very hazy; you could see the loom of the land, but not plain. Mr. SLADE.—Was it such a light that it was absolutely necessary to steer by compass! Witness—Yes, on the course she was going. Was the course ordered a good and judicious course?—Yes. If pursued, would it have taken the vessel clear of all danger round the Lizard point? Witness—It would have taken her six or seven miles clear of the Manacle rocks. You say that about half-past eight the captain told you the course was W.S.W.; is that the course you alluded to when stating that if followed it would have taken you clear of all danger?—Yes. You say that shortly after that you looked into the binnacle and found her head was W. By S ½ S.—Yes. I suppose the next moment you might have looked and found her a point or half a point the other way:—Yes, I might have found her head a point or half a point to the southward. The fact is that a merchantman cannot steer so fine as all that? Witness—It is impossible; no common merchant ship will steer within half a point each way of her course. Mr. SLADE—You mean by that, if her course is W.S.W. she would sometimes be half a point to the south of that, sometimes half a point to the west? Witness—Yes, and it is the same with men-of-war. Mr. SLADE—With a strong wind and the send of the sea they will keep yawing? Witness— Yes, I have sometimes seen them five or six points off; the sea will take them up by the stern and heave them. Mr. SLADE—I believe it is generally supposed to be the duty of the officer of the watch to see that the proper course is steered? Witness—Yes, but he cannot keep his eye constantly fixed on the compass, because he has to look out for ships coming in contact, particularly along the coast. The JUDGE—But he ought to look after the binnacle? Witness—Yes, he ought to look at it now and then. Mr. SLADE—When you came on deck after the vessel struck was the weather still hazy? Witness—Yes, more than when I went below. The captain ordered you to trim the yards and run her on shore, was not that the best course the captain could have adopted under the circumstances? Witness—Yes, if she had stopped out there she would have gone down in deep water. He ordered the port anchor to be let go, was not that the best course to be adopted?—Yes. In all he had done up to that moment did not Captain Rawle show himself an able and experienced seaman?—Witness—Yes, in every shape and form. After he had ordered the port anchor to be let go, did he then order all the boats to be got out?—Yes, directly. The quarter boat, you say, got away, was there any sea running then?—Yes, the sea was running high; it was the send of the sea that probably broke the painter; we tried then to get the life- boat out, and she was stove, and we we (sic)were going to get out the long-boat in pursuance of orders to get out all the boats, when the captain said we we (sic) had better wait till daylight. Mr. SLADE—Now in your judgment, as a practical man, regard being had to the state of the weather and sea, was that a prudent course for the captain to adopt, to wait till daylight? Witness—Yes, sir. Mr. SLADE—I ask you further; in your judgment, would it not have been extremely dangerous at that time, with the sea as it was, to launch the boats on an unknown coast? Witness—No body could land, not knowing where to land. Mr. SLADE—In your judgment, if the boats had been launched, and the passengers put into them, would they not have ran infinitely more peril of their lives than by remaining on deck? Witness—They would have been lost if they had got into the boats; they would have been dashed to pieces upon the rocks. Mr. SLADE—The sea had got up then, and was getting up? Witness—Yes, both sea and wind. Mr. SLADE—How much time had elapsed between his giving the order to launch all the boats, and the time when he gave this order about the long boat? Witness—I could not estimate the length of time, I should say more than hour. Did not the captain, when he said it was better to leave the long boat till daylight, say he had already lost two of his boats? Witness—I did not hear him say that. Was not the order to go aloft and stow the sails, an order that an able and prudent captain would have given? Witness—Of course it was. Did you see any set during the whole of that night, on the part of Captain Rawle, which indicated negligence or incompetence? Witness—Not in the least, in any shape or form all the time I was with him. I suppose the object of stowing the sails was to save the mast from going overboard?—Yes. Did you urge on the passengers, after it had been determined to remain till daylight, over and over again the necessity of taking to the rigging? Witness—I should not be wrong if I said twenty times. Do you know whether the captain also urged on them the property of doing that? Witness—I did not hear him say anything about it, he might have said so. Mr. SLADE—The roundhouse deck is a very dangerous place, and when the guy broke, it was the boom that swept the people off? Witness—Yes, the boom took the greater part of them off. If the passengers had gone up the rigging as you advised them, would they all have been saved? Witness—The greater part of them, because the rigging would have held the greater part of them. Were there in point of fact, men, women, and children in the rigging who were saved? Witness—Yes. What boat took you off? Witness—The last boat but one; two boats came out just together, and the captain got into another boat about the same time. Was there a single woman or child left on board at the time? Witness—No, there were three men. Were they so high up the rigging that they could not get in the boats till you had come away? Witness—No, one was in the mizen rigging, and two in the main rigging; they might have got down the same as the rest, but they did not; they were afterwards saved. The JUDGE—They did not come down in time for the boats? Witness—No, they might have done it. Mr. SLADE—With the exception of those three, you and the captain were the last to leave the ship? Witness—Yes. When you were taken ashore, was the sea so rough that they were obliged to throw a grapnel out at the head of the boat, and run her in stern? Witness—Yes. In your judgment, after you had seen the coast and the sea, could they have gone out in the boats that night and have landed? Witness—No, at the time when we landed there was not half the sea or wind that there was during the night. Were you in fact hauled up the face of the cliff, the passengers and yourself? Witness—Yes; we were passed from hand to hand by people standing down the cliff; without that assistance, the women and children could not have got up at that time. Mr. SLADE—Having had proof of the nature of the coast, and the sea, are you of opinion that Captain Rawle acted the part of a prudent captain in not allowing the boats to go out?—Witness—Yes. Re-examined by Mr. COLLIER—You told my friend that if these boats had been launched that night, none of them could have reached the shore in safety; did not the quarter boat reach the shore safely?— Witness—Yes. You said that if the passengers on the poop deck had gone up to the rigging, they might have been saved? Witness—Yes. Do you mean to tell us that the women and children might have gone up the rigging? Witness—Yes, there is a crosstree that would have held sixteen or eighteen. Witness was further asked by Mr. Collier whether he had not seen the captain lately, or his attorney? He replied that he saw the captain last night going into the prison door, but he did not speak to him; he had not spoken to him since he left St. Keverne. He spoke to his attorney yesterday and the day before in his office; he went there once with a pilot; had very little conversation with him; the attorney only asked him the state of the wind and weather on the night of the wreck; he did not ask him whether he thought the captain was to blame or not. Witness had a certificate of servitude, but was not a passed seaman. Mr. COLLIER—You said the captain did everything an able and experienced seaman could do,—do you mean to say that striking on the Manacles was a proper course? Witness—I cannot say from what cause the error arose. Mr. COLLIER—Do you call it an error striking on the Manacles? (Mr. SLADE objected to questions on matters of opinion in conducting a criminal case). Mr. COLLIER—You told us the vessel’s head was half a point further west than W.S.W. Supposing she had gone on that course, would it have been safe or dangerous? Witness—She would have gone five or six miles clear of the Manacles on that course. Supposing her course W.S.W., how far from the Manacles would she have gone? Witness— Seven or eight miles. Then, according to you, for her to strike on the Manacles, there must have been some extraordinary alteration in her course? Witness—There must have been an alteration in her course, or the compass must have been attracted. You say that the captain, by keeping along the shore took advantage of the ebb tide; would not the distance from shore have to be considered as well as the tide and the wind? Witness—Of course it would, and the distance we passed from the Deadman, I consider was a safe distance. The JUDGE—You say the captain was right in preventing the boats from landing till daylight, and yet you say it was judicious when the captain previously gave the general order to have the boats launched? Witness—At that time there was not so much sea as when the long boat was knocked about; if we could have got the boats out quickly, it is possible we might at first have landed, but not after that time. Serjeant KINGLAKE applied that Commander Lory, R.N., should be allowed to remain in court during the examination of the helmsmen. He was only about to examine Mr. Lory as a man of science, on the courses taken by the ship. Mr. SLADE objected, but the objection was overruled, and Commander Lory was admitted. Andrew Elder, able seaman on board the “John,” was at the helm when she left Plymouth Sound, and steered till seven, when she was abreast of Fowey. The wind was about N.N.W., then it came round to the N. and rather to the eastward. After coming round the Rame Head, he kept west. Captain Rawle was on the poop several times; he gave me a west course to steer, and came up to the wheel several times. I kept a due west course till I left the helm; she was then going from six to seven knots I should think from the time we left the Sound. After leaving the helm I was clearing the deck about eight o’clock, and was called by Captain Rawle aft to take a pull at the spanker outhaul, to make the spanker sail stand flatter. I then looked at the compass, and the ship’s head was about west; it might have been ½ south or ½ north, but it was about west. The ship was then three miles or thereabout off the Deadman, which bore north, right abeam. I went below a little before nine; I saw Falmouth light before I went below, about two points abaft the beam. I did not take much notice how far we were off Falmouth light; I should say about five miles, but could not tell to a mile or two. This witness also spoke about the boats; said that those who went in the quarter boat landed at Coverack; and the two who floated off in the life-boat were drowned. After that they were getting out the long boat, and the captain said it had better remain till morning. His opinion was that it was better to get the long boat out, but he could not recollect whether he told Captain Rawle so or not. After that, the long boat was washed fore and aft the deck, and knocked to pieces.—CROSS EXAMINED—It was a hazy night upon the land, he could not say it was very thick. Mr. SLADE—It was what you call at sea a very deceiving light? Witness—Yes. Was it not what you call as thick as a hedge? Witness—No, I have seen many a thicker night, but it was not a clear night; the moon was not to be seen. Are you sure it was the Falmouth light you saw? Witness—It was a revolving light. How long did you look at it? Witness—Perhaps half a minute. Are you quite sure it was not a light on shore or might it not have been the light of a ship? Witness—It might have been a ship’s light, but I took it for Falmouth light. About the long boat, did not the captain say he had lost two boats already, and would not launch another till daylight? Witness—I did not hear him; he may have said so, and as there was so much noise and confusion about the deck, I might not have heard him. Re-examined.—The light he saw was a revolving light; he did not stand looking at, but he saw it was out and in again. William Rowe took the wheel after the last witness (Elder) about half past six or seven, and steered till about eight. Elder gave him as the course, West. He continued that for a little while, when Captain Rawle came to him and said, keep her west southerly; that means to the leeward of west, not to go to the north of west. The captain was there most of the time he was steering. Cross-examined—The captain was diligent and attentive to his duty all the time I was at the helm I had been with him before, three months. He was every now and then coming up and seeing what the course was, as a captain would do in looking after the safety of his vessel. It was hazy, there was no sleet when I was at the wheel; there was after she struck. West southerly means to keep her head to the south of west, quarter of a point if you like. I cannot say how long before I left the helm. I received the order to steer west southerly; it was a good bit before. When we were landed in the morning, we had to go forty or fifty feet up the rocks; the passengers were helped up. I heard the captain tell the passengers they had better get into the rigging; I heard him say that once, some time in the night. Mr. SLADE—Do you think at low water the passengers could have been landed where they were landed afterwards? Witness—No. During the night was there a heavy wind and high sea running?—Yes. If the passengers had been taken off during the night, and gone at hap-hazard to find a landing place, would they have been saved? Witness—I don’t think they would where we were landed. Re-examined—I don’t know whether there are other landing places at that part of the coast. Edward Venning relieved Rowe (the last witness) at the helm about eight, and steered about a quarter of an hour. Witness steered west, nothing to the north. The captain was on deck, but gave him no orders as to steering; he took his orders from Rowe. The captain was walking the poop, and walked past the binnacle. He could see the land when he was steering his quarter of an hour. Cross-examined—The Deadman was a little before the beam when I steered. It was very hazy, but I could see the highland off the Deadman Point; I considered we were four of five miles off the point. The captain was attending to his duties, as far as I could judge, as a skilful and attentive captain would. I saw the life boat stove, and the quarter boat is gone, it will be better for safety to keep the long boat till daylight. The long boat was all we had left, because the seams of the pinnace were open. I several times heard the captain entreat the passengers to get up the rigging; they were not high enough up; several women and children were up the rigging. The captain had a child in the main-top; he was taking care of it, and had his coat wrapped about it. Mr. SLADE—When the boats came out, did you and the captain and the mate help down the children? Witness—Yes, we did; when the captain went into the boat, three men were left behind, who were afterwards saved. Mr. SLADE—Might all the passengers on board, if they had got in the rigging, have saved themselves? Witness—I have no doubt but what they would. I handed the children from the top, and they were handed down to the mate with all care, and then handed down to the boat. I have been six years at sea. Re-examined—Could all the women and children have got into the rigging? Witness—With ordinary presence of mine they could have got up if they had been told, and they were entreated to do so many times. Do you know the rigging broke down with some of them? Witness—No, it did not break down. James Corry relieved the last witness, Edward Venning, at the helm at twenty minutes past eight. The ship was then steering west. He kept the same course a few minutes, and then the course was altered to W. ½ S. by order of the captain. He kept her W. ½ S. about ten minutes as near as he could guess, he could not say exactly, and then the course was ordered by the captain to W.S.W. He kept her on that course close on an hour. He was then ordered by Captain Rawle to keep-her S.W. and did so; she was kept on that course a very few minutes, and then struck. I heard something called out forwards, but could not make out what was said. The captain was then walking the poop. Shortly after I first began to steer, I saw a revolving light on the starboard quarter. I saw the same light on the port quarter a few minutes before she struck. I could see the land pretty plain all the time I was steering. I was at the wheel when she struck; the wheel knocked me down. I heard the captain sing out to man the boats and lower away. I helped to lower the quarter boat, and got in at the same time. The captain was the first man I saw jump into the boat; after he got pretty well down, he sung out again, “avast lowering,” and then he got back again on board the vessel. We held on for some time, and were obliged to let go; the sea unhooked the foremost tackle, the boat slewed round, and we could not get back to the vessel. We had oars, but no thowel pins; we sculled her down, held up the grating of the stern sheets, and got to land at Coverack; the coast-guard told us where to put in. Cross-examined—That was rather a bit of good fortune, was it not? Witness—Yes. Or else among all those breakers, you might have had a chance at being drowned?—Yes. We have heard it was a little hazy? Witness—It was a little hazy over the land, not hazy at sea, we could see the moon. The captain was walking up and down the greater part of the time I was steering. I did not see a light, when we were in the greater boat, held out for us to come back to the ship; I only saw the binnacle light. Re-examined—The place where the quarter boat landed was perhaps 2½ miles from where the vessel struck. William Lory, examined by Mr. KARSLAKE—I am a Commander in the Royal Navy, and have commanded vessels between Plymouth and the Lizard for many years. In taking departure from Rame Head, which may be considered the entrance to Plymouth harbour, I should steer W. by S. nothing to the westward; and that course would take me about five miles to the southward of the Lizard. I should take the bearings of every headland and remarkable spot as I passed it, and refer to the chart. By keeping the Lizard lights in sight, it is impossible you could touch the Manacles; that is a mark for clearing the Manacles. On coming round the Rame Head, the Lizard lights should be kept in view; if you lose sight of them in clear weather, you are in danger, if you are to the northward. Mr. KARSLAKE—Is that because some projecting angle of the land shuts out the lights? Witness—The Black Head projects, and you would be in danger of going on the Manacles, if you proceeded to the westward. You have heard the helmsman give evidence of the course steered, was that a right or proper course for the vessel to take? Witness—No, decidedly wrong. You have heard the quarter from which those witnesses say they were ordered to steer; where would it have brought the ship? Witness—It would have brought her on the Manacles. Mr. KARSLAKE—You take into consideration the wind and sea and other matters? Witness—Yes, and make a small allowance for the indraft into the bays; that, and the wind being on the quarter, would have the effect of forging her a little to windward of her course, and if the course steered was as I heard it was ordered, it would cause the ship to go on the Manacles. Mr. KARSLAKE—In steering a ship you must always take into consideration these matters? Witness—Yes, certainly. That is part of the qualifications of a person in charge of a vessel?—Yes. Cross-examined by Mr. Slade.