1860 Cornwall Quarter Sessions and Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes ...... 19 3. Easter Sessions ...... 64 4. Midsummer Sessions ...... 79 5. Summer Assizes ...... 102 6. Michaelmas Sessions...... 125

Royal Cornwall Gazette 6th January 1860

1. Epiphany Sessions

These Sessions opened at 11 o’clock on Tuesday the 3rd instant, at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following Magistrates: Chairmen: J. JOPE ROGERS, ESQ., (presiding); SIR COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart.; C.B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq. Lord Vivian. Edwin Ley, Esq. Lord Valletort, M.P. T.S. Bolitho, Esq. The Hon. Captain Vivian. W. Horton Davey, Esq. T.J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. Stephen Nowell Usticke, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. F.M. Williams, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. George Williams, Esq. J. St. Aubyn, Esq., M.P. R. Gould Lakes, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. H. Thomson, Esq. Augustus Coryton, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. Harry Reginald Salisbury R. Johns, Esq. Trelawny, Esq. The Hon. and Rev. J. E. Coode, junr., Esq. Townshend Boscawen C.G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. J. Glanville. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. S. Borlase, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds W. Michell, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. Rev. R.B. Kinsman The Hon. John Cranch Walker Vivian qualified as a magistrate. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury: - Mr. William Oatey, Wadebridge, foreman; - Luke Biddick, St. Breock; - William Brown, St. Columb Major; - Peter Brown, Liskeard; - William Burt, Liskeard; - Thomas Broad, Liskeard; - John Buzza, Liskeard; - William Cock, St. Breock; - John Chapman, St. Columb Major; - Stephen Cummen, St. Columb Major; - Richard Cardell junr., St. Columb Minor; - Richard Clogg, Liskeard; - Thomas Cummen, Lanivet; - Robert Dunstan, Liskeard; - James Henwood, St. Breock; - William Harris, St. Columb Major; - James Hawken, St. Ervan; - Edward Johns, Lanivet; - Charles Jago, Liskeard; - Thomas Key, junr., St. Breock; - Henry Lucas, Liskeard; - Wm. Wedge Menear, St. Breock; - Thomas Paynter, St. Ervan. The following gentlemen answered to their names:— Mr. J.R. Rickard, Wadebridge; - Wm. Roberts, St. Columb Major; - Simon Rickard, St. Columb Minor; - Enoder Rickard, St. Columb Minor; - H.J. Rowse, St. Columb Major; - J. Sandry, St. Ervan; - J. Strongman, St. Ervan; - W. Truscott, junr., St. Columb Major; - Thomas, Wadebridge. After the Clerk of the Peace had read the Proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue and for the preventing and punishment of vice, profaneness, and immorality, the CHAIRMAN proceeded to deliver his CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY:—[not transcribed] THE COUNTY GAOL. VISITING JUSTICES REPORT.—The CHAIRMAN read the following Report:—The Visiting Committee of the County Gaol have much pleasure in reporting their satisfaction with the good order and cleanliness of the prison; and credit is due to the Governor and his officers under the circumstances in which they are placed. Notwithstanding the great inconvenience which arises from the new buildings, &c., the prison discipline is kept up most efficiently. The report was adopted; and the following magistrates were re-appointed the visitors of the gaol:—Mr. Kendall (chairman), Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. Sawle, Mr. Hext, Mr. F. J. Hext, Mr. E. Coode, jun., Mr. Neville Norway, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Foster, and the Reverends C. M. E. Collins and Vyell F. Vyvyan. THE NEW GAOL.—The New Gaol Building Committee reported that the Government Inspector has certified for that part of the building which is to be appropriated to the male prisoners, and the Committee are led to hope it may be permanently occupied before the next Quarter Sessions; and this being done, immediate steps must be taken to remove the old buildings, and to sell the materials, so that no time may be lost in proceeding with the Female wards, the Male Debtors' prison, &c. The Committee ask for the necessary powers to carry out the same.—This Report was also adopted without discussion. ARCHITECT'S REPORT.—This report, from Mr. Porter, was read by the chairman:—”Gentleman (sic), I have the honour to report to you that on the 15th December last, Mr. Perry made his inspection of the gaol, and I am happy to say he has granted his certificate for its occupation by prisoners. So soon therefore as the necessary arrangements can be made for the removal of the prisoners from the present old gaol, the new one may be occupied. So short a time has elapsed since the sessions that I have but little further to report as to the progress of the building, the Chapel fittings being the chief work remaining to be done, and from the nature of the fittings, it is necessarily a very tedious operation. Mr. Thomas, the contractor for fitting and supplying the bells and locks, has applied to me for a payment on account, and I have granted him a certificate for £250. It will be very material that the female and the remaining buildings should be commenced as early this year as possible, to enable them to be covered in before next winter." GAOL EXPENSES, for the past Quarter:— £ s. d. Subsistence 202 12 8 Clothing 78 19 4 Bedding 14 19 6 Fuel 81 12 0 Lundries (sic) 75 4 4½ Salaries 323 13 6 Pensioned Watchman 1 5 0 Paid prisoners on discharge 7 13 0 Expenses at Michaelmas Sessions 6 3 10 Postmaster of Bodmin (letter box) 1 1 0 Female Singers 1 0 0 Incidental Expenses 3 3 794 7 5½ Credit by cash received for maintenance of a deserter and another prisoner 2 12 0 791 15 5½ Repairs 2 19 0 794 14 5½ This was rather less than the Gaol expenses for the previous Quarter. Hall Expenses 7 9 11 Expenses on account of the New Gaol 56 4 8 GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The report by Mr. Everest was as follows:—I have much pleasure in reporting the orderly conduct of the prisoners since the last sessions. The new prison is in a very forward state, and will, I hope, be soon fit for occupation, as the Prison Inspector has certified the cells to be conformable with the requirements of the Act 2 and 3 Vict. cap. 56, sec. 4. I beg to attach the usual certificate required from me.—The certificate stated that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with; and that the several defects and dilapidations before reported continued to exist, but under present circumstances he did not recommend any repairs of consequence being undertaken. COUNTY ASYLUM. The CHAIRMAN read Annual Reports from the Visiting Committee, the Commissioners in Lunacy, and the Medical Officer. They were lengthy documents, and we shall publish them in a future number. The following magistrates were elected the Visiting Committee of the Asylum for the ensuing year:—Lord Vivian, Lord Valletort, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Col. Coryton, Mr. Sawle, Mr. E. Coode, jun., Rev. C. M. Edward Collins, Mr. William Colston, Mr. F. J. Hext, and Mr. Brydges Willyams. [CORONERS’ BILLS.—not transcribed] BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. SYLVANUS W. JENKIN, the Bridge Surveyor of Bridges of the Eastern Division, presented the following Report:— Wenford Bridge:—I have to apply for a grant of £1. to make some repairs to the North side of this bridge, rendered necessary by the late floods.—Calstock New Bridge: I have to apply for a grant of £2 15s., for the purpose of providing granite posts, and a granite curb to protect the approach road to this bridge.—Trekerner Bridge—Some quay work at the side of the approach road to this bridge requires to be renewed, the cost will be about 15s.—Callington New Bridge:—A covered drain is required on the western approach to this bridge, the cost will not exceed £2.—Lostwithiel Bridge:— Referring to an order of last Sessions. “That Mr. Jenkin, the surveyor of bridges for the Eastern Division of this county, be requested to give a plan and estimate for such repairs of the eastern part of the Lostwithiel Bridge, as he may deem necessary for the safety of the public in the existing traffic.—I have to report that I have been unable as yet, to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to the best mode of making such repairs, and I have to ask to be allowed to defer my report thereon until the next sessions.—Greystone Bridge.—It was ordered at the last sessions, “That the surveyor of bridges be instructed to inspect and report to the court at the next sessions, an alteration suggested by the Trustees of the Launceston Turnpike Roads, of an alleged dangerous corner at Greystone Bridge, and the probable cost of making the said corner safe.—In accordance with this order I have inspected the approaches to Greyston (sic) Bridge on the Cornish side, and have communicated with the Surveyor of the Launceston Trust thereon. I have not yet been furnished with particulars of the alteration proposed by the trustees, and in the absence of such information cannot express any opinion as to its probable cost. I shall require two levies at this time. The several sums applied for by Mr. Jenkin were granted, and his report was adopted. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. THOMAS HICKES, the surveyor in the Western Division, reported as follows:— In laying before you this report, I beg to say that on the 19th of November I succeeded in finishing the laying of the pipes for the draining of the Longbridge marsh, and very soon the water was lowered a sufficient distance from the western guard wall to commence repairing it. Since then, I am sorry to report that partly owing to the late heavy fall of snow and the subsequent continuance of rain, the water has again completely filled the marsh and covered part of the bridge road to the depth of eight or ten inches, rendering it impassable to foot passengers, and also broken two holes in the guard-walls; and yet the pipes are carrying a full stream of water; but still, the above cause would have raised the water in the marsh but a very little, had the Duke of Cleveland’s agent fulfilled the promise he made when I met him with Mr. Bolitho, Mr. Le Grice, Mr. St. Aubyn, and Mr. Borlase, on the 29th October. He then promised immediately to deepen the bed and raise the banks of the Marazion river. Had this been done, the water in the marsh would most decidedly have not gained its present depth, and I should have had the satisfaction of reporting to you now, though, through unforeseen difficulties the actual cost has exceeded the estimate by about £20,—that the drain at Longbridge was an entire success. The magistrates I have named will report to you more fully on this subject.—Higher Carnon:—There are some repairs required to the road, which will cost about £3 10s. Grampound:—Some repairs are required to the guard-walls, which will cost about 13s. Mylor:— This road requires some repairs, which will cost about 5s. The sums applied for by Mr. HICKES were granted; but on the subject of Long-bridge, and the draining of the marsh adjoining it, considerable discussion took place.—Mr. BORLASE read reports of proceedings by the Committee of local magistrates, and describing the present state of the bridge, which was represented to be in a very dilapidated and dangerous condition, one of the arches having given way, and the parapet wall being washed down by the late storm. It was also stated that the traffic over the bridge was, in consequence, completely suspended.—In the discussion of the subject, Mr. LE GRICE, Mr. CAREW, Mr. BORLACE, Mr. LAKES, Mr. BOLITHO, the CHAIRMAN, Mr. E. COODE, junr, and Lord VIVIAN took part; and ultimately it was resolved that the County Bridge Surveyor be instructed to take such steps as he may deem necessary for the preservation of Long Bridge, in the most economical and efficient manner; and Mr. LE GRICE gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move for a grant of £50, for payment of the balance of Mr. Hickes’s bill for the repairs of Long Bridge.

COUNTY POLICE. Mr. E. COODE, jun., presented the following report of the County Police Committee:—The County Police Committee beg to report that they held a meeting yesterday, at which the following members were present:—Nicholas Kendall Esq., W H. P. Carew, Esq., C. B. G. Sawle, Esq., R. Davey, Esq., J. J. Rogers, Esq., R. Foster, Esq., D. P. Le Grice, Esq., and F. M. Williams, Esq. The accounts and contingencies for the past quarter were examined and approved, and the expenses allowed for the previous quarter compared with the vouchers, and found correct. Mr. Porter presented his report (hereto attached) of the progress made in his police stations now in course of construction, and also his own account against the county up to the present time on Menheniot, St. Cleer, Torpoint, and Camborne stations. The committee beg to recommend the payment to Mr. Porter of £25 on account of St. Cleer, Menheniot, and Torpoint stations, and of £24 to the clerk of the works at Torpoint station. Camborne Station. The committee observe with regret that the Camborne station, though in the main sound and substantial, is in some respects coarse and roughly finished. The great inconvenience felt for want of a station has induced the Chief Constable (under the sanction of Mr. Porter and the contractors) to take possession of the station, but the committee are advised that this need not in any way release the contractor from his obligations to complete his contract in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, and have instructed Mr. Porter on no account to certify for any portion of the £400 still due on the contract before the thorough final completion of the same in every respect. Certain extra expenses incurred by the county in consequence of the contractors’ failure to complete the works in due time, will also be deducted from the amount due to them. St. German's Station. The committee have instructed Mr. Coode to propose certain modifications in two clauses in the lease drawn by the agent of Earl St. Germans, which they trust, however, will not materially delay the settlement of the terms. Tywardreath and Pool Stations.—Mr. Coode reports that as it appears Mr. Basset has no power to grant a right of renewal of the leases for lives, he has, in accordance with the instructions of the committee, proposed to Mr. Basset's agents, to take leases for 99 years certain; but that as yet he has received no reply from them. Wadebridge Station.—The lease is reported as ready for signature, and the committee recommend an order of Sessions, authorizing the Clerk of the Peace to execute the same on behalf of the county. With regard to the application of the contractor for the government works at Tregantle for the appointment, at his own cost, of an additional police constable, under 3 and 4 Vic., c. 88, s. 19, the committee recommend that the same be granted on the signing of a proper undertaking by such contractor to pay the stipulated sum of £60 per year. The committee regret to observe the increased number of cases of assault on police constables during the past quarter. Out of 38 persons charged with such offences, 35 have been summarily convicted, one committed for trial, and two discharged. The committee conceive that the number of convictions shows that these charges have not been made on light and frivolous grounds, and beg respectfully to express a hope that the magistrates generally will adopt such means as they shall deem fit to check this growing evil, and to afford protection to men who are often exposed to no trifling risk of ill-treatment in the execution of their duty. The committee have great pleasure in reporting that in consequence of the favourable report of the government inspector as to the efficiency of the police force in numbers and discipline, a sum of £2785 17s. 8d. has been received from the Paymaster-General for one-fourth of the expense of pay and clothing for the year ending the 29th of September last. The committee also report the following sums to be charged to the county rate, and carried to the credit of the police rate:— Conveyance and subsistence of prisoners, £128 11s. 6d.: allowances by coroners, £54; expenses connected with inspection of weights and measures, £19 16s. 6½d. It appears that a sum of £129 0s. 5d. has accrued during the past quarter to the superannuation fund, and should, with the approval of the Court, be invested as heretofore. The committee consider that the ordinary police rate of three farthings in the £ will be sufficient for the present quarter. Since the 1st of January last four police-rates have been made, two at three farthings, and two at twenty thirty-seconds of a penny in the pound, making altogether twopence farthing in the pound. These rates have produced £9,607 19s., and out of this £641 7s. 6d. has been paid towards providing stations, so that the cost to the county for working expenses of the force during the year, amounts to £8,966 11s. 6d.—Signed, E. COODE, Jun., chairman. Mr. COODE also read the following letter from Mr. F. W. Porter:—My lords and gentlemen—l have the honour to report to you that since the last sessions, l have prepared the working drawings and specifications for the stations proposed to be built at Wadebridge and Tywardreath, in accordance with the designs then approved. Also the altered drawings for the station intended to be built at Pool. These now await your order for obtaining tenders. Camborne Station.—On the 21st of November, I made a special journey from London to survey this building, it being then reported as complete by the contractor. The result of my survey was that I assented to the building being taken over by the county, and granted a certificate to the contractor for a further payment on account, leaving in the hands of the committee upwards of £400, (as per conditions of the contract) as security to the due execution of the work during the six months following the date of completion. I am sorry to be unable to report that the style of finishing the work meets my entire approval, many portions being exceedingly coarse and roughly finished. The bulk of the work, however, is strong, sound, and substantial, and the materials generally of good quality. It is satisfactory, however, to be able to state that this building has been executed, and no extra charge beyond the contract incurred.—Torpoint Station. The progress of this building has been of late very slow, and the roof has not been completely covered in. The contractors attribute the delay to the late wet and stormy weather, but I believe proper measures have not been taken for pushing forward the work. The contractors have applied to me for a further certificate on account, and I propose granting them one for 180l. The clerk of the works has also applied for payment on account of his services of £24, which I have certified to. Menheniot and St. Cleer Stations.—The progress of these stations is more satisfactory; the buildings have been roofed in, the plastering commenced, many of the floors laid, and several of the external doors and windows fixed. The contractor has applied for a further payment on account, and I propose granting him a certificate for £380 on account. I beg to submit a statement of my accounts against the county for my professional duties to Camborne station, and also for my travelling expenses to Torpoint, and St. Cleer, and Menheniot stations, as requested by you. I shall feel obliged by your granting me a payment on account of my professional services to St. Cleer Menheniot, and Torpoint stations in the sum of £25. Mr. E. COODE, jun., moved the adoption of this report, and that the Clerk of the Peace be authorised on the part of the county to execute the two leases for the sites of the police stations at Wadebridge and St. Germans, and that two orders of Sessions be granted to enable him to meet the expense of erecting those stations. Mr. LAKES called attention to the lock-up at St. Austell, which he said was in a very wretched state. It was only five feet square, and during the late inclement weather a girl was put there on Saturday evening, and kept there until the following Monday morning. When she came out she was in such a state from the cold and damp as to be almost blind. Through the humanity of a policeman she was taken out on Sunday and had her clothes dried or he did not know what the consequences would have been. The cell had no ventilation and no conveniences. He called the attention of the Chief constable to it some months ago, and he was told that it was better than many lock-ups in the county. If so he was sorry for it, for then the ground of complaint was general and not merely local. If it were allowed to continue in its present state, he should not be surprised if death were to take place there, and it was to relieve himself of all responsibility that he had now brought the subject before the Court. Mr. E. COODE, jun., said he was aware of the state of this lock-up, and the only answer that could be made to Mr. Lakes’ complaint was that it was better than others in the county. If the magistrates were to set about improving all the lock-ups in the county the expense would be considerable. They were aware that it would be very difficult to procure a site for a lock-up at St. Austell. Only a few months ago, the Chief Constable and himself looked out for a site in that town. They found only two sites that would be desirable; and for one of these, a quarter of an acre in extent, the court would be surprised when he informed them that the price asked was £400. Of course it was useless to proceed further in the matter. They were still making inquiries about another site, and he should be delighted to see a proper lock-up erected as soon as possible. He had heard the Chief Constable state that his instructions to the police force was not to confine prisoners in a lock-up if it was dangerous to health. After some further discussion the subject dropped, and Mr. E. Coode's motion was adopted. CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS. Mr. LE GRICE called attention to a complaint which had been made to him by prisoners, of the delay which had occurred in conveying them from Penzance to the gaol at Bodmin. The first day they were taken to Redruth, where they were kept two nights and a day, then sent on to Truro, thus occupying three days in the journey, which they considered a hardship and injustice. Mr. E. COODE, jun., said that it was not quite fair to the Chief Constable and the police committee to bring such complaints as this before the court, when Mr. Le Grice might have asked the question at the meeting of the police committee on the previous day, and obtained a satisfactory explanation. He also considered that it was hardly reasonable to expect that an answer could be given to the question without any notice. Mr. LE GRICE said he did not intend to cast any reflection on the committee or the Chief Constable; and the reason he had not brought the subject forward in the committee, was that that body had no power to order anything, but only to examine vouchers. The CHIEF CONSTABLE said that it was impossible he could answer the question without his books and papers. The fact, however, was that the prisoners were sent from Penzance late in the afternoon, and they could only reach Redruth that night. It sometimes happened they were ready to start the next morning, but it was found that the contractor for their conveyance had started, and as they would not walk, they had to remain at Redruth until the third day. After a short discussion, Mr. Le Grice, at the request of Mr. E. Coode, jun., handed in the names of the prisoners to whom he had alluded, and the subject was referred to the police committee and the Chief Constable, with a request that they would consider whether any improvement could be made in the mode of conveying prisoners from Penzance. The CHAIRMAN then presented the police accounts, showing that the expenditure of the Force during the past year had been £8966 11s. 6d.; that there was a balance in hand, but it would be required to meet the expense of the erection of the police stations. The receipts on account of the superannuation Fund had been £271 3s. 1d., of which £141 18s. 1d. had been invested in the Three per cent. Consols, and he asked for an order to invest the balance of £229 5s. in the same securities. —Granted. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT. The CHAIRMAN read the following report:— Chief Constable's Office, Bodmin, 3rd January, 1860. MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,—I have the honour to lay before you a return showing the number and distribution of the constabulary of the county; also the usual quarterly returns of crime; and I beg to call the attention of the court to the fact that no less than 38 persons have been apprehended charged with assaults on police officers; the number in the corresponding quarter of last year being only 11. This increase may in some measure have arisen from the instructions given to the police to exercise the greatest forbearance and also to the small amount of penalty generally inflicted on the offending parties, neither of which has I fear been appreciated or understood. The police station at Camborne was reported to me by the builder as finished on the 10th November last, and I visited it with Mr. Porter, the architect, on the 21st November, who sanctioned the occupation of the station by the police, and consequently I have taken it over on the part of the county. I am, however, of opinion, that a very minute inspection and full report of the work should be made before the county pays the balance due to the contractor. Mr. Parry, the contractor for part of the fortifications now erecting near Tregantle, has applied to me to have a police constable stationed there during the progress of the works, and has consented to pay £60 a year for his services. I have submitted this matter for the consideration of the police committee, with a recommendation that it be acceded to, being strictly in compliance with the 19th section of 3rd and 4th Victoria, cap. 88.—I have the honour to be, my lords and gentlemen, your obedient servant, W. R. GILBERT, Lieutenant-Colonel and Chief Constable of Cornwall. JUVENILE REFORMATORIES. Mr. LAKES referred to the case of a boy, 13 years of age, who had been brought before the magistrates of the petty sessions at which he sat, who was a notorious thief. Both Mr. E. Coode and himself thought that he ought to be sent to a juvenile reformatory, and according to the law they had power to send him to such an institution, willing to receive him; but as this would involve considerable expense, they would not take upon themselves the responsibility, without coming to the quarter sessions for authority. Mr. SAWLE said that twelve months ago, Mr. Lethbridge brought forward a motion to the effect that the county should not have more than three juvenile offenders in a reformatory at one time. That resolution was carried, and the reformatory in the county of Devon agreed to receive that number. The magistrates in petty sessions had no power to commit a juvenile offender to prison, and then bring him before the quarter sessions in order that he might be sent to a reformatory, as the committal to that institution must form part of his original sentence, otherwise it would be a punishment by another tribunal for the same offence. Mr. LAKES said that the best course would be for the magistrates in petty sessions not to sentence juvenile offenders whom they desired should be sent to a reformatory, at all, but commit them for trial to the quarter sessions, where they could be dealt with. THE AGENDA.—PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISIONS. The Court then proceeded to dispose of the various notices included in the agenda. The first was to consider the statement in writing, laid before the court at the last sessions by the Clerk of the Peace, under the hands of John King Lethbridge, Edward Archer, Francis Rodd, William Day Hanson and Reginald Kelly, Esquires, bearing date the 4th Oct. 1859, as to the transfer of the parish of Alternun, from the Petty Sessional Division of the Hundred of Lesnewth, to the Petty Sessional Division of the North Division of the Hundred of East. The Rev. R.B. KINSMAN said he had been informed on the previous day, that this notice would be withdrawn. He said it had not been usual to make such an alteration as that proposed, in any petty sessional division, unless the magistrates of both divisions concurred; but in this instance the magistrates acting for the Hundred of Lesnewth were ignorant of the change which was contemplated, until the notice appeared in print. As one of these magistrates, he did not think the proposed change desirable, and he would propose that it be not made until such time as other arrangements with respect to these divisions be carried out. Lord VIVIAN did not consider that it was desirable to deal with the question of the transfer of portion of a petty sessional division to another in the isolated way that had been proposed. Some time ago he had proposed that a committee of magistrates should be appointed to deal with the question of these alterations generally, and he believed it would be found the least expensive and most satisfactory mode of disposing of them. If the notice were withdrawn, he would move that a committee be appointed on the subject. Mr. RODD said it was far from the wish of the magistrates of the Hundred of Lesnewth to act with any discourtesy towards the magistrates of the Hundred of Lesnewth; but they thought that it would be a great advantage to the inhabitants of the parish of Alternun, if they were transferred to the former, so that instead of having to go to Camelford, they might attend at Launceston petty sessions. Mr. CHILDS, solicitor, applied on behalf of the parishioners of Alternun, to be heard in support of the alteration; but the Court considered that the subject was a part of the County business, and that, therefore, an advocate could not be heard on behalf of the parish. The notice was then withdrawn, and Lord VIVIAN gave notice that at the next quarter sessions he would move the appointment of a committee of magistrates from each petty sessional division of the county. LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE. The second notice was to receive and consider the plan and estimate of the surveyor of bridges, for the Eastern Division of this county, requested to be made by him at the last sessions for such repairs of the eastern part of Lostwithiel Bridge as he may deem necessary for the safety of the public in the existing traffic. The CHAIRMAN said that as the Bridge Surveyor for the Eastern Division had reported that he had not arrived at a satisfactory conclusion as to what was best to be done to this bridge, he thought the notice ought to be deferred till the next sessions. On the motion of Mr. SAWLE, the notice was deferred accordingly. COUNTY BRIDGE ROADS. The third subject in the agenda was a notice given by the Rev. A. Tatham, on behalf of the Rev. John Glanville, that he will move, that at the expiration of the present contracts for the repairs of the County Bridge Roads, such repairs be let to the parishes in which such roads are respectively situate, if the parishes are willing to undertake the repairs on such terms as the County Surveyor shall think fair and reasonable. The Rev. J. GLANVILLE withdrew this notice, and moved the appointment of a committee to consider in what way the repairs of the county bridge roads could be best executed on the expiration of the present contracts and to report to the next sessions; the committee to consist of himself, Mr. Sawle, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Gregor, M. Borlase, and the Rev. U. Tonkin.—Carried. GREYSTONE BRIDGE. The next notice was to receive and consider the report of the Surveyor of Bridges, on the alteration suggested by the trustees of the Launceston turnpike roads, of an alleged dangerous corner at Greystone Bridge, and the probable cost of making the said corner safe. The BRIDGE SURVEYOR said that he had not ascertained what the trustees of the road in question were prepared to do with regard to the alteration of the corner in question, and the notice was deferred till the next sessions. BODMIN NEW BURIAL GROUND. The fifth notice had been given by Mr. Kendall;—that he shall move on behalf of the visiting committee of the Lunatic Asylum, that a sum not exceeding £100 be granted as a subscription to the Bodmin New Burial Ground. Mr. KENDALL now proposed that a grant of £100 be made. He stated that for many years all the pauper lunatics who had died in the county asylum had been buried in the Bodmin burying ground, in consequence of which the inhabitants had been put to great expense. An order had been issued by the Secretary of State, ordering this burial ground to be closed in April next, a result that was doubtless owing, to some extent, to interments that had taken place from the asylum. Under these circumstances, the town had sought for suitable burying ground, and they had at length obtained a piece of land, the cost of which was to be £600; and the visiting committee of the asylum considered that upon principles of equity and fairness, the county should contribute £100 towards the expense. The board of guardians had felt that as they had interred the paupers who died in the workhouse in the Bodmin ground, they ought to contribute towards the purchase of the new ground, and they had voted £50 towards the expense, which the Poor Law Commissioners had at once sanctioned. In conclusion, he moved that the grant of £100 be made. Mr. NEVILLE NORWAY seconded the motion. Mr. LAKES opposed the motion, contending that the inhabitants of Bodmin were greatly benefited by the public institutions of the county, which were situated there, and that they had therefore no claim on the county for this grant. At Falmouth a garrison had been established for many years, but the town made no claim upon the government on account of the bodies of the soldiers who were interred in the burial ground there. Mr. LE GRICE also opposed the grant, which was supported by Lord Vivian, and on a division, Mr. Kendall’s motion was carried by a majority of twelve to eight. ORGAN FOR THE GAOL CHAPEL. The CHAIRMAN stated that the last notice, which had been given by the Rev. R. B. Kinsman, that he should apply for a sum not exceeding £30 for an organ for the chapel at the new gaol, had been withdrawn, as a subscription had been entered into for supplying that instrument. THE COUNTY FINANCES. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH gave notice that at the next sessions he should move the appointment of a committee for the superintendence and examination of the county finances. This concluded the county business, and the Court proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. ELIZABETH RICHARDS, on bail, was charged with stealing a mantle, the property of Mr. Martin Body, a draper at Callington. The prisoner was also charged with stealing a bolt of ribbon, the property of Samuel Southey, milliner, Callington. Mr. BISHOP prosecuted, and stated to the court that he had received an intimation from the clerk to the committing magistrates that the prisoner had recently been delivered of a child under painful circumstances, and that she could not appear to take her trial at the present sessions. The midwife who attended the prisoner on her confinement gave evidence of the delivery, and produced what purported to be the certificate of the surgeon who had attended her. The friends of the prisoner for bail applied to have their recognizances enlarged for her attendance at the next sessions, and the Bench, after conferring with the Clerk of the Peace, ordered the question to stand over till the following day for a final application to be made, supported by affidavit of the prisoner’s inability to attend. WILLIAM WONNACOTT, aged 46, was charged with having, at Callington, stolen 11s., the property of Joseph Benson Harris. Mr. Bishop prosecuted. Both the prisoner and prosecutor were smiths, and last month they were both in the employ of Mr. Jasper. They lodged in the house of a person named Skelton, sleeping in the same room. On going to bed on the night of Dec. 22nd the prosecutor had 11s. in silver in a purse, which he kept in his watch pocket. On getting up the next morning he found both prisoner and money gone. On the 22nd the prisoner was without money, but on the evening of the following day he paid 2s. for rum, and when apprehended on the 24th, 8s. were found upon him, amongst which were two half crowns and a florin which were identified by the prosecutor, the former by marks upon them. Guilty. A previous conviction for felony at the assizes in 1854 was then proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: three years penal servitude) GEORGE CURNOW, aged 16, a miner, was charged with stealing the sum of £2. 2s. 6d., the property of William Henry Pascoe, at Kenwyn. Mr. Cox prosecuted. The prisoner was formerly employed at the Consolidated Mines, and he stood in the relation of brother-in-law to the prosecutor, the latter having married his sister; he also lived in the same house with them. On the morning of the 21st of November, Mrs. Pascoe saw the money, in a glass in the cupboard where she had placed it, and in two hours after on looking into the cupboard it was gone. No one had been in the room besides her and the prisoner, excepting her two children, but they were too young to reach the cupboard. Suspicion immediately attached to the prisoner, who it was found had decamped; and information having been given to a police officer, the latter pursued him to Redruth where he found him at the railway station. On charging the prisoner with the robbery, he produced a penny, saying that was all the money he had, but on the officer searching him a new purse fell from the lower part of his trousers, in which was the whole of the missing money except 8d., and that had evidently been expended in the purchase of the purse.—GUILTY. The prisoner was also found guilty of a previous conviction for felony at the quarter sessions in June, 1857. (Sentence: three years penal servitude) WILLIAM BRYANT, aged 15, pleaded GUILTY of having on the 2nd of December, at Padstow, stolen a pair of boots, the property of Charles Matthews. (Sentence: one month hard labour) HENRY COLES, aged 14, pleaded GUILTY to stealing from the smack “Happy Return” at Newquay, on or about the 14th of November, a Guernsey frock, the property of David Avare. (Sentence: one month hard labour on each of the two charges) [EDITOR’S NOTE: The above was the only charge reported on by the newspaper.] HENRY TUCKER, aged 31, likewise pleaded GUILTY to having at Grampound, on the 10th of December, stolen a calf skin and two bullock skins, of the value of 16s. 10d., the property of Mr. Josiah Croggan. The particulars of this case were recently reported in this paper. (Sentence: six months hard labour) The Court then adjourned. SECOND COURT. Before SIR COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart. JOHN SMITH, 31, labourer, pleaded guilty of stealing one silver watch and chain, value 3l., and the sum of 15s., the property of Philip Reynolds, at St. Mawes, on the 5th ult. (Sentence: six months hard labour) SARAH JANE POWELL, 24, was indicted for that she being the servant of William Steven, did, on the 4th November last, at the parish of Philleigh, feloniously steal one gold brooch value, 1l., and one gold American dollar, value 4s., his property. Prisoner pleaded guilty. (Sentence: three months hard labour) PHILIP HOLLAND, the elder, and PHILIP HOLLAND, the younger (on bail) were severally charged with stealing on the 19th November, at Illogan, 600 lbs. of potatoes, the property of Peter Moore. They were also charged with receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. CHILDS prosecuted; Mr. H. ROGERS, of Helston, defended the prisoners. The facts of the case were—The prosecutor is a labourer, living in the parish of Camborne, and has a field in the adjoining parish of Illogan. On Saturday, the 19th November last, he had potatoes there in a heap, which, on the following Sunday morning he discovered had been removed. Foot marks were seen around the place, and traced across two fields, a distance of about 200 yards, and into the prisoners’ field. Potatoes were also scattered along the way, and the hedges which separated the fields appeared as if recently passed over. Peter Moore, the prosecutor, stated he had lost about a bushel and half of potatoes, called Scotch Downs, and that when he was drunk at Camborne he might have said to his sister-in-law, Margaret Moore, that the prisoners did not, in his opinion, steal the potatoes.—Henry Miller, police superintendent, stationed at Camborne, said:—On Sunday, the 20th November, at 2 o’clock in the afternoon, he went to the prosecutor’s field, and there saw foot marks around and leading from a heap of potatoes. Police Constable No. 59, (James Williams) accompanied him; he made a search and traced some foot marks to a pit about 200 yards off, in a field which was rented with others by the prisoner, where he found about a bushel and half of potatoes; he afterwards went to the prisoner’s house, and found about a bushel of potatoes of the same sort as the prosecutor’s, in addition to those in the pit in the prisoners’ field. He also obtained the elder prisoner’s boots, and compared them with the prints in the ground around the prosecutor’s heap of potatoes, and on the way. He also charged the prisoner with stealing them, and he said—“If there were any potatoes brought into his field they were not his, and he had not digged (sic) any for a fortnight, but when he did draw any he always brought them away home and never left them in the field.” Witness also obtained the younger prisoner’s boots, which nearly but not so particularly corresponded with the prints as the elder prisoner’s. On cross-examination, witness admitted that there were roads surrounding the prisoners’ and prosecutor’s fields; that there might be other potatoes like those of the prosecutor’s, and that he himself purchased the potatoes so stolen after they were found, of the prosecutor, and paid him at the rate of 10s. per bushel.—James Williams, police constable, corroborated the last witness.—Mr. ROGERS, in addressing the jury, urged on them to treat the case as one of mere doubt, of which they were bound to give the prisoners the benefit, and after a strong appeal in their behalf he spoke of the case as one entirely void of guilt, and denied that the prosecution had made out a case, as there was no evidence to show that the potatoes found in the prisoner’s house were not legitimately their property; if that was so, they were entitled to an acquittal, as the prosecution went to prove their innocence inasmuch as the potatoes found in the prisoner’s house were the same sort as found in their field, amounting together to two bushels and a half; whereas the prosecutor had only lost one bushel and half, evidently shewing that although footmarks had been found, it would not be justifiable for them to convict with so many intricate and doubtful circumstances surrounding the case. The chairman having summed up, the jury after about 5 minutes deliberation, acquitted both prisoners. The court rose at a quarter to 7. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh Bart.) EDWARD LAST 47, hawker, was indicted for stealing the sum of 1s. 9d., the property of John Richards, at Illogan, on the 19th November last. Mr. Childs prosecuted; Mr. Bishop defended. The prisoner is a hawker, and on the day in question, a Saturday, he went into the Basset Arms, in Pool, where there were several people, and sat in the settle with the prosecutor and two other men; the prosecutor had a pint of beer brought to him, and gave Jane Pascoe, the tender, 2s. to pay for it; she returned with the beer, and put the change, consisting of a shilling, six pence and 3d. on the table, and said here’s the change; but he was talking with another man and took no notice of her. Prisoner touched the tender, and said it dont matter, it belongs as much to me as to him; and put the change in his pocket. She afterwards gave information and the prisoner was apprehended. Stephen Nancarrow and John Harris corroborated the above statement, which was detailed in the evidence of the prosecutor and Jane Pascoe. James Williams, P.C. at Pool, apprehended the prisoner, and found on him 2 sixpenny pieces, one shilling, 6 pence, and 5 half-pence. Prisoner told witness that he would have done it, but he had not the chance. Mr. Bishop in defence submitted that the case rested entirely on the evidence of Jane Pascoe, who he considered was of shallow memory, and had wholly forgotten the matter in the bustle, and never gave any change at all, or if she did it was only what was due to the prisoner, who he asserted had had a glass of ale, and received change. The Jury, after having had the case summed up, returned a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: four months hard labour) John Ivey, 20, labourer was charged with stealing, on the 24th December last, 2 barn door fowls, the property of Charles Truscott, at St. Austell. The prisoner was seen coming away from the premises where the fowls were, by a woman named Sophia Clemo, and on prisoner passing her, she saw white feathers issue from under his coat, where it appeared he had something carrying. Police Constable Joseph Opie afterwards charged the prisoner with the offence, and found feathers on him corresponding with one of the fowls, which he found in a garden behind the prisoner’s house, and which the prosecutor identified as his property.—Verdict GUILTY. (Sentence: six months hard labour) MATILDA PHILLIPS, 14, pleaded guilty of stealing one silver watch, the property of William Rowe, at Sithney, on the 26th November last. (Sentence: (an orphan) one month hard labour, and then to be sent to the Devon Reformatory, for three years) SAMUEL COLE, 26, labourer, was indicted for stealing on the 7th September last, at Bude, one silver watch, the property of Thomas Maynard, the bailee of the same. Mr. Childs prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended, but took opportunities of casting forth vehement expressions to the prosecutor during the trial. Prosecutor keeps a beer-house at Bude, and the prisoner on the 7th September, came in whilst he was there. Some other persons in the same company, in consequence of a conversation, began to show their watches, and the prosecutor was foolish enough to fetch his down from upstairs, and it was handed around. Prisoner got possession of it, but prosecutor forgot all about his watch, and not until the next day did he find it missing. Prosecutor had the watch of Mr. Oke, butcher, of Poughill, who left it with him, and who, with prosecutor, gave an account of the same which corresponded with that of John Berry Wood, a watchmaker at Stratton, to whom the prisoner carried a similar watch to be repaired. The watch was not recovered and hence the non- production. The prisoner absconded from Bude, shortly after a warrant having been issued for his apprehension, and he was ultimately apprehended at Gunnislake. The Chairman summed up, remarking on the extraordinary lapse of time before prosecutor found his watch missing; after which the Jury found a Verdict of GUILTY; but recommended the prisoner to mercy, as they thought prosecutor had not used due-diligence in taking care and searching for his property. (Sentence: two months hard labour) ARTHUR FOREMAN HOOPER, 27, miller, pleaded guilty of embezzling the sum of 1s. 10d. the property of his master, Henry Jones, at Northill, on the 1st October last. (Sentence: six months hard labour) THOMAS VIVIAN, 20 labourer, was charged with stealing on the 1st December last, at St. Austell, a gun, the property of John Halls; and JOHN RUNDLE, 23, labourer, and JOHN WHITE, 17, sailor, were also charged in the same indictment with being accessories after the fact, namely—that they on the day and at the place aforesaid, well knowing the said Thomas Vivian to have so done and committed the said felony, did assist, harbour, and maintain him, the said Thomas Vivian, in order to prevent his suffering the punishment to which he was liable. Vivian pleaded guilty; the other two prisoners pleaded not guilty, and were put on their trial. Mr. Childs prosecuted; and Mr. Bishop defended. The circumstances of the case were simple, but the case itself was a novel one in this court, and the same was clearly laid down by Mr. Childs, who called John Hall, the prosecutor, Nicholas Ball, the purchaser of the gun so stolen by Vivian; and William Tucker and Joseph Opie, police constables, from whose statements it appeared that the prosecutor, in November last, had a gun which he kept on his bacon rack in his kitchen. It was there on the last Tuesday in November, being the last time it was observed by him. In the month of December the prisoner Vivian exchanged the gun he stole from Halls, for another, to a man named Nicholas Ball, residing at Treneddick, in Gorran, to whom the prisoners Rundle and White went on the first Thursday in December; and, after Vivian had been in custody, Rundle on that occasion said to Ball “where is my gun?” Ball said “where is mine?” Then Rundle said it was a pretty job, that gun which you changed with Tom Vivian is a stolen gun. We have come away in a hurry before the St. Austell police, for fear they would be down before us and find it; and you had better scat it up or conceal the gun, and go with us to St. Austell, and swear you lent your gun to Thomas Vivian for the Christmas. This conversation passed in White’s presence and hearing. Ball said no; he could not do that, as he had carried the gun in public all day, and told people where he had it from. On this occasion White also said let them have the gun, and they would make away with it. Ball said he could not do that, and should carry it himself. This conversation, coupled with a direction to them by Vivian whilst in the lock-up, to go down that lane, meaning towards Gorran, appeared the strongest part of the case. Mr. Bishop contended that the prisoners were entitled to an acquittal on the ground that no interest whatever had been shewn to have been taken by the prisoners, or would accrue to them, for doing such thing, and without this motive, they were innocent, and also that the jury must be certain that the prisoners knew the gun to have been stolen as aforesaid.—The Chairman summed up, and put the case plainly before the jury, telling them of the points they would have to satisfy themselves on, and pointed out the allusion to the stolen gun in the conversation with Ball. The foreman of the jury, after about 10 minutes’ deliberation, said they could not agree, that they were divided on opinions, some thought that they did it ignorantly. The chairman told them that would not do, and eventually they were locked up, and after an absence of about a ¼ of an hour, returned into court, and gave a verdict of GUILTY against both prisoners. (Sentences: Thomas Vivian, six months hard labour; John Rundle, three months hard labour; Thomas White, one month hard labour) William Henry Kaye, on bail, a respectable looking lad, was indicted for stealing a large quantity of money (to wit) £480, the property of his employers, William Henry Maxwell Blews and others, adventurers in Camborne Vean and Wheal Frances mines, on the 4th November last. The circumstances of the case did not transpire, but an account of it was given in our paper at the time it occurred, and will be fresh in the memory of our readers. The prisoner having been entrusted with moneys previously, was sent to the Bank for this sum, and a part of it he converted to his own use in the purchase of some articles, and was about to decamp. Mr. H. Rogers now moved the court to have the prisoner sent to a Reformatory, it being the wish of the adventurers for the court not to visit if possible the offence with imprisonment, as they were of opinion he was tempted to the commission of the offence, and therefore in their behalf he asked them to transfer him to the Birmingham Reformatory, the directors of which establishment had already signified their willingness to receive the prisoner if the court should so think fit. In representing the prosecutors, he felt it due to say that they could not allow the case to pass over without taking the proceedings that had been taken; but, nevertheless, now he hoped that the court would accede to the request of the prosecutors. The Chairman, in acknowledging the motion, said the court should be informed of the application, and would take what course they thought necessary. (Sentence: three months hard labour) The court then rose. 4th JANUARY 1860. (Before J.J. ROGERS, Esq.) WILLIAM CHARLES BOND, 20, a seaman, pleaded guilty of stealing 8s. 6d., the property of John Furze, at Veryan, on the 3rd of November.—Mr. BISHOP stated to the Court that he had been retained to defend the prisoner, but found it impossible to resist the evidence. As, however, it was the prisoner’s first offence, and as immediately on his being charged with the robbery, he restored the property, and was not of very bright intellect, he trusted the Court would deal leniently with him. (Sentence: 2 months hard labour) UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN.—WILLIAM NEWTON, 42, needle maker, and ROSE NEWTON, 30, of no occupation, were charged with unlawfully uttering counterfeit half-crowns to Grace Vercoe and Mary Martin, at Penryn, on the 3rd of December.—Mr. Cox conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—Mr. COX, in opening the case, remarked that it involved peculiarities, in consequence of the prisoners passing as husband and wife, and the prosecution were not prepared to prove the contrary; and this state of things would raise a nice question as to the liability of the woman. In the present indictment the two prisoners were charged with uttering counterfeit coin; the man alone committing the offence, and there being no evidence of the woman being near him at the time of his passing the coin; she was however in his company both before and after the time of his committing the offence, and under circumstances that would leave no doubt of her being a participator in the offence, supposing she was not his wife, and therefore assumed by law to be under his influence; and Mr. Cox expressed his opinion that, on the present charge of uttering counterfeit coin, the woman would come under the rule of law by which, if the man were supplied by her from time to time with the coins he passed, she would be assumed to be under the influence of her husband. There was another indictment against the prisoners, for having in their possession 27 counterfeit coins.—On the charge of utterance only—the subject of the present indictment—the following evidence was adduced:—Ann Timmins, wife of Charles Timmins, of the Hit-or-miss beershop, in Penryn, deposed: Between 5 and 6 o’clock in the evening of Saturday the 3rd December, the two prisoners came to my house, having with them a bundle and a black bag; they asked for lodgings, and I said there was no room for them; they remained there a short time, when the man went out to get lodgings, and the woman remained until he returned in about half an hour; while he was out, the woman kept charge of the bundle and bag; we had some conversation, and she told me the man was her husband; the man came to her several times in the course of the evening, and between 7 and 8 o’clock they left together, taking the bundle and bag with them; about 10 o’clock the female prisoner came to me, alone, and asked me if I had seen her husband lately; I told her no; she then followed me out to the door, and gave me a parcel to keep for her until the Monday morning; I put it upstairs and let it remain there until the Sunday evening, when the constable White came and took it; this was not the bundle that I saw with her when she first came.—Grace Vercoe: I keep a grocer’s shop a few doors from the Hit-or-miss; about 8 o’clock in the evening of the 3rd December, the male prisoner came in and bought an ounce of tobacco, for which he paid a half-crown, and I gave him change; as he was leaving the shop I discovered that the coin was counterfeit, and I called to my husband, in an inner room, to follow the man, but he went the wrong way up the street, and took the wrong man; I never put that half-crown into the till, but kept it quite separate, and I afterwards gave it to White the policeman.—Mary Martin, wife of James Martin, grocer, at Penryn, proved that about 8 o’clock in the same evening, the male prisoner bought of her also an ounce of tobacco, for which he paid with a counterfeit half-crown, and received change; the tobacco which the prisoner bought was wrapped in blue paper bearing her husband’s name on it.—James Woofe, keeper of a common lodging-house at Penryn:—About 4 o’clock on Saturday, the 3rd of December, the two prisoners came to my house, and asked for lodgings, for two nights. The man had a bag and a bundle, and I told him he had better leave them in my possession; and I had them in my possession till I delivered them to the policeman about 9 or 10 o’clock the same evening.—Mary Edmonds, servant to Mr. Woofe, gave some evidence corroborative of the last witness.—William White, police officer: In the evening of the 3rd December, in consequence of information received from Mrs. Vercoe, I went in search of the prisoners, and found them at Woofe’s lodging-house. In reply to various questions, the prisoner said he was a needle-maker, of Yorkshire; and, on being asked if he had some tobacco, he, after some hesitation said yes, and handed it to me, and I found it to be about an ounce. I took him into the street, before Vercoe’s shop, and asked him if he had been there that evening, and he said he had not; I then took him into the shop, and asked Mrs. Vercoe if she had seen him before that evening; she looked at him closely and said she would be sworn that was the man. Mrs. Vercoe showed me her tobacco, and I found it was of the same sort as I had had from the prisoner. I found on the prisoner a paper of tobacco with the name of Martin on it; it was quit (sic) fresh made up; I took him to Martin’s shop, and Mrs. Martin stated that she had seen him there before that evening; I asked her what money she had from him, and said a half-crown; and, looking into her till, she found among other silver a half-crown—the only one in the till,—and it proved to be a bad one. I afterwards took the woman into custody, and found on her 10s. 7d. in good money, and underneath her gown in front, she wore a large pocket. On Sunday evening, I went to the “Hit-or-miss,” and received from Mrs. Timmins a parcel in which were 27 bad half-crowns, and three ounces of tobacco. All the half- crowns, as well as four other received, were alike—apparently cast in the same mould. I afterwards locked up the man and woman; and on my questioning them separately, the man told me he was not married, but that the woman and he had been living as man and wife; the woman said she was married, and she wore something like a wedding ring.—Henry Edwards, policeman, of Penryn, produced a bag and bundle which he had received at Woofe’s lodging-house, from Mr. Woofe. The contents were some electro-type apparatus and metal and materials for the process, a paper on which was written a recipe for electrotyping with silver or gold, and some articles of female dress.— (The various articles were produced, and were regarded with some interest).—Thomas Treleaven, silversmith, Bodmin, proved that all the half-crowns produced in the case were counterfeit.—In summing up, the CHAIRMAN directed acquittal of the female prisoner, on the ground that, supposing she was a participator in the offence charged, the law would assume in her favour that she was under the influence or compulsion of her husband.—The jury accordingly found William Newton, GUILTY, and Rose Newton, NOT GUILTY. —In the case of Henry Thomas, who had been committed for stealing two sheep, the property of William Williams, at Sancreed, and three sheep, the property of Thomas Maddern, at St. Just in Penwith, it was stated that the prisoner had escaped from custody; and, on application by Mr. CHILDS, the case was respited until next Sessions.—A similar course was adopted with reference to William Stephens, a young miner of St. Mewan, charged with having committed an assault with intent, &c., on Elizabeth Jane Harper, at St. Ewe. Mr. STOKES stated that it would be impossible to proceed now with this inquiry, as, according to a certificate from a surgeon, it appeared that the prosecutrix was ill of scarlet fever, and quite unable to attend the sessions. Mr. Stokes accordingly applied that the case be respited till next sessions.—Mr. COX, who appeared for the defendant, on bail, required that affidavit of the illness of the prosecutrix be made; and, later in the day, Mr. Stokes’s application was granted—William Stephens being bound in £50, and his father Alexander Stephens in £25, for defendant’s appearance at next sessions. COUNTY BUSINESS. COUNTY CORONERS.—The CHAIRMAN read the following Report of the Committee appointed yesterday on the subject of Coroners’ fees:—“Having examined all the Coroners, and investigated the laws bearing on the subject, so far as time allowed, we are of opinion that where it appears by the verdict of a coroner’s jury, that the body had been manifestly drowned on the high seas, in cases of that sort, the coroner shall have no fee.” In the course of some conversation on this subject, the Rev. C. M. E. COLLINS said he thought it would be unjust to deprive the coroner of his fee after holding an inquest, and for the holding of which he might have had reasonable grounds, even though it might ultimately prove that the inquest was unnecessary. A coroner must, in the first place, act on some information; and it was impossible for him to determine on the value of that information until an inquest had been held.— Mr. SAWLE said, on the authority of The Queen v. the Justices of Gloucester, it was clearly in the discretion of County Justices to determine what fees they would or would not allow; and it was necessary to put a stop to the holding of an unlimited number of inquests on bodies washed ashore from a wreck.—Rev. C. M. E. COLLINS said he understood yesterday that the magistrates were disposed to order that in such cases a coroner should not hold more than one inquest; and Mr. LE GRICE expressed approval of such an arrangement, adding that he had had no idea that it was intended to prevent a coroner holding any inquest.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., said it was distinctly laid down in Burn's Justice, that where a body was washed ashore, the law allowed no fee for an inquest; and he did not see how this Court could oppose that decision.—After some further conversation, the Chairman said he thought they could do no more at present than receive the report, as there was no motion before the Court, and (Mr. LE GRICE suggested) as the coroners were not present. [COUNTY EXPENDITURE.—not transcribed] CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS.—With reference to remarks on this subject made yesterday, Mr. LE GRICE said he must have been misunderstood if it was supposed that he meant to bring any charge of neglect against the Police. He only wished to bring before the Court what he considered was a defect in the mode of conveying prisoners from Penzance to Truro; by which, occasionally, considerable delay and expense was incurred; the delay being a hardship to prisoners, whose terms of imprisonment dated from the day of their reception into the gaol. Mr. Le Grice said he thought prisoners ought to be conveyed from Penzance to Bodmin without passing more than one night on the road; he spoke of instances in which prisoners had been kept two night, and, with regard to cost, said he had handed to the Chief Constable the names of three prisoners, committed severally, in which the costs of conveyance, respectively, had been, £1 18s. 2d., £1 10s. 2d., and £2 8s. 7d. He thought that in no case ought the conveyance of a prisoner from Penzance to Bodmin to cost more than 15s., nor to involve the delay of more than one night; and he suggested that now they might be sent by railway, instead of by carts.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., observed that the cost of conveyance now, by the County Police, was less than it was under the previous system of contracts. Besides this, it should be borne in mind that the former payments to contractors were so much money wholly lost to the County; but the present payments to the Police for conveyance were passed to the credit of the County Accounts, so that it was but passing money from one pocket to the other.—Colonel GILBERT offered explanations of the particular cases referred to by Mr. Le Grice, accounting for the delay which occurred, by the statement of various circumstances, one of which, of not unfrequent (sic) occurrence, it would appear, was the fact of the horse and cart belonging to the Truro district of police, having been previously dispatched with other prisoners to Bodmin.—One especial complaint by Mr. LE GRICE was that a prisoner was conveyed to Gaol on a Sunday—walking from 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock on a Sabbath-day.—Col. GILBERT said it was the practice to send prisoners on Sundays as well as other days, and it would lead to increase of expenditure if this plan were altered; if, however, it was the desire of the County that prisoners should not be conveyed to gaol on Sundays, he would give the necessary instructions to that effect.—Mr. KENDALL said the Court must understand that if, in no case, there was to be any delay in the conveyance of a prisoner, there must be a much larger staff of police, and a much larger number of vehicles than at present. Possibly, however, in some instances, the rail might be used instead of the police cart; and that would be matter for consideration by the committee.—Col. GILBERT said during the last quarter he had been trying to work the county with one horse less, and he had occasionally used the rail; but he was of opinion that, on the whole, the county would be a loser by the experiment.—Mr. SAWLE remarked that if the rail were adopted, the payment of railway charges would be a clear addition to the present cost of conveyance. Mr. Sawle further urged consideration of the fact which had been already mentioned, that while the former payments to contractors was so much dead loss to the county, the payments now made to the Police Rate were afterwards credited to the county-rate, so that there was really no charge on the county; what was debited on one side was credited on the other. THE ST. AUSTELL LOCK-UP.—Mr. E. COODE, junr., referring to Mr. Lakes's statements yesterday on this subject, expressed regret that Mr. Lakes had been misled by information which he (Mr. E. Coode) had on enquiry found to be incorrect. Mr. Lakes stated that two fowl-stealers were brought in from St. Dennis on Friday night—that they were wet through and were kept in the lock-up in their wet clothes, until the following Tuesday morning, with the exception of a short time on Monday, when they were before the magistrates. He (Mr. E. Coode) had since yesterday obtained from Serjeant Opie, of the St. Austell County Police, his version of the story; and it was that the two men were not brought into St. Austell and put into the lock-up until Sunday night—the felony with which they were charged not having been committed before the Saturday night—that on the Monday morning when they were remanded, Serjeant Opie took them into the Clerk's room at the Town Hall, and that they remained there in good care until the Tuesday—that their clothes were not wet, except about the legs—and that they were in the lock-up only one night.—The other case mentioned by Mr. Lakes was that of a girl who he said had been kept in the lock-up two nights and days. This girl—Mary Ann Rundle, was a very bad girl; she was taken to the lock-up, and slept there two nights, but in the intermediate days she was in the Inspector's house. ______POSSESSION OF COUNTERFEIT COIN.—THOMAS NEWTON and ROSE NEWTON, previously tried for uttering counterfeit coin, were now charged with having in their possession 27 pieces of counterfeit coin representing half-crowns.—In opening this case, Mr. COX stated that now the woman was charged as the principal, and the man as participating in the offence; and the rule of law applicable in the woman’s favour in the previous case would not apply to the circumstances of the present case, in which it would be proved that the woman’s possession of the parcel in question was wholly independent of her husband and free from all compulsion on his part. Presumption of compulsion by the husband would not apply, unless he were present when the offence charged was committed.— Mrs. Timmins deposed, as in the previous case to the female prisoner having given her the parcel in charge, stating that she asked her to be kind enough to take charge of it until the Monday morning, as she did not like to leave it at a lodging house; it was made up in a black silk mantle. Mrs. Timmins took charge of the parcel, and on Sunday her husband, in her presence, delivered it to the policeman.—William White, police constable, proved his receipt of the bundle from the last witness and her husband, and that it contained 27 bad half-crowns, made up in parcels—two of ten each, and one of seven; and a cape and head-dress, which he took to the female prisoner, but she denied they were hers. On searching her he found a large pocket fastened in an unusual place, underneath the front part of her dress.—The policeman produced the 27 half-crowns, and other articles spoken of; and it was proved by Thomas Treleaven, silversmith, that all the coins were counterfeit.—In summing up, the CHAIRMAN directed acquittal of the male prisoner, as there was no evidence to connect him in any way with the parcel in question.—Verdict.—William Newton, Not Guilty; Rose Newton, Guilty.—Sentences.—William Newton, Twelve Months hard labour; Rose Newton, 4 Months hard labour. This concluded the Jury business of the Sessions; and the Grand and Petty Juries were discharged simultaneously. The following bills were ignored:—John Lambrick, stealing a board from Philip Williams, at Ruan Major; Herbert Norton, stealing a gold watch, the property of William Galbraith, at Padstow, and James Reynolds, feloniously receiving the same; John Mitchell, stealing a waistcoat from William Lammerton at Antony; George Douglas Wood, stealing part of a loaf of bread, from John Sleeman, at Launceston; and William Joseph Harris, for a felony, the particulars of which were not stated. BREACH OF THE PEACE.—MARY VOSPER, a dressmaker, aged 45, committed from Launceston, on the 7th of November, for want of sureties to be of good behaviour, was admonished and discharged, there being no appearance against her. APPEALS. BOROUGH OF EAST LOOE, v. THE JUSTICES OF CORNWALL.—Mr. BISHOP said this was an appeal against a County-rate on the appellant borough. At a previous Sessions, the appeal was adjourned, on an agreement that a case should be stated, for the opinion of the Court of Queen’s Bench. That case had been drawn up, but in consequence of certain information required by Mr. Shilson for the respondents, it had not yet been finally agreed on. The required information had now been given, and as the case would come on for argument in the Hilary Term, Mr. BISHOP moved to adjourn the appeal till next Sessions.—The application was granted. POOR RATE OF BODMIN.—Mr. BISHOP (for Mr. Shilson) moved to enter and respite two appeals against the Poor Rate of Bodmin, in which the respective appellants were the Governor and the Chaplain of the County Gaol, on whose residences at the new gaol the parish of Bodmin have levied rates. —Mr. BISHOP moved to enter and adjourn an appeal against an order made by Clement Carlyon and W.T. Chappel Esqrs., justices of the borough of Truro, for the removal of Henry Read, Frances his wife, and six children from the parish of Kenwyn to the parish of St. Blazey.—Granted. —Mr. COWLARD moved for an order of the Court for diversion of Treworlet Road in the Hamlet of Treworlet, and in support of the application, presented a certificate by Justices on view, that the alteration was in various respects desirable. —Mr. COMMINS, in behalf of Mr. Benjamin Hawken, of Bodmin, a considerable dealer in salmon for the supply of London and other markets, applied for an alteration of the Fence Days on the River Camel, so as to render available a valuable kind of salmon, called the “Blue Pole,” which frequented that river between the latter end of December and February. Mr. SAWLE was strongly opposed to the application, on the ground that the granting it would entirely destroy the salmon fishery. On the authority of Yarrell, he asserted that the “Blue Pole”— which Mr. Commins had said was a distinct species of salmon—was the male of the ordinary salmon. Mr. COMMINS, however, stated that the Blue Pole was a very different fish from the ordinary salmon, and was in great request in the London and other markets, as a fish of excellent quality. The CHAIRMAN said the Court would require very strong evidence before they altered the existing Fence Days. He also stated that a bill had been introduced into Parliament for the regulation of fisheries generally, and it was probable that legislation on the subject would take place in the next sessions.—He would therefore suggest whether it would not be desirable for Mr. Hawken to postpone his application until that legislation should have been effected. Mr. COMMINS concurred in his view, and the application was accordingly withdrawn for the present. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 16 and 23 March 1860

2. Lent Assizes These Assizes were opened at Bodmin, on Wednesday the 14th instant, before the Hon. Sir Samuel Martin, Knt., and the Hon. Sir William Fry Channell, Knt., two of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer.—The two Judges arrived at the Bodmin Road Station of the Cornwall Railway shortly before 4 o'clock; and thence proceeded into Bodmin—Baron Channell in a private carriage with F. Hearle Cock, Esq., the Under Sheriff.—Baron Martin was accompanied by the High Sheriff, Humphry Willyams, Esq., of Carnanton, and his chaplain, the Rev. Ferdinand Thomas Stephens, of Mawgan, and County Clerk, R. Marrack, Esq.; and their State Carriage was accompanied by the customary official retinue. Baron Martin, immediately on his arrival, proceeded to the Crown Court and opened commission; and shortly afterwards attended Divine Service at Bodmin Church, where the prayers were read by the Vicar, the Rev. John Wallis; the lessons by the Rev. John Hawkesley, curate; and a very excellent sermon was preached by the Sheriff's Chaplain from Luke 16 ch., 8 and 9 verses:— [……] CROWN COURT. Thursday, March 15. (Before Mr. Baron Martin). His lordship took his seat upon the bench in the Crown Court this morning at ten o'clock. The gentlemen summoned on the grand jury had not then all arrived, and a petty jury was impanelled, and Elizabeth Richards, against whom a true bill was found at the last sessions, but who had been admitted to bail was ordered up. It was found, however, that she had not arrived at Bodmin, and after some delay, the names of the magistrates present were called over. THE GRAND JURY. The following were then sworn on the grand jury : Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., foreman E. Wm. Brydges Willyams, Esq. D. W. H. Horndon, Esq. Wm. H. Pole Carew, Esq. Richard Johns, Esq. Charles Brune Graves Sawle, Esq. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. Augustus Coryton, Esq. William Morshead, Esq. Richard Foster, Esq. F. J. Hext, Esq. F. Martin Williams, Esq. Thomas Graves Sawle, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. H. J. Molesworth St. Aubyn, Esq. Edward Coode, jun., Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. John Penberthy Magor, Esq. Wm. Price Michell, Esq. George Williams, Esq. William Michell, Esq. Alfred Fox, Esq. The following magistrates also answered to their names:— Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend Boscawen, F.J. Hext, Esq., S.N. Usticke, Esq., M, Williams, Esq. The Mayors of Bodmin, Camelford, Falmouth, St. Ives, Launceston, East Looe, Lostwithiel, and Penryn, answered to their names, as did the following Coroners of the County :—Messrs. T. Good, E. G. Hambly, and William Hichens. Her Majesty's Proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, the learned Judge delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY, l have no doubt that you have all turned your attention to the calendar at these assizes, and certainly on opening it one would suppose that the crimes to be tried on this occasion were of a very serious character; but I am happy to inform you, that after having read the depositions, I find this not to be the case; and, when you have heard the witnesses, you will find that, with the exception of a few cases, there is nothing in this calendar to lead to the supposition that the state of crime in this county is not what we should all wish. There are two cases in which the parties are charged with murder; but, as regards one of them, it is perfectly obvious that at the time of the committal of the act, the unfortunate man knew nothing of his conduct— knew nothing as to what he was doing, and I understand that he is now in such a state as to be incapable of taking his trial. You are aware that the law of England provides that no man shall take his trial for an offence unless the capacity of his mind is such that he understands the nature of the crime that he is called upon to answer for. You will have the depositions before you, and it will be your duty to find a true bill, in order that the necessary steps may be taken for providing for the future care of the man. The other case of murder is one of a very mysterious description. It is an alleged murder by a mother of one of her children—a new-born infant; and she was not in the condition in which persons generally are against whom this crime is commonly charged. She was the mother of another child, and though she was not married, she lived with the person who was the father of her children. One can see no object, therefore, in her taking away the life. Should you feel it your duty to find a bill, upon her trial here we will endeavour to ascertain what were the true circumstances, and the motives, if any, in the case. There is another case of homicide—one of manslaughter, in which one woman caused the death of another by violence. It is an unfortunate case, in which two violent women quarreled (sic), and one of them struck the other a blow which produced her death; but still it is not of a very aggravated character. I am sorry to say there is a class of cases which appear upon this calendar to exist to a great extent in the county. They are cases of concealment of birth, where young women conceal the bodies of children to prevent a knowledge of their birth. In reality the mere concealment of the body of a child would, in itself, be a comparatively innocent act, but the legislature has made it a serious crime, in order to prevent children born under such circumstances from being unfairly dealt with. Young women who get into this unfortunate condition—who become pregnant—would be well to communicate their state to their friends. I need not tell you that the administration of the law in this country is very mild, and that in this class of cases the punishment has been lenient; but if this crime extends in any great degree, it must necessitate the infliction of a heavier punishment, and young women will find, if they persevere in these offences, and juries may find them guilty, the lives of some of them will be sacrificed, as the crime is one which must be put a stop to. One of the cases which will be brought before you is of such a character that I think if any thing will warn such young women of the consequences of their foolish conduct, it ought to do so. It appears that in these cases the young woman had become pregnant, and she applied to another woman for a drug, I suppose, for the purpose of procuring abortion. According to the statements given in the depositions, some drug was given to her, but it had not the desired effect, for the child was born. The dead body was concealed, and the young woman will have to take her trial for the concealment of the body, in the ordinary way. Now, it is perfectly clear that after the birth of this child, the woman to whom the young woman had applied, being dissatisfied with the amount of payment she had received, applied to the mother of the infant, in the first place, and demanded £5 for concealing her knowledge of the circumstances. That application having failed, she then applied to the young woman's mother; and again, that having failed, she went to the police and gave information, which led to the body of the child being discovered. Now, if anything can point out to young women their folly, it must be a case of this kind. This woman whom the girl trusted before and after the birth is the very person whose evidence caused her to be brought here, and that for refusing an exorbitant demand. I am satisfied that young women, if they knew what pain and misery they would escape, would under such circumstances communicate with their friends; and then, instead of existing under the constant apprehension and terror of the circumstances of their cases coming to the ears of the police, their relatives would doubtless in many cases assist them, and there would be no dread of discovery. There is only one other case to which it is necessary for me to refer. It is number 13, 14, 15, and 16, in which four men are charged, according to the statement in the calendar, with feloniously causing a quantity of water to be conveyed into North Wheal Vor Mine, with intent thereby to damage the said mine, and to hinder the working thereof; and you will find from the evidence in the case that they went to the engine-house and stopped the engine, and prevented it from working, and that the water in consequence accumulated in the mine. Now, my own impression on reading over the deposition was that this was not an offence within the Act of Parliament; but I think it is better in such a county as this where mining is carried on to so great an extent, that you should find a true bill, and the question of law can then be discussed here. I need not tell you how important it is that mining property in this county should be protected; and though I am not certain whether the act of parliament applies to this case or not, I think, as I have said, it is desirable that you should find a true bill, and then if the law is found inadequate to meet the case, the attention of the legislature may be called to the necessity of enacting a law to punish such offences.—His lordship then directed the grand jury to retire to their room and return a true bill as soon as they could. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. STEALING AT LISKEARD. THOMAS CROCKER, 43, was charged with stealing four brass candlesticks, the property of William Quiller, at Liskeard, on the 27th of January. Mr. LYNE prosecuted. The prosecutor keeps the Railway Inn, at Liskeard, and between three and four o'clock Mrs. Quiller saw the candlesticks on the mantel piece of the tap-room. The prisoner is a hawker, and he was in the house that afternoon drinking. He left between four and five o'clock, and the candlesticks were soon after missed. Information was given to the police, and between five and six o’clock, the prisoner was apprehended, and the candlesticks were found in his basket. The prisoner now said that the candlesticks had been put into his basket by some person without his knowledge, while he was drinking at the Railway Inn. The jury found him GUILTY, and he was sentenced to Four Months' Hard Labour. STEALING OATS. RICHARD DENNIS, 46, was charged with stealing, on the 14th of January, at St. Stephens by Launceston, a quantity of oats, the property of John Tubb. Mr. OXENHAM prosecuted. The prosecutor is a farmer, in the parish of St. Stephens, and the prisoner had been in his employ as a farm labourer. On the 14th of January, a boy named Elias Hockaday, saw the prisoner enter the stable, walk up to the corn chest and take out two quarts, which he put into his bag. Hockaday ran and told Mrs. Tubb, Mr. Tubb's mother, who went into the stable and told the prisoner that he had no business there, and that he had better replace the corn in the corn chest again. The prisoner begged her to say nothing about the matter, and she promised not to do so unless the boy told the other labourers or servants, when she should be obliged to tell what she had seen. On the prosecutor subsequently charging the prisoner with stealing the oats, he replied that he would rather have lost £5 than have taken them, and the devil must have been in him at the time. The jury found him GUILTY, and a previous conviction for felony in 1858, being proved against him, he was sentenced to Six Months’ Imprisonment. WILLIAM JAMES, 36, pleaded guilty to having, on the 9th of February, at St. Just in Penwith, stolen a pair of shoes, the property of Thomas Maddern. Three Months’ Hard Labour. STEALING WEARING APPAREL. LOUISA EADE, 19, was charged with having on the 27th of February, at Pool, in the parish of Illogan, stolen part of a print dress, a shawl, and a shirt, the property of Zacharias Mills. Mr. HOLDSWORTH prosecuted. On the 21st of February, the prisoner asked Mrs. Mills to give her lodging for a week, saying that at the end of that time she should go into service. Mrs. Mills allowed her to remain in the house, and on the 27th, she went out with a water pitcher, saying that she would fetch some water. She never returned, but took the pitcher away with her. The articles mentioned in the indictment were missed, and information was given to the police. On the 7th of March the prisoner was found in the workhouse, at Penzance, the master of which produced the stolen articles, and stated that he had received them from her. The police officer charged her with stealing them, when she denied having stolen them, and said that she had merely worn them and intended to return them. GUILTY. Three Months' Hard Labour.

CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. SARAH OPIE, a young woman, was charged with unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of a female child, of which she had been delivered at St. Austell, on the 7th of November last. Mr. STOCK prosecuted; and Mr. LYNE defended the prisoner. John Pappin, in the service of Mr. Charles Truscott, of St. Austell, deposed that he knew the prisoner, who in November last, was living in Mr. Truscott's service. On the morning of Wednesday, the 8th November, he had occasion to go into an outhouse, in Mr. Truscott's yard, in which he was in the habit of cleaning boots and shoes. He noticed a bundle at the end of the wash-tray. He touched the bundle and found that it was damp and cold. He also noticed a spot or two of blood on the cloth. He did not open the bundle then, as he happened to be called away at the moment; and on his return in about a quarter of an hour, the bundle was gone. Between the time he saw the bundle and his missing it, the prisoner was going about her work. He then examined the privy, and inside the door, he saw the bundle in a wooden pail. It was lying in the pail fully exposed. He then put the cloth aside, and found that it contained the body of a new born infant. The JUDGE stopped the case at this point. He said—The prisoner was indicted upon a statute which enacted that if any woman should be delivered of a child, and should by secretly burying, or otherwise disposing of the body, endeavour to conceal the birth, such party shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. Soon after the passing of this act, the judges held that the place where a woman deposited the body must mean the place where the body was ultimately to remain; but afterwards it was thought that that view was not correct, and it was held that although the place where the body was deposited was not the place where the mother intended it ultimately to remain, she might be found guilty of the offence. For instance, she might conceal it in a bed-tick with the intention of removing it afterwards. There was the case of Reg. v. Perry, for instance, in which it was held by a majority of the judges, that the putting of a dead body in a bed under a mattress, or under a bolster on which the defendant laid her head, was a sufficient disposing of it to constitute an offence within the statute. This was a very extreme case, and he, for his own part, did not agree with this interpretation of the law. In the present instance, the body was put into a pail or bucket, and openly placed in a privy; and it could not be supposed that this was a secret and sufficient disposing of the body to constitute the offence. The jury, under his lordship's direction, acquitted the prisoner. MANSLAUGHTER AT HELSTON. MARY ARTHUR, 35, a tall masculine woman, was charged with the manslaughter of Jane Eva, on the 15th of January. Mr. COX prosecuted, and said that the circumstances of the case were few, but very sad. The parties were neighbours, living at Helston; the deceased, Jane Eva, being an old woman 74 years of age. The learned counsel having briefly stated the facts as detailed in the evidence, called the following witnesses:— Mary Jane Perry, an intelligent little girl eight years of age, deposed—l lived with the deceased Jane Eva, who was my grandmother. I remember hearing a noise at the door of my grandmother's cottage on a Sunday morning a long time ago. It was a little after nine o'clock in the morning. I was upstairs at the time. It was the prisoner, Mary Arthur, who was calling my granny names. She wanted to get in, and I went down stairs. Granny said that if she did not go away, she would throw some water in the prisoner's face. The prisoner was outside the front door, and I could not see her. My granny was standing near the door, and had a pan with some water in her hand. The prisoner burst the door open and came in, on which granny threw the water at her. I do not know whether any of it went on her or not. The prisoner then knocked granny down, and kicked and beat her while she was on the floor. While granny was on the floor she said—"Lord have mercy on me, you have killed me now." I called to the neighbours, who came to the door, and the prisoner then went into her own cottage and shut the door. The prisoner said that the little girl had mis-stated the case, and had evidently been trained to repeat this story during the two months that had elapsed since the occurrence. The real facts were, that on Saturday evening the 14th of January, her husband brought home the body of an owl, which was given to the cat. As the latter would not eat the bird, it was thrown out; and a young woman who found it, tied it to the door of deceased's cottage for a joke. Deceased, on finding the owl there, was greatly enraged, and she came and threw it into the prisoner's cottage. She said nothing to deceased that evening, but the next morning she went to her and asked her why she had thrown the owl into her house, when deceased said she had done it because she (prisoner) had “hitched" it to her door. Prisoner denied this, and said that it was a young woman; when the deceased, without more ado, threw a pot full of dirty water over her, after which she fell down on the floor. The prisoner positively denied having pushed or knocked the deceased down, or struck her while on the floor. Francis Curtis.—I knew the deceased and lived near to her. I remember the morning of Sunday the 15th of January. About nine o'clock I heard loud screaming from her cottage, and I went in, and found the deceased laid on the floor and screaming loudly. Mrs. Elisabeth Lukey, another neighbour, gave similar evidence. Mary Ann Perry,—l am daughter of the deceased, who was 74 years of age. She was very infirm, having an ulcerated leg. I was present at her death, which took place on Friday, the 20th January. I heard her say on Thursday, the night before her death, that she was certain she should never recover. She also said—"Though Mary Arthur has brought me to this, and killed me, I forgive her, and I hope God will forgive her also." While in the kitchen on the Monday after this occurrence, I heard the prisoner say—"The old —, I only wish she was dead! I trust she will never move any more. I only wish I had taken a knife and run it through the body of her; and how I did not do it, I do not know; and as to that old maid of her's (sic), if I could only catch her, I would run a knife through her." An old woman named Stephens, who carried milk to both the cottages, said—I saw the deceased on the Sunday morning before nine o'clock, and she was then in as good health as I had seen her for some time. I next went to the cottage of the prisoner, and while I was there she took up the body of a bird, and swore she would kill the old woman. I saw the prisoner throw the bird into the old woman's cottage, after which I heard a crash, and then the prisoner came out of the cottage. I next heard the old woman say—"Lord have mercy upon me; she has killed me." I then went into the cottage and saw the deceased lying on the floor. The next morning I went to the prisoner's house, and said to her—"Do you not think it would have been better if you had let alone what you did yesterday? "To which she replied—"I do not care a d—n." Mrs. Vicklehoyle.—The day after this occurrence, I saw Mary Arthur in the street. She spoke to me, saying—"Have you heard the news about Jane Eva?" I said—"Yes, Mary; how came you to be so foolish as to break open the door of her cottage on Sunday morning?" She replied—"The deceased hove some water over me and stained me; and I then gave her two blows on the shoulder, when she rather rambled and fell on the floor." Peter Matthews.—I am nephew of the deceased, and lived with her. On returning home on the Sunday I found her very ill. I went to the prisoner to remonstrate with her, when she said that had it been a young woman instead of an old one, she would have beaten her brains out. Mr. J. Wearne, surgeon, at Helston.—I went to see the deceased on the 16th of January. She was in great suffering, and I ordered her to bed. On examining her, I found that her thigh bone had been fractured. She lingered for four or five days in great pain, when she died. I made a post-mortem examination of the body. I found the thigh bone broken, and a lodgment (sic) of blood in the kidneys. I did not find anything else that would account for death. I think the old woman died from the effects of these injuries, and the violence I have heard spoken of would be likely to produce them. The prisoner, in her defence, repeated her statement respecting the dead bird; again positively denied having struck the deceased, and accused all the witnesses, the little girl especially with having told nothing but falsehoods. The Judge having summed up, the jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but added that, believing she had been aggravated at the time she committed the offence, they recommended her to mercy. The JUDGE, in passing sentence, said that the prisoner had been convicted of the offence on the clearest evidence. He should be sorry to impute to her the additional charge of having been guilty of falsely accusing the witnesses of stating that which was not true, and he would rather believe that she, being a person of very violent temper, did not recollect what had occurred at the time. He did not see the slightest reason to doubt the evidence of the witnesses, and as regarded the little girl, he believed that her statement was strictly true. The jury had recommended her to mercy for the obvious reason that the deceased at the time had thrown some dirty water over her, an act that was likely to provoke a person of her violent temper. It was this act that had reduced the crime to manslaughter, as had she not received this provocation, she would undoubtedly have had to take her trial for wilful murder. He was always desirous of paying every attention to the recommendation of a jury, but still the offence was of such a character that he felt bound to visit it with a heavy punishment. The sentence that he should inflict was Six Months' Imprisonment at Hard Labour. The PRISONER—l can only say that if I am to go to prison six months, I shall be punished innocently. The JUDGE.—l cannot believe you after the evidence we have heard. The PRISONER, on being removed, said (addressing Mary Ann Perry, we believe)—"Mind you, when I come out, I will oil you, madam." RICHARD BOTTRELL was charged with stealing at Illogan, sixteen mangold wurzel roots, the property of Mr. William Chegwyn. Mr. HOLDSWORTH prosecuted. The prosecutor is a horse dealer, residing in the parish of Illogan, and the prisoner was in his employ, having the care of the horses and cows. The prisoner was also owner of a mare which he kept at the Basset Arms, in Pool; and on the evening of the 21st January, Mr. Chegwyn, on visiting the stable occupied by the mare, found 16 heads of mangold concealed amongst some hay under the manger. He compared them with some on his own premises and they were found to be exactly the same kind. On charging the prisoner with having stolen them, he admitted that they were Mr. Chegwyn's mangolds, but said that they formed part of a quantity that he had lent him a fortnight before. These roots, however, were of quite a different quality from those which he let the prisoner have; besides which, they appeared fresh, and the earth upon them was wet, shewing that they had not been taken out of the ground more than a day or so. To Police-constable Glendinning, who was called in, the prisoner said they were his master's mangolds, and if he did not give him in charge he would carry them back. The prisoner had no defence to offer, and he was found GUILTY. Two Months' Hard Labor (sic). WILLIAM COMBELLICK TRELOAR, a respectable looking man, was arraigned upon the charge of having stolen ten bags and a pail, the property of Messrs. Hosken, of Hayle. Mr. OXENHAM prosecuted, and Mr. COX defended the prisoner. The prosecutors are extensive millers at Hayle, and on the 10th of February they sent two of their wagons, with flour, to Penzance. One of these was driven by a man named John Roberts, and the other by William Riall. The men having delivered the flour according to directions, Roberts received the empty sacks, amounting to 48, which were tied in four bundles, and placed them in his wagon, the end of which was closed and made fast with two iron pins in the usual way. They then left Penzance on their return, Roberts being in advance, and having his sister with him in the wagon. While passing along the road in the parish of Ludgvan, Roberts's sister heard a noise at the end of the wagon, and on his going to the end of the wagon, he found that the end had been opened, and that the pail in which were two nose bags for feeding the horses, was gone. He did not miss any sacks then; Riall, coming up soon after, went back on the road to see if he could find the pail. After he had gone a short distance he saw something white moving at the side of the road, and he called out who is that? No answer was returned, but after repeating the inquiry, a voice answered—It is me. He went to the gate at the side of the road from which the voice proceeded, when he saw the prisoner with a bundle of sacks on his back. Seeing his masters' name on them, he requested the prisoner to give them up; but to this the prisoner said he would see him d---d first. Roberts then came up, and one seized the sacks and the other the prisoner, and notwithstanding the opposition of the prisoner, they took both him and the sacks into the wagon. While there he offered them 10s. if they would let him go, and on his being refused, he declared that he would go, and pushed Riall down, when Roberts seized him and held him. Afterwards he threatened to do for Riall, and on arriving at Treglown's beer-house, the landlord took a knife out of his hand. Mr. Cox urged that it was preposterous to suppose a man so respectable, both in look and character, as the prisoner, had attempted to steal the sacks. They weighed 60 pounds; and could any one suppose that he had taken them at this place, with the intention of carrying them to his house at Helston, a distance of 16 miles? The fact was, that he had found the bundle on the road, and had done what any other person might do under such circumstances—taken it to the first gate he had come to, for the purpose of placing it inside, intending to give information of what he had found at the nearest public house. He called Mr. Joseph Waters, mine captain, who had known the prisoner for several years, and who gave him an excellent character. Also Mr. J. G. Chilcott, solicitor, of Truro; but the latter said that, although he knew the prisoner's father to be a most respectable man, he knew nothing of the prisoner himself. The Jury found the prisoner GUILTY, and he was sentenced to Three Months hard labour. STEALING A WATCH. EMMANUEL BLIGHT, 16, was charged with stealing a silver watch, the property of Richard Keast, at Camborne, on the 28th of February. Mr. GULSON prosecuted.—The prosecutor is a miner, at Camborne, and on the night of the 27th of February he wound up his watch, and hung it up at the bed head before going to bed. On rising next morning and going to his work, he did not take it with him. Mrs. Keast saw it at the bed head at 12 o'clock that day, and about this time the prisoner called and asked for a light for his pipe. Shortly after, she went out to visit her grand-child, locking the door, and putting the key under it. On her return, she found her daughter at home, and the watch gone. Inquiries were made, and it was found that the watch had been ex-changed with Mr. Samuel Hocking, watchmaker, at Camborne, for a gun by the prisoner. Mr. Hocking deposed that on the 28th of February' the prisoner called at his shop and offered the watch for a gun. He asked the prisoner where he had got the watch, and he replied in a raffle. He then let the prisoner have the gun for it. The next day Mrs. Keast called and asked to look at the watch, but he had then lent it. The JUDGE—Was the prisoner in the same state as he is now as regards dress and appearance? Mr. Hocking—Precisely so. The JUDGE—Then I would recommend you not to take a watch again from a boy like that, or you will find yourself in the same position that he is now in. Mr. Hocking—l don't intend to, my lord. The JUDGE—If persons like you would not purchase property from such boys and persons as that, there would be fewer thefts committed in the country. P. C. Richards deposed that when he applied to Mr. Hocking for the watch, in order that the owner might see whether it was his or not, he refused to let him see it, until he obtained legal advice upon the subject. The prisoner was found guilty, and a former conviction for felony was proved against him. The JUDGE said that he would not pass sentence then, as he wished to consider what could be done with the prisoner, who he was afraid was a very bad boy. Subsequently, the prisoner was sentenced to One Month's Hard Labour, and then to be sent to the Devon Reformatory, for four years. STEALING TIMBER. WILLIAM ROWE, 26, was charged with having, on the 17th of January, feloniously stolen three pieces of wood, of the value of 7s., the property of Mr. George Stoughton Arnall, of Truro, and THOMAS TREVITHICK with having feloniously received the same knowing them to have been stolen. Rowe pleaded GUILTY. Mr. COX prosecuted, and Mr. CARTER defended. Mr. George Stoughton Arnall deposed.—l am the proprietor of saw mills and timber yards at Truro and Redruth. The prisoner Rowe was in my service, and on the 17th January he was ordered to carry some timber to Great South Tolgus Mine. The quantity was three horse loads. On the way he had to pass Trevithick's door. Afterwards I received some information from the superintendent of police. The same day, I went to Trevithick's, at Chacewater. He is a joiner there. Superintendent Jarrett told him that he had come to see about some timber belonging to Mr. Arnall, and he said he had no timber of mine there. We searched the premises, and found two pieces belonging to me in the prisoner's shop, and in a shed, near the prisoner's residence, two pieces of Norway plank having my mark on it. (The timber was produced; and identified by the prosecutor.) I took one of the pieces of board found at the workshop to the mine the next day, and compared it with some board that had been delivered at the mine. The knots, and grain, and pith corresponded exactly, and they had evidently been sawn out of the same plank.—Cross-examined.—I could not swear to the gate "shivers," the wood having been worked up. I have had a great many transactions with the prisoner, and usually delivered the timber he bought from me. He builds carts and waggons, and I have sold him ash and elm, as well as Norway timber. The prisoner's workshop is in the neighbourhood of a public house, and the public highway. I recollect selling him some timber two months before, which Rowe was directed to leave there, but it was different from this. I directed Rowe to leave two planks which were sawn into 14 parts, on that day, at Chacewater. John Allen.—I am in Mr. Arnall’s employ, and on the 17th I helped to load Rowe's waggon. The timber produced, was all put into the waggon that day. After the waggon had been girded up, I fastened on two deals which had been cut into thin stuff for a gentleman at Chacewater.—Cross- examined—The timber was all cut up into plank. I do not know that I should be able to swear to the planks that were delivered to Rowe, and I cannot swear to the pieces produced. Miss Arnall.—l am daughter of Mr. Arnall, and on the morning of the 17th of January, the Captain of Great South Tolgus Mine came to me, and ordered some timber. I gave directions to the men in the yard to load the same. I had not seen the marks on the timber, but the men who cut it up gave them in to me. By the JUDGE—Numbers were put on my father's timber, commencing at No. 1, and going up to 100. I was in the habit of putting down in my father's book the numbers sold. On this morning I found that No. 51 had not been sold, and I gave some directions to Rowe. Cross- examined—I keep my father's books, which I have here; I referred to the book, and I found that this timber had not been sold. I do not think that a piece is ever sold without its being entered. If some one else sold a piece of timber, and, for a dishonest purpose, did not return it as sold in the book, it would not appear, of course. Mr. C. Henwood.—I am agent for Great South Tolgus Mine. I remember Rowe bringing some timber to the mine on the 18th of January, part of which was immediately used in the mine, as the shaft was not considered safe. I have compared some of this with part of that found on the premises of the prisoner, and it corresponds exactly, knots, pith, grain, and everything. P.C. Rosevear, stationed at Chacewater, deposed that on Tuesday, the 17th of January, he watched Rowe's wagon. There were three or four pieces of Norway plank and some American plank on the top of the wagon, that were not girded down with the rest of the timber. I saw the wagon stop in front of Trevithick's shop and Rowe take an inch and a half Norway plank and put it in the shop door. After that Trevithick came out and closed the shop door. Rowe then said that he would go into the public house and have a pint of beer, and Trevithick asked me to go in and take a glass with him, but I declined. They went into the public house, and l observed that the Norway planks were gone from the top of the wagon, and the American planks were, leaned up in front of the shop. In three- quarters of an hour, I went into Trevithick's shop, and saw three Norway planks on the beams.— Cross-Examined—l heard Rowe say at the time he was committed that he had left some plank to be made up into trays for him, and that Trevithick knew nothing of their having been stolen. Superintendent Jarrett, of the county constabulary, at Truro, deposed:—on the 18th, I went to Trevithick's shop, in the after part of the day, and found the timber produced—three pieces in the workshop, and two pieces in a shed; 300 yards from his house. I told him I had come to look for some timber that had been stolen yesterday, from Mr. Arnall, and he said he had none but what had bought and paid for.—I said, where is the timber that Rowe left yesterday? and he said that is gone—l do not not (sic) know anything about it. Mr. Arnall was recalled, and stated that the stolen timber was not suitable for the making of trays. Mr. CARTER, for the defence, urged that the evidence which had been given did not establish the charge against the prisoner. On the contrary, the statement of Rowe when he was before the magistrates that he had left the wood with Trevithick to be made into washing trays, taken with the other facts of the case, clearly showed that at the time he received the wood he had no knowledge that it was stolen. When he first heard the evidence of Superintendent Jarrett, in which he said that Trevithick had stated the wood was gone and that he knew nothing about it, he thought that this would prove a difficult point in the case, but the explanation of this was that Trevithick referred to the American timber which Rowe was directed to leave with him for another party, and which having been taken away, his remark was perfectly natural and proper. If Trevithick had been aware that he was receiving stolen timber, was it likely that he would have taken it openly during the day time, and in the presence of the police officer? He then called Mr. Harvey and Mr. Samuel Moyle, two of the jury, Mr. Joseph Tyacke, of Salem, and Mr. Jonathan Hamblyn, of Summercourt, all of whom had known the prisoner for years, and they gave. him an excellent character for honesty. The JUDGE, in summing up, said it was greatly to the credit of the gentlemen who conducted the prosecution, that they did not object to the two jurors sitting to try this case, when they knew that they would be called to speak to the character of the prisoner. His lordship then recapitulated the evidence, and left it to the jury to say whether on that they considered the prisoner guilty of the charge, observing that he fully concurred in the remark of the learned counsel for the defence, that of all the offences with which a man could stand charged, that of receiving stolen property was the one in which a good character would stand him in the best stead. The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation, acquitted the prisoner, who was immediately discharged. Rowe was then called up for sentence. His Lordship said that he had pleaded guilty to one of the worst offences a man could be guilty of—that of stealing from his master the property that had been entrusted to his charge and care. His sentence must, therefore, be a severe one—12 Months' Imprisonment at Hard Labour. THE MURDER AT ROCHE. JOSEPH WILLIAMS, 63, charged with the wilful murder of his wife Jane Williams, at Roche, on the 28th of December, was brought up. It was evident on the slightest glance that the prisoner was insane. No evidence in support of the charge was gone into, but the jury were sworn for the purpose of ascertaining whether the prisoner was in a fit state to be tried for the offence, or was insane and unfit to plead to the indictment. It will be recollected that the prisoner, was a tin-streamer at Roche, and that on the night of the 29th December, without any apparent provocation or cause, he murdered his wife, and then dragged the body outside the house, where it was found next morning. Mr. Thomas F. Couch, surgeon of the gaol, was sworn and deposed:—l have attended the prisoner while in prison, and I believe him to be in a perfectly unsound state of mind. His conduct while in the gaol has been that of a person of unsound mind. The JUDGE.—Do you think he is competent to understand the nature of the offence with which he stands charged, as a rational man would do? Mr. Couch.—No; I do not think he is. The JUDGE (addressing the Jury) said:—The prisoner is indicted for the murder of his wife, but before he can be put upon his trial for the offence, he must be in a condition to understand the nature of the charge. You will probably think on this evidence that he is of unsound mind, and cannot be put on his trial. If that should be your opinion, you will find a verdict accordingly, and he will then be properly taken care of for the future, so that he may not injure himself or any other person. The Jury immediately found that the prisoner was of unsound mind. The JUDGE.—Let that be recorded, and the prisoner will then be confined during Her Majesty's pleasure. MARY ANN BARRATT, 24, pleaded guilty of stealing two frocks, two flannel shirts, one flannel night dress, three flannel petticoats, an apron, and a towel, the property of Peter Mathews, at Gwennap, on the 21st of February last. She was sentenced to Two Months' Imprisonment. WILLIAM BLACKWELL, 82, a labourer, pleaded guilty of having at Perranzabuloe, on the 10th or 11th of February, stolen a canvas top-gallant sail and a quantity of canvass, part of a mizen sail, of the value of £2, the property of John Pearce and others, after two previous convictions, and was sentenced to 18 Months' Hard Labour. JOSEPH GRIGG, 17, pleaded guilty of maliciously killing a horse, at St. Columb Major, on the 4th of February, the property of his master. The Judge, in sentencing the prisoner, said that he had pleaded guilty to about the most barbarous and unjustifiable act he had ever heard of. It appeared that he had flown into a passion with some horses he was driving, and by his own confession, he knocked one of them on the head and killed it. He should feel it his duty to inflict such a sentence as the prisoner would recollect all his days.—To be kept at Hard Labour 18 Months. MARY JANE POLLARD, 18, pleaded guilty of stealing at Mylor, on the 3rd of March two Turkish Crimean medals, the property of John Hall and Zachariah Shawyer—Two Months' Imprisonment for each offence. JAMES THOMPSON, 31, labourer, was arraigned upon the charge of assaulting George Martin, a police constable, while in the execution of his duty, at Antony, on the 18th of February. The prisoner pleaded GUILTY, and was sentenced to Twelve Months' Hard Labour. THE PARISH OF FALMOUTH AND THE RECTOR. Amongst the last batch of bills returned by the grand jury to-day, who very singular to say, did not throw out a single bill presented to them at these assizes, was one against William John Coope, for nuisance, by which was understood in court, the indictment preferred against the Rev. W. J. Coope, rector of Falmouth, by the way-wardens for an obstruction of a public road-way. Just previous to this, Mr. Karslake had applied to the court, for the indictment to be allowed to stand over till the next assizes, on the ground that the defendant had given notice that in the event of the bill being found, he should not be prepared to try at these assizes. His Lordship granted the application, and the case was deferred accordingly, Mr. Coope entering into recognizances to appear at the next assizes. NISI PRIUS COURT, THURSDAY, MARCH 15. This Court was opened at 10 o'clock; Mr. BARON CHANNEL presiding. The following was the Cause List:— Plaintiff's Attorney Plaintiff. Defendant. Defendant's Attorney Dupleix, C.P. Marshall [S.J.] v. Bishop of Exeter & others Sanders. Whitford & Co. Ex. Whitford and others v. Hawken Johnson. Rodd and Cornish, Ex. Carne [S.J] v. Steer J. Pascoe. WHITFORD and OTHERS v. HAWKEN.—Mr. Karslake for plaintiffs; Mr. Kingdon for defendant.—ln this case the plaintiffs were Thomas Whitford, Thomas Whitford, James Hawke, George Browne Collins, and Henry Whitford, bankers of St. Columb; and the defendant John Hawken, a merchant living at Padstow.—The declaration stated that the defendant on the 10th of June 1859 by his bill of exchange now overdue, directed to Philip Andrews, required the said Philip Andrews to pay to the defendant's order £52 10s., three months after date, and the defendant endorsed the same to John Hawken the younger, who endorsed the same to the plaintiffs, and the said bill was duly presented for payment and was dishonoured, whereof the defendant had due notice but did pay the same; and the plaintiffs also sue the defendant for that the defendant, on the 29th of July, 1859, by his other bill of exchange, now overdue, directed to Philip Andrews, required the said Philip Andrews to pay to the defendant's order £70, three months after date, and the defendant endorsed the same to John Hawken the younger, who endorsed the same to the plaintiffs, and the said bill was duly presented for payment and was dishonoured, whereof the defendant had due notice but did not pay the same; and the plaintiffs also sue defendant for money payable by defendant to the plaintiffs for money found to be due from defendant to plaintiffs on accounts stated between them; and the plaintiffs claim £200. The pleas in defence were numerous:—1st. As to the 1st count, that he did not endorse the said bill of exchange in the first count mentioned.—2nd. That the said John Hawken the younger did not endorse the said bill of exchange.—3rd. That the said bill of exchange was not duly presented for payment.—4th. That defendant had not due notice of non-payment of the said bill of exchange. 5th. That the defendant endorsed the said bill of exchange for the accommodation of the said John Hawken the younger, and that there never was any value or consideration for such endorsement, or for the said John Hawken the younger, he being the holder of the said bill, or for the defendant paying the same or any part thereof; and defendant further saith that there never was any value or consideration for the said endorsement of the said bill by John Hawken the younger, or for the plaintiffs being the holders of the same; but plaintiffs always held and now hold the said bill without any value or consideration whatever.—6th. That the said Philip Andrews accepted the said bill before the same became due or payable, and that after it became due and payable the plaintiffs, then being the holders of the bill, agreed with the said Philip Andrews, the acceptor of the said bill, without the defendant's consent, and then bound themselves for a good and sufficient consideration to give the said Philip Andrews time agreed on between them for payment of the amount of the said bill of exchange. The pleas 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were, in regard to the second count in the declaration, the same as the 1st, 2nd; 3rd, 5th, and 6th pleas with regard to the first count. There was no plea that the defendant had not due notice of non-payment of the second bill-of-exchange—that for £70. 12th plea.—As to the 1st and 2nd counts, defendant saith that the said Philip Andrews accepted the said Bills in those counts mentioned respectively, and that after the said bills became due and payable, and before the commencement of the suit, the said Philip Andrews satisfied and discharged the Plaintiffs' claim in the said counts respectively mentioned, upon the said bills of exchange respectively, by payment. In the 13th and last plea, the defendant, to the 3rd count says that he never was indebted as in that count mentioned. Mr. KARSLAKE addressed the jury on the facts of the case. He stated that the first Bill of Exchange, for £52 10s., was dated Swansea, 10th June 1859; it was for payment three months after date, value received in malt, and was directed to, and accepted by Philip Andrews, brewer, Swansea; payable at Glyn, Mills and Co's, London. The second bill of exchange was dated July 29,1859, and was for £70; and in other respects was in the same form as the first.—The defendant's son, John Hawken, junr., had been long a customer of the plaintiffs and had a banking account with them in June and July last, at which time the balance was largely against him. About the end of June he paid in the bill for £52 10s., and in August he paid in the second bill, for £70. These bills being presented and dishonoured, the plaintiffs did what they could to obtain the money from Philip Andrews, the acceptor, but did not succeed. It was stated in the record that the plaintiffs agreed to give time to Andrews; but there was not the slightest evidence to support that plea; they were willing to receive payment from the acceptor, but it was not true that they agreed to give him time.—Mr. Karslake made some observations in contradiction of some other of the pleas; but he admitted that probably the defendant would be able to prove, according to his 4th plea, that the defendant had not due notice of non-payment of the Bill of Exchange for £52 10s. But there was no such plea with regard to the bill for £70. After some few further remarks, the learned counsel proceeded to call witnesses:— Thomas Whitford, one of the firm, Messrs. Whitford and Co., bankers, at St. Columb. The defendant Hawken lived occasionally at Padstow, and witness had known him and also Hawken the younger, for some time; and he also knew well their hand-writing. Witness proved the endorsements by plaintiff, and by Hawken the younger, to each of the two bills; and stated that the bills were paid into the bank by young Hawken—the first on the 13th of June, and the second on the 3rd of August, 1859. At both these dates, young Hawken was indebted to the bank, in more than the amount of the bills.—Cross-examined:—John Hawken the younger was a maltster; I don't know what he is now; he absconded some time since; he became bankrupt after these bills became due, and after this action was brought. The present defendant is father of John Hawken the younger, and sold with him; I always understood so; I was not aware he was in business on his own account, until he was examined at Exeter the other day, when he stated he was in business as a timber-merchant. The acceptor Andrews had also become insolvent. With respect to the first of these bills, we have received £25 from the acceptor. After the bills became due, there were negotiations between our firm and Andrews the acceptor, as to renewing the bills. On the 14th of December, our firm addressed a letter to the acceptor, stating that if his father would accept for him at 2 and 3 months, they would receive it in payment of the dishonoured bill, but that they declined to take his brother's acceptance. Witness did not know whether or not his firm received any answer to that letter. On the 20th December they wrote another letter to the acceptor, Andrews, stating that if he would draw on his brother at 1 and 2 months for the amount of the dishonoured acceptances, they would take it in payment.—On the 23rd of December, witness received a letter from the acceptor—that his brother had consented to join him in bills, for two amounts, at 2 and 3 months respectively, but that he could not prevail on his brother to agree to the proposition for 1 and 2 months; and he trusted the Bank would consent to these terms.—On the 3rd of January, the plaintiffs answered, enclosing two drafts to the acceptor, requesting him to get the needful done and to return them by first post. After that time, witness never heard from Andrews. George Usher Wesley, clerk with Messrs. Scorer and Harris, notaries, Exchange, London:—This £52 10s. bill I presented at Glyn, Mills, & Co., on the 13th September, for payment, and the answer given me was that there was no order to pay. On the 1st of November, I presented the £70 bill at Glyn, Mills, and Co's., and received the same answer. Mr. KARSLAKE said this was the whole of the case for the plaintiffs; he could not prove notice of dishonour of the first bill, which was traversed in the 1st count; but £25 had been paid on account of it. The learned JUDGE, who had previously intimated that the negotiations in evidence did not sustain the plea that there had been an agreement between the Bank and the acceptor to give time, directed the Jury that there must be a verdict for defendant as to the first Bill of Exchange; and a verdict for plaintiff, on the second bill, for £71 6s. 5d., inclusive of interest. This was the only case at Nisi Prius for a common jury; and the cases for special juries not being ready, the Court proceeded to the trial of Prisoners:— ELIZABETH RICHARDS, a dressmaker, aged 24, was charged with stealing a mantle, the property of Martin Body, draper, at Callington, on the 9th November, 1859.—Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cox for the defence.—Matilda Jones Richards, an assistant with Mr. Body, deposed :—The prisoner came into Mr. Body's shop about twelve o'clock in the day on the 9th November; she asked to look at some blanket-serge, and I showed her some; she bought and paid for two yards, and also two yards of calico. In the shop was a table with some mantles upon it; as she stood at the counter, her back was towards the table. Mrs. Body was in the shop, and asked the prisoner if she wanted a mantle, as there were some new ones in; and the prisoner said she did not want any that day. When she first came in, there was no other customer there. There were some mantles also on the counter before her, and the prisoner asked the price of one. The blanketing serge was kept in a place where I had to turn round from the prisoner, in order to get it.—Cross-examined.—The prisoner was wearing a black satin dress and a mantle.—Frederick Wreford, Inspector of Police, at Callington:—I apprehended the prisoner in the street at Callington about 2 o’clock in the day of the 9th of November, and told her she was suspected of stealing a mantle from Mr. Body's shop. I took her into custody and led her to the station and told her she must be searched. I told my servant Elizabeth Butters to go upstairs and search the prisoner; after they had been up some time they came down, and I ordered them to go up again and told the prisoner she must take off all her clothes. At that time the prisoner had on a black-satin dress and a mantle. I told my servant to hand out to me all the clothes which the prisoner took off; I went up stairs and stood outside the door of the room, and my servant handed out to me all the articles of a woman's dress except her linen; among the articles handed out were the black satin dress and a black cloth mantle which I had seen her wearing. After that, there was handed out to me another mantle, which I now produce. This was of brownish silk.—Elisabeth Butters:—l am a servant of Inspector Wreford. I remember his bringing the prisoner to the Station-house, and ordering me to go up-stairs and search her. She was wearing a black cloth mantle. When I went up with her the second time, I found the brown silk mantle between her legs, and under her linen; she was keeping it up with her knees. I took it and handed it to the policeman.—Martin Body, draper:—l had some mantles in my shop on the 8th November: the mantle produced I believe to be one of them; I marked it off on the 8th, and missed it on the 9th.— Mary Jane Bryant:—l am an assistant to Mr. Body; I helped to ticket the mantles on the 8th, and among them I saw the one now produced. The next morning I tried on that mantle, and found that the hood was not set straight, and said it must be altered; I folded it up and put it on the table in the shop, with other mantles folded in the same way. A little after 12 some person came into the shop and asked to see some mantles, and I went to the table and found that this brown silk mantle was gone. I have not the slightest doubt that this mantle is the one I ticketed and folded. I know the mantle by the bad setting of the hood. (The witness put on the mantle for the purpose of exhibiting the defect spoken of, to the Court and Jury.)—Mr. COX addressed the jury in defence, endeavouring for the most part, as he had done in cross-examination, to suggest doubts as to identity of the mantle.—The jury, however, almost immediately after summing up, found a verdict of GUILTY.— There was another indictment against the prisoner for stealing a roll of ribbon, the property of Mr. Samuel Serjeant; but the JUDGE did not think it necessary it should be tried.—Sentence:—Six Months hard labour. NISI PRIUS BUSINESS RESUMED. CARNE v. STEER (a special jury case).—Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Bere; attorneys, Messrs. Rodd and Cornish.—Counsel for defendant, Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon; attorney, Mr. James Pascoe.—In this case Thomas Carne, builder, of Penzance, was the plaintiff and the defendant was Lieut.-Colonel William Francis Steer. The plaintiff sought to recover £459 7s. 11d. for money paid, for goods sold and delivered, for work and labour done, and for materials supplied. The defendant pleaded, first, that he was never indebted; and next, that before the action commenced, he had discharged the plaintiff's claim.—Mr. COLERIDGE, in opening the plaintiff's case, stated that the plaintiff was a builder living in Penzance. Before 1857 he had been foreman to a Mr. Crocker of the same town, but he was also in the habit of taking building contracts on his own account, and, in such cases, of employing Mr. Crocker to do the carpenters' work. The defendant was a retired Lieut.-Colonel of the Indian Army and in 1857 was living near Marazion. In that year he took a house in Marazion, from Mr. Martin Magor, a dentist, living in Penzance, the bargain between them being concluded on the 23rd August, 1857. A day or two before that, Colonel Steer saw Carne and, showing him a rough sketch of alterations which he wished to have made in the cottage, he told him that he wished him to execute the work; not a word being said by Col. Steer as to any arrangement between him and Magor. Carne engaged with Col. Steer to do the work and immediately set about it employing Crocker to do the carpenters' work and a person called Harris to do the masons' work; but in the course of a week Harris was discharged, and a mason called Ellis was put in his place. In the course of the work, it turned out that the plan drawn on Col. Steer's rough outline was incorrect and the work could not be done according to it. New measurements and new designs had to be made, which were examined and approved by Col. Steer. Throughout the progress of the work Col. Steer was on the work almost every day, constantly giving orders and interfering and making alterations, and in fact, as a designer and architect of work which he wished to have done for himself. No contract was ever signed between plaintiff and defendant; but the work went on—with many alterations necessary in consequence of the Colonel's changes of mind and of the imperfect way in which the plan had been originally conceived by him. Materials were provided and wages paid by plaintiff; and, in fact, within about £15, the whole of the sum now claimed, was for money paid out of pocket by plaintiff;—The learned Counsel next referred to rather voluminous correspondence in proof that it was Colonel Steer alone who gave orders to plaintiff and that he alone was liable for plaintiff's claim. This state of things continued down to August, 1858, when the plaintiff, having advanced money to a considerable amount applied for payment, and he was then informed that the work was to be done for Col. Steer, according to his own taste and fancy, but that, Mr. Magor the landlord was to find the money for it, and that there was some arrangement between Col. Steer and Mr. Magor, by which Mr. Magor was to put the house into proper repair, and that then Colonel Steer was to become the tenant. Early in November Carne was informed that Mr. Magor had agreed to advance Colonel Steer a certain sum of money and that to that extent the payment was to come out of Magor's pocket; and some money (200l.) was afterwards paid by Mr. Magor to Crocker, who paid 100l. of it to Carne. But the fact, the learned counsel urged, did not invalidate the plaintiff's present claim.—The work went on and the correspondence continued, until August 1858. In June 1858 the work done by Crocker and Ellis was, by agreement, submitted to valuers, as between Crocker and Ellis on one side and Col. Steer on the other; and in August 1858, both Crocker and Carne sent in their bills to Col. Steer. In reply, Steer said no unnecessary delay should occur in adjusting their demands; but, to enable him to do so, he required from them certain tradesmen's bills and vouchers, which he specified. These bills and vouchers were sent from him, but from that day to this not a shilling could they get from him.—He believed there was no substantial dispute about the items of the plaintiff's account; the sole question was as to liability. The defence to be set up was that Mr. Magor, as the landlord, ought to pay. As between Col. Steer and Mr. Magor that possibly might be; it might be that when Col. Steer had been compelled to pay the plaintiff's claim, he might get the money back again from Mr. Magor; but that was no defence to the present action. If Col. Steer put himself forward to the plaintiff as the person who employed him, and never suggested Mr. Magor as the person to whom credit should be given, Col. Steer must pay, and it was right and just that he should do so; he had had the benefit of the work which had been done by the plaintiff under his orders to the house which he was to inhabit; and it was only when he was called on to pay, that he repudiated all liability. Evidence, oral and documentary, in support of the plaintiff's case, was then taken at considerable length; the witnesses examined being Thomas Carne, the plaintiff; and William Magor, brother of plaintiff. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH then addressed the jury for the defendant. He thought they must already have seen that the work done by plaintiff was done, not on the credit of Col. Steer, but on that of the landlord, Mr. Magor; though of course, Col. Steer was interested in the amount of expenditure, inasmuch as he had to pay Mr. Magor a percentage of 6 per cent, on the outlay. It had been shown already that tradesmen who did work or supplied materials, got their money from Mr. Magor and never applied to Col. Steer for any portion of it—Col. Steer, having retired from the Indian army, and having a sick wife, being attracted by the climate of Cornwall came down to Penzance. He did not want to purchase a place; but he saw this place at Marazion-Rosehill Villa—which belonged to Mr. Magor, and he thought it would suit him. But it was in a very bad state of repair, and the Colonel and Mr. Magor came to an arrangement by which it was agreed that Mr. Magor should pay the expense of whatever alterations Col. Steer might desire, up to a certain limit, and that Col. Steer should pay, as rent, 6 per cent on the outlay and on the cost of Mr. Magor's purchase of the property. That being arranged, Col. Steer saw Carne one day and asked him to meet him at Marazion and he desired Harris, a respectable mason, to meet him there also. A conversation took place at that meeting, in the course of which Col. Steer told them, generally, of the arrangement which had been made between Mr. Magor and himself-that Mr. Magor was to make the alterations and to be at the expense of the whole outlay, and that the tradesmen employed were to look to Mr. Magor and not to himself or payment; and this statement was made to them before any work whatever was done. It was consistent with this arrangement and statement, that the only money which Carne and Crocker had got was obtained from Mr. Magor, by whom it appeared, £200 was paid to Crocker, and Crocker paid £100 thereof to Carne. The sole question in this case, said the learned Counsel, was the original understanding on which the parties acted; and this was unaffected by any subsequent correspondence, in which the Colonel might have spoken of the work as his. To a certain extent it was his work, because he was to pay a per centage on Mr. Magor's outlay, and therefore he was directly interested in watching the work, and in keeping down expenditure. Colonel Steer, when he received tradesmen's bills, examined them and sent them to Mr. Magor; no application was ever made to the Colonel for payment, and not a sixpence was ever received from him. Even when the Colonel paid some small sum-some 6 or 7 shillings—to working men, Carne actually repaid it to him, and charged it to Mr. Magor.—The learned Counsel referred to correspondence in the case as conclusively supporting the defence—that it was Mr. Magor and not Colonel Steer who was liable to the plaintiff. He also particularly referred to the fact that when the valuers, in the valuation already mentioned, found that a balance of £17 was due to Ellis the mason—the whole amount of his charge being £133 1s. 8d.—it was to Mr. Magor he went, by directions from Mr. Carne, for payment, and it was from Mr. Magor that he received that balance on account of his work done at Rosehill Villa—the remainder of his claim having been previously paid by Carne. The witnesses for the defence were Col. William Frederick Steer; George Harris, a master mason; and John Ellis also a master mason; and, as in the case for the plaintiff, a large amount of correspondence was put in and referred to. Mr. M. SMITH, in summing up the evidence for the defence, insisted on the improbability that Col. Steer would come down and spend his money on the freehold of another man, and said it was clear, as well from the probabilities of the case as from the evidence, that the outlay was to be made by the landlord on the condition of receiving a per centage from the tenant.—He also directed especial attention to a letter from Carne to Magor on the 5th December, informing him that he imagined the probable cost of the building at Marazion would be from £400 to £500. At the conclusion of the learned gentleman's speech, the Court rose, adjourning the case till the following morning. NISI PRIUS—FRIDAY, MARCH 16. CARNE v. STEER.—This case was resumed this morning.—Mr. COLERIDGE replied on the whole case. In the first place, he replied to observations made by Mr. M. Smith on the non-calling, by the plaintiff, of Magor and Crocker. With reference to Carne's letter of the 5th December, Mr. Coleridge observed that the inquiry by Mr. Magor, to which it was obviously a reply, was but reasonable, considering the agreement which had then been just entered into between him and Col. Steer—that Col. Steer was to become his tenant for 21 years, and that Mr. Magor was to lay out a sum—limited to £500, inclusive of purchase money for the premises—on condition that he should receive from Col. Steer a rent, calculated at the rate of 6 per cent. on that outlay. Under these circumstances, and also with the admission by Col. Steer that, under his orders and by his direction a larger sum had been laid out, it was but reasonably prudent that Mr. Magor should make enquiry as to the amount of expenditure; but it was not because, three months after the work had been going on, Mr. Magor made this inquiry, that he, and not Col. Steer, was to pay. There was no doubt that at the date of the agreement, in December, 1857, Mr. Magor was to find a certain sum of money; and, equally there was no doubt that at a date subsequent to this agreement—namely, in January 1858—£200 was paid by Mr. Magor, and that Carne received £100 of it. But the question was, not what Magor advanced in January, 1858, in pursuance of that contract, but what was the understanding or agreement in August, 1857; and he apprehended that, in August, 1857, there was a distinct credit pledged by Col. Steer to the plaintiff; on the faith of which the plaintiff entered on the work; and it was not because, afterwards, Mr. Magor might have come to some understanding with Col. Steer, and have paid him £200 on that understanding, that the just and equitable claims of tradesmen against the person who employed them was to be set aside. The real question was, what was the agreement between plaintiff and defendant in August, 1857; and the learned Counsel contended that the plaintiff's version of that agreement was consistent with every-day practice; while the defendant's account of it was altogether improbable. The learned Counsel further contended that, according to correspondence in evidence, it was clear that at the date of the interview of the 23rd August, no agreement had been come to between Col. Steer and Mr. Magor; and unless there was such an agreement in existence at the date of that interview, and unless that agreement was communicated to plaintiff, and he consented to act on the credit of Magor, and not on that of Col. Steer, the whole defence failed. If Col. Steer's recollection was imperfect, and Harris's evidence inaccurate on that point, they were scarcely to be relied on as to other matters on which they were not likely to be more correct. It was to be observed too that, at the time of that interview Harris did not know Magor; and it was improbable that he should trust an unknown person, instead of acting on the credit of the gentleman who was employing him and who appeared to be a responsible, substantial man. It was undisputed that Col. Steer, throughout the work, gave the orders, and that none were ever given by Mr. Magor; and, though the letters were written as to Col. Steer himself, there was not a hint of his repudiating his liability till the 17th of August, 1858, when he had been pressed for money. If the defendant's story were the correct one, there was not the slightest reason why the plaintiff should not have sued Magor, who was a known resident in Penzance and a substantial man. The learned counsel next remarked on the evidence that the plans were never shown to Mr. Magor, and that with the exception of three bills from two tradesmen of Penzance, all the bills were addressed and sent to Col. Steer; and with reference to the three exceptions, there were special reasons proved why they had been made out to Mr. Magor. The learned JUDGE with much care and particularity; directing the jury that the sole issue for them to determine was, whether the work in respect of which this action was brought was done by the order, and on the credit of the defendant, or was it done on terms that the parties during the work were to look to Magor for payment.—His lordship reminded the jury that, although there was no absolute, written contract between Col. Steer and Mr. Magor, till December 1857, yet according to the defendant's case, there had been not only negociations (sic) but also an agreement conditional in its character as to some points, and particularly as to this—that the repairs to be done for his use and benefit as tenant were not to be paid for by him, but by the landlord Magor, who was to receive in return a per centage in the nature of rent. There being indisputably but one such agreement between Col. Steer and Magor, the time at which that agreement was entered into was of great importance; because if at the date of the interview between Col. Steer and the plaintiff in August 1857, no such agreement had been entered into between Col. Steer and Mr. Magor, then Col. Steer could have no right to pledge Magor's credit to the tradesmen.—His lordship stated the purport of the oral and documentary evidence on this point. His lordship then proceeded to read and comment on the remaining evidence, and remarked that if the contract between Col. Steer and Mr. Magor were made as suggested by the defendant, it was not inconsistent with that contract that the orders for the repairs and alterations should be given by Col. Steer, though Mr. Magor was to pay; nor was it on the other hand, inconsistent with the plaintiff's case, with regard to proceedings subsequent to August 1857. His lordship said the consideration of them was important only in so far as they might throw light on the main question—the nature of the contract between plaintiff and defendant in that month. In order to defeat the plaintiff's claim, the jury must be satisfied that by that contract, the plaintiff undertook to look to Mr. Magor, and not to Col. Steer for payment. His lordship concluded his summing up—about an hour in delivering—at 10 minutes past 11. The jury then retired for consideration, and in about an hour, they returned a Verdict for Defendant. It was afterwards ordered by the Judge, that execution be stayed till next term. STEALING METAL AT TRURO. JOHN PASCOE, 24, was charged with having on the 23rd of December last at Truro, stolen three metallic caps, the property of Messrs. William Traher and Thomas Medley Foster, Mr. CLARKE prosecuted. The prosecutors are the proprietors of the Royal Hotel, at Truro, and they had on their premises a chaff machine of a peculiar construction. This was seen by an ostler named Rashleigh some time before Christmas in a perfect state, but the exact date he could not fix, and on the 23rd of December, he missed from the machine several brass caps, forming the bed in which the principal axle of the machine worked. Information of the robbery was given to the Truro police, and Serjeant Woolcock and P.C. Christopher instituted inquiries. On the 9th of January they found that the prisoner had sold the brass caps, having first broken them up and burnt them, to Mr. Thomas Williams, a marine store dealer. There was 1¾lbs for which Williams paid him 10½d. Williams having some suspicions that there might possibly be some inquiry after the metal, had put it in the cloth in which it was brought in a separate place. Serjeant Woolcock now fitted the broken pieces together and stated that he had no doubt they formed the caps stolen from the machine. The prisoner's defence was, that while recovering a gentleman's hat, which had blown into the river at Lemon-bridge, Truro, he found the brass tied up in a piece of rag. The jury, however, found him GUILTY, and he was sentenced to One Month hard labour. STEALING FEOM A MASTER AT ST. BREOCK. SUSANNAH EYRES, 13, was charged with stealing a gold brooch, a silk scarf, silk cape, a parasol, and other articles, the property of her master, Mr. Peter W. Cleave, at St. Breock, on or about the 6th of February, and ELIZABETH EYRES, with receiving some of the articles, knowing them to have been stolen. Susannah Eyres pleaded guilty; and the evidence against the other prisoner being inconclusive, she was discharged. SUSANNAH EYRES was then arraigned on a second indictment, charging her with stealing some milk and tea, the property of Mr. Cleave, her master; and JENIFER WILLIAMS was indicted for receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. GOULBURN prosecuted, and Mr. HOLDSWORTH defended Williams. Mr. Cleave stated that Susannah Eyres was in his employ as servant, and having missed several articles, he questioned her, when she confessed after some hesitation that she had taken them and placed them in a lumber room. She also stated that Williams, whom he had employed as a charwoman, had taken dough, flour, and tea from the house; she having given Williams the last named articles. His Lordship said that the statement of Eyres was evidence against herself, but could not be received as evidence against the other prisoner, and there being no other witness against her, she was acquitted. The jury found Eyres GUILTY, but recommended her to mercy on account of her tender age, and the learned Judge sentenced her to Three months' imprisonment in the House of Correction, and at the expiration of that time to be confined in the Reformatory at Exeter for four years. THEFT AT ST. COLUMB. JOHN TIPPETT was charged with stealing a piece of fustian, the property of Mary Nancarrow, at St. Columb Major, on the 19th of February. Mr. HOLDSWORTH prosecuted. Mrs. Nancarrow is a widow, living at Black Cross, in the parish of St. Columb Major, and on the 19th of February she placed 3½ yards of fustian, which she had washed, on a hedge of a field behind her house to dry. She saw it there about three o'clock, and a few minutes past four o'clock it was gone. The prisoner had returned from Truro to St. Columb on the afternoon of this day in company with another man, having necessarily passed Black Cross, and was seen to turn up a back street to his house on entering St. Columb, with a bundle under his arm. On the following day, Police- Inspector Grant, in consequence of information received went to the Ring of Bells public-house at St. Columb, where he found the prisoner, and told him that he had a warrant to search his house for 3½ yards of fustian that had been stolen at Black Cross the day before. The prisoner at once admitted that he had the fustian, but said that he had picked it up on the road. The prisoner then accompanied Grant to his (prisoner's) house, and produced the fustian from between the roof and the wall of the house. The prisoner adhered to his statement that he picked the fustian up on the road, and called two witnesses to support it. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended him to mercy on account of his large family. One Calendar Month's Hard Labour. CHARGE OF BIGAMY. WILLIAM LEY was charged with feloniously marrying Mary Ann Shillibeer, on the 4th of June, 1857, his former wife being then alive. Mr. COLERIDGE prosecuted, and Mr. LYNE defended the prisoner. Mary Hooper deposed that she had seen the prisoner living at St. Austell. Could not recollect the banns being called between him and Elizabeth Rebecca Lane Curtis, but remembered them living together as man and wife. This might be 18 or 19 years ago. The prisoner was her brother, and he had been away for a good many years. Recollected his returning home again, when he resided at St. Austell with Mary Ann Shillibeer. In Cross-examination, the witness stated that she was not present at either of the marriages, and she could not say of her own knowledge that the prisoner was married to either of the women. Mr. Thomas Kinsman, clerk to Mr. Carlyon, of St. Austell, produced certified copies of the certificates of the marriages of the prisoner and Elizabeth Rebecca Lane Curtis, on the 16th of January, 1841, and of the prisoner and Mary Ann Shillibeer, at St. Austell, on the 14th of January, 1857. Mr. John Napier, tailor, of Bodmin, deposed that he was residing in that town in 1841, and knew the prisoner and his first wife, Elizabeth Rebecca Lane Curtis. Remembered hearing of their marriage, and after that they lived together as man and wife. On one occasion, in the latter part of 1843, he had the prisoner up before the magistrates for not maintaining his wife. He paid the costs rather than go to gaol. Stephen Lopes was living at Bodmin about 22 years ago. Recollected the prisoner living there first as a batchelor (sic), and then as what was stated, a married man. They lived in Burnard Lane, a wall only separating witness's house from the prisoner's. The prisoner used to beat his wife, and witness interfered several times. On one occasion the prisoner swore at her and wished she had never been his wife at all. An Irishman named Harris, if we caught the name correctly, who was called to prove the second marriage in 1857, afforded considerable amusement by his manner of giving evidence. He described the marriage as a jolly affair, stating with most ludicrous gravity, that he was so drunk at the time, he could not stand, and did not recollect anything about the ceremony. The court was convulsed with laughter, his lordship being unable to resist the influence of Paddy's humour. The provocation which the prisoner had received from his wife, he finding her living with another man, on his return home, was pleaded in defence. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended him to mercy. Subsequently, he was sentenced to Six Weeks' Imprisonment with Hard Labour. The prisoner's first wife was stated to be in court during the trial, but she was not called as a witness. We understand that while the prisoner was away from England, she contracted another matrimonial engagement, and is now living with the second object of her choice. The court adjourned at the conclusion of this case. CROWN COURT, FRIDAY, MARCH 16. (Before BARON MARTIN.) FANNY THOMAS, 45, MERCY BUNT, 21, and ELIZABETH H. MULLIS, 21, were charged with having, on the 15th February, at Newquay, stolen a table-cloth, a night dress, and a sheet, the property of Thomas Broad Champion. Mr. Holdsworth prosecuted. On the day in question, Mrs. Champion, the wife of the prosecutor, washed the articles mentioned in the indictment and they were placed upon the hedge at Mount Wise, near Newquay, where she lived. She saw them there all safe at five o'clock in the afternoon, but at eight o'clock they were gone. She communicated with the police, and the same evening she occompanied (sic) P.C. Hitchens to the house of Fanny Thomas. Hitchens went in first, and found Fanny Thomas and Mercy Bunt there, the latter being a married daughter of the former. He said that he had come to search the house; and they replied that he might do so. In a drawer in the table he found two sheets and a night dress, and whilst he was engaged in taking out these articles, he observed Bunt take something from the table and put it on the chair on which she was sitting, the mother at the same time attempting to conceal what she was doing from him. He asked her what she was secreting, and she said nothing; at the same time opening the front of her dress, and saying he might look for himself. He requested her to rise, but she refused to do so, the mother remarking that he could not oblige her to rise unless she chose. He insisted upon her getting up, when he found nine pieces of a table- cloth on the seat. Thomas, on being asked to whom the table-cloth belonged, first said that it was hers, and next that it was some work that had been brought to her to do. He asked her who had brought the work, and she replied that she was not bound to tell. She also stated that she had had it more than three days, and that the night-dress which he had found, belonged to her daughter, Mercy Bunt. He then called Mrs. Champion in, and she identified the night-dress and the nine pieces of table-cloth as part of the articles that had been stolen. The table-cloth was whole when she had hung it up, but it had been cut up and the name marked in the centre cut out. To the best of her belief the sheet was hers also. Fanny Thomas then declared that her daughter, Mercy Bunt, had brought the table-cloth home that night, and the latter said if she was to be punished for that, there was another person who had taken a larger bundle than she had done. She then named the other prisoner, Mullis, whom he apprehended in a neighbouring house. Fanny Thomas now vehemently declared that she knew nothing about the table-cloth or the nightdress having been stolen, and she asserted that the sheet was hers; and the other prisoners stated that as they were going to Bunt's house at Newquay, they found a bundle lying on the road. Mullis took it up, and finding it to contain the pieces of table-cloth produced, she gave it to Bunt, saying that it was of no use to her, and might prove serviceable for her (Bunt's) child. The JUDGE, in summing up, said that according to the evidence it would rather seem as if Bunt and Mullis had been the stealers, and Thomas the receiver of the stolen property. But to make her the receiver, the jury must be satisfied that she had an independent possession of the goods. If they remained in possession of the thieves, she could not be charged as the receiver, and certainly the evidence appeared to show that they had never left the possession of Bunt, who admitted having brought part of them into the house. The jury acquitted Fanny Thomas, and found Bunt and Mullis GUILTY; and they were sentenced to Two Months' Hard Labour each. ANN CROCKER, 59, was charged with stealing two towels, four handkerchiefs, three bread cloths, one shirt front, a frock, a silver thimble, and a pair of kid gloves, the property of Mr. W. Whear, of Kilkhampton, in or about the month of August, 1859. Mr. Ffookes prosecuted. The prisoner was employed in the prosecutor's house as a nurse for 13 or 14 weeks in the autumn of last year, and while thus engaged she had taken the articles mentioned. Mr. Whear stated that his wife expected her confinement to take place directly, and she was unable to attend, and Mr. Ffookes then proposed to put in her deposition before the magistrates as evidence. The Judge thought that the deposition was not admissible under such circumstances. The Act of Parliament provided that where a person was so ill as to be unable to travel to the assizes, his deposition taken before the Magistrates might be put in as evidence; but in this case, Mrs. Whear was only about to be confined, and he did not think that could be considered a sufficient illness under the act. Mr. GURNEY, the Clerk of Arraigns said it had been decided by the judges that this was not sufficient. Mr. Ffookes said that his lordship having ruled he could not put in the deposition, and he not being in a position under these circumstances to show that the articles had been seen so recently in the possession of the prosecutor, as to bring the case home to the prisoner, he should not trouble the jury further. The Judge in discharging the prisoner, cautioned her against taking the goods of any other person who employed her, as if she did, it might not happen that in the next case the wife of the prosecutor would be about to be confined. JOHN M'CARTHY, 44, was charged for that he on the 3rd of February, at Truro, being the bailee of a certain watch and chain the property of John Cock, did fraudulently take and convert the same to his own use. Mr. CLARKE prosecuted, and Mr. PRIDEAUX defended the prisoner. The prisoner was indicted under a statute passed in the 21st year of the reign of her present Majesty, which enacts that any person who shall take and convert to his own use the property of another which has been entrusted to him, shall be guilty of larceny. The prosecutor, John Cock, is a traveller and marine store dealer, and on the 3rd of February, he was fined by the magistrates of Truro, 5s., and 5s. 6d. costs for being drunk. He had only 1s. in his possession when apprehended, and being unable to pay the fine and costs, he left his watch and chain at the police station while he went to the house where he lodged to try and get the amount. He there met the prisoner, who although a stranger called him into the street and offered to lend him the money. Prosecutor accepted this offer and the prisoner accompanied him to the police-station, where he paid the 9s. 6d., which with the shilling found on him, made the fine and expenses, receiving the watch and chain in order that they might be pledged at a pawnbroker's, and that he might repay himself out of the money advanced upon them. They accordingly went to the pawnshop of Mr. James, but he, being then engaged, told them to call again at half past 2 o'clock. The prisoner said he would go and have a cup of tea, promising to meet the prosecutor at the time appointed, in order to take the watch and chain to Mr. James's. He then went away, taking the watch and chain with him, and failed to make his appearance as he had promised, nor could the prosecutor afterwards find him at his lodgings in Truro. From information received, the prosecutor, accompanied by Police-serjeant Woolcock, proceeded to Plymouth, where they found the prisoner with the watch and chain in his possession. Mr. PRIDEAUX urged that no felonious intent had been proved against the prisoner, who had merely kept the watch as security for the repayment of the 9s. 6d. which he had advanced, and if he had not been apprehended, he might have returned to Truro the next day, and pledged it according to the arrangement. The jury acquitted the prisoner. GEORGE FISHLEY, 45, was charged with stealing from the house of William Osborne, at Padstow, on the 16th of January, two table knives, a hair brush, and a comb, his property, and a dress, petticoat, and handkerchief, belonging to Mary Giles, his daughter. Mr. HOLDSWORTH prosecuted, and Mr. CARTER defended the prisoner. Mr. Osborne keeps a beerhouse at Padstow, and on the 26th of January, the prisoner came in and sat down in the taproom. At the time, there were two table knives, a brush, and a comb in the room. He remained a quarter of an hour, and as he was going away, Mrs. Mary Giles, who lived with her father, thought that she saw the handles of the two knives sticking out of his coat pocket. She went out in search of the prisoner, but could not find him, and information of the robbery was given to the police. Afterwards she discovered that a child's dress, a Llama petticoat belonging to her child, and a handkerchief belonging to herself had also been taken. About six o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, the prisoner called at the Union Inn, at St. Columb, and asked for a noggin of brandy. This was supplied to him by Mrs. Oliver, the landlady, and when he had drunk it, he ordered another, but she refused to let him have it till he had paid for the one he had drunk. He then threw down the petticoat, saying that would pay her. She refused to take this, and the prisoner went away, but afterwards returned and left his waistcoat in payment. Mrs. Oliver delivered the petticoat to Inspector Grant, of the county constabulary. That officer apprehended the prisoner the same night in the parish of St. Columb Major, and found in his possession the handkerchief, the two table knives, and the hair brush. Mr. CARTER said he was instructed the prisoner was of weak intellect, and he suggested that the knives and brush might have been put into his pocket by some person in a joke, and that, as regarded the other articles, the prisoner might have taken them not knowing what he was doing. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to Two Months Hard Labour. CUTTING AND WOUNDING WITH A LANCET. RICHARD JOSEPH CARKEEK COULSON, an herbal doctor, aged 39, was indicted for maliciously stabbing, cutting, and wounding Richard Truan. In one count, he was charged with intending to maim and disable; and in another count, with intending to do grievous bodily harm.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution.—The prisoner was undefended, but was very active in his cross-examination of witnesses, especially of the prosecutor.—Richard Truan deposed:—l am a dealer in fruit, carrying on business in Bodmin, and in November, I was in Truro. In the evening of the 9th of November, I was in the King's Head Inn, Truro, about half-past 10 in the evening, intending to stay there the night. I was in the Bar, and called for three-pennyworth of brandy, which was brought to me in a pewter measure; but before I had a chance to drink it, the prisoner catched (sic) it away and drank it: I had known him before. I said to him what did you drink my brandy for? He said he would order three pennyworth more; he did so and had it in, but he drank that too; I had none of it. He was then going out of doors, and I collared him, and I asked him as he had drunk up my brandy, if he would pay for it. He said "No, I'd rather see you d--d first.” When I collared him, he drew a lancet out of his pocket and struck my hand with it three times. When I saw my hand bleeding, I ran after him, and caught him hold, and then in the skrimmage he stabbed me in the head. We fell, and I believe I was a-top of him. I should think that three quarts of blood came from my hand; I fainted away, and afterwards Mr. Michell, surgeon, came and dressed my wounds. I came here to Bodmin, and have almost ever since that time been under the care of Mr. Couch, surgeon.—Edward Smith:—I am an apprentice with Messrs. Olver, cabinet makers, at Truro. I was in the room of the King's Head Inn between 10 and 11 o'clock in the evening of the 9th of November. The prosecutor was there—in the first place playing keels in the alley, and afterwards in the room with myself and others. I saw the prisoner sitting by the side of the fire; Truan called for some brandy, and this gentleman (the prisoner) took it and drank it off. Then the prisoner called for another three-penn’orth, and said, "I'll pay for it," and he drank it up. The landlady asked him for the money, and he said he had not got any. He was then going out; and the prosecutor caught hold of him and put him on a chair. The prisoner then took out a lancet and stabbed him in the hand. There was then a scuffle, and they fell on the ground, and the prisoner stabbed him in the head. He then went away, and I watched him about at several public houses, until the policeman took him into custody at the Queen's Head, and at that time he was covered with blood. When the prosecutor and prisoner were on the floor at the King's Head, I saw a quantity of blood flow from Truan.—William James Clemes, a lad, living at Truro: I was at the King's Head on the night in question. After Truan was down on the ground, I saw a lancet in the prisoner's hand. After that, the prisoner went away, and I watched him about wherever he went, and gave information to the police.—George Smith, police constable at Truro:—About 11 o'clock on the night named, I was on duty in Lemon-street, and went into the King's Head, and there found the prosecutor bleeding very much, and from some information I received I apprehended the prisoner at the Queen's Head, in Victoria Place. There was a deal of blood about him, and on his person I found a lancet covered with blood.—William Woolcock, serjeant of police, at Truro:—l recollect the prisoner being brought to the police station; I searched him, and found in his waistcoat pocket this lancet which I produce; there was a quantity of fresh blood on it, and his clothes also were covered with blood. I examined him, and found he had no wounds. The hair of his head was matted apparently with blood, but I saw no wound on his head, or any other part.—Slyman Michell: I am a surgeon in practice at Truro. I recollect being sent for to see a man at the King's Head, in Lemon-street; I found the prosecutor in a room down stairs; he was very faint from loss of blood, and there was a great deal of blood about the room; his left hand was covered with blood, and there was about it a cloth which was saturated with blood; I examined the hand, and found there were three cuts right across it; extending from one side to the other, and they were as deep as they could go, laying bare the tendons and dividing the arteries; the wounds were as deep as they could be without dividing the tendons, and were as extensive as they could well be. I also found a small punctured wound on the side of the head—about half an inch in length. The wounds must have been made with a sharp cutting instrument. The wounds on the hand certainly could not have been made with broken glass, because the cuts were right across the hand. There was a good deal of blood, not only in the room where I examined the prosecutor, but also in the front room, where the scuffle had taken place. I saw the prosecutor the following day, and then he left Truro.—In cross- examination by the prisoner, Mr. Michell was positive the wounds could not have been made with broken glass, and that they must have been made with some sharp cutting instrument; he could not say positively that the instrument used was a lancet.—Re-examined. Decidedly, a lancet might have made the cuts.—The PRISONER made a rather long address to the Jury, in the course of which he suggested that the cuts were probably made by broken glass on the floor. He appeared also to have got up a somewhat set speech for the occasion, in high-flown language; but his memory failed him in the attempt to deliver it.—The Jury found him GUILTY of cutting, stabbing, and wounding, with intent to do bodily harm.—The learned JUDGE expressed full concurrence in the verdict; and then made some strong observations, condemnatory of the use of a knife—a lancet was still worse—in a case of quarrel. For public interests it was right, he said, that such offences should be severely punished; and, for himself, he should always feel it his duty to inflict heavy punishment when such cases were proved before him. He then passed sentence of Five Years Penal Servitude. ANOTHER CASE 0F CUTTING AND WOUNDING. WILLIAM HENRY KING EDDY, 29, an engine-man, was charged with unlawfully and maliciously cutting, stabbing, and wounding Isaac Merryn, at Redruth, on the 15th January.—Mr. Oxenham conducted the prosecution. Mr. Cox defended.—Prosecutor deposed:—I am a miner, and on Saturday evening the 14th January, I was at an Inn at Redruth, and left there between 11 and 12 at night. I had to go out of the town to go to my home. As I was going home, I fell in with the prisoner in the street; I had known him before; he was a neighbour of mine. I asked him if he was going home; and he said yes. We walked on arm in arm together, about a quarter of a mile as far as to Wheal Gilbert Bottom; when we got there I asked him to go round the other road to my house—that road was a little farther round. He said "no," and then threw me down; we fell together, and got up together again. We then hitched and fell down together again. While we were down, I felt something run into me, behind my left ear; I put up my left hand to defend myself and then received four stabs in my hand; I also received a stab in the top of my thigh; I put my hand up to save my face, but received some wounds on my face; altogether I received some 6 or 7 wounds. I did not see anything in his hand, I only felt, something. I called out ''he’s stabbing me," and John Jacka came and heaved up Eddy who was on me. After that, three or four chaps came up the road, and my brother came there afterwards. When I left Redruth I was sober, but I had been drinking. I went home that night and in the morning went to Dr. Permewan; and also went to Sergeant James.—Cross- examined:—When I met with the prisoner, he spoke to me first and asked me to go home with him; he was very drunk. We walked steadily and did not fall before we came to the lane; I had no particular reason for asking him to go round that way. I had known the prisoner 15 years. We had not quarrelled, and were good friends up to that moment. I did not say anything more to him than ask him to go around by the lane.—Mr. Cox.—What was it you said to him that made him so angry? Did you say nothing more than "come down into the Bottom?" Witness: No.—Mr. Cox.—I ask you again, what you wanted him to go into the Bottom for? Witness made no answer; but afterwards repeated that he had no reason for asking him to go there. John Jacka, miner, living in the parish of Redruth:—l know the prosecutor and prisoner. Between 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning the 15th January, I went down the road towards Gilbert's Bottom, and saw them on the ground, and Merryn was saying "he's stabbing me." Eddy was a-top, and I heaved him up, and Merryn got up shortly afterwards and said to me in the hearing of the prisoner "John, feel the stabs that he has cut." I put my hand, but I could not see or feel any wound; but I felt what I thought was blood round under his ear, and wet in several other places. Several other persons came while I was there and I told some of them to go and tell Merryn's father and brother to come down. The brother came down and put home Merryn, and I went home with prisoner. While I had him by the collar, he said "I'll either kill Merryn, or he shall kill me." He said he had no knife, and I did not see any knife, nor could I find any by feeling his clothes outside. The prosecutor and prisoner lived under one roof. When I got to the house with prisoner, Merryn's father came down with a light and began to screech out to Eddy "what is the matter?" I told what had happened, and said that the best way was for every man to go to his own home; and I went to my house and left Eddy and Merryn there. They had been drinking, but I should not say they were drunk; they walked very well with me.—By the Judge:—The prisoner made no complaint to me.— James Morton, innkeeper at Redruth:—On the night of the 14th January, prisoner was at my house from 11 to half-past 11; he ordered a bottle of ginger-beer and I saw him cut the string of it with a small white-handled penknife. He was a little intoxicated when he came to my house, but while there, he had nothing but the bottle of ginger-beer.—John Permewan, surgeon of Redruth. On Sunday morning the 15th January I was called by Sergeant James of the police to attend Merryn who had been stabbed. He came to my surgery with the sergeant at 4 o'clock in the morning. I saw he was very much blanched and in a very excited state; I found a very deep, small wound under the left ear; I probed that wound; it was 1½ inches deep; there was another wound about half that depth under the chin; there were three or four other wounds on the back of the left hand. These wounds must have been caused by a small sharp instrument; they might have been made with a penknife. The wound by the left ear just skirted the jaw bone, and, fortunately, it took a direction forward. Any injury at that part is very dangerous. I found the man faint; but I don't think that was from loss of blood so much as from excitement. I have attended him nearly to the present time; the wound on the cheek healed readily; but the wounds on the hands have suppurated and given me great trouble, and I believe they are not sound now.—Henry James, serjeant of police at Redruth. I saw the prisoner and Merryn together on the night in question, before the public-house, in Redruth. They were arm in arm. They spoke to me; Eddy said they were neighbours and were going home together. They had been drinking. I replied "that's right, my lads, take and go home comfortable." At 2 o'clock on Sunday morning, Merryn and his brother came to my house, and in consequence of what Merryn told me, I went to Eddy's house and apprehended him; I charged him with cutting and wounding Isaac Merryn. He made no answer. I went to search his trowsers for his knife, and asked him in which pocket it was; he said it was down stairs in his coat which he had on in the scuffle. I went down stairs with the prisoner, and I searched his coat and waistcoat, but could not find any knife, and he said he had not got any. I saw that his face was covered with blood; and his shirt (produced) was also bloody. As I was taking the prisoner to the station, we passed the place where the scuffle was said to have taken place, and the prisoner said:—"Merryn wanted me to go down to Gilbert's burning-house, and I would not go. With that, Merryn tore my coat, and I could not stand that and I threw him into the water-table and beat his head against a stone, but I did not use any knife, for I did not want to, about such a boy as that. I asked Jacka to take possession of my coat and search me and see if I had a knife about me"—l then locked the prisoner up, and went with the prosecutor to Mr. Permewan's. Cross-examined. Prisoner's coat (produced) is very much torn.—Mr. COX addressed the jury for the defence, insisting on alleged improbabilities in the plaintiff's case; and, with reference to a part of his cross-examination, suggesting that Merryn had asked Eddy to go into the lane, for a certain unmentionable purpose, and that it was a wrathful indignation at his proposal, which induced Eddy to throw Merryn into the water table.—The Jury, however, found the prisoner GUILTY of unlawfully wounding; and the learned Judge, after expressing approval of the verdict, said he regretted that the prisoner, or any one in his behalf, should have suggested to Counsel the imputation on the prosecutor which had been thrown out, and of which there was not the slightest evidence in proof. If that statement were true, undoubtedly the prisoner would have immediately complained to that effect, to the policemen and other witnesses; but it had been distinctly proved that he made no complaint whatever.—Sentence, Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. CHARGE OF WILFUL MURDER. MARY BANT, 32, described as a servant, was indicted, and also charged on the coroner's inquisition, with the wilful murder of her female child on the 9th February at Stokeclimsland.—Mr. Stock and Mr. Cox conducted the prosecution; Mr. Prideaux the defence.—The prisoner, with loud voice and energetic manner, pleaded not guilty.—She was a little, slight woman, and of singularly excitable temperament; and on more than one occasion during the trial, seemed on the point of going into fits of hysterics. She was allowed to sit during the trial, and the JUDGE kindly entreated her to endeavour to compose herself during the trial, which, he said to her, must take place some time or other. Mr. STOCK, after some preliminary observations on the serious nature of the crime charged, said:—the prisoner, Mary Bant has for some time past, lived in a cottage, called Alston, in a somewhat solitary situation, apart from other cottages. For some years she has cohabited with a man named Thomas Parsons. In the course of last winter, she was pregnant and applied to a midwife named Elizabeth White—a person of considerable practice in that neighbourhood; and about one in the afternoon of the 8th of February, the woman White having previously visited her—she was delivered of a female child. In the cottage there is no upstairs room, but there are two rooms on the ground floor—a kitchen and a bed-room. The labour was an easy one, and the child was a fine, healthy child; it was taken by the midwife into the kitchen, and there washed and fed; it was in a healthy state, cried loudly, and took some nutriment—sugar and water—without difficulty. After some time, the child was carried back to the mother and placed in the bed, by her side. The midwife returned into the kitchen, leaving the child with its mother. On the first occasion of the midwife going in to the mother, after having washed and fed the child, she had some conversation with the mother, in the course of which a remarkable expression was made use of by the latter; the midwife pointing out what a fine child it was, the mother said “yes, but twill not live long." The midwife went into the kitchen and took some tea; she was called by the prisoner, and went into the bed room, and then found that there was a considerable change in the appearance of the child; the face was livid, the lips bruised, and there was blood coming from its mouth. The midwife examined the child, and found that there were no signs of stiffness, or convulsion, or of the child's having been seized with a fit. She carried the child again into the kitchen, and blood continued to flow slowly and in small quantities, from its mouth. She tried to give the child some further nourishment, but found that it was no longer able to swallow. Subsequently a woman named Coomb came, and the two women went into the bed-room. The mother was in a state to give abundant nourishment at the breast, but the child was unable to take it. After remaining some time, the two women went away, leaving the child with its mother. Some arrangement appears to have been made that some other person should come and pass the night there but it was a particularly rough and stormy night, and the person sent for did not come. About 2 o'clock in the morning, Parsons, sleeping in another bed, was alarmed by a cry from the prisoner that the child was dead; and, getting up, he found this was true. About 8 o clock in the morning, the midwife and the woman Coomb returned to the house, and on that occasion they appear to have made a charge against the prisoner; on which the prisoner became very excited indeed, got out of bed, and said she would drown herself; but after some time, she was got back into bed and became quiet. The appearances on the child continued much the same as before. The midwife had the dead body placed in a box, in which it remained a considerable time, so that when it was produced at the inquest, it was found that considerable injury had been done to the face and head by mice. The body was examined—first by one medical gentleman, and then a further examination by him and another medical gentleman. The principal injuries they observed were, the bruising and blackness of both the upper and lower lips, and a much more important injury inside the mouth; on each side of the uvula there was considerable laceration of the flesh; and on one side of the uvula there was a third injury of the same kind. The body was opened afterwards; the lungs, which had been fully inflated, were found to be much congested; and, as a general result of their examination, the medical gentlemen would say that in their judgment the child did not die from natural courses, but from injuries, both external and internal, from the bruising of the lips, and the laceration at the back of the throat produced by the thrusting of the fingers of some person into the mouth. The medical men were of opinion that the cause of death was not, absolutely, congestion of the lungs, simply, nor absolutely from laceration of the throat and uvula, but from the general injuries and the shock to the system, thus inflicted. If this should be satisfactorily proved, although the precise manner in which each of those particular injuries tended to death could not possibly be ascertained, he apprehended that, so far as concerned that evidence, the charge would be held to be made out against the prisoner.—After some general observations in conclusion, the learned Counsel proceeded to call witnesses :— Thomas Parsons, examined by Mr. Cox:—l am a labourer living at Alston Cottage, in Stoke Climsland, and have lived there 21 years. I know the prisoner Mary Bant. I am not married to her, but she has been living with me; she had a child while living with me; that child—a boy—is 2½ years old. Last month the prisoner had another child; I don't recollect the day. I knew that she was in the family way. I remember her, on a Tuesday morning, asking me to go for Betty White, a midwife in our neighbourhood. I and Mary Bant and the little boy live in the house—a cottage standing by itself. There are no up-stairs rooms. There is a kitchen and a bed room and a little small room at the back. When Betty White came, prisoner was in the bed room, end Betty White went in to her. I afterwards met Betty White and she said the child was born; and afterwards she brought out the child and washed and dressed it by the fire in the kitchen; it seemed to be looking very well; she fed it with sugar and water, in a tea spoon; the child took the food, and seemed to swallow it easily. I then went out to cut some wood. I was called by Betty White and went back into the house; Betty White was then sitting by the fire with the child in her lap; she said the child had a fit; this was about 2 or ½ past 2 in the day; the child was not looking as it did before; it was turned a dark colour; the child did not cry; it was not convulsed, that I saw; Betty White said it had a fit , I stayed and looked on for about half an hour, and then she told me to go and call Bella Coomb, and I did so and she name. This was about 3 o'clock. When I came back, Bella Coomb and Betty White were there. They went away between 5 and 6 in the evening; I then sent for my daughter Elizabeth and Ann Kelly. I went to bed at 10 o'clock. I did not see the child again before I went to bed. About 2 o'clock in the night Mary Bant called me and told me the child was dead. I saw the child then, and it was dead. Betty White and Bella Coomb came again about 8 in the morning; they went with me into the bed room where Mary Bant was. I believe I went into the bed room with Bella Coomb in the morning and saw the child; but I did not examine it; I looked at it, and its mouth and lips were all turned black. Betty White wrapped it up and put it into a box. Mary was at that time in bed; she was quiet enough then. After 12 o'clock Betty White went away; before she left, I don't know that anything was said about what should be done with the body. Mary said the best way was to get the child buried as quick as I could. (The prisoner here became excited, and exclaimed, vehemently, “he’s telling lies"). I told her I would not, before somebody sent for a policeman, or somebody had come to inspect it. The policeman came in the evening, and the child remained in the box till he came, and until the day the coroner came.—Cross-examined:—The prisoner has lived with me four years. The child at home is 2½ years old; she continued to suckle it until the other child, was born. I had known her about 7 years before she came to live with me. She attended to the child and everything about the house; she was kind both to me, and the child, and was always very honest and trustworthy. She was subject to fits; she had them frequently and very bad; at those times she would be speaking before the fit came on. She was very often strange in her conduct. The fits would sometimes last long, and sometimes not very long.—When she had them, she would not become insensible immediately and did not foam at the mouth. I can't tell if she had one of those fits shortly before the child was born; she was not fitty, she was not sensible for a brave bit before the child was born; she didn't know fitty, what she was about. She had prepared baby linen. When she asked me to go for Betty White, she was very bad; that was two days before the birth. The day that she had child, she didn't seem to know fitty what she was about. When she told me the child was dead, she seemed very much distressed and was weeping about it; she told me that she had tried to give the child something to take, but couldn't get the child to take it. I recollect telling her 'twas a bad job; that was when Betty White had told me the child was injured and after they had accused her of having injured it. She said she did not injure the child, and did not know how it was done. It was in consequence of the charge they brought against her that I said I would not have the child buried until the policeman came. All this time she seemed very much distressed. It was about 2 o'clock in the morning she told me the child was dead; at that time there was a light in the room—one candle.—Re-examined by Mr. Stock.—She had a fit about four hours before the child was born; she told me that she had had lots of fits before. In her fits, she would catch hold of me and did not know what she was doing for a while; and I would put her on the form. After they told me the child was injured, I told her it was a bad job her doing so. I looked at the child's lips and saw they were black; I asked her how that was; she said she could not tell. I did not ask her any more, for I was not going to hurry the woman, as she had just had child. When she had those fits, she would be insensible, but did not rave; she would lay hold of me by the jacket or shoulder; she was not violent. Betsy White, by Mr. Stock:—I am a married woman living at South Sydenham, about half a mile from Alston Cottage. I have acted as midwife for about 7 years, and have had a good many cases to attend to. Some little time before Mary Bant was confined she applied to me to attend her. I went to the cottage on Wednesday the 8th February and saw her. I went away and returned the next day; I found she was not very bad, but at 12 o'clock she got worse, and about 1 o'clock the child was born—a female child; it was a very easy labour, and a very fine child; I first attended to her, and then I took the child into the kitchen about an hour after it was born and washed it; the child was in a healthy condition; I washed and dressed it and gave it about half a teacup full of sugar and water, which it took very readily; at this time the child looked quite well, and cried very loud, as healthy children cry; after I had given it the sugar and water I took it back into the bed-room and found Mary Bant in bed. I asked her if I should put the child in along with her or in the other bed; she said "along with me"; I put the child with her; at that time the child was quite well and healthy and there were no marks on the face or lips.—I said to her it was a very fine child; and she said "it would not live very long—though it was a very fine child." I said "nonsense, Mary, the child is very healthy, and I don't see why it should not live." She made no answer to that. I left the child with her and went into the kitchen, and had some tea there.—When I had been in the kitchen about half an hour, she called out to me that there was something the matter with the child; and I went into the bedroom immediately; I found the child was lifted up in the bed on the bolster further up than I had put it in; the child was quite dark in the face; I took it up and went into the other room with it where there was a stronger light, by the fire; I then observed there was blood and froth coming from the month, and a little mark on both lips just as if it had been pressed with a finger: it was dark; the mark on the under lip was just about the same length. There was blood about the bedgown—blood and froth, smeared; not in drops; I wiped it off the month with a pocket handkerchief; blood continued to come from the mouth—not very much. I undressed the child, but did not find any injuries about the body; it could not take anything in; there was no appearance of any fit or convulsion. I then told the old man that he must get assistance, as I thought the child would die; the old man went away to get assistance, and about 3 o'clock Bella Coomb came; I had known her before; after that, I and Bella Coomb went into the prisoner's bedroom. Bella Coomb told her she had hurted (sic) the child; she said that she (Bella Coomb) had got herself into a scrape, and now she wished to get her (Mary Bant) into one. I did not say anything to Mary Bant about injuries to the child. After Bella Coomb came, the child was put to the breast, but would not suck; the mother had a good breast of milk. Bella Coomb and I took out the child into the kitchen, and tried to feed it again with the spoon; but it could not swallow. The old man said he would get somebody to stay the night. The child was put into bed, and I and Bella Coomb went away together about 5 o'clock. It was a stormy night. I returned the next morning about 10 o'clock; I came back alone. I went into the kitchen, and the old man told me the child was dead. I went into the bedroom, and found the mother in bed and the child by her side. The child was very dark around the mouth. When Bella Coomb came, I examined the inside of the mouth. The bruises on the lips had spread a good deal, and got darker. Before Bella Coomb came, I took the child out, and said to the prisoner: "Mary, what have you done? I think you have murdered your child." She said, "I have not; I have not done anything to it." I said, "you have, Mary; we shall be all called to the Bar for murdering this little child." Bella Coomb then came; I then put the child in the other bed. Bella Coomb charged her with killing the child; and then Mary Bant jumped out and said she had not done anything to the child. Bella Coomb said, “you have, Mary." I told her, "if you don't go into bed, Mary, I'll have a policeman for you;" and on that she went into bed, and I gave her something warm. I put the child's body into bed for a time, and then I put it into a box in the same room; a covered box.—I was at the inquest, and saw the body of the child produced before the surgeon.—Cross-examined—It was about 2 o'clock in the day that the birth took place. I left the child in bed with her about half an hour before she called to me.—She said it was a fine child, but would not live very long. Before the child was born, she told me the child would not live very long. When I came back again and put the child to her breast, she took out her breast and seemed ready and willing. I know that she had continued to suckle the other child down to this time. I told her that she ought not to do so, and when I told her she ought to have weaned the child she said she couldn't. I left the child with her while I had tea, just after the birth; and it was while I was sitting taking a cup of tea that she called me and said there was something the matter with the child. It was after that, that I and Bella Coomb put the child to her breast; and afterwards we left the child with her again, and went away. The child was then lying by her side, and was covered with bed-clothes, except the face. When I came back again, the child was dead. The woman was not in great distress; she jumped out of bed and said she would drown herself, but I didn't think that at that time she was very much excited. I never saw any difference in her; she did not seem at all distressed or amazed, no more than that she got out of bed and went back again; she was very quiet. She said once only that she would drown herself.—Re-examined. About a fortnight or three weeks before the child was born, she said the child would not live long; she said that to me in her own house. It was after she had been charged with killing the child that she said she would drown herself; she did not appear to be in distress when I first went there after the child was dead. Isabella Coomb, examined by Mr. Cox:—I am a married woman, living within a ¼ mile of Alston Cottage. On the 9th Feb. I was sent for and I went to the cottage between 3 and 4 o'clock. When I got there I saw Elizabeth White in the bed room with Mary Bant; she came to me with a baby in her arms and sat down by the fire in the kitchen. I looked at the baby, and first perceived the lips were injured; they seemed to be pressed and bruised; when the child revived a bit, I saw blood run from the mouth. The child was not crying, and it could breathe, but the blood would strangle it from time to time; the child changed colour and would be very dark at times; it was not convulsed, or stiff; nothing out of the way; its eyes were open at times; we tried to give it water and sugar, but it could not swallow; I then took the baby into the room to Mary; I said to her "Mary, what have you done to the baby?" She got in a violent rage and said "what do you think I should have done?" She got into a rage and threatened to drown herself. We gave her something, and then Elizabeth White and I left for the night I came again next morning, Friday, between 10 and 11 o'clock, and went into the bed room; the child was dead, and Elizabeth White had it in her lap. I had accused Mary on the Thursday of having done something to the baby—and on Friday morning she demanded to know what I thought she had done to the baby; I then said “I think you have injured the baby's throat with your finger." She then jumped out of bed, and threatened to go and drown herself. We got her into bed and gave her something, and I very soon left.—Cross-examined. I was in the kitchen when I said “Mary, what have you done to the child?" She said “nothing.” On the Friday, when I accused her, she became very excited, got out of bed, and several times threatened to destroy herself. She was shivering and cold; Elizabeth White carried her a basin of gruel, and that seemed to comfort her. Ann Kelly, by Mr. Stock:—I am a married woman. I called at Alston Cottage on Thursday evening, the 9th of February. I found Mary Bant in bed, and she had the new born child with her. This was about ¼ after six.—l asked her how she was; she said she was very well, but the child was bad. I asked her what was the matter; said she did not know. I looked at the child but I could not see anything; it was not a very good light—only the fire light. The child was breathing very bad. Mary Bant was very well apparently; she was quiet and seemed comfortable. I went next morning; the child was dead; I saw bruises on the child's mouth, one on the upper lip under the nose, and one on the under lip; I asked her what was the matter with the child's mouth, and she said she did not know. I told her I thought she ought to have the doctor to see the child. She asked me for what reason I thought so. I told her as the child had lived so many hours after it was born, it was necessary for the doctor to see the child. She said she was very agreeable for the doctor to see the child.— Cross-examined.—I cannot recollect that she said to me that, she did not know what she had done, unless she had laid on the child; I cannot say for certain that she did not say so.—By the Judge.— That man Parsons desired me to send down his daughter; and I did desire her, but she would not go. James Vercoe, by Mr. Cox:—l am a policeman; on Friday the 10th February I went to Alston Cottage and saw the body of a child in a box and showed it to Mr. Brown and Mr. Kempthorne, surgeons; and afterwards produced it at the inquest. On the Friday when I saw it at the cottage there were no injuries to the head, or ear, or eye-brows; they were sound then. The only marks I then saw were on the mouth. William Brown, surgeon, by Mr. Stock:—I am in practice at Callington. On Monday the 13th of February, I attended a Coroner's inquest at Alston Cottage; the body of a dead female child was produced to me, and by the coroner's directions I made a post mortem examination of it. When I first saw the body it was in a small box which was brought to me in the kitchen; I removed the body from the box and examined it; it was a tall, fine, well-developed child. There was a wound on the forehead and another on the top of the nose; these wounds had been inflicted after death by a mouse or some such animal: I could see the impressions of small teeth. There was a wound of the same description on the left ear.—Over the mouth I observed a decided severe bruise, which had unquestionably been made during life time; there was a bruise on the upper lip, and between the under lip and the chin—not reaching so high up as the border of the lip. The wound on the upper lip was the more extensive one; it was about one inch horizontally; the whole depth between the nose and the margin of the lip, was bruised, and it extended through the whole thickness of the lip. The bruise on the lower lip was narrow vertically, but the width across—horizontally—was about the same as that on the upper lip. I should say that these bruises were produced by some substance of a pliable nature; the hand of a person would be the most probable thing to do it with. The pressure required to produce such bruises would be considerable. The upper lip was bruised all through; I cut it through for the purpose of observing that. Inside the mouth, on the soft palate, I at once perceived two lacerations, and the soft palate was generally discoloured. The two lacerations were one on each side of the uvula, and, of course, above it; these lacerations were about half an inch in length and curved downwards—the concavity downwards—the convexity upwards; they were in fact arches. These lacerations were not produced by a keen cutting instrument. I decidedly thought that these injuries were inflicted at the same time; the one on the left side was deeper and more complete than that on the left side of the uvula. They were such lacerations as might have been produced by thrusting fingers into the mouth; the appearance of the lacerations was such as led me to suppose that they had been produced by finger nails. I laid open the under part of the throat; but before doing so, I opened the head and found some venous congestion outside the skull, and under the scalp; but within the head there was nothing particular. The congestion under the scalp was not such as would cause death. I proceeded to examine the upper parts of the throat behind the soft palate. I considered that those parts had a bruised appearance; but there was no positive laceration. I did not observe any blood in the throat. The lungs were congested; they were of a darker colour than natural; they had been fully inflated, shewing that the child had breathed perfectly at one time. There were no symptoms of inflammation in the lungs; and I cannot say that the congestion was considerable; I think there would always be more or less congestion in the act of death. The stomach was empty of any food; if the child had taken food, it must have been absorbed; there was in the stomach about a tea-spoon full of mucus and dark blood. I did not, on that day observe any thing else particular about the body. From this examination, I was able to form a judgment that the death was caused by violence, and that that violence was pressure on the mouth and obstruction at the back of the throat so as to cause almost suffocation, but not quite; and there was also the shock, for so young an infant. At my request the inquest was adjourned to the following Thursday. Mr. Kempthorne then joined me in the examination. We found a third laceration, at the extreme right of the soft palate; it was at the extremity, on the right side of the soft palate, where it descends to the tongue. That laceration was deeper than the others and had separated the muscular fibres more completely; it was such a laceration as might have been caused by a hand, in the same way as the others; but I am not certain of that. It was on this second examination, that I cut through the upper lip and found that the bruise extended through the whole thickness. I should expect that after a child had received such injuries at so tender age, it would have difficulty in breathing. In my judgment, death was produced by external violence, and the indications were such as might be produced by a hand being pressed into the mouth. I have heard the evidence in the case; that evidence accords with the opinion I have expressed; the symptoms described by the witness are such as would follow such a case,—the lividity of the face, the difficulty of breathing, the incapacity to swallow, and the general depression of the vital powers. I should say that the cause of death was a violent obstructing of respiration, not carried to the point of death, but producing a shock so great that the child could not rally. The child might have rallied under medical treatment for a time, but most likely inflammation would set in, and the child would still have died. The means which a medical man might have used, were not tried.—Cross-examined.—l have been in practice 15 years, and derive my experience from practice and observation; I never saw a case of this sort before; I do not think the mother lying on the child would have caused these injuries, because the nose and chin would have been involved. Women having epileptic fits would not be more likely to have them in pregnancy and confinement than at other times. I have had cases of puerperal fever with strong convulsions and total obliteration of the mind; in my experience there is no tendency to destroy children; a long suckling would produce general debility, but I do not believe that a lengthened lactation would affect the brain; according to my experience, there is no tendency during puerperal fever to destroy children.—Re-examined.—l do not consider the woman to be imbecile, but her mind is below the average. She is quick and thinks she is knowing, but she is below par. Her mind is hardly an average; but at the same time, she is not imbecile, or idiotic, or any thing of that kind. I have not the least idea that she had any violent fits or puerperal fever, or any thing of that kind. John Kempthorne, surgeon at Callington, examined by Mr. Cox.—l was called in to make an examination of this child's body, on the 16th of February. Mr. Brown pointed out to me several marks on the scalp which had impressions of the teeth of mice; he also pointed out the marks on the upper and lower lips, which were changed in colour. The marks were not those of decomposition; they were marks which had been made during the life of the child, and were such as would be produced by pressure. The chin had been divided, in order to facilitate examination of the throat. I saw two lacerations, one on either side of the uvula, and a deep laceration on the extreme right of the palate. It appeared to me that most probably these lacerations were due to the forcing back of two fore fingers against the palate. In my opinion the child had died from the violence of which those marks were the indications, causing death by partial suffocation and consequent exhaustion of the nervous powers. I have heard the evidence in the case; I should say that it coincides with the opinion I have expressed.—Cross-examined. Where there is a tendency to nervous excitement, parturition would be likely to light it up. Women sometimes become deranged during parturition; I have never seen in such cases a morbid tendency to destroy offspring; I have read of such cases. I do not know that where there has been lengthened lactation, the same consequences have been known to follow; I have had no experience of such a thing, and I cannot bring to my recollection any reading of the kind. Lengthened lactation is calculated to exercise an injurious influence by weakening the system; and whatever tends to debilitate the body, will injuriously affect the brain, as part of the nervous system. It frequently happens that women go through labour very well, and afterwards become subject to great nervous excitement.—Re-examined. If there was a tendency to nervous excitement, it would be lighted up by another excitement, and parturition is a great excitement. The easier the process of labour, the less the excitement. I have read of cases of women killing their children, after parturition. I don’t know that it is possible to trace cause and effect so as to say that parturition induces a tendency to murder. I do not know that I could trace any tendency to destroy offspring, in parturition apart from other circumstances; I cannot recall any such case. William Fleet, a police constable, whose name was on the back of the indictment, was not called for the prosecution; but Mr. PRIDEAUX, prisoner's counsel, examined him: He deposed:—When I apprehended this woman, she said "I never injured the dear child, and l am innocent of the crime." She seemed very much distressed, and said "if I did hurt it, I know nothing about it; I was not in my right mind." This closed the evidence for the prosecution. Mr. PRIDEAUX, for the defence, made an able and earnest address to the jury. The first point to which he directed their attention, was the absence of motive to the alleged murder. This was not the case of a young woman who, having fallen, was desirous of hiding her shame; or of a mother who wished to avoid the burden of maintaining her child. In every thing but the honoured name, the prisoner was a wife; and, as Parsons had told them, she performed the duties of her station faithfully and well, and, especially, attended with maternal regard and affection the child which she had previously by him. Of this she had shown a most remarkable proof; for although that child had reached the age of 2½ years, she continued to suckle it; and when she was expostulated with and told she ought to wean it, the mother's feelings were too strong in bosom and she gave the touching answer "I cannot." It was impossible to believe that such a mother could tear from her breast her child just born and wilfully and determinedly destroy it.—Then again, it was to be noticed that she communicated the fact of her pregnancy, prepared baby-linen, and requested Parsons to fetch a midwife. But even after the birth of the child thus made known, it would have been easy for her to stifle the child and pretend she had overlain it, if she had desired to get rid of it; there was no necessity for her resorting to the violence imputed to her. It was clear from the evidence of Betty White and Bella Coomb that when the child was, the second time, left in bed with its mother, they never supposed for a moment that she was likely to commit an act so unnatural as the wilful murder of the poor child just taken from her breast; and Parsons declares that when she told him the child was dead, she was crying and in great distress. Then again, it was not her fault that the child was not seen by a doctor; for when it was suggested to her, she said she was perfectly agreeable that the Doctor should see the child. In fact, every thing she did, while she was at all conscious of what she doing, showed her womanly and motherly feeling and affection. Look, for instance, to her expression to the policeman who took her into custody—"I never injured the dear child; if I hurted the poor child, I was not in my right mind,”—a remark which she would not have made, if she had been the cool, calculating murderer of her own child. He believed the jury would not be satisfied that she did kill the child at all. If death had been occasioned as stated by the surgeon Mr. Brown—by compression of the lips and consequent depression of the vital powers—that might possibly have resulted from her overlying the child and from the pressure of a roll of linen or some such cause. But even supposing the jury should be of opinion that the mother did cause the death of the child by putting her fingers into its mouth, that was capable of explanation. It was in evidence that she was subject to violent fits, and that she had a fit shortly before her confinement; and it was also in evidence that the woman's nervous strength had been reduced by lengthened lactation of the elder child, and that parturition would have a tendency to induce nervous excitement; it was also in evidence that when she had those fits, she would violently lay hold of any object near her. Suppose that while the child was in bed with her, she in one of those fits, grasped the child and that, in so doing, her fingers entered the child's mouth, would not that account for the injuries observed? And, unless the jury were satisfied that she did, wilfully, deliberately, and of malice aforethought, murder that child, they were bound to acquit her. And, in coming to their decision on this point, they must bear in mind the evidence of the second surgeon, Mr. Kempthorne—that where there was an excitement about the brain, parturition had a tendency to develop it, or, as he said, to light up that excitement and also, in some women, to induce a maniacal tendency to suicide, or to the destruction of their own children; and there was proof that this woman was, to a certain extent, at all times strange in mind. In conclusion, the learned Counsel contended that, on the evidence adduced the jury must feel it their duty, as it would be their pleasure, to acquit the prisoner. The learned JUDGE then proceeded to the summing up. His lordship reminded the jury that in order to find the prisoner guilty, they must be satisfied that she was a moral agent—that she knew what she was doing and was conscious of right and wrong, if they were satisfied that it was by her hand the child came by its death. In investigations of this kind, the first question was, what was the motive for commission of the alleged crime? In the generality of such cases the motive was a young woman's endeavour to preserve herself from shame. But in the present case there could be no such motive. The woman had had a child 2½ years previously; all her neighbours were aware of her pregnancy, and she had prepared baby clothes and made every provision for the child. There was only one expression which fell from her, that would seem to show that she had not a motherly affection for the child; and that was her saying to Mrs. White that the child would not live. But Mrs. White's answer, "Nonsense, Mary, I don't see why the child should not live," would seem rather to be used by way of encouraging a depressed and desponding woman, than to indicate any suspicion that she contemplated murder.—Again remarking that he could see no motive for the alleged murder, his lordship referred to the circumstances attending the birth and subsequent treatment of the child, as given in evidence, and said, whatever injury was inflicted on the child must have been done within about 1½ hour after its birth. But though it was impossible not to see that the women— Mrs. White and Mrs. Coomb—now gave their evidence under a strong conviction of the prisoner's guilt, they could not at the time have had any notion that the prisoner had committed murder; for if they had then entertained any such notion, it was impossible to believe that they would have gone away quietly as they did, leaving the child with its mother.—There was another piece of evidence which was entitled to much weight in favour of prisoner; it was that of Ann Kelly, who came to the house about half-past 6, to whom the prisoner then said she was quite agreeable that a doctor should see the child.—His lordship next spoke of Mr. Brown's evidence as to the prisoner's intellect—that it was hardly equal to the average of minds, though its deficiency did not amount to imbecility. It was also in evidence that she was subject to fits and had had one shortly before the child was born; and it was suggested that, if she committed any violence on the child, it was during one of these paroxysms and while she was in a state of unconsciousness. His lordship next referred to the prisoner's long suckling of her first child as showing that she was an affectionate woman—one who had in great measure sacrificed herself for her child; and he also adverted to the medical evidence as to the effect of this lengthened lactation on the nervous system. The preparation for the birth of the second child, and the application to a midwife for the usual attendance, his lordship considered were important features in the case; and, generally, his lordship's summing up was in favour of an acquittal. The Jury, after consultation in their box for a few minutes only, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. SATURDAY, MARCH 17. (Before BARON MARTIN.) INDECENT ASSAULT. RICHARD GREENWOOD, 16, was charged with an indecent assault on Fanny Baskerville, a girl under 10 years of age, at Stokeclimsland, on the 26th of August last. Mr. OXENHAM prosecuted. The prosecutrix, an intelligent little girl, deposed that she was just turned of nine years of age, and lived at Gravesland, in Stokeclimsland. One afternoon last summer she was sent, to Tresallick, and on her return in the twilight the prisoner joined her at Twoboroughs. After walking with her a short distance he gave her a halfpenny, and then pulled her off the pathway and committed the criminal assault charge. The girl, on arriving at home, told her mother what happened, and the prisoner was apprehended. The only defence offered by the prisoner was that the girl was a consenting party. The JUDGE said that the prisoner had acknowledged the offence, for whether the girl was a consenting party or not made no difference, as in either case he would be equally guilty. The jury at once found the prisoner Guilty, and the Judge, observing that he had committed a most scandalous offence, sentence him to Nine Months' Hard Labour. ADMINISTRATION OF NOXIOUS DRUGS, AND CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH AT ST. BURYAN. ELIZABETH HOSKING, a neatly dressed and respectable young woman, pleaded guilty to concealing the birth of a male child of which she had been delivered, at St. Buryan, on the 14th of September last. HANNAH JOHNS, 35, was then arraigned upon an indictment charging her with having, in the month of July last, administered to Elizabeth Hosking a certain noxious thing or drug, with intent to cause the miscarriage of the said Elizabeth Hosking, at St. Buryan. Mr. BERE prosecuted. The evidence showed a large amount of ignorance and credulity on one side, and great cunning and rapacity on the other. The following witnesses were called:— Elizabeth Hosking, who had just pleaded guilty, deposed—l am the daughter of Edward and Mary Hosking, and live at Boscawen Noon, in the parish of St. Buryan. I remember last St. Buryan feast, which is held on the nearest Sunday to old May-day. Between the feast and Whitsuntide, I went to Dr. Stone, of St. Just. Some time after this, l saw the prisoner at St. Buryan church-town. I said I thought I was in the family way, and heard she had procured abortions for others, and I wanted her to get a potion for me, as I was not then in circumstances to get married. She asked to feel my breast, which she did then said—"Thou art in the family-way, right enough.“ She said she would get something for me, and go to Truro for it. It would be 5s. an ounce, and 4s. 8d. carriage. I gave her 10s. About a week after, I met her in St. Buryan, and she gave me a bottle. It had no label on it. The bottle produced is the same. She told me I was to take so many drops at a time and increase them. She also said that if I took it before breakfast it would have more effect. I do not remember asking her what was in it. I took the bottle home with me, and took what was in it, three times in the day, three drops at a time, increasing the quantity to ten drops. The medicine was very strong and took away my breath. I took the whole of the medicine in about a fortnight. When I had taken it all, I saw the prisoner again, and told her it had produced no effect. She said that I must have some more, and she gave me a larger bottle, a four-ounce bottle, the second time. She said I was to take a tea-spoon full in water at a time. It had the same colour and smell as the previous medicine. I paid her £1 5s. for this. She cautioned me against taking too much at once, saying it would kill me if I did. I gave the small bottle back to her before I had the second. I took the whole of the medicine in the latter. It had the same taste as the other, and took away my breath. She said that I was to take it before breakfast, and if I went without breakfast, it would have more effect. I took the whole of the medicine, when the prisoner came to our house again and gave me another bottle, saying if it is not done this will do it. She said this is the very essence itself; she had got it at another shop; as the former shop had refused to let her have it, she had gone to another shop. She said that she had got it for another woman. She said this other woman lived two fields out of Buryan Church-town; that she thought I needed it most, and should have it first. I paid her 9s. 7d. for this. This was in the beginning of August. She instructed me in everything I was to do in my confinement, and said if the child was, not born dead, we must make it dead. I said if born alive it must live, as I could not kill it then. She said the child was a girl, as had it been a boy it would have been dead before that. I took some of the medicine, and it was so strong, I was obliged to keep hold of the screen in the in the room or I should have fallen. Before this I felt the child move occasionally but before I had taken all the medicine, it was still. In about eight or nine days, after taking the medicine I was confined. The child had come to its full time, but it was born dead. After my confinement, on the 22nd September, I asked her to have some tea, which she had. While at tea she said the devil had sent her a letter; and that the man who let her have the medicine demanded £5. She held a letter in her hand, and I asked her to let me have it, but she said that she would not let it go out of her hand. I saw her again on the 29th September. She said she had come down for the money. I refused to give her the £5, as I had not got it. She then said that she would tell my mother. I had never told my mother that I was with child or confined of a child, till after Johns told her. In the summer my mother gave me some hiera-picra, and some pills made by a chemist of Penzance. I took some of these pills between the time that I took the medicine given to me by the prisoner. They were for a cold. I do not remember the prisoner ever telling me what was the medicine she was giving me, but I think one day she said she was going to give me some savine. When I first saw her, she told me how to bury the child, and I told her I had buried it, but I do not recollect whether I told her the place. Cross-examined—I sent Blanche Green to you and she brought me two bottles from you at different times. I had several bottles from you, I think four or five, but I had no spirits of nitre, nor was anything said about spirits of nitre by either you or me. Mary Hosking, the mother of the last witness, deposed—I did not know that my daughter had a child until she was apprehended by the police. The prisoner came to me on the 2nd of October, in the market at Penzance. She said that she wanted to speak to me, and I asked her what she wanted. She said, to tell me something concerning Elizabeth. I said what? and she replied, I suppose you don’t know that Elizabeth has had a child. I said no, and she said—Why; you’ve done for her. I said, I have only done for her in the case I treated her for. She said, I think she has had a child, and I replied—it cannot be possible that she could have a child and I not know it. She said that Elizabeth had told her that I knew nothing about it, that Elizabeth had had medicine for her, that she had taken the medicine out in another name, that the man she had had it from had with her a letter asking £5, but threatening he would report it if the money was not sent to him. I said—Where do you think, Hannah, I could get £5? and she replied, I had got money going through my hands. I said— I could not pay such a sum unknown to my husband, and if I did, there would be no habitation for me or Elizabeth afterwards. She said that no person knew it but Elizabeth and herself, and that if she was in Elizabeth’s place, she would rather pawn all the clothes she’d got than be exposed. I said, I know nothing about it, and whatever it is Elizabeth and you have done, the truth must come out. She said—if she could have 50s. she would carry it to him, and perhaps that would stop him for a little while. I afterwards, on the same day, met her in the street and she asked how are you now? I said bad enough. She came to me again on the Sunday week after. I believe the 14th of October. She did not come in, but only to the door. I went to the door and saw her standing near. I went out after a moment and said “What do you want here, Hannah?" and she replied “you might have stopped it all." I said “It is you, Hannah, that is doing it all." She said “It cannot be stopped now".—She was subpoenaed by the police, who were coming on Monday morning to take up her and Elizabeth. She then said "I am going to Michael," meaning Michael Rowe; "I spoke to his brother as I came down, and told him to tell him (his brother) that I wanted to see him." I said “You go to Michael or any one else." I never saw her again till she came with the police. My daughter and I were there. I told the police that she had come to me about the money, and stated to them what I have told now. I gave my daughter some medicine from Mr. Saundry, of Penzance, at the end of harvest, for a cold. I went to my daughter's door on the 15th of September, and she then told me she was better. Michael Rowe.—l live at St. Buryan, and last July I was keeping company with Elizabeth Hosking. One evening in October Hannah Johns came to me while at work in a field. She asked me if I knew what was happening down at Boscawen Noon. I said no. She said "You do know." I said I did not; and she repeated “You do know very well what is the matter." She said that Elizabeth Hosking had had a child. I said "No, it cannot be so; I did not know anything about it." She said she was sure it was so— that she had stuff from her to put it a-going; and the old man from whom she had the stuff had sent to her to know what she had done with it. She asked me to give her £5 for the man she had the stuff from, who would then keep the matter close and say nothing about it. I told her I would not give her £5. She said that she could get a woman in Falmouth who would take the blame, but I could not expect her to do it for nothing. She then asked me if I could give her any money at all? and I said I should not. This was the Saturday before the police came to Boscawen Noon. I know now that Elizabeth Hosking has had a child. I was not the father of that child. Matthias Wallish:—l am the landlord of the King's Arms, in St. Buryan Church-town. I remember the prisoner coming to me on the evening of the 16th of October, and saying that she wanted the policeman. I said he had gone to a neighbouring parish, and I thought he would be late home. She said that she had got a secret to tell him, did I think he could keep it. I said I did not know, but I thought he could. I asked what it was—was it about what she had told me on the Friday the 14th. On that day on passing my house, she told me something was happening in the village, but it was a secret and must be kept—could I keep it. I said I could, and I asked what it was; and she replied that a farmer's daughter in the neighbourhood had had a child, and she said it was Mr. Hosking's daughter. On the Sunday after this conversation, she told me and my wife about Elizabeth Hosking having a child. I said it was very strange, for nobody had suspected her. She then said that if she did not tell the police before Monday, it would be too late. She stated that the parents knew nothing about it—nobody but her and Elizabeth. She said that she wished to tell the policeman, and to take him to the house about ten o'clock. I then saw policeman Gerrish coming up the village, and I called him in. She told him what had happened. On the Monday, I was going to Sancreed, and overtook the prisoner and P.C. Gerrish. She said if I was going on I had better go into Hosking's and tell them that she and the policeman were coming; then the policeman could stand in the valley, and she would go on first.—She said that they had not behaved to her as they ought that they owed her some money, and the wished to get it. I went on, and saw the father of Elizabeth Hosking working by the side of the road, and I told him. He and I then went to the house, and in about ten minutes the policeman and prisoner came. Cross-Examined.—I did not say to you on the Friday morning, that I should not like to interfere in the matter until I found out where the body of the child was. You said that they had not behaved to you as they ought—that they owed you some money, and I believe I mentioned £5. I think you knew more about the child than anybody else. Stephen Gerrish.—l am a police-constable at St. Buryan. I was sent for by Matthias Wallish on the 16th October, and I went and found the prisoner there. She said, can you keep a secret. I said, I can. She said, I have something very particular to tell, mind you keep it a secret. I asked, what is it? She said, I know a young woman that has had a child, and has concealed the birth of it. I said, do you? and she replied yes. I then asked what her name was. She replied, she is called Elizabeth Hosking. I asked where does she live, and she said in Boscawen Noon. I asked her whether any of the neighbours knew anything about it, and she said no, nobody but her and Elizabeth Hosking. I then asked if she had been in the habit of going to the young woman's house, and she said she had. I asked when was the last time she had been there, and she said about a month before, when Joe, her husband, injured his leg. I asked if she could tell where the child was buried, and she said she could to a foot of land. I asked her if she would go with me in the morning and show me. She said she would, and that I should stand outside in front of the house, and she would go in first. She then said she would meet me in the morning at the shop of Mr. Thomas, and I promised to meet her at ten o'clock. She said, unless we are down there before ten, it will be no good. I said, then I will meet you at half-past nine. I met her next morning at that time, and we went to Boscawen Noon. Mr. Wallish overtook us, and she wished him to go first. We went to the house, and found there the father, Mr. Hosking, his wife, and Elizabeth Hosking. Blanch Green was going in and out at the time. The prisoner then said—"You see what it has come to—if you had paid the money it would never have come to this." I then told Elizabeth Hosking what I had heard, and asked her some questions. Hannah Johns heard them. I received two bottles from Elizabeth Hosking, which I now produce. I said that I thought you had three bottles full. She replied—l had, but I gave one bottle twice to Johns to be filled, as she had no more bottles. Johns made no observation to this. Elizabeth Hosking showed me where the body of a male child had been buried, which was in a pig-stye (sic). Cross-examined.—On the way to the house you sat down on a style, and told me that you had bought some sweet nitre for Elizabeth Hosking. She denied at first having been delivered of a child, and I then took her into a private room, when she told me. Joseph Ward.—I am inspector of county police at St. Just. I searched the prisoner's house at St. Just, and found some receipts. Also two bottles, one partly full and the other empty. I found the receipts in a drawer upstairs. One of the bottles of spirits had labels which were partly torn off, but it had spirits of sweet nitre on it. Mr. John P. Stone.—I am a surgeon, living at St. Just in Penwith. I saw Elizabeth Hosking last June, and prescribed some medicine for her. It was slightly tonic. (The receipts were handed to the witness who read them.) I see there are scurvy drops, balsam of copaiba, and spirit of nitre. Scurvy drops is a preparation of what is commonly called corrosive sublimate; it is a quack medicine, and is not admitted into the pharmacopoeia. In my opinion this would be too strong a dose to administer to a pregnant female. A strong dose of such medicine would be dangerous and improper in such a case. I examined two bottles which were produced by Gerrish, the policeman, before the magistrates. They were empty, but there was a smell of balsam of copaiba from one, and spirits of nitre from the other. Three drops of the medicine in this receipt would not, in my opinion, produce the hot and burning effect described by Elizabeth Hosking. Cross-examined.—There is nothing in the bottles, and I can only swear to one of them having a smell of balsam of copaiba. The other smells very like a drug which veterinary surgeons use— namely, garlic or asafoetida. Re-examined.—Sweet nitre, I think, sells for about 6d. an ounce, and £1 5s. for four ounces would be a strong price. The Prisoner, in her defence, denied that she knew that Elizabeth Hosking was in the family way, and said she first came to me and asked me to obtain for her some spirits of sweet nitre. She only had from me two bottles. I had 2s. for a four-ounce bottle, and 1s. for a two-ounce one. She gave me two half-crowns, or Peter Williams did—4s. for Mary Ann, and the other 1s. for spirits of sweet nitre, and I bought that nitre from Mr. Hemmings, of Penzance. The four ounces I bought at St. Just church-town, and the only medicine Elizabeth Hosking had of me was these three bottles. The Judge, in summing up, said that the prisoner was indicted under the provisions of a statute which enacted that whoever, with an intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, should unlawfully administer or cause to be taken, any poisonous or other noxious thing, should be guilty of the offence under this act of parliament. The case against the prisoner mainly depended on the evidence of Elizabeth Hocking, and the jury were aware that, according to the rule of law, where a prisoner was charged on the evidence of an accomplice, they were recommended not to convict unless it was confirmed by the evidence of other persons. The reason of this was obvious, for unless that principle was recognized, a party accused might seek to screen himself by accusing an accomplice. ln this case, however, Elizabeth Hosking could scarcely be said to be an accomplice, but it did not matter whether she was or not, as her evidence was amply corroborated by other witnesses. His lordship then recapitulated the evidence, and said the jury must decide upon that whether the prisoner was guilty or innocent. The JURY, after a few minutes' consideration, returned the following verdict:—We find the prisoner GUILTY of an intention to procure abortion, but we are not satisfied that it was produced by this medicine. The JUDGE said that was immaterial, and no attempt had been made to show that the medicine had caused the miscarriage. The prisoner was then ordered to stand down; his lordship observing that he must speak to Baron Channell about the case before passing sentence. Subsequently she was called up, when his lordship said:—Hannah Johns, you have been convicted of a serious and heinous offence, and I am afraid that you are one of those persons who lead young women on to commit this offence, in order that they may conceal their shame, and that you have repeatedly acted towards other young women, in the neighbourhood where you are living in the way that it is proved you have done in this case. Elizabeth Hosking went to you and consulted you, and you furnished her with some noxious drug which you and she expected would destroy the child of which she was pregnant. That is a most serious offence; and had you been guilty of that alone, it would have my duty to pass a heavy sentence upon you, in order to deter you and others from again offending in a similar manner. But you have been guilty of more than this. You were paid by the young woman 10s. for the first bottle of the drug, £1 5s. for the second, and 9s. 7d for the third; showing that you have made a great profit from this iniquitous traffic. But you were not satisfied with this exorbitant rate of payment. The young women was delivered of a dead child, and then what did you do? You took a letter to her, which I have not the slightest doubt was fictitious, and demanded from her £5 under the plea that the man from whom you had the medicine had written to you for money, and had threatened that if it was not sent he would divulge the whole circumstances. She refuses your extortionate demand, and then you go to the young woman’s mother, and I must here state that I never heard a witness give her evidence in a more creditable manner; during the whole of her painful examination, she never attempted to conceal or keep back anything. Finding that you could not succeed in extorting the money from her, you then go to the lover of the young woman, and endeavour to get money from him; and that attempt also failing, you then try to pick out of the young woman where the baby was buried, and it is evident that you wanted to get her to divulge this, in order that you might extort money from her by keeping the offence constantly hanging over her. Failing in all your attempts, you then go and divulge the whole circumstances to the police. A baser thing was never heard of than that of which you were guilty; for you knew that it was upon the young woman’s faith and reliance that you would not divulge what took place, that she went to you. The sentence upon you is that you be kept in Penal Servitude for Three Years. The JUDGE in sentencing Elizabeth Hosking said that when he first saw the calendar, and read some of the depositions, he was afraid it would be his duty to inflict a severe punishment on some young woman who might be found guilty of concealment of birth of her child, in order to show that the commission of this offence must be put a stop to. He was, however, induced to pass a light sentence on the prisoner, because he had been informed that her character previously had been good, and the persons who conducted the prosecution wished her to be lightly dealt with. In nine cases out of ten, these offences, if they were not murder, they were like it, and there could be little doubt that if they were continued, some young woman would be left for execution as a warning to others. He then sentenced her to FOUR MONTHS' HARD LABOUR. GRACE STEVENS, 18, pleaded guilty to the charge of having unlawfully endeavoured to conceal the birth of a female child, of which she had been delivered at Lanlivery, on the 6th of November last, and was also sentenced to FOUR MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT, the Judge directing the above remarks equally to her. ANOTHER CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. PRUDENCE TRENGOVE, was charged with unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of a male child of which she had been delivered at Gwennap, on the 3rd December last. Mr. Cox prosecuted. Mrs. Mary Ann Trengove deposed—l live at St. Day, in Gwennap, and am sister to the prisoner. She is married, but at the time of being delivered of this child, her husband was abroad. She has five children living, the youngest of which is seven years of age. I remember her coming home on the 26th of November last. She slept in my bed. On the 3rd of December, I noticed she was in the family way, and in the course of the morning I said to her, people are talking about your being with child. She said—If I am it is not his, (meaning her husband, it was supposed); and I replied, no, I am sure it is not. That evening she was taken ill, and went to bed. About four o'clock the next morning she asked me to get her some brandy and water, and the next day she remained in bed all day, evidently very ill. On the Monday I missed a sheet, and on my asking about it, she said—come here; I have got a baby in it. I said, when did you have it; and she replied, on Saturday night. I asked her where it was, and l am not positive whether she said under the bed tie or under the mattress. I asked her why she did not make it known before; and she said that she did not like to, as her brothers were angry with her. She then gave me some money and told me to get a box for the child, and to get a woman to bury it. I went for Mary Kempe, who came to my sister in the bedroom, and whom she told what had happened. She then asked me to go and get some water to wash the body, and when I came up- stairs again, she had the body in her lap. I gave her my baby's robe to put over it. She said she was going to Falmouth, that evening, and left before the box arrived. Afterwards the body was placed in the box and buried. The JUDGE (to witness)—Am I to understand that you never saw the child until it was in her lap? Witness.—No, my lord. The JUDGE.—That won't do, Mr. Cox. The law requires that the woman who is delivered of a child shall not endeavour to conceal the baby, and the only evidence here is that so far from concealing it she held it in her lap and sent for a woman to bury it. Mr COX agreed with his lordship that the prosecution had failed. The JUDGE said that no blame was attached to the magistrates who sent the case for trial, considering that the meaning of the words of the statute had been differently interpreted. First, it was held that the body be deposited in its ultimate place of interment, but afterwards it was considered sufficient if it was secreted in the mattress or other place from which the mother intended to remove it to its final place of interment. It was not surprising, then, that there should be some difference of opinion amongst the committing magistrates on the point, or that one should adopt the old interpretation of the law, and the other the more recent one. The Jury then under his Lordship's direction, ACQUITTED the prisoner. STEALING A GUN. CHARLES JILBERT, 16, and HENRY VANSON, 14, were charged with breaking into and entering a certain building at Tywardreath, on the 1st of January, and stealing therefrom a gun, the property of Mr. Robert Moyle. Mr. Lyne prosecuted. The prosecutor is a veterinary surgeon, residing at Tywardreath, and he has the care of a stable in that parish, belonging to Mrs. Juliot, in which he keeps his horses and some implements. He placed a gun there on the 30th of December, and it was safe on the 1st of January. On the Sunday evening following the latter day, he found, on visiting the stable, between seven and eight o'clock, that the door had been broken open and the gun taken away. A boy named William Rosewarne, stated that while out shooting on the 26th of December, with the prisoners, Vanson broke the nipple of his gun; and meeting with them on the Sunday following he said to Vanson, that he thought he ought to pay half the expense of repairing the damage, when he (Vanson) told him not to mind, and he would get him another gun for 4s. He met them again after tea, when Vanson desired him to go down by the Basset Arms Inn, and that he would get the gun when the people had gone to chapel. Vanson was then going away, and he asked Gilbert to accompany him, which the latter did. Vanson, in company with the other prisoner, brought the gun to the Basset Arms, and gave it to the witness, on the condition that 4s. was to be paid for it. On the following Tuesday he met the prisoners again, when Gilbert said that there was a pretty "rig" at Tywardreath about the gun, and Vanson said that he was not allowed to sell it for less than 6s. Witness refused to give 6s. for it, and returned it. The prisoners had afterwards become alarmed, or at all events Vanson had, for the gun suddenly disappeared, and on a search being made, the stock and other portions of it were found in a shaft in East Crinnis mine. The jury found Gilbert NOT GUILTY, and Vanson GUILTY; but as he had been in gaol since his committal, the Judge only sentenced him to a further term of a Fortnight's Imprisonment with Hard Labour. SATURDAY, MARCH 17. (Before BARON CHANNELL.) NORTH WHEAL VOR MINE.—RICHARD MOLLARD, WILLIAM BLIGHT, JOHN ANDREW, and JAMES ANDREW, miners, (on bail) were indicted for having, on the 26th December last maliciously and feloniously caused a quantity of water to be conveyed into a mine, the property of Henry Paull and others, called North Wheal Vor, with intent to damage the mine; a second count charged intent to injure the mine; and a third count charged intent to hinder the workings of the mine.—There were other counts varying the charge.—Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Kingdon appeared to conduct the prosecution; attorney, Mr. Hill; and Mr. Cox for the defence. Mr. COLERIDGE said this was an indictment preferred under an act of parliament passed in the 7th and 8th of George 4th, which had for its object the consolidating and amending the laws relating to malicious injury of property. He had better direct the attention of the jury and of his lordship to the particular sections under which this prosecution was instituted. By the 6th section of the Act 7 and 8 George 4, cap. 30, it was enacted that "if any person shall unlawfully and maliciously cause any “water to be conveyed into any mine, or into any subterranean passage communicating therewith, “with intent to destroy or damage such mine, or to hinder or delay the working thereof, or shall, “with the like intent, unlawfully and maliciously pull down, fill up, or obstruct any air-way, water- “way, drain, pit, level, or shaft of or belonging to any mine, every such offender shall be guilty of “felony, and being convicted thereof shall be punished as the Act directs."—The 7th Section was material, only as explaining the 6th. By Section 7, it was enacted that "if any person shall unlawfully “and maliciously pull down or destroy, or damage with intent to destroy, or to render useless, any “steam-engine or other engine for sinking; draining, or working any mine, or any staith, building, or erection used in conducting the business of any mine, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to any of the punishments which the Court may award." Mr. COLERIDGE went on to say:—The prosecutors in this case are the proprietors of North Wheal Vor Mine in the parish of Breage; and the prosecution has been instituted for the express purpose of ascertaining whether or not the law of England will reach such conduct on the part of persons engaged about a mine, as I shall detail to you. It is a most important question; because any Cornishman must perfectly well know it would be a most disastrous state of the law, if persons should be allowed, without being liable to punishment, to obstruct the working of mines and fill them with water, throwing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of persons out of employ and damaging and destroying thousands of pounds worth of property. I can hardly conceive any more mischievous act or one more deserving of condign punishment, than that miners should stop the steam engine of a mine and allow the water to flow into the adits and levels, thereby necessarily doing most serious damage. (The learned counsel here exhibited to the Court and Jury a ground plan of the workings of North Wheal Vor, with the engine and other shafts and levels, and the buildings on the mine). On the 12th November last, one of the prisoners, Blight, became the taker of some work by contract, in the large sump shaft. He was to excavate one fathom for £18. The four prisoners, and four other prisoners whose names are not included in the indictment, accordingly worked on this take from the 12th November to the 24th of December. On the 24th December there was some little dispute between the agents of the mine and Blight, and Blight insisted on having the work measured; he went down into the shaft on the 24th, with an agent, and the work was measured, and it was agreed that £12 should be paid to him for distribution among his party for the work done to that time. He was told and the other men were told that the money would be paid them on the pay-day of the mine—the 11th February. On the 24th December they went away; and on Monday the 26th they came again and insisted on being paid their money. The agent said "we can't pay you the money; you will be paid on the regular pay-day, the 11th of February." They insisted on having the money immediately, and on being refused they said they would stop the mine. They turned the agent out of the engine-house, of which they took possession, and they stopped the engine. This was about mid- day on the 26th, and the engine was stopped working, till six or seven in the evening, when they were given into custody of the police. The effect of stopping the engine was that the water went on running in great quantities; it filled the cistern in a moment, ran down in great streams into the sump-shaft and filled the mine. The engine was got to work again, and in the course of three or four days, the mine was at work again. It is true that in this case, the mine, not being a deep mine, the damage, though considerable, was not very large. But the importance of the question now before you is not to be measured by the amount of damage done in this particular case. If this mine had, been a deep one, and if the engine had been larger, the amount of damage that would have been done is perfectly incalculable. Or, in a mine in soft ground, conduct such as this would have resulted in the absolute destruction of the mine and ruin of the shareholders. I shall prove the facts of the case as I have opened it to you. The question is whether, under the words of the act of parliament, these prisoners did not cause water to be conveyed into the mine for the purpose of hindering and obstructing its working. I am told that the very learned Judge who presides in the other Court has expressed his opinion that it is doubtful that the offence charged against these prisoners comes within the act of parliament. If there be any doubt on the point, probably his lordship will put it in train for discussion. I should respectfully submit that if what these men did is not within the meaning of the words—conveyed or caused to be conveyed water into the mine—yet that if what they did was with intent to obstruct and hinder the working of the mine, they are within the statute. The learned JUDGE said he had a very strong opinion that the offence charged against the prisoners was not within the statute, and he regretted it very much. Baron Martin concurred with him in the conclusion that, under the 7th section, if there was any injury done to the engine it would be within the act of parliament, as respects that engine.—Mr. Coleridge mentioning a case to his lordship, his lordship said that Baron Martin and himself had fully considered that case. There the indictment was under the 7th section, the act done being one by which the engine was damaged, and the prisoners were supposed to have intended the damage which was actually done. But in the present case, as far as he understood it from the depositions, there was no injury done to the engine; all that was done was that the handle was put down violently and a piece of wood put in to prevent its coming up again. There was a most wicked intent to prevent the pumping action of the engine, but there was no intent to damage the engine itself; and when the engine was set to work again, it did so satisfactorily. Mr. COLERIDGE said the way in which he sought to use the case to which he had referred was this:—There was an indictment under the 7th section for damaging the engine. It was held that the act done was not in itself an injury to the engine, but that the injury which the engine sustained consequently on that act, was within the words of the 7th section. He sought to rely on that decision in the present case, in this way:—Here, it was perfectly true, the particular act of stopping the engine neither conveyed water into the mine, nor caused it to be conveyed, but it obstructed and hindered the working of the mine, and it was done for that purpose. The learned JUDGE said his brother Martin and himself thought the cases were distinguishable. In the case referred to, the engine was damaged, and the intent so to damage was inferred from the probable consequences of the act done. But in the present case, as it was clear that no injury had been done to the engine, the offence charged was under the 6th section, the conveying or causing to be conveyed, water into the mine, for the purpose of destroying or damaging the mine or of hindering or delaying the working thereof. But the act charged was not made out—no water was conveyed into the mine. Mr. COLERIDGE said the way in which he put it was this:—Water ran from the surface down one of the smaller shafts of the mine, and reaching the levels ran along them into the cistern; and what the prisoners did prevented the discharge from the mine of water that inevitably flowed into it. The learned JUDGE said the water coming into the mine was not the act of the prisoners. They prevented the ejection of water from the mine, which would otherwise have been ejected; but there was not a conveyance of water into the mine. There was no moral doubt that the prisoners' intent was to damage the mine, or to hinder and delay its working. But the intent was not consistent with the act charged. His lordship expressed a like opinion with regard to the alleged intent, unlawfully and maliciously to obstruct a water-way; and then said, he was indeed very sorry for it, but he felt that he could not advise the jury to find the prisoners guilty on the present charge. He hoped, however, that some act of parliament would be introduced immediately to prevent the repetition of such a wanton and wicked act. At present, he did not think it was within the Act of Parliament; and Baron Martin said his opinion was so strong that he recommended the Grand Jury not to find a Bill; but he afterwards told them that if they had a strong opinion on the subject—and of course gentlemen in this county would naturally have a very strong opinion on such a subject—they might find the Bill, in order to have it brought before the Court. Since that, Baron Martin and himself had reconsidered the matter; and that morning especially, had read over the depositions carefully, and as the engine was not injured, they were of opinion that the act charged against the prisoners was not within either of the two sections—it was not such an obstruction as was contemplated by the act. Mr. COLERIDGE said, after the strong opinion expressed by his lordship, he would not presume to argue the question farther. He would only mention that the mine was, in fact, obstructed for some days by the act of the prisoners. The JUDGE:—It was; but there is no such offence, legally, as is mentioned in the act. I agree with you that the intent to injure the mine is manifest. If I had been sitting alone and had not the advantage of a very full consideration of the case by Baron Martin, I would have reserved it; but Baron Martin considered the law of the case before he charged the Grand Jury, and he has maturely considered it since. I, however, am more immediately responsible for consideration of the facts of the case, and on those facts, I must order an acquittal,—But, at the same time (turning to the prisoners), I cannot help stating that you have been guilty of a very wicked act. It is fortunate for you that the statute is so worded that you cannot be convicted under it. Had it been otherwise, you would have been convicted of felony, and I should have felt it my duty to pass on you a very severe sentence. The pretence of a claim for wages, even if you were right, could form no excuse for such a malicious act. That you hindered the working of the mine is beyond all doubt. It cannot be tolerated in a country like this where, if a man has a claim he can at once go to the County Court to enforce it, that he is to take the law into his own hands and damage property, and incur the risk of injury to life. I hope and trust that an Act of Parliament will be brought in immediately to prevent the commission of, such offences. All I can say further is that I think your case is not brought within the Act of Parliament; and I very I much regret it. To the Jury his lordship said:—It appears, gentlemen, that this case cannot be brought within the law. That is the opinion of my brother Martin as well as of myself. I very much regret it, but I am bound to tell you it is your duty to acquit the prisoner. The Jury accordingly returned a verdict, NOT GUILTY.