—It is between four and five years since I commanded one of Her Majesty’s vessels. I commanded packets at Falmouth nearly nine years. I commanded the “Express” packet from Falmouth to the Brazils. We landed our mails at Falmouth, and then proceeded to Plymouth to get our refit to prepare for the next voyage; then we went again to Falmouth, received our mails on board, and proceeded on her foreign voyage. Mr. SLADE—Did you ever conduct a packet from Plymouth straight round the Lizard Point? Witness—No, I am not aware that I have; but of course if you are acquainted with the navigation from the Lizard to Falmouth, and from Falmouth to Plymouth, you must be thoroughly acquainted with the navigation from Rame Head to the Lizard.—In reply other to questions, witness said he had not taken a more particular interest in this matter than a person should have done under the circumstances. He had not attended the consultations of counsel, and had had very little to say to the lawyer. The Manacles are very likely a mile in extent. The course W. by S. from the Rame Head would take him five and a half or six miles south of the Lizard; there would then be plenty of sea-room, even if a ship were edged two or three miles to windward of her course. Mr. SLADE—You told my friend that if you keep the Lizard lights in sight, you cannot touch the Manacles; but suppose you cannot sight them on a hazy night, what would you do? Witness—I should keep such an offing as would keep the vessel in safety. But W. by S. would not give the vessel a long offing? Witness—Not much offing. What would you do then if the Lizard lights were not in sight? Witness—I should take soundings; every seaman approaching the shore of a hazy night would always seek for soundings so as to be guided by the soundings as well as by compass. Mr. SLADE—That is on making the land? Witness—Yes, or in going along the land if you cannot see it. Do you mean to tell me you would keep the lead going? Yes. What, in merchant ships?—Merchant ships ought to do it. But do they?—I should say a person in charge would not do his duty if within ten miles of the shore he did not take soundings with the deep-sea lead. Don’t you know that it is an Admiralty regulation, and don’t apply to merchantmen? Witness—It should apply to every vessel; even the commander of a boat should sound on approaching the shore. Mr. SLADE—How many of the coasting vessels do you think have got leads? Witness—I repeat that no vessel should be within ten miles of the shore in hazy or thick weather, without frequently and constantly taking casts of the lead, to see whether she is in danger or not. Mr. SLADE—Could you sound when four or five miles off the Deadman? Would it not be necessary to heave to for sounding in that depth of water? Witness—No, you can take soundings without heaving to in the water just off the Deadman. Mr. SLADE—What in thirty-four fathoms, and going seven knots an hour? Witness—Yes, you can take soundings without heaving to, with the deep sea lead. Mr. SLADE here asked the witness to take the chart and mark off the ship’s course, as given by the helmsmen, from five miles off the Deadman, at twenty minutes past eight. The counsel for the prosecution, however, reminded Mr. Slade that one of the witnesses, Elder, had said they were only three miles off the Deadman. The learned JUDGE examined his notes, and found that Goodwin had said that about eight o’clock they were four or five miles off the Deadman, whilst Elder had said they were three miles from the Deadman, or thereabouts. The witness, Mr. Lory, said he had taken the distance at three miles. Mr. SLADE then requested Commander Lory to take the chart, and go back to the Rame Head, which it was given in evidence the ship had passed at a distance of a mile and a half. Commander Lory then spread the chart on the table, and with parallel rulers and compasses marked off the course of from a mile and a half off the Rame Head to a point off the Deadman, bearing north, the course being due west. In reply to Mr. Slade, he said that would be nearly six miles off the Deadman. The witness was next asked to mark off 20 minutes sailing from that point (about two and a quarter miles, the ship going seven knots an hour), the course due west; then to mark ten minutes sailing, course W ½ S; then from that point W S W for an hour; and finally, five minutes S W sailing (the course the ship was sailing when struck.) Mr. SLADE—Now where has that taken you? Witness—Four and a quarter miles from the Manacle rocks. Mr. SLADE—And heading seaward? Witness—No, the wind was on the starboard quarter, and would have the effect of forging her towards the land. I have made no allowance, in marking out the course, for the indraft into or St. Austell bay, and no allowance for the wind forging her to windward. Taking it from a mile and a half off the Rame Head, the course steered was a dangerous one, for according to Elder, the indraft and wind on the quarter had brought her two miles further in than the course marked off from the Rame Head.—On further cross- examination the witness denied that he was any partizan in the matter, or had any prejudice against the captain. There were six or eight hundred vessels lost every year from this country, and it was his opinion that two-thirds of them were lost either through drunkenness or carelessness. On re-examination the witness again affirmed that the course taken by the “John” was a wrong one, and would bring her on the Manacles; and that the course from Rame Head should have been W. by S. and nothing to the westward. At the request of Serjeant Kinglake, the witness again took the chart, and marked the courses, as stated by the helmsmen, from a point four miles from the Deadman, bearing north. Those courses, he said, would bring up the ship better than three miles a little to the northward of east of the Manacles, making no allowance for the indraughts, and for the vessel being forged to windward by the wind on her starboard quarter. There were next seven of the passengers called to give evidence. Michael Studden, shoemaker of Launceston, a passenger on board, lost his wife and five children. He was on deck a few minutes before the ship struck; it was a moonlight night, and he could see the land quite plain. He ran on deck when she struck and asked the captain, what was the matter? he said it was all right. Witness afterwards heard the captain order a boat that was hanging over the weather side to be lowered. After seeing to his wife and children, he again saw the captain on deck, and said, “captain, do you think there is any danger?” He said, “No, you are all right, I am with you.” Witness said, at another time I asked the captain why he did not put out the boats. He said he could not, and that we should be alright. I heard many persons ask him to lower the boats, and he gave them the same answer he gave to me. He said he was a ruined man, and should never see his owners any more. When he was asked to lower the boats the deck of the ship was dry, and it was not rough as it was afterwards. I have no doubt, judging from the state of weather and tide, that the boats could have lived; I should not have been afraid to have gone in the boat. As the tide rose it came over the poop, and the wind rose with the tide. The lower part of the rigging was full; it was impossible they could then have got into the rigging from the poop; I tried myself, with one of my children, and could not. I saw dozens washed overboard. After I lost all my family, I got from about the mizen mast and swam to the rattlines. I saw the captain come up with a coat under his arm; he said he was there amongst them, and should not leave them. The only order I heard the captain give that night was to lower the boat. William Henry Yelland, another passenger, was on deck between seven and eight in the evening, and fancied they were near the land; could see it plain. The vessel’s distance from land when she settled was three or four minutes pull in a boat he should think. He asked the captain about getting the boats out, and he said, let them out yourselves. He helped to launch the life boat; it had no painter, which was the cause of its going adrift; it had no oars or thowel pins. He afterwards went into the long boat; there were no thowels in the long boat; he tried to make some; the carpenter gave him some iron bolts instead. I got into the mainstaysail, and remained there till half-past two or three in the morning, when I was washed away, but washed in again, and got into the rigging. I understood the captain to say, that the shore being rocky, if he launched the boats and filled them with people he was afraid of losing them, but that if they would wait till morning it would be all right. The witness said that after the vessel struck he went asleep in the longboat, part of the time. Cross-examined—When I saw the sailors trimming sails, the captain was exerting himself, and from what I saw, was exerting himself for the good of all. John Houghton, passenger, said he asked the captain to lower the boats and land them. He said, there is no occasion, there is no danger whatever; he said he did not know the nature of the coast. I said, send in a boat with some men to see for a landing place. He said, there is no occasion, we should remain there till the morning, and then be taken off by boats from the land. He said, you see I am not drunk. I did not hear any one say he was drunk. At that time I could see the land perfectly; the sea was clear, and there would not have been the least difficulty in a boat having gone from the ship. I believe it was the night after full moon. The tide was at first ebbing, and did not flow for some hours; during that time the water was calm. Part of the deck was dry when the tide was ebbing, and a part wet. In about an hour and a half after she struck I went into the cabin on deck; the captain was then sitting on a chair; he appeared sitting in a drowsy state; I did not speak to him. COUNSEL—Did you see the captain using any effort, or doing anything? Witness—I don’t recollect seeing him. William Clemence, passenger, said he asked the captain to put out the boats, but he said it was of no use, the people would be safe on her quarter. Witness told him the tide would flow three times as high as that; he said it would not. Witness told him that when he left Torpoint, it was high water at six in the morning; he replied that to morrow morning it would be high water about four. About two hours after the vessel struck I went to the cabin, and saw the captain lying snoring on a bed, I believe it was his berth. Cross-examined—I took my child up the rigging, and the captain in the course of the night held it once or twice. I was examined at Falmouth. Captain Wake partly requested me to come; I am one of St. Kew; I came in here, and Captain Wake spoke to me. George Wilce, passenger, heard the captain say that he was a man ruined, and deny that he was drunk. Sometime after she struck, I went into the cabin to ask for a blanket or quilt to cover my sister. He looked up and grumbled something I could not understand. He was sleeping sitting up, on the end of a barrel in the cabin. I saw him afterwards rise from the end of the barrel where he was sitting, and go into bed. I did not see him make any exertions to save the people, or try to get them into the rigging. The passengers might have been put into the rigging almost all of them. Cross-examined—I was not before the grand jury or the coroner. Capt. Wake brought me up; he is coast-guard inspector. Nicholas Reed, passenger, helped to get out the life-boat; she had no oars; two jumped into her and she drifted away. They were trying to get out the long-boat, but the captain ordered them no to do it, and said in the morning they would be taken off. At that time the sea was calm, and the wind mild. Cross-examined—I heard the captain, when the water was rising, tell the passengers to go up the rigging. William Hallet, passenger, had his wife drowned. The captain said there was no danger, they would all be right in the morning; he said he should be undone for ever. It was rather rough when the vessel struck, but it got calm after, and about one o’clock it got rough again. He did not hear the captain give any orders that night. Timothy Carew.—I am lieutenant in the navy, and was emigration officer at Plymouth. It was part of my duty to inspect the “John” before she left Plymouth. I inspected her the day she left, and gave a certificate to the effect that the provisions of the act of parliament had been complied with. I had the crew examined, and saw they were efficient. They passed before me one by one, and they were sober. I had some doubt as to one; a cask had fallen on him and hurt him, but I was finally satisfied that he was sober. The ship was fully manned, and had four boats, one more than she was required to have. I required, as is usual with emigrant ships, that government surveyors should make a survey of the hull, masts, spars, anchors, cables, &c., and that was done. One of the surveyors pointed out that there was a crack in one of the boats by the heat of the sun, and he called the attention of the ship’s carpenter to it. That was the pinnace, the extra boat; the three regulation boats were all in good order. There were life buoys on board. There was no signal gun, and I have no reason to suppose there were any rockets or blue lights on board. There were five compasses on board, one of them an azimuth compass. One of the compasses was near the wheel, and one in the captain’s cabin; I did not inspect the compasses with any view of correcting them; it is not within the duties of an emigration officer, except so far as I should take that duty on myself. I looked in a casual way to see they were good compasses. Cross-examined by Mr. Slade—I suppose you just saw a card placed under a glass case, and that was all you looked at? Witness—Just so. There was one in the binnacle, and one in the cabin, where were the others? Witness—Stowed away. Did you see them? No it was reported to me. Did you report that this ship had gone out with five compasses? Witness—I gave a certificate that the ship had complied with all that was required by the act; the compass has nothing to do with the act of parliament; the only thing is that the Colonial Emigration Commissioners have desired that an azimuth compass should be put on board. Mr. SLADE—In her Majesty’s ships care is always taken to have a correct compass? Witness—All I know is by hearsay; I am pretty sure it is so in her Majesty’s ships. Re-examined—As there were two compasses on deck, it would have been easy to correct one by the other. There was no azimuth compass on deck; it was reported to me by the owners of the ship; no emigration officer can see everything. Captain Lory was recalled, and asked by Mr. SLADE—Do they swing her Majesty’s ships to ascertain the correctness of the compass? Witness—I believe they do; I never swung the vessel I commanded. Serjeant KINGLAKE then stated that he proposed to call no other witnesses, but there were the names of others on the back of the indictment, if counsel for defendant wished to examine them.—Mr. SLADE proposed to call Edwin Elliott.—On this, Serjeant KINGLAKE stated that, as representing the Attorney General in this prosecution, he should claim a right of reply.—The learned JUDGE said, no doubt, in strictness, the learned Serjeant, as representative of the Attorney General, had a right of reply; but his lordship added that such a distinction in favour of the Crown was an odious one.—Serjeant KINGLAKE said, if, as his lordship intimated, it was an odious practice or privilege, the sooner it was got rid of, the better. He was not going to argue the matter. But, after his lordship’s observation, he would relinquish his right of reply. His doing so, however, must not be taken as a precedent; he waived his right merely in consequence of what his lordship said. The witness Edwin Elliott was then called, and examined by Mr. SLADE.—He deposed: I was on board the John on the night of the wreck, and saw the captain perform his duty like an able seaman, and without any thing like carelessness, inattention, or negligence throughout the night. I went up the fore rigging; I heard some persons urge the passengers to get up in the rigging to save their lives; I dare say the Captain was one of those persons, but I cannot say. I saw the captain in the maintop with a child; I rather think the child belonged to a man named Clemence; I saw the captain fold his cloak and place it between the head of the main-mast, and the heel of the main-top-mast, and make a bed of it for the child. Mr. SLADE then addressed the Jury for the defence. He began by saying that he very much congratulated the jury, himself, and his lordship that his learned friend, the Serjeant, had so handsomely waived, what his lordship have very properly called an odious distinction.—(His LORDSHIP here, interrupting the learned Counsel, said he begged to recall that expression. What he meant to say was that he could not understand why there should be any difference in the conduct of a case because it was in the hands of a representative of the Attorney General; but he had used too strong a word, and begged to recall it.)—Mr. SLADE said his Lordship’s opinion would be stereotyped and handed down; and then, proceeding to address the jury on the case, first of all impressed on them the consideration of its importance to the Captain—a man as respectable and as respected as any one in Court; for if their verdict was adverse to him, it would brand him as a felon and make him liable to transportation for the rest of his life. It was therefore on them, the jury, that the defendant now rested all his hopes of happiness for this world. (The Captain leant forward, weeping, his head on his hands, and so continued during nearly the whole of his counsel’s speech). The learned Counsel urged on the jury that, in the consideration of the question before them, they must not allow themselves to be swayed by feelings of respect for the unfortunate dead, nor by sympathy for the living survivors of the wreck. He implored them to discard from their minds all that they might have heard or read on the subject, and confine themselves to the evidence now laid before them; and, doing so, he was confident Captain Rawle would be entitled to claim a verdict at their hands. And, it must be remembered that it was incumbent on the prosecution, in order to obtain a verdict of guilty, to prove, by evidence on oath, that Capt. Rawle had been guilty of most gross negligence, and had undertaken the conduct of the ship with the most gross ignorance. He did not quarrel with the law laid down by the learned Serjeant, that a man who undertook the conduct of a vessel was bound to bring to that duty a competent skill.—If there had been but one death resulting from this unfortunate wreck, there would not have been shown so much anxiety to bring home guilt to the captain. It was the unhappy circumstance that so large a number of persons had been lost, that made the public call out for a victim, and say that the victim should be the Captain. But if they could hardly have found him guilty of manslaughter in case only one passenger had been lost, how could they find him guilty in respect of a larger number? Although he (the learned Counsel) was there with a deep desire to acquit Capt. Rawle, he was there also to assist the Jury in coming to a right and proper conclusion; and he would suggest to them to take this as their guide:—Did Captain Rawle, in any part of his duty as captain, or seaman, show carelessness, inattention, neglect, or inexperience? On the contrary; with the exception of Capt. Lory, one and all, both passengers and seamen, had stated that his conduct was unexceptionable. Was his conduct that of a man, and Englishman, a brave, true-hearted sailor, when the ship struck, and there appeared to be danger that every life would be lost? What was his statement? Fear not, I am here among you, and here I’ll stay till the last. That was the sentiment of a brave, true-hearted seaman—“we have got into danger; but, come what may, I am with you and will stay till the last.” Did he neglect the interests of the passengers? He could not attend to all; but he gave advice to all; and it would have been well if they had followed his advice; probably, the greater portion would then have been saved. They afterwards found him in the main-top—and this was a touching episode—devoting his attention to a little child; and forming for it a little cot, as it were, of his coat. And who was the man who now came forward in this hour of deep distress, and would have you believe that the captain was sleeping, careless and indifferent about the fate of his passengers? Why, the very man Clemence, whose child was thus saved. But what was it that Clemence and Wilce could say against the captain? Why, that at a time when he could be of no service to any human being—before the water got 6 inches deep on the main deck—he was reposing himself in his cabin, reserving his strength till the time should come when it would be necessary.—His friend, the Sergeant, laid great stress on this—that the Captain had not shown proper diligence in getting out the boats—and that, if the boats had been properly used, the greater part of the lives would have been saved. What an issue to hang a question of manslaughter upon,—on a due and proper exercise of judgment. Who would ever be captain of a ship hereafter—if, when his judgment happened to be wrong, he was liable to be branded as a felon. But he (the learned Counsel) maintained that Captain Rawle, throughout that fearful night, acted the part of an extremely careful, an extremely able, and an extremely considerate commanding officer. He could tell them that where, in cases of accident, the lives of ten people had been lost by remaining in the ship, the lives of thousands had been lost by abandoning her. And there could be no question that, on an unknown coast, and in a dark and deceiving night, as the witness called it, the proper course was to stay by the vessel till daylight came; and if the people had gone into the rigging, all would have been saved.— Mr. Slade, by means of a model exhibited to the jury how the people on the poop were swept off by the swinging of the boom to and fro, after its guys had broken. But, said he, Captain Rawle was not answerable—was not criminally responsible, for that. Captain Rawle and the seamen had done all in their power. According to one of the witnesses, the people were crowding around the Captain, and he said “For God’s sake, get into the rigging; you will all be lost here.”—The learned Counsel said he could understand that the strongest minds might be thrown off their balance at such a time; but would they have the Captain throw them all into despair; or would they not rather have him encourage hope in every possible manner? The Captain told them to be quiet—to remain till day-light, and then they would be taken off by boats from shore, in safety; and he (the learned Counsel) thought there could be no question that the Captain exercised due and proper caution in advising that plan.—The first thing done by the Captain was to get out the quarter boat; he jumped into it with the greatest alacrity; but he did not go off in that boat, though he might have done so with others; on the contrary, he got back into the vessel, determined to share the fate of his passengers. They then got out the life-boat, and she floats off with two men who are lost. He had then but one boat left. The pinnace was worth nothing; thanks to the Emigration Agent, who had taken such a careful inspection. He had then only the long-boat. But what would have been said, if the Captain had put out 20 passengers in the long-boat and they had been lost on the rocks? What would have been said of the wonderful imbecility of the Captain in not keeping them on board till day-light? In any case, he could not be held criminally responsible for error of judgment merely; if such were the law, there would be an end of the merchant service; for no man would go to sea with a rope round his neck. If a question of felony or no felony was to hang on the exercise of right or wrong judgment, there was an end of the mercantile marine.—Mr. Slade said he should now call attention to Capt. Lory’s theory to account for the vessel getting on the rocks; but, before proceeding to do so, he observed that Captain Rawle must have passed his examination, to have been allowed by the Government Agent to take out emigrants; he had made several voyages to Quebec and back, and had earned the esteem of his owners and of passengers. If the owners had not the most entire confidence in the nautical skill of the Captain, would they have entrusted him with a ship of 450 tons? The mere fact of his having been so entrusted was proof that they, who had the best possible means of judging, put the most entire confidence in him as a seaman.—He (the learned counsel) wanted no witnesses for the defence—except as to character; he took the facts from the evidence for the prosecution. He cared not for Captain Lory’s theory of the indraught, and the vessel making her way to windward. The theory which he (the learned Counsel) would venture to suggest, in explanation of the vessel getting on the rocks, was irresistible, if the witnesses who had been called spoke truth. He was not going to put it that the men made a mistake, or neglected to steer according to the captain’s directions. He put it on that fruitful source of marine misfortune—the compass. They all knew that if care was not taken to ascertain that the compass was correct, instead of its being a guide to safety, it would certainly lead to destruction. The duty of the emigration agent was to see that the ship was fit, in every respect, to go to sea; but, in the present case, the agent said he had no authority to see about the compasses. The agent stated that there were five compasses on board; but, as to three of them, he did not see them, and was only told they were on board; and the other two he did not inspect. He contented himself with seeing a card under a glass; and whether the compass was true or false, he did not know. In her Majesty’s navy, ships are swung for the purpose of ascertaining if the compass is correct; and that because very often they are incorrect. It was in evidence that Captain Rawle had taken the ship to Cardiff for repair since his last return from Quebec, and they put in some new-fangled compass,—of which he knew nothing; he (the learned counsel) would suggest that by easy process of reasoning, they would see the probability that this new-fangled compass carried the vessel on the Manacles Rocks. Unless they were prepared to surrender their opinions to Captain Lory, and on his authority to convict the defendant, they must see by this map, marked out by Captain Lory, that the accident must have been the fault of the compass; and for this, Capt. Rawle was not responsible. The owners were responsible for the compass.—Capt. Rawle could have no motive for running the vessel on shore; he lost all he had in this world in that ship; yet, his learned friend would have it believed that Capt. Rawle, a trustworthy captain of a vessel, with his eyes wide open, ran this vessel ashore, perilling his own life and the loss of his property. It was sometimes said that when a ship was wrecked, she went to a good market, if well insured; but then all the lives were saved, because they always selected a good berth for the ship. That was not the case in the present instance. There was also no wish to cut corners, as they sometimes read of steamers doing, which to save a corner and make a short course got upon unexpected rocks. Capt. Rawle had no desire but make a speedy and safe passage. Capt. Lory said West by South was the course that would take the ship 5 or 6 miles south of the Lizard; but he forgot that on the day Capt. Rawle took his departure from Plymouth, there was a very strong flood tide making for three hours in mid channel, when it was ebbing in shore; and Mr. Goodwin, the mate, whose evidence was that throughout the whole of that night, Capt. Rawle’s conduct was that of an able, experienced, active, and intelligent commander, also stated that it was judicious to take the course that was taken, considering the state of tide and wind. It was all very well for Capt. Lory and others to speak of seeing the Lizard Lights. But if the weather was so thick that night, he did not understand how they could have seen land; and it was clear that no one spoke of having seen a light at all that night, except the revolving light at Falmouth; which, one of the witnesses said might have been a light on land, or in the rigging of a ship. Mr. Slade then directed the attention of the jury to the chart, to the evidence as to the captain’s directions for steering, and to the courses laid down by Capt. Lory on the evidence; deducing from the whole, as he had before asserted, that the vessel’s getting on the Manacles was owing to a defect in the compass.—The learned Counsel concluded with some general observations in defendant’s behalf, and expressed the fullest confidence that he would obtain a verdict of acquittal. The following witnesses were called as to character:— Captain Nicholas.—I was part owner of the barque “John.” I have known the prisoner between 7 and 8 years, acting as chief officer, and as captain. He had been master of the barque “John” about 18 months before this accident happened. During the time I have known him he has been a sober, steady, upright, straight-forward man. I have known him abroad, at Quebec, as chief officer, as well as at home; his character has been the same there as here. Mr. Robert Avery.—I live at Plymouth; I am a ship-owner and have been connected with shipping more than 40 years. I am part owner of the “John.” I have known Capt. Rawle 5 or 6 years. He has been in command of three or four vessels in which I have had an interest. I believe he has always obtained the confidence of the owners. We have put him from one ship to another in consequence of his conduct; and I am, as one of the owners, prepared to take him into my service.—By Serjeant Kinglake:—I am not managing owner of the “John”; but I believe we have deposited 3500l. with the Board of Trade. Serjeant Kinglake:—Has that been required of you on the ground of negligence? Mr. SLADE objected to this question; and the learned JUDGE decided against its being put. Mr. Rea.—I am tide-surveyor to the Board of Customs at Plymouth. I have known Capt. Rawle 5 or 6 years. I have seen him at Plymouth in the capacity of chief officer of the “John,” and also of the Margaret Ann.” He has always been a sober, attentive young man, and skilful, as far as I have seen, as chief officer and master. I have had occasion to visit his vessel early and late, and have always seen him very attentive to his duties. The learned JUDGE then summed up:—Gentlemen of the Jury; this is a most important case, and one that deserves at your hands the most dispassionate and unprejudiced investigation. On the one hand it is natural that you should feel very deeply on this most deplorable wreck and the miserable death of so many of our fellow creatures. It is natural too that you should be anxious that some one should be punished, in order to secure, if possible, future vigilance and attention on the part of captains, to prevent as far as possible, the recurrence of these most melancholy events. But, on the other hand, you owe it to the man who sits at the bar, charged with this serious offence, to do him justice in a matter, to him, of such infinite importance. You will do him injustice if you find your verdict on any other ground than a careful, patient, and just view of the evidence placed before you. Let me entreat you to dismiss from you minds every thing you had heard about this case before you entered that box, and to act faithfully and entirely on the evidence laid before you. The prisoner stands charged with manslaughter, for having by culpable neglect of his duty, caused the death of Eliza Hallett; and it becomes necessary that I should tell you what is such culpable neglect of duty on the part of the Captain as to make him criminally responsible on this indictment. By the law of this country, when a man takes upon himself an office, such as that of commander of a merchant vessel, in which a certain quantity of skill, care, and activity, is requisite, he is bound to be ordinarily skilful, careful, and active in the discharge of his duty; and if by his unskilfulness, or carelessness, or negligence, or supineness, he cause the death of a fellow creature, he is by law guilty of manslaughter; and that is the offence charged in this indictment. If you think it has been proved that the shipwreck in question is justly attributable to neglect by the Captain of his ordinary duty in navigating the vessel, or that the loss of the life of Eliza Hallett is justly to be attributed to his having neglected to take proper steps to preserve the passengers after the shipwreck happened, you ought to find the prisoner guilty. But you must always bear in mind that it is ordinary skill only, and ordinary care and exertions that can be required from the captain of a vessel. It is not because by means of more than ordinary skill the wreck might have been avoided, or because by more than ordinary activity the lives of the passengers might have been saved, that you can find the prisoner guilty of this charge.—The case laid before you in evidence, has been divided into two branches. It is said, on the part of the prosecution in the first place that the death of Eliza Hallett is attributable to culpable neglect of duty on the part of the prisoner, because it is said, the wreck was owing to such neglect of duty on his part. The other branch of the case is that, after the wreck had happened he did not take such steps as he might justly have been expected to take for the preservation of those who were inmates of the shipwrecked vessel. With respect to the latter part of the charge—I mean, as to the Captain’s conduct when the wreck had happened, I must say that I think the case requires no ordinary caution, at your hands. I think it must occur to your minds but you ought to make allowance for the distracted state of mind into which the firmest man must necessarily have been thrown by an occurrence that he might well feel, as he appears to have felt, might end in his ruin, though every soul on board were saved. It is not because you may think that less loss of life would have occurred if the boats had been lowered, or other steps taken, by a man of calmer judgment, that you can find him guilty of culpable negligence.— With respect to the other branch of the case, it must be taken, on the evidence, that the charge against the prisoner is not so much a charge of inattention to his duties. I must confess that, except with respect to the compasses, I am at a loss to find any want of attention on the part of the captain in navigating the vessel. This part of the case rests almost exclusively on his having navigated the vessel without ordinary skill; and if you should think, on the evidence, that he was guilty of navigating the vessel without the ordinary skill that there should be in one who undertook to navigate her, then the case is made out against him.—Having told you what the nature of the case is, and that it is your duty to act on evidence, and on evidence alone, I now proceed to call your attention to the most important parts of the evidence given. The first witness called is William Goodwin, the first mate of the John, who certainly stands in the position of being somewhat biassed (sic) in favour of the Captain. But you must say how far that necessary bias on his mind, coupled with anything you might have observed in his demeanour, or in the manner in which he gave his evidence, induces you to withdraw your confidence from any part of his testimony. You ought not at once to come to the conclusion that he has come here to perjure himself, particularly as he is a witness on the part of the crown, because he stands in that connection with the Master; nor because he appears, on re-examination, to have been in some sort of communication, though slight, with the professional adviser of the defendant. But you must take that into consideration.—The learned Judge proceeded to read from his notes of Goodwin’s evidence; remarking that his evidence that at 8 o’clock the vessel was about 4 or 5 miles off Deadman Point had been made a matter of some importance from the course of examination for the defence; and also, that there was no doubt that, with some slight exceptions, the captain was on deck, almost the whole of the time of the vessel’s progress until the unfortunate wreck. The learned Judge remarked on the evidence that the pinnace was put on board in a condition to be not usable, when the wreck took place. On the evidence that the vessel made no signals of distress, his lordship said he did not think that was material in the present case; she made no signals of distress; she had no means of doing so; but, it was agreed that the captain was not responsible for that. If any person was to blame for that, it was the person who should have seen that the vessel was in proper order before she started.—In explanation of the apparent inconsistency in the captain, in first giving a general order to take out the boats, and, in about an hour afterwards refusing to have the long-boat launched, his lordship suggested that there had been a change in the sea or wind, that would make it useful and desirable to use the boats at one time, and not advisable or useful to do so at a later period.—Proceeding with the evidence of other witnesses, his lordship remarked as to the getting into the rigging, that, in a grave charge of this sort, it was too much to say there was culpable neglect on the part of the Captain, considering the scene of confusion and horror there must have been, because he did not devise some scheme for getting up the rigging; it seemed to be out of all reason that that should be charged as such neglect as to make it the foundation of an indictment for manslaughter. It seemed, therefore, that the decision as to the captain’s conduct after the wreck must turn on the question as to the boats. It had not been suggested that anything else could be done, except some vague suggestion that something might have been done to get the people up the rigging. About that, the evidence was so conflicting that his lordship thought it would be too much to act upon such suggestion as evidence of any neglect of duty. On the whole of the evidence as to the imputation of negligence after the wreck, his Lordship could not see there was any thing on which a charge of felony could properly be founded. In his opinion, except as to the boats there was nothing that could be ascribed to the captain, under all the circumstances, amounting to culpable neglect so as to make him criminally reasonable; and, as to the boats, after the quarter-boat had been lost, and the life boat made useless, there remained but the long boat; and in the captain’s judgment, in which some of the sailors concurred, the very best thing was to keep that boat and wait till daylight, because they did not know where to land, and she might have perished with all who ventured in her. If that was an error of judgment, was that error to be made the foundation of a prosecution for manslaughter? Before the jury could find a verdict against the captain, they must be of opinion that the death of the woman was caused by culpable negligence on his part; and, it appeared to his lordship, that they could not say that was the case with reference to what took place after the wreck.—His lordship proceeded to the evidence on the imputation that there was want of skill on the part of the captain, in the navigation of the vessel before she struck. After reviewing Capt. Lory’s oral testimony and the results of that gentleman’s markings on the chart, his lordship drew attention to Capt. Lory’s imputation of negligence in the Captain, in that he had not taken soundings; and of want of skill in making no allowance for the indraught and for the wind forging the vessel to windward; and that this was the cause why the actual position of the vessel did not correspond with her apparent course. On the other hand, it was said in defence, that this was owing to imperfection in the compass.