CHARGE OF SHEEP-STEALING. HENRY HARRIS, farmer, on bail, was charged with stealing a sheep, the property of Mr. Jasper, a farmer at Alternun;—Mr. Coleridge appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. Stock for the defence. Mr. COLERIDGE said: In this case I appear on behalf of the prosecutor, who believes that the prisoner at the bar has stolen a sheep of his. The prisoner is in a very respectable position of life. The prosecutor put this single sheep—a rather remarkable one—a fine ewe, with his uncle's flock, in January 1869. This sheep was marked in a particular way on the ears, and had been purchased by prosecutor's father, who, as well as Mr. Jasper himself, would prove that it was marked in precisely the same manner as some 40 or 50 other sheep in the same flock. This particular sheep, having been put with the flock in January, was seen safe with them subsequently, and in July it was shorn; and some time in August or September was the last time that the prosecutor, or any one in his behalf, saw the sheep with his uncle's flock. The only mark on it was on the ear; it was not painted on the side after being sheared. On the 7th February, 1860, the prosecutor received some information about his sheep having been seen with the sheep of the prisoner; he went to Harris's farm, and in Harris's flock he found his sheep, together with a sheep belonging to another farmer named Turner. The prosecutor claimed the sheep as his; and Harris said, it is Mr. Turner's sheep, and I have several sheep of Mr. Turner's feeding here. Jasper said, it is not Mr. Turner's; on which the prisoner said, if it does not belong to Mr. Turner it is mine. The prisoner still maintains that the sheep is his; while the prosecutor insists that it is his. On this opening of the case, the learned JUDGE said the time between August and February was so long a period that the prisoner ought not to be called on to account for his possession of the sheep. During that long interval there were many modes by which he might have honestly come into possession of the sheep.—The jury, accordingly, by direction of his lordship, returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL. Mr. Stock begged to be allowed to state that, without imputing to the prosecutor any dishonest or other improper motive, he was in possession of proof that there must have been a mistake in the matter, and that there was not on the part of the prisoner the slightest particle of guilty knowledge that the sheep was the property of the prosecutor. JOHN STAPLETON, and WILLIAM HARRIS (on bail) were charged with stealing a kilderkin of beer, the property of John Richards, at Gwinear, on the 10th of February.—Mr. Oxenham conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cox the defence. Simon Kinsman of the County Police deposed—l was at Carnhell Green about 10 o'clock on the night of the 10th February, in company with police constable Richards, near the Pendarves Inn; we were in a door way, and saw two men come out of the door of the house. It was tolerably good star- light. The men passed us a few yards and then stopped, and returned to the public-house; they did not go to the door place of the Inn, but a little on one side, to a gate opening; into the town-place or yard, and I heard the gate rattle. A very short time after that the two men came on towards us again; they were hustling something before them, and they came on to where we were standing. When they came to within 15 or 20 yards of the gate two other men came on, and the two prisoners stood before what they had, so as to hide something. After the other men had passed on out of sight, the two prisoners came again towards us, and went on in the same direction from the gate that they had been going before; they had something on the ground before them—we could not plainly see what it was; they were going at a brave rate, past the door-way where I and Richards were. We went on after them, and Harris looked round; and immediately left the barrel for a step or two, and gave a slow whistle. Richards went on a little before me and stopped Harris, and I came on a pace or so behind Stapleton. When we got up altogether, I said "Men, what were you going to do with that barrel?" They both said "we never had any barrel in our possession." I said "tis useless for you to talk like that, when we have been watching all your proceedings." Then they said "Well, we never took it out of the house." I told Richards to look after these two men while I went back into the public-house; I here saw the landlord, and while I was coming out talking to him, Stapleton rolled back the barrel to the public-house. We were all at the door of the Inn, and the landlord said in the presence of the prisoners, that he believed it was his barrel and that he had lost a barrel of beer. I then took Stapleton into custody, and Richards took Harris.—Cross-examined—The landlord did not instruct me to take the men into custody; he did not request me not to take them into custody; the landlord may have said he did not believe these men had stolen it, because he knew too well. When the prisoners came out of the house, they were not rolling any thing. It was afterwards, and about 20 yards the lower side of the front door, that I first saw them rolling a barrel. We were only about 30 paces from them when we saw and heard them rolling something on. I saw other people come out of the house; but not till afterwards. There were other barrels of beer in the passage.—Re- examined—The prisoner Harris is a first cousin of the landlord’s wife. William James Richards, policeman:—l was with last witness at Carnhell Green, and was standing just opposite the Pendarves Inn. Some few minutes before, I had passed in front of the Inn. While we were standing in a doorway, we saw two men come out of the public-house. They passed us. The road they were going would lead to Camborne or to Gwinear Road Railway Station. They passed us some little distance and made a stand; we heard them talking, but could not understand what they said; in about a minute or so they came back again, and went towards the public house on the highway that leads one side of the public house; just as they came opposite the front of the public house, they made a stand. We heard a gate rattle, and saw them at the gate by the side of the road; in about 2 or 3 minutes they came on towards us. I did not lose sight of them for half a second; I kept my eyes continually on them for that time; when we saw them coming we could hear a noise of something rattling before them. The men at the time were in a stooping position. When they had come about 20 yards from the gate they made a stand, before they passed us; two other men then came on, and the prisoners let the barrel rest, and they stood before it so as to hide it; I stooped down, and could see something dark behind them. The two strange men passed on the opposite side of the road, and as soon as they were gone, the prisoners came on again, in a stooping position, rolling the barrel before them. At that time I could distinctly see it was a barrel. They passed us, and we went after them. The direction they were going would lead either to Camborne or to Gwinear Station. When we came within 3 or 4 yards, one of the men looked around and left the barrel, and gave a whistle; the other man then looked around and tried to push the barrel in against a garden wall by the side of the road. He left the barrel there. I passed him and went on to the foremost man, and the other constable came on with the other man. We asked them what they were going to do with the barrel; they said we have no barrel in our possession, neither have we seen any. We said we have been watching your proceedings ever since you left the public-house first. They did not make any answer to that. The other constable went to the public-house; but while he was present they said they did not take it from the house. I remained with the prisoners while Kinsman went to the house. Stapleton said to me that one Scaddon told them there was a barrel of beer out before the door; and the reason they came out there first was that they could not see the barrel; and then they went back again and saw it. When the other constable came back again, Stapleton rolled back the barrel to the Inn. The landlord came out of the house with Kinsman, and he said that he believed the barrel was his, and that he knew the men. The road the prisoners were going was directly towards their homes. The barrel (produced) has been in our possession ever since. Cross-examined—l could see the men distinctly, and when they stopped, I could see the barrel between their legs; they both rolled the barrel, side by side; they were not making any noise, or singing "we won't go home till morning," or anything of that sort (laughter). When they said they had had nothing to do with any barrel, the barrel was close along side. John Richards.—I am landlord of the Pendarves Inn at Carnhell Green. I know the prisoners; one of them is related to my wife; they were at my house on Friday evening the 10th of February about 9 o'clock; we had five barrels of beer in the passage; I saw them there after dark; they were in the passage leading to the front door. Between 9 and 10, I had some information from Kinsman; I went and looked at my barrels and found one missing; I could not swear to the barrel; there is a barrel here, but I can't say it was one of mine; I have my beer from Magor and Davey, of Redruth; I had received 2 barrels out of the five from them on the 8th of February. After Kinsman came back, I went up the road with him, and found the prisoners with a third man, called John Thomas, besides the two policemen. Thomas is one of the place. I don't remember that any thing was said to me about the barrel, and I did not say any thing about it myself. I came back to the house with the constables, the barrel, and the men, and they were taken into custody.—Cross-examined. There were a good many people in the house that evening. I did not say any thing about the prisoners being taken into custody. I said to the policeman, that, from what I knew of the men, I did not believe they took the barrel out of the house, or meant to steal it. I don't believe now that they took the barrel out of the house or that they meant to steal it; but I cannot tell what they were going to do with it.—By the Judge: The five barrels in the passage were full of beer; and when this barrel was brought back it was still full of beer. The gate which has been spoken of belongs to premises in which I keep hay for my horses; there is no backway leading into that yard. The last time I saw the prisoners in the house was about 9 o'clock; I cannot say when they left. William Wickett: l am a clerk in the employ of Messrs. Magor and Davey, brewers, of Redruth. There are several marks on this barrel by which I know it; on the 8th February I sent our carrier William Stevens, to John Richard's house at Carnhell Green. There are on it the names of Messrs. Magor and Davey, the number 2300, and also a private mark. William Stevens, a carrier in the employ of Messrs. Magor and Davey. On the 8th February, I received from Mr. Wickett a barrel of beer and a barrel of ale, and and (sic) took them to John Richard's, and placed them in the passage. I believe the barrel produced is one of them. Mr. Wickett, recalled by the judge:—All our casks are charged to the customers if not returned within two months. Mr. Cox on behalf of both prisoners, addressed the jury with his usual ability and energy, contending that the evidence would not justify a conclusion that the prisoners had any felonious intent in rolling away the barrel. There was no proof that they took it from the house; and the most probable conclusion from the evidence was that, finding the barrel in the yard, they determined on having a practical joke at the landlord's expense, by rolling it away to some short distance, and giving him the trouble of finding it; and this was the more likely, because of the relationship between the landlord and one of the prisoners. It was absurd to suppose that they meant to deny to the policeman all knowledge of the barrel, when it was lying close by them; and the place into which they rolled it on the arrival of the policeman, was only a gutter, and could not possibly serve the purpose of concealment. The learned JUDGE in summing up, directed the jury that the sole question was as to felonious intent; and, on this point, if they thought that the circumstances, though they might lead to an inference of guilt, might equally be consistent with the opinion that there was no more intended than a practical joke, they were bound to give the prisoners the benefit of the doubt; and on the question of intent, the evidence as to character must also be taken into consideration. The jury returned a verdict of acquittal, as to both prisoners. FRANCIS COLLINS, was charged with stealing a quantity of hay, the property of John Marshall, at Talland, on the 19th January.—Mr. Prideaux conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cox the defence.— George Pappin, serjeant of police, deposed:—On the morning of the 19th January, I was on duty at a place called Watergate, and police constable Coad was with me. About one o'clock I was on the high road and heard a cart coming towards me. I went on towards the prisoner's house, and just before I got there, the prisoner overtook me with his cart. I followed him to the stable and asked him to give me a light. He did not speak, but unharnessed the horse and put it into the stable. I again asked him to give me a light. He went in again, and the police constable followed him and lit his lamp. While the prisoner and policeman were in the house I took this lock of hay (produced) from the cart. There was hay in the cart, in two open hampers. I put the lock of hay in my pocket. Prisoner came out with a light, took the hay from the cart, carried it into the stable, and threw it all before his horse. I believe there was about half a cwn. (sic) I then left the stable with the policeman and went on the road, observing tracks of wheels and some hay littered about, some of which I picked up and produce. I went back to prosecutor's hay rick in his field; I found scattered hay at different places on the road leading to the field, and picked up some of it, which I produce. I am quite sure that at the time I first saw the cart coming there was no hay on that part of the road between the prosecutor's gate and the prisoner’s house. I was on the road in the day, with the policeman, and between 10 o'clock and one, when the prisoner came on. When I went back to prosecutor's gate I saw some large splats of hay neat the gate, and wheel tracks on the route towards prisoner's house. I went into the field, and could see that the hay has been recently taken from the rick, which is close by the gate; while we were on duty, there had been two or three smart showers of rain previous to the prisoner coming on. After seeing the rick, I went to the prosecutor's house and called him up, and went with him to the prisoner's stable, and showed him some of the hay which the horse was eating. Though there was a light in the prisoner's house, he had kept me three-quarters of an hour before he came down stairs, and had told me that if I wanted to see him I must call next day. When in the stable, I charged him with stealing hay from Mr. Marshall; he said he had bought it of a farmer near Menheniot; and afterwards said he had it given him by a young man, in the service of Mr. Batten, of Trevartha, near Menheniot. The following day, when I took him before the magistrates, he said he had found two or three splats of hay on the highway near Baglane End. This was in another parish, some miles off. That same morning, I went to the prosecutor's field with the prosecutor; I inspected the rick and took from it specimens of the hay, which I now produce.—Cross-examined.—lt was a rather dark night; but I had a lanthorn (sic). The prisoner is a fishmonger, and it was not an irregular hour for him to be out; he was not out of his way, from Looe to his home, in passing by the prosecutor's gate. I believe he had stopped at the gate, because the wheel tracks were irregular, as if the horse had been unsteady there. John Marshall, the prosecutor; I recollect being called by last witness about one o'clock on the 19th January; I went with him to prisoner's stable, and saw some hay there; I examined it, but there was not light enough to judge if it was mine. I went back to the rick with Pappin and could see some hay had been taken from it. I had seen the rick every day; I had been there about 5 o'clock on the 18th; I cut hay at that time and put a particular mark; I left a knife in the rick; when I went back with the policeman, I think I did not find the knife in the place where I had left it. I afterwards examined the samples of hay taken from the road and from the prisoner's stable, and they corresponded with the hay in my rick. I firmly believe it to be mine; it was seed hay and was cut before last Midsummer. I had never sold or given hay to the prisoner. I don't think there is in our neighbourhood any hay of the same sort and quality.—Cross-examined.—l had sold many tons of hay from that rick to several persons; I cannot state the last day on which I sold any; it may have been about ten days before. I cut hay every day for my own cattle. Sergeant Pappin, recalled by Mr. Prideaux:—When I went into the prisoner's stable there was other hay there; it was seed hay, but quite different from this; it was of very bad quality—dusty and very much mildewed. Mr. COX addressed the jury for the defence. The question was altogether, he said, one of identity. It was not an unusual place or hour for the prisoner to be with his cart; he was in the direct course of his journey, in his regular employment; and the irregular, zig-zag wheel tracks at the gate Mr. Cox said were to be accounted for by the fact that the prosecutor frequently sold hay from the rick, and daily cut from it supplies for his own cattle. As for the hay scattered on the road, there would have been nothing in that, but that the policeman had stated that at 10 o'clock he had passed on the road, with his lantern, and there was then no hay there; but the learned Counsel urged that this evidence was highly improbable. The similarity of samples too was not such circumstance as ought to convict, it being proved that the prosecutor was in the constant habit of selling hay from this rick, and the prisoner was not bound to prove how he got the hay; it was for the prosecution to establish has guilt. He would, however, call a witness—the young man of whom the Police Serjeant had spoken—to prove that he did give some hay to the prisoner. John Matthews, a servant with Mr. Batten, a farmer at Trevartha, in Menheniot, stated that on the 18th of January, as he was going on with a wagon load of hay, the prisoner asked him to give him a little for his horse; and witness told him to take a little; and he did so. In that hay there was trefoil, but very little clover.—Cross-examined. I should think the prisoner did not lake more two or three ?—--. Afterwards, Pappin came to another man at Mr. Batten's, and took a sample of the hay there.—Serjeant Pappin here produced a sample of the hay from Batten’s; and Mr. Marshall, looking at it, said it was, very plainly, not the same sort as his; and it was not the same sort as that which Pappin showed him as having been taken from prisoner's stable.—ln reply to a juror, Mr. Marshall said his rick was not all of one sort of hay; it was the hay of two fields—one a second cutting and the other a first cutting—and the rick was made from those two fields, in layers, wagon load after wagon load. This stolen hay happened to be of the first cutting.—Serjeant Pappin stated, to a juror, that he had not brought a sample of the second cutting.—To Mr. Prideaux, he stated that the hay taken on the night in question was all of the first cutting. The learned JUDGE summed up, and the Jury returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL. DEFERRED SENTENCES. The following prisoners, tried yesterday, were now placed at the bar to receive sentence, and they were sentenced as follows:—Susannah Eyre, who had pleaded guilty of stealing various articles from her master: Three months hard labour, and then to be kept in the Devon Reformatory School for the term of two years.—The learned JUDGE explained to the youthful prisoner that the latter portion of the sentence was not with a view to her punishment, but to her reformation, and he trusted it would be the means of saving her from future crime and misery. WILLIAM LEY, for bigamy; Six weeks hard labour. JOHN TIPPET, stealing a piece of fustian from Mary Nancarrow, at St. Columb Major; One month hard labour. TRIALS RESUMED. CHARLES FITZWILLIAM, 28 marine store dealer, was charged with stealing on the 28th February, at Falmouth, an apron the property of Thomasine Rule, and two handkerchiefs the property of Mary Ann Hooper. Mr. Cox conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Thomasine Rule: l am a servant of Mary Ann Rule (sic) of Falmouth. In the evening of the 28th of February two pocket handkerchiefs of my mistress and an apron of mine were put out in the garden; and about 7 the same evening I heard they were gone,—Martha Edgcome: I live next door to Miss Hooper. On the 28th February I saw a man looking about in my back garden. He was taking clothes from the garden hedge; there is a wall between my garden and Miss Hooper's; and a thorn hedge the other side of my garden. I did not know the man and did not notice him; I went into my house and inquired if any one had been in the garden. Then I went to Miss Hooper's and Mrs. Betts's and told them there was a man in the garden; afterwards when I was in my front garden, I saw prisoner come away from Miss Hooper's with some clothes on his arm. I noticed that the man was lame in his right foot. I saw John Betts run after him.—Eliza Betts.—I live under the same roof with last witness. On the evening of the 28th February, in consequence of something I heard, I went out into the front road and saw this man come round the corner with some clothes in his hand; he came towards me, and I said "these clothes don't belong to you." He did not speak, but he put his hand in my face. I screamed for my husband, and prisoner ran away; I called my brother-in-law, and he chased the prisoner.—John Betts:—On the evening of 28th February, I was called and went out into the road. I saw a man with some clothes on his arm; I saw him put his fist in my sister-in-law's face. I ran after him, but could not catch him; he was a great way a-head of me; he threw back the clothes and I picked them up and gave them to Mrs. Edgcumbe. He was a short man and seemed to limp a little.—Joseph Harris, Serjeant of Police:—I produce two articles of clothing which I received from Thomasine Rule. I apprehended the prisoner at Penryn, on the 1st of March. I said I wanted to speak to him. He said he knew what it was about—it was about the clothes stolen at Falmouth. I asked him to accompany me to Falmouth. He walked on and I walked behind him to Mrs. Betts's door; I asked him if he was there the Tuesday previous. He said he was not. I showed him to Mrs. Betts; she charged him with being the man who held his fist in her mouth. He said he had not done so, but he said he was there on Tuesday night. I measured some foot tracks, and found they corresponded with a shoe that I took from prisoner. The garden had been recently tilled and consequently the shoe made the deeper impression.—Martha Edgcombe:—Mr. Betts brought me back a bundle which I gave to Thomasine Rule.—Thomasine Rule proved that she handed the same clothes to the policeman; and identified the handkerchiefs and apron.—Eliza Betts, recalled by the Judge:—I am quite sure the prisoner is the person I saw come round the corner with the clothes, and who put his fist in my face.—Verdict, GUILTY.—Sentence, Two Months Hard Labour. WILLIAM JURY, 27, a miner, was charged with stealing part of a pocket, and 9s. 10d. from the person of Walter Trevena, at Redruth, on the 25th February. Mr. Oxenham conducted the prosecution; Mr. Prideaux the defence.—Walter Trevena, the prosecutor, deposed:—l am a fishmonger, and reside in Redruth, and attend the market three days a week. On Saturday evening, the 25th of February, I was in Redruth, selling fresh fish; I went to the Plymouth Inn about 6 o'clock, and offered fish for sale in the kitchen: I saw the prisoner there, sitting down drinking beer; he offered me some beer and I drank it; I had my market pockets tied round my waist, and a blue frock over the pockets. I had money in my pockets; 9s. 10d. in silver in the left pocket and some pence in the right pocket. I had seen that money not many minutes before I went into the inn. I had occasion to go out into the stable; I took up my frock around me, and held off my left market pocket in my left hand; not looking on that side. I felt a twitch at my pocket, and almost immediately afterwards, before I left the stable, found my money was gone. I turned round, and saw the prisoner at my side, and I said to him, "since I've been here, thee hast robbed me." He looked up against me, and said, "what have I robbed you of?” I made answer, and said, “I’ll be on my oath that when I came inside this door I had 9s. 10d. in my left pocket and some pence in my other pocket." I came out, and prisoner followed me into the kitchen. I said to Mr. Oppy the landlord in prisoner’s presence, that this man had robbed me. Mr. Oppy said let me take care of him while you go and look for the police. I had heard this man say in the kitchen before I went out, that he had 30s. in his pocket. I went for a policeman and when I came back I found the man was not there. One part of each pocket was cut; the left was cut the most; all the silver and pence were gone. The remaining portions of the pockets I handed to the policeman. The prisoner came back again after he had gone away. James Oppy, the landlord of the Plymouth Inn:—The prisoner came into my house about 4 o'clock with Abel Harper, and these two had five pints of beer. Walter Trevena came there between 5 and 6, and asked me if I wanted to buy some fish; and I said “No, Watty, not now.” I went into the bar, leaving the prosecutor and prisoner there with other men; and when I came back with a pint of beer for two of the other men, I saw Trevena and the prisoner come in at the back door, and Trevena said to me "That man have robbed me;" and he took up his frock and showed where his pocket was cut. Prisoner said he had more than 30s. in his pocket. Walter went off for the police: and in about 10 minutes afterwards the prisoner went out at the back door and tried to get over the railway wall which encloses the public-house yard. I called to him and said, "Jury, come back here." He said he would rather go round the back way than down the front street and round by the railway. He then went off and was wanting about 20 minutes. When he came back, Walter Trevena and the policeman were there, and he was given into custody.—James Dennis, 14 years of age:—l work with Mr. Reynalds, printer, of Redruth. On Saturday evening the 25th February I was going up the street by the Plymouth Inn and heard a noise in the passage, and I went to see what it was. I saw Walter Trevena and the prisoner there, and heard Trevena tell the landlord "this man have robbed me;” and I heard Walter give the man into Oppy's charge while he went for a policeman. I saw Walter go away after that, and afterwards saw prisoner try to get over the back wall; and. Mr. Oppy called him back. Prisoner then came in and sat down a minute or two, and told Oppy he would go round to the police station by the back way instead of the front street. When he went up the street, Oppy told me to watch where he went. I went and looked after him; I saw that he went away from the police station, and instead of going to the railway station, he went around the horses' heads of a flour wagon and went to Pednandrea mine. I then came back and told Oppy where he went. In about 20 minutes the prisoner came back and sat down on the form in the kitchen; and I saw Trevena and the policeman come and take him.—William Lobb, policeman:—On Saturday evening the 25th of February, Trevena called on me at the police station, and in consequence of what he told me I went to the Plymouth Inn and there found the prisoner. Trevena charged him with cutting off his pocket and stealing 9s. 10d. in silver; and I also charged him with the same offence. He said if I thought he had the money, I could search him. I took the pocket from the prosecutor, and I now produce it. Mr. PRIDEAUX, who had cross-examined the witnesses, and especially the prosecutor, at some considerable length, addressed the jury, asserting that the case was only one of suspicion and resting entirely on the evidence of Trevena; for no material fact stated by him had been confirmed. He then adverted to various circumstances, for the purpose of showing that, from; inaccuracy of recollection, the prosecutor's evidence was not to be relied on to the extent of justifying a conviction of the prisoner. The learned JUDGE, in summing up, said the case depended, in a very great degree, on the evidence of Trevena; but not entirely; and the tenor of his lordship's summing up was generally in favour of a conviction.—The jury, however, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. This finished the business of the assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 6 and 13 April 1860