—But, besides the imputation of want of skill in the navigation of the vessel, it was also imputed that there was want of attention. That want of attention, it was said, consisted in this:—that the Captain had, not only a compass on the binnacle, but also a compass in the cabin; and it was said if he had done his duty and employed ordinary diligence in the navigation of the vessel, the supposing the compass on the binnacle had been wrong, he might have discovered that by comparing it with the compass in the cabin. On the other hand, that was weakened to a certain extent, by the evidence of one of the seaman, that he never left the round-house deck; while another said he was there pretty often.—These views were suggested, on one side and the other; and it seemed to his lordship that they brought the case to the point on which it must after all, turn. It was perfectly clear that the vessel was, somehow or other, wrongly navigated; because she struck on the Manacles Rocks, which she ought not to have done if properly navigated. The question was, if that was attributable to culpable want of skill on the part of the captain. Prima facie, the evidence of the men at the helm was that they steered in a direction that would have kept them out of danger. And that was proved by Capt. Lory most satisfactorily; because take Elder’s account that they were 3 to 4 miles from the Deadman at 8 o’clock, or the other account that they were 4 to 5 miles, if the course had been followed that was pursued by the helmsmen successively, the vessel would have steered a couple of miles, at least, clear of the Manacles. Why did she not? Was it owing to want of skill in not making allowance for in-draught and the operation of the wind; or was it owing, as suggested in defence, to the compass being deceitful and not doing its work properly, or to some other cause not implying want of skill in the captain? They would consider this question with every attention in their power. But he was bound to tell them that if, after considering it, their minds were left in doubt and they did not know which was the true version of the story, they must acquit the captain; because the burden of proof rested with the prosecutor. But if, after careful consideration of the evidence on this part of the case, they adopted the view suggested—that a Captain with ordinary skill would have avoided the danger by sounding when he did not know where he was and could not see the Lights; or that there was a want of ordinary skill in not making the allowances suggested by Capt. Lory; or, if they were satisfied that the shipwreck was attributable to want of skill or attention with regard to inspection of the compass,—if they found either of these, they would find him guilty.—With respect to the rest of the case, if they agreed with him that really there was nothing on which they could condemn the Captain with respect to his conduct after the wreck, he need not read any more of the evidence applicable to that part of the case. But, if they thought there was any thing in that part of the Case on which to found a charge of culpable negligence and a verdict of manslaughter, with reference to the third boat not being launched, or the people not being got into the rigging, or otherwise, he would read that part of the case. (A Juryman said they did not require it).—Then, said his lordship, it seems you adopt the view I have taken, that your decision must turn on the question of want of skill in navigating.—But before I conclude, I am bound to recall to your attention the very excellent character the Captain has received from a number of witnesses, including his late owners, as to his steadiness, skill, and generally meritorious conduct in his employ as Captain of a vessel. If you think the Captain guilty, you will not find him not guilty, because of character. But I am bound to say that the singularly excellent character he has received you will take into your consideration, and will say on the whole, whether you are satisfied that the shipwreck of this vessel is fairly attributable to his want of skill, diligence, care, or attention, in navigating it. If you think that the man did not apply ordinary skill, ordinary attention, ordinary diligence, and that the wreck is attributable to his neglect, it will be your duty to find him guilty. If you think that is not brought home to him, and your minds are in a doubtful state about it, you must give him the benefit of that doubt and acquit him. The jury after about five minutes consultation, returned a verdict “NOT GUILTY.” The verdict was received with some clapping of hands, which was instantly checked; and many friends of the Captain pressed round him and shook hands with him. PLACING OBSTACLES ON A RAILWAY. JOHN PRISK, a little boy, who had pleaded guilty of placing stones and iron on the West Cornwall Railway, was placed at the bar to receive sentence. His lordship said:—You have been found guilty, on your own confession, of a very wicked and very mischievous act, indeed,—putting stones and iron on a railroad, to have the fun I suppose, of seeing the train upset. If you had been older, I should have transported you for it. It is nothing but your youth that induces me to treat your case with leniency. Now I hope you know what a shocking thing it is that your love of mischief might, perhaps, have caused the death of hundreds of people. A more wicked piece of mischief could not be done by the most wicked boy in the world. I hope for the rest of your life you will think what a merciful escape you have had, and that you will make return for my mercy shown you now by never doing such mischief again. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the space of Six Calendar Months. This concluded, at about half past 7 o’clock, the business of the assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 19 and 26 October 1855

6. Michaelmas Sessions

These sessions were opened at Bodmin, on Tuesday last, before the following magistrates: J. KING LETHBRIDGE, ESQ., Chairman Sir W.L.S. Trelawny, Bt. J.P. Magor, Esq. Lord Vivian. E. Stephens, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P. E. Coode, jun., Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. H. Willyams, Esq. J. Borlace, Esq. J.S. Enys, Esq. F. Glanville, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. F. Rodd, Esq. Rev. Arthur Tatham. H. Thomson, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. Rev. John Glanville. The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury:— Mr. Thomas Shepherd, Stratton, foreman. Martin Body, Callington. Charles Blake, Menheniot. Richard Brendon, Lawhitton. William Castine, St. Mary Magdalene. John H. Dingle, Callington. Daniel Hancock, ditto. William Hender, St. Thomas. John Hooper, Stratton. Richard Oliver, Menheniot. William Polkinghorne, ditto. John Pearn, . John Pope, St. Mary Magdalene. Charles Pearce, St. Stephens by Launceston. Christopher Palmer, St. Germans. Joseph Rickard, St. Dominick. Thomas Rundle, Stokeclimsland. John Snell, St. Ive. John Sobey, Menheniot. Thomas Simmons, Lawhitton. Abraham Shepherd, St. Mary Magdalene. William Snell, . William Sandry, Stratton. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— Mr. J.B. Frood, Morwenstow. W. Toms, Stratton. E. Uglow, . W.G. Vosper, St. Germans. After the customary preliminary business, the CHAIRMAN delivered his charge to the Grand Jury [not transcribed] VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The Visiting Justices reported the continued good management of the gaol, so far as it was feasible in the present defective state of the buildings. They also submitted a resolution recording the appointment of Thomas Davis, as miller and warder, in the room of James Tucker, resigned; and recommending the immediate and future yearly increase of the salaries of various turnkeys, warders, matrons and assistant-matrons. Mr. KENDALL said the ultimate increase on the whole would be about £100 a year; and Lord VIVIAN remarked that the committee’s proposition was based on information they had received as to payment in other gaols.—The CHAIRMAN was of opinion that the Committee’s recommendation could be received, only as a notice of application; and, (Mr. Kendall acquiescing) the CHAIRMAN recorded that the Committee gave notice of intention to move, at the next session, the proposed increase of salaries— such increase to commence from Michaelmas 1855. GAOL BUILDING COMMITTEE.—The CHAIRMAN said a report from this Committee had been presented, signed by Mr. Kendall, stating that, as the Architect, Mr. Porter, had, without cognizance of the Committee, granted to persons offering tenders, an extension of time from October 13th to October 20th, the Committee were now unable to report any thing to the magistrates; and they begged to continue their notice for £20,000, hoping that at the Christmas Sessions, they should be able to report on the various tenders. SURGEON’S ANNUAL REPORT.—County Gaol, Oct. 15, 1855.— Sir.—I have the honour to report to you that the health of the Prisoners in the Cornwall County Gaol during the last 12 months, has, on the whole, been very satisfactory. The cases under treatment have certainly been more numerous than in the preceding year; but the extreme severity of the weather in the early months of the present year will easily account for this. Influenza and Bronchitis prevailed to a great extent throughout the Kingdom, and from influences producing these diseases we were not exempt. The cases however which occurred were trivial in character, yielding readily to ordinary treatment, and causing no anxiety. In short, no case occurred of such severity as to require admission into the Infirmary, or to demand from me any special notice.—During the last Quarter the health of the prisoners has been remarkably good; and during the year no death has occurred. I am sir, Your obedient servant, JOHN WARD, Surgeon. To the Chairman, Quarter Sessions. CHAPLAIN’S ANNUAL REPORT.—The CHAIRMAN read the following report from the Rev. N. Kendall, Chaplain of the County Gaol:— Cornwall County Prison, Bodmin, Oct. 16th, 1855. To the Worshipful the Chairman and other magistrates assembled at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions of the Peace;— Gentlemen; I have the honour to lay before you my Tenth Annual Report. It would have been a source of much gratification to me could I record a diminution of offences during this past year; still, the number of committals does not differ very much from that of the preceding year, viz.,—only 7.—I cannot report more favourably of the moral and religious information of the prisoners committed.—The conduct of the male prisoners has been, in a general point of view, orderly; and I trust that some may, under God’s mercy, have been induced to abandon the evil courses which brought them to this prison.—I lament to say that the behaviour of some of the female prisoners during the last two or three months has been most disgraceful and disgusting. I attribute this in a great measure to association. The less vicious are obliged under the present system, to be placed with those of the most depraved and abandoned characters. It has come to my knowledge that many a young woman has been induced, by their artful persuasions, to give herself up to ruin and to shame.—Two females have been committed to the prison more than 20 times since 1845, who have spent more than 7 years in prison.—Another has been 14 times committed since 1851, whose conduct and language have been so disgraceful and outrageous as to corrupt any person associated with her.—I have appended to this report, nine tables:—No. 1, ages of prisoners;—No. 2, Education; No. 3, Religious Information; No. 4, Re-committals; No. 5, Offences for which prisoners have been committed; No. 6, Probable Causes of Crime; No. 7, Trade or Occupation of Prisoners; No. 8, Native Places of Prisoners; No. 9, Number of Prisoners received during the last 7 years.—From Table No. 6, you will find that Drunkenness appears to be the primary cause of Crime. Bad company appears to be a source of great evil; but I find that very few commit crime from actual distress.—As far as time will permit, the School has been attended in a most efficient manner. The improvement of many of those under the Master’s charge has been most satisfactory; in some cases, astonishing.—The Regulations of the Prison have been, as far as possible, duly carried out, and I have received every assistance from the Governor and subordinate Officers at all times. I have the honour to remain, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, NICHOLAS KENDALL, Chaplain. CORONORS’ BILLS.—The following Bills for Inquests held during the past quarter were passed:— Mr. Hichens, for 30 Inquests 91 9 11 Mr. Carlyon .. 26 92 9 1 Mr. Hamley .. 11 41 9 1 Mr. Good .. 17 54 7 7 Mr. Jagoe .. 14 44 18 0 For the corresponding quarter last year, the Chairman stated, Mr. Carlyon’s Bill was £296 9s. 3d.; but the whole of the Eastern District was then in that gentleman’s hands.—The CHAIRMAN also stated, that, this time 12 months, there were two Coroners only, Mr. Carlyon at that time holding two districts; and their bills amounted to £378 16s. 8d. Since that time, the three districts had been arranged into five; and the bills this quarter showed a considerable reduction. Mr. THOMSON, after obtaining information from the Chairman and the Clerk of the Peace, concerning the expenses of inquests and burials consequent on the wreck of the John, and he believed that the bills had been paid, amounting to nearly 301l., for inquests and burials on the bodies of those poor unfortunate people who were lost in the emigrant ship John, on the Manacles. Whilst all other parties concerned in that disastrous shipwreck were giving in their fair claims to the owners of that vessel, and whilst those claims were even advertized for by “The Secretary of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade,” could not this County venture to submit its claim to the Government; which too, had, he believed, a claim for a large amount of penalties. Surely their claim was not to be excluded, because it came from a County. If so, the sooner the late law was amended, the better. GAOL EXPENSES.—The CHAIRMAN read the following statement of Gaol Expenses during the past quarter:— Subsistence £353 13 6½ Clothing 86 8 7 Fuel 23 13 1 Sundries 51 17 5¼ Salaries 309 15 0 One Pensioned Warder 6 0 0 Paid prisoners on discharge 7 4 3 Expenses at Midsummer Sessions & Summer Assizes 34 12 2 Female Singers 1 0 0 Whipping 1 0 0 Incidental expenses 0 3 4 Total 875 7 4¾ Credit given for subsistence of military prisoners 1 10 0 873 17 4¾ Repairs 6 7 9¾ Total 880 5 2½

The Chairman said there were also bills on account of the new gaol, the largest being from Wallis, blacksmith, 36l. 2s. 10d.; the whole amounting to 87l. 5s. 3½d.—The hall expenses were 9l. 9s. 2d.; and there was also an allowance of 30l. from the County for building a wall behind the two Courts, which work had been completed, making the total hall expenses, 39l. 9s. 2½d. The comparative statement of prisoners showed that there were 41 for trial at the Michaelmas Sessions 1854; and 38 at the present Sessions. [GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—not transcribed] [BRIDGES.—not transcribed.] MILITIA.—The CHAIRMAN said the next business was, to receive a report of the results of an interview which Lord Vivian, Mr. Robartes, and Mr. Kendall, had with Lord Panmure, in pursuance of a resolution at the Midsummer Sessions, on the subject of providing store-room for the arms, clothing and accoutrements of the 2nd Regiment of the Cornwall Rangers Militia, at Launceston. Lord VIVIAN stated that at the interview spoken of, Lord Panmure admitted there had been default of judgment somewhere in the matter of forming a 2nd Regiment before the first Regiment was complete. In his (Lord Vivian’s) mind, the fault was in the wording of the Government Minute, which, clearly was very precise, and did instruct the Lord Lieutenant to form a 2nd Regiment. But Lord Panmure went further, and admitted that it was altogether unnecessary to put the County to the expense of a store- house at Launceston; and he told the Deputation of Magistrates that he did not wish any such building to be erected or any such expense to be incurred, provided they would undertake, on behalf of the County, that sufficient store-room should be found at Bodmin for the clothing &c. of the 2nd Regiment as well as the 1st Regiment. The Deputation told Lord Panmure that the Magistrates of the County were not disposed to hang back from doing what was necessary; Lord Panmure concurred, and sanctioned the abandoning of the proposal to build a store-house at Launceston, provided sufficient store-room were found in Bodmin for the Two Regiments. It was now for the Magistrates to say whether they would confirm the arrangement. The CHAIRMAN read a letter from Capt. Trelawny, who, as his resignation of that office had not yet been accepted, felt it his duty to request the clerk of the Peace to mention to the Bench that the 2nd Regiment now consisted of more than 300 men—100 in excess of its complement; and reminded the magistrates that a want of men had been the main ground for their objecting to carry out the law. Lord VIVIAN said the grant of £15 yearly was made for the purpose of relieving the officers of the 2nd Regiment of responsibility they had assumed in hiring a store-house at Launceston, until such time as the question should be settled; as to his mind, it had been now by Lord Panmure’s statement.— Confirmatory of his understanding of Lord Panmure’s concession, Lord Vivian read a letter in which Mr. Robartes related the interview referred to.—His lordship went on to state that there was ample room in the present store house at Bodmin, for the arms, clothing and ammunition of the two regiments; and was supported in this opinion by Mr. KENDALL. Sir WILLIAM TRELAWNY asked his lordship if he meant to get rid of the 15l. yearly grant to Launceston and the 25l. to Bodmin; and observed that at Launceston there were sergeants who had lodgings in the store-house, and who would otherwise have to pay for their lodgings; which would place them in a very awkward position. Lord VIVIAN again referred to Lord Panmure’s decision, and added that the smallness of the permanent staff of the 2nd regiment and its consequent inefficiency for due protection of the stores at Launceston, strengthened both Lord Panmure and himself in the opinion that it was inexpedient to maintain a store-house at Launceston. And, with reference to the statement as to the comparatively large number now in the 2nd regiment, Lord Vivian said these were men who did not choose to join for permanent service. The CHAIRMAN said, the error in forming a 2nd regiment lay with the War Department. He thought, however, that the existing arrangements with regard to Launceston should continue as long as the regiment was maintained in its present state; which, he thought, was not likely to be long. After some further discussion, Lord VIVIAN gave notice of motion at the next Sessions to discontinue the yearly grant by the County of £15 a year for the store-house at Launceston. Sir WILLIAM TRELAWNY, who displayed some warmth in his opposition to Lord Vivian, said he should feel it his duty to propose that, instead of the grant of £15 being discontinued, the grant to Launceston be increased to £40, and that to Bodmin to £50. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.—A Bill, presented by the Clerk of the Peace, amounting to £61 8s. for registration of voters under the Reform Bill was presented and allowed. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. MARK DAVEY was placed at the bar to show cause why Thomas Harris, who had been apprehended for felony, and admitted to bail on the recognizance of Mark Davey, by a magistrate of Bodmin, did not appear to plead to an indictment against him at these sessions. Davey said he became bound for Harris in 5l., but knew nothing about him; he did it because he was one of the same parish. He was not aware at the time of the consequence of what he was doing, or he would not have done it. He did not now know where Harris was; he was no friend of his. The CHAIRMAN told the prisoner he had been the means of defeating justice, and they might remand him to prison till the 5l. were paid. They were, however, disposed this time to deal kindly with him, and to reduce the sum to 40s., on payment of which he would be discharged. WILLIAM HARRAGAN, 14, was charged with stealing a gun, a coat, five horses ear-bells and some powder and shot, the property of Richard Downs Barratt, at Pillaton on the 21st of September.—GUILTY. (Sentence: one month’s hard labour) THOMAS WEIR, 19, a travelling china-mender, was charged with stealing five shillings and sixpence, the property of Jane Francis, at St. Austell, on the 6th of October. It appeared that about half-past 10 in the morning of that day, Caroline Francis, a daughter of prosecutrix, had placed 8s. in silver on the dresser; and, in about a quarter of an hour the prisoner called and offered some china on tic(?) to the mother. She said she did not want any; but he opened the latch and came in, and offered to take old ?--- ?---dles or brass in exchange; and while some attempts to bargain were thus going on, the daughter saw him turn around and place his hand on the dresser-shelf where she had put the silver. He did not stay long after that. The daughter then went to the dresser, and discovered that 5s. 6d. had been taken. She went after him, and he strongly denied that he had been to the house or that he been selling any cloam at all. The policeman Sambell deposed that on his conveying the prisoner to Bodmin, he said the witnesses had all sworn false, but afterwards swore that he would s---? them all out, for when he got to Bodmin, he’d plead guilty.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: six months’ hard labour) JOHN LEE, 27, charged with stealing a watch, a watch-guard, 5 sovereigns, 5 half-sovereigns, 2 half- crowns, a watch-key, and a key of a box, the property of Joseph Cowling, at St. Wenn, on the 13th September, pleaded GUILTY as to the watch only. (Sentence: six months’ hard labour) JOHN COLEMAN, 17, and JOHN MORGAN, 20, both described as labourers, were charged with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Bate, at , in , on the 25th August, and stealing three 5 pound notes, a half-sovereign, a penny, a towel, and some potatoes, the property of the said Thomas Bate.—Mr. J. Basset Collins conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended, but Coleman was active and somewhat ingenious in cross-questioning witnesses. In this case none of the stolen money had been found, but the towel, found on one of the prisoners, was distinctly sworn to by Mrs. Bate who had hemmed it, and, at the time it was found, it had on it the remains of boiled potatoes.—On Saturday the 25th of August, Mrs. Bate left her house about 1 o’clock, locking the door and fastening all the windows; and returned about 5, when she saw that a large pane of glass in a window had been broken, that the house had been entered, various articles disturbed, and that there were footmarks both outside and inside the house; and, up-stairs, her husband’s box had been broken open and his money taken away. On the following morning she discovered that there had been also stolen, some towels of her making, with a piece of bread, and about a pottle of potatoes.—Elizabeth Bullen, who lives at Helland, between 1 and 2 o’clock on the 25th August, was on the railroad going to Bodwen where prosecutor lives. She saw some man coming towards her, but, as he approached her he went over a hedge. On coming to the spot she looked over, but there was no one there; but on turning, she saw two chaps going up together, by a hedge, towards Bodwen.—Thomas Bate, the prosecutor, stated that, having been sent for in consequence of the robbery, he returned to his house about half- past 6 in the evening, and saw footmarks in the garden just inside the gate, and at other parts. He afterwards the same evening, found the 2 prisoners in a barn at Waterland, Morgan being concealed under some straw, and on looking at Morgan’s shoes, found that they corresponded with the footmarks he had seen. He took one of these shoes, and also Colman’s (sic) shoes, and traced them in his garden and in another garden near.—The prisoner’s shoes were produced in Court by Osborne, a turnkey of the gaol, and they were identified by Bate; one of Morgan’s having a hole at the toe, which left its impress on the earth. Evidence confirmatory, as to the footmarks and their correspondence with prisoners’ shoes, was given by Richard Lanxon.—Harry Manaton, a labourer returning from his work about six o’clock in the evening of the 25th of August, when about a quarter of a mile from Bodwen saw the two prisoners; Morgan was very ill, and Colman was sitting by him. Witness lifted up Morgan, and in doing so, observed that some boiled potatoe fell from his clothes. A day or two after this, witness went with Stephen Bate and showed the spot where he had seen the two prisoners in a way described.—Stephen Bate, on the morning after the robbery, went to Waterland Bridge, and, about 10 yards from the spot pointed out by the last witness as that where he saw Morgan lying down, found the towel by the side of the road, with some pieces of dressed potato about it.—The Towel was produced, and identified by Mrs. Bate.—The Jury found both prisoners GUILTY.—A previous conviction was proved against Coleman. At the Midsummer Sessions 1854, he, then described as of , was convicted with one Frederick Edwards, of stealing 5lbs of copper wire the property of Elizabeth Bunt, and was sentenced to 3 months hard labour. (Sentences: John COLEMAN - four years penal servitude; John MORGAN - twelve months’ hard labour) The Court then rose. SECOND COURT. (Before C.B.G. Sawle, Esq., M.P.) MARY BRISCOE, 57, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of men’s slippers, a cloth trousers and waistcoat, on the 1st of Sept., the property of Ann Oppy, at Redruth. (Sentence: two months’ hard labour) ANN GREENSLADE, 49, pleaded GUILTY of Stealing, on the 10th of September, a box of cigars from James Jenkin, at Redruth. (Sentence: four months’ hard labour) GRACE TREMELLING, 28, was found GUILTY of stealing, at Camborne, in November 1854, a shawl and some cotton print, the property of Edward Williams. (Sentence: three months’ hard labour) JAMES MATTHEWS, 46, and JAMES MATTHEWS his son, aged 12, were indicted, the latter for stealing, and the former for feloniously receiving a scythe, in July last, the property of Benjamin Rowe, of St. Erth. Verdict NOT GUILTY. Another indictment against James Matthews the elder, for stealing a shovel from Benjamin Rowe, was not prosecuted. SAMUEL TRENGOVE pleaded GUILTY of stealing at Gwennap, on the 28th of August, six bars of iron, the property of Francis Pryor and others. (Sentence: four months hard labour) JOHN HENRY WEST, 42, was found GUILTY of stealing, at Lostwithiel, on the 30th of July, a cotton umbrella, from Richard Reed. (Sentence: one month’s hard labour) The Court then rose. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17. (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq.) A FEMALE HOUSEBREAKER—MARY STEPHENS, 29, had six indictments for robberies entered against her on the calendar. She pleaded guilty, after a former conviction, of breaking and entering the dwelling house of James Martin, at Kea, on the 9th of June last, and stealing a stuff dress, pair of drawers, shifts, handkerchief, victorine, and basket. She also pleaded guilty of stealing from the dwelling house of Elizabeth Rowe, at Redruth, on the 6th of July, a watch, two cotton dresses, a stuff dress, silk capes, shawls, stockings, and a bonnet. She next pleaded guilty of stealing from the dwelling house of Edward Jones, at Illogan, on the 3rd of August, a satin waistcoat, pair of trousers, satin apron, silk scarf, silk handkerchiefs, shawls, two books, and three gold rings. To a charge of breaking and entering the house of William Vine, of Kenwyn, on the 30th of July, and stealing a watch, a coburg dress and other articles, the prisoner pleaded NOT GUILTY. To other indictments for stealing, on the 26th of July, a shawl and silk dress from the house of Henry Piper, of Kenwyn, the prisoner pleaded NOT GUILTY of stealing, but said she had sold the articles; and she pleaded in a similar way to the sixth indictment, for stealing from the dwelling house of John Tippet, at Redruth, on the 29th of June, a pair of trowsers and a waistcoat.—Mr. STOKES, who appeared for the prosecution, said as the prisoner had pleaded guilty to three of the indictments, he should not offer evidence on the other charges against her. (Sentence: The CHAIRMAN said, I do not know that I ever met with such a case as yours, a woman with five indictments against her, to three of which you have pleaded guilty; and all for the same kind of offence, breaking and entering dwelling-houses and stealing therefrom a variety of things, all on different days and in different places, showing that you must have had a perfect habit of plunder, which has brought you to this most disgraceful position. There is also a prior conviction against you at only the last assizes. The sentence is, that you be subjected to Penal Servitude for Four Years) WILLIAM GLASSON and EDWARD RICKARD were indicted for stealing a quantity of lead and iron from the Callington Mines, about the 18th of August, the property of Robert Hannay and others of the Furness Mining Company, in Lancashire. Mr. J.B. COLLINS appeared for the prosecution; Mr. SHILSON for the prisoner Glasson, Mr. CHILDS for Rickard. After some evidence had been gone into, the case against Glasson for stealing iron was abandoned by the prosecution, but the charge was proceeded with against Rickard. It appeared that the engine on the Callington Mines had been purchased by the Furness Company, and that Mr. Matthew Loam, an engineer, was employed to take it down. The heavier parts were removed to for shipment, and the remaining portions were left in charge of Glasson, consisting of iron lead and other materials packed in boxes. Mr. Loam said he was on the mine about 15th of August, when Rickard, who was there, offered to purchase some old scrap timber and lead, some hundredweights of which were lying close by the other materials. He sold him some scrap timber, but declined to sell him any lead. Afterwards, Rickard sold 2½cwts. of lead to John Brendon, a plumber at Callington, who said he thought the lead had come from a sale of materials at the Redmore mines in that neighbourhood, which occurred just at that time. The lead, however, was claimed by the Furness company as having been connected with the engine they had purchased, and a portion of the lead from Cotehele was matched with some sold to Brendon by Rickard, the pieces being produced in court. It appeared that two or three other persons had also been charged with the robbery. Mr. CHILDS having Cross-examined the witnesses urged that sales had previously taken place on the same mine, and that Rickard might have purchased the lead in question. Mr. Loam said Rickard had only bought scrap timber, but Rickard’s own statement was, that he bought “scraps” in a lumping lot, such as are often sold at mines on such occasions, consisting of different materials, and that if he had carried off more than he had purchased, an action for damages should have been brought against him, and not a charge of felony. He had sold the lead at Callington in open day, which did not look like the act of a thief, who would have sold in a more secret way. Mr. CHILDS also called three or four witnesses to give the prisoner a good character. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said there was much confusion with regard to the sales that had taken place on the mines; but the question was, whether there was any confusion with regard to this particular property which the prisoner was charged with stealing. The jury had seen some of the lead produced, and there seemed scarcely any doubt that it was a part of the lead from the engine. They would then have to consider, from the evidence, whether any of the former sales on the mines was likely to have comprehended any portion of the lead which had been produced that day. The jury, after about ten minutes deliberation, found Rickard GUILTY. Glasson was discharged. (Sentence: Edward RICKARD - 6 months imprisonment.– Editor’s Note: Sentence not reported in the Royal Cornwall Gazette, but taken from Cornwall Criminal Registers held at the National Archives) GEORGE UGLOW, was charged with stealing ten fowls and a water-pail, the property of William Jones, a miller, in the parish of St. Stephens by Launceston. Very slight evidence could be given with regard to the fowls, but the prisoner was found GUILTY OF STEALING THE PAIL. (Sentence: two months hard labour) WILLIAM BORLASE, 18, was charged with stealing a ham, on the 10th of July, from Richard Lawrance, of the parish of St. Austell. Mr. BISHOP, for the prosecutor called several witnesses, one of whom, Mrs. Lewarne, afforded the court much amusement by the manner in which she gave her evidence. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: three months hard labour) ROBERT HENRY NICHOLLS, 30, a tailor, was indicted for violently assaulting Edward Fairbrass, at Truro, on the 7th of October, and stealing from his person a silver watch, four sovereigns, and eleven shillings in silver. Mr. STOKES appeared for the prosecutor; Mr. SHILSON for prisoner. The main particulars of this case have already appeared in our columns, when it was brought before the committing magistrates. About midnight on the 7th of October, Mr. Fairbrass, a superannuated custom-house officer, and his wife, were going to their house at Richmond Hill, Truro, when, in Castle street, they were knocked down with great violence. Mr. Fairbrass was robbed of his watch and money, and besides receiving a heavy blow on his head, injured his arm in falling; whilst Mrs. Fairbrass had her face so much cut that the blood streamed down over her clothes. The young men, called Atkinson and Jewell, (who had been engaged late at the Saturday night’s market, removing things from a stall) gave evidence that they saw the prisoner, Nicholls, knock Mr. and Mrs. Fairbrass down; that they had previously seen Nicholls and a Mrs. Dart together, and subsequently had watched the parties, when they were joined by Mrs. Nicholls, and had seen the assault committed (the women being also at the time near the spot), and that Nicholls fell down upon those whom he had knocked senseless to the ground, and after the lapse of a second or two, that he got up and ran down River Street.—William Joseph Nash, superintendent of police, stated that when he apprehended Nicholls on the following Monday, and described to him the man he was charged with robbing, Nicholls said he thought he had seen that man at the White Hart, on Saturday night, (Mr. Fairbrass stated in evidence that he and his wife were there that night). Police constable Woolcock also said, that he saw the prisoner and his wife going in the direction of their house at twenty minutes to one on Sunday morning, (the robbery having been committed about midnight.) On the part of the prisoner Mr. SHILSON closely cross-examined the witnesses, and for the defence represented that there were some discrepances (sic) in the evidence of Atkinson and Jewell, on whose evidence the proof of the case rested, because Mr. and Mrs. Fairbrass were struck senseless to the ground, and did not know who struck them or robbed the prosecutor of his watch and money. He remarked also on the strange conduct of the two young men, in seeing a man and his wife knocked down when no further from them than the length of the assize hall, and not instantly running to their assistance; and more especially that when they did go up and speak to Mr. and Mrs. Fairbrass, and asked them where they lived and other questions, they yet did not tell them who it was that attacked them, though they now said they knew it was the prisoner. Further, they gave no information to the police, and said nothing about the matter on the following day. Though no doubt an assault had been committed upon Mr. and Mr. (sic) Fairbrass, he submitted that the evidence of the two young men was not entitled to such credit as to find thereon a verdict of guilty. The jury must be satisfied of the identity of the prisoner, as the man who struck the blows; and with regard to the loss of prosecutor’s watch and money, as several persons had collected in the street, and one had accompanied him home, it was quite likely that some one else, and not the prisoner, had taken the property. When prisoner’s house was searched, no part of the property was found therein.—The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said he thought it likely, from some parts of the evidence, that more persons than the prisoner had been connected with the robbery; it was, however, for the jury to consider whether or not the prisoner was one of the parties involved in the crime.—The jury deliberated for some time; and then one of them asked if they could find a verdict of guilty of assault only. The CHAIRMAN told them that they could not, under the present indictment. They then returned a verdict of GUILTY of the robbery. The prisoner, addressing the court, said he knew nothing of it; he was not in the street at the time. (Sentence: The CHAIRMAN said, the Court is very sorry to see a person of your appearance in such a situation. We believe you are in a state of ill health, and that and other circumstances have weighed with us. You have said that you have not been here before; but I find you have been here before. (The PRISONER.—I was not convicted.) The CHAIRMAN—You were acquitted, and I trust that you were innocent; but with the verdict given in the present case I have no fault to find. I think there is no question that you were concerned in the transaction, and that you were the man who knocked the prosecutor down. You say you have a widowed mother, but however kind you may be to her, we know by the report from the neighbourhood, that your habits are very bad. Probably you are a man of something like education; let me intreat that during your long imprisonment you will reflect, and return to society an altered man. The sentence of the Court is, that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for Twelve Calendar Months.) COUNTY BUSINESS. LOOE BRIDGE.—Lord Vivian said, in reference to the discussion on the subject of Looe Bridge yesterday, Mr. Pease is anxious, for the verification of his veracity,—and I am also anxious, on the part of the magistrates, to lay before the court information which I have now obtained from an examination of Mr. Pease’s book, in the presence of one of the contractors who put in the memorial which was read yesterday; and I find, so far from the statement in that memorial being true, that it is utterly false. The statement is, that the contractors, accompanied by Mr. Pease, Captain Riley, and others, went in the month of June or July 1853, to survey the Chough rock, and that in consequence of a promise to have that rock, they tendered for the bridge. Now I find that in March 1853, their tender was first put in; and after a delay of some months (in consequence of some difficulty about the road) the contractors were asked if they would confirm that tender. In January 1854 they agreed to do so, and all the difficulties being then got over, the bridge was determined to be built. On the 10th of March 1854, the contract was signed by them and their sureties; and on the 16th of March, Mr. Pease, being requested to go, went with them to the rock for the first time, in company with captain Riley and Mr. Jackson; and it was stated at the time by Mr. Farwell, the clergyman of the parish, that he thought difficulties would arise. In consequence of that, Mr. Pease, on the 30th March, got two magistrates, Revs. R. Buller and A. Tatham, to inspect the rock, with the view of endeavouring to get it for the contractors; and the matter was brought before the court at the ensuing sessions in April 1854, but the court declined to interfere. It is therefore quite evident that the contractors signed that contract before Mr. Pease or the magistrates ever saw the rock; and it is very wrong that the contractors should come before the public and make a statement to lead the public to think that the magistrates dealt wrongly or harshly by them; and that they should follow up that statement in their memorial, by a statement in court to impeach Mr. Pease’s veracity. TRIALS RESUMED. MARY KELLY, 45, was charged with stealing twenty yards of satinette, the property of William Marley James, at Camborne, on the 13th of December, 1854. In a second count she was charged with receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen by some evil disposed person. Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence. There was no evidence that the prisoner had stolen the property; but the case against her was proceeded with for feloniously receiving, after an objection by Mr. Shilson had been heard and overruled, to the effect, that when property was not discovered until after so long an interval as in this case, the law does not call upon the party in whose possession it is found, to account for that possession. It appeared that in December last, a considerable quantity of satinette and other goods was stolen from the shop of Mr. James, at Camborne. In consequence of information, in September last, Policeman Ward, of Camborne, went to Kelly’s house, and asked her if she had a satinette dress; she said yes, and that she had it of Mr. Luke, a draper at Redruth. On this dress Mr. James afterwards found his private mark, in pencil, by which he discovered that it was a part of the satinette that had been stolen from him in December last; but what he lost was in one piece. She told him she bought the dress of Mr. Luke in February or March last. Mr. Luke, however, on being called, said it was on the 13th of July the prisoner purchased of him a black satin dress at 4s. per yard; he thought the dress he sold her was rather better than the one now produced; but he could not positively say whether the one in court was or was not the dress he sold her. Another witness, Elizabeth Roseveare, of Camborne, deposed that she made the dress now produced, for the prisoner in April last, or the beginning of May, and had made no dress for her since July.—George Noble, constable of Camborne, said the prisoner told him she bought the dress of Joseph Quintrall. Mr. SHILSON then addressed the jury, urging that there was no concealment on the part of the prisoner, or anything to show a guilty knowledge, but that in all probability she had purchased the dress of some person, though she denies that she did so of Quintrall; and that in fact the prosecutor’s pencil mark was not to be relied on, as other drapers might mark in the same way.—After the Chairman’s summing up, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.—The same prisoner was then charged with stealing a flour sack, the property of John Harvey Trevithick, at St. Erth, on the 3rd of September; and another count charged her with feloniously receiving the same from another person who had stolen it. The latter count was relied on by Mr. CORNISH, who said he should prove that she volunteered a statement before the magistrates, to which she affixed her signature, that she bought the sack of a woman named Eustace, for sixpence. He should show that this statement was a false one. Evidence was then gone into, and the prisoner’s statement before the magistrate was produced to be read; but Mr. SHILSON objected thereto, because it was headed “Taken and sworn before me,” &c., whereas persons accused are never sworn, but make only voluntary statements. The objection was fatal to the document; and subsequently, on another objection by Mr. SHILSON, that there was no evidence of larceny as to the article named, and therefore there could be no felonious receiving, the court directed an acquittal. Another indictment against the prisoner, for stealing or feloniously receiving a sack, the property of Hannibal Millett and others, was not prosecuted. JOHN SPARKS, 23, pleaded GUILTY, after having before been committed for felony, of stealing, on the 15th of September last, from the account-house of Mr. John Taylor and others, at Cardynham, a quantity of brass. There was another indictment against the prisoner, for stealing brass bearings from an engine at Cavriggan Mine, in St. Columb, on which no evidence was offered. (Sentence: There is, said the chairman, a prior conviction in January, 1854, when you had eight months imprisonment. You have written a letter in which you talk much of your future good intentions. If you had written such a letter after your former imprisonment, and had then gone on in a course of honesty, the court would have been delighted to look upon it. But you return to the same course as before, and the sentence is, that you be subjected to Four Years’ Penal Servitude.) The Grand Jury were discharged shortly after three o’clock this day, the CHAIRMAN thanking them, on behalf of the county, for their services. NO BILLS.—The following bills were ignored by the Grand Jury:— Against James Matthews, charged with stealing a fowl from Philippa Andrew, at St. Austell. Against Mary Ann Roberts, indicted for unlawfully attempting to kill herself by cutting throat with a razor, at St. Ive, on the 6th of August last. SECOND COURT; WEDNESDAY, Oct. 17. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P.) JOHN WARREN, 44, pleaded GUILTY of stealing 1¼ lb of grain tin, 3 lb. 1½ oz. of bi-chromate of pot?--s and a variety of other articles, the property of Philip Blamey, at Perranarworthal, on the 3d October. (Sentence: four months’ hard labour) SAMUEL JOHN SOUTHEARD, 44, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a piece of ash timber, value 3s., the property of John Hocking at Truro, on the 30th of August. (Sentence: The CHAIRMAN, in passing sentence, said, you are one of those individuals who possess a ticket of leave, and it is perfectly clear, from this offence, that you must have resorted to hypocritical language and conduct in order to obtain that ticket. You had an opportunity of going into society and regaining your position as an honest man, and you would have done so if you had been really sorry for your previous conduct. It will be seen, with regard to ticket-of-leave men, that they will have to finish their former sentences, together with that passed upon them for any renewed offence. The sentence of the court is, that for this offence you be imprisoned and kept to Hard Labour for Six Calendar Months) JOSEPH WILLIAMS, 19, a miner, was found GUILTY on very plain and simple evidence, of breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Whitford, at , in Gwennap, on the 27th July, and stealing part of a loaf of bread, about ¼ lb of butter, and a pasty, the property of the said John Whitford. The prisoner, it appeared, is a relative of prosecutor’s wife, and committed the robbery during her absence at Redruth Market. (Sentence: eight months’ hard labour) CHARLES HILL, 25, a railway labourer, was charged with stealing a waistcoat and a pair of stockings, the property of Jeremiah Lee, also a railway labourer, at Lostwithiel, on the 11th of September. The Prosecutor and Prisoner both lodged at the house of Louisa Harris, wife of a railway ganger, at Lostwithiel. In the morning of the 11th of September, Mrs. Harris went to Bodmin, leaving the prosecutor’s waistcoat and stockings up-stairs. On her return in the evening, she found that those things were gone, and went on the Cornwall railway and informed Lee. Lee went the same evening to Liskeard and found the prisoner at the Fifteen Balls public-house, with the missing waistcoat on his person. Lee sent for a constable --- Humphreys, who took him into custody, and found on him a pair of stockings, with Lee identified.—Verdict, GUILTY.—The prisoner was again indicted for stealing a watch, a silk handkerchief, a waistcoat, and a flannel shirt, the property of Thomas Small, also a railway labourer lodging at Mrs. Harris’s, in Lostwithiel. The robbery was committed on the same day as the last; and the discovery and apprehension of the prisoner was made at the same time and place as in the preceding case.—Verdict, GUILTY.—Mrs. Harris, who had known the prisoner for two years, gave him a good character for honesty. (Sentence: six months’ hard labour) MICHAEL MACDONALD, 42, an Irish hawker, was charged with stealing 4 pairs of children’s socks, 3 pinafores, a skirt, and a shirt, the property of James Phillips, at Liskeard, on the 22nd of August.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Mary Phillips, wife of the prosecutor, stated that her husband keeps the Victoria Inn, at Liskeard. Between 3 and 4 o’clock on the 22nd August prisoner came there, and asked for two pennyworth of gin, with which she served him; and he sat down in the window, about 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour, between his own bundle and a bundle of her own containing the articles named in the indictment. A short time after he left she found that these things were missing. When he came to the house he appeared to be quite sober, and two pennyworth of gin was all he had there.—Richard Humphreys, policeman, stated that in the after-part of the day mentioned, Mrs. Phillips sent for him; and, in consequence of information she gave him, he went to the Farmers’ Arms, in Barn-street, where he found the prisoner, in a bed-room up stairs, very drunk. Witness asked him if he had a bundle; and he caid (sic) he had, and that the landlady had it below stairs. Witness fetched it from below, and untied it in the prisoner’s presence, and found in it the articles named in the indictment. He charged the prisoner with having stolen those articles from Mrs. Phillips. The prisoner’s answer was:—“They are not mine, but I don’t know how they came in my bundle.”—For the defence, Mr. Stokes suggested that, as the prisoner had himself stated when pleading, at the time he put these articles in his bundle, he must have done so by mistake, when in a state of intoxication.— Michael Olivey, also an Irish hawker, who came from the same parish in Ireland as the prisoner; and had known him for 20 years at least, gave him an excellent character for honesty, and said he never knew any thing against him except as to drinking, which, he said, was the ruination of many.—The jury were a long time in consultation, and their discussion was sometimes of a very earnest and rather noisy character; and at length they agreed on a Verdict of ACQUITTAL. SUSAN WATERS, 29, charged with stealing 8 sovereigns, a half-sovereign, and about 13s. 6d. in silver, the property of Nicholas Reed, from his person, at Truro, on the 1st of August.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—The prosecutor was a respectable elderly farmer of Constantine, and against him no imputation whatever rested in respect of the circumstances under which he lost his money.—He was at Truro Market on Saturday the 1st of August, and in the evening was at the Barley Sheaf Inn, which place he left about 3 o’clock, for the purpose of walking to the King’s Head to take his horse. Having occasion to turn aside near the School-room, the prisoner came up to him and spoke to him. He told her to be off, and that he wanted nothing of her. She, however, came close to him and put her hand on his waistcoat pocket, where he had his watch. He put up his hand to protect his watch; and immediately, he felt a slight-of-hand twick (sic) at his watch fob in his breeches pocket, where he had his gold in a bag; she then made off, and he instantly felt that his bag and money were gone.—The prosecutor’s evidence was corroborated by John Bolt, a housekeeper in the employ of Mr. Michell, who witnessed the whole transaction.—At half-past 7 the next morning, Joseph Ward, then a policeman at Truro, went with prosecutor to prisoner’s house; the prosecutor identified her, but she positively denied that she had ever seen him.—(The money and bag had not been found; the prisoner, it was suggested, had had abundant time and opportunity to get rid of it).—Mr. STOKES addressed the jury for the defence; suggesting doubts as to the possibility in the dimness of evening, of proving identity of prisoner, together with the probability of prosecutor’s having dropped the money; and the jury, after some consideration, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. ALEXANDER LARK pleaded GUILTY of stealing a quantity of bed furniture, the property of Thomas Thomas, of . (Sentence: three months’ hard labour) CATHERINE VINCENT, 39, dress-maker, was charged with keeping an ill-governed and disorderly house, at Camborne.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution.—Evidence in support of the charge was given by Thomas Rundle, constable of Camborne, and by two elderly neighbours of the prisoner.—Jane Hosking, a widow who lived next door, and William Martin.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: eight months’ hard labour. The CHAIRMAN said this was one of the grossest cases that had come before the court for a considerable time.) EMMA TOMS, 19, a servant, was charged with stealing on the 23rd of May, one shawl, the property of Samuel Grigg, mercer, draper, &c., at Liskeard.—She was also charged with feloniously receiving.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—Maria Hawke, an assistant at Mr. Grigg’s, stated that the prisoner came to the shop on a Monday in May last, and asked to see some shawls. I put her to the show-room and she looked at one, the price of which was 10s. 6d.; she said it was not for herself, but for a fellow servant, and she could call again in the evening, but she did not do so. A few days afterwards, we found another shawl missing, value 35s.; it was the only shawl we had of its pattern, and we had not sold it to any one.—Samuel Grigg, the prosecutor; in consequence of information he received in May last went to the show-room and found a shawl missing. This was on the Thursday after the prisoner had been there. Had seen it on the Saturday night previous; and had never seen any shawl of the same pattern.—John Spry, police officer, stated that, in July, in consequence of information he went to the prisoner’s, at her father’s house at a place called the Factory, in Menheniot, and asked her for a shawl which she had worn a few days before. She went up stairs and brought down a shawl—the one which witness now produced. He charged her with having stolen it; but she said it had been given her by a young man named Pascoe, and told witness where Pascoe lived. Witness went to Pascoe, and, in consequence of what Pascoe said, returned to prisoner and again charged her with having stolen the shawl; and she then made no reply.—Henry Pascoe, stated that he lived at Menheniot and knew the prisoner, but never gave her a shawl at any time.—The shawl produced in court by the Policeman Spry was identified by Mr. Grigg and Miss Hawke, as far as its general appearance, but there were no marks on it. Each of these witnesses, however, was confident that there was no shawl of the like pattern in Liskeard; and Mr. Grigg stated that he had, only the week previous to its being missed, brought it down from London, where he had himself chosen it, at a warehouse.—For the defence, Mr. SHILSON submitted that the evidence was consistent with the selling of the shawl to some other person, between the Monday when the prisoner was at the shop, and the Thursday when the shawl was missed. He also urged that the evidence as to the identity of the shawl was not such as to warrant conviction. Another feature of the case was that the shawl was missed in May, and it was not till the last day in July that a shawl was found in the prisoner’s possession; and, even assuming that this shawl was the one which the prosecutor had missed, the length of time was too great to render the prisoner accountable for her possession of it. If the shawl had been stolen or sold, it must have been between the Monday, when the prisoner was there, and the following Thursday, and there was evidence that the prisoner was not there in that interval; and it was evident, from the facts proved, that the prisoner could not have taken the shawl on the Monday.—The jury returned a verdict, NOT GUILTY. The Prisoner was then charged with stealing, a metal tea-pot, the property of Thomas Strong, shopkeeper at Liskeard, on the 26th of April.—In this case, as the property was not found in prisoner’s possession till the 31st of July, the CHAIRMAN, on the ground that the time was too long to render the prisoner accountable for possession, directed a verdict of ACQUITTAL. There was a similar result, after hearing evidence on a third indictment, charging the prisoner with stealing a scent bottle, the property of John Bottrell, shopkeeper at Liskeard. The prisoner was therefore, acquitted on no less than three indictments; but, though acquitted, the CHAIRMAN, on ordering her discharge, said to her:—You have been tried here on three indictments; and you have been acquitted on all three. But there can be no doubt in the world that you have stolen this property, though it has not legally been brought home to you, and, under the circumstances, the jury have properly acquitted you. But there can be no moral doubt in the mind of any person who has heard these trials, that you did steal the property. You may not be so fortunate in the future. Let the present be a warning to you; and let me advise you to return to honest practices. JOHN JONES, 54, labourer, late of the parish of St. Sampson’s, was charged with wilfully and feloniously killing one ewe sheep the property of Thomas Graham, Esq., at St. Sampson’s, with intent to steal the carcass thereof. Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence. Mr. Childs having opened the case, called the following witnesses:—William Mugford, deposed:— I am hind to Mr. Graham who resides in the parish of St. Sampson’s and has a farm there. In January last we had some sheep there; I saw and counted them on Saturday the 27th January; they were all right then on farm; the next morning, I found there was a ewe sheep missing. I called to Mr. Maynard who occupies an adjoining farm, and we proceeded to make search for the missing sheep, but could not succeed in finding it; but on Monday, Mr. Maynard produced to me the skin and head of a ewe sheep. The head was separate from the rest of the skin. I knew the head by a halfpenny mark which I had made under the off ear, and by a red spot on the top of the head. All our hog ewes were marked in the same way. I examined the skin also; some of the trotters were cut off. I can swear to the head as being that of the missing sheep, and I believe the skin also belonged to it. I afterwards procured a search warrant and searched prisoner’s house in St. Winnow, about 3 miles from Torfrey farm. The constables Evil, of St. Winnow, and Rundell, of Lostwithiel were with me at the search, and I saw them take out some mutton from a clothes box up-stairs, in which was some clean linen; there were two legs of mutton, part of two shoulders, and a loin. I had the head and skin with me at the time; the butchers, in my presence, compared the mutton with the skin, and found it correspond.—James Evil:— I am a constable of St. Winnow. On the 29th of January, I received a search warrant and made search at prisoner’s house where I found some mutton up stairs in a clothes chest with some clean clothes—2 legs, a loin, and 2 other pieces, which I have since found were parts of two shoulders. I then took the prisoner in custody and took him to the Earl of Chatham Inn—in the parlour till bed time, and then I put him up-stairs; in the morning he was gone, and I saw nothing more of him till Mr. Nash produced him to me on the 20th September.—After the mutton was found in the prisoner’s premises I saw it compared with the skin produced by Mugford, and it corresponded exactly.