3. Easter Sessions

These sessions were opened on Tuesday last, at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following Magistrates:— CHAIRMEN. C.B.G. Sawle, Esq. (presiding) J.J. Rogers, Esq., M.P. Lord Vivian. R.G. Bennet, Esq. Hon. Captain Vivian. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. Edwin Ley, Esq. T.J.A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. R.M.N. Usticke, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. R.G. Lakes, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. H. Thomson, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. Colonel Cocks. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. C.G.P. Brune, Esq. — Kelly, Esq. E. Collins, Esq. Hon. & Rev. J.T. Boscawen. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. T.S. Bolitho, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. J. Glanville. F.M. Williams, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. F.J. Hext, Esq. Rev. J. Perry. H.M. Williams, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. W. Michell, Esq. Rev. J. Tonkin. The following gentlemen qualified as Magistrates:— Francis Gilbert Enys, of Enys, Esquire. William Fillis Pearce, of Tremedden, Esquire. Richard John Laity, of Ker Street, Devonport, Esquire. Erasmus Coryton Roberts, of Carveale, Antony, Esquire. Wightwick Roberts, of Trethill, Sheviock, Esquire. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. James Clemens, Padstow, foreman. — John Andrew, St. Merryn. — William Bishop, do. — Christopher Best, Cardinham. — Walter Bowhay, St. Cleer. — John Barron, St. Veep. — John Brown, St. Pinnock. — Francis Crapp, St. Cleer. — Thomas Dyer, Braddock. — Daniel Edwards, Boconnoc. — John Gilbert, Lanreath. — John Magor Hicks, St. Issey. — Thomas Henwood, do. — Walter Hick, Lanivet. — Joseph Hicks, Padstow. — Thomas Jones, Lanreath. — Richard Kelly, St. Cleer. — Nicholas Key, St. Eval. — Joseph Keast, Lanivet. — John Lander, Warleggan. — John Darke Martyn, Padstow. — John Oliver, jun., Lanivet. — Francis Paynter, St. Issey. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— Mr. Richard Phillips, Lanivet — George Riddle, Cardinham. — Nicholas Richards, St. Cleer. — John Saundry, St. Issey. — William Tom, Padstow. — Joseph Tinney, St. Neot. — Jeremiah Tamblyn, St. Issey. — Richard Veale, St. Eval. — Peter Wilton, Padstow. — William West, Lanreath. — William Werry, Warleggan. After the customary reading of the Queen’s Proclamation for the encouragement of virtue, the CHAIRMAN delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY [not transcribed] THE VISITING JUSTICES REPORT.—The Chairman read the following Report:— The Visitors of the County Gaol and Bridewell beg to report, that the whole of the Male and Female Prisoners have been removed into that part of the new gaol which is complete, and though some inconvenience arises from the temporary division of a building intended for Male Prisoners only, the new building thus far seems to answer its object in every way.—Mr. Everest, the respected governor, has this morning sent in his resignation, which the Committee beg to lay before the Court, feeling assured that the services of so very faithful and able a servant will meet with the most generous consideration. NICHOLAS KENDALL, HENRY THOMSON, RICHARD FOSTER, NEVILL NORWAY.

THE GOVERNOR’S RESIGNATION. “To her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the county of Cornwall, in Quarter Sessions assembled. “My Lords and Gentlemen. “It has become my painful duty to represent to you that increasing years and infirmities render me incapable of any longer continuing the exercise of my functions as governor of the prison for this county, with the activity and energy which is essential to their efficient performance. I beg therefore most respectfully to tender to you my resignation; and I venture to hope, considering my long services of 32 years duration, that you will feel yourselves justified in making such provision for my retirement as the law may authorize, and as you may consider suitable to the circumstances of the case. I have the honour to be, My Lords and Gentleman (sic), Your faithful and obedient servant, J.B. EVEREST. Cornwall County Prison, 3rd April, 1860. Mr. KENDALL, chairman of the Gaol Committee, said the resignation had come upon them rather unexpectedly—only within the last half hour; and consequently, they were hardly in a position to recommend what course should be taken. It will rest with the court to determine what should be done under the circumstances; but I suppose, whatever retiring pension Mr. Everest may be entitled to, the Court will be willing to grant. The CHAIRMAN said he believed there was, under the Gaol Act, power to award to a retiring governor, a superannuation allowance. The Rev. C.M.E. COLLINS:—Yes, to the extent of two-thirds of the salary. The CHAIRMAN:—I think I need not express the great regret we all feel that the Governor has felt it necessary to resign. I think I may say that this County never had a more excellent and efficient officer (hear, hear). We regret that age and infirmities have obliged him to retire. I have been a visiting justice of the gaol with Mr. Kendall and other magistrates, and I can testify to the great efficiency of our Governor (hear). Mr. KENDALL:—I find that the Court has power to award two-thirds of the salary as a retiring allowance; and I am sure, after the testimony which the Chairman has given, and which is no more than Mr. Everest deserves, I can have no hesitation in asking for that amount. Mr. CAREW:—Are we to understand that the resignation is to be from this moment, or from some future time? Mr. KENDALL:—I saw Mr. Everest just now. He seemed to think we should hardly be able to fill his place within three months, and therefore he proposed to retire at Midsummer. But Mr. Everest is very infirm; and we must contrive to give him as little to do as possible. He is very anxious to perform his duty; and that very anxiety may increase his illness.—Another point is whether we should continue to a new Governor the same salary that Mr. Everest has had, which was larger, I believe, than that paid to any other governor in the West of England. Lord VIVIAN:—It seems to me very desirable that this Court should leave to the Visiting Committee the consideration of these matters, in order that the Committee may advise the Court. They can better judge than we whether it is possible to get an efficient servant to perform the duties at a less salary. I, for one,—and I am sure I speak the feelings of the magistrates and of the rate-payers generally—desire that everything that can be done should be done for so deserving an officer as Mr. Everest. I would suggest that the Chairman of the Visiting Committee should give notice, without naming the exact sum, that he will at the next Sessions move that a retiring pension be granted. It should be understood that Mr. Everest remains our servant up to that time, but that he is prepared to resign before that, if we can find a suitable person to fill his place. In the mean time, I would propose that the Visiting Committee be requested to advise the Court as to what steps are necessary, and that they should advertize (sic) for a successor at a decreased salary, if they think a decreased salary will suffice. I think in fact, it would be almost better that the Gaol Committee should at once consider the question of the future salary, so as to be able to advise the Court to- morrow. Mr. CAREW:—It is very desirable that the matter of salary should come before the whole Court. The advice of the Committee would doubtless have great weight; but still it is very desirable that the magistrates generally should have an opportunity of considering the question. Mr. KENDALL said the Committee might perhaps retire at once and consider that question. In the mean time he would suggest one thing. It was probable that there would be a very large number of candidates; and he would suggest that the magistrates of each Petty Sessional Division should appoint one of their number to attend here some day to look over the testimonials to some number not less than five nor more than seven; and then the whole of the magistrates should have an opportunity of seeing those selected candidates and of determining which of them in their opinion was best fitted for the situation. He thought there would be great jealousy as to the appointment unless each Petty Sessional Division was empowered to send up one of their number to represent them. The CHAIRMAN:—In the election of a Chief Constable, a Committee was appointed who examined all the testimonials of the various candidates. The committee was allowed to recommend; but it was clearly understood that that did not preclude any member of the Court from proposing any candidate whom the Committee might have weeded out. That principle was also adopted in the election of the Chaplain. I would suggest that this course be adopted in the present instance. Mr. KENDALL:—If the magistrates agreed on that point, I should like to know whether it would not be desirable to have an Adjourned Sessions, or to defer the appointment to the next Quarter Sessions. It would be very desirable to have a large attendance of magistrates; but as, at adjourned Sessions, the attendance is not so large, perhaps it would be better, under all the circumstances, to defer the appointment till the next Quarter Sessions. Lord VIVIAN:—A difficulty arises from your own statement concerning Mr. Everest’s health. If he is not in a condition to perform the duties of his office till next Sessions, we must put ourselves to some inconvenience to meet that difficulty. Mr. ROGERS suggested that it would be desirable to defer giving an opinion on this subject until the Court should have received from the Committee the Report which it had been suggested they should prepare at once. Certainly it was highly desirable that the largest number possible of magistrates should be in attendance on so important an occasion as the election of a Governor. The Visiting Committee shortly afterwards retired; and at a later period of the day presented a Report, which the CHAIRMAN read:—The Visiting Committee recommend the election of a new Governor of the Gaol, at a salary of £300 per annum, with residence and gas free, washing and day labour, rates and taxes free. The Committee further recommend that the Clerk of the Peace take the usual steps to advertise for candidates; the testimonials to be forwarded to the Visiting Committee of the County Gaol, on or before the 12th of May next. That a Special Committee be formed of Magistrates selected from each Petty Sessions, who, with the Visiting Justices, shall meet at the County Gaol on Monday, May the 14th.—That such Special Committee shall select not less than five of the Candidates for the consideration of the Magistrates in Sessions assembled; and that each of the candidates so selected shall be required to forward printed testimonials to each of the County Magistrates a week at least prior to the next Sessions. That, in consequence of the infirm state of the Governor’s health, it is desirable to have the election as early as possible. The Committee, therefore, beg to recommend that such election shall take place at an Adjourned Sessions to he held on the 4th of June, in order to secure residence as early as possible. And that no candidate shall be considered eligible who is above the age of 45 years.” After some discussion, on the points of detail, this Report, on the motion of Lord VIVIAN, was adopted nem. con. GAOL EXPENSES, FOR THE PAST QUARTER:—[not transcribed]

GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—Mr. Everest, the Governor, made the following Report:— "I beg to report that the transfer of prisoners from the Old to the New Gaol was commenced on the 29th February, and completed on the 3rd ultimo, and that the change was effected with perfect order and regularity. The arrangements made in regard to the occupation of the new establishment have been found to answer the required purpose, and everything up to the present period has gone on satisfactorily." Appended to the Report was the Governor's certificate:—"that the Rules and Regulations for the government of the Prison have been as far as practicable complied with, and that the buildings of the Prison are in good order." CORNWALL LUNATIC ASYLUM.—The CHAIRMAN said it was usual at these sessions to present a detailed statement of the expenses of the Lunatic Asylum for the previous year. He had the statement for the year 1859 before him; it would be printed and a copy of it would be sent to every union in the county, as well as to every magistrate; and it was open now for inspection by any gentleman present. (We shall, in our next number, publish an abstract of the statement). [CORONERS’ BILLS.—not transcribed] COUNTY BRIDGES. —The report from Mr. HICKES, the Surveyor for the Western Division was as follows:— “The work ordered at the last sessions has been done, and the Bridge Roads not under contract are now in good repair; but I am sorry to state the roads under contract are in bad order.—It affords me pleasure to state that the drain at Longbridge has fully answered the purpose for which it was intended; the water is now lowered to about five or six inches from the bottom of the drain; I am also glad to report that the damage done to the guard wall is not serious; the cost to repair it, with the culvert included, will not exceed forty shillings, The work is now doing.” The report was adopted, and the 40s. asked for was allowed. —The following report was presented by Mr. S.W. JENKIN, Surveyor of Bridges in the Eastern Division:— “Special Report on Lostwithiel Bridge:— “Referring to an order of the sessions—‘That Mr. Jenkin, the Surveyor of Bridges for the Eastern ‘Division of this county, be requested to give a plan and estimate for such repairs of the eastern part ‘of the Lostwithiel Bridge as he may deem necessary for the safety of the Public in the existing ‘traffic.’—I have to report that I am unable at present to recommend any plan for the repair or alteration of that part of the Bridge. I beg to submit herewith a Plan of the River, by which it will be seen that it suddenly widens immediately above and again contracts below the bridge, which is thus made of very unnecessary length, and an eddy is formed which causes an accumulation of sand under the western arches and acts most injuriously to the free flow of the water.—I have explained in a former report that in the centre of the Bridge, where it is most important that the current should be un-interrupted, there are scarcely any openings, so that it acts in fact as a dam, by which the stream is diverted, and in times of heavy flood so impeded that the water often stands much higher above than below the Bridge. This portion of the Bridge is protected by banks of earth and stones, but for which it would in all probability have been long since washed away, as it is in so dilapidated a state that it is difficult to understand how it holds together at all.—I had thought that it would be possible to open an additional arch through this part of the Bridge so as to increase the waterway without materially interfering with the present structure; but I found on examination that the abutments on either side would be altogether incapable of sustaining the additional strain that would thus be thrown upon them, more especially as the strata is such as to require the foundations to be carried down 15 or 16 feet, whereas these abutments are only carried a little below the present bed of the river.—Under these circumstances, I have reluctantly abandoned the idea of recommending any attempt to improve the present bridge, although its condition is daily becoming worse, because I fear that it would involve a much heavier expenditure than I anticipated, and the money after all would be wasted; indeed I have reason to believe that an Iron Girder Bridge, with one 50 feet opening, similar to the sketch on the plan, might be built at a less cost than would be required efficiently to repair the present bridge.—I have to apply for a grant not exceeding £3 for expenses incurred in the examination of the Bridge. “Greystone Bridge:—Referring to an order of the Sessions. ‘That the Surveyor of Bridges be ‘instructed to inspect and report to the Court at the next Sessions, on an alteration suggested by the ‘Trustees of the Launceston Turnpike Roads, of an alleged dangerous corner at Greystone Bridge, ‘and the probable cost of making the said corner safe.’—I have to report that I have visited the Bridge, in company with the Surveyor of the Launceston Turnpike Trust, who has explained the views of the Trustees as to the proposed alteration. I beg to submit a plan showing the present Roadway over the Bridge, and the alterations suggested.—I estimate the cost of setting back the retaining wall to the red line shewn in the plan, at £35, and I should not recommend this to be done.—The cost of widening the Road around the corner so as to improve the turn, would not exceed £5, and I would recommend that this sum be granted for the purpose, as it would I believe meet all the requirements of the case.” A lengthy discussion took place on the subject of Lostwithiel Bridge, in the course of which Mr. JENKIN gave further details respecting his plan and estimate, and stated that he estimated that the cost of an iron girder bridge would not exceed £600; but that the cost of the embankments and approaches would be £400 more, which however would be met by the value of the land which would be reclaimed on both sides of the river. It was suggested by some magistrates that probably the Cornwall Railway on the eastern side of the river and the Lostwithiel Corporation would aid the proposed improvement in consideration of the advantages which, it was alleged, would accrue to them respectively as owners of the land in question; but Mr. Robartes, (a director of the Cornwall Railway) expressed a doubt whether that Company would fulfil the expectation thus formed. Reference being made to the very bad state of repair of the bridge road and approaches, Mr. JENKIN said that in that respect Lostwithiel Bridge was not peculiar, as all the bridge roads and approaches in his division had been greatly neglected by the contractors; and in some instances he had felt it his duty to withhold the money from the contractors and employ other parties to execute necessary repairs. Ultimately, the following Resolution moved by Lord VIVIAN, and seconded by Mr. CAREW, was agreed to nem. con.:—“That a Committee to be appointed to consider the report of Mr. Jenkin on the condition of Lostwithiel Bridge, with a view to recommend to the Court what steps, if any, it may be necessary to take in order to put the present bridge in a fit state for the public traffic; or to build a new bridge; and that the committee be empowered to expend a sum not exceeding £10; the committee to consist of Mr. Carew, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Coode, junr., Rev. C.M.E. Collins, Mr. Sawle, Mr. Foster, and Col. Cocks. With respect to Greystone Bridge, referred to in Mr. Jenkin’s Report, there had been published in the Agenda, a notice for “the further consideration of the alteration suggested by the Trustees of the Launceston Turnpike Roads, of an alleged dangerous corner at Greystone Bridge, and the probable cost of making the said corner safe, postponed from the last Sessions.”—On this subject being brought before the Court, Mr. E. COODE jun. said it was not the duty to make improvements in Bridge Approaches; and the CHAIRMAN stated that Mr. Rodd, who had at first brought the matter before the Court on behalf of the Launceston Turnpike Trustees, had himself stated that he did not consider the proposed alteration was necessary.—Mr. KELLY mentioned that two accidents had taken place there, and probably some of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood might be inclined to subscribe towards effecting the proposed improvement.—Lord VIVIAN concurred with Mr. Coode that it was not the duty of the County to undertake these improvements; and it was important that the County should avoid establishing a wrong precedent.—No motion was made on the subject, and it was allowed to drop. —On the subject of the costs of the Culvert at Long Bridge, a lengthy discussion took place, and numerous explanations were given by Mr. Hickes, the surveyor, in answer to questions from the Bench; and ultimately it was resolved that the sum of £50, balance of the cost of Long Bridge Culvert, be paid by the County to the Surveyor of Bridges in the Western District. COUNTY POLICE. CHIEF CONSTABLE’S REPORT.—The Chief Constable laid before the Court the usual quarterly returns of crime, and also a list showing the number and distribution of the Constabulary, and he had much pleasure in adding that the conduct of the force continues highly satisfactory. He likewise annexed a list containing the names of the towns, and the dates on which the Inspectors of Weights and Measures would attend for the purpose of comparing and stamping for the approval of the Court, in compliance with the 5 and 6 William 4, cap. 63, sec 24. The Report was adopted. COUNTY POLICE COMMITTEE. Mr. E. COODE, Junr., presented the following Report from the Police Committee:— "A meeting of the Committee was held yesterday, at which the following members were present, viz.:—Lord Vivian, Mr. N. Kendall, Mr. W. H. P. Carew, Mr. C. B. G. Sawle, Mr. R. Foster, Mr. F. M. Williams, Rev. J. Glanville, Rev. R. B. Kinsman, and the Chairman, Mr. E. Coode, junr.—The expenses and contingencies for the last quarter were approved, and the expenses and contingencies allowed at the last Sessions were compared with the vouchers and found correct.—Tywardreath and Pool .Stations:—The Committee recommend that an order be made authorizing the Clerk of the Peace to sign the leases for these stations on behalf of the Court and to pay over the sum of £75 to the proper parties (as agreed on) for the purchase of the interest of the parish authorities of Illogan in the site for the Pool Station. The Committee recommend as lives to be named in the lease for Pool:— ------Hext, Charles Edward Pole Carew, aged 6; Caroline Mary Coode, aged 4; and for Tywardreath, the Hon. Claude Vivian, aged 10; Reginald Pole Carew, aged 10; and Kendall Rashleigh, aged 9. Tenders for building this Station on the plans already agreed on, were examined; and one from Mr. Eva of Helston for £705 was accepted, subject to his finding securities such as shall be satisfactory to the Clerk of the Peace, for the completion of the work. For building the Tywardreath Station, the tender of Mr. Walter Giles of St. Austell, for £396 10s. was accepted subject to a similar proviso as to securities as in the last case.—Camborne Station.—Mr. Porter reports this station as now completed to his satisfaction, and the Committee have instructed him to certify for the balance due to the contractor, deducting for the delay in completion of the work within the specified time, according to the rate mentioned in the contract.—Torpoint Station.—Mr. Porter reports that the Contractors have not been proceeding lately with the amount of dispatch which they might have done; and Mr. Coode has been instructed to write to them and their bondmen on the subject.—The Chief Constable recommended the granting of some gratuity out of the Superannuation Fund to the widow of P.C. Joseph Higman, lately deceased, on the ground of his good conduct while acting in the force. The Committee, with every disposition to take the case into their favourable consideration, regret that they are precluded from doing so by the terms of the Statute, inasmuch as Higman had not been in the force long enough to have contributed to the Superannuation Fund for three years.—Wadebridge Station:—Tenders for building this Station were examined, and after a special report on the subject by Mr. Porter, that of Mr. John Collins, of Wadebridge, for £1118 10s. 6d. was accepted, subject to proper securities being given.—The Committee have also to report the resignation of Mr. Willyams of Carnanton, as a member of their Committee, and to ask the Court to appoint a successor.—The Chief Constable called the attention of the Committee to the provisions of the 6 and 7 William 4, cap. 37, enforcing the sale of bread by weight in all cases except that of French or fancy bread or rolls, and stated that a desire had been expressed in various parts of the County that the said Act should be enforced. The Committee have instructed the chief constable to cause proper measures to be taken by the police to carry out the provisions of the Act.—It appears that the following sums should be charged to the County Rate, and carried to the credit of the Police Rate, viz:—Subsistence and conveyance of prisoners, £156 4s.9d.; allowance by coroners, £44 12s. 6d.; expenses connected with weights and measures, £17 11s. 8d.; total, £218 8s. 11d. The sum of £15 13s. 10d. has been paid over to the County Rate for fees received for stamping weights and measures and for moieties of penalties during the quarter. During the same time a sum of £183 12s. has accrued to the Superannuation Fund, which should be invested as heretofore.—The Committee are of opinion that a rate of three farthings in the £ will be required for the ensuing quarter. ARCHITECT'S REPORT.—The following is the report of Mr. Porter, referred to in the Committee's Report:— To the Police Committee of the County of Cornwall.—Gentlemen; I have the honour to report that since the last Sessions I have paid another visit to the Camborne Police Station, and can now report that I believe the Contractor has completed his work so as to entitle him to the payment of the balance due. He has rectified sundry matters which the test of the winter months and occupation of the building rendered necessary. The want of a proper sewer in the street is much felt, as the premises cannot be drained until this is provided.—Menheniot and St. Cleer Stations.—These buildings are nearly completed, and the work appears done in a very satisfactory manner. The extreme severity and length of the winter has, in the exposed situations where these buildings are erected, caused considerable delay, in their completion.—Torpoint Station:—I am sorry to find that I cannot report like satisfactory progress at this Station, the Contractors not having shown the same energy and determination to push forward the work, and it will be some time before the building is completed. Visits were made by me in February last, in company with Col. Gilbert, to inspect sites for proposed stations at Padstow and Falmouth, of the results of which that gentleman will doubtless inform you.—l have the honour to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, FREDERICK WILLIAM PORTER. —The Committee's Report was adopted, and on the motion of Mr. R. GULLY BENNET, seconded by Mr. ROGERS, Mr. Peters of Chiverton was elected a member of the Police Committee, in place of Mr. Willyams of Carnanton, resigned. It was also resolved that the Clerk of Peace be authorised to sign the leases, and to pay the £75, as recommended in the Committee's Report. —The CHAIRMAN presented the Chief Constable's returns of the state of crime in Cornwall, and of the disposition of the Police Force throughout the County.—There was also a return of certain expenses, for the quarter, of the Police force, including travelling expenses, cost of fitting up stations, allowances to men while on special duty, medical attendance, inspection of weights and measures, fees allowed by magistrates, &c., amounting to £1052 15s. 6d. The account had been examined and signed by the Committee. —Mr. LAKES referred to the rating of a Police Station at St. Austell. At the annual rating day at St. Austell, Mr. Brice, inspector of police, was returned a defaulter, and there seemed to be some doubt whether his house was rateable. Mr. E. Coode was present and explained what was his view of the law of the case, but said if a guarantee was given him, he would grant a warrant of distress. There appeared to be some doubt whether or not this was a police station within the meaning of the act. Mr. Brice had the words "Police Station” placed over the door; but whether that would constitute an exemption under the act was doubtful. The parish of St. Austell could not afford to lose any rateable property, as it stood highest as to rating, of any part of the county. Mr. E. COODE, jun., stated his opinion that, according to cases which he cited, this house was not rateable; but he would suggest that the best plan for the parish of St. Austell to adopt was to apply for a mandamus against the justices for refusing to grant a distress. Mr. LAKES said he had mentioned the subject, in an amicable manner, in order to obtain the opinion of this court. He believed the parishioners of St. Austell would not go to law; they were too poor for that; they would be satisfied with the decision given here. The CHAIRMAN concurred in the opinion expressed by Mr. Coode that the house was not rateable, and he cited a case in which the Court of Queen's Bench had ruled in favour of exemption under similar circumstances. —The CHAIRMAN stated that there was a balance on the quarter in favour of the Police Superannuation Fund, of £183 12s. That fund now amounted to nearly £1,400, and interest was now accruing therefrom to the amount of £15 half-yearly.—It was ordered that the balance of £183 12s. be invested in the funds. COUNTY BRIDGE ROADS.—The Rev. J. GLANVILLE presented the report of the committee appointed at the last sessions to consider the best way of repairing the County Bridges and Roads on the expiration of the present contracts.—The committee recommended, first, that the contract system should be discontinued at the expiration of the present contracts; and secondly, that the repair of the Bridge Roads and Parapets as well as of the Bridges themselves, should be under the management of the County Bridge Surveyors.—Mr. GLANVILLE stated that both Mr. Hickes and Mr. Jenkins approved of this arrangement.—The report was adopted nem. con. [COUNTY FINANCES.—not transcribed] [PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISIONS.—not transcribed] BURIAL OF LUNATIC PAUPERS.—Mr. KENDALL said it would be recollected that at the last Sessions £100 was voted by the Court towards the expense of the new Burying Ground for Bodmin, but he afterwards heard the Clerk of the Peace state that it was doubtful whether the vote was legal; and he had applied to the Commissioners in Lunacy to ascertain whether that opinion was correct or not. The Commissioners were of opinion that it was, and consequently the vote came to nothing. As the new burial ground would be private property, he now asked the Clerk of the Peace if the bodies of lunatic paupers who might die in the Asylum could be buried there. The CLERK of the PEACE replied that the bodies of such lunatics could be buried in the parish where they died; and he referred to a clause in the Act of Parliament which authorized the magistrates to direct such interments, and to defray any expenses that might be incurred from the County Rate. BUDE.—The Rev. J. GLANVILLE stated that Sir T.D. Acland desired to enlarge and improve a bridge at Bude, under the superintendence of the County Surveyor, and then to place it under the care of that gentleman for the future. The CHAIRMAN stated that such a bridge could not be taken under the control of the Surveyor, as the Act of Parliament required that all bridges so taken should be new ones, in the first instance. In the next place, the bridge in question was over a tidal river, and in the case of Boscawen Bridge at Truro, the County refused to take it under its care. RATEABILITY OF THE CORNWALL RAILWAY.—Mr. P. P. SMITH, on behalf the Cornwall Railway, appellants against assessments made on their line to the relief of the poor by the parish of Liskeard, (which was now represented by Mr. Childs; St Germans, represented by Mr. Laver of Plymouth; Menheniot, represented by Mr. Raby; and Landrake cum St. Erney, represented by Mr. Bishop,) stated that it had been agreed between him and the gentlemen who appeared for the respondents, to ask the Court again to adjourn these appeals, with a view to the question in dispute being referred to the three Chairman of Quarter Sessions for their decision. It was hoped that by this arrangement, all the facts would be agreed upon, and that only a few moot points would be left for the decision of the arbitrators, which would effect a saving of a great deal of trouble and expense to all parties concerned. A short conversation ensued between the Chairman and the Advocates on each side, during which Mr. Sawle and Mr. Rogers consented to act as arbitrators, and Mr. Sawle undertook to ascertain whether Sir Colman Rashleigh would assist them. Mr. Sawle stated that he was a ratepayer in one of the respondent parishes, and it was right this should be known, as it might be afterwards urged he was an interested party.—Mr. SMITH said that he was perfectly satisfied the Directors of the Company would not make any objection to Mr. Sawle acting, on that ground; and he was also happy to inform him that the parish of Lanlivery, to which Mr. Sawle had referred, was not one of the respondent parishes. The appeals were then adjourned till the next Sessions, and it was agreed that should the arbitrators make any award in the interim, it should be made an order of Court. CRIMINAL BUSINESS. At the commencement of criminal business, the Barristers present being Mr. Cox, Mr. Gulson, and Mr. Lyne, Mr. COX, the senior, addressing the Bench, said he had been requested by his learned friends to inform the Bench that arrangements had been made for the attendance of a full Bar at these sessions; but he feared that, as the practice of other Sessions was not to commence the judicial business until Wednesday, his friends were ignorant of the different practice of these Sessions, and could not arrive until this evening. But, as there was a very light Sessions, it might be convenient to all parties to make known the fact, and to announce that at the next Sessions a full Bar would certainly attend, and would ask of the Bench the privilege of audience given to Counsel at the other Quarter Sessions in England. This notice of their intention would, he hoped, prevent any inconvenience being occasioned by the claim being then preferred. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. WILLIAM GOLLEY, miller, aged 16, pleaded GUILTY of breaking into the dwelling-house of Ann Polkinghorne, at Truro on the 18th March, and stealing therefrom a half-sovereign and about six shillings in silver, the property of the said Ann Polkinghorne. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) JANE NICHOLLS, a young servant, was charged with stealing from her master, Henry Hoskin, farmer, a bag and money the property of the said master.—Mr. Childs conducted prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Henry Hoskin, the prosecutor, deposed that he was a farmer residing at Bennerton in the parish of Crowan; on Saturday the 18th February, he went to Helston market, and there received £18 4s., consisting of three £5 notes of the Union Bank, three sovereigns and a half sovereign, which he put in a bag as he thought in his pocket; and 4 shillings which he placed in his waistcoat pocket. He returned home before 8 o’clock in the evening. The prisoner, who was then his household servant, came to him afterwards and asked if she should have his boots to clean; he requested her to come and take them off, and she did so. About an hour after that, he went up to bed, and on taking off his clothes he discovered that he had lost his money. He made immediate inquiries both at home and at Helston and next morning asked prisoner if she had found any thing in his boot; she said not. On Tuesday the 27th March his wife brought him a purse containing two £5 Union Bank notes, 7s. in silver, and two tradesmen’s bills; and on the Thursday following he asked the prisoner if it was her purse, and she said yes; and in answer to questions she said there was 7s. in it, and a half-sovereign; and she also said she had lost a £5 note, and Mr. Polkinhorne’s Bill, which were also in her purse. On his remarking to her that it was singular that he and she should each have lost a purse and money at the same time, she made no answer.—Alice Hoskin, wife of prosecutor, stated that on Tuesday the 27th March she went into prisoner’s bed-room and found on the floor a purse containing two £5 notes, 7s. in silver, and two tradesmen’s bills. The £5 notes were of the Union Bank, Helston. On the following day, prisoner asked her if she had found a purse; witness in reply asked her where she had lost it, and she said she did not know; witness asked her what was in it, and she said she did not know. On the following Friday, the prisoner said she had found the money on the floor the night that master lost it, and that she would stay to work it up again, if witness would keep her.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: 4 months h.l.) JAMES WILLIAMS, 29, labourer, and SAMUEL DICKER, 25, labourer, were charged with stealing from the person of William Clements, a silver watch and a metal guard chain, value £3, at Sheviock, on the 19th March.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution. The prisoners were undefended.— William Clements, the prosecutor, deposed, that he was a labourer living at Crafthole, in the parish of Sheviock, and in the afternoon of Monday, the 19th March, he was playing in the skittle alley at the Carew Arms, and whilst there he saw the two prisoners. At that time he had a watch and metal chain in his pocket. He fell asleep, and woke up between 4 and 5 o’clock; and having occasion to look at his watch, he found that it and the chain were gone. He gave information to Police Constable Stephens, and afterwards saw the watch in possession of Truscott, another policeman.—Thomas Jones, a navvy, working in the parish of Antony. On Monday, the 18th of March, I saw the two prisoners at the shance (shanty) where they sell beer, about 4 o’clock. Williams spoke to me first and said he had a watch to sell; he produced a watch and said he would sell it for 30s; that he gave £3 10s. for it, but he was hard up and that he must sell it or get some money on it, until he could get it back again. After that, they offered to sell the watch for 20s. I said I would not buy it, but I would advance 15s on it till they should fetch it back again—I did so, and I received the watch and chain.— Robert Truscott, police-constable:—On Monday the 19th of March, I went in pursuit of prisoners, and came up with them near a beer-house at Scrawsden? Works, in the parish of Antony; I charged them with stealing the watch, and they said they knew nothing about it. In the meantime I had received some information and went to the beer-house where James was; I took the prisoners there to Jones, and Jones said he had got the watch, and that he had got it from those two men, and he pointed to Williams and said “that’s the man I had it of.” Jones told me he had advanced 15s. on the watch, to enable the men to go to Plymouth. Jones then gave up the watch and chain to me, and I now produce them.—The watch and chain were identified positively by the prosecutor, and in a somewhat more qualified way by Jones.—The prosecutor, when questioned by the prisoner Williams, said “I can’t say that you stole my watch, because I was asleep, but you yourself told me afterwards, that you took the watch from my neck.”—Verdict. Both Guilty. (Sentence: each 4 months h.l.) JAMES HARRIS, 31, a confectioner, was charged with stealing a purse, two sovereigns, and some silver, the property of Richard Martin, at Launceston, on the 27th March.—Mr. Cowlard conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—The prosecutor, a young man, deposed:—I live at Broadwoodwidger, in Devon, and was at Launceston on Monday the 26th March, Launceston fair day. After 12 o’clock at night I went into the London Inn and saw the prisoner there with two females, in the kitchen. When I entered the kitchen he had a pint of cider in his hand; he asked me to have a drink and wanted to shake hands with me. I said I would rather not, and I looked in over the settle, where some people were singing.—The prisoner was on the same side of the settle as I was, a little before me; he gave the pint of cider to one of the females, and stepped back towards me till he came so close as to be able to touch me. I then felt a slight twitch outside my trousers pocket, and saw him put his hand in my pocket; he was withdrawing his hand and it was partly out of my pocket, when I caught hold of his finger. At that time he had my purse between his fingers and my body at the top of my pocket, and the purse would have fallen on the ground if I had not prevented it. There were two sovereigns and some silver in my purse; I had put the money there the same day. I examined the purse when I took it from the prisoner’s hand and found my money all right. When I caught hold of his hand I said “be off, you are trying to rob me; I’ll give you in charge to the police.” He said “no harm, my friend; will you have a pint of beer at my expense?” I turned away from him, and he passed out by me and ran down the street; I followed him and met Policeman Holman; when we caught the prisoner and the Policeman laid hold of him, he said “I have not got his money.” I said “no, but you had my purse in your hand;” and I gave him in charge.—The latter portion of the prosecutor’s evidence was confirmed by Holman; and, the CHAIRMAN directing the jury that the removal of prosecutor’s property as proved was sufficient in the eyes of the law to constitute larceny, the jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) THOMAS DAWE, a miner, aged 17, was charged with stealing 13 borers, the property of Edward Betteley and others, adventurers in Drakewalls Mine, in Calstock.—Mr. Bishop conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cox the defence.—John Grey, master smith at the Drakewalls Mine, deposed:—I know the prisoner; he has lately come to Drakewalls Mine, and I have several times seen him in my shop, where I am in the habit of sharpening borers belonging to the mine. Recently I have found numbers missing, and complaints have been made in consequence.—Robert Ivey, a miner, living at Gunnis Lake. I know the prisoner; he lives next door to me with his father. About 6 o’clock in the evening of Thursday the 29th of March I was in my garden at the end of my house, and observed a spot where the ground seemed to have been scrabbled as if by fowls. I took my shovel to put back the earth aright, and in doing so discovered a borer hidden under the earth. I informed the police, and that night, after I was in bed, police serjeant Bond came to my house, and I afterwards saw some borers in his possession. I had found 10 borers in my garden. There is no thoroughfare in my garden, and there is a wall between my garden and the adjoining meadow. Other tenants of cottages have a right to the garden.—Cross-examined—There are altogether 16 tenants living in the row of houses, and they all have plots in this garden. The wall between my garden and the meadow is about 4½ feet high. The nearest way from Drakewalls to our row of houses is down the meadow and over the wall into the garden. Re-examined—The prisoner, going from the garden over the wall into the meadow would be going from his father’s house.—George Bond, sergeant of police, stationed at Gunnis Lake:—In consequence of some information I had received, I went on Thursday last to the garden occupied by Robert Ivey, I went there about half-past 10 at night, in company with another police officer, John Michell. I went to the higher end of the garden, close by the wall that divides the garden from the meadow. After I had been there about 5 minutes, I saw a man coming over the hedge at the higher side of the meadow, about 50 or 60 yards off. He came in the direction towards the garden. I concealed myself, and in about two minutes I saw the prisoner get over the wall into the garden. He made a stop, looked around, and said “hallo.” I rose up and he ran away as fast as possible to his father’s house. I gave chace (sic), and ran upstairs after him into his bed-room, where I found he had three borers in his possession; they were either in his coat or under his coat, and as soon as I caught hold of him, they dropped from his person, on the floor. I followed him down stairs and charged him with stealing borers; he said he had only stolen three, and that he knew nothing about the 10. By the time I came down stairs with prisoner, the other constable had come in with 10 borers found in the garden.—John Michell, policeman, gave confirmatory evidence, and John Grey identified the borers produced by the police, especially the three found on the prisoner; and they were further identified by Thomas Gregory, an agent at the mine.—The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, in respect of the three borers found on his person, and which he acknowledged he had stolen. (Sentence: six weeks hard labour.) APPEALS. —Mr. CHILDS moved to enter and adjourn an appeal against an order dated 4th March 1860, for the removal of Harriet Stoddern, wife of Henry Stoddern, from St. Blazey to Camborne. —Mr. BISHOP moved to enter and adjourn an appeal by the parish of Looe against the Justices of Cornwall. SECOND COURT. Before J.J. Rogers, Esq., M.P. ASSAULTING A POLICEMAN AT CAMBORNE. JOHN HARRIS, a tinman, who had been out on bail, was charged with having assaulted Edmund Currah, a police officer, while in the execution of his duty at Camborne. Mr. COX prosecuted, and Mr. H. ROGERS defended the prisoner. Mr. COX having shortly stated the case, called the following witnesses:— Edmund Currah—I am a serjeant of the county police stationed at Camborne. I remember on the 27th March, along with two other officers, named, Pengelly and Hotton, taking two prisoners to the lock up. We had some difficulty in hand-cuffing the prisoners, and in Trelowarren-street, a mob collected and hooted us. In Moore-street we were pelted with stones, and I blew the whistle to let Pengilly, who had left us a short time before, know what was happening; we got to the station house, the door of which I unlocked, and while in the act of turning round to put the prisoners in, I was struck in the eye with a stone, which rendered me insensible.—Cross-Examined—It is a general thing for us to be followed not only by children but men also, when we are taking prisoners to the lock up in Camborne, and to be pelted with stones. I have known nothing against the prisoner, prior to this offence. P.C. Pengelly deposed—I received some directions from the last witness while in Trelowarren Street, and I then left him and concealed myself behind a garden hedge in Moore Street. When the mob came up, I got over the wall in order to detect the parties who were throwing stones. It was not a very dark night nor a very light one, and near the station there was light from a cottage window. When the sergeant got up to the station, the mob made a halt. I was still amongst the mob, and I saw the prisoner raise his hand and discharge something at the sergeant. I was only about 5 yards from the prisoner when he threw the stone. After he threw the stone he turned up the street, and I jumped at him to take him into custody, but missed him, and he turned and ran down the street. I followed, and on coming up with him, I knocked him down with my staff. I fell on him, when he said—“I did not do it.” I said—“Do what?” and he replied—“Throw that stone.” I had not mentioned a stone to him or any one else before this. I saw him most distinctly throw the stone, and between the time and when I took him in custody, I never lost sight of him.—Cross-examined—I have known the prisoner since I have been in Camborne,—three years—and I never heard of anything against his character before. The prisoner was standing about 20 feet from Currah, and 5 feet from me. The night was not very dark, but I do not think I could have seen a man as far off as Mr. Cox. I could as far off as you are (about ten feet). I should not think that there were 200 persons present, nor 150. There might be 100. Many stones were thrown, but I cannot tell the name of any other person who threw them. I knocked the prisoner down to prevent him from escaping. He had not resisted me. I do not know that a summons is out against me for an assault. I am in the habit of telling people when I take them into custody, what I apprehend them for, but I did not tell the prisoner that I apprehended him for throwing a stone; nor was it in reply to this charge that he declared that he had never thrown a stone. P.C. Hotton gave corroboratory evidence as to the assembling of the mob and the injury to Currah. Mr. Vincent, surgeon, deposed that he was called in to attend Currah, and found him suffering from a contused wound on the eye, which had evidently been inflicted by a stone. The eye was not quite well yet. Cross-examined—Had known the prisoner since boyhood, and never knew or heard of anything against him before. His general conduct had always been, so far as witness was aware, opposed to the throwing of stones. Mr. H. ROGERS, for the prisoner, said that the question in this case was one altogether of identity, and he contended that Pengelly was mistaken as to the person who threw the stone. His own evidence proved this, because, if Pengelly could not see a person at a distance of ten feet, it was impossible that the prisoner could have seen to hit the officer at a distance of 20 feet. The night was one of the darkest this year, and the only light was the faint glimmer from a small candle in an adjoining cottage window, so that it was impossible Pengelly could have seen who threw the stone. He called James Littlejohn, who deposed—I live in Camborne, and know the prisoner, but I have no acquaintance with him. I was standing in a crowd near to the police station when Currah was struck. At the time the prisoner was standing close to me, and I was talking to him. He had his hands in his pockets, and I will swear he did not throw the stone that hit the officer. When the officer screamed, the prisoner said we had better move from here, or we shall get a stone at our heads. We stepped back to the causeway, and Pengelly was not standing near at the time, but had to force his way through the crowd to the prisoner. The latter made no attempt whatever to run away. After I had stepped on the pathway, the officer came up, and I heard a struggle. I then saw Pengelly take hold of Harris, when the latter said he had never taken his hands out of his pockets. At the time the officer was struck, the prisoner was standing between me and a young man called Tyrrell. John Tyrrell, Thomas Nicholls, William Stephens, William Henry Rule and Mary Ann Harris (no relation of the prisoners) all gave similar evidence, deposing that prisoner was standing amongst them at the time the stone was thrown at Currah, that he had his hands in his pockets and never once took up a stone, or indeed removed them from his pockets. They also contradicted Pengelly as to his being near the prisoner, when Currah was hit, stating that he was at a distance, and that when the prisoner went towards the causeway, Pengelly had to force his way through the crowd to reach him. They also stated that the night was very dark, and the only light at the place was a faint glimmer from a cottage window, so that Pengelly could not have seen the prisoner throw the stone, even had he done so, at the distance at which he stood from him. The CHAIRMAN having summed up at a considerable length, the jury after a few minutes’ consultation returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. —The Bill against WILLIAM STEPHENS, 21, miner, for insulting and ill-treating Elizabeth Jane Harper, at St. Ewe, on the 25th of October, with intent, was ignored by the grand jury. This concluded the trials of the prisoners, and the Court adjourned. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4. The Court, this morning, passed the following sentences:—[see individual cases above] APPEALS. CONSTANTINE, APPELLANT; Mr. Stokes & Mr. Pender. STITHIANS, RESPONDENT; Mr. Cox and Mr. Genn. Appeal against order for removal of Mary Ann Collins and six children.—Order quashed; £5 costs; no maintenance. ST. BLAZEY, APPELLANT; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Childs. KENWYN, RESPONDENT; Mr. Cox.—Appeal against an order for removal of Henry Reed, his wife and six children.—Order children (sic).—Order quashed; £5 costs; no maintenance. [Editor’s Note: fuller reports on these Appeals are given below, transcribed from the next edition of the newspaper] ALTERATIONS OF HIGHWAYS.—Certificates were granted by the Court for stopping up a portion of old highway and making a new highway, in the parish of Minster; and for a similar alteration with respect to a highway in the parish of Bodmin, leading from the town at its western end, by the Asylum, to Dunmeer. APPEAL.—Mr. CHILDS moved to enter and adjourn an appeal by the Mayor and three Burgesses of East Looe, against the Magistrates of the County. This concluded the business of the Sessions. [In the course of the day’s proceedings, the Chairman read letters from the Treasury, disallowing certain charges in the account of Criminal Prosecution Expenses in Cornwall during the year 1859; and observations on this subject, and with reference to irregularities in Magistrates’ Certificates, were made by various magistrates. We must postpone till next week our report of these proceedings, as well as a fuller notice of the Appeals]. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4. Before C.B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq., Chairman. APPEALS. CONSTANTINE, APPELLANT: Mr. Stokes and Mr. Pender. STITHIANS, RESPONDENT; Mr. Cox and Mr. Genn Mr. STOKES moved an appeal against an order for the removal of Mary Ann Collins and six children of her late husband Nicholas Collins, from the parish of Stithians to the parish of Constantine. Mr. COX stated that the respondents relied mainly on their second ground of removal, which stated that in or about the year 1798 Nicholas Collins, the father of pauper’s deceased husband, gained a settlement by hiring and service for a period of two years with a Mr. and Mrs. Box at Treworval in the parish of Constantine. In consequence of the long lapse of time since the alleged time of service it was impossible to give positive proof of the settlement, and therefore the respondents were driven to offer presumptive or inferential proof. Old witnesses would give evidence of circumstances, from which the Court would be justified in presuming the alleged hiring and service; and, as authority for tendering such evidence, the learned Counsel cited the case Rex v. Lyth, 5 Term Reports, page 327, in which it was held that, from the fact that a person had been seen in service, justices were at liberty to presume that there was a proper hiring and service.—In support of the respondents’ case, there were examined, Stephen Spargo, a labourer, aged 70 years; John Spargo, aged 73; and James Spargo, in his 70th year; and Mr. COX asserted that their evidence satisfactorily established the alleged settlement by hiring and service in Constantine. Mr. STOKES, on the contrary, urged that the evidence wholly failed to warrant the inference which the respondents sought to establish—that there had been hiring and service in the appellant parish; and still less did that evidence warrant the presumption that there had been 40 days’ residence in any one year of the service at Treworval—an essential condition for the gaining settlement by hiring and service. The fact of residence was so essential towards the establishing a settlement that it must be proved positively, and must not be left to inference or presumption. The COURT held that settlement in the Appellant parish was not made out. Order quashed; £5 costs; no maintenance. St. BLAZEY, APPELLANT; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Childs.—KENWYN, respondent; Mr. Cox. Mr. CHILDS moved to quash an order dated the 22nd November, 1859, for the removal of Henry Reed, his wife and 6 children, from the parish of Kenwyn to the parish of St. Blazey. Mr. COX, for the respondent parish, stated that the ground of removal was that the pauper’s grandfather obtained a settlement in St. Blazey by estate. In 1823, the pauper’s grandfather, John Reed, obtained from Mr. Colman Rashleigh a tenement on lease for 99 years, determinable on lives, the consideration being not in money, but in rent, (5s. a year) and usual covenants for repairs and rates. On this property various buildings were erected, worth about £120. John Reed kept possession of this property until his death in 1847; he had a son named Nicholas, but Nicholas married in 1820, nearly three years before the securing of the estate by his father John Reed. John Reed at his death, left one of the dwelling houses to Nicholas, reversionary on the death of John Reed’s widow; she died in 1851, and Nicholas then took possession of the house, and remained in possession until 1854. Henry Reed, the pauper, son of Nicholas, was born in 1820, and married in 1847, being thus emancipated before his father Nicholas came into possession of his share of the property. Nicholas, at that time, had no independent settlement—no other settlement in fact than what he derived from his father John Reed. The pauper’s settlement by estate was therefore solely derivative from his grandfather.—Observing that the facts of the case were, he believed, indisputable, Mr. Cox said the question was almost entirely one of law—whether, in law, John Reed obtained settlement by estate by means of that lease referred to. He presumed it would be contended by the appellants that the lease in question was in fact a purchase, and that being so, the estate purchased was of less value than £30—that the purchase was not for £30, bona fide paid, and that therefore, by the 9 Geo. 1st, c. Y, s. 5, no settlement could be gained thereunder. He (Mr. Cox) would however prove that, previous to the grant of the lease, buildings had been erected of greater value than £30; and, although the lease did not on its face state that the consideration was that buildings had been so erected, he would ask the Court to presume that those buildings were part of the consideration; and then, under authority of the case of Wendron v. Stithians, in 1834, (Law Journal, Vol. 24, Magistrates’ Cases) he would ask the Court to hold that the consideration need not be in money, but that the fact of buildings having been erected was sufficient to satisfy the words of the statute. But, supposing the Court should hold that the value of £30 in this present case was not made out in any way, he would contend that there was no purchase at all under the meaning of the act, but that there was an agreement to obtain the estate by some means other than purchase, and which would give settlement by estate without reference to the act or the amount of consideration. In conclusion, the learned Counsel further stated that he should also prove and independent settlement of the pauper by birth in the parish of St. Blazey. Evidence, documentary and oral, was then taken, the latter being given by Henry Reed the pauper, by Mary Boswarrick, and Eliza Pearce. Mr. COX then addressed the Court, alleging that settlement by birth of the pauper in St. Blazey had been clearly proved; and, on the other and more doubtful portion of the case, he submitted that there was satisfactory proof of the procurement of the property by old John Reed; and he submitted that this property was procured, either by purchase, for value to the amount of £30; or that, it was not a purchase for value, and that therefore value was of no importance.—It was true, the learned Counsel said, that in the lease the consideration was stated to be rent and covenants; but he submitted that the whole lease must be taken together, and then it would be seen that the consideration was, mainly, that houses had been built on the tenement at the expense of John Reed; and that being so, it established, on the authority of Wendron v. Stithians, a bona fide payment of £30. But if the Court should not be of that opinion, then he relied on the obtaining of settlement by mere possession of the estate, without consideration; and on this point the learned Counsel cited Rex v. St. Mary Whitechapel, Burrows Sessions Cases, 55, noted in Archbold, 8th Edition, p. 630. The COURT, without hearing Mr. Shilson on the point, decided that there was no settlement by the grandfather by estate in the parish of St. Blazey,—that there was not such a settlement by purchase, as would satisfy the terms of the statute, 9 George 1st. Mr. SHILSON then stated that the case resolved itself into a question of birth settlement; and, as the respondents had shown a prima facie settlement in St. Blazey, by reason of the birth of the pauper Henry Reed in that parish, he should now, on the part of the appellants, prove settlement in St. Agnes, by birth of the pauper’s father, Nicholas Reed, in that parish.—Evidence on this point was given by two aged witnesses;—Simon Tonkin and Mary Tonkin; and the necessary certificates of marriage, birth, and baptism from the St. Agnes parish register were put in. The COURT held that the birth of pauper’s father in St. Agnes was abundantly proved. Order quashed; common costs. [THE TREASURY AND THE COUNTY.—not transcribed]

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 6 and 13 July 1860

4. Midsummer Sessions

These Sessions opened at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following Magistrates:— CHAIRMEN: Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. (presiding); John Jope Rogers, Esq.; Charles Brune Graves Sawle, Esq.; Sir S.T. Spry. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. R. Johns, Esq. T.J.A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. H. Thomson, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. W.R.C. Potter, Esq. Colonel Cocks. Rev. Uriah Tonkin. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Rev. R. Buller. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. T.S. Bolitho, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. W. Michell, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. R.G. Lakes, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. —The Rev. James Hicks Glencross took the oath, on his appointment to the rectory of Helland. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. Nicholas Robins, Roche, foreman. — Henry Andrew, St. Austell. — John Avery, St. Mellion. — William Box, Pillaton. — Joseph Body, Mevagissey. — Thomas Crowle, St. Austell. — John Coombe, St. Austell. — John James Calf, Gorran. — Thomas Grose, St. Austell. — John Gaved, St. Mewan. — William Hearn, St. Austell. — James Hicks, St. Austell. — Joseph Higman, St. Austell. — Richard Kirkin, Gorran. — Robert Lanyon, Gorran. — Thomas Michell, St. Austell. — John Mason, Callington. — John Nicholls, St. Austell. — Joseph Rickard, St. Dominic. — Robert Scantlebury, Mevagissey. — Edward Tucker, Calstock. — John Wills, Gorran. The Queen's Proclamation, (as recently altered, and bearing date the 9th June, 1860) for the encouragement of piety and virtue and for the preventing and punishment of vice, profaneness and immorality, was then read. The CHAIRMAN then delivered his charge to the grand jury as follows: —Although on the present occasion, I have not the pleasure of seeing quite a full grand jury, still it gives the court great pleasure to see that so many gentlemen in your station of life have been found, under the peculiar circumstances of this season, to leave your usual avocations and take that interest in the affairs of the County which is so essential to the due and proper administration of justice. The calendar of prisoners for trial at the present Quarter Session is, when compared with that of last Midsummer, both in point of numbers and as to the character of crimes charged, a light one. On this occasion there are but 19 prisoners; whereas at the last Midsummer Sessions there were 40, and several of these cases were of a serious description. Therefore the state of crime in this County, as appears by the calendar, is very satisfactory; but when we look to the Gaol Returns and see the number of prisoners committed there altogether, in various ways, the difference between this year and last is not so great. The difference is more in the character of the offences charged than in the numbers of prisoners. The grand total of prisoners at the Midsummer Sessions 1859 was 45; whereas at the present Sessions it is 43. But no less than 23 of the present total are for offences of a very trivial description, and in which the prisoners were committed under the Criminal Justice Act. Therefore, on the whole, the Returns do show an improvement, as to the state of crime in this County.—There is only one case on the Calendar to which I think it necessary to call your attention—that of two men charged with feloniously removing and concealing tin ore. I presume that the indictment in this case will be framed under a special Statute passed for the protection of mines in this County, and which is commonly called the Kitting Act. By this Act, the taking of ore from one part of a mine to another, or the concealing of ore on a mine, is made felony, and a person found guilty of such conduct may be punished accordingly. Therefore, in order to your finding a bill, it will not be necessary that the ore should be shown to have been removed altogether from off the mine.—l have ascertained from the Chief Constable that there is an offence which appears to be exceedingly prevalent in this County, and which, though comparatively small in itself, is the cause of almost all other crimes. I mean the crime of drunkenness. It is the opinion of the Chief Constable that this offence is very much promoted by the present mode of paying miners. You are aware, perhaps, that miners, on their pay- days, are usually paid, not in small amounts, but principally in bank-notes; and in order to get these notes changed, the men are obliged to spend a certain portion of their wages in drink. I make this observation in the hope that some philanthropic persons connected with Cornish mines may devise some means for paying the men with small change, and that this temptation may be removed from them. I am informed that one of the largest employers in the kingdom—Sir John Guest, the great ironmaster in Wales—pays his men the amounts due to them, in small change; and that this plan has had the most beneficial effects. I throw out this observation, in the hope that some persons in this County may be induced to take it up and act upon it.—So much for what concerns crime in this County. As to the County finances, I am informed that on the present occasion the rates required will be equal to three-farthings in the £ for the County, and also three-farthings for the Police. That is a small increase as compared with this time last year, when 20 rates were required from the County; the Police rate now is the same as last year. While on this subject, I am anxious to say a word or two on an erroneous idea that seems to prevail—that the present heavy expenditure of the County is entirely the fault of the Magistrates. The fact is, that the greater part if not the whole, of the heavy expenditure has been forced upon the magistrates by the legislature of the country. The magistrates of the county resisted the building of Militia Stores until they were peremptorily ordered by the War Office to proceed. Then, with regard to the New Gaol, the size of the building was calculated on the number then in confinement. That number happily has decreased; and on that ground, the magistrates made application that the size of the building should be reduced; but Col. Jebb, the inspector of prisons, decidedly refused to have its size reduced. The police too, was not originated by the Magistrates of the County; although I am one of those who think the Police is a very excellent Force; but it was made compulsory on the Magistrates to establish a Police Force, and it is right that it should be known throughout the County that the only responsibility which rested on the magistrates was as to the mode in which the Police Act should be carried out. I am happy to be informed by the Chief Constable that the Police Force in this County has been established and maintained at a less cost than the Police Force of any other county in the kingdom. I have thought it right to say thus much, as it has been imagined that these acts were gratuitously and voluntarily ours. I can only say, speaking for myself as well as for all who sit on this Bench, that, not only from our own personal interest, but also from a sense of duty towards the County, we endeavour to keep down expenditure as much as we possibly can; but it is unfortunate that many causes of heavy expenditure have occurred at the same time.—The Chairman then requested the Grand Jury to retire to their room, for the consideration of bills of indictment. GAOL EXPENSES, FOR THE PAST QUARTER:— Subsistence £190 18 1 Clothing 29 5 1 Bedding 15 5 0 Fuel 53 17 4 Sundries 94 16 0 Salaries 340 0 6 One pensioned Watchman 1 5 0 Paid prisoners on discharge 8 1 0 Expenses at Easter and Adjourned Sessions 7 9 4 Revoval (sic) of Convicts 24 0 8 William and Henry Bray for assisting the Clerk 6 16 6 Elizabeth Osborne, for assisting the Matron 6 5 0 Two years subscription toward Fire Engines 2 2 0 Insurance of Governor's and Chaplain's houses 2 7 0 Female singers 1 0 0 Beard, for whipping 0 5 0 Incidental expenses 0 5 10 Total £783 19 4 Credit, by cash received for subsistence of military and other prisoners 15 19 6 £767 19 10 The CHAIRMAN remarked that at the last Midsummer Sessions the total was £738 3s. 8d.; the increase this year was mainly attributable to the rise in the price of provisions. The expenses on account of the New Gaol amounted to £92 19s. 3d.; at the corresponding quarter last year, they were £60 11s. 3d. Hall expenses £5 2 5 At Midsummer, 1859 6 13 7 THE GOVERNOR'S REPORT.—Mr. EVEREST, the Governor, reported as follows:— Nothing material has occurred within the Prison since my last Report, which calls for any special remark. The Prisoners have, with a few exceptions, been orderly and well conducted. The GOVERNOR also certified that the rules and regulations for the government of the Prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with. VISITING JUSTICES REPORT.—The Visiting Committee of the County Gaol beg to make their usual report on the good order and discipline maintained therein. The Governor, Mr. Everest, has retired, as he felt that his age and infirmities no longer enabled him to discharge efficiently the arduous duties of his office. The Committee feel they cannot express too high an opinion of his long, valuuble (sic), and faithful services.—The Committee are led to hope from the very high testimonials received, that Captain Colville, who takes office this day, will prove a most efficient officer. Nicholas Kendall. Neville Norway. C.M. Edward Collins. THE NEW GAOL.—Mr. LAKES hoped he should not be deemed out of order, if he asked if credit had been given to the County for sale of old materials of the Gaol. An impression had gone abroad that nothing had been credited to the County in that respect; although it was said that a large sum of money might be made of them and he knew many persons who had bought largely. He had had no means to contradict the rumour to which he referred, and therefore he had thought it right to state the matter in open court. Mr. KENDALL, Chairman of the Building Committee, admitted that it was the duty of persons occupying the position of Trustees for the County to answer questions put to them on matters with which they were cognizant in that capacity, yet suggested that for the obtaining of full, detailed information, it would be well for magistrates to give notice of questions. At present, he had not papers or figures at hand, but probably he might be able to procure them in the course of to-day, or by to-morrow. At all events the details would be published; and he believed they would satisfy the public that the Committee had endeavoured to make the most of the old materials, and that whatever sum had been realized had been credited to the county.—Mr. LAKES said it was impossible always to give notice of questions; not unfrequently, questions might be suggested by the course of business in court. Mr. KENDALL, after some other remarks of similar purport to his previous observations, said he knew there was an impression abroad that committees were not always very economical. As Chairman of one or two committees it had fallen to his lot occasionally to ask the county for money; but he was always for economy, and in his life he had never asked for a single fraction without the unanimous sanction of the committee, after discussion as to the smallest sum for which the work required might be done efficiently. It would be found that this was the most economical county of any in England; and he thought the magistrates deserved credit rather than blame.—Mr. LAKES acknowledged with gratitude, the services of the Gaol Building Committee; and, after some further observations from Mr. KENDALL and the CHAIRMAN, the subject dropped.—It was subsequently resolved on the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., that, as Mr. Kendall was desirous to give a detailed answer to Mr. Lake's question, County business should be resumed at 12 o'clock on Wednesday. THE COUNTY ASYLUM.—It was announced that no rate was required at these Sessions for the Asylum. CORONERS' BILLS.—The Coroners' Bills for the past quarter were read by the CHAIRMAN, and passed:— Mr. Carlyon, for 30 Inquests £111 16 0 “ “ Last year for 17 inquests 58 4 1 In reply to a question from the CHAIRMAN, on the increase this quarter as compared with the Midsummer Sessions, 1859 Mr. Carlyon said there had been a great many mine accidents during the past quarter; he was not aware of any other special reason for the increase. Mr. Hamley for 13 inquests £51 7 7 The corresponding quarter last year, for 22 inquests 89 9 1 Mr. Hichens for 16 inquests 55 9 5 At Midsummer Sessions,1859 for 25 inquests 78 10 0 The Rev. T. PASCOE asked Mr. Hichens if he had held an inquest on a poor woman who died about 10 days since from the results of fire at a mine in the parish of St. Erth. He understood that the poor woman was about 80 years of age, and was engaged in picking chirks on the mine, and the cinders set her on fire; she was caught in that way, and water was thrown on her and the fire was extinguished; she died, however, and I believe her death was chiefly caused by a shock to the nervous system.—Mr. HICHENS said he had never heard of the death till this moment. – Mr. PASCOE said the Police or some one, ought to have given notice to Mr. Hichens.—Mr HICHENS said, according to Mr. Pascoe's statement, if he (Mr. Hichens) had heard of the death, he should have deemed it his duty to hold an inquest.—Mr. PASCOE said it was a case for inquiry; the woman might have been pushed in.—Mr SAWLE did not think this was a case in which an inquest should have been held. Two medical men had attended the woman after the accident happened; there could be no suspicion of any foul play, and she died under circumstances which rendered an inquest unnecessary ("hear" from Mr. Carew).—Mr. PASCOE repeated that she might have been pushed in, or it might have been shown on inquiry that the fire was not properly attended to. He could not conceive how the Registrar of the District could have granted a certificate for funeral.—The CHAIRMAN thought the Police had exercised sound discretion in not sending for the Coroner. Mr. Good, for 12 inquests £44 11 3 This time twelve months 12 inquests 49 5 9 Mr. Jago 55 8 10 Last Midsummer 78 0 1 The general results were:— Last year £346 9 11 This year 318 13 1 Decrease 27 16 10 EASTERN DIVISION OF BRIDGES.—The following report was presented by Mr. JENKINS, Surveyor of Bridges in the Eastern Division:— The contracts for the maintenance and repair of Bridge Roads expired on the 1st of May last; since which time I have, in accordance with the instructions of the last sessions, made arrangements with local parties for keeping the roads and water tables repaired, over the great majority of the bridges in this district. I have also agreed in nearly all cases for the supply of stone for metalling at a price per cubic yard. I have now to apply for a grant of the following sums on account of the undermentioned Bridges, principally incurred in consequence of the late flood on the Tamar, viz.— Home Bridge, 11s. 6d.; Boyton Bridge, £1 1s. 8d.; North Tamerton, 17s. 6d.; Stratton 12s. I have nothing special to report respecting any of the Bridges at this time.—l shall not require any levy at this time. Mr. POTTER made complaint that the bridge over the Camel at Wadebridge had lately been much neglected—that it had not been cleaned sufficiently often, and that, in particular, some earthenware pipes intended to convey water from the road-way had been suffered to become choked. Mr. Potter addressed some further observations to the Chairman on the subject; but he was generally inaudible to the body of the court.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., inquired whether the county was responsible for the repairs of Wadebridge.—A conversation, ensued, in which Mr. KENDALL, the CLERK of the PEACE, Mr. SAWLE, the CHAIRMAN, and Mr. CAREW, took part; and the result of which was, that all seemed to concur that the county had become liable to the repairs, in consequence of its having, some years since, accepted certain Trust property, which had previously been applicable to the maintenance of the bridge in efficient repair.—Mr. JENKIN, the Bridge Surveyor, was now requested to inspect the bridge under the directions of Mr. Potter. WESTERN DIVISION OF BRIDGES.—The following Report was presented by Mr. Thomas Hickes, surveyor:—My Lords and Gentlemen; in laying this report before you, I beg to call your attention to the state of the roads that were under contract to the 1st of May last.—Berion.—The road on the eastern side of the bridge is very rough and uneven, and much out of repair; on the bridge it is worn down to the key-stones. I estimate the cost of stoning at £3 6s. 0d. The water tables require cleaning, which I consider should be done at once; it will cost 7s. 6d.—Newlyn; the road requires stoning, which will cost £4 8s.—Chyandour.—The water-tables and side-drains require cleaning; cost about 10s.—Longbridge.—There are some pits at the side of the road that ought to be filled, and the water-table requires cleaning; I estimate the cost to be about 15s.—Godolphin.—The road is in a very rutty and bad state and requires forming and stoning, which I would recommend being done at once; I estimate the cost to be about £9; there are also some repairs wanted to the guard-walls, which will cost about 18s.—St. Erth.—The road requires stoning, which I consider will cost £5.— Gwithian.—This road also requires stoning, which I estimate will cost £2 10s.; there is also a drain which carries the water across the road requiring to be opened at once, being choked, and the ditch deepened leading from the drain to the river, which I estimate will cost 15s. Trevemper.—The road requires forming and stoning, which I consider will cost £5.—And drawing your attention to the roads not under contract, I beg to say that at Grampound, there are some repairs wanting to the guard-walls, which will cost about 18s.—Cornelly.—There are some repairs wanted at the north end of a culvert that carries the water under the road, and also some repairs to the guard-wall over the culvert, which has been broken down by the falling of a tree, I consider the cost will he about £4.—I shall require one levy. The CHAIRMAN (to Mr. Hickes): With regard to the Bridges under contract, the contracts for which expired on the 1st of May, is the outlay you report rendered necessary by neglect of the contractors?—Mr. HICKES: Yes.—The CHAIRMAN:—Then, their money ought to have been stopped.—Mr. HICKES said he had stopped the last half-year's payments. Letters were then read by the CHAIRMAN, which had been received by the Clerk of the Peace, from Mr. R.V. Hosking, of Ludgvan, one of the contractors referred to, and in which, referring to serious disagreement between Mr. Hickes and himself, he demanded payment of £17 10s., last half- year's money, due the 1st of May last, and £7 15s. 10d. extra for removing sand three times from Gwithian Bridge, during the storms of last winter, amounting to about 900 loads. Mr. Hosking added that he was willing to submit his case to the decision of any two magistrates, to Mr. Pease of Boconnoc, or to any other respectable surveyor.—After some conversation, in which Mr. BOLITHO, Mr. CAREW, Mr. SAWLE, and Mr. LAKES took part, it was agreed to refer the matter to a committee consisting of the magistrates of the Petty Sessional Divisions of West Kirrier and East Penwith. —Rev. R. BULLER stated that some considerable time since he called attention to the state of the road at the eastern approach to Sowden Bridge, and gave notice of motion for a sum of £50; but, in consequence of Mr. Jenkins, the surveyor, having stated that a much larger sum—£182 would be necessary, nothing had been done.—Mr. BULLER now gave notice that he would bring the subject before the Court at the Michaelmas Sessions. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT.—Lieut.-Colonel Gilbert, the Chief Constable of Cornwall, reported as follows:— "My Lords and Gentlemen,—I have the honour to lay before you the Quarterly Returns of Crime in this County; also a List, shewing the number and distribution of the Constabulary.—The Station Houses at St. Cleer and Menheniot having been yesterday reported finished by the Architect, I shall proceed to occupy these stations at once.” REPORT OF THE COUNTY POLICE COMMITTEE.—A meeting was held yesterday, at which the following members were present, viz.:—The Chairman, Sir Colman Rashleigh, C.B.G. Sawle, N. Kendall, W.H.P. Carew, G.W.F. Gregor J.T.H. Peter, F.M. Williams, W. Michell, Esquires.—The expenses incurred during the last quarter were examined and approved, and the expenses allowed for the previous quarter compared with the vouchers and found correct.—Mr. Porter presented the Report hereto attached, detailing the progress made in the different Police Stations now in course of erection.—The Committee regret to observe that there has been cause for complaint in the case of Torpoint Station, and have authorised Mr. Porter to take the necessary steps under the contract to enforce the completion of the work; without prejudice to the right of the County to enforce the penalty already incurred for loss of time.—The committee also recommend a payment on account, to the Clerk of the Peace, of £26. Falmouth Station.—The Committee have, since the last Sessions, concluded the purchase of a freehold house and premises for 1200l., which they believe may be advantageously converted into a Police Station. The committee ask for an order of the Court authorising the Clerk of the Peace to execute the conveyance. Padstow Station.—A freehold site has been offered for a Station in this town, which is much wanted, and the matter has been placed in Mr. Coode's hands, in order to the completion of the purchase, if satisfactory terms can be arranged. St. Germans Station.—The Committee are informed that this Station will in a very short time be ready to hand over to the county, and beg to recommend an order of Sessions authorizing the Clerk of the Peace to sign the lease on behalf of the County and to pay over the purchase money, as soon as the works shall be certified by Mr. Porter to be completed to his satisfaction. Camborne Station.—The Committee recommend the payment to the contractors, of the amount hitherto withheld from them on account of delay in completion of the work, deducting the sum of £32 12s. 6d. for expenses actually incurred by the County in consequence of such delay.—Mr. Porter also applies for the balance due to him on account of this station, which, with a payment of £40 on account for St. Cleer and Menheniot, the Committee recommend to be paid. The Chief Constable having suggested the substitution of light four-wheeled spring wagons for the conveyance of prisoners instead of the two-wheeled carts now in use, as being much more favourable to the horses in a hilly country, and also less liable to wear, the Committee have authorized him to procure this to be used in an experiment, on a plan submitted to them, the cost being £30. An arrangement has been made with the builder, to take one of the old carts in part payment. The following sums should be charged to the County Rate, and carried to the credit of the Police Rate:— Conveyance and Subsistence of Prisoners £147 2 0 Giving notice to Coroners, &c 36 15 6 Expenses as to Weights and Measures 36 8 8 220 6 2 The sum of £75 14s. 5d. has been paid to the County Rate during the quarter for fees for stamping weights and measures. —The sum of £165 9s. 9d. has accrued to the Superannuation Fund, which should be invested as heretofore. The Committee recommend a Police Rate of three farthings in the £ for the present quarter. ARCHITECT'S REPORT:—My Lord and Gentlemen:—l have the honour to report to you that the Stations at St. Cleer and Menheniot are now ready to be taken over by the County; it will be very desirable to have some fires kept in the rooms for a short time to make them dry enough for occupation. Bad weather, and their very exposed positions, have contributed to delay the completion of these buildings beyond the stipulated time. I am however happy in being able to report that these stations have been satisfactorily built for less than the contract price. I append a statement of the account with the contractor, and the other accounts connected therewith. Torpoint Station.—l am sorry to have to state again that this building is not ready for delivering over to the County. The boundary wall and gates are not yet finished, and some of the finishings inside are either incomplete or unsatisfactorily done. I have urged on the contractors as much as possible, but, owing to the late bad weather, and want of diligence during the fine weather, the work has been sadly retarded.—The Clerk of the Works applies for a payment on account of his salary, which I beg to recommend. Wadebridge Station has been commenced and is progressing satisfactorily; the building being in part above plinth high. Bodmin Station.—The site has been cleared of the old buildings, and the works are about to be commenced for building the new station. Tywardreath Station is also about to be commenced, the drawings having been last week sent to the contractor. Mr. Thomas Frazer has been appointed Clerk of the Works for the superintendence of the Wadebridge and Tywardreath stations; an arrangement having been made with the Militia Stores Committee, for whom he is also engaged, whereby the expense of his salary, &c., is divided with your committee, and considerable advantage for the County is thus obtained. I have the honour to be, Your obedient servant, FREDK. W. PORTER, Architect. —The several Reports were adopted nem. con.; and, on the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., the orders of Court applied for by the Committee were granted. TRIAL OF DESERTERS, &c.—The CHAIRMAN read the following letter, which he had received from the Secretary of State's Office.— Whitehall, 11th June, 1858. Sir, I am directed by Secretary Sir George Lewis, to request that the attention of the acting Magistrates of the County may be called to the 12th section of the Act 22 and 23 Vict. c. 38, which provides that any deserter, or any person who, in respect of any offence against the Militia Laws, is deemed a deserter, may, whenever apprehended, be tried by regimental Court martial, or by a Justice of the Peace, in any part of the United Kingdom where the offender may be when summary proceedings are instituted against him, and that upon conviction, he shall forfeit and pay any sum not less than forty shillings and not exceeding £20, or be committed to prison, with or without hard labour, for any time not less than two months, and not exceeding six, and that the Secretary at War may direct in which of the aforesaid modes the offender shall be tried.—I am further to request that the Magistrates may be informed, for their guidance, that the Secretary at War has, pursuant to the power given to him by the said section, directed, as a general rule, that all such offenders be dealt with summarily by the Justices, in the manner provided by the law. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, H. WADDINGTON. To the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, for the County of Cornwall. AGENDA. —The first item in the Agenda was a "Notice given by Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., at the Epiphany Sessions and adjourned from the last Sessions, that he shall move that a Committee be appointed for the general superintendence and examination of the County Finances."—Sir COLMAN now stated that, being in the chair on this occasion, he had not been able to give attention to the subject; he therefore begged to postpone it till the Michaelmas Sessions. RETIRING PENSION TO MR. EVEREST. The CHAIRMAN said the next notice was that "given by John Jope Rogers, Esq., that he shall apply to the Court, that a retiring pension, not exceeding two-thirds of his present Salary, be granted to Mr. Everest on his retirement from the office of Governor of the County Gaol."—That being the question to come on next, perhaps he had better read a letter which he had received from Mr. Everest: — "Cornwall County Gaol, Bodmin, 3rd July, 1860. To the Justices of the Peace for the County of Cornwall, in Quarter Sessions assembled: My Lords and Gentlemen; I cannot' relinquish the functions which I have exercised for more than 32 years as Governor of the Gaol of this Count, without expressing to you my warmest acknowledgments for the encouragement and support with which you have invariably upheld me, in the discharge of the responsible and sometimes difficult duties of my office. I feel that it is to that encouragement and support, that any success which may have attended my efforts for the efficient and economical administration of the discipline of the prison is mainly attributable; and I shall carry with me into private life a very grateful sense of the uniform kindness and consideration which you have extended towards me upon all occasions. The severance of the long connection which has existed between us is very painful to me; but l am cheered by the reflection that I have endeavoured honestly and conscientiously to do my duty, and that my efforts to do so have been appreciated by you, as evinced by your past approbation.—It only remains for me to take my leave of you, which I do most respectfully and gratefully; and with sincere wishes for your health and happiness, I have the honour to be, My Lords and Gentlemen, Your faithful and obedient servant, J. B. EVEREST, Governor. The CHAIRMAN also read the following Minute of proceedings at a Meeting of the Guardians of the Liskeard Union:— To their Worships the Justices of the Peace for the County of Cornwall, in Quarter Sessions assembled:— The following Resolution was passed by a majority of the Guardians of the Poor of the Liskeard Union, present at their general meeting held on the 26th day of May last, and the Clerk was requested to forward it for the consideration of the Magistrates at their next Court of Quarter Sessions. W. F. PEARCE, chairman. "Resolved, that the Guardians of this Board, as representing the rate-payers of their respective parishes, desire to express to the Magistrates of this County, the very general feeling existing against the policy of granting pensions to public servants of the County, and that it is their opinion that such pensions are impolitic in principle and unjust to the ratepayer." Mr. ROGERS:—l have now to move that this Court grant to Mr. Everest a retiring pension, or superannuation allowance, not exceeding two-thirds of his present salary. In moving, this, perhaps it is desirable that I should very shortly state to the Court how the matter stands. It may, perhaps, not be known to all here, that this is not an arbitrary proposition emanating from the Court of Quarter Sessions. The motion I have to submit is based on acts of parliament for many years in operation. There are two Acts bearing on the subject. The one is the principal act relating to the regulation of prisons—the 5th and 6th Victoria, cap. 98; and the other the 4th and 5th William 4th, cap. 24, which is incorporated in the first-mentioned act. So far as regards the object of my motion, the Act 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 98, sec. 30, enacts that in case any governor, or gaoler, shall, from confirmed sickness, age, or infirmity, become incapable to execute the duties of his office, it shall be lawful for the persons having control of the funds applicable to the expenses of the prison, if they shall think fit, on the resignation of such officer, and on the report of the Visiting Justices, to grant him an annuity by way of superannuation allowance, on such a scale with reference to the amount of his salary, and the period of his service, as the case may seem to require, not exceeding the scale prescribed in the act of William 4th. That act of William 4th had reference to the superannuation allowance to be given to public servants in the Civil Department who are incapacitated for duty. That act contains two scales; one which refers to persons who came into office previous to August 1829 (the case of our late Governor), and the other with respect to persons who came into public service subsequent to August 1829. In that act there were different scales of superannuation allowance based on calculation of years of service. Those scales were incorporated and adopted in the 5 and 6 Vict., and therefore apply to the case now before the Court. It may be convenient to the Court to know the extent of power vested in them by those two Acts. Mr. Everest was appointed in February 1828; he has therefore occupied the post of Governor nearly 33 years, and comes under the scale which provides that for any such officer who shall have served 30 years or upwards, and less than 35 years, an annual allowance not exceeding eight-twelfths of his salary and emoluments shall be the limit beyond which the parties shall not have power to go. It will be seen from this, that not only the salary paid to the Governor, but also the emoluments of his office, are to be taken into consideration. I wish, however, to guard myself from being understood to apply for a pension calculated on emoluments as well as salary. But, estimating the superannuation allowance according to the scale I have referred to, and calculating emoluments as well as salary, the total amount received by the late Governor was £485 per annum; eight-twelfths of which would amount to £323 6s. 8d. This sum, therefore, represents the actual amount beyond which it is not in our power to grant Mr. Everest a superannuation allowance. It will now be for the Court to determine what that allowance shall be.—I will read, for the information of the Court, the Report on which this application is necessarily based, and which was made by the Visiting Justices of the Peace at the late Easter Sessions. They refer to the fact of Mr. Everest's resignation in these terms:—"Mr. Everest, the respected Governor, has this morning sent in his resignation, which the Committee beg to lay before the Court, feeling assured that the services of so very faithful and able a servant will meet with the most generous consideration." Perhaps it will be unnecessary for me to preface my motion farther than to say that I leave to the discretion of the Court what the superannuation allowance should be. Having for so short a period held the office of Chairman, I do not feel myself competent to determine what should be the proper amount, in justice to Mr. Everest. But I think I shall not be travelling beyond proper bounds in suggesting that the services of Mr. Everest have been acknowledged by the visiting justices for a long series of years, and by the whole County to have been so valuable as to entitle him to every consideration at our hands. I believe every one will feel it would have been impossible for us to have a more efficient Governor; or one who while taking full interest in the persons put under his charge, has, wherever he has had control over the expenditure of the Gaol, always had a strict eye to the diminishing that expenditure as much as was in his power. The Court will, however, hear more fully and more accurately than from myself, from those who have been more immediately connected with the duty of visiting the Gaol, what his services have been. I think it my duty to refer to them only in general terms; and it will be more respectful on my part that I should leave to the consideration of the Court what amount of superannuation Mr. Everest is entitled to. Mr. KENDALL:—It is my misfortune to be the oldest visitor of the Gaol; and therefore it may be my duty to say something with regard to Mr. Everest. It may not be known to all how Mr. Everest came into the County. When a vacancy took place, it was thought desirable to secure a very efficient man, more especially as some alteration in the Gaol management was then contemplated. Mr. Pendarves was requested to put himself in communication with the Home Office. He accordingly communicated with Mr. Gapper, who sent down Mr. Everest with the recommendation that he was one of the best officers that could come into any County. In order to show how Mr. Everest was estimated I will refer to a published Report of the Visiting Committee in 1832, about 4 years after Mr. Everest had been in office. Mr. Kendall then read extracts from the Report as follows: "We beg leave to recall to the recollection of the Court that four years have now elapsed since a total change was made in the system pursued in the Gaols and Bridewell, and are happy in being able from the experience of this period, to express our perfect satisfaction at the result. * * * It appears by the Gaol Accounts that the total expenditure of the Gaols and Bridewell of this County, for the four years ending Easter, 1828, was £18,078 16s. 6d., and that the total expenditure for the four succeeding years has been £15,133 19s. 4d., shewing a difference on the total sum expended of £2,944 17s. 2d. in favor (sic) of the latter period." At that time there were considerable alterations made in the Gaol, and the Report goes on to say:—"The sum expended in building and repairs, during the first period, appears to have been £1,871 16s. 9d.; in the second, £5,678 15s. 8d. These sums being deducted from the totals of each period respectively, will leave the sum of £16,206 19s. 9d. in the first case, and £9,455 3s. 8d. In the last, as having been the amount of items of current expenditure, and will on them exhibit a difference of £6,751 16s. 1d. in favour of the latter period."—Then the report finishes in this way:—"With respect to the good order of the prisoners, every expectation that could have been formed from more minute classifications, separate sleeping cells in the men's Gaol and Bridewell, and increased means of affording hard labour has, we trust, under the constant care and watchful superintendence of the Governor, been realized, and we are in duty bound to add that if the account we have given of the results of the last four years be received as satisfactory by the Court, it is to the Governor, who organized the system, and has superintended the execution of the improvements, that the praise is due.—April 2nd, 1832.—Signed, F. Hearle Rodd, Wm. Molesworth, N. Kendall, J. Hearle Tremayne, R. Gerveys Grylls, jun., William Hext."—l cannot conceive higher testimony that could be given to Mr. Everest's efficiency and economy during those four years. A few years after that I became a visitor; and I can state that in no instance has any complaint been made or any fault found with Mr. Everest by the Visiting Committee. In fact, I do not believe that a more zealous, a more efficient, a more anxious servant the County ever had than the late Governor. Up to very lately he was in fair health; he was very anxious to see the prison finished and to get into his new house, and apparently he had years of health before him. But a very short time since, his medical officer told me that the duties Mr. Everest was discharging he was doing at the risk of his life, and the medical gentleman would not answer for his life for a fortnight longer if he continued those duties, as he had a heart complaint, and he thought it right that l or some other Visiting Justice should see him. I did see him and told him: you have done your duty; you are now in delicate health; and my advice is that you retire. I told him also that I could make no promise, but my impression was that he had discharged his duties so satisfactorily, that I thought he would be fairly treated. He still thought he might get better; but I repeated my advice that he should retire; and at the last Sessions he sent in his resignation. I believe I have now stated all I wish to say with regard to Mr. Everest. The legal point has been disposed of. An Act of Parliament has given us a guide how we should act; and you, the County Justices, have discretion up to two-thirds of his salary and emoluments. The reason I should not think of including his emoluments is this. Even if there was a strong precedent for it, the fact of our having pensioned one or two inferior gaol officers with whom we have not taken emoluments into consideration, would make it unfair to them if we were to adopt a different course now; and on that ground I should not suggest the introduction of emolument, though we have a right to do so. But as we have had one of the very best servants that any County ever had, I do hope we shall do justice to that servant. It is true we are Trustees for the ratepayers; and I regard with due deference any such appeal as we have had from so respectable a body as the Liskeard Board of Guardians. But no appeal from any quarter would turn me from doing what I considered right to any man. It has always been my endeavour to keep down the rates as low as possible. It has often fallen to my lot to ask for money, in my vocation as Chairman of Committees, and I have got what I asked for, because, I suppose, I ask what is right. And if ever a sum was asked for that ought to be granted, it is when asked for an old and faithful servant. Here is an officer who has been faithful, and is now worn out in our service. It is said Mr. Everest may not live long; but I say we ought not to act on that consideration. The question is whether he has so acted that he is entitled to have two-thirds of his salary. I should be very glad to give him all that the law would allow him. I therefore gladly second Mr. Rogers's motion. I think I must appeal to one or two of my brother visitors to support me, for I would not for the world give a man a higher character than he deserves. Mr. SAWLE:—I have been a Visiting Justice many years; and I can fully corroborate every thing Mr. Kendall has said respecting Mr. Everest. I think the Report which has been read, signed by justices well known for their attention to County business, is sufficient certificate of the admirable way in which Mr. Everest conducted the affairs of the Gaol at that time. If we ever give a retiring pension to any County servant, Mr. Everest is the one who ought to receive it. We should not be doing right if we did not give Mr. Everest two- thirds of his salary, not taking in the emoluments. The CHAIRMAN:—I think I should not be doing my duty, either as Chairman or as a Visiting Justice of the Gaol, if I did not bear testimony to Mr. Everest's great value. He has invariably given satisfaction to the County. Though the old building was in a very dilapidated state and very badly planned, few gaols in the kingdom gave greater satisfaction; and I attribute that to the activity and zeal of Mr. Everest. You are about to reward faithful services—services that have been not only faithful but also economical to the County; and the County has shewn its appreciation of Mr. Everest by presenting him with a piece of plate in testimony of his economy. I do think the County is bound to recompense his services by giving him a liberal retiring allowance. Mr. KENDALL begged to mention one circumstance as showing the nature of the man. Some years since, he, (Mr. Kendall) was absent from the County about a year and half, and on his return, he found Mr. Everest in the occupation of a small farm. He told him that he had heard remarks upon it and that Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Mr. Everest replied, one word is enough; and he gave up the farm. Mr. CAREW:—If no other gentleman is about to make any, remark on this pension, I feel it my duty to do so. But I feel it is a most painful duty to be obliged to resist in any degree a pension proposed to be given to a most meritorious officer. I believe every word which has been said as to his merits. But I believe also that he has had a very large and very handsome salary. I feel too that the Gaol Committee have acknowledged that he has had a very extravagant salary; for they have proposed that his successor shall have a reduced salary. And that they were right in their judgment has been amply shewn by the large number of candidates that offered. I would appeal to all who saw that list, whether we had not a wonderful number of excellent candidates. Therefore I think their judgment has been shown to be perfectly correct in reducing the salary. In other words, the salary paid to Mr. Everest was an extravagant one. We might have had, even at that time, equally good officers, or if not equally good, a plenty of thoroughly eligible candidates at a reduced rate. I will say no more, under these circumstances, but will move as an amendment, that instead of two-thirds of Mr. Everest's salary, the pension be two-thirds of the salary which we have now settled to be sufficient for the Governor of the Gaol. Mr. KENDALL said he was under the impression some time since, that Mr. Everest's salary had been increased; but that was not so; the salary was fixed by the County, at a time when Mr. Rodd and Mr. Tremayne were Visiting Justices, and two more economical men did not exist. He had no doubt the salary was properly fixed, according to the rates then paid. But in a few years, another element was introduced; and he hoped it would be found very satisfactory here; from the testimonials received with the present Governor, they might expect good things. But he recollected the time when no military officer would accept the office of Governor. At length some Colonel was found bold enough to condescend, so to speak, to be a Governor; and happily that example had been followed throughout the Country. The reason why officers were able to take less salary, was that they retired on half-pay; and, having served their country, they thought they were able to serve their families, and so they accepted those offices, and consequently, men could now be got at less salaries than in former times. That was the reason why the Committee reduced the salary for the new Governor; they saw there was a good opportunity for economy, and had used it with discretion, and he trusted, with success. Mr. LAKES should be happy to second Mr. Carew's amendment; though he entirely disapproved the principle of granting pensions. A man who had been in a situation of £600 a year for 33 years ought to be in a position to retire, without a pension. An officer of the Army or Navy, after fighting the battles of his country, retired not upon two-thirds of his salary, but upon half-pay; and if Mr. Everest were put in the same position, he could have no reason to complain. Then Mr. Kendall bad said that a new element had been introduced into the gaol, in order to show that Mr. Everest's salary was not too much; but if that were so, then they had not done justice to his successor. It seemed to him that they had paid Mr. Everest £3200 more than he ought to have had. And now to give him a pension as well! It was giving two pensions. He had no doubt that every thing that had been said concerning Mr. Everest was truth. No doubt he had been a very excellent officer; and he should be sorry for such a man, who had performed his duties so well, to be deprived of anything he stood in need of. But he objected to pensions altogether, believing, as he did, that they were wrong in principle, and led to many abuses. Still he would second this amendment. Mr. E. COODE, junr., supporting Mr. Carew's amendment, did not disagree with what Mr. Kendall had said regarding the value of Mr. Everest's services to the County; he believed no public servant ever did his duty in a more efficient manner. If he had thought that it implied any censure or threw any slur on Mr. Everest's conduct, not to go to the full extent, he confessed he should be strongly tempted to go with Mr. Rogers and Mr. Kendall. But he did not think so. He looked to what he thought was a fair allowance for a gentleman to retire on who had done his duty faithfully. And looking at it in that light, he did not think it was any hardship on Mr. Everest to retire on a pension of £200 a-year, especially as the Committee had recommended a reduction of the salary for the present Governor, to £300 a-year, showing that they considered the former salary of £500 excessive. He should support the amendment of Mr. Carew, simply on the ground that that sum was sufficient and that it implied no slur on Mr. Everest. The CHAIRMAN remarked that Mr. Rogers in his motion had not named any sum, but had left it to the Court to say what the sum should be. Mr. ROGERS said he had preferred to leave it to the Court; but as an amendment had been proposed by Mr. Carew, perhaps it would simplify business if he were to propose a fixed sum. He moved that Mr. Everest be granted a pension equal to two-thirds of his salary—two-thirds of £400 a year. Mr. CAREW: And my amendment is for two-thirds of £300 a-year. Mr. ROBARTES: As I support the amendment, perhaps it is necessary I should say a few words. I quite agree with what has been said with regard to Mr. Everest's performance of his duties. Though I have never been connected with the Gaol Committee, yet a very old and valued friend of mine, the Rev. Mr. Kendall, of Lanlivery, was a few years ago; and I distinctly remember his stating to me that there could not be a more efficient officer for the performance of his duties than Mr. Everest. Therefore if it were a mere matter of feeling, or, I had almost said, if the payment were to come out of one’s own pocket, I should be inclined to vote for the larger sum. But when I consider how great the pressure is now upon the small rate-payers, and when I consider too that, unfortunately as I think, the rate-payers are not directly represented on questions of this sort, I feel bound to vote for the amendment. With regard to the diminished salary which the present Governor enjoys, it seems that it must have struck the Committee that the salary of the late Governor was excessively large; and that ought to be taken into consideration in a question of this kind. It ought to be remembered that in the present day all professional salaries and wages have rather increased than diminished; and therefore the committee, in giving less salary to the present Governor, were guided no doubt by what is taking place at the present time. In making that reduction, the event showed they were fully justified by the number of excellent candidates we had on that occasion. For these reasons, I shall not evade the responsibility of voting for the amendment—for two-thirds of £300. Mr. BOLITHO suggested that whatever was done, to-day, careful minutes should be made, so that no precedent should be formed for any future occasion. Mr. SAWLE said the proceedings of to-day could not be made a precedent; because the granting of such a pension was entirely in the discretion of the Magistrates for the time being. Rev. T. PASCOE said that it appeared to him their being able to find a new governor at a salary of £300 a year was owing to the fact of Mr. Everest having rendered the duties of the office comparatively easy. He had been a visitor of the gaol for 30 years, and he had always found Mr. Everest a most efficient officer; he had been the means of saving a large amount of money to the county, and he trusted that the county would vote him the larger allowance. Mr. KENDALL did not consider it a reason that because the committee thought it right to take a different view as to the amount of salary to be paid to the new governor from what their predecessors had done 33 years ago, they should only grant a retiring pension to Mr. Everest of two thirds of the latter amount. That gentleman had entered on his office 32 years ago knowing that there was an act of Parliament which declared that if he were a good and zealous officer the justices had power to give him two-thirds of his salary as a retiring allowance. He had worked well during the whole of that period, and had proved himself one of the best servants that ever took office; he had now retired, and if ever there was a case for a retiring pension that was one. There was no one more in favour of economy than he was, but yet he could not help urging the court to grant a larger allowance. The Rev. C. M. E. COLLINS said that Mr. Everest came to them on the faith of an act of Parliament, and in the assurance that he should have a retiring pension. In doing so, he sacrificed the opportunities he had of advancement in that department in which he was highly prized, and in which salaries as they rose were very high. He was justified, therefore, under the circumstances, in looking not only to a good salary, but a retiring allowance also, and he considered that the larger amount ought to be granted. Mr. LAKES said that Mr. Kendall's argument appeared to be that Mr. Everest could insist on two- thirds of his salary, whereas the amount was entirely permissive, and rested with the court. Mr. ROBARTES did not think that they were morally bound by the Act to vote the larger allowance; and he was of opinion that this discussion showed the necessity of Mr. Bolitho's remark that this vote should not be considered as a precedent on any future occasion. The present governor, for instance, ought to be clearly given to understand they were not bound to give him a retiring pension. Mr. CAREW expressed a similar opinion, and observed that it would have been better had it been stated in the resolutions which he proposed the other day, that the candidates for the office of governor should not consider they would be entitled to a retiring pension. If the argument advanced by Mr. Kendall was admitted as valid, then every governor and officer who discharged his duty faithfully might come to the court on retiring and say—l have served you well, and am entitled to a retiring allowance. Mr. THOMSON, as one of the visiting Magistrates for many years, would beg leave to express his concurrence in every thing that had fallen from various magistrates relative to Mr. Everest; and he hoped, for the sake of the County, that two-thirds of his salary would be granted him; for a more able, a more deserving, and more indefatigable officer, the county was never served by. The amendment was put when 13 voted for it, and 11 against. The amendment was accordingly declared to be carried. The following is, we believe, a correct division list: — For the amendment, 13, viz.:—Mr. Robartes, Mr. Carew, Mr. E. Coode, jun., Mr. Lakes, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Peter, Mr. Michell, Sir S. T. Spry, Rev. R. Buller, Rev. J. J. Wilkinson, Rev. R. B. Kinsman, Rev. S. Symonds, Rev. U. Tonkin. Against, 11.—Mr. Kendall, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Sawle, Mr. Norway, Mr. Foster, Mr. Bolitho, Colonel Cocks, Rev. C. M. E. Collins, Rev. T. Pascoe. Major Carlyon did not vote. LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE. The committee appointed at the last sessions to consider the state of Lostwithiel Bridge have to report that, after two meetings, at the second of which they had the assistance of Mr. Pease, those present were unanimous in confirming the previous report of Mr. Jenkin—"That the bridge is in a very infirm state, and not worthy of having any large sum of money expended on it." But the committee venture to hope that with small repairs from time to time, the bridge may be retained in its present condition for a few years. The committee have thought right to order Mr. Jenkin to make a more accurate survey of the foundations whenever the state of the river will admit, and to make the necessary repairs. The committee find that there was a vote of £20 to improve the western approach granted in October, 1855, but though part of the necessary materials are now on the spot, the work has never been carried out. The committee apply to revive this vote, and that Mr. Jenkin be ordered to execute the work. The CHAIRMAN, in answer to Mr. Kendall, stated that the £20 referred to in the report had been already granted by the court, on which the latter gentleman withdrew the notice of motion which he had given of his intention to apply for a sum not exceeding £1,000 for rebuilding this bridge, and the report was adopted.

PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISIONS. The CHAIRMAN next read the report of the committee on the petty sessional divisions, which stated that at the meeting at Bodmin on the 4th of June, it was resolved that the magistrates of each petty sessional division be requested to send in a written report of their views as to the most advisable alterations in the present petty sessional divisions (if any) to the Clerk of the Peace on or before the first of September next. Second,—That two copies of Colonel Gilbert's map and scheme be sent to each district, to assist the magistrates in coming to a conclusion on the subject, and that one copy be hung up for public inspection at the place where the petty sessions are held. The report was received. COUNSEL AT SESSIONS. Mr. ROOP then applied to the court to grant the barristers who attend the sessions what is termed "exclusive audience." Mr. SHILSON having been heard on the part of the solicitors attending the sessions in opposition to the application, the court retired to consider, and on the magistrates returning, the Chairman said that he was instructed to say that the court did not feel called upon to alter the present arrangement. CRIMINAL BUSINESS. TUESDAY, July 3. MARY KEAFE, aged 26, was charged with stealing a purse, containing two £5 notes, seven sovereigns, and some silver, the property of Elizabeth Kelly, at Liskeard, on the 19th of May last. Mr. BISHOP prosecuted, and Mr. CHILDS defended the prisoner. The prosecutrix is the wife of a farmer living in the parish of Morval, and on the 19th of May, being at Liskeard, she called at the shop of Mr. Barrett, draper, the purse containing the money mentioned in the indictment being in the pocket of her dress. While there, the prisoner called and stood close beside her, and in a few minutes Mrs. Kelly felt her dress pulled, after which the prisoner left the shop. Mrs. Kelly immediately missed her purse, and ran after the prisoner, whom she overtook at the distance of about 40 yards, charged her with having picked her pocket, and brought her back to the shop. The prisoner strongly protested her innocence, appeared to be very indignant at the charge, and told Mrs. Kelly to search for her purse. In a few minutes afterwards the purse was found on the shop floor at a spot where the prisoner had been standing, with the money in it all safe. She was allowed to go away, but was apprehended the same day in a railway carriage, in which she was proceeding to Plymouth, as she alleged, to meet her husband. For the prosecution it was asserted that the prisoner had dropped the purse on the floor after being brought back; while for the defence it was urged that Mrs. Kelly had accidentally pulled it out of her pocket, and missing it had run after the prisoner without looking to see if it was there. The jury took the former view of the case, and found her guilty. (Sentence: twelve month’s hard labour) EMANUEL BLIGHT, aged 15, an incorrigible young rogue, who has recently been convicted of felonies at both sessions and assizes in this county, was charged with having stolen a pair of shoes and a pair of stockings, the property of John Gray, at Camborne. Mr. HOCKIN prosecuted. The prosecutor is a miner working at Carn Camborne mine, and on the 15th of June he went underground at the mine, leaving his shoes and stockings in the changing house. He locked the door on leaving the changing house at nine o'clock in the morning, and his comrade fastened the window. On returning at three o'clock in the afternoon, he found that the bolt of the lock had been prized back, and the shoes and stockings stolen. Information of the robbery was given to the police, and the prisoner, who had been seen walking in the direction of the mine about one o'clock on the 15th, was apprehended by P.C. Currah, near Tuckingmill, on the evening of that day, with the shoes and stockings on him. GUILTY. Two former convictions for felony were also proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: four years penal servitude) RICHARD WILLIAMS, aged 25, was charged with having stolen 17s., from the person of James Nicholas, at Paul, on the 20th June. Mr. Hockin prosecuted. The prosecutor and the prisoner were drinking together at the King's Head public house in Paul, on the 23th (sic) of June; and the prosecutor falling asleep on the settle, the prisoner picked his pocket, and afterwards drunk most of the money. GUILTY.—The chairman called Mrs. Warren, the landlady of the King's Head public- house, and said that had her house been conducted properly, and if she had refused to supply the parties with drink while they were in liquor, the offence of which the prisoner had been found guilty would in all probability never have occurred; and he hoped that the chief constable would cause this house to be looked sharply after. Mrs. Warren said the prosecutor was drunk before he came to her house. The Chairman—That is a stronger reason why you should have refused to supply him with liquor. [Editor’s Note: No sentence recorded by the newspaper; Cornwall Criminal Registers, held at the National Archives, record a verdict of NOT GUILTY] APPEALS. EAST LOOE v. THE COUNTY OF CORNWALL.—This was an appeal of the Mayor and Burgesses of East Looe against an assessment of the county rate, which had been adjourned at the two previous sessions for the opinion of the Court above. It was now further adjourned on the application of the advocates. Mr. Bishop appeared for the appellants, Mr. Stokes for the respondents. Four other appeals against assessments to the poor-rates in which the Cornwall Railway Company were the appellants, and the parishes of Liskeard, Menheniot, St. Germans, Landrake, and St. Erney, were the respective respondents, and which had been referred to the three chairmen of the quarter sessions for their decision, were again adjourned, the chairmen not yet being prepared with their report. SECOND COURT. Before C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. WILLIAM NICHOLLS, miner, aged 46, was charged with stealing three bed-sheets, one bolster case, and one pillow-slip, the property of Benjamin Blewett, at Lanner, in the parish of Gwennap, on the 31st of March.—Mr. Commins conducted the prosecution.—The case was one of very clear proof, the articles in question being stolen from the prosecutor's garden hedge, at night. The prisoner seemed very downcast and penitent in court; according to his statements to the police constables, the felony was committed when he had been drinking freely, and from a desire to be revenged on a man called Nicholls with whom he had been quarrelling, and to whom he imagined the articles to belong.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: two month’s hard labour) JOHN CHUDLEIGH, 37, labourer, pleaded GUILTY, after previous conviction, of stealing a brass pan, the property of William Matthews, at Paul, on the 6th April; and a quantity of copper wire, the property of Mrs. Peggy Hockin, at Madron, on the 19th April. (Sentence: three years penal servitude) URSULA JAMES, 31, described as of no trade, was charged with stealing 15 sovereigns, a silver watch, a brass chain, and two steel keys, the property of Ralph Bullock, at Liskeard, on the 27th of May.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Bishop the defence.—The prosecutor was a farmer of St. Neot and, on Saturday the 26th of May, he was at Liskeard market, and received £25 4s. from Mr. Chiswell, a miller, for corn. He had drunk some grog at Dubwalls before arrival at Liskeard; and, after receipt of the £25 he drank at several inns in Liskeard, until about 8 o'clock in the evening he was drinking at the Hotel Tap, where he was visited by a man called Clements, who lived in Higher Lux Street, and afterwards by the prisoner, who, it appeared, lived with Clements, and with whom the prosecutor went to the house in Lux-street. Here, the prosecutor sent the prisoner for drink, handing the prisoner a sovereign to pay for it; and, afterwards, he went to bed, but not with the prisoner, nor did he undress. About day break, the man Clements finding prosecutor in his (Clements's) bed, assailed and beat him, and turned him out of doors; and he afterwards discovered his loss of money, watch, &c.—Evidence intended to fix the felony on the prisoner was given by the prosecutor, and by police-officer Spry. Considerable doubt was thrown on the case for the prosecution by the facts, that two men, besides Clements (who had never been charged with the felony, but had been fined for the assault on prosecutor), were proved to have been in the bedroom, and that after leaving the house, Bullock had rambled and fallen about the streets of Liskeard. There was also much uncertainty as to the prosecutor's movements before getting to the prisoner's house.—At the close of the case, the Jury retired for consultation, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, they returned a verdict of Not Guilty.—The prosecutor, a married man, was severely rebuked by the CHAIRMAN, and was told, that his personal expenses in the case would be disallowed.—His Worship also admonished the prisoner as to her future conduct. The Court then rose. WEDNESDAY, JULY 4. Before SIR COLMAN RASHLEIGH BART. —Clement Boughton Kingdon, Esq., of Stamford Hill; near Stratton, qualified as a magistrate. CHARGE OF KITTING.—WILLIAM TOY, aged 72, and EDWARD MEDLYN, 28, tributers, on bail, were charged, under the Kitting Act, 2 and 3 Vict, cap. 38, sec. 10, with feloniously removing and concealing about 5 cwt. of tin ore, at Wheal Lovell mine, in the parish of Wendron, the property of William Carne and others, the adventurers, on the 22nd March.—Mr. Cox, instructed by Mr. T. P. Tyacke, conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Stokes the defence. On rising to open the case, Mr. Cox said he felt it his duty to state that after the opinion of the court expressed yesterday that the presence of a Bar at this court was not desirable, he should not have appeared to conduct this prosecution had he not received a retainer before hearing that decision of the court yesterday. The duty which he had undertaken previously to that decision he was bound to discharge.—The learned counsel then proceeded to state the case for the prosecution.—Plans being presented to the chairman and jury, the learned counsel stated that the prisoners working at a tribute of 1s. in the £ in what was called Toy's pitch, in the 10 fathom level, about 25 fathoms within the entrance of Lydia's shaft, they were charged with removing from a stope worked by the adventurers at 22 fathoms from Toy's pitch and placing on their own piles, ores of considerably richer quality than their own.—(It was stated in evidence that the adventurers' ore was six times as rich, and of very different appearance and character). The prisoners were working above the level, and had to ascend a ladder, some 12 feet, to a stall or platform on which they broke their own ore from the roof above. The adventurers' stope worked at tutwork was so separated from the prisoners' pitch that men in either work could not be seen by those in the other. On the 21st of March, Capt. James, one of the captains of the mine, directed the level to be cleared, in order to remove from the mine that which had been broken in the adventurers' stope; and to do that it was necessary to clear Toy's Pitch; the two prisoners were accordingly ordered to remove their ore lying in the level below their pitch; they did remove a considerable part of it, but not all. Next morning, Captain James, passing through the level, noticed an extraordinary quantity of ore lying below the prisoners’ pitch—a quantity much larger than ought to have been there at that time, considering what they had removed the previous evening, and, looking particularly at the heap, he found that it contained two kinds of ore—a small portion of their own work and a considerable quantity of ore of a much richer character, and precisely similar to that which was being broken from the adventurers' stope in the same level. Next morning, some of the adventurers' ore was also found, concealed, in the prisoners' heap on the platform, at a height of 12 feet above the level, and where, of course, it must have been taken by human hands. It would also be shown in evidence that the prisoners were seen at the adventurers' pile, where they had no right to be; though they were not seen to be doing anything there. The Captain having discovered adventurers’ ore in the prisoners' work, sent to the prisoners requiring them to come to him immediately; but they did not do so until after a lapse of two hours,—a period of time during which it was afterwards found that some alteration had been made in the prisoners' heap in which the Captain had observed adventurers' ore, and stones of ore had been removed from it. At the end of two hours, they came to the Captain, and he asked them why they had not sent their stuff to grass as they had been ordered to do. They said they had been clearing away the ore in the level for the men at the stope. The Capt. then told them he had seen some stones in their pile which had not been broken in their pitch; they said if it was so, it was not known to them.—After having thus opened the main facts of the case for the prosecution, the learned Counsel proceeded to call witnesses; the first being Captain Henry James, agent at Wheal Lovell, who was examined and cross-examined at considerable length, and afterwards produced various stones of ore, from the prisoners' pitch and piles, and from the adventurers' stope; and also from the mundicky ores at the eastern and western ends of Toy's pitch. The ore from the eastern end of the pitch more nearly resembled the ore from the adventurers' stope; but there was considerable difference in colour and general appearance between the other samples of prisoners' ores and those from the adventurers' stopes. Capt. James stated from results of assays, that by the fraud imputed to prisoners, they would have gained £3 4s. 11d.—the difference between £6 6s. the tribute value of their own pile, and £9 10s. 11d., as increased in value by addition of the adventurers' ore.—The other witnesses examined were Josiah Phillips, an agent of the mine; John Bryant Wilkins, agent of Wheal Basset and Grylls; four of the tutworkmen working at the adventurers' stope referred to; and John Ede, sample trier at Wheal Lovell. For the defence, Mr. STOKES addressed the jury; but, before proceeding to review the facts of the case, he begged permission to allude to what had been stated by the learned Counsel (Mr. Cox) in opening his address for the prosecution, and which induced a surmise that he would not again visit this County as an advocate in competition with advocates of this County. If such was the course which the learned Counsel had decided to adopt, he (Mr. Stokes) could not doubt that that determination had been arrived at from a sense of etiquette and with a feeling of what was due to the high and honourable profession to which he belonged. Into the learned Counsel's motives, it was not for him (Mr. Stokes) to inquire. But it was incumbent on him to say that during the short time this County had been honoured by the presence of members of the Bar of the Western Circuit, the attorneys, and he believed he might say the magistrates also, had received from the learned gentlemen every courtesy that could possibly be expected at their hands. It was only to be regretted that etiquette prevailed so strongly as to induce those learned gentlemen to withdraw from this Court. But without discussing their motives, he begged, on behalf of the advocates practising in this Court, to tender the learned gentlemen sincere thanks for their courtesy. (There was some applause from the Bench and at the Advocates' Table). Mr. STOKES then proceeded to address the jury, in defence of the prisoners; after which the CHAIRMAN summed up with much particularity, and the jury retired for consultation. After an absence of about half an hour, they returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners. (Sentence: each eight months’ hard labour) NICHOLAS TUCKER, 20, a miner, was charged with unlawfully assaulting Angelina Nicholas, with intent feloniously to ravish and carnally know her, at Camborne, on the 1st of May. A second count charged common assault.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—The prosecutrix, a decent looking young woman, 18 years of age, resides with her parents at Bolenowe in the parish of Camborne. The prisoner had been known to her for some years. On the 1st of May, Angelina Nicholas went to Wendron for the purpose of attending a funeral, and the prisoner also attended it. In the evening she went to a public-house at Wendron Church-town, with her brother- in-law and two young women; the prisoner came there and made proposals to accompany her home; at first she refused, but afterwards he asked her again, and two female companions saying to her, "nonsense, take his company for the evening," she accepted his company. On their way onward to Bolenowe, he invited her into a public-house, where he took some porter and beer, but she took nothing. They remained in the house about a quarter of an hour, and then at a distance of about a mile from the public-house, and at a lone part of the road, he put his left arm round her waist, and took liberties, and, as was alleged by the prosecutrix, committed a violent assault on her, as complained of in the indictment; she resisted stoutly, and got away from him; and a few yards onward, he repeated the assault and attempt, and threatened to choke her with his handkerchief, and tried to do so. Still resisting, she got away from him a second time; on which he overtook her and assaulted her and threw her down a third time; and on her again resisting, he said "what are you making this noise about? I’ll make you my wife; I’ve been looking for this for six months." She again got free of him, and ran away, and again he caught hold of, threw her down, and assailed her as before; and on her attempting to get up, he twisted her round so that she believed her legs were broken. He then asked her to sit by him, but she refused saying it was time for any honest girl to be home and that she should have been home before that but for meeting with him. She demanded her parasol of him, and he gave it to her. A few minutes further on she came in sight of a light in a house and screamed ‘murder;’ he at first kept back; she went forward to the house—a beer-shop, on which he came forward and tried to prevent her opening the door. She however got into the house, and made complaint to a man called Edward Eddy, who went for her father; her father and sister came there and took her home, she having, complained to her father. Her father went to a surgeon. Since the assault, she had scarcely been able to do a day's work, and for six weeks she was almost confined to her house.—In cross- examination, the prosecutrix said she had not known, the prisoner to speak to him before the evening in question.—Evidence in corroboration was given by Andrew Eddy, and Edmund Currah, serjeant of county police at Camborne, to whom the prisoner made a statement remarkably and minutely corroborative of the evidence given by the prosecutrix.—For the defence, Mr. STOKES admitted the common assault, but argued against conviction on the principal charge. He also remarked that the young woman had behaved indiscreetly in so readily, giving her company to the prisoner at several public houses, and walking home with him, instead of remaining with her brother-in-law, with whom she had gone to Wendron.—After careful summing-up by the CHAIRMAN, the jury retired for consultation.—The young woman became faint, and was supported out of court by her mother and the police-officer.—After an absence of more than half an hour, the jury returned into court, and gave a verdict:—Guilty of assault with intent to ravish.—Mr. Stokes handed to the Chairman a character for prisoner from several mine agents. (Sentence: eight month’s hard labour) SHEM WALTERS, 19, mason, was charged with assaulting Ellen Pascoe James, an infant under the age of 10 years, with intent unlawfully and feloniously carnally to know and abuse her, at Truro, on the 16th May. A second count charged common assault.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence.—Ellen Pascoe James, an interesting and intelligent little girl, six years old, was the prosecutrix. She is an orphan, and lives at St. Clement's Hill, Truro, with her grandfather and grandmother, whom she is accustomed to call father and mother. Her grandfather, Ferdinando Pascoe, is foreman at Karkeek's foundry. When placed in the witness box, she was in the first place questioned in order to test her capacity as a witness; and the CHAIRMAN said she might be examined. She awakened much interest and sympathy in court by the manner in which she gave her evidence, as well as by her appearance.—We recently gave, in one of our police reports, the main facts of the case so far as publishable. The witnesses now examined, in addition to the prosecutrix were Lucy Pascoe, and Ferdinando Pascoe, her grandmother and grandfather, and John Houghton, police constable of Truro.—Mr. Childs addressed the jury for the defence, admitting the common assault, but denying that there was reliable proof of the more serious charge.—Mr. Charles Farley, builder, of Truro, the prisoner's master, gave him a very excellent character for decent and proper conduct towards his (Mr. Farley's) children, and to females generally.—Verdict, GUILTY OF COMMON ASSAULT. (Sentence: six months’ imprisonment) SUSAN BROWN, 52, parasol maker, charged with unlawfully obtaining by false pretences, two scarf shawls, and one plaid dress, value £3 9s., from Marianne Laidlaw, at Truro, on the 19th May, with intent to cheat and defraud Robert Laidlaw of the same.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence.—Mr. STOKES, stating the case to the jury, said the prisoner, the wife of James Brown, a tinman, went to the house of Mr. Laidlaw, and, in his absence, procured the articles named in the indictment, on the false pretence that she had been sent for them by her husband, and that Mr. Laidlaw had on several occasions called at her husband's house and offered to supply her with goods on credit.—In support of the case for the prosecution, the witnesses examined were Mrs. and Mr. Laidlaw, and police constable Houghton, who apprehended the prisoner at Falmouth.—At the close of the evidence Mr. CHILDS successfully urged that the case was not one of false pretence such as was contemplated by the statute under which the indictment was framed. It was the case of a wife unlawfully pledging the credit of her husband.—The CHAIRMAN, concurring in Mr. Childs's view of the case, directed a verdict of ACQUITTAL. COUNTY BUSINESS. At noon to-day, the Court resumed County Business, by adjournment from yesterday. —The CHAIRMAN said he had been requested by Mr. Rogers to state that he had succeeded, in connection with Mr. Paull, in getting a Bill passed through Parliament, which had now received the Royal Assent, for protection of machinery in mines. At the last Assizes there was a very important prosecution against some miners who had stopped an engine at North Wheal Vor. The offence was a very serious one; but it was the opinion of Mr. Justice Martin and other judges that it did not come within the existing act for the protection of machinery. He was glad to say that an act had now become the law of the land, which made the interruption of any engine on a mine, or the stoppage of an engine of any sort for the purpose of hindering the working of the mine, a felony, for which persons offending may be indicted and punished. —Mr. KENDALL proceeded at much length, and with the aid of reference to numerous documents to explain, in answer to Mr. Lakes's question yesterday, what had been done by the Gaol Building Committee for the disposal of the old materials. In pursuance of a recommendation by the committee at the last Epiphany Sessions, advertisements were issued inviting contracts for the taking down and removal of the old materials; and several offers were received in reply to that advertisement; a firm in London offered to do it for £800; Mr. Bray of Bodmin for £600; and Mr. Philp of Bodmin for £574 10s. But the committee entered into negotiations with Messrs. Goodyear, the builders of the New Gaol, the result of which was the completion of an arrangement with Messrs. Goodyear, the details of which Mr. Kendall related at great length and with much particularity. By this arrangement, it appeared that the Messrs. Goodyear agreed to take down the whole of the buildings, boundary and yard walls, comprising the old Gaol, clear away and prepare the sites for the remaining new erections, supplying the stone necessary for their completion, on consideration that for this labour and expense, the whole of the old materials of the old buildings, &c., should become their property; and that all building stone, granite, and slate, of a useful character, thus obtained, should be used by them in the new building and yard walls; and further, that the assistance of 30 prisoners from the gaol be granted for employment in any way they might require, or in lieu thereof the sum of £50. This arrangement Mr. Kendall asserted had been very economical and satisfactory for the County, effecting, as it did, a saving to the extent of £750. Mr. Kendall observed that the Messrs. Goodyear considered that they had not made a very good bargain for themselves, as the net results of their sales of the whole of the materials amounted to only £490 12s. 6½d.—A conversation ensued, in which Mr. LAKES expressed himself satisfied with the proceedings of the Committee; but he regretted that a great mistake had been made by Mr. Porter, the architect, who originally valued the old materials at the sum of £2000.—Mr. SAWLE highly approved the bargain of the Committee with Messrs. Goodyear, considering that it was highly advantageous to the county. If that bargain had not been effected, the committee would not have been able to clear the site within the time stipulated, and the County would probably have been liable to Messrs. Goodyear for breach of contract, and would have been put to considerable expense. Mr. Sawle considered that Messrs. Goodyear had behaved in a most handsome way towards the County, which was much indebted to them for getting it out of a considerable difficulty.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., in vindication of Mr. Porter, said he understood it was almost impossible to ascertain the value of old materials until they were taken down.—Mr. PORTER said that, as far back as 1856, it was supposed by the committee that the old materials were of considerable value; but, for his part, he had never any great opinion of their value. When the sum of £2580 was put down as the value of the old materials, it was done under the supposition that the whole could be taken down and stacked by the prisoners, and that it would be profitable to use some of the old materials in the new building. The original estimate for the new Gaol was £30,580; but, after discussion in committee, £2,580 was supposed to be the value of the old materials, leaving £28,000 as the sum actually required. SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, JULY 4. (Before C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq., Chairman). WILLIAM KITTOW, a boy, was charged with having by false pretences, obtained a quantity of bacon, figs, bran, sugar and other articles, the property of James Ham. Mr. Lethbridge Cowlard prosecuted; and Mr. Childs defended the prisoner. The prisoner had been employed for two days in the stables by Dr. Wright, physician, of Launceston, and on some few occasions he was sent errands by the servants of that gentleman. On the 28th of April, he went to the shop of the prosecutor, who is a grocer, in Launceston, and has been in the habit of supplying Dr. Wright with goods, and asked for two pounds of Turkey figs; on the 17th of May, he got a pound of bacon; and on the 23rd of May two pecks of bran, representing that they were for Dr. Wright. Mrs. Ham, on cross examination, however, could not swear that on each occasion the prisoner said the goods were for Dr. Wright. That gentleman, Mrs. Wright, and one of their servants, denied that they had ever sent the prisoner for the goods, or that they ever received them. The police officer who apprehended the prisoner, proved that he admitted in his father's presence having had the articles; and it then transpired that the father had sent him for the bran, giving him sixpence to pay for it, but instead of doing so, the prisoner got the bran in Dr. Wright's name, and pocketed the money. Mr. Childs submitted that the false pretence had not been proved, Mrs. Ham being unable to state that the prisoner had said on each occasion the goods were for Dr. Wright. The Court held the objection to be fatal, and under the direction of the Chairman, the prisoner was acquitted. The prisoner was then further charged on another indictment, with having, by false pretences, obtained goods from John Powell, grocer, of Launceston. The circumstances of the case were exactly similar to the last, with the exception that the false pretence was clearly proved. The jury found the prisoner guilty. Mr. Cowlard said that there was another indictment of a similar character against the prisoner, but after this conviction he should not offer any evidence in support of it. The father of the prisoner in answer to the chairman, said that the prisoner had never been sent to school. The Chairman trusted that care would be taken to send the boy to school on the expiration of his punishment. He wished the father and all other parents to understand that the Court had power, in the cases of children who came before them, and had been neglected by their parents, to send them to reformatory institutions, and to compel the parents to contribute towards their support. (Sentence: fourteen days’ hard labour) ANN TREVITHICK, aged 21, was charged with keeping a disorderly house at St. Blazey. Mr. Childs prosecuted. Evidence was given, showing that the prisoner had kept an improper house, that disreputable characters were in the habit of frequenting it at all hours of the day and night, and that the language and conduct of the prisoner and those who visited her, both inside and outside of the house, were of the most disgusting and disorderly characters, and had proved a great nuisance, and annoyance to the neighbourhood. GUILTY. (Sentence: nine month’s hard labour) ELIZABETH MAZLIN, 24, was also charged with keeping and maintaining an improper house, at Redruth. The evidence was similar to that given in the last case. The prisoner and another female occupied rooms in a house in which three or four other families lived—that both men and women visited them for improper purposes; that they conducted themselves as common prostitutes, and that their language and conduct were a public nuisance to the neighbourhood.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: six month’s hard labour) HENRY HORTOP (who had been on bail) was charged with stealing two ash sticks, two other sticks, a quantity of barley meal, apples and turnips, the property of Mr. W. Spettigue, at St. Stephens, by Launceston, on the 20th of September, 1859. Mr. Lethbridge Cowlard prosecuted; and Mr. Frost defended the prisoner.—Verdict. NOT GUILTY. MARY GREET, 24, and JOSEPH MOORSHEAD, 29, were charged with stealing; two pieces of alpaca, two pieces of cobourg, one piece of flannel, six pairs of stockings, two ditto of braces, and a number of other articles, the property Mr. John Sambell, at Antony, on the 27th June. Mr Commins prosecuted.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: each six month’s hard labour) This concluded the jury business of the sessions, and the Court adjourned. BILLS IGNORED—The grand jury ignored the bills against Joseph Mc Donald, charged with stealing a pair of worsted stockings, the property of Henry Daniel, at Redruth on 14th or 15th of June; and against Mary Ann Talling, charged with breaking into a dwelling-house at Lostwithiel, no person being therein, and stealing therefrom some glass bottles a pair of galoshes (sic), and a bell, the property of Eliza Betting, Dorothy Cock, and others. THURSDAY, 5th July. The CHAIRMAN Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., passed sentence on the convicted prisoners as follows:—[see individual trials above] In sentencing Shem Walters, the CHAIRMAN said he concurred in the verdict of the Jury, limiting the conviction to common assault, and stated that the court had taken into consideration the good character given to the prisoner by his master, but at the same time they felt that his conduct had been most indecent and most improper; and indeed horrible towards so young a child.—To Nicholas Tucker, convicted of assaulting Angelina Nicholas, with intent &c., the CHAIRMAN said the sentence would be more lenient than otherwise, because the Court believed that considerable temptation had been placed in his way, and that the conduct of the prosecutrix had not been discreet.—The woman Ann Trevithick, on receiving sentence, violently slapped her hands and exclaimed to the Chairman: “I hope you will stay here till I come back”; and she left the dock laughing loudly and saucily.—The woman Keafe, an Irish woman, also behaved very noisily on receiving sentence, and violently and hysterically exclaimed for mercy, on account of her three children. —On the calling of Toy and Medlyn to receive sentence on conviction of kitting, Mr. Stokes moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the indictment, under a special act of Parliament, did not allege that the tin ore removed was found in the mine. The point which he was now taking was one that had already been taken with success at the Assizes in this County in the case of the Queen v. Trevenner and others in 1844, in which the parties charged with the alleged felony were stated in the indictment to have been employed in Carn Brea mine, and that they feloniously removed 3000 lbs. weight of copper ore, the property of Joseph Lyle and others, then and there found. An objection was made, in arrest of judgment, that the indictment contained no averment that the ores were found in the mine; the words “then and there” being held to refer merely to the venue, and not necessarily to the mine. Justice Cresswell held this objection to be valid.—In the case now before the Court, the indictment was not precisely in the same form as in the case just referred to. It alleged that Toy and Medlyn being employed in Wheal Lovell mine, 5 cwt. of tin ore, the property of William Carne and others, adventurers in the said mine, then and there found, did feloniously take and remove, with intent to defraud the said adventurers. Mr. Stokes contended that it should have been stated that the tin ore was found in the mine; and that the indictment, being defective in this particular, on motion in arrest of judgment, the defect in the indictment could not be amended.— Mr. COX stated that, because indictments could not be amended, on motion in arrest of judgment, it had been universally required, since the passing of Lord Campbell’s Act allowing amendment of indictments, that objections should be taken during the trial, and not after conviction.—The Court, after consultation, overruled Mr. Stokes’s objection; and the CHAIRMAN took the opportunity of stating that in future, objections to indictments must be taken during the trial. APPEALS. Crowan appellant. Sithney respondent. An appeal against order for removal of Jane Pearce, widow, and three children.—Mr. Hockin and Mr. Childs appeared for appellants, and Mr. Cox and Mr. Plomer for respondents.—The first ground of settlement in Crowan opened by the respondents’ Counsel was a derivative birth settlement through the pauper’s husband’s father; and documentary and oral evidence was taken on the point.—Mr. HOCKIN, addressing the court on the evidence adduced, urged that, in a busy mining district, where miners for purposes of employment were constantly moving about from place to place, a register of baptism did not necessarily prove birth in the same parish. He applied this remark to the present case, and argued that its defects in documentary proof had not been cured by the oral testimony which had been adduced, and which, for the most part referred to dates as long back as the last century.—The COURT held the settlement in Crowan proved. Mr. HOCKIN then opened a settlement in Breage, by purchase and occupation of a tenement at some time between 1825 and 1829; the lease being between Charles Trelawny, Esq. of Coldrenick, and Richard Pearce.—Witnesses were examined in proof that, according to condition in the lease, a house had been erected and land enclosed at a cost of more than £30; and then Mr. Samuel Moyle, relieving officer of the Helston union, proved relief given to the pauper both while she was resident in Breage, and afterwards, on account of Breage, when she resided in Sithney.—The lease from Mr. Charles Trelawny to Richard Pearce was then put in and read; after which Mr. CHILDS summed up, and, on the legal point involved, urged an important distinction between this case and that of Kenwyn and St. Blazey decided last Sessions, in the fact that in the present lease the consideration moving to the grant of the lease was a condition that the lessee should erect a house and inclose an acre of land; whereas in Kenwyn and St. Blazey, it was shown by the lease that at its date, a house was already built, and it was mentioned as descriptive of the tenant.—In Wendron v. Stithians, it did not appear that £30 had been expended. Insisting that settlement by estate in Breage had been satisfactorily proved, Mr. Childs urged on the Court, the recognition of that settlement by actual relief to the pauper, charged against Breage,—that relief having been given by the relieving officer, and allowed by the Board of Guardians.—The COURT held that no settlement in Breage had been proved by estate under the lease.—Mr. HOCKIN applied for a case, which, after some discussion, the COURT granted.—Mr. Cox applied for and obtained special costs.—Order quashed; £10 costs; £1 6s. maintenance. PAUL, appellant ; Mr. Stokes. BURYAN, respondent; Mr. Cox and Mr. Plumptre. This was an appeal against order for removal of Miranda Nicholas and her infant child.—Mr. Cox insisting on proof by appellants of service of preliminary notice of appeal, James Trenoweth, overseer of Paul, was examined by Mr. STOKES; after which, Mr. STOKES admitted that he was not in a position to comply with the unusual requirement insisted on by Mr. Cox that there should be proof of the preliminary notice—a course which had never been taken in this Court and of which he had received no intimation from respondents. If the Court considered that notice necessary, he would ask for adjournment, that the case might be heard on merits; another reason for which was the serious illness at present, of a material witness.—The COURT expressed themselves favourable to adjournment, rather than the merits should be shut out, on a technical objection.—Mr. COX then withdrew his objection, and the case was proceeded with on merits; the first witness examined being Thomas Nicholas, father of the pauper, for the purpose of proving his settlement in Paul by hiring and service with Mr. Wallis, a farmer, in or about 1817. On his cross-examination by Mr. STOKES, it appeared that he occupied a tenement under lease, in the parish of Buryan. Under that lease, he laid out £40 in the erection of a cottage—the cottage in which he still lived, and for which he still paid rates and rent. His daughter, about 28 years old, was born at the time he first went into occupation of the tenement in Buryan.—Corroborative evidence of the service of Nicholas with Mr. Wallis, was given by James Barnes, aged 56, formerly a farm labourer; and Sampson Hutchins, a farmer with whom Barnes served.—It appeared that during the first twelvemonths service of Nicholas with Mr. Wallis, he served for one month in the Militia; but, in summing up, Mr. PLUMPTRE showed that the evidence had proved that this service in the militia was with the cognizance and sanction of the master, as Nicholas served as a substitute for Wallis’s brother-in-law.—The COURT considering that the twelvemonths’ service was not affected by such service in the militia, Mr. STOKES stated that he was not in a situation to disprove the hiring and service. He then opened a settlement by estate in the parish of Buryan, on a lease granted to Thomas Nicholas by a Mr. Permewan with a covenant that the tenant should erect a house, at a cost of £30, which condition had been complied with. Mr. Stokes put in the lease referred to: after which Mr. COX addressed the Court, contending that, under the statute 9 Geo. 1st the building of a house would not give a settlement, and that, in fact there must be a bona fide payment of £30 in money, as consideration for the lease, in order to confer settlement by estate.—The COURT decided against the appellant; but Mr. STOKES moved for and obtained a case for the court above; the circumstances being alleged to be similar to those in the previous appeal, in which a case was granted to Mr. Hockin. Order confirmed; subject to a case; common costs, £5; £1 maintenance. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 10 August 1860

5. Summer Assizes THURSDAY, AUGUST 2nd. The Commissions for holding the Cornwall Summer Assizes were opened this day by Mr. Justice Keating. His lordship having reached Plymouth from Exeter in the early part of the day, awaited there the arrival of the Express Train, due at Plymouth at 4.50 p.m., and at Bodmin Road at 5.55. The Express Train, however, was late; and for the accommodation of his lordship, gentlemen of the bar, and other travellers westward, a Special Train was started, by means of which his lordship reached Bodmin Road about 6 o'clock. [….] It had been intended to open commission immediately; but this was prevented by the fact that the Special Train which his lordship travelled did not convey his lordship's luggage, and consequently his lordship was unable to robe suitably for the ceremony. Proceedings were therefore adjourned, waiting the arrival of the Express Train, which took place in about half an hour; and His Lordship then proceeded to the Crown Court; the Commissions were opened before him; and his lordship appointed the opening of both Courts on the following day at 11 o'clock. [….] About 10 o'clock Mr. Baron Channell arrived, having travelled direct from Exeter by the last Down Train. The learned Judge was conveyed to Bodmin in the Sheriff’s private carriage, accompanied by Mr. Marrack. CROWN COURT. FRIDAY, AUGUST 3rd. At 11 o'clock, Baron CHANNELL took his seat in the Crown Court; and the following Magistrates were sworn on the Grind Jury: Hon. John Cranch Walker Vivian, foreman. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. Edward William Brydges Willyams, Esq. Charles Brune Graves Sawle, Esq. Gordon William Francis Gregor, Esq. John Jope Rogers, Esq. Francis Glanville, Esq. Richard Foster, Esq. Frederick Martin Williams, Esq. Charles Andrew Reynolds, Esq. Edward Coode, junior, Esq. George Williams, Esq. David William Hext John Horndon, Esq. Richard Johns, Esq. Hender John Molesworth St. Aubyn, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. William Michell, Esq. James Trevenen, Esq. William Fillis Pearse, Esq. The following magistrates also answered to their names:— The Honourable John Townshend Boscawen. Stephen Usticke Nowell Usticke, Esq. Rev. John James Wilkinson. The Mayors of the following Boroughs were then called:— Bodmin, Camelford, Falmouth, Helston, St. Ives, Launceston, Liskeard, East Looe, West Looe, Lostwithiel, Marazion, Penryn, Penzance, Saltash, and Truro.—Those for Bodmin, Lostwithiel, Marazion, and Penryn, were the only Mayors who answered, personally or by proxy. The County Coroners were then called:—Mr. Carlyon, Mr. Good. Mr. Hamley, Mr. Hichens, and Mr. Jago.—Mr. Hamley and Mr. Hichens answered. The Queen's Proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and for the prevention and punishment of vice, profaneness and immorality was then read; after which the LEARNED JUDGE delivered his [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY:—not transcribed] TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JOHN HOLMAN, aged 17, a miner, pleaded guilty of stealing a pair of boots, value 10s., the property of William Blight, at Kenwyn, on the 24th of July. He also pleaded GUILTY, on another indictment, of stealing a coat, a waistcoat, and a pair of trowsers, value £3, the property of Eliza Kellow, at Gwennap, on the 25th June. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment, with hard labour, on each charge; making six months in the whole. POST OFFICE BORBERY. (sic) WILLIAM THOMAS STEVENS, 26, labourer, was indicted for that he, being a person in employ under the post-office, stole a post letter, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster General, containing one sovereign and three penny-postage stamps. There were three other counts, varying the mode of charge; but the prisoner, on being arraigned pleaded GUILTY.—Sir Frederick Slade and Mr. Poulden appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. Bere for the defence.—The prisoner having pleaded GUILTY, Mr. BERE addressed some observations to the Court in mitigation of punishment, on the plea of previous good character; and witnesses were called in support of this plea.—Miss Ellen Swaine, post mistress at Penzance:—l have known the prisoner some time; he had borne a good character until the present occasion; I have known him altogether about ten years, and he has worked in our office about 5 years.—Cross-examined by Sir Frederick Slade:—There have been many complaints about letters missing from our office—money letters among them.—Mr. Warner, postmaster at St. Just. The prisoner has been in my employ as a letter-carrier from Penzance to St. Just, about two years; I always found him very honest.—By Sir F. Slade:—There have been complaints made of letters missing from my head-office—of letters, some with money in them, that have been missed, and the prisoner was the person whose duty it was to convey letters from Penzance to St. Just.—Mr. Olds, Inspector of Police at Penzance:—l have known the prisoner many years; he had borne a very good character before the present charge. There has been a testimonial in his behalf, signed by the Rev. Mr. Hadow, vicar of St. Just, and others. (The testimonial was exhibited to the Court, by Mr. Bere). In sentencing the prisoner, the learned JUDGE said:—You have pleaded guity (sic) of stealing a post-letter, a sovereign, and three postage stamps, the property of the Postmaster General. You have been employed by the post office, and have abused the trust reposed in you. This is an offence most injurious to the public interest; it is also one that is difficult to detect; and therefore when such a case is proved, it is necessary that the Court should visit it with severe punishment. Nor can I take into consideration, with any considerable effect, the character which has been given you. Without a good character, such a situation as you filled could not be obtained; and there would be no security to the public, and no hope of putting down offences of this kind, if we were to allow such a character as you have received to have any great effect on the sentence to be passed. The learned Judge then sentenced the prisoner to Penal Servitude for Four years.—The prisoner seemed overwhelmed by the sentence; he staggered in the dock, and was obliged to hold on by the rail, in order to support himself, before being taken below. ROBERT YOULDEN, 27, (on bail) was indicted for stealing 4s. 6d., the property of John Tinney, Lower St. Columb, carrier, by fraudulently and feloniously converting to his own use one half-crown and one florin, of which he was the bailee. A second count charged simple larceny.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—John Tinney, examined by Mr. Cole:—I am a carrier and drive an omnibus from Newquay to Truro; I have occasionally employed the prisoner to go errands; about one o’clock in the afternoon of 30th June, I have him 4s. 6d. and a bag and asked him to go and buy some oats and bring them to me to feed my horses that day; he went away with the bag and the money, and I saw no more of him; but on the same day, the sack was returned by some person unknown to me; I found it by the omnibus. On the following Wednesday, I had a summons for him, and it was delivered to police constable Houghton to be served. On the same day, the prisoner came to me with his mother, and offered to return the money to me; but I told him I had taken out a summons against him, and therefore I could not take the money. When I gave him the 4s. 6d., he had no authority to do other than to buy oats and bring them to me; that was the direction I gave him.—By the Court:—I used to employ him when I was in Truro; and paid him a shilling a day for the time that I wanted him; I was in Truro about four hours at a time. I used to pay him in the evenings when I left. When I gave him the 4s. 6d., I did not tell him what quantity of oats to bring; he was to bring such quantity as he could get for that money, and to bring me change, if any. For three or four months I have been in the habit of employing the prisoner, when I was in Truro—Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays—if I could find him: if he was not at hand, I employed some other person. I have before had occasion to find fault with him, for a similar offence as that now charged against him.—John Houghton, police constable of Truro, proved service of the summons on the prisoner, on the 5th of July.—The learned JUDGE, in summing up, ruled that the indictment could not be sustained under the Bailee Act; but there was evidence against the prisoner, on the charge of larceny, and as a servant.—Verdict, GUILTY OF LARCENY. Sentence:—Two months hard labour. HANNAH CURNOW, 16, indicted for stealing a cotton dress, the property of Susan Clarke, at Madron, on the 11th of July. In a second count she was charged with feloniously receiving the gown, knowing it to have been stolen.—Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Susan Clarke, a servant with Mr. Howell, at Poltair, near Penzance, deposed:—On the 9th of July I gave a gown to Jane Rich to be washed; and that gown was afterwards shown me by Serjeant Bray.—Jane Rich, wife of Henry Rich at Madron.—I wash for Mr. Howell of Poltair. On the 9th of July, I got a gown from Susan Clarke, and on the 11th July, I washed it, and put it with other clothes to dry, in the drying-ground. I took in the clothes about half-past six o’clock in the evening of that day, and put them in a basket which I placed in the laundry and locked the door. On the 13th of July, I found that this gown was not there, with the other clothes. When I took in the clothes from the drying-ground on the 11th, I did not count them, and did not see whether or not this gown was missing. When I went to the laundry on the 13th, the door was locked, and the windows barred. Serjeant Bray has since shown me a gown, which is the same that I received from Susan Clarke, and that I washed and put out to dry.—John Bray, serjeant of county police; on the 27th July, I went to the prisoner’s mother’s house, at Polmanter farm, in Halse Town, about 7½ miles from Poltair; I found the prisoner wearing the dress, which I now produce; it has been identified by Susan Clarke and Jane Rich. I took the prisoner into custody, and charged her with stealing a dress from Poltair, on the 11th of Jul. She said that on the 11th of July, she left Mrs. White’s (a farmer’s near Poltair), and that after passing through two fields, she found in a third field the dress, lying on the ground; she said she was going towards Poltair, from Mrs. White’s, by a private pathway. That pathway was about 16 yards distant from the clothes-line in the ground, and would lead to Tregwainton (sic) and to Penzance. All round the drying-ground there is a wall, which at the lowest part, near the farm, is 7 feet high; and at the opposite part 15 feet; there is no entrance into the drying ground except by getting down from the wall, the top of which is on a level with the fields around.—Jane Rich, recalled, stated that the line on which she hung the gown was about two feet from the wall; the gown on the line, could not be reached by hand, but it might have been hooked with a stick or parasol.—Verdict, GUILTY.—Sentence, Two Months hard labour. WILLIAM JAMES HOCKING, 23, was charged with stealing a plank attached to an outhouse, at Pulstrong farm, in the parish of Camborne, the property of George Bennetts.—Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Joseph Williams deposed:—I am a farm-labourer living with Mr. George Bennetts, at Pulstrong. On Monday the 9th of July, about half-past 8 in the evening, I went out to look at some sheep, and on my way homeward again, I met the prisoner; he was going towards the out-house on Mr. Bennett’s farm. Shortly afterwards, I saw him in a field, with a plank on his shoulder; he was coming from the outhouse; he was then crossing the field towards his own home; there was no path in the field; I went to him and asked him where he got the plank; he said he found it in the road; I told him I thought he got it from master’s house; and he said he thought he saw some one at the bottom of the field; he also said there was no occasion to say anything about it to master, as he was going to make a pigs-stye door, and he marked the plank across the middle with his finger. I can identify the plank by means of a knot which I then observed in it.—In about half an hour, my master and I went to the out-house, and saw that a plank was gone from the outside; I had seen that plank, and particularly noticed it about half an hour before I saw the prisoner. I have since seen the plank in the charge of Police-Serjeant Currer.—Peter Pendray, living in the parish of Gwithian, on Monday the 9th of July, was with the last witness, and corroborated his evidence as to the conversation with the prisoner.—Edward Currer, Serjeant of Police, stationed at Camborne:—About 12 o’clock at night of the 9th July I went to the prisoner’s house, about a mile from the outhouse, and charged him with stealing a plank, from Mr. Bennett’s house. He said the plank he had he found in the road. I asked him where the plank was, and he told me he had thrown it over a hedge into a field of corn; he went with me to the spot, took up a plank and said that’s the plan I had. I then took him into custody, and was leading him towards the Police Station at Camborne, when he made a bolt and got off; but on the following Thursday, he was retaken in the parish of Illogan. I took the plank to the outhouse, and, by means of nail marks, found it to correspond with the place whence it had been taken. When the prisoner was taken up the second time, he said to me at the Station House, that he was waiting till Saturday to receive his pay, and that then he should have made it up with Mr. Bennetts, and have put the house to rights.— Verdict, GUILTY.—Sentence: Six Months hard labour. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. JOHN TROUNCE, an elderly labourer, on bail, was indicted, and also charged on the Coroner’s Inquisition, for feloniously killing and slaying William Pool, at the parish of Phillack, on the 5th of May. The prisoner pleading not guilty, Mr. BERE, counsel for the prosecution, rose and stated to the Court, that the evidence to show that the prisoner was the cause of the deceased’s death was not such as would enable a jury justly to come to the determination that the deceased died in consequence of the blow given him by the prisoner. The deceased, in a state of intoxication, was walking on the road to Phillack; he came up with the prisoner, who was standing by a well, and entered into altercation with him. Whether or not the deceased struck the prisoner first, there was no evidence to show; but, whatever happened on the part of the deceased, the prisoner struck him and knocked him down on his back with his head to the ground. The deceased was taken up, conveyed to his house, and within about 20 days afterwards he died. The surgeon was of opinion that the deceased came by his death from a rupture of a blood vessel on the brain occasioned by a blow at the back of the skull. But, inasmuch as it could not be shown that the deceased remained in his bed all the time between the 5th and 28th of May, or was even in his house al that time, or was so watched that he could not have met with any other accident, he (Mr. Bere) did not think he should be justified in seeking to convict the prisoner of manslaughter; and therefore he proposed to offer no evidence, either on the indictment or the Coroner’s Inquisition. Even supposing the case were tried, and the prisoner were shown to have been the cause of the deceased’s death, he believed the manslaughter would prove to be of very moderate degree. But, on the part of the prosecution, he should tender no evidence; and the jury would therefore find a verdict of NOT GUILTY.—The learned JUDGE directed a verdict of acquittal, and said, having read the depositions, if the case had been proved, it would not have been visited with any severe punishment. There was considerable provocation from the deceased; and there was not the slightest reason to suppose that the prisoner ever contemplated the calamitous results that ensued. Even if he had been found guilty, he would have been very lightly punished. But he entirely concurred in the course which had been adopted by the learned counsel for the prosecution. Mr. STOCK, counsel for the defence, said, without referring to the circumstances of the case, after the very fair plan adopted by Mr. Bere, he might be allowed to state that he was in a position to call persons of high respectability to give the prisoner an excellent character for his conduct throughout life.—The learned JUDGE said he was exceedingly glad to hear that; it fell in with what he had stated to the grand jury. It was in favour of the course which had been adopted that the prisoner had in his hand a weapon which he did not use on the occasion referred to; and even if he could be deemed responsible in any way for the death of the deceased, the blow given by him was after very considerable provocation.—The jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY; and the prisoner was at once discharged. BURGLARY, WITH INTENT TO STEAL. ROBERT FRAZER, 25, miner, and CHARLES ELLIS, a young labourer (on bail), were charged with burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Henry White, at Tregaseal, in the parish of St. Just in Penwith, on the 3rd April, with intent to steal the goods and chattels of the said Henry White.— Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—Henry White, the prosecutor, deposed:—I am a farmer living at Tregeseal (sic). On Monday night the 2nd of April, I went to bed about 9 o’clock, and between 1 and 2 o’clock I was waked by my wife. I jumped out of bed and went towards my wife, who was standing by the chamber-door. I went out on the platform of the stairs, and heard some persons below in the kitchen; I heard there were more than one, from their rumbling about. My wife called out, but did not get any answer that we could understand. After I had called out that I would go down-stairs, I went into a back room, and got a scythe; I then went to the top of the stairs and called down twice that I had a scythe and would come down. I then saw a man look out of the kitchen into the passage and see me at the top of the stairs; he then went back into the kitchen and came back with a chair in his hand, which he flung up to me; he then ran out of the front door, and I made after him; I pursued him round the corner of the house, and on his coming back towards me, I lifted my scythe and hit him over the shoulder; he then catched hold of me and threw me down; I got up again, and he took the scythe from me, cutting my finder as he did so. As soon as he took away the scythe, I turned about and ran into the house (laughter). My son came in soon after, and we struct a light. Not long afterwards, Charles Ellis came into the house and asked “what’s the matter here?” I said, “how do you know there’s any thing the matter here?” He said he heard a noise and came in to see what was the matter. I said you are one of the parties who was here just now. He held out his hand, and I saw it was covered with blood. I asked him how he got his hands covered with blood; and he said he was coming over a style (sic) and slipped his foot, and cut his hand. He did not seem inclined to go away. I told him if he did not leave, I would send for the police; and, after remaining about a quarter of an hour, he went away; after he had left, we searched the kitchen and found that a pat of butter had been taken away, and also some bread from a loaf which had been cut since the previous evening. I cannot say whether or not Ellis was in liquor when he was in the house.—John White, son of the last witness:—On the night of the 2nd April, I went to bed about 11 o’clock, and before doing so I shut the front door; there was no bolt; the door was under repair, and was shut with a catch. When I went to bed, there was a whole loaf and some butter on the kitchen-table. I was awoke about 2 o’clock in the morning; I heard some persons down stairs; I called out and then got out of bed; before father went down stairs, I went to the bedroom window and looked out; it was very bright moonlight; I saw Charles Ellis go by the door from the parlour window; I called out to him, asked him what he was doing, and then threw a bottle at him; he ran away very quickly. At the time I saw him outside the house, I heard some other person inside the house. After I had heard the noise of the chair thrown to father, I heard some person run out after him. I went out, and found father outside. When I got outside, I saw a big man there (the prisoner Frazer is a man of large stature), and I threw a stone at him. I then went back into the kitchen, and was there when Ellis came in; I had known him sone time before, and I told him that I had seen him outside the house. Next morning I traced drops of blood from our premises to Frazer’s house.—This witness confirmed the evidence as to the bread and butter, and added that when he went to bed there was a flasket of clothes on a chair in the kitchen. On searching the kitchen, the chair was gone; it was the one that had been thrown at the father.—Dorcas White, wife of prosecutor;—I went to be on the night of the 2nd April between 10 and 11 o’clock; and between 12 and 1, I heard the fore door opened and a man walked into the kitchen; I went to the top of the stairs and looked down and saw another man walking in; he was a big man, with a coat such as Frazer has on now. I called down and asked what was their business; he made no answer but whipped into the kitchen; I called down to him and asked what they wanted; upon that, he took up a clog down stairs and threw it at me; on that noise being made, my son got up. The big man then came upstairs, and my son and I slammed our doors. My husband went and got the scythe.— Afterwards I found bread and butter had been taken; the clothes in the flasket had been upset; one of the clogs I found in the staircase, and the other outside the house in the town plat.—Joshua Arthur, Police-Constable:— I was called to Tregaseal between 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning of the 2nd April; and in consequence of information, I went to the houses of Frazer and Ellis. I first apprehended Ellis, and then went to Frazer’s house, and being told he was not in I went with Ellis to the Police Station; I had apprehended Ellis at his house, about half a mile from Frazer’s, and nearly a mile from Tregaseal. Ellis was at home when I went there, and he let me in; I told him I took him into custody, for unlawfully entering the house of Henry White. He said he had heard a noise, and went athwart the field to see what was the matter. I saw spots of blood on his shirt, and he said he had fallen down and cut his hand. He also said he had not seen any other person in Henry White’s house, except John White. On the 4th of April, Ellis, when in custody, said it was all Harry Hicks’s fault, and if it had not been for him, he should not have been there. In the morning of the 3rd of April, I, with John White and Inspector Ward, traced blood from Tregaseal to within a few yards of Frazer’s house. I heard Frazer say, after he was in custody, that if he had not lifted his hand, he should have had his head cut off. His hand was very much cut. On Wednesday, the 4th of April, I heard him say that he had not gone into the house—that he never went further than the threshold.—Samuel Boucher, police constable:—On Tuesday, the 3rd April. about half-past 4 in the morning, I went with police- constable Arthur to Frazer’s house; and was told he was not in. I stayed and watched, and found blood on the latch of Frazer’s door. After I had been there about half an hour, the door was opened and I went in, and shortly afterwards he came down stairs; he is not married. His hand was tied up, and there was blood on the cloth. I charged him with unlawfully entering the house of Henry White; he said he was not there, and did not know anything about it. I took him into custody, and led him to the Station at St. Just. I heard him say that if he had not lifted his hand he should have had his head cut off. I saw blood on his shoes, and there was blood also on a little knife in his pocket.—Joseph Ward, inspector of police:—On the morning of Tuesday, the 3rd of April, I went to Tregaseal, and traced blood at different places on the road towards Frazer’s house; and there was blood on the latch of Frazer’s door. From Tregaseal to Frazer’s is nearly a mile, and the spots of blood were in the regular foot-path by the high road. I remember Frazer being brought to the station that day; his hand was tied up, and I asked him about it; he said his hand was cut very bad, as he had put it up to fend off a blow from his head. On the following evening, he had his hand dressed by Mr. Stone; and on Good Friday, Mr. Stone said to him “you did not tell me how your hand was cut;” and Frazer said, “the old fellow made a blow at me with the scythe, and I tried to fend off the blow, and caught it on my hand.” The hand was cut into the bone. Mr. Stone asked him how the little finger of the same hand was cut; and he said “the old fellow made a second blow at me, and cut my little finger.” I have searched for the scythe, but have not been able to find it. The prisoner’s statements before the Committing Magistrates were then put in. Frazer’s statement was that he did not go into the house, further than just inside the front door; and when he got there, he saw White, he supposed, coming down stairs, and heard him say he had got a scythe; and when he (Frazer) saw the scythe, he ran away, and White followed and gained upon him. When he (Frazer) came round the end of the house, he turned round and saw White coming on with his scythe to hit him; and he put up his hand and received the blow on it. White made a second blow; and then Frazer took away the scythe and threw it away.—Ellis’s statement was that he did not know that he was ever inside the door.—The Jury found both prisoners guilty. Mr. BERE, on behalf of the prosecution, interceded with the Court in their behalf; and the learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, said:—Your case has been recommended to the merciful consideration of the Court by the Counsel for the Prosecution, acting on instructions he has received. I am disposed to entertain that application, believing that you did not go to the house for the purpose of taking any considerable amount of property, or of using any great violence if resisted. The sentence of the Court is that you be severally imprisoned for nine months with hard labour—a very different sentence from what I should have passed, but for the circumstances to which I have alluded. RICHARD CHINN, labourer, aged 20, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a chain, seal, and key, and the sum of £3 4s. 2d., the property of James Harris, at Mawnan, on the 8th July; and was sentenced to three months hard labour. AN EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE. WILLIAM MUNDAY, the younger, a miner aged 20; JOHN JANE, an engine-man, aged 34; and his wife MARY JANE, aged 26; were severally indicted for feloniously forging a Bill of Exchange for £40, with intent to defraud; and in another count they were severally charged with uttering the same, knowing it to be forged.—William Munday pleaded GUILTY; John and Mary Jane pleaded NOT GUILTY; and they respectively pleaded in like manner, to another indictment charging them with stealing on the 21st April, at Redruth, a post-letter the property of the Postmaster General; and, in another count, with stealing out of a post-letter, a certain Bill of Exchange, the property of the Postmaster General.—John and Mary Jane also pleaded not guilty to a count which charged them with feloniously receiving the said Bill of Exchange, knowing it to have been stolen by the said William Munday.—Mr Bere conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended. Mr. BERE, in opening the case to the jury, said William Munday the younger, who had confessed himself guilty, had been charged as legally guilty of forgery, because of his being present when the offence was committed. As to the wife, Mary Jane, she had been charged as a principal in the felony, because though in the presence of her husband, it would be proved that she committed the act of forgery, of her own will and motion, and without control or coercion or suggestion from the husband; and the husband had been charged as a principal because that being present, he did not interfere to prevent commission of the felony. Mr. Bere then gave an outline of the facts in the case, as they will appear more fully in evidence, and then remarked, on the authority of Queen v. Dunn in Archbold, that it was not necessary that a person charged with forgery, should have actually written the forged name. Miss Mary Garby, postmistress at Redruth, deposed: On the 20th April last, I received a registered letter from Australia; it was directed to Mrs. Mary Munday, South Downs, near Redruth. I had heard of Mary Munday’s death, and therefore I did not send out the letter by the usual messenger, but I communicated to the letter-carrier the fact of there being such a letter in the office. On the 21st April, about half-past 8 in the evening, William Munday came to the Post Office and asked if there was a letter for William Munday. I told him there was a letter for his mother Mrs. Mary Munday, and I asked him why his father did (sic) come for it. He said his father was poorly and was not capable of coming, but had sent him for it. I gave him the letter, and he signed the registered receipt for it; and that receipt I produce. John Munday, aged 14 years: I am a son of William Munday; my mother’s name was Mary Munday; she died about 12 months ago; I have a brother called William (the prisoner); I and he lodged with John and Mary Jane; Mary Jane is a first cousin of mine. I remember going with my brother to the Redruth Post Office, on a Saturday—about a fortnight before I went before the magistrates; my brother told me he was going for a letter. The Post-office woman had sent word to William that there was a letter directed to mother. We all four went to Redruth together; John Jane and I stayed at some distance below the post office, and Mary Jane went up into the town; I could not see the post-office from where I stood; my brother William went away from us and came back again with a letter; he opened the letter before me and John Jane, and took out of it a piece of paper, and we then went up the town, a little further up than Burrows’s shop, and met Mary Jane; she was told we had been for the letter; William showed her the letter, but I don’t know that he showed her the piece of paper. He hold Mary Jane that he had the Bill, and she said she was very glad of it; he said the Bill was for £40; we then all turned back and went into Burrows’s shop; Mary Jane then asked my brother if she might have some things, and he said yes, she might have what she wanted.—In answer to questions from John Jane, the witness stated that John and Mary Jane went into the town that evening with seven fowls; and that he did not tell John Jane that there was a Bill for £40. Francis Burrows, tailor and outfitter at Redruth. On Saturday 21st April, about half-past 8 or 9 o’clock in the evening, the three prisoners and John Munday came into my shop. Mary Jane and William Munday came forward, and the other two stayed behind. I served the two men and the boy with clothes, and my wife served Mary Jane. My wife made out the bill for the whole, which I saw; and afterwards my wife came to me with this Bill of Exchange, and I went back with my wife to where Mary Jane was and heard the conversation between them; I saw Mary Jane put a cross on that Bill of Exchange; my wife had previously placed a stamp on it; I saw my wife write something on the stamp; she then gave me the Bill and I endorsed it “Francis Burrows.” I saw and examined the bill for the goods which my wife had made out; the amount was between £10 and £11; I gave Mary Jane part of the change—all the cash I had in the house then, till I should go to bank next morning; I took the money from the end of the counter. John Jane was at that time standing at the further end of the shop,—at a distance of about half the length of this court, from where Mary Jane was; he took no part in the conversation between Mary Jane and my wife, and there were other persons in the shop, standing between him and Mary Jane; I was standing close by my wife at the time of the conversation between her and Mary Jane, and in my judgment John Jane could not have heard it. After I had taken out the change, I counted it twice in John Jane’s presence, and he said, “all right, Mr. Burrows.” Mary Jane took up the money, and pushed it towards William Munday, and told him to take it up. My wife said to her, “how are you going to allow him to take up so much money as that?” She said, “I have no pocket; he has good ones, and he will give it to me when we get home.” William Munday then took up the money, and the party left the shop. On the following Monday morning, Mary Jane came again, and I supplied here with some buttons, velvet, and lining for her dress which she bought on Saturday night; these additional articles came to about 2s. or 3s.; she told me to put it down until she come in for the money on Tuesday or Wednesday. On Wednesday, she and the two Mundays came to the shop and had some more clothes, to the amount of between 5l. and 6l.; I then had to give them between 6l. and 7l., which I paid out on the counter to Mary Jane, as I had done on Saturday night. I paid in the Bill to my bankers, Messrs. Hawkey and Col, of Falmouth. I had not known Mary Jane before; she said that she was mother-in-law to the two Mundays, and that her husband was their father ; she told that to three or four persons in the shop on the Saturday night; she said that both before and after she made her mark on the Bill. She said that the Bill was intended for her, and that she was the Mary Munday there mentioned; I heard her say so, and so did several other persons in the shop. She said my husband is their father, and I am his second wife, and this Bill is intended for me. I did not know that Mary Munday was dead. Mary Jane Burrows, wife of last witness:—I remember the three prisoners and John Munday coming to my shop on Saturday night the 21st of April. I served Mary Jane with drapery goods. The amount of all the things had was between 10l. and 11l.; but I cannot tell the value of what she bought; she had a French merino dress. I handed her the bill for all the things had, and she gave me in payment this Bill of Exchange, which she had in her hand; I took it and went to my husband; at that time, John Jane was standing further down the shop; I don’t know if he could have seen her give me the Bill, but I think he could have heard her talking. The Bill was not stamped when she gave it to me, and after I had shown it to my husband, I told her she must get it stamped; she said she had no money, and if I would get a stamp, she would pay me when she had her change. I then sent one of the assistants to get a stamp, and a stamp was brought to me, which I put on the Bill. When I put on the stamp, I asked her what her name was, and she said Mary Munday. I told her she must write her name; and seeing that her name corresponded with that on the Bill, I said to her this Bill is payable to you and you must sign your name.—(By the Judge. We always require the name to be signed.— His Lordship said, that was all right, perhaps as a matter of prudence, but it was not necessary.)—She said she could not write and asked me to write her name; I told her I could do so by her authority, and she said please to write it for me. I then wrote her name.—The Bill of Exchange being handed to witness, she stated that the name “Mary Munday” was in her hand-writing, and that the mark on the stamp was made by Mary Jane in witness’s presence before witness wrote the name. After writing the name, she handed the Bill to her husband. William Phillips, manager of Messrs. Hawkey’s Bank at Falmouth. This Bill was sent to us by Mr. Burrows, and endorsed by him. Without the endorsement of “Mary Munday” on it, we could not have received it to his credit. I should not have paid the amount of that Bill to any one but the person whom I supposed to be Mary Munday, nor without Mary Munday’s signature; without that signature we could not have got the money from the Oriental Bank Corporation. I passed the Bill to the credit of Mr. Burrows’s account, with others received from him at the same time; and among them was another Bill of the same character as this.—The Bill was remitted to our agents, Messrs. Mastermann and Co., on the 28th April, and was duly paid. William Munday, the elder:—I am the father of William and John Munday My wife, Mary Munday, died twelve months ago, the 24th of June. I am now in the Redruth Union Workhouse. I first heard there had been a letter in the Post Office directed to my wife, about a week after this happened. I used to Live at South Downs; my wife was the only Mary Munday living at South Downs. My wife had a cousin called Henry Branwell; I have heard that he was in Australia. I never authorized my son William Munday to go to the Post Office for a letter directed to my late wife. I saw my two sons William and John at the Union House on Sunday the 22nd of April; William said he had received £5. I never gave any directions about any Bill; I did not know that any had come. My sons have given me 12s. 6d. Henry James James (sic), Serjeant of County Police:—I apprehended the prisoner William Munday. I produce part of a letter, which he said he had received, and that it had been sent to his mother from his cousin Henry Branwell. He told me that the children had torn up the other parts. In reply to a question from the JUDGE, Mr. BERE stated that the prosecution had been instituted by the Overseer of the Redruth Union, because if the £40 on the Bill of Exchange had come to the husband of the deceased Mary Munday, he would have been no longer a pauper. William Munday the elder was recalled by the Court, and stated that he did not direct the prosecution and had nothing to do with it, beyond giving his evidence. At the close of the case for the prosecution, the prisoners John and Mary Jane made statements to the Court in defence.—John Jane said he had had the old man and the young ones living with him, and that the young ones owned him between 30s. and 40s. at the present time, for meat; they wanted meat when they came to his house.—Mary Jane, crying, said she had worked night and day for them, and that she owed for things now, which she had provided for the old man and boys, and which she should be obliged to pay. William Munday the elder, again recalled, said he lived with John Jane about a fortnight or three weeks before he went to the workhouse; and he left his sons there when he went into the workhouse. In summing up, the learned JUDGE said the indictment charged the three prisoners with forging the endorsement of a Bill of Exchange for £40, with intent to defraud; and the case was one of some peculiarity, and involving points not unattended with difficulty. It appeared that some person in Australia, who was a correspondent of the Oriental Bank Corporation, carrying on business in Threadneedle-street, drew this Bill and made it payable to Mrs. Mary Munday; and, properly speaking, no one could obtain payment of this Bill from the Oriental Bank Corporation, who was not either Mary Munday herself, or a person to whom she had endorsed it, and thus made it negotiable. Under the circumstances proved in the case, and which his lordship recapitulated, his lordship observed that the only person entitled to the proceeds of the Bill would be the person entitled to take out administration of the deceased Mary Munday’s estate; if the husband had taken out administration of his wife’s estate, he might have endorsed the Bill. But it appeared that one of the sons got possession of the Bill, and the father knew nothing about it.—His lordship then reviewed the circumstances which preceded the affixing of her mark by Mary Jane, and remarked that, assuming that to be forgery, the jury, in order to find a verdict of guilty, must be satisfied that it was done with intent to defraud. His lordship next observed that ever party into whose hands the Bill had successively come—Mr. Burrows, Messrs. Hawkey, Messrs. Masterman, and the Oriental Bank Corporation—had treated the Bill as a good one, and in fact no person had actually been defrauded; except it might be the husband of the deceased Mary Munday, and he had had nothing to do with this prosecution; he possibly might have had some grounds to complain, but he had been living with John and Mary Jane before he went to the workhouse, and his sons were living with them still. The prosecution was not his, and he had had nothing to do with it, except to give evidence. The prosecution, they had been told, was by the overseer, and his lordship said he could not buy think it might well have been spared. It had however been brought before the jury, and it was for them to decide it on the evidence adduced; bearing in mind that in order to find a verdict of guilty, they must be satisfied that the forgery charged was committed with intent to defraud. It did not follow that there was no intention to defraud, because no person had actually suffered; nor was it necessary to show an intent to defraud any particular person or bank.—Again referring to the evidence of the conduct of the parties on receipt of the letter and in the shop, his lordship said it did not appear that the female prisoner had any intention of affixing her mark to the Bill before that course was suggested to her by Mrs. Burrows. She might have considered she was entitled to take this Bill, for the maintenance of the Munday family. It was true she gave a wrong name and represented herself to be Mary Munday; but she was not indicted for personation, but only for forgery, and that with intent to defraud. And in considering this question of fraudulent intention, it must be borne in mind that although there might not be actual authority, yet if a person had reason to believe he or she had such authority, there would not be an intent to defraud in affixing a signature. He did not say however there was no evidence of intent to defraud. But it must be borne in mind that the question was not whether there had been irregularity or misconduct in the parties who presented this Bill; but only whether the endorsement was made with intent to defraud.—His lordship then adverted to the question whether the female prisoner acted independently of, and without coercion from her husband, so as to warrant her conviction as a principal; and remarked that the evidence on that point would seem to show that her husband was not aware of what the wife was doing, when she was in communication with Mrs. Burrows.—After some further remarks from his lordship, mainly on the question of fraudulent intent, the jury turned round for consultation in their box, and in a few minutes returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. There was another indictment against the prisoners, for stealing a Post Letter, and Envelope, and a Bill of Exchange for £40, the property of the Postmaster-General. To this indictment, William Munday had pleaded guilty; but Mr. BERE, for the prosecution, declined to offer any evidence in support of the charge as against the prisoners John and Mary Jane, who had pleaded not guilty, as they had also to a Count which charged them with felonious receiving.—The learned JUDGE concurred in the propriety of the course adopted by the learned Counsel for the prosecution, and directed a verdict of acquittal, which was accordingly given; and the two prisoners, John and Mary Jane were discharged.—Sentence on William Munday was deferred. ______NISI PRIUS COURT. FRIDAY, AUGUST 3. Justice Keating took his seat in this Court at 11 o’clock. The business was very light, only four causes being entered for trial, two of which were arranged, and two were undefended; and the whole was disposed of in 40 minutes. The following is the CAUSE LIST. Plaint. Atty. Plaintiff. Deft. Defend. Atty. King, Q.B. Marshall v. Marshall Trenchard & Co. Downing, Ex. Read v. Rule Gregson White and Dingley, Q.B. Rundle v. Smith King Gregory & Co., Ex. Whitford & others v. Vine Downing The first of the causes, “Marshall v. Marshall,” which was an action in trover, to recover a bill of exchange, the parties in which, we understand, reside in the neighbourhood of Tintagel, did not come before the Court, being arranged upon amicable terms. RUNDLE v. SMITH.—This was an action of ejectment to recover possession of some cottages at Lanteglos by Camelford. Mr. Karslake said the defendant did not appear; and the jury, under his lordship’s direction, found a verdict for the plaintiff. WHITFORD & OTHERS v. VINE.—The plaintiffs are bankers at Falmouth, and the defendant is a draper at Redruth. The action was to recover the amount of a bill of exchange for £100 and interest. Mr. Coleridge said that the defendant did not appear; and he and Mr. Downing, who appeared on the other side, had agreed to a verdict being given for the plaintiff for £100. The jury returned a verdict accordingly. READ v. RULE.—Mr. Karslake said the plaintiff, in this case, Mr. James Bird Read, was a merchant at Penryn; and the defendant, Mr. Alfred Rule, was a gentleman residing in London. The action was brought to recover the balance of an account, amounting to 47l. 10s. 6d., for goods supplied by the plaintiff to the Bell and Lanarth Mine, in the parish of Gwennap, in which the defendant was an adventurer. The mine was conducted on the cost-book principle, and for some time there were good prospects of considerable success. So long as that was the case, the defendant paid the calls due on his shares; but when the prospects failed, and a call was made to discharge the debts of the mine, he refused to pay the amount due from him, and the present action was brought. The case was undefended; but it was necessary that he should prove the debt, and that the goods were supplied, and were necessary for the mine. He then called Mr. Robert Hunt Pike, who deposed:—I am the purser in several mines in Cornwall, and among others, of the Bell and Lanarth Mine, in the parish of Gwennap. I was purser before 1854. The mine has been worked for several years on the cost-book principle. On the 20th April, 1854, I received notice of transfer of shares to, and an acceptance by, the defendant of shares in the mine, and I accordingly registered him as a shareholder in the mine. Afterwards, I received several calls from the defendant due on these shares, and had conversations with him about the mine and the payment of his calls. Goods were supplied to the mine from time to time as they were required, and they were paid for as money came in. This was the practice throughout. Mr. James Higgins deposed:—I was captain of the Bell and Lanarth mine from 1857, and had the management and superintendence of it. I ordered all the materials required on the mine, including the tallow and candles supplied by the plaintiff. The particular of the plaintiff’s bill, now put in, were ordered by me. They were necessaries of the mine, and were used on it. The prices charged are the usual ones. Mr. James Bird Read.—I am the plaintiff in this action, and am a merchant at Penryn. I supplied the goods for which I now claim to the mine. My bill amounted altogether to £71 10s. 6d., and there is a balance of £47 10s. 6d. now due to me. The prices of the articles are reasonable and fair. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £47 10s. 6d. This concluded the whole of the civil business, and the court adjourned for an hour, by which time it was supposed the grand jury would have returned some bills into the other court. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. EMBEZZLEMENT AT TRURO. ANN SCHOLES, aged 15, pleaded guilty to having, on the 30th of June, embezzled certain money, amounting to 12s. and upwards, the property of her mistress, Cecilia Prisk, at Truro. The prosecutrix said the prisoner was young and friendless, and she hoped that his lordship would be lenient to her. She had been in her service about six months, but she could not say that she had conducted herself well prior to embezzling the money. His Lordship said that had it not been for the recommendation of the prosecutrix he should have felt it his duty to pass a severe sentence on the prisoner. She had been employed to receive money for bread supplied by her mistress to her customers, and instead of accounting for it, she had appropriated it to her own use. An offence of that kind was deserving of severe punishment; but taking into consideration the recommendation of the prosecutrix, the sentence he should inflict was three months’ imprisonment at hard labour. CHARGE OF ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO ROB. HENRY MERRIFIELD, a respectable looking young man, aged 25, was charged with having feloniously assaulted James Mayne, at St. Austell, on the 6th of April, with intent feloniously and violently to steal his monies, goods, and chattels. Mr. Young prosecuted, and Mr. Coleridge defended the prisoner. Mr. YOUNG said that the grand jury had found a true bill against the prisoner, for an assault with intent to rob, and also a true bill for a common assault; and as he understood the prisoner would plead guilty to the latter charge, he should not offer any evidence in support of the more serious offence. The JUDGE.—I suppose you have looked at the depositions. Do you feel any doubt as to whether you would be able to sustain the graver charge? Mr. YOUNG thought it was questionable whether the jury would convict the prisoner, on the evidence which he should be able to call. The jury then found the prisoner not guilty and he pleaded guilty to an indictment, charging him with a common assault. Mr. COLERIDGE said that he had advised the present course, and he wished now to state that there were several most respectable witnesses, who had come from St. Austell and the neighbourhood entirely at their own desire and expense, to bear testimony to the respectability and good character of the prisoner and his family. He then called Mr. Joseph Drew, postmaster of St. Austell, and general merchant, who said that he had known the prisoner’s family for many years. His father was agent to Sir Joseph Sawle, Bart. Had known the prisoner, but not so intimately as his father, and had never heard anything against him up to the present offence, and he had hitherto borne a good character. Had come voluntarily and entirely at his own desire and expense to give this evidence, because he considered that the charge against the prisoner was to a certain extent untrue.—Mr. John Bawden, cabinet-maker, St. Austell, Mr. George Andrew, farmer, St. Mewan, Mr. Yelland, and Mr. Michell, farmer, St. Austell, all of whom had known the prisoner and his family for several years, gave similar evidence, deposing that he had always been a respectable well conducted man.—The Rev. Mr. Everest, chaplain of the County Gaol, said that he had visited the prisoner, amongst other prisoners, since his commitment, and from what he had seen of him, he believed him to be a well-conducted man. Mr. Mayne, the prosecutor, deposed that when the prisoner committed the assault, he appeared to be intoxicated. Did not lose any money, and had said a day or two after the assault, that if the prisoner had come forward and acknowledged the offence, he should have forgiven him. The prisoner did not pull him off his horse, and he suffered no bodily injury of consequence, that he was aware of. The JUDGE said that although the present lenient course had been adopted, there could be no doubt that the prisoner had been guilty of very great violence. He had received a very good character, and it was deeply to be regretted that a man in his position should be found standing at that bar on a charge even of common assault. He trusted that this case would prove a warning to him to him (sic) to avoid drink, which had brought him into his present situation. He had been in prison four months, but as his conduct had been of a serious and aggravated character, the sentence was the he be imprisoned for two months longer. ROBBERY NEAR BODMIN. WILLIAM BRAY, 28, a miner, was charged with stealing, on the 11th July, a pair of boots, the property of William Hocking, at Ruthern, near Bodmin. Mr. Oxenham prosecuted. On the 11th of July, Mrs. Rebecca Pedlar, the wife of a farmer at Ruthern, on looking out of the door of her house, saw the prisoner approaching, carrying a dead fox, and suspecting that he was begging, she shut the door. Directly after he knocked, and no one answering, he opened the door, and then knocked twice. She concealed herself behind another door, and she heard the prisoner walk up to the fire- place, and take something from a shelf above the oven, on which were three pair of boots. He then walked out of the back door, and finding that a pair of boots had been taken from the shelf, she ran out of the front door, and met the prisoner, who had something concealed under his coat. She charged him with stealing the boots, when he swore at her violently, and walked into a straw yard. On returning, he appeared to have got rid of the article which he was previously attempting to conceal. He left the yard, and she followed him, when he began to run; and on her telling him that she could run as fast as he could, he turned round and swore he would make a corpse of her if she followed him, and being frightened she returned. Immediately after the prisoner left the straw, William Hocking, who was in Mr. Pedlar’s service, found the boots concealed under some bramble bushes in the straw yard. GUILTY, Four months hard labour. LEAD STEALING AT ST. GERMANS. WM. HAWTON, 27, a boatman, and JOEPH PYNE, la-bourer (sic), were charged with stealing a piece of lead, value 10s., the property of the guardians of the poor of the St. Germans Union at Torpoint, on the 6th of July. Mr. Gulson prosecuted. Mr. Nicholas Clarke, the master of the St. Germans Union Workhouse, deposed that an old cistern at that establishment being found to be leaky and worn out, it was decided to obtain a new one, and he was directed to dispose of the old lead. On Friday, the 6th July, he employed Hawton, who is a boatman, to take the old lead and some oakum, weighing together about a ton, to Plymouth in his boat, directing Pyne and another pauper to assist him in putting them on board. He then told Pyne and the other to accompany Hawton by water to Shilson’s shipwright’s yard, while he walked round by land and met them. They arrived at the yard about the same time, and the oakum having been left there, he directed them to take the lead to the Plymouth Lead Works at Coxside. He met them there, and the lead having been place on the quay, Hawton went away. Witness thought there appeared less of the lead than he had directed to be taken into the boat, but he did not say anything at the time; and on its being weighed, he found there was only 10 cwt. 2 qrs. 14 lbs. of it. James Wm. Elick, a dealer in marine stores, deposed that on the 11th July, Hawton came to him while he was with his cart at Torpoint, and asked him if he would buy some old lead. Witness told him that he would, provided it was honestly come by. He then took witness to a house, from which he brought a roll of sheet lead in a bag. Witness suspecting that the lead had been dishonestly obtained, sent his companion for a police officer, and he then asked the prisoner where he had got it, and he replied that it had come from the workhouse. On the arrival of Police Serjeant Foot, witness said that he was going to buy some lead from Hawton, and he wished him to be present during the transaction, as, should any question afterwards arise respecting it, he should call him as a witness to prove that he had come by it properly. Police Sergeant Foot deposed that on asking the prisoner where he detained the lead, he at first refused to tell him; then he said that he bought it in the creek running up beside the lead works, and that he gave two quarts of ale for it. Pyne on being apprehended, did not deny having assisted in stealing the lead, but said that he had not received any money. Afterwards, however, he stated that he took up the lead and gave it to Hawton. He did not know what Hawton was going to do with it, but he (Pyne) had sixpence. P.C. Bunn said Hawton was given into his charge on the 9th July, and on the road to Antony, where he was taking him, the prisoner said that he bought the lead on the Plymouth quay from two men, and had given 1s. for it; he knew very well where they got it from, and he had since found out that they did not get it honestly, but that made no difference to him, so long as he paid for it, and could make a shilling by it. He also said that the lead was exactly of the same kind as that which he had taken in his boat from the workhouse to the lead-works on the 6th. The Jury found both prisoners guilty, and they were sentenced to six months’ hard labour. THEFT NEAR CAMELFORD. SUSAN COUCH, 17, and RICHARD LANGDON, 27, were charged with having on the 12th July at Trehane, near Camelford, stolen a silver spoon and a plated spoon the property of James Rickard. Langdon was also charged as a receiver. Mr. Mackonohiec (sic) prosecuted. The prosecutor is a purser, and the female prisoner was in his employ as a servant. Langdon had also occasionally worked for him as a farm labourer. In the early part of July, Mrs. Rickard missed a silver teaspoon, and a plated teaspoon, and she asked Couch about them. The girl replied that she had no knowledge of what had become of them. Several times after she again asked her about them, and on each occasion she received the same answer. On Saturday, the 14th of July, however, Mrs. Rickard said to the prisoner that she might as well tell her if she had taken them—that she believed she had done so, and carried them to Langdon’s, and she had better tell, as she should send a policeman and search his house. Couch then confessed that she had taken the spoons to Langdon’s. The Judge intimated that after this threat on the par of Mrs. Rickard, he was of opinion that any statement Couch might have made could not be used in evidence against her. His lordship then left the court to consult Baron Channell, and on his return, he said that his learned brother on reading the depositions, was of the same opinion as himself that the evidence was inadmissible. Mr. MACKONOCHIE said in that case he should be unable to sustain the charge against Couch. The JUDGE—If the charge against Couch for stealing fails, then the charge of receiving against Langdon, must be abandoned also. Mr. MACKONOCHIE said that Langdon was charged with having stolen the property, as well as with receiving it. He called P.C. King who deposed that on going to Langdon’s house, his wife gave him two teaspoons, his wife gave him two teaspoons, which he produced, and on charging him with receiving them, knowing them to have been stolen, he said that he never had any spoons from Mrs. Rickard’s in his life, and on his showing them to him, he swore that Couch had never given him any spoons, but that he had some like those produced at home. Afterwards while taking him to Camelford, Langdon, without being spoken to, voluntarily said that Couch had given him them. Mr. RICKARD deposed that the prisoner used to be employed occasionally by her husband as a farm labourer, and sometimes got his dinner in the kitchen where the spoons were used. She identified the spoons produced by P.C. King as her husband’s property. The Jury found Langdon GUILTY, and Couch NOT GUILTY. Langdon was then found Guilty of a previous conviction for felony in 1854, and it appeared that he had been convicted previous to that date. The JUDGE said that he should have felt it his duty to sentence the prisoner to a long term of penal servitude, were it not for the fact that the last offence of which he had been convicted, was committed more than six years ago. Under these circumstances he would afford him another chance of retrieving himself. His lordship then sentenced him to twelve months’ hard labour.