—Richard Rundell:— I am a butcher, and also a constable for the borough of Lostwithiel. On the 29th of January, I assisted the last witness in searching prisoner’s house and discovered the mutton spoken of; it was up-stairs in a clothes chest, covered over with clean linen, laid in as neatly as could be. I took it from the box and compared it with the skin and head produced there by Mugford, and found them correspond exactly; in the off leg, a piece had been cut out, about the size of a penny and I found in the skin the piece wanting; the tail of the sheep remained with the skin; it had been severed at a joint, and it matched exactly with the tail part at the prisoner’s house. I have been a butcher 6 years and have slaughtered thousands of sheep, and I am certain that the mutton found in the prisoner’s house belonged to the skin produced by Mugford.— Joseph Stevens, a butcher living at St. Winnow, who had carried on business for 2 years and had been accustomed to killing and dressing sheep for 10 years, stated that he also compared the mutton with the skin and he confirmed the evidence of previous witnesses as to the complete correspondence of the parts.—William Maynard:— I am a farmer living in St. Sampsons, and have a farm adjoining Mr. Graham’s. On the 28th of January, Mugford made some inquiry of me, and we made search for the missing sheep, which I suspected had been stolen. On Monday morning I made a further search myself; and in a plantation adjoining the bottom field, found one of the trotters, and then the three other trotters, severed from the skin; we then found the skin under fagots by a pile of wood; and the head thrust into some fagots. I also saw the place where the sheep’s throat had been cut. I saw that the head was marked with red, and that there was a half-penny mark on the off ear. I took the skin and head at first to Mugford, then to Mr. Grahams, and finally left them in Mugford’s possession.—Wm. Joseph Nash:— I am inspector of Police at Truro. At the Assizes in July last, I had a communication with the constable Evil, concerning this case, and, in consequence, I went to Chester with a warrant for apprehending the prisoner. I was absent about 10 days, and then succeeded in apprehending him at Chester, on the 13th September. I brought him down to Lostwithiel and showed him to the constables Evil and Parkin and they identified him. I then placed him in custody of Parkin.—Isaac Parkin:— I am one of the constables of Lostwithiel. On the 20th of September, Nash brought the prisoner to me. While the prisoner was in my custody, Mr. Rundell the butcher came to see him, and identified him. Just after Rundell left, the prisoner said to me, that was the only man he feared. I asked him what man? and he said:— “that butcher gone out.” Prisoner then held out his hand and said it was a bad job; my hand was bad seven weeks and I could get no money; otherwise, I should not have done it.”—John Willcock, a labourer, stated that between 3 and 4 o’clock in the afternoon of Saturday the 27th January, he saw the prisoner about 2 fields from Mr. Graham’s farm; a boy, his son, was with him carrying a cloth or bag. Mr. STOKES addressed the jury, for the defence; and after a careful summing up, the jury instantly returned a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: In passing sentence the CHAIRMAN said, yours is a very bad case. You are what is commonly called a navvy, and it is very easy for people of your description, after effecting a plunder of this kind, to remove to a distance to escape justice. It is necessary to make an example of such a case, to deter others who are disposed to plunder those around them. The sentence of the court is, that you be subjected to Penal Servitude for Four Years) It is but right we should mention that the Chairman, and both the advocates spoke most highly of the energy and vigilance which Mr. Nash, the inspector of Truro Police, had displayed in bringing the prisoner to justice, after his escape from the constable at Lostwithiel. Mr. Stokes spoke of him as one who always appeared to sleep with one eye open, and as being, certainly, one of the most vigilant and excellent officers ever brought down into this County. EASTERN DIVISION OF BRIDGES. —The following Report from Mr. Pease, Surveyor of Bridges for the Eastern Division, was presented on the first day of Sessions:— “Looe Bridge, the foundation stone of which was laid on the 13th of July 1854, was opened to the public on the 4th of September last; and though by the terms of the contract it should have been opened three months earlier, still, when we take into consideration the delay occasioned at the commencement of the work, from the difficulty of getting suitable stone, added to the great amount of labour expended in excavating the ground and other operations connected with the foundations, I think the contractors were deserving of credit for having made such an advance towards completion as to admit of the Bridge being opened to the public by the time it was. I am sorry however, to be obliged to add, that since the time of opening the Bridge the Contractors have not shewn that energy in prosecuting the work, to make a finish of it, that I could have wished. Some trifling matters connected with the approach roads and fences still remain to be done, and because they are not done I could not get the work certified and passed at these Sessions. The Contractors have not yet begun to remove the old bridge; but I hope they will effect its removal with the least possible delay; as, until that is done, they cannot have their accounts closed.—The Looe Harbour Commissioners are desirous that a raised footway should be made on one side of the roadway over the Bridge; and an application in the form of a Resolution (which I beg to annex) was made to me on the subject; my reply to which application was, that I had no power to order a footway to be made, without being authorized by the Sessions.” Mr. Pease reported that some slight repairs had been effected at Key Bridge and New Bridge; and that some slight repairs were needed at Dunmeer, Wenford, and Polbathick Bridges; and then presented the following Special Report on Lostwithiel Bridge:— “I beg to present the following Report as the result of a careful examination which I have made of Lostwithiel Bridge, agreeably to the Order made at the last Sessions.—Lostwithiel Bridge is about 200 feet long. It has 9 arches which are of various widths; the largest arch having a span of about 13 feet 6 inches, and the smallest a span of only 6 feet. The total waterway afforded by the arches is about 95 feet.—The oldest part of the Bridge is that comprising the five westernmost arches, which are pointed; they are still firm and constitute the strongest part of the bridge; their good state of preservation may be accounted for by the protection afforded by the high ground in front of them, which confines the current of the river to the eastern part of the Bridge. It is only when the river is high that any water passes through the four most western arches. The four eastern, which may be properly termed the river arches, are semicircular, and appear to have been built at different periods of time, and though they are of more recent date than the pointed arches, they are much more feeble. In the first arch from the eastern end there is a fissure caused by settlement, but which appears to have been of long standing. The pier between the first and second arches is rather weak, as are also the abutment walls of the same arches.—The wall between the second and third arches is also weak; its base is protected by large masses of rock lying against it, placed there, I have no doubt, for the purpose of protection. The wall between the 4th and 5th arches, and the abutments of these arches, are getting feeble, and will soon require some repairs.—The foundations of the walls and abutments of the first four arches from the Eastern End (that is, the River arches) are, I fear, defective; but their actual state can be ascertained only by getting out the water, which would be a very tedious and expensive matter. I ascertained that some stones are wanting in the lower part of two or three of the piers and abutments, and the walls generally require pinning and pointing.—The roadway over the Bridge is very irregular, and is so narrow (its width at several points being only 10 feet 7 inches,) that carriages cannot pass one another on it; consequently there is at present frequent detention of carriages at either end of the bridge; but when the Cornwall Railway, which will cross the county road on a level and at a distance of only about 40 yards from the eastern end of the bridge shall have been made, and in operation, the inconvenience will be incalculably greater, arising from the increased traffic over the bridge which must result from the proximity of the Railway Station. The bridge will then be found wholly inadequate to afford that facility of transit which the public will demand.” THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18. (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq). ASSAULT ON CONSTABLES.—JOHN TRELEAVEN, 21, a carpenter, was indicted for assaulting and beating William Coppin Rowse and William Keam, two constables of the parish of St. Blazey, whilst in the execution of their duty. Mr. Commins prosecuted; Mr. Shilson defended the prisoner.—William Coppin Rowse said he had been one of the constables of St. Blazey since Lady-day last. On the 6th of October, I was required to go to the Four Lords’ Inn, in the parish of St. Blazey. Keam, another constable, had been called there before me. When I arrived at the house I saw Keam advising a man to go out of the house. Treleaven, the prisoner, was there, and I should think fifty other persons; who were quarrelling. Treleaven was objecting to a man going out of the house, after the constables had spoken to him. I went for my mace, returned to the house with it, showed it, and required the men to leave the house. When I came in, Treleaven laid hold of the mace and of my arms. I told him to be quiet, or he would have to stand the consequences. He persisted against me, and a struggle took place between us. I tried to keep him off, but he held me on, and I fell to the ground, and received several kicks, and was much injured by some one catching me by the throat. It was Treleaven that forced me to the ground. I was obliged to cry “murder,” and Keam, the other constable, came to my help, and got Treleaven away from me, and I was got up from the throng. I saw Treleaven holding Keam with one hand, and with the other uplifted about to strike him. I said, “Treleaven,” and knocked him down with the mace. Keam and I afterwards secured him and took him before a magistrate.—CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. SHILSON—When I knocked him down he did not lie senseless an hour or so; he was quiet for a time, and then rose up and sat in the settle. It was a man called Roberts that was troublesome, and that Keam was sent for to put out of the house. Prisoner objected to that; the house was in a disturbed state, and the landlord called on us to clear it. This took place between three and four in the afternoon. When Treleaven took me by the arm, I had not tried to strike him with the mace. I said to him before I went for the mace, “Treleaven be quiet,” and he said, “I don’t care for two or three such men as you and Keam.” A man called Thomas kicked me. There were many intercessions for him, and he has not been prosecuted; Treleaven took the most active part in the row. I would rather see Treleaven knocked down than my brother constable. William Keam, another constable of St. Blazey, said the landlord of the Four Lords Inn, William Stephens, called upon him to come to his house where he said a man called Roberts had thrown away beer and and (sic) would not pay for it. I went there and asked Roberts why he objected to pay for the beer; I told him the landlord wanted me to put him out of the house, but I would rather he should go out. Treleaven looked up and said, “I’ll be d---d if it won’t take three such men as you are to put me out of the house.” I told Treleaven I was not called for him, and then I spoke to Roberts again, upon which he gave the landlord a great deal of abuse. I asked Roberts again to go out, on which James, a man with Treleaven, interfered and I cautioned him. Roberts then rose up to go out of the house, upon which Treleaven said something, and Roberts would not go. I left the house and went across the road for my mace, and on my way back saw Rowse, and asked him to go and assist me to put a man to doors. When I came back, Roberts went out of the house, but afterwards returned; I got him out again and went with him and then I heard the row commence in the house. I looked in and saw Treleaven had hold of Rowse’s mace. I told him to let go; he said, “I will not, he will strike me.” I said, “I will take care of that.” Rowse then fell to the ground, and Treleaven went down as it were with him. As Treleaven rose, he kicked Rowse as he was on the ground. I called out, “Treleaven, will you kick a man like that?” and I took him by the collar and got him back about 3 feet from Rowse against the wall. He then collared me. I said, “take care you don’t strike me.” He said, “let me go;” I said I would not, and then he struck me. He told me again to let him go; I refused and he was about to strike me again, when I saw Treleaven strike him; he fell, and I secured him. He lay about two minutes; I turned to speak to another person, when he got up and tried to bolt out at the door; but I secured him and took him before the magistrate. Cross-examined—I don’t consider it my duty to go to a public house to collect a landlord’s bill when beer is spilt. I consider I have to keep the peace when there is a disturbance.—Prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrates was then read as follows:— “It is no good for me to say nothing about it. I am guilty I dare say.” Mr. SHILSON addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He contended that Keam, the constable, had no business in the house to interfere with Roberts. Though Roberts may have spilled some beer, that did not justify the landlord in calling for Keam to put him out. If the landlord had any dispute with Roberts about paying for the beer, he might have brought an action to recover its value. Keam had no right to interfere with Roberts on any such ground, and he had no business to bring Rowse there improperly to interfere with Roberts. It would seem from the evidence that Rowse came in with his mace to attack Treleaven, because Treleaven said, I won’t let go, he will strike me. Treleaven was charged with assaulting the constables when in the execution of their duty; but if they had no right to be there to put Roberts out, as he (Mr. Shilson) contended, they were then not there in the execution of their duty, and the prisoner must be acquitted. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up the case, said it certainly was not the constable’s duty to go to the house to see that the landlord was paid for the beer; but the question was, whether the landlord, seeing a great many people in the house, thought a row would arise from the dispute, and therefore fetched the constable. It would be a different case if the constable had volunteered to go. He was fetched by the landlord, and it could not be expected that at such a time a constable would go minutely into questions, but would go to keep the peace if he thought there was a disturbance. The jury would consider whether Keam was in the house in the execution of his duty. As to Rowse there seemed no doubt that he was there in the execution of his duty, because he was called on to go by the other constable, and he had no alternative but to go. The jury immediately found the prisoner GUILTY. (In passing sentence, the Chairman spoke of the temptations connected with the habit of drinking in public houses. It is the greatest blight and curse, he said, that can befall society. The Chaplain of the prison says that there were 194 cases in the last year brought into Mr. Everest’s charge, and they were all the result of drinking. He sentenced the prisoner to three months’ hard labour) JAMES JAMES, 32, a miner, was indicted for assaulting and beating William Rowse, a constable of St. Blazey, in the execution of his duty. The evidence was in a great measure similar to that in the previous case. Rowse said “when I rose from the ground, I looked round and saw James make a blow at me. I called out “James,” and then he was in the set of giving me another blow, when I turned round and struck him with my mace, and gave him a mark by the side of the face. I gave him a second blow and he reeled away and went over and sat in the settle very quietly.”—William Keam, constable, gave evidence that he saw a scuffle and blows pass between James and Rowse, but which struck first, he did not know—The prisoner was found GUILTY. Rowse then said, addressing the Court; that he knew nothing against either of the parties, Treleaven or James, except in the present case. (Sentence: two months’ hard labour) JOHN TEAGUE, 40, ore dresser, was indicted for that, on the 10th of May, he unlawfully and knowingly did falsely pretend to John Polsue that Richard Hancock had done certain work at Par Consols mine (at times and rates named in the indictment), by which he unlawfully and falsely did obtain from James Henry Meredith and others, the adventurers in the mine, the sums of money mentioned, whereas in fact such work had not been done, and the said John Teague well knew the said pretences were false and against the form of the statute. Mr. Bishop appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Shilson defended the prisoner. Mr. SHILSON took an objection to the indictment, on the ground that there was no intention of fraud alleged in it, though fraud was sought to be proved. It was not sufficient to state that the money was unlawfully obtained; the indictment must also have the words “with intent to defraud.” In support of this he quoted Archbold and other authorities. A recent statute had provided that it was not necessary to state the particular person defrauded, but still it was imperatively necessary, in an indictment for obtaining by false pretences, to state generally that it was done “with intent to defraud.” He argued also that as this omission was a defect in substance, and not in mere form, the indictment could not be amended by the court. Mr. BISHOP said the indictment was not drawn by him; he proceeded, however, to defend it, by submitting that this was not a case of attempting to obtain money, but one in which it had been really obtained; and that the wording of the indictment was sufficient, which, after stating the false pretences, went on to allege, that by reason of such false pretences the party unlawfully obtained the money. The words “unlawfully obtained” he submitted were equivalent to fraudulently obtained. He produced a case reported in the “Justice of the Peace,” in correspondence with which he said the present indictment was drawn. He also submitted that the court could, if necessary, amend the omission pointed out by Mr. Shilson.—The CHAIRMAN said the whole of the indictment in the case referred to by Mr. Bishop was not given in the “Justice of the Peace;” they could not therefore be sure that the words “with intent to defraud” were omitted therefrom. The court held that the omission was fatal to the present indictment, and they could not amend it.