ARSON AT STOKECLIMSLAND. MARY ANN WILLIAMS, aged 12, pleaded guilty to having maliciously set fire to a farm building, in the possession of Maria Richards and Thomas Davey, at Stokeclimsland, on the 16th of July, with intent to injure the said Maria Richards and Thomas Davey, or some other persons. [Editor’s Note: Sentencing deferred - see end of Summer report] STEALING QUEEN’S STORES. HENRY TONG, a boatswain in the Royal Navy, was charged with havign (sic), on the 14th July, at Torpoint, being then a servant of the Queen, stolen a bed, bed cover, blanket, and two chairs, the property of Her Majesty. A second count charged the prisoner with unlawfully having the above property in his possession. He pleaded not guilty to the first charge, and guilty to the second. Mr. Collier and Mr. Poulden prosecuted; Mr. Cole defended the prisoner. Mr. Poulden, in the absence of Mr. Collier, who had left the court, said that the prisoner had been many years in Her Majesty’s service, and had hitherto borne an excellent character. A number of highly satisfactory testimonials had been given to him by officers under whom he had served; and under these circumstances, he should not offer any evidence in support of the charge of stealing, it being considered by the prosecution, that the ends of justice would be satisfied by the plea of guilty on the other charge. Mr. COLE said that the prisoner had come home in the “Indus,” and was then put on board the “Agincourt” forming one of what was termed the steam reserve. While there he was placed in charge of the “Viper,” which had just come home. It seemed that there was a quantity of old stores on board this vessel, as there was on board all other ships on their arrival from a foreign station, consisting of old beds, mattrasses (sic), and as these were almost worthless, they were considered the perquisites of the warrant officer in charge. The prisoner took the articles, never thinking that he was acting illegally, placed them in a boat, and took them to Torpoint, where they were seized by a police officer, and he was apprehended. He had felt the difficulty of the case, and that it would be impossible for the prisoner to refute the second charge, because unless he had obtained a certificate, authorizing him to receive the stores, his possession of them, under the statute, was unlawful. Under these circumstances he had advised him to plead guilty. At the same time, he did not believe that any man in the navy ever came before a Court of Justice with higher testimonials of good character than did the prisoner. He held in his hand a long list of certificates from the officers under whom the prisoner had served, commencing in 1823, and ending with one from the commander of the “Indus,” on his recent arrival at home, all bearing testimony to his efficiency and good conduct. The learned Counsel then handed the testimonials to his lordship, who said that he should defer sentence until the next day. It was stated that the prisoner had been upwards of 30 years in Her Majesty’s service, and that his pay amounted to £160 per annum. STEALING COALS AT MAKER. JAMES CLARKE HOLSGROVE, 57, was charged with having at Maker, on the 16th July, stolen a quantity of coals, the property of Mr. Robinson Ridley. Mr. Lopes prosecuted. The prosecutor is a coal merchant and on the 16th of July, the prisoner, who is a porter, was employed by Mr. John Gloyne, prosecutor’s foreman, to assist in unloading a coal barge lying at Maker, previous to their being carted to Maker Barracks. At the same time Mr. Gloyne cautioned the prisoner against taking any coals himself, or letting any of the inhabitants have any, as they must all be delivered at the barracks. The prisoner was so employed on the 17th and part of the 18th. Between twelve and one o’clock in the afternoon of the 16th, the prisoner called at the house of Mr. Wills and asked if any coals were wanted. Miss Ellen Wills told him to bring a bag, and he brought that and three other bags in the course of the afternoon, for which she paid him 4s., being at the rate of 1s. per cwt. On the same afternoon the prisoner sold another bag of coals to Miss Elizabeth Watts; and on the 17th Mr. Wm. Jay saw him carry a bag of coals from Cremill, where the barge was lying, to a house next, to Mr. Chapple’s, and return in a few minutes with the bag empty. The coals supplied to the above parties by the prisoner were proved to be of exactly the same description and quality as those on board the barge. His Lordship having summed up, the jury immediately found the prisoner GUILTY, and he was sentenced to three months’ hard labour. The Court then adjourned. ______SATURDAY, August 4. (Before Mr. Justice KEATING) HENRY TONG, who yesterday pleaded GUILTY of having been illegally in possession of Government Stores, was this morning placed at the bar, and received sentence of three calendar months’ imprisonment. BIGAMY. JOSIAH BRAY was indicted for feloniously marrying Ann Burrows, on the 12th June, 1860, at the Registry Office of the District of Liskeard, his former wife, Susan Bray, being still alive. Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cox the defence.—Johanna Skinner deposed as follows:—I am a widow, living in Guernsey. I know the prisoner; he is my sister’s son; I produce a certificate of his marriage with my daughter, which I procured at Tavistock. (The document certified that a marriage was solemnized at the Registry Office, in the parish of Tavistock, on the 28th March, 1853; the parties being Josiah Bray, 27 years of age, bachelor, a miner, resident at Beeralston; and Susan Skinner, aged 22 years, spinster, a domestic servant living at Beerferris). My daughter has not lived with the prisoner for some time; she has been living in Guernsey with me between 6 and 7 years. On the Saturday before Midsummer I was in Liskeard, and was on the road towards the prisoner’s father’s, and met the prisoner and his father; I shook hands with the father, and asked him who were those that had gone by; he said, his son Josiah and his younger son Michael. I then turned to Josiah and said, “Josiah, I want to speak to you.” He stopped short in the road, his father and his brother being with him; and I said “Josiah, you would like to hear from your wife.” He said “What wife?” I said “yes, she is alive and is living in respectable service.” Then he said “she is a damned, infernal, blood whore, and if I can catch her I’ll kill her; tell her if she wishes to live to keep out of my sight; for if I catch her, she shall die.” I then said “I have nothing more to say,” and went away. My daughter is alive now, and is in court.—Cross-examined:—My daughter was not living with me at the time of the marriage; Josiah Bray kept her in Tavistock, for about three months before the marriage. The first time I saw her after the marriage was in Union-street, Plymouth, at my son’s, where I went on a visit. She had then left her husband. I don’t know how long it was after the marriage. She had nothing with her but her wearing apparel; I did not see with her any watch or other article belonging to her husband. She then went with me to Guernsey, and has been living there ever since, sometimes with me, and sometimes in service, but always where I can see her; she has not been living in Plymouth or Devonport. It is between 6 and 7 years my daughter has been living in Guernsey. I don’t know how long it was after her marriage that she left her husband; I believe it was a month after; I don’t say it was more than a week. The prisoner told me that he had been in California, and had just come back. The prisoner maintained her at Beeralston three months before he married her.—Joseph Orchard, registrar of marriages for the district of Liskeard. The prisoner Bray was married at the Superintendent Registrar’s Office, at Liskeard, on the 12th July last, to Ann Burrows. I was present at the marriage. (Witness produced the certificate of marriage. It certified that on the 12th July, Josiah Bray, aged 37, a bachelor and a miner residing at Bodmin Land in the parish of St. Ive, was married to Ann Burrows, aged 29, spinster, a dress maker, also of Bodmin Land, in Saint Ive.)—Richard Humphreys, police constable:—I apprehended the prisoner, and read to him the warrant which I now produce. Ann Burrows, his second wife, was with him at the time. On my reading the warrant to him he said “It is a bad job; I had not told this young woman of it, but I intended to do so when we got away.” He then said “It was a foolish job; I was drunk when I married her; otherwise I should not have done it.”—Cross-examined. The young woman, Ann Burrows, made no charge against him. The real complainant is Susan Bray. Mr. COX addressed the jury for the defence. In a case where two marriages had been proved against a man, an exemption from punishment was provided in the case of the man having been absent from the first wife for a period of 7 years, and without knowledge of her existence during that period. He asked the jury to infer from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, that the prisoner and his first wife separated immediately after their marriage; and that being so, they might easily suppose what sort of relationship had existed between the newly married parties. The marriage taking place in March 1853, the prisoner went away and was not seen again seen in England, as appeared by the evidence, until the week before Midsummer 1860, a period of 7½ years, during which he was in California, and throughout the whole of which period there was no evidence to show that he knew of his wife’s existence; and he would put it to the Court that after seven years without knowledge of his wife’s existence, the information of her existence given him after the lapse of seven years would not get rid of the exemption in prisoner’s favour. The learned Counsel then stated that he should open another view of the case, and call witnesses to prove, in opposition to the evidence of Mrs. Skinner, that during a portion of the period of seven years referred to, the prisoner’s first wife had been living a profligate life in Plymouth.—The learned JUDGE however ruled the inadmissibility of such evidence, in mitigation of the prisoner’s conduct, at the present state of proceedings before verdict; and on the point of law as to notice of his wife’s existence, after the lapse of seven years, the learned JUDGE also ruled against the defendant’s Counsel.—Mr. COX then merely remarked to the jury, that in cases of bigamy it was not the first wife who was really injured; the injury was to the second wife, and in this case the second wife had made no complaint; the prosecution was put in motion by the first wife.—The learned JUDGE said he had never known an instance of bigamy in which the second wife complained (laughter). The learned JUDGE then summed up the case to the jury. There could be no doubt, he said, that the prisoner had committed the offence charged; and, as a point of law, his lordship held that the distinct notice of the first wife’s existence, given to the prisoner on the Saturday before Midsummer day—before the second marriage was contracted—entirely deprived him of any defence under the statute 9 George 3d, by reason of the wife’s continued absence from the husband, without knowledge by him of her existence, for a period of 7 years. The Jury thereupon found a verdict of GUILTY; and Mr. COX, in mitigation of the prisoner’s conduct, proposed to call witnesses relative to his first wife’s residence in Plymouth and Devonport, and he placed a female witness, Jane Harris, in the box.—Mr. COLE, however, objected to the reception of the evidence, on the ground that in the event of her being guilty of perjury, as he had reason to believe would be the case, there would be no issue on which he could proceed in a prosecution for perjury. The Court held the objection to be well-founded. The learned JUDGE then passed sentence as follows:—Josiah Bray, you have been convicted of the crime of bigamy, and there is no doubt that you married your second wife—at least the person who is called your second wife—in point of law, she is not your wife at all, and to her you have done grievous wrong, although she is not the prosecutrix in this case. You have violated the statute, and that too shortly after distinct notice from the mother of your first wife that she was still alive. There are however circumstances of mitigation in your case. You had been separated from your wife for more than 7 years. We have no evidence of the circumstances under which that separation took place. But, at all events, by your second marriage, she has not been deprived of the comfort of your society. At the same time, however, you have committed an offence and must be punished for it. The prosecution do not represent the case as one of aggravated character, and do not press for any severity of punishment, and therefore I shall not think it necessary to inflict a heavy sentence. But punishment you must have; and the sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for three calendar months, with hard labour. ARSON. WILLIAM GEORGE PRATER, a lad, was indicted for feloniously and maliciously setting fire to a stack of furze, the property of Mrs. Thomasine Wearne, at Ponsanooth, in the parish of Stithians, on the 28th of July. Mr. Langley conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—John Wearne deposed:—I manage my mother’s farm at Ponsanooth. On Saturday last, she had a stack of furze, nearly close to the house. A few minutes after 10 o’clock at night I was called out of the house, in consequence of the rick being on fire. I went immediately to the fire, and it took us nearly an hour to put it out, with the assistance of one or two hundred people. The rick was within 300 yards of the powder magazine. I know the prisoner; on Sunday the 22nd July, I saw him and some others wrestling in my mother’s field; I took out my book, put down their names and threatened to summon them before the magistrates. They then ran away over the hedge.—Richard Musgrove; I am a servant with Mr. Lanyon at Kennal Vale Powder Mills. On the evening of the 28th July, I was at a public-house in Ponsanooth, about 150 yards from Mrs. Wearne’s, and saw the prisoner there, with three other young men. The prisoner and one of the young men left the house about half-past 9, while I was there. I left the house about 20 minutes to 10. As I was passing on the road before Mrs. Wearne’s place, on passing the furze rick, I heard a footstep and some movement; I looked round and saw the prisoner standing, back towards me, in the end of the linhay adjoining the rick, and on Mrs. Wearne’s premises. I passed over the style, about a dozen yards from the furze rick, and, looking over my left shoulder, I saw the prisoner out in the road. I then went to a neighbour’s house in my way home, and by the time I got home to my own house, I heard the cry of fire. My house is about a quarter of a mile from the rick. It was about 20 minutes from the time I left the rick till I heard it was on fire. This was about 10 o’clock. The young man who left the public house with prisoner was called Andrew.—Jane Scoble, a married woman, stated that she knew the prisoner, and that on the 26th July she saw him at her sister’s house in Ponsanooth, just below Mrs. Wearne’s. He said to her: Jane, I am not summoned yet.” To which she replied “you will be summoned next time then.” He said, “I will find him him (sic) and be revenged on him.” He was going to be summoned for being down on Mr. Wearne’s grounds on Sunday, sabbath-breaking. Witness had heard that from the prisoner.—John Thomas, constable of St. Gluvias:—On Monday the 30th of July, I apprehended the prisoner at United Mines in Gwennap; he was working in the mine, and one of the captains went under ground and brought him up. I took him into custody and told him I apprehended him on a charge of having set fire to Mrs. Wearne’s furze stack on Saturday night last. He said, “’tis a very bad job, and I am very sorry; I was there helping to put out the fire.” I said “yes, I know you were, for I saw you there.” He said, “I was at Martin’s, making hay, and after we had done, we went into the public-house and had some drink; I then went to Catherine Andrew’s house with others, and remained there from about 7 o’clock, till I heard the alarm of fire.” I said “if that’s true, I’ve got the wrong man; for the man at the rick says you were at the public-house at half-past 9.” He said “I was at Catherine Andrew’s house from about 7 o’clock; I am sure nobody ever seed (sic) me do it.” We then went to the changing-house, or barracks, about a quarter of a mile from the shaft where I took him into custody, and he said, “I wouldn’t for £20 this had happened; if I lose the day, shall I be transported?” I replied, that I had nothing to say about that. He then said: ”If I get out of this, I am determined to lead a better life and go to chapel Sundays.”—By the Judge:—I have known the lad for years; he was born in our village; for some years he was employed by a man on the roads, who is a strict temperate man and brought up all his lad in that way; but since he has been to the mine, I believe he has fallen away.—Henry Coomb, inspector of police at Gwennap. On Monday, the 30th July, I received the prisoner into custody from Mr. Thomas the constable. I took him towards the lock-up at Redruth. On the road, the prisoner said, “I thought what was up to-day, when the captain came down for me; and when I came up, and saw Mr. Thomas, I said it was a bad job, but nobody saw me set the place on fire; is there no one taken up but me?” I said “yes; Bishop.” He said, “if any one saw me do it, they may say so.”—John Guy, policeman at Gwennap:—On the 30th July, during part of the night I was at the lock-up in charge of the prisoner and of Bishop, who were locked up in separate cells. I heard a conversation between them. Bishop asked prisoner what sort of a place he had in there; and prisoner replied, nothing but boards to lie on, and a stone step for a pillow. Prater said to Bishop, “do you know where we are going to be taken to-morrow morning?” and Bishop said no. Prater said “we are going to be taken to Tregullow, before Mr. Williams, and mind what you say, that we may be both in the same story.” Bishop said he should tell nothing but the truth, and his mother would clear him. Bishop also told Prater that what was against him (Prater) was that one of Mr. Lanyon’s men saw him near the place. To which the prisoner replied that he, Musgrove, would swear any thing for £20, and that he (Prater) had not the same clothes on then that he had now.— The Prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrate was then put in. In it the prisoner stated that he was in the public-house and heard the people crying fire and went out to help carry water. James Andrew was with me all the evening at his own house till I heard the cry of fire.—At the close of the case for the prosecution, Thomas Lavin offered to give evidence of prisoner’s good character, and the COURT allowed him to do so. He stated that he was a contractor for small jobs of work on the Turnpike Road, and employed some men and boys. The prisoner had worked with him about seven years, and had always conducted himself as a good boy all the time he was with him. The prisoner came to him very young, without a father, and witness had behaved to him as he would to his own child. Prisoner had left him about two or three months.—The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY, but recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of his previously good character.—In passing sentence, the learned JUDGE said the offence which the prisoner had committed rendered him liable to penal servitude; but because of the jury’s recommendation, and of his previous good character, he should leniently sentence him to only a long term of imprisonment, in the hope that when he was liberated he would carry into effect the determination he had expressed to lead a better life and go to a place of worship on Sundays. His lordship then passed sentence of nine months hard labour. ANOTHER CASE OF BIGAMY. ZACHARIAS SYMONS, farmer, aged 39 was indicted for feloniously marrying at Swansea, on the 2nd of October, 1859, one Fanny Webb, spinster, his former wife being still alive.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; Mr. Carter the defence.—Alfred Hipwood Jarrett, superintendent of police for the Truro district, produced a certificate which he had obtained at the Superintendent Registrar’s Office, St. Austell, of the marriage of Zacharias Symons, aged 26 years, potato-dealer, resident at Carhayes, with Maria Pound, aged 20 years, spinster, also resident at Carhayes on the 8th of September, 1846; married at the Registry Office, before William Harris, Superintendent.—Mr. Jarrett also produced, from the Superintendent Registrar’s Office, at Swansea, a certificate of marriage solemnized on the 2nd of October, 1859, at Swansea, between Zacharias Symons, bachelor, butcher, aged 32, with Fanny Webb, aged 24, spinster.—Cross-examined.—I took Symons into custody on the 23rd of July last, at a place called Tippett’s Shop, in the parish of Veryan; I believe he returned to Cornwall in October. The prosecution was set in motion by the first wife. I apprehended him about 1½ miles from his farm.—By the Court:—The first wife resides at prisoner’s farm.—Walter Pound, the elder, an old man and very deaf, deposed:—I know the prisoner; he married my daughter in 1846; I set them on a farm and gave them some money and stock, and they lived together on the farm some 8 or 9 years and had 6 children. Last harvest time I heard that Symons was going to Australia; and I went to him in the harvest field and he told me he was going, and said he could not live comfortably at home. He went away and was wanting about 5 or 6 weeks; I don’t know where he went.—By the Court:—He and his wife lived together up to that time.—George Lee, cooper, living at Plymouth:—I was present at the prisoner’s marriage with Miss Pound at the Registry Office, in 1846, and was one of the attesting witnesses. I knew him before and have known him since; and I have seen his wife this day. Cross-examined:—I did not see him after 1850, until now; but I am quite sure the prisoner is the man.—Walter Pound, junior:—I know the prisoner; he married my sister in 1846, and they lived together as man and wife till last September. I did not see them married, but I have heard him several times talk of having married my sister, and last April month, he showed me the certificate of marriage.—Cross-examined:—He did not say whether it was a happy event or otherwise (laughter). I heard him say they did not live very comfortably together; he said that once or twice shortly before he left in September last. He never said my sister was a little violent in temper, or fond of using hard words; I suppose she is like other women (laughter).—Mary Webb, a married woman from Swansea: I was present on the 2nd of October last at the marriage of the prisoner with Fanny Webb, my sister- in-law, and I was one of the attesting witnesses. They lived together in my house three weeks after the marriage. One day he came to me and asked if I would take a £5 note from him and swear that he was not married to Fanny Webb. I said I would do no such thing.—Cross-examined. Fanny Webb was in my house six weeks before he came; I went with her to meet him at the Packet. We expected him a fortnight before he came; she told me he was living with his father and brothers; but I never heard anything about a Mrs. Symonds.—Mr. CARTER addressed the Jury, in defence, suggesting that there were doubts as to the proof of the identity of the prisoner with the person married; and that, in regard to the second wife, there were circumstances in mitigation.—The jury found a verdict of GUILTY:—In passing sentence the learned JUDGE said:—You have been convicted of bigamy—once a capital offence, and it still renders a person liable to very serious punishment—to a long period of penal servitude. In your case you seem to have behaved extremely ill to the woman who is now prosecuting. Having lived with her many years and had six children, you, on an allegation that I must assume not to have any foundation, leave her, having previously it seems co-habited with Fanny Webb, and you go to Swansea and marry Fanny Webb. The injury done to the first wife is this:—she has six children, and her children are legitimate; but in process of time, confusion may arise, and in after years these children may not be provided with that evidence of legitimacy which is now available; and they may be reckoned as illegitimate, while the children of Fanny Webb may pass for legitimate. The injury you have done the first wife is serious. That to the second wife is not serious; she says in her deposition that she had one child by you, and therefore there can be no doubt you must have co-habited with her before marriage. You do not therefore appear to have used the pretence of marriage for the purpose of imposing on her. There is some mitigation of your conduct to that extent; but at the same time, for a man to leave a wife and six children with whom he had been living so long and get married to a woman with whom he had previously cohabited is undoubtedly a very serious offence.—The learned JUDGE then passed sentence, Nine Months hard labour. A SINGULAR TERMINATION TO A CASE. JAMES WENMOUTH, 16, wheelwright’s apprentice, was indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling house of Samuel Clements, his master, at Antony, on the 11th July, with intent to steal divers goods and chattels therein.—Mr. Prideaux conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—Samuel Clements:—I am a carpenter, and also keep a grocer’s shop. In July last, the prisoner was an apprentice of mine. My grocer’s shop is under the same roof as the other part of my house, connected with it by a passage; I can go into the shop without going outside the house. In the morning of the 11th of July I was induced to conceal myself in the grocer’s shop; I went in and then closed the door after me; this was about half-past 6 in the morning. While I was in the shop, my apprentice, the prisoner, burst open the door and came into the shop where I was; there was a French latch lock, and he burst it open. When he entered the shop, he held the door in his hand and looked around; I stood behind the door, thinking he would let it fall back; but he closed the door, thinking he would let it fall back; but he closed the door, and then saw me. I asked him where he was going, and what business he had there. He said he was going for a bit of tobacco. I said “you know you have no business here for tobacco or any thing else; this is not the first time you have been here; you have been here many times.” He said he never had been there but twice before. I said “you have taken money have you not?” He said he had. “To what amount?” I said. He said, “the first time I took 2s. 6d., a two-shilling piece, and a sixpence; and the next time two shillings out of a purse.” I said “what did you take the next time?” He said two or three shillings, he did not know which. I said that’s not all you have taken—you have taken many pounds from here. He then began to cry and begged for forgiveness. I said I cannot forgive you—you have robbed me of so many pounds—I must give you in charge of the Police.—I did give him in charge the same day. I kept my till in the shop; small sums were left there at night; but the large amounts were taken up stairs.—John Bone, police-constable:—The last witness gave the prisoner into my custody. Whilst he was in my custody, he voluntarily made a statement to me. He said, “I have done it and am very sorry for it, but it cannot be helped now; what money I have taken I cannot say.” Afterwards, when I was conveying him to the lock-up, he said “what tempted me to take money from my master was seeing other young chaps having money, and I had none to spend; master says I have taken £5, but I don’t think it is £3 I have taken; I did not take any thing that day when master was behind the door.”—Mr. COLE, for the defence addressed some observations to the Court on a point of law; and on its being ruled against him, the learned Counsel, to the jury, said he should be doing wrong to occupy their time, as he could offer no defence on the facts of the case; but he hoped his lordship would take into consideration the youth of the prisoner and other circumstances, in mitigation of punishment.—The learned Judge then summed up, instructing the jury that as he had ruled that, in point of law, the breaking which had been proved was sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute, the only question for the Jury was as to the intent with which the boy entered the shop.—The Jury immediately returned a verdict of GUILTY. Mr. PRIDEAUX, the Counsel for the Prosecution, here rose and addressing his lordship said he had some misgivings whether this was a case of felony; and, though engaged for the prosecution, he felt it was his duty to draw his lordship’s attention to it.—His LORDSHIP, looking to the indictment, said it charged the prisoner with felony; whereas there could be no doubt that the intent to commit a felony was a misdemeanour. Mr. Prideaux had looked at the indictment, and Mr. Cole had not.—Mr. COLE said he certainly had not; he assumed that the indictment was properly drawn; he had himself drawn indictments in similar cases, and had always drawn them as for misdemeanour.—The learned JUDGE retired for consultation with Baron Channell; and, on his return, his lordship said he was clearly of opinion, and his Brother Channell quite concurred, that in this case the indictment was not sustained, and (Mr. Cole moving in arrest of judgment) his lordship held that the objection which had been very properly submitted by Mr. Prideaux was a good one, and judgment must be respited. Then, addressing the prisoner, His Lordship said:—In consequence of a mere slip, by the officer who drew this indictment, the judgment in this case, although the jury have found you guilty, must be arrested, on a point of law which was most properly suggested by the learned counsel for the prosecution who, having looked at the indictment, found it was open to that objection. On this technical objection you escape. Although the jury have convicted you, this point of law has saved you for a time. But if ever you appear again before a court of justice, this conviction will be remembered against you. Take warning by what has occurred. You are young; but if this conviction had prevailed against you, your character would have been gone for the remainder of your life. You have escaped that; and if you take warning from it, what has now happened may be the best thing that could have happened for you. If you do not take warning, it will be the greatest misfortune you could undergo. If you persist in the course you have adopted, and don’t become a good boy, you will yet be subject to severe punishments. Be warned.—You are now discharged. HOUSEBREAKING AND ROBBERY. HENRY COUCH, a sailor, aged 43, was indicted for breaking into the dwelling-house of John May, at St. Stephens by Saltash, on the 9th July, and stealing a shilling and a farthing, the property of the said John May.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Eliza May, wife of the prosecutor, said she lived at Stockaton Lodge, in the parish of St. Stephens by Saltash. About 5 minutes past one o’clock on the 9th July, I left my house, locking the door and putting the key in my pocket, and leaving the house fast in every respect. I was absent about a quarter of an hour, and on my return I found the door open a few inches; I put it father open and heard a noise inside. I called out “who’s here? What are you doing?” On that a man—the prisoner—came forward to the door. I said to him “you vagabond, you have broken into my house.” He made no reply. I ran a little way back and called for assistance. Upon that, the prisoner looked out at the door, and I again saw his face. He then went back again into the house for about a minute and then came out, and went away through the large gate, and I did not see him again till the police had taken him. I went into the house and found the bed-room door broken open—one drawer taken out of the chest of drawers, and a shilling, a farthing, and a small box taken from the chest of drawers. I had seen the money there about 9 o’clock in the morning of that day. The bolt of the bed-room door was broken out.— William Sargent, shop-keeper at St. Stephens, about 1½ miles from the prosecutor’s house. On the day of the robbery, the prisoner came to my shop between 12 and 1 o’clock, and asked for half an ounce of tobacco, and also bought a little cheese, biscuits, and a halfpenny box of matches. He gave me a shilling in payment and I have him 7d. change.—Nicholas Trenerry, police constable:—I apprehended prisoner at Buraton, in St. Stephens by Saltash, about 3 o’clock in the afternoon of the 9th of July, and charged him with having broken open the house at Stockaton. He denied it. As I was taking him to the station he threw away three keys; which I produce; I also produce two other keys which I found in his pocket, and another lot of keys attached to a line, which I found near the Lodge at Stockaton; with one of these keys the door had been wrenched open. I also found seven-pence upon him. Verdict GUILTY.—The learned JUDGE said there could be no doubt that the prisoner was a professed house-breaker, and sentenced him to twelve months’ hard labour.—On receiving sentence, the prisoner said:—I hope you’ll stand there on your head, till I come back. This concluded the business in this Court, and the jury were discharged with the thanks of the country for their services. ______SATURDAY, AUGUST 4. (Before Mr. Baron Channell) JAMES MUTTON, 19, labourer, was charged with the commission of an unnatural offence at St. Stephens by Saltash, on the 18th of July. Mr. HOLDSWORTH prosecuted. The offence was proved by P.C. Nicholas Trenery, but the details were totally unfit for publication. While the witness was giving his evidence, The JUDGE said—Why did you not call out to the prisoner when you saw what was going on? Understand that you are to detect offences, but it is also your duty to prevent their commission if possible. TRENERY replied that he went towards the hedge of the field in which the prisoner was, with that view, but when he got there, the offence had been completed. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY of the attempt to commit the offence, and his lordship sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment at hard labour. JOSEPH SECCOMBE, an old man, who had been out on bail, was charged with a similar offence at St. Agnes, on the 13th June, the only difference being that the offence was proved by a married woman named Caroline Lawry. Mr. COLE prosecuted. The prisoner denied the offence, and called John Gowing, who stated that in a conversation he had with Caroline Lawry, in the afternoon of the 13th June, after the offence was alleged to have been committed, she stated that she “believed” the prisoner had committed the offence. Mrs. Lawry, however, on being recalled, denied that she had ever used the word “believed,” or expressed any doubt upon the subject. The Foreman of the jury in announcing their verdict, said they had had some difficulty in coming to a conclusion. The difficulty had arisen chiefly on the evidence of the witness, Caroline Lawry, and they had come to the conclusion to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and to find him NOT GUILTY. CHARGE OF INDECENT ASSAULT. WILLIAM HAWKEY, an elderly man, who had been out on bail, was charged with assaulting Ellen Trudgan, an infant under ten years of age, with intent, &c., at St. Stephens in Branwell, on the 14th of July. A second count charged him with an indecent assault, and a third with a common assault. Mr. Gully prosecuted, and Mr. Cole defended the prisoner. The child was only six years of age, and the prisoner was caught, as was alleged, in the commission of the offence, by the child’s mother. An attempt was made by the learned counsel to save the court the disgusting details of the case, by inducing the prisoner to plead guilty to the second count of the indictment, but he declined to do so, and Mr. Cole said he understood the prisoner was a half-witted person, and considerable difficulty had been experienced with him. The Judge intimated to Mr. Cole that he need not trouble himself respecting the first count in the indictment, as the evidence did not support the charge in the first count. Mr. Cole urged that the prisoner was merely playing with the child, and that the present charge had been got up owing to a bad feeling which existed between the prisoner’s wife and Mrs. Trudgan. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. ASSAULT AT MAKER. ADAM SUTLIFF, 23, was charged with having, on the 16th July, violently assaulted Charlotte Andrews, at Maker, with intent, &c. A second count charged the prisoner with an indecent assault, and with inflicting grievous bodily injury on the prosecutrix. Mr. Cox prosecuted. Mr. COX, in stating the case, said that it was one of the most serious charges of violence on an unprotected girl that he ever recollected in the whole course of his experience. The prisoner was a private in the 10th Regiment of Foot, and was stationed at Maker Barracks, at the time the offence was committed, and the only question was—was the prisoner the man who had committed it? Soldiers were dressed alike, and it was difficult to identify them in consequence, but in this instance he thought the evidence would leave no doubt on the mind of the jury that the prisoner was the guilty person. The Prosecutrix, a respectable looking young women (sic), who said she lived in Richmond-street, Plymouth, and who was deeply affected while giving her evidence, then described the particulars of the attack made on her by the prisoner, which occurred while she was returning from her sister’s through Mount Edgenmb (sic) Park, on Monday evening, the 16th of July. From her statement, his conduct had been of the most insolent and brutal character. He first seized her by the throat and dashed her to the ground, and during the struggles which ensued, he repeatedly attempted to stifle her cries with his hands, fists, and pocket handkerchief, beat her with his fists on the face and body, and actually bit her. He was an entire stranger to her, but his identity was clearly proved. Corroborative evidence was given and the jury almost immediately found the prisoner GUILTY. The JUDGE, in sentencing the prisoner, said that he had great reason to be thankful that the prosecutrix had resisted his attempt with such determined courage and resolution; as, had she not done so, he would probably have succeeded, in which case, he should have sentenced him to a very severe punishment. As it was, he should pass upon him the severest sentence the law allowed, which was two years’ Imprisonment at hard labour. FOWL STEALING AT STOKECLIMSLAND. WATER (sic) GARTRELL, 53, and JOHN DAVEY, 22, were charged with having, on the 22nd of July, at Stoke Climsland, broken into a building within a courtlage, and stolen three fowls, the property of Edward Rouse. A second court (sic) charged Gartrell with feloniously receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Gurney prosecuted. Mr. Rouse stated that he is a carpenter, at Stokeclimsland, and on the evening of the 21st July, he had three fowls, two hens and a cock—in a cowhouse, in his courtlage. The fowls were peculiarly marked, the hens being light speckled, and the cock having some red feathers in its tail. The floor of the cow-house was unpaved and soft, and he found the footmarks of two persons there and outside, together with some feathers belonging to the fowls, and he was able to trace both footmarks and feathers to within a short distance of Gartrell’s house. He informed a police officer, and a search warrant was obtained, and Gartrell’s house was searched. Part of a meat pie, some bones, several of which were much burnt, and a quantity of feathers exactly similar to those of the fowls, were found on the premises; and Davey, who is step-son of the other prisoner, happening to be present, one of his shoes was compared with the foot print in the cow house, and found to correspond exactly. Davey had formerly been in prosecutor’s employ, and was acquainted with his premises. Mr. Richard Rundle, farmer, living at North Downs, in Stokeclimsland, deposed that the prisoner, Davey, was in his service, but on the night of the 21st July, he did not sleep at his house, nor did he dine there on the Sunday, next day, although witness invited him to do so. Mr. Davey stated that when he came to Mr. Rundle’s house, he found the family had gone to bed, and not wishing to disturb them, he had gone elsewhere. P.C. Bethson deposed to comparing Davey’s boot with the footmark in the fowl house, and to their exact correspondence. He produced some of the feathers found in Gartrell’s house, and some of those picked up in the cowshed. They were similar in marking and appearance. Inspector Fleet, of the county constabulary, also produced about 20 pieces of bone, some of which had been much burnt, which he had found in an ashpile near Gartrell’s house. Another officer deposed that he saw Davey and another man walking from Stokeclimsland in the direction of the prosecutor’s and Gartrell’s houses, late on the night of the 21st of July. Mr. Parsons, veterinary surgeon of Launceston, said that he was acquainted with the bones of birds and animals, He had examined the bones in the pie, and those found in the ashpit at Gartrell’s. The pie was a rabbit pie, but the whole of the bones produced by Inspector Fleet were fowl bones. The Jury acquitted Gartrell, and found Davey GUILTY, and he was sentenced to One Month’s Hard Labour. SENTENCES. MARY ANN WILLIAMS, who had pleaded guilty on the previous day in the other court, to maliciously setting fire to farm buildings at Stokeclimsland, in the possession of Maria Richards and Thomas Davey, was then called up for sentence. The JUDGE said that it appeared from her confession to the police, that she had set fire to the building out of revenge for a boy, who was related to one of the prosecutors, having thrown a stone at her. The sentence that he should pass upon her was, that she be imprisoned for one month, and that at the expiration of that term, she be removed to a reformatory school which he should afterwards name to the officer of the court for the period of four years. There she would be properly trained and brought up, and be afforded the opportunity of reforming. She would also receive such instruction as would enable her to occupy a respectable situation in society, should she desire to avail herself of it. He passed the latter part of the sentence upon her not as a punishment, but for her own benefit. WILLIAM MUNDAY, the younger, who had on Friday, pleaded guilty to having at Redruth, feloniously stolen a post letter, also to having stolen a bill of exchange out of the letter; and lastly, to having forged the acceptance to the same; was next called upon for sentence. The Judge said that had the offence of which the prisoner had pleaded guilty been confined to the stealing of the bill of exchange and the forgery of the acceptance, he should have felt some difficulty in sentencing the prisoner, because two parties who had been indicted with him for these offences had been acquitted by the jury. But the prisoner was the person who went to the post office and obtained the letter; he went and pretended that he had authority to receive it, when he had no such authority; and he obtained it under circumstances which supported the charge that he had stolen it; and he was also led to believe that after the tradesman had cashed the bill, the prisoner received a large portion of the money. Had he not gone to the post-office and obtained the letter by this false and fraudulent representation, the other offences would never have occurred. The sentence he should pass upon the prisoner was six months’ imprisonment with hard labour for stealing the letter from the post office, and a fortnight’s hard labour for stealing the bill of exchange and the forgery, the latter to commence at the termination of the former sentence. This concluded the business of the assizes, the shortest, we believe, on record for the county of Cornwall, and the Court rose shortly before two o’clock. The judges left Bodmin shortly after four o’clock, and proceeded by the 5.5 mail train to open the assizes for Somersetshire.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 19 and 26 October 1860