—A verdict of acquittal on this indictment was therefore directed by the Chairman. There were, however, two other indictments against the same prisoner, to which similar evidence applied; and one of these contained the words “with intent to defraud;” the other had not those words, and was abandoned. The prisoner was therefore put upon his trial on the second indictment, and Mr. Bishop stated the case to the jury. He said the prisoner, John Teague, had been for considerable time in the employ of the adventurers of Par Consols, a very large undertaking, in which there are nearly 2,000 persons employed. The prisoner was a timekeeper and overlooker of the boys employed on the mine; and in the discharge of his duties he had to make certain returns to a superior agent, setting out what work the boys had done during the previous month. On the faith of that return, believing it be correct, the boys were paid. It appeared that in the months of July and August last, he represented to Captain Polsue, that a boy called Richard Hancock had done certain work, namely that he had done in June eight days work at the separators, at 1s 2d. per day, making 9s. 4d., and that he had done on the floors four days’ work, at 1s. 2d. each day, making 4s. 8d., with the former amount a total of 14s. That in August he made a statement that the same boy, in the month of July, had done five days work at the separators and seven on the floors, making twelve days at 1s. 2d.; total 14s. The mode in which the prisoner, after making these charges for the boy, obtained the moneys, was as follows. At the mine there are regular pay days; but a man does not always attend to take up his own earnings; he is represented by some other person. So in this case the prisoner’s daughter took up the money which the prisoner had previously charged in the name of Richard Hancock, and took it to her father with other money she received at the same time. He kept this money which he had charged for Hancock, and thereby defrauded the adventurers of 28s., except a small sum kept back for the doctor’s money at the mine. The prisoner must have known that these charges were totally false, because the boy Hancock was not employed on owner’s account, for the adventurers at all. He was employed by three other men, William and Henry Hancock and Luke Warne, who paid him wages. He should also prove that the prisoner made a confession of his guilt, and asked that instead of being prosecuted he might be fined. Mr. BISHOP then called Captain John Polsue, who stated the charges made by the prisoner for the boy Hancock, and the course pursued at the mine with regard to the payment of parties. Witness also said that when Captain Puckey told the prisoner of the charge against him, prisoner said, he hoped Captain Puckey would not discharge him, as it would be a very serious thing for him, and begged him to lay what fine he would upon him, and to try him another twelve months to see whether a similar case occurred. Mr. William Powne, principle clerk at Fowey and Par Consols, produced the dressing pay-book, and said that on the 8th of September, he paid prisoner’s daughter, Elizabeth Teague, 14l. 9s. 7d., for twenty-two different persons, and included in the list was 13s. 10d. for Richard Hancock, for the month of July. Elizabeth Teague, prisoner’s daughter, stated that she took up 14l. and some shillings in September paid her by Mr. Powne; that she had a list of the persons for whom the money was paid, but she could not read writing, and she carried the list to her father with the money. Mr. BISHOP asked the witness whether Richard Hancock’s name was in the list; but Mr. SHILSON objected that parole evidence would not do; that if there was a written document it must be produced, but he had received no notice to produce it. After some further evidence about the accounts and production of the books, Mr. SHILSON submitted that there was no evidence of the payment of any specific sum to the prisoner on account of Richard Hancock; the only proof was that of the payment of 14l. 9s. 7d. to Elizabeth Teague. There were two links wanting in the case. First, the clerk who kept the pay-book, from which Mr. Powne paid the money, ought to be present to give evidence; the book of itself was no evidence; the entries he admitted had been proved as far as the ledger, but at present there was nothing to connect the pay-book with the ledger. Secondly, as to the list said to have been copied from the book and given to Elizabeth Teague; Richard Hancock’s name might or might not have been in that list, and in order to connect the prisoner with the matter, that list must be produced, and be shown to correspond with the returns previously given in by the prisoner to Captain Polsue.— Mr. BISHOP, after many attempts, failed in carrying the proof of the case further; and the CHAIRMAN, expressing the opinion of the court that the evidence was defective, directed the jury to acquit the prisoner. At the same time he told the prisoner that the verdict was not given on the merits of the case, and had nothing to do with either his guilt or his innocence. Mr. SHILSON upon this observed that it was due to the prisoner to say that he had a strong case; and Mr. BISHOP said the same as to the case for the prosecution—The prisoner was then discharged. REWARD TO A POLICE OFFICER.—The CLERK of the PEACE called attention of the Court to the unusually large allowance of 1l. a day for expenses during eight days, made by the magistrates of the Lostwithiel district to Mr. Nash, the superintendent of police at Truro, as a reward for his zeal and trouble in the apprehension of a navvy called John Jones, who stole a sheep from Mr. Graham, a county magistrate. The COURT considered Mr. Nash was entitled to a reward, but that the large allowance of £1 a day, might seem to establish a precedent for other cases, which they wished to avoid. They therefore reduced the allowance to 10s. a day, and ordered Mr. Nash a gratuity of 4l., as they are enabled to do under a recent statute. SAMUEL POLSUE, 33, had been remanded to prison at the Easter Sessions, and also at the last sessions, for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards his father, Joseph Polsue, of Polglaze, Fowey. The father now appeared, and said he was not afraid his son would injure him, but he complained that he was idle; that he was quiet enough as long as he was let alone, and allowed to eat, drink, sleep, and do nothing. The CHAIRMAN said idleness was not a sufficient reason for keeping his son in prison. He then cautioned the prisoner to conduct himself properly in future towards his father, and ordered him to be discharged. JOSEPH CHEGWIDDEN, 21, was committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards Walter Harris, a constable, Jemima Chegwidden, his mother, and Elizabeth Pryor, at Wendron. It was stated by Mr. Everest that the prisoner was idiotic. His sister, from Redruth, appeared in Court, and said she was willing to take him home with her, and to take care of him. He was then ordered to be discharged. APPEAL.—This was an appeal against an order of affiliation, Mark Kent being the appellant, and Temperance Hawken Harris the respondent. It was an appeal against an order of Justices, (Mr. W. Morshead, Sir Henry Onslow, and Mr. Potter,) made at Washaway on the 2nd of July, when Mark Kent was adjudged to be the father of the illegitimate child of Temperance Hawken Harris, of the parish of Blisland, and was ordered to pay 1s. 6d. per week for its maintenance. Mr. SHILSON appeared for the appellant, and Mr. STOKES (for Mr. Preston Wallis) on the part of the respondent. Evidence was given in the case which would be totally unfit for our columns. The result was, that the order of justices was confirmed, with costs, £5. The court then rose. SECOND COURT. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle Esq., M.P.) WILLIAM THOMAS, 22, and CHRISTOPHER TREVETHAN, 30, both miners, were charged with stealing three geese, the property of Mrs. Prudence Davey at Busvean, in the parish of Gwennap, on the 10th of August.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs defended the prisoner Thomas.—The witnesses examined were Mrs. Davey, her daughter, and grand-daughter; John Veale, constable of Gwennap; and William Hales, a young miner, working at Copper Hill mine; this last named witness being an approver, or Queen’s evidence.—The Jury found both prisoners GUILTY; and Hales was recalled by the Chairman, who addressed him as follows:— Let me give you a caution as regards your future conduct. There is no doubt in the world that you participated with the two prisoners in this robbery; and that you were acting with them, going about from house to house, at night, for the sake of plunder. If you don’t mind your ways, you will, on some future occasion, figure here, not in the witness-box, but in the dock. Let me advise you to give over your bad habit of drinking in public-houses and then going out at night robbing. I advise you to be very cautious regarding your conduct. Hales answered, respectfully:— I will, Sir. (Sentence (each): six months’ hard labour) ASSAULT BY A PREVENTIVE OFFICER.—SAMUEL RUSSELL, aged 50, a preventive officer, was charged with assaulting and beating Thomas Rowe, at the parish of Veryan, on the 26th of August last.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—In opening the case, Mr. CHILDS said he thought the Jury, after hearing the evidence, would agree with him that the Magistrates in Petty Sessions had acted with discretion in sending the case to Quarter sessions, instead of disposing of it themselves. The assault was of a very serious character. It appeared that the prosecutor, a boy, made use of an expression,—whether intentionally or not, he could not say—that was offensive to the prisoner; who, therefore, went towards him, felled him to the ground with a stick, and struck him once or twice while he was on the ground. The blows were so severe that several persons thought the boy was dead; but, not to rely on the evidence of those witnesses, the jury would have before them the medical man. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Stokes; but he (Mr. Childs) could not imagine that his learned friend would attempt to dispute the facts of the case; probably his object would be, by cross- examination, to bring out some facts that might induce a mitigation of punishment. The witnesses were ordered out of Court. Thomas Rowe, the prosecutor, deposed:— I am 18 years old, and the son of William Rowe, who lives at Port Loe, in Veryan. On Sunday morning the 26th of August I was on a hill, called the Gow, at Port Loe. There were other youngsters with me. I did not see Samuel Russell there; he was down on the lower side. We were a parcel of boys all together; and we said one to another “keg of brandy.” On that, Russell said:— “I’ll mark you”; he then came up with a large stick and struck me senseless on the ground. The stick was about 4 inches round—a very large stick. I don’t know what took place afterwards.—Cross- examined.—This was about 10 o’clock. There was a good part of a score of boys there; we were viewing the vessels sailing up and down. I first saw Russell, about 50 yards from me, down on the lower side; he was going towards his home, while we were standing on the Gow. When I said “keg of brandy,” I did not see him; I swear that. The other boys first said “keg of brandy,” and I joined too. I was not the first to shout out “keg of brandy.” That was all I said and I don’t know what was meant by it. I swear I did not cry out “land shark,” or any other words besides.—Russell did not tell me that if I was not silent, he would punish me; he said nothing of the kind; he said “I’ll mark you: I know your face;” and I said “I never said anything to you.” He then came up and knocked me senseless on the ground. I did not repeat the words “keg of brandy” nor make faces at him, as he came up. I swear I did not call him a black-faced -----, (a very detestable name), and that I never before called him “keg of brandy,” or any other name. I don’t recollect his being at my father’s complaining of my calling him names; my father never told me that if I persevered in calling him names, he would give me a lick over the back with a stick.—Prisoner had not his pistols and cutlass with him that morning; he had nothing but his stick. I believe he has been employed as a preventive men (sic), since the other preventive men have been called away to go on board ship. Joseph Trudgeon, a fisherman, about 20 years old, at Portloe. On Sunday morning the 26th of August, I was on the Gow, with Rowe and other boys. I saw the prisoner Russell there. I was standing alongside of him. I heard the boys say “keg of brandy;” without mentioning any one’s name. Russell turned round and said to Rowe, “that’s you;” and then came up and struck the boy on the left side of the head with a stick and knocked him down dead, to all appearance. I saw Russell strike him twice after he was on the ground; he broke the stick, in striking him; not breaking it round off, but splintering it up the middle.— Cross-examined. I dont think the boys called out “keg of brandy” to Russell; they were saying it one to another; they said it frequently; they were a lot of smaller boys than Rowe. I never called it out; and I dont know what the meaning of it is. When Russell turned round and said “that’s you,” he was about 40 yards off, and I suppose he must have heard the boys calling out. They were not calling out loud. I did not hear them say “land shark,” nor any thing of the kind. Russell did not say “If you say that again, I’ll mark you;” nor any thing of the kind.—When Russell came up, Rowe was standing on the wall, and when Russell struck him he fell on the wall. Rowe never called him a “black-faced -----. I don’t know that I ever before heard the boys calling out to him “keg of brandy.” On that morning they were all calling it out together; but not to Russell. When they called, he was going away before us towards his own house. I was not going to church or chapel that morning; we were going to spend the Sunday morning on the Gow. Elizabeth Dunstan:— I live with my brother on the Gow. On Sunday morning the 26th August, I saw Rowe and other boys on the Gow; and I saw Russell go towards Rowe and knock him down with a stick; I also saw him strike the boy twice when he was on the ground. I went up to where the boy was, and found him lying senseless on the ground; and he remained senseless for 3½ or 4 hours.—Cross Examined.—I was standing in my own doorway, close by; but had not heard the boys call out anything, before Russell came up and said “I’ll mark you.” I saw Russell strike the boy twice while he was on the ground; once, on the small part of his back, and once on his legs; he then turned round, left the boy, and went towards his own home. Elizabeth Ann Pine:— I live at Port Loe, and remember on Sunday morning the 16th August seeing Rowe on the Gow; and I saw Russell come up and strike him three times. The first time he struck him the boy fell down; and I saw Russell strike him after he was down.—On Cross Examination this witness said she did not live on the Gow, and had not been on it on the morning in questions; she was going on an errand, and was only about 8 or 10 yards from Russell when she saw him strike Rowe. Edward Michael Prynn:— I am a surgeon residing at Ruan Highlanes. On the morning of the 26th August, I was called to see the boy Rowe, at Port Loe. It was about half-past 11; I was called out of church. I found the boy on the floor at his father’s house; he was apparently insensible. I examined his person and found he had received a severe contusion at the back of his head. Symptoms led me to think there was concussion of the brain. He did not take any medicine immediately; he could not swallow at that time. That might very likely be one of the consequences of such a blow. As far as regards his life, I considered he was in a dangerous state at that time; I could not call him out of danger for two or three days perhaps. In addition to the blows on the back of the head, I observed a bruise on his side, just about the small part of the back,—merely a bruise; there was nothing serious at all in that. He continued under my treatment about 3 weeks or a month. He was not in a fit state to go before the magistrates until the week after the occurrence. Such an instrument as a large stick might have produced the blows I observed on his person.—Cross-examined.—Or a stick of moderate size—a stick of about the ordinary size of a walking stick, might cause that mischief. For the defence, Mr. STOKES addressed the jury. He regretted that the prisoner was not allowed by law to give evidence in explanation of the facts of this case; seeing that this explanation must be entirely within his knowledge. Enough, however, had appeared in course of cross-examination, to show that the prisoner received considerable provocation from Rowe and other boys; & there could be doubt that the boys in making use of the expression “keg of brandy” meant to insult and annoy the prisoner; and that the prisoner so understood it was evident from his conduct. Unfortunately, one of the blows inflicted by him came on the back of the boy’s head, and that did the mischief; and he (Mr. Stokes) was instructed to say, on behalf of the prisoner, that no one regretted more than himself, the results of that Sunday morning’s occurrences. The prisoner had served 14 years in Her Majesty’s service as a Marine; and was discharged as a pensioner without the slightest impeachment on his character. On the breaking out of the war, he was obliged to do duty in the preventive service; and had done that duty to the entire satisfaction of his employers, as a most orderly, well-conducted and inoffensive man. All he did on the Sunday morning was, that when annoyed and irritated by the boys, he struck one of them with his stick, which, unfortunately, came in contact with the boy’s head. But it could not be supposed that he intended to inflict such a serious injury as had ensued; and which no one regretted more than himself. At the time of the occurrence he was going to his home soberly and peacefully; while the boys were evidently mis-spending the Sabbath morning, and ready for any mischief. It could not be denied that the prisoner was guilty of striking the boy; but Mr. Stokes hoped that the consideration of the provocation he had received, and of the prisoner’s general character, would induce the jury to recommend that only a slight punishment be inflicted. Mr. Stokes then proceeded to call witnesses to character. Joseph Francis Baker, Lieutenant R.N.—I am in command of the Coast Guard District of Port Loe. I know the prisoner; he is a marine pensioner. Since the war broke out, he has been engaged about 18 months in the Preventive Service; he has been under my command all that time; his conduct has been very good and very inoffensive; I never heard any complaint against him for violence or anything else. John Bramble. I am now a Turnkey at the Cornwall County Gaol. I was in H.M. Service, in the Plymouth Division of Marines, for upwards of 30 years; and Colour Serjeant. I knew the prisoner while he was in the Marines upwards of 20 years; his conduct was that of a good, quiet, clean, obedient, and respectful soldier; I never heard any thing against him in my life. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY. (Sentence: The CHAIRMAN said, you have been strongly recommended to mercy, and no doubt the aggravation you received from the boys was very great, and that you did not intend to inflict so violent a blow. You have received an excellent character, and have been from eighteen to twenty years in the service. We have taken this into consideration, and are desirous that you should not be imprisoned, believing that you by no means intended the blow should have such an effect,—remembering also, that the parent of the child desired you, when the boys insulted you again, that you should inflict upon them some punishment. The sentence is, that you pay to Her Majesty the sum of 7l., and be kept in prison till that sum is paid.) The prosecutor, Row, was recalled by the CHAIRMAN, who said to him:— Though this assault on you, Rowe, was a serious one, you partly brought it on yourself, by joining with other boys to aggravate people by calling names, which was highly improper. No doubt you were seriously hurt, and the prisoner was not justified in giving you such a blow; but, still, you partly brought the punishment on yourself. If you had been behaving properly on the Sunday morning, going to Church or Chapel, this would not have happened. I hope this will be the last time of your behaving so. ______FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19. SENTENCES OF PRISONERS. The convicted prisoners were placed at the bar this morning, when the following sentences were passed upon them by J. K. LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman:—[see individual cases above] This concluded the business of the sessions.

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