6. Michaelmas Sessions These Sessions opened at the County Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday, the 16th instant, before the following magistrates:— Chairmen:—J. J ROGERS, Esq., M.P., presiding; Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart.; C. B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq. Lord Vivian. F. M. Williams, Esq. Lord Valletort. F. Gilbert Enys, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. J. P. Magor, Esq. J. St. Aubyn, Esq., M.P. R. G. Lakes, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. Neville Norway, Esq. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. W. F. Pearse, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. W. C. R. Potter, Esq. Colonel Cocks. Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend F. Rodd, Esq. Boscawen. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. Prebendary Lyne. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. Prebendary Tatham. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Rev. R. Buller. Edwin Ley, Esq. Rev. W. Molesworth St. W. D. Horndon, Esq. Aubyn. Harry Reginald Salusbury Rev. C. M. Edward Collins. Trelawny, Esq. Rev. U. Tonkin. J. F. Trist, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. R. B. Kinsman. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. L. M. Peter. C. G. P. Brune, Esq. Rev. J. Glencross. C. A. Reynolds, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. William Clode Braddon, Esq., of Skisdon Lodge, St. Kew, qualified as a magistrate. The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury:— Messrs. Thomas Olver, St. Mabyn, foreman, Christopher Andrew, St. Mabyn, William Alford, Advent, Edward Arnall, Lanteglos by Camelford, Philip Bastard, Tintagel, Wm. Beswetherick, Bodmin, Wm. Beare, Wadebridge, Nicholas Cleave, St. Kew, Pascoe Gard, Minster, James Hurdon, Lanteglos by Camelford, Sandy Hockin, do., John Hill, Camelford, William Harris, Blisland, William John Hawke, Bodmin, Abraham Hambly, St. Mabyn, Jonathan Kingdon, St. Kew, Silas Hiscutt Liddell, Bodmin, William Levers, do., John Menhennick, Egloshayle, Alexander Menhennick, Tintagel, Richard Northey, Advent, George Pentire Parkyn, Bodmin, Thomas Pascoe, do. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— Messrs. John Stranger Pethybridge, Bodmin, Richard Grose Pollard, Egloshayle, Edward Pollard, do., Richard Pethick, Advent, Richard Rich, Bodmin, Wm. Roge, Egloshayle, Francis Rowe, Lanteglos, Augustus Combe Sandoe, Bodmin, Nicholas Stevens, do., Richard Stevens, do., Thomas Warne, St. Mabyn. The Queen's Proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and for the prevention and punishment of vice, profaneness and immorality was then read by the Clerk of the Peace. The CHAIRMAN then delivered his Charge to the Grand Jury:— Gentlemen of the Grand Jury; it is now my duty to make some observations on the Calendar laid before you. I am happy to be able to say that, in some respects it is a rather lighter calendar than that which received your attention this time twelve months. The difference, however, is not very material. Instead of 16 felonies appearing for trial as at this time twelve-month, there are now only 11, with 3 misdemeanours and three cases of asssault (sic), making a total of 17, whereas there were 19 last year. The difference is not great, but it is satisfactory to find there is a diminution.—There is only one case on the Calendar that requires any particular remark from me. But I would say this— and it is an observation that requires to be made frequently—that very great inconvenience has again resulted from the irregularity with which the depositions are returned. In no less than 7 cases out of a calendar of 17, I have been unable to peruse the depositions, for the purpose of making any observations on them to you, and am unable to say if observations are necessary, or not.—This is not the way in which public duties should be attended to; and I must repeat what has been frequently stated here, that it will become absolutely necessary to impose a heavy penalty on magistrates' clerks for such neglect of their duty. Three of these cases that appear on the Calendar, in which depositions have not been returned are such as would probably require observations from this place; but I am unable to say whether observations would be necessary or not; and I must leave them to your discretion when the cases come before you. In one case, No. 5, that of Charles Armstrong, it is right I should make some observations, lest you should be misled by the character of the evidence. It is a case in which a number of goods having been lost, the prisoner is charged with the larceny of them. The evidence against him is mainly of a circumstantial kind. The goods were left in the custody of a person called Prust, and placed under lock and key, and they were seen safe as late as the 9th of August. They were not again seen, either by the owner or by the person in whose custody they were placed, until the 21st of August; and then, on going into the house, the person to whose custody they had been assigned found the place in confusion, and that some of the goods had been removed. He applied to the person who had taken an inventory on the 9th of August, and it was found that many of the goods named in that inventory were gone. Suspicion fell on the prisoner, and under a search warrant his house was searched, and a great many goods were found there, which were of the same sort as those lost. There is no evidence whether or not the prisoner had access to the house, or was seen about the premises; and therefore a question arose whether the evidence would be good in law. It will be useful that I inform you that, in law, the evidence is amply sufficient to warrant you in finding a Bill and sending the case down for trial by a petty jury. The case turns upon what is called presumption of guilt, arising from circumstances not directly bringing home guilt to the prisoner. He was not seen near the place, but he was found in possession of articles that had been stolen thence. The simplest words that I can find with regard to this point are those of a great authority in criminal law—that whenever the property of one man has been taken from him without his knowledge or consent, and found in the possession of another, it is incumbent on that other to prove how he came by it; otherwise, the presumption is that he obtained it feloniously. In this case the goods are found about him; and, on his being asked to allow a search of his premises, he declined to allow it, and it was not until a warrant had been made, and other steps taken, that the goods were found in his house. I think you will have little hesitation in coming to a conclusion, under the authority of that rule which I have read, that there is evidence to warrant you in sending the case down here for trial.—With regard to the general state of crime in the County, I will just state shortly that I do not find any great difference as to the number of prisoners in gaol and the number of committals during the past quarter; nor, looking into the general statistics of the country, brought down to Michaelmas 1859, do I find, on comparison with the year 1858, any material change in the character of the criminal statistics of this County. There is neither diminution nor increase, to any material extent; and so far, it is satisfactory to find that the steps that have been taken, at great cost, in this county, for the suppression of crime, have prevented any increase in proportion to the increase of population. We may take it that, if any thing, there is a slight diminution of crime in this county; and it must be a satisfaction to every one who has at heart the welfare of the people, to feel that such an observation can be made. The expense of the present police system is very great, and the expenses on the new Gaol are also very large; but we may believe, from the improvement I have noticed, that all the money is not thrown away, and we may hope for still further improvement with reference to our criminal statistics. It will be the duty of every one who has the best interests of his country at heart, to do all he can in his own sphere, to promote liberal education and by every means to prevent crime.—With regard to the County Expenditure, I am unable to state what county rates will be required for the ensuing quarter. This arises from the number of accounts that come into the County Rate, rendering it difficult to ascertain in time for to-day, what is the total of those accounts. The Police Rates, I am informed by the Chairman of the Committee, will be the same as this time last year—three farthings in the £. The accounts for the year ending Michaelmas 1860 have been carefully gone through by some magistrates who always pay particular attention to that department, and are found to be correct. The result is that for the year ending Michaelmas 1860, the County Rates levied amounted to two- pence and seven-eights of a penny; and the Police Rates were exactly the same amount; making a total of 5¾. The Police Rates include, not only the general expenses of management of the Force, but also a heavy expenditure incurred in building Station Houses. An endeavour is being made to build them out of annual income arising from the Police Rates; but if that charge became very much increased beyond its present amount, it will be necessary for this Court to consider whether a portion of it may not be provided for by loan.—It has been usual at this part of the year to give a short summary of the legislation in the past Session of Parliament. I will endeavour to do so now, as briefly as I can. In the first place, I must tell you what statutes have been passed relating to the administration of criminal law. Chapter 8, of the Statutes of 23rd and 24th Victoria, makes it for the first time felony to administer poison. This had been found necessary in consequence of the very great increase of murders and attempts to murder by the administering poison. It had been thought that by making the mere administering of poison felony, or in some cases misdemeanour, there would be a material sheck (sic) to such attempts to destroy life. —Cap. 27, is what is called the Wine Licenses Act. I refer to it because it is desirable that magistrates and others should know that it contains useful clauses—39 to 42—for the repression of drunkenness, by more simple measures than were previously available.—Cap. 29 makes it felony to stop the working of a mine engine. It was a short Act intended to amend an Act relative to malicious injuries to property. It was enacted, in consequence of great risk of injury having been caused by some persons taking possession of a mine-engine, stopping the engine forcibly, and thereby doing great injury not only to the engine but also to the mine, and also incidentally endangering the lives of miners. That can no longer be done; and it will be satisfactory to honest well-conducted miners to know that rough fellows cannot avail themselves, with impunity, of opportunities of doing injury both to adventurers and to industrious men.—Act 32 imposes a penalty of £5 for indecent behaviour in a Church by any layman; instead of such offence being cognizable, as previously, only by an ecclesiastical court. I hope this act will never be found necessary in this County; for I do not remember any case of the kind occurring in Cornwall.—Cap. 75 is an act to make better provision for the custody and care of criminal lunatics. It is an important Act. Frequent complaints had been made, and very justly, that no distinction was made as to the custody of criminal lunatics and those who are not criminal; and inasmuch as many who come under the class of lunatics are so far sensible as to feel very much aggrieved at being placed in immediate contact, or liable to be placed in contact, with criminals, it was thought advisable that their feelings should be consulted; and as the class of criminal lunatics has unfortunately increased of late years, it has been determined to give Her Majesty power to appoint special asylums for the custody and care of criminal lunatics. You will see how important this Act is, when I tell you that at the close of the year ending the 29th September, 1859, there were remaining in detention no less than 569 male criminal lunatics, and 160 females, making a total of 726 in detention, having been convicted of crimes. This was, of course, quite a sufficient number to want a large establishment for their separate detention; and it is to be hoped that speedy measures will be taken to carry it into effect.—Cap. 116 relates to County Coroners. By this Act, after the 1st January, 1861, in every County, the Quarter Sessions will be bound to pay the Coroners by salary instead of by fees and allowances. The salary is to be estimated on the average of the fees, mileage, and allowance paid to the Coroner during the preceding five years; with power to the Justices, in consultation with the Coroners of revising those salaries at the end of five years. Of course, steps will be taken immediately for ascertaining in what way we can best carry out this act so as to be able at the next sessions to fix the salaries for the next five years.—Cap. 135 empowers the Commissioners of Metropolitan Police to guard Her Majesty's Dockyards throughout the kingdom. It has been found more desirable to let the police, having the control of our great dockyards be attached to the Metropolitan Division, rather than to any Local Force, for many reasons which it is not necessary for me to state here. It is to be hoped that, among other benefits to be derived from this change, there will be a diminution of depredations in dock-yards may be reasonably expected.—Cap. 151 is called the Mine Inspection Act. I refer to it because there are one or two clauses at its commencement which may relate to Cornish mines. By far the larger part of the Act relates only to coal mines, or to iron mines in coal measures. But one or two clauses at the commencement relate to juvenile labour in mines, and it is desirable they should be known to the public. Under these clauses, no boy under 12 years of age can be employed in any mine except under the regulation that, in the case of a boy between 10 and 12 being employed, it shall be certified that he is able to read or write, or that his employer will guarantee that he shall be sent to school at least three hours a day for two days in each week.—These are the only Acts of Parliament of the last Session which have relation to the administration of criminal justice. But there are a few others that it may be useful to refer to. Among them, is Chapter 120—the Militia Ballot Suspension Act. I allude to it because, although it suspends the Ballot for the Militia Bill to the 1st of October, 1861, it requires that at that time vigorous steps shall be taken to put it in force. The overseers of parishes will then be called on to perform certain duties under that act. I am reminded (we believe it was by the Lord Lieutenant), that although the Ballot is suspended till October, 1861, power is reserved to Her Majesty in Council, to order recourse to the Ballot within that period.—Cap. 139 provides a new code of regulations for the manufacture and storing of gunpowder. As there are manufacturers of gunpowder in this county, it may be useful to know that in some respects the regulations are altered. In fact, it may be considered an entirely new code. Cap. 51 is an Act that provides for the collection of statistics. Under it, all clerks of Corporations or of other Bodies, who have to do with the levying of compulsory rates of any kind are required, in June annually, to return to Government a statement of all sums levied by them by means of compulsory rates. It will be very useful to collect all such details into one group, for the purpose of publishing them in a tabular form.—The CHAIRMAN concluded by requesting the jury to give prompt attention to the Bills brought before them; but, resuming, he said:—My attention has been called by the Lord Lieutenant to one Clause in the Militia Ballot Act, and with which it is very important overseers should be acquainted. I thought that the Act had reference only to next year. But it appears to have reference to the year that has now commenced. The 7th Clause of that Act requires that the overseers of every parish, within 7 days after the second Monday in September of every year,—in the year 1861 for the first time, as I understand—shall give notice in writing, in the form provided in the schedule to the act to every occupier of every dwelling-house in every parish, requiring such occupier to prepare and make out a list in writing, to the best of his belief, of the Christian and surname of every person resident in his house, between the ages of 18 and 30, distinguishing those who claim to be exempt from service in the militia and stating the grounds of such claims. These returns are to be made to the overseers, under penalty of £5 on every householder who shall omit to make the return; and the returns are to be forwarded by the overseers to the proper authorities; if they neglect to do so, they are liable to a penalty of £20, or, in case of their non- payment, to imprisonment for two months. BRIDGES. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Thos. Hickes, the Bridge Surveyor of this division, reported that since the last sessions he had had the roads at Godolphin, St. Erth, and Gwithian, put in good repair. The repairs of the other bridge roads and other work ordered at the last sessions were being done, and would be completed when the season arrived for laying on the stone. Bissoe.—The road required forming and stoning, the cost of which he estimated at £3 5s.—Bolingey.—The road on the western side of the bridge required forming and stoning, and would cost £2 15s. There were also some repairs wanting to the guard wall, which would cost about 12s.—Lower Carnon.—This road would require stoning, the estimated cost of which was £4 5s. This Report was adopted. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. S. W. Jenkin, the Bridge Surveyor of this division, presented the following report:—Lostwithiel Bridge.—The alterations in the western end of this bridge ordered by the sessions have not yet been carried out.—House Bridge.—l have to apply for a grant of 11s. 3d. for the cost of the temporary fencing, whilst repairing the road after a flood at this bridge. Frekerner Bridge.—Some repairs are required to the cut-waters of this bridge, the cost of which will be about £2. Some trifling repairs are required to Berrow Killa Mill, Callington New Bridge, Pillaton, and Notter Bridges, the cost of which will be about £2. Special Report on Sowden's Bridge.—l beg to present a plan and section of an alteration of the road at Sowden's Bridge, which will very much improve it, and lessen the danger of the present eastern approach. The cost of this alteration will not, I think, exceed £50.—Mr. Jenkins afterwards reported that he should require two levies. Mr. JENKINS made a statement to the Bench, explanatory of his non-compliance with an order of last Sessions for making certain alterations at the western end of Lostwithiel Bridge. It appeared that he had yielded to the opinion of some influential inhabitants of the town, who feared that the proposed closing of the western-most arch would dangerously lessen the water-way; and, after some discussion, in which Lord Vivian, Mr. Carew, Mr. Kendall, Sir Colman Rashleigh, and Mr E Coode, jun., took part, it was resolved to quash the order of last Sessions. With reference to Sowden's Bridge, Mr. JENKINS presented a special report, accompanied by plans.—The Rev. R. BULLER withdrew his notice on the Agenda—to bring the state of the eastern approach of Sowden's Bridge before the Court, with a view to its being altered, and gave notice that at the next Epiphany Sessions he will apply for a grant of £50 for the proposed improvement. The Bridge is situated between Pelynt and Duloe, and the eastern approach was stated to be inconvenient and dangerous, in its width and its gradient. With the exception of the portion referring to Lostwithiel Bridge, Mr. Jenkins’ Report was received and adopted. CORONERS' BILLS. The CHAIRMAN stated that the Coroners Bills for the past Quarter were as follows:— £ s. d. Mr. Carlyon's, for 20 inquests 76 8 10 Mr. Hamley's, 12 “ 44 15 11 Mr. Hichens's, 26 “ 86 7 4 Mr. Good's, 12 “ 48 17 6 Mr. Jago's 12 “ 39 13 3 82 296 2 10 For the corresponding quarter in 1858, the total was 373l. 14s. 0d.; and in 1859, 316l. 0s. 1d. Last year, the number of inquests was 92; so that this year there had been a decrease of 10. THE COUNTY GAOL. The CHAIRMAN read the following REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEE:— "The Visiting Committee of the County Gaol beg to report most favourably as to its efficiency, so far as its unfinished state will permit. The health and discipline of the prisoners during the last quarter have been most satisfactory.—The Governor having stated that it was most desirable that the Female Warders should have a Uniform Dress, the Visiting Committee beg to recommend that it be adopted, at the estimated expense, viz., not exceeding 20l.—The Committee beg to submit and recommend for adoption Mr. Bray's estimate for cells in the Hall, and Mr. Philp's estimate for drains.—The Committee recommend the payment of £20 to the executors of the late Robert Edyvean, Esq., as recompense for damage done in the construction of a reservoir for the conveyance of water to the County Gaol.—The Committee have to report the death of the Head Warder, Thomas Dungey, who for more than 40 years was a most faithful and energetic officer.—The Committee ask the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions to permit them to make temporary arrangements till the gaol is completed, when they hope to submit a scheme for the better regulation thereof. Signed:—N. Kendall, chairman; Neville Norway; C. M. Edward Collins; C. B. Graves Sawle." Some discussion took place on the proposed uniform dresses for the four Female Warders.—Mr. KENDALL, the Chairman of the committee, said the adoption of the proposal would involve an annual cost of £20, and the committee, not having a very strong opinion on it, did not press it on the Court.—Mr. COLVILLE, the Governor, replying to questions from the Bench, strongly urged the propriety of adopting a uniform for the Female Warders. He said, a uniform was more necessary for Female Warders than for Male Warders; and he had witnessed good effects of the plan in the Westminster and other prisons. Though for the first year, the cost of uniform dresses for the four Female Warders would be £20, in following years it would not be so much, as the capes and some other articles would last three years.—Mr. SAWLE concurred in the opinion expressed by the Governor that it was at least equally desirable for the Female Warders to wear a uniform, as it was for the Male Warders, who had for some years been provided with uniforms at the expense of the County, and without deduction from their salaries.—The Rev. C. M. E. COLLINS spoke in approval of the suggestion, as did also the Rev. R. BULLER.—It was disapproved by Mr. LE GRICE, and, more strongly, by Mr. CAREW, who said he could see no ground for the proposal of what was, in effect, an addition of £20 to the salaries of the Female Warders. At all events, after the dresses had been once provided, he thought the warders might be required to renew them at their own cost.—Mr. COODE, junr. also suggested that it might be made a condition of the Warders' service that they should, in the prison, wear such a dress as was suggested, at their own expense.—Rev. Mr. COLLINS said his suggestion was discussed in committee, and, for himself, he saw no objection to it; but it was considered that if the County provided the dresses, it would have an advantageous control in providing suitable dresses.—Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH thought it would be unfair to call upon the female warders to pay for dresses which they would wear, probably against their inclination, at the requirement of the County.—Mr. CAREW. moved that a grant of £20 be made for the present year, but with a clear understanding that afterwards the female warders provide the dresses themselves.—This motion having been seconded, some further discussion was followed by an amendment, moved by Mr. KENDALL, and seconded by Mr. RODD, that the subject be referred to the Gaol Committee; and, on a Division the amendment was carried by a majority of 17 to 8. The Visiting Justices Report, with the exception of the recommendation concerning dresses for Female Warders, was then received and adopted. —The Chairman next read the following REPORT FROM THE GOVERNOR:— "Cornwall County Gaol and House of Correction, Bodmin, October 16th, 1860. " To the Worshipful the Chairman and other magistrates of the County of Cornwall assembled at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace holden this day at Bodmin: "My Lords and Gentlemen, "As regards the gaol particularly, nothing has occurred since the last General Quarter Sessions that needs, I consider, any special remark.—The conduct of the prisoners, with very few exceptions, has been good and orderly.—It appears from the Prison Register that the number of Committals during the past year nearly coincides with that ending Michaelmas, 1859, viz.—Number of Prisoners committed in the year ending 29th Sept., 1859:—574 criminals, 160 debtors; total, 734.—No. of Prisoners committed in the year ending 29th Sept., 1860; 648 criminals, 90 debtors; total, 738; shewing an increase of 74 criminals, and a decrease of 70 debtors.—l regret to have to report the death on the 11th instant, of the Chief Warder, Mr. Thomas Dungey. He was an old and faithful servant, who for 41 years filled the office, and whose antecedents are too well known to the magistrates to need any remark from me.—l beg to attach the usual certificates required of me, and have the honour to remain, My Lords and Gentlemen, Your most obedient servant, H. G. COLVILLE, Governor of the Cornwall County Prison. The Certificates testified that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with; and that the buildings of the prison are in good order. The Report was received and adopted. —The Annual Reports from the Chaplain and Surgeon to the Gaol were next read by the CHAIRMAN, and adopted. We shall publish them next week. GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE PAST QUARTER.—The CHAIRMAN stated that in the corresponding quarter last year the expenditure was £820 1s. 1d. This year it had been £803 0s. 4d., the principal items being:— Subsistence £231 11 10 Clothing 13 17 4 Bedding 15 1 0 Fuel 34 16 4 Sundries 121 4 2 Salaries 320 7 6 There were credit entries £58 10s. for cost received for subsistence of military prisoners; and £15 10s. in respect of alterations and repairs. Expenses on account of the new Gaol, £115 16s. 2d. Hall Expenses, £9 7s. 9d. THE LATE GOVERNOR’S RETIRNNG ALLOWANCE. The CHAIRMAN said that a memorial had been placed in his hands from Mr. Everest, the late governor of the county gaol, which he would now read, if the Court desired him. It was the memorial of John Bentham Everest to Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the County of Cornwall, in Quarter Sessions assembled, and was as follows:— HUMBLY SHEWETH,—That in the year 1828 your memorialist was, on the recommendation of the Home Department, appointed Governor of the Cornwall County Gaol, at a salary of £400 per annum, with a residence and other valuable emoluments. At the expiration of the first four years, your memorialist had effected a saving of £6,750, as compared with the expenditure of the previous four years; and so satisfied were the magistrates with this result and with the services of your memorialist in all respects, that they presented him with a service of plate of the value of £100;—thus showing that his remuneration was not at that time considered to be excessive, or even equal to his deserts. In the early part of the present year your memorialist found himself unable, from advanced age and infirmity, to perform his duties with comfort to himself or advantage to the County, and in April last he resigned his office in the full assurance that thirty-two years of faithful service, during which he had saved, on the most moderate computation, £50,000 to the County, would have been rewarded with a liberal retiring allowance. For the first time, however, since he became connected with the county, he has been subjected to mortification and grievous disappointment, the pension awarded to him being only two-fifths of his salary and emoluments, instead of the two-thirds authorized by law, and almost invariably granted to efficient officers. Notwithstanding the flattering compliments which were passed on the memorialist by the gentlemen who proposed and awarded to him the reduced amount of pension, he cannot but feel that he lies under the stigma of being classed among those retiring officers who had been deemed unworthy of the highest reward. The memorialist submits that the Legislature, in assimilating the law regulating the superannuation of prison officers to that applicable to civil servants of the Crown, must have intended to establish similarity of practice. As respects the civil service, the practice is to award special pensions for special services, as provided for in the 4 and 5 Wm. IV., c. 24, which act, by the 5 and 6 Vict., c. 98, s. 30, is made applicable to prison officers—to grant the maximum retired allowance (subject to certain regulations laid down by a Treasury minute) in all ordinary cases of faithful and efficient service—and to grant a reduced amount in those instances only in which there has been dereliction of duty or other misconduct. Without entering upon the question whether his services have been of so special a nature as to entitle him to a special pension, the memorialist feels very strongly that he has, at all events, fairly established his claim to the maximum amount of pension assigned by the statute. With the view of ascertaining what has been the practice as regards the superannuation allowances to prison officers since the passing of the statute 5 and 6 Vict., c. 98 the memorialist has procured information which is appended to this memorial, and to which he respectfully calls attention. This return shows that of twenty-three governors and two chaplains that have retired, one received a pension, although his length of service did not entitle him to one; eight received a larger amount than the law authorises; ten received the full amount. It would thus appear that the administration of the Superannuation Act by the various local authorities who have had occasion to act upon it, is upon the whole, even more liberal than in civil service, and that the case of the memoralist (sic) is unprecedented. He trusts however, that his long services may yet be rewarded to the extent authorized by law, and in the same spirit of liberality which has been shown towards the governors of other prisons, to two of whom, viz: those of Kirkdale and Warwick, the memorialist would more particularly refer. The former was, in the first instance, awarded a reduced rate of pension; but on appeal to the next court of quarter sessions, the decision was reversed and the full amount granted. The latter, whose case is analogous in respect of the amount of salary and length of service to that of the memoralist, has very recently retired on two-thirds of his salary and emoluments. It is most humiliating and distressing to the memorialist, after faithfully having done his duty to the county, to be compelled to present himself in this public manner as a humble suppliant for justice; but he feels that a due regard for his own character and legitimate claims, leaves no other course open to him than to appeal respectfully against the award which is the subject of this memorial, and to pray that under the circumstances which he has stated, his case may be reconsidered with a view to the grant of a pension more adequate to the nature and length of his services, and more in accordance with the principles on which the Superannuation Law is usually administered both in the civil and prison departments. J. B. EVEREST. Bodmin, October, 1860. Appended to the memorial was a list of 23 governors and two chaplains who had been superannuated since the passing of the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, cap. 98, with the retiring allowances granted them, from which it appeared that in 13 of the cases the full amount allowed by the act, including the emoluments, had been granted, while in six of the 12 other cases the allowances were above, and in six below the maximum amounts. In the case of one of the officers, the Governor of Kirkdale, a reduced amount of pension was awarded in the first instance, but on appeal to the next Court of Quarter Sessions, the decision was reversed, and the full amount granted. Captain HEXT—As the oldest magistrate now present, and as I was one of the visiting committee of the gaol soon after Mr. Everest came into the office of governor, I am able to speak of the early services which he rendered to the county, and which, I believe, are very imperfectly known to the magistrates present. When he first took charge of the gaol, the prisoners were confined in two large yards—those who were for trial being confined in one large room on one side, and those who had passed sentence being in another large room on the other side. In one of these yards was a cesspool, which received the contents of all the sewers and drains of the prisons. This cesspool was sometimes opened and cleaned out. The prisoners slept three in one cell, and they were so disorderly that at times the warders were afraid to go amongst them, and more than once the staff of the militia had to be called out to quell their riots. Under such circumstances, the prison was very unhealthy; ulcers and other diseases were common; the prison was generally full, and the prisoners were seldom free from fever. This was the state of things when Mr. Everest came and took charge of the prison. By his resolution, he soon overawed the refractory prisoners, and he commenced his improvements. He removed the cesspool, flushed the drains with a plentiful supply of water, and introduced a complete reform of the establishment. He divided each ward into several compartments, giving to each class of prisoners a separate day-room. He pulled down the cells where three had been in the habit of sleeping together, and by degrees he gave a separate cell to each; and in addition, it was through his efforts that the excellent arrangements for washing and drying for the prison were carried out. In fact, he introduced valuable reforms in every department; and these important changes and improvements were carried out by degrees, and with the utmost economy. The prisoners who were smiths, carpenters, or labourers, he employed to assist in carrying out the work; and upon the same principle he soon employed all who were able to work—shoemakers, tailors, and needlewomen, and adopted every plan that he considered was calculated to promote the efficiency of the establishment and economise the expenses. While this work was in progress, the expenses of the gaol were much below what they were before he commenced his reforms; and the consequence was, that instead of the prison being a scene of constant disorder and contention, it became remarkable for order, discipline, and cleanliness. He watched the purchases that were made on account of the gaol most narrowly, looking closely not only after the amounts that were paid for them, but the quality of the articles also. When I state that Mr. Everest did all this, l am merely doing bare justice. All the improvements were of his suggesting, and they were all carried out under his direction and superintendence. In consequence of his improvements the general health of the prisoners became excellent, and there was seldom a single case in the hospital. I will now conclude by proposing that the memorial presented by Mr. Everest be received with favour by the court; and if that is carried, I shall then move another resolution upon the subject. Mr. CAREW.—If the words "with favour" are to be understood as implying an opinion of the court, or that any steps should be taken by the magistrates to comply with its prayer, I shall oppose it. I do not, however, wish to enter on the merits of the case at present, because I think the subject must be postponed—no notice having been given—till a future sessions. Lord VIVIAN—l confess, for my own part, it appears to me, that if this court has done an injustice to an old and valued servant, the sooner we remedy that mistake the better. Mr. Everest is in advanced age, and he has been grievously disappointed by the resolution passed at the last sessions; and if justice has not been done him, we ought at once to sink precedent, and consider his memorial. I think we should receive his memorial favourably, and comply with it by making an increase to his retiring allowance. I learn that there is a precedent for this course in the case of the Governor of Kirkdale Gaol. That officer, considering the allowance insufficient, memorialized the quarter sessions to increase it, and the magistrates, instead of postponing the question, at once considered it and granted the allowance. Mr. CAREW appealed to the Chairman whether, according to the usual practice of the court, it was competent for them to pass a money vote without previous notice. They had nothing whatever to do with the proceedings of other courts. Mr. LAKES said that he had seconded the resolution fixing the late governor's allowance at the last sessions, and he could not help saying that if the work which they did one day was to be undone on the morrow, it was almost useless for the magistrates to attend there. That resolution was discussed freely and openly, and he had heard nothing that day which would induce him to alter the opinion he then entertained. If, however, it was to be discussed again, let them have time to consider it fully, which they had not yet had. Mr. KENDALL should be glad to see some way of getting out of the difficulty which presented itself to his mind in regard to the question. At the last sessions he proposed that Mr. Everest should be allowed two-thirds of his salary; he did not anticipate any opposition to the motion; but there was a successful opposition, and he gave way. He was afterwards asked if he intended to give notice of motion for an increase of the allowance, and he replied that he did not. But surely if an old and faithful servant sent a memorial to the court in which he stated that he considered himself aggrieved, the least they could do was to receive it. Precedent might be against their voting any money at that sessions, but it was due to Mr. Everest that they should receive his memorial, and express their views upon it, especially when there was so large a number of magistrates present—a greater number than at the last session. Let them express an opinion whether the memorial should be then entertained and discussed. He urged this more especially because he happened to know personally that the decision of the last session had had a grievous effect on the health of Mr. Everest, and he considered it was due to him that he should be relieved of this cause of affliction as soon as possible. Lord VIVIAN said that in order to bring the matter to a decision, he should move that the standing order requiring notice on money votes above £20, be suspended, with the view that the memorial be at once received and considered. Mr. KENDALL seconded the motion. Rev. U. TONKIN said that he would not on any account seek to disparage the merits of their late governor, who was an excellent and efficient officer; but when they considered that on their advertising for a successor to him they received applications from no less than 94 candidates— persons with the highest qualifications—that their present governor was a most efficient officer, who had moved in a high grade of life, and who was qualified to discharge his duties most efficiently for a salary of £300 a-year, he thought it must be evident to every one that the allowance they had granted to Mr. Everest was sufficient. He seconded the proposal that the allowance to Mr. Everest should be two-thirds of the present governor's salary, and he could not see how that could be considered as doing the former an injustice. He should be very sorry to do him any injustice, and he considered that the allowance which had been granted was a very handsome recognition of his past services. The CHAIRMAN interrupted Mr. Tonkin, and reminded him that the court was then considering the question of order only—viz., whether they should suspend the standing order. Mr. CAREW rose to oppose the suspension of the standing order. Though it was true that there was a large attendance of magistrates on that occasion, yet the probability was that the attendance would have been greater, had due notice been given that this subject would have been brought on and considered, and therefore he should move as an amendment that the standing order be not suspended. Mr. E. COODE, jun., said he believed he was the only magistrate who had moved the suspension of the standing order on a former occasion for the purpose of increasing the pay of police constables; but it was done under a pressing necessity at the time, as the police force was melting away under our hands, and had they not then increased the pay of the men, they should probably have been left without any police in a short time. He did not, however, see that there was any pressing necessity to suspend the order at the present time; and although he was not disposed to refuse the acceptance of a memorial, he saw no reason why he should alter the vote which he gave at the last sessions in favour of the allowance that had been granted. He should therefore second Mr. Carew's amendment. Mr. SAWLE said that he recollected another case in which the standing order had been suspended—namely, in the case of one of the county bridges that was likely to be washed away unless steps were adopted to preserve it, and the order was suspended in order that the court might vote the money necessary to preserve it at once. At the last sessions he voted for the larger retiring allowance to Mr. Everest, but on the present occasion he felt that he must vote with the gentleman who had proposed the amendment. They had laid down a most salutary and most excellent rule, never to vote any money more than £20 without three mouths' notice being given; and the present was not one of such pressing emergency as to call upon the court to go at once into the question of the increase of salary. At the same time, although he should vote with his friend Mr. Carew on the question of not suspending the standing order, he did not pledge himself that he should not vote for an increased allowance at a future time. He considered, however, that they should pause before voting a considerable sum of money under such circumstances. Rev. C. M. EDWARD COLLINS thought that the question was one not of precedent, but of law. The law required that before a retiring allowance in the case of the governor of a goal or other officer should be granted, three months' notice should be given; and it was for the magistrates to consider whether the notice which was given for the last sessions, applied to the present sessions as well. If it should be decided to postpone the consideration of the question, and an increased allowance should be granted, it might be made retrospective, so as to commence from the time of Mr. Everest's retirement. He supported the granting of the larger allowance, though not on the ground of any of the arguments brought forward in the memorial. He fully agreed that the suspending of the standing order was a matter of grave consideration, but he thought that if there was a case which justified that suspension, the present was one. He agreed with Lord Vivian—if they had done an injustice to an old and faithful servant, the sooner they remedied that injustice the better. Mr. Everest felt that an injustice had been done him, and taking his health into consideration and extreme age, with the fact that a copy of the memorial had been sent to every magistrate, in which, although notice was not given that a sum of money would be asked, yet virtually that was stated, he thought that something should be done at once; and he should, therefore, support Lord Vivian's motion. The CHAIRMAN said that no doubt the standing order existed, but the motion for its suspension having been proposed and seconded, he felt bound to put it to the vote. The motion for the suspension of the standing order was then put, and carried by a majority of 20 to 14. It was consequently declared to be carried. Mr. CAREW—l now beg to ask the opinion of the Clerk of the Peace as to what is the construction of the law upon the subject? Lord VIVIAN—l think after the motion has been carried against you can hardly fall back on the Clerk of the Peace. Mr. CAREW—l ask his opinion on the legal question which Mr. Collins has raised, whether we can legally increase the allowance without notice being given. Mr. TREMAYNE—Why is the legal point called in question now, when it was admitted on two previous occasions? The CHAIRMAN said that he understood the question raised by Mr. Carew turned upon the 80th section of 5 and 6 Vict., cap. 94, which related to the retiring pensions to be granted to superannuated officers of gaols. That section stated that in the case of a governor or other officer of any gaol retiring, it should be lawful for the persons having the control of the funds applicable to the maintenance of such prison, on a report presented three calendar months before any such grant should be made, to grant him such retiring allowance, not exceeding two-thirds of his salary and allowance, as they might consider right and fair. The act did not say that notice must be given before such allowance could be granted, in the way that was required before any sum above 20l. could be voted, but only that the report on which the allowance was to be awarded should be presented three months previous to the grant being made. Capt. HEXT then moved that two-thirds of Mr. Everest's late salary be granted as a retiring pension from the date of his resignation of the office of Governor of the Gaol, in lieu of that which had been already granted to him. Mr. E. COODE, jun., said he was very sorry to rise in opposition to the increase of Mr. Everest's allowance, but he felt himself conscientiously compelled to do so. He should have willingly agreed to the postponement of the question, and to have entered on its discussion fully; for with all due respect to the chairman's interpretation of the section of the Act of Parliament, he must say that he differed from him upon the point. He read the clause in question, and contended that the question of the governor's retiring allowance was entirely closed at the last sessions. A report had been duly made, and the matter was then fully considered and discussed, and a motion adopted on the subject. That being so, he must submit that if the court now proceeded to make another grant to the late governor, it would be acting contrary to the meaning of the Act of Parliament. He must, therefore, protest against the court making any further allowance, at that time, at all events. If the motion of Capt. Hext was carried, many of the magistrates of the county would be taken by surprise, because they had every reason to believe that the matter had been decided at a previous sessions. It was true that a copy of the memorial had been sent to every magistrate, but he had only received his about a week ago, and he had not had sufficient time to give it that due consideration which it ought to receive, or to enable magistrates to make up their minds on attending there. Apart from that consideration, however, he should like to make a few remarks upon the memorial itself. Mr. Everest appeared to take it for granted that because the magistrates had not voted him the full allowance authorised by law, they implied a censure upon him. Now he did not see that he (Mr. Everest) had at all made that out; on the contrary, he found on the schedule appended to the report, there were several in which superannuated governors had not received the full amount allowed by the act, and there was nothing to show that that implied any inefficiency on their part. He next came to the saving to the county, which Mr. Everest put down at £50,000. That was a very large sum, and he did not say that it was incorrect; but he thought that considering the awful state of things in the gaol when Mr. Everest was appointed, and which Capt. Hext had described, it would have been impossible for any governor to avoid making considerable improvements. Then, again, these improvements, he took it, were made under the superintendence and authority of the visiting committee and at the expense of the county. There was another fact which Mr. Everest had not noticed, and that was, the salary paid to him in proportion to the population of the county was exceedingly high compared with the salaries paid by other counties ("hear, hear," from Mr. Carew). Mr. Everest had called attention to the case of the Governor of Kirkdale Gaol, in South Lincolnshire. That officer was paid a salary of £500 a-year, but he found that the gaol was capable of accommodating 800 prisoners; and, therefore, the salary of £400 a-year paid to Mr. Everest must be taken as out of proportion considering the population of the two counties, and the extent of gaol accommodation. Mr. Everest had also called attention to the governor of Petworth Gaol in Sussex, and there the population was nearly the same as in Cornwall. But that officer was only paid £300 a- year, and looking at that case, he thought he might fairly assume that Mr. Everest's salary was too high in comparison with the amounts paid to other governors. It was rather unfair, that because Mr. Everest had enjoyed for a number of years a larger salary than others, it should now be said he was entitled to an increased superannuation allowance; and he must say that he considered it was a reason why a smaller pension should be allowed; because if a man had been paid a larger salary than usual for a number of years, it was a less reason why they should grant him the large allowance authorised by law on his retirement. On these grounds he should oppose the motion, and he should propose an amendment to it—which was, that the retiring allowance granted at last session be maintained for the future. Mr. CAREW seconded the amendment. He wished to have the opinion of the Clerk of the Peace on the question of law. Mr. Coode, jun., had stated that the question was fully disposed of at the last sessions, and that they were not now competent to rescind that resolution, or to move another allowance without notice having been given, and he should like to hear the opinion of the senior Mr. Coode upon the point. Mr. KENDALL said that he should like to make a remark upon what had been said by one of the oldest magistrates present—the Rev. Mr. Tonkin. That gentleman had referred to the large salary paid to Mr. Everest as compared with the amount paid to the present governor, and he had mentioned the number of candidates for the office. Now, he did not think that it was clearly known under what circumstances Mr. Everest came to Cornwall. At that time the gaol was found to be in a state of great disorder, and the selection of a governor was referred to Mr. Tremayne, Mr. Pendarves, and Mr. Rodd. These gentlemen went to Mr. Capper, of the Home Office, and asked him to send them the very best man he could, and he did so, sending them Mr. Everest. Mr. Coode had stated that the late governor had the assistance of the Visiting Committee, but he felt sure that every member of that committee would recollect that every plan for the improvement of the gaol was submitted to them by him. There was then no county architect, and the plans were all prepared by Mr. Everest. It was on account of the large sums which he saved that the county thought the salary of £400 a-year was not sufficient, and awarded him £100 worth of plate. It was stated, in the next place, that Mr. Everest ought to have saved money out of his salary, but if a man had been doing his duty, they had no right to make such a remark. On no one occasion did he ever recollect Mr. Everest taking a day's pleasure during his whole term of office, and when he saw that throughout England almost every other faithful servant who had filled a similar situation, had been awarded not only two-thirds of his salary, but two-thirds of his allowances also, it was natural that he should feel himself slighted. The Rev. U. TONKIN explained that what he wished to say was, that the number of candidates they had had for the office showed that they could obtain superior men to fill the office for a less salary than was paid to Mr. Everest. There was a great deal in the memorial to which he objected. Mr. Everest spoke of the injustice which had been done him, and if his application were granted it would come to this, that magistrates would no longer be in a position to refuse the increased allowance of two-thirds of the salary, which might be demanded of them on all similar occasions. Lord VIVIAN did not like to continue the discussion with respect to the salary paid to Mr. Everest, because it appeared to cast a slight on the magistrates who had granted it—gentlemen who understood the nature of their duties, and had the interest of the county at heart. He would only add, therefore, to what he had stated, that the gaol was now in a very different position from what it was in when Mr. Everest was appointed. They had heard from the oldest magistrate the state it was then in, and the way in which Mr. Everest had discharged his duty. He had brought the prison into such a satisfactory condition, that it was easy for his successor to discharge the duties, and consequently he was able to undertake the office at a less salary. He did not believe that if notice had been given there would have been a larger attendance of magistrates than at present, and therefore that argument of Mr. Coode was not entitled to much weight. He contended that a hasty judgment was arrived at last sessions, on the report of the Visiting Justices, referring to the allowance to be made to Mr. Everest, by a small majority of the magistrates then present. He was attending his parliamentary duties at the time, but if he had had the slightest idea that there was even a chance of the full allowance being refused, he should have made it a point to come down and vote on the question. Therefore it was that he had asked them to suspend the standing order, and he hoped the court would now see the necessity of remedying their error, by increasing the retiring allowance to the full amount. The Rev. T. PASCOE referred to the past services of Mr Everest, and contended that having discharged them faithfully and efficiently, that gentleman had a right to anticipate the county would grant him the full superannuation allowance authorized by law. The CLERK of the PEACE said that the question before the Court was not whether it could make an original grant, but whether it could rescind a former one, and make an addition to it. He thought that the Court of Quarter Sessions was competent, before it adjourned, to reconsider any order it might have made, but he doubted whether it could do so after the conclusion of the sessions. Mr. LE GRICE—Then you can rescind a former order, but not make a new one. Mr. CAREW said that so completely was he of opinion that the question would not be brought forward that day, that he left his copy of the memorial at home; and Lord Vivian would remember that he stated to him his conviction that an increase to the allowance could not be voted on that occasion. If, however, they were driven to decide the question at once, he would state the reasons why he opposed the original motion. He should not recapitulate the reasons which he had already stated; but he would state that he considered his position was greatly strengthened by the statement contained in the memorial itself. In the first place, Mr. Everest stated that he had made a great saving to the county. Admitting that to be so, why, he would ask, did the magistrates give a large salary but to effect a saving and make improvements in the gaol? That being so, surely it would not do to apply the argument both ways. If they paid for the saving and got it, it could not and ought not to be made an argument for the granting of an additional increased payment in the shape of a retiring allowance. And, surely no man could say that they were casting a slur upon him by granting him a superannuation allowance of £200 a-year, after his having received a large salary for a great number of years. He did not say that his services were not worth the money; no doubt they were; but they must remember the progress of the age with regard to prisons; and they must not attribute to Mr. Everest alone all the improvements that had been made in the prison. The county had spent enormous sums in improving it, and surely these improvements were not to be brought forward as an argument for increasing the late governor's pension. Then there was the objection urged by Mr. Tonkin which had also struck him on reading the memorial. If they once admitted the arguments advanced by Mr. Everest, they would never be able in future, without casting public stigma on a public officer, to make him a less allowance than the proportion they should grant to that gentleman. They had already that day established a most fatal precedent by suspending the standing order; do not establish another by granting the proposed increased allowance; because if they did, whenever they had a public officer retiring, he would appeal to their conduct in the case of Mr. Everest, and state upon the principle then adopted, he was entitled to two-thirds of his salary. When candidates for the office were advertised for, they had applications from several of the principal gaols in the kingdom, and why did these parties come here? Because they knew that the salary which had been paid was much higher than the average. The question resolved itself into this—was £200 a-year a sufficient retiring allowance to Mr. Everest? He submitted that it was, and therefore he supported Mr. Coode's amendment. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH did not see that there should be so great an objection to the court altering or rescinding its previous decision, as it had done so before in numerous instances, without notice. To go no further back than that very day, it had rescinded a former resolution with respect to the improvement of the roadway of Lostwithiel Bridge (hear and laughter). If, however, any serious doubt was entertained on the question of law, he would move that the resolution be altered in this way,—that a sum of money be granted in addition to what was voted before to Mr. Everest. Mr. COODE, jun.—The question is, whether you can do that now. If you rescind the order of the former sessions, there will be no pension at all for Mr. Everest. After a few words of explanation from the Chairman and the Rev. Mr. Collins, the votes were taken on the question, when there appeared for the amendment, 9; for the original motion, 28. The motion was consequently declared to be carried. COUNTY POLICE.—CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT. The CHAIRMAN read the following report of the Chief Constable:— My Lords and Gentlemen,—I have the honour to lay before you the annual returns of crime committed in the county, as far as is known to the county police; also a return of the number and distribution of the constabulary. I am sorry to have to report the death of first-class police constable William Hitchens, who died of fever while on sick leave. Since the last sessions I have occupied the new station houses at St. Germans, St. Cleer, and Menheniot, and I have sent orders to the superintendent of the district to take over the new station at Torpoint, the architect having reported it to me as completed. I have laid before the Police Committee a letter from the Government Inspector on the subject of the amalgamation of the boroughs incorporated under the 5th and 6th William 4th, with the county, for police purposes, and which, although it would probably entail a slight additional expense, I would strongly recommend, believing it would be mutually beneficial to the county and to the boroughs. POLICE COMMITTEE'S REPORT. Mr. E. COODE, jun., the chairman of the police committee, presented the following report:— The committee beg to report that a meeting was held yesterday at the chief constable's office, when the following members were present:—Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., N. Kendall, Esq., R. Davey, Esq., J. St. Aubyn, Esq., W. H. P. Carew, Esq., J. J. Rogers, Esq., R. Foster, Esq., J. P. Magor, Esq., F. M. Williams, Esq., F. J. Hext, Esq., D. P. Le Grice, Esq., and the Rev. R. B. Kinsman; Edward Coode, jun., in the chair. The expenses incurred during the last quarter were examined and approved, and the expenses allowed the previous quarter having been examined, with the vouchers, by the chairman, were reported as correct. Mr. Porter presented his report as architect, which is hereto attached, and which details the progress made in the police stations now in course of erection under his superintendence. Amalgamation with Borough Police.—A letter received by the chief constable on this subject from the government inspector was laid before the committee, who, however, until they are aware of the additional number of constables which would be required to meet the approval of the government inspector in case of such amalgamation, feel quite unable to offer an opinion whether the terms suggested in the inspectors letter would be attended with advantage to the county or not.—It appears that the following sums should be charged to the county rate, and placed to the credit of the police rate:—Conveyance and subsistence of prisoners, £180 14s. 8d.; allowance by coroners on inquests, £35 1s. 6d.; expenses connected with weights and measures, £24 6s. 2d.; total £240 2s. 4d. A sum of £178 12s. 8d. has accrued to the superannuation fund during the quarter, and should be invested as heretofore. It will be necessary that orders of the court should be entered authorizing the clerk of the peace to execute the conveyance of the site for the police-station at Padstow, and also to name the following as lives on the lease of the Torpoint station, viz.—H.R.H. Prince Leopold George Duncan Albert, aged 7; Caroline Mary Coode, aged 5; and —Trevenen, aged 10. The following short statement will show the working of the inspection of weights and measures during the past year:— Paid to county rates for stoppage fees, &c. £ 91 19 2 Moieties of penalties 29 5 9 121 4 11 Add salaries of former inspectors 300 0 0 421 4 11 Deduct expenses incurred 96 9 1 Saving to the county 324 15 10 The following statement may serve to elucidate the actual cost of the police force to the county during the past year:— Gross amount stated in the treasurer's account for the year, up to Michaelmas £17,778 6 4 Stoppage from pay £714 12 0 Coroners' allowances 175 8 0 Conveyance of prisoners 590 17 10 Weights and measures 96 9 1 1,577 6 11 Actual sum expended 16,200 19 5 Expended on police stations 5,264 2 4 Total cost of police force 10,936 17 1 Government allowance, one quarter of pay and clothing 2,785 17 8 Cost to the county of the police, independent of stations 8,150 19 5 The committee are of opinion that a rate of ¾d in the pound will be required for the ensuing quarter. Mr. LE GRICE expressed his apprehension that the result of the substitution of light waggons in the place of spring carts for the use of inspectors in the conveyance of prisoners would be that two horses instead of one would have to be provided. Last week he saw Inspector Miller and his wife and children coming down one of the worst hills in the county in the police cart, 16 miles from home, and he asked if the instructions of the police allowed of such a proceeding? Mr. E. COODE replied that it was contrary to those instructions, and that as to the substitution of waggons for carts, only one of the former had been ordered, merely as an experiment. If it was found to answer, then it would be in the discretion of the police committee whether they should recommend that more should be provided. The report was then adopted, and the police rate of ¾d. in the pound granted. A short conversation ensued respecting the cost of the police force, originated by Mr. Le Grice, and during which it was stated by Mr. E. Coode, jun. and Mr. Kendall, that the actual cost to the county had only been £7,850 during the last year. The CHAIRMAN stated that the county was greatly indebted to Mr. E. Coode, jun., and the committee, for the time and attention they devoted to the discharge of their duties. CORONERS. Before proceeding to the agenda, the CHAIRMAN suggested that it would be desirable to appoint a committee to confer with the coroners, at some time previous to the Epiphany Sessions, in order that the court might then be prepared to decide on the salaries to be paid to the coroners, in accordance with the requirements of the Act of Parliament to which he had already referred. In compliance with the Chairman's suggestion, Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH moved the appointment of a committee, consisting of Mr. Sawle, Mr. Carew, Mr. Rodd, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Foster, Mr. Le Grice, and Mr. Kinsman, with power to add to their number, to confer with the coroners that day, after the conclusion of county business. The motion was agreed to.

AGENDA.—PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISIONS. Mr. SAWLE, as chairman of the committee on this subject proposed to defer till next sessions, the notice "to receive and consider such reports as the magistrates of the several petty sessional divisions may make of their views, as to the most advisable alterations (if any) in the present petty sessional divisions of the county. He had only just received the reports and he had not been able to call the committee together to consider them. Mr. Sawle's proposal for adjournment was agreed to. COUNTY FINANCES. In accordance with the notice "for the further consideration of the notice given by Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., that a committee be appointed for the general superintendence and examination of the county finances," Sir Colman Rashleigh now moved the appointment of such a committee. Sir Colman, complying with a request from Mr. Carew, attempted to define the functions of such a committee, but afterwards, on reconsideration, he said he thought it would be preferable to leave it to the committee themselves to report on that subject. The motion was agreed to, and it was arranged that the subject be again brought before the court to-morrow (Wednesday.) APPEALS. CORNWALL RAILWAY COMPANY, appellants; v. PARISH OF LISKEARD, respondents. SAME v. MENHENIOT. SAME v. ST. GERMANS. SAME v. LANDRAKE with ERNEY. Mr. COMMINS (instructed by Messrs. Smith and Roberts, solicitor of the company) moved to further adjourn the above poor-rate appeals to the next sessions. Mr. CHILDS, for the first three named parishes, and Mr. BISHOP for the last named parish, appeared and consented, and the appeals were adjourned accordingly. OKEHAMPTON, respondent (sic); CALSTOCK, respondent.—Re removal of Joseph Glanville, a pauper, his wife and family. Mr. E. G. HAMLEY moved to enter and adjourn this appeal on behalf of the parish of Okehampton.—Mr. BISHOP, on behalf of Calstock parish, consented. BOROUGH OF EAST LOOE, appellant; COUNTY JUSTICES respondent.—Mr. BISHOP moved to adjourn appeal herein against the County Rate which has been before the Court on several occasions, having been adjourned for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench, which had not yet been given.—Mr. SHILSON, for the County Justices, consented. The Court then proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. LOUISA EADE, 19, tailoress, was charged with stealing three shirt studs, a pair of gloves, and a piece of ribbon, at Wendron on the 5th Sept., the property of William Tresidder. The prisoner pleaded guilty. (Sentence: Twelve Months’ hard labour) ELIZABETH ANN MANNELL, 19, also pleaded guilty of stealing, on the 23rd Sept., at Truro, a velvet cape, value 30s., a cotton dress value 2s., two pieces of calico, value 2s. and a cotton apron, value 3s., the property of Mr. Michael Hawkins. (Sentence: Six Months’ hard labour) MARY ANN TABB, 18, servant, pleaded guilty of stealing, on the 6th Sept., at Alternun, a dress, a pair of boots, and other goods, the property of Robert Sandercock. (Sentence: Three Months’ hard labour) CHARLES ARMSTRONG, an old man who had been out on bail, was indicted for having at Poundstock, on the 10th of August, stolen seven neckties, two cans of mustard, a quantity of hogs’ bristles, a brass tap, a number of leather gloves, five coils of copper wire, 22½ yards of crape, two towels, a piece of cloth, and various other articles, the property of John Doidge and Charles Henry Daw. This is the case referred to by the Chairman in his charge to the grand jury. Mr. COX prosecuted, and Mr. FROST, of Launceston, defended the prisoner. The evidence by which it was sought to implicate the prisoner in the charge was of considerable length, and was purely of a circumstantial character, there being nothing to show that the prisoner had been on the premises where the goods were locked up, or that he had been seen with any of them in his possession. The prisoner is a shoemaker residing in Poundstock; and it appeared that in the latter end of July last, his brother-in-law, Thomas Prust, who was a shopkeeper in the same parish, fell into difficulties, and on the 2nd of August he executed a deed, assigning the whole of the goods in his shop, his furniture, some land and all his property to Messrs. Doidge and Daw, of Tavistock, for the benefit of his creditors. It was admitted, that the deed which he thus executed, although it took away the whole of his property, did not exonerate him from the liability to pay the whole of his creditors; and that not one of the creditors had yet signed it excepting the prosecutors, although it was stated that some of them were prepared to do so on being paid a dividend. On the 3rd of August, the prosecutors sent Mr. John Polsue, assistant to Messrs. Daw, to make an inventory of the goods of Prust, which he did, remaining there about a week. He locked up the shop at night, but during the day Mr. Prust was frequently in it, and some nights he lent him the key of it. On the 10th August, Polsue completed the inventory, and he locked up the shop, and gave the key to Mr. Daw. On the 21st of August, it was found that the shop had been entered, and goods valued at about £170, out of £200 worth, had been taken. Suspicion attached to the prisoner amongst others, and on the same day, police- inspector Wood, of Stratton, asked the prisoner to search his house. He refused to do so unless the other produced his authority, and Wood then produced a search warrant. Upstairs and in other parts of the premises the eight pairs of gloves and some other articles were found. The prisoner was then apprehended, and conveyed to the lock-up. On the 23rd, Wood, and P.C. Joyce again searched the premises of the prisoner. They found that several articles which were previously in the house had been removed, and concealed amongst some cabbages in the garden; and under the grass in an adjoining field they found concealed nearly all the articles mentioned in the indictment, and many which Polsue said were exactly similar in quality, quantity, and general appearance to the goods of which he had an inventory in Prust's house. He had no doubt that they were the same, though he would not swear positively to them. Mr. Frost, for the defence, called attention to the fact that the prisoner had never been seen on Prust's premises, or with any of the property in his possession. Nothing was found of any consequence when the search was made on the 21st of August, when the prisoner was apprehended; and it was too much to prosecute him for stealing property which had not been found till two days after he had been apprehended, while he was in custody, and which had evidently been placed thereby some other party. The real facts appeared to be that Prust discovered, a few days after executing the assignment, that he had parted with all his property,— that he and his family were in reality ruined, and he was naturally in great distress of mind. His neighbours, seeing this, and sympathising with him, took some of his goods away, and concealed them in the manner described, thus endeavouring to secure something for him and his family. It would be most unjust, under these circumstances, to convict the prisoner, who knew nothing of what had been done, of the offence of felony. The prisoner had hitherto borne a most respectable character, and he trusted that the jury would now acquit him of this grievous charge. The CHAIRMAN having summed up, the jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY, which was received with applause in Court. The Court then adjourned. SECOND COURT. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) JOHN ROBERTS, aged 14, a miner, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a silver watch and chain, the property of John Thomas, at Redruth, on the 4th of September. (Sentence: Two Months’ hard labour) SARAH CORNISH, 17, a servant, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a sovereign and four half-sovereigns, the property of John Penrose; and also, on another indictment, which charged her that, being a servant, she stole a shawl and cotton handkerchief, the property of her mistress, Sarah Penrose, at Broadoak, on the 7th of August. (Sentence: Six Months’ hard labour for stealing as a servant; and One Month hard labour additional for second felony) JOSEPH JOHNS, 31, labourer, was charged with stealing six sheaves of barley, the property of Mr. John Snell, farmer, at Haye, in the parish of Callington. Mr. Bishop conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. Evidence was given by the prosecutor, by John Deacon, of Haye, and by Frederick Evans, police constable of Callington; and, after long consultation the Jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: Three Months’ hard labour) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17. Before John Jope Rogers, Esquire. INTERESTING TO MAGISTRATES' CLERKS. It will be remembered that yesterday, the CHAIRMAN made serious complaint of delay by magistrates' clerks in forwarding depositions. It also appeared that, at the opening of the court, the jury list from East Kirrier had not been received by the Clerk of the Peace. The Clerk of the Peace now reported to the Court that as late as last evening, he received, by post, from Falmouth, the East Kirrier Jury List, and the depositions in the case of William Berry, a soldier committed at Falmouth, for an assault. From the post mark, it was evident that the documents had not been posted at Falmouth till Tuesday the 16th—the Sessions opening at 11 o'clock that day; and they were not received in Bodmin until after the Grand Jury had been discharged.—The CHAIRMAN made some strong observations on the subject, and ordered that in the case of William Berry, the Magistrates' Clerk's expenses be disallowed.—The CHAIRMAN further remarked that if there was any difficulty in appointing High Constables, notice of the fact should be given to the Quarter Sessions, and it should not be left to be found out here casually. If such circumstances were brought to the knowledge of the Home Office, great fault would be found with the magistrates who permitted them; and, another time, this Court would feel compelled to report the circumstances to the Home Office. APPEAL.—MADRON, appellant; LUDGVAN respondent.—Mr. CORNISH, for respondent, stated that in May last an order for removal of a pauper from respondent to appellant parish was made, and the parish of Madron took usual steps to prosecute the appeal; but, so late as Saturday evening last, that parish gave notice of abandonment; the respondent parish having, at considerable expense, obtained evidence in support of the order of removal. Mr. Cornish on these grounds applied for extra costs; and the Court awarded £15. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JOHN HOARE, aged 22, a labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a quantity of wool, the property of John Gilbert at Lanreath, on the 21st of August.—On another indictment he was charged with stealing a scythe, the property of Thomas Kelly, a farmer of the borough of Liskeard, on the 16th of July.—Mr. Bishop prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended.—There appeared to be some doubts suggested as to the question of identity, and the jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. (Sentence: Four Months’ hard labour) FORTUNE TELLING. ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, 22, charged with stealing a sovereign, from Maria French at Padstow, on the 14th of September.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cox the defence.—Maria French, the prosecutrix, deposed:—l live at Padstow. On the 13th of September the prisoner came to my house and said she would tell my fortune. I said I was too old for that. She then said, I suppose you would not like your husband to be brought home to you a cripple and a bed-Iyer. She also said, you have not enjoyed good health of late, have you? I said, no I have not. She said there is a person who has got power over you; you are ill wished. I gave her threepence that day. Next day she came again, sat down on a chair at the end of my table, and asked me if I had any rags: I said no; She went on as before about my husband being brought home a cripple and my being ill-wished, and then she asked me if I had a Bible, and I got her my Bible. She then asked for a piece of newspaper and some coppers; I gave her a piece of newspaper, and told her I had no coppers. She said haven't you got a halfpenny? I said yes, but I can't spare it, because it is one I borrowed. Then she said, 'give me a metal button.' I had no metal button, and I gave her a bone one. Then she said 'fetch me a piece of gold to put on it;’ and I fetched a sovereign from upstairs; I held the sovereign between my finger and thumb, and walked forth to her and said 'I hope you are not going to take away my money from me.' She said, No, l am not going to take away your money; l am going to do you good; here is the Bible—God's own Word, and He sees what we are doing. (Sensation in Court.) She requested me to place the sovereign on my left hand; she then put her hand on mine and began to move about the sovereign, and to tell about the elements and the stars and different things. She then took the sovereign out of my hand and desired me to turn my back a few minutes, and to close the door. I did so, and went out into the passage, and she remained in the kitchen with the sovereign in her hand. When she asked me to turn my back and shut the door, she said 'we don't let everybody see all we do.' Not many minutes afterwards, she opened the door and I returned into the room. She then had in her hand a paper parcel, which she gave to me and said 'here's your money all right, let it remain in your pocket nine days.' I said I could not do without my money so long as that. She then said 'let it remain till tomorrow, and I will call again, but don't look at it, nor tell any body what has been done and said, for if you do there will be no virtue in it.' She then left the house, and in about a quarter of an hour afterwards I took out of my pocket the parcel she had given me, and found that she had taken the sovereign and left nothing but the button.—Cross-examined—l had not known this woman before, and did not know she was coming to my house. When she came she told me she was a fortune teller, and that her lowest price was 5s.; but afterwards she said that for the few words she had said to me she would be content with a few pence. She came next day, to get the money for what she had done the day before. She told me I should receive a letter from a friend, and should get some money in that way. She obtained 3s. 8d. from me the first day.—Jane Brenton, keeper of a public-house at St. Merryn, proved that in the forenoon of the 14th September, the prisoner came to the house with three men; they had some beer, and the prisoner paid for it, with a sovereign.— George Luxon, Serjeant of Police at Padstow, on the 14th of September, having received information from Mrs. French, went in pursuit of prisoner, and found her at a place called Tregolls, in St. Merryn parish, on the way to St. Columb. A man was with her. Witness charged her with obtaining money under false pretences from Maria French at Padstow, and she said she knew nothing about it. He then told her that about six months before, she had been committed for a similar offence at Mawgan and obtaining 7 sovereigns from an old woman. She said "If people are fools enough to give me their money, I must be a pretty fool if I dont (sic) take it." She endeavoured, said witness, to pass her purse to the man with her, but I caught hold of it and found that it contained 10s. On my way out from Padstow, I had passed, at Shop, the two men who had been with her at Brenton’s public- house. As I was taking her back to Padstow, she said what's the longest time they can give me? I said they gave you six months at St. Columb; what they will give you at Bodmin I dont know. She said if they can't give me more than six months, I don't mind it a fillip.—Mr. COX addressed the jury in defence. He was astonished that in this County, the population of which were beyond the average in intelligence, there should be such prevalent credulity that a woman like this should be able to make a living by such pretences as had been spoken of. But he reminded the jury that she was not on her trial for obtaining money under false pretences, but for stealing; and he urged for the jury's consideration that the charge of stealing had not been substantiated, as the prosecutrix had originally parted with her money willingly.—The CHAIRMAN, however, in summing up, ruled differently from the learned Counsel's suggestion; and the jury found a verdict of GUILTY.—The prisoner, a stout, vigorous young woman, with some fame as a pugilist, exclaimed: "Much you know about finding people guilty—a parcel of old shoemakers and tailors; if I was alongside of you, I'd give you a punch in the head."—A previous conviction was then proved against her, at the St. Columb Petty Sessions, on the 25th February last, for stealing three sovereigns and six shillings, the property of Richard Williams, and for which she had suffered six months imprisonment with hard labour.—At a later period of the day, she was sentenced to Three years' penal servitude.—On receiving her sentence she behaved most impudently and violently; and the Turnkey who removed her from the dock to the cell below had a task of no little difficulty in restraining and overpowering this virago CHARGE OF TIN STEALING. EDWIN SWEET, 32, a labourer, and RICHARD OLVER (on bail) were charged with having, on the 17th of August stolen 100 lbs. of tin stuff, from Charlestown United Tin Mine in the parish of St. Austell, the property of Stephen Barke and William Middlemore, of Birmingham, and other adventurers in the said mine.—A second count charged common larceny; and in a third count, Richard Olver was charged with feloniously receiving the tin, knowing it to have been stolen.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Bishop defended Olver; Sweet was undefended.—The case was one of minutely circumstantial evidence, and occupied the court about 7 hours, with its wearisome details.—At the opening, the witnesses were ordered out of court, by request of Mr. Bishop.—It appeared that the prisoner Sweet was in the employ of the Adventurers of Charlestown United Mine, sometimes called Bucklers Mine; his duty being to look after the burning-house by night and day—taking alternate terms of 24 hours each. Mr. Williams, the captain and manager of the mine, had for some time missed tin ore from the mine; and, about a fortnight before the 17th August, he noticed that there was a small pile of tin ore, placed behind the burning house, concealed between bramble bushes. Having remarked this, some of his working men, by his direction or with his sanction, placed some stones as a pile, in order to detect the removal of any of the stones of ore; and on Saturday morning the 18th August, after Sweet had been there all night, it was found that some stones of ore had been taken away from the concealed pile behind the burning-house. A search warrant was afterwards obtained and Mr. Williams and the Superintendent of Police at St. Austell, went to Sweet's house and found some small quantity of tin, but not what was called Bucklers tin. They then, acting on some information they received, went to Biscovallack Clay-work, of which the prisoner Olver was captain and manager; and, after long search, they discovered a quantity of tin-stuff concealed under sand in a pit, on which was placed a pile of china-clay in blocks, covered over with reeders. This discovery was made on the 23rd August; and evidence was given by Mr. Williams and other competent witnesses, that a portion of the tin so found was Bucklers Tin, which it was alleged was of very peculiar quality and characteristics, unlike any other tin found in mines within many miles of Bucklers. Previous to this discovery, it appeared that the tin had been kept in a lodge, or small house on the Biscovallack Clay-work; but, after the search warrant had been obtained, Sweet appears to have communicated with Olver and to have suggested that the tin should be concealed; and Olver himself took part in the removal of the ore from the lodge, and in its concealment in the mode described.—The tin alleged to have been stolen from the prosecutor's mine, was alleged to have been bought by Olver from Sweet for 1s. 6d.; Sweet stated that he had bought it from a man called Robert Libby. Olver had acknowledged that he bought it of Sweet, but added that he particularly asked if it had been obtained honestly.—Evidence in support of the case opened for the prosecution, was given by Richard Harris Williams, manager of the Charles-town United Mines; Walter Bone, a workman at the mine with the prisoner Sweet; William Hendy, another workman on the mine; Charles Simmons, and Samuel Northy, agents at the mine; Joseph Menear, a lad in employ under Capt. Olver at the Biscovallack Clay work; Joseph Ellis, a labourer at the same work; George Barnes, Inspector of Police; George James Vosper, another police officer; and Robert Libby.—Various and bulky samples of tin stuff were produced and exhibited to the Court and Jury; and, after an energetic defence by Mr. BISHOP, the CHAIRMAN summed up, and at ¼ past 5 the Jury retired for consultation. They were absent nearly an hour, and on their return, gave a verdict of NOT GUILTY for each prisoner.—The CHAIRMAN said:—Richard Olver and Edwin Sweet, you have had a very narrow escape. The jury have chosen to take a merciful view of your case. But the Court is under a firm impression that there is a great deal too much truth in the charges brought against you. I hope this will be a warning to you, and particularly to you, Olver. We are willing to hope, though we can scarcely believe, that you are innocent of the charge. I warn you that if ever you be brought here on a similar charge and it be brought home to you, you will be punished severely. We believe that Sweet has been made a tool. But both of you have had a very narrow escape indeed. The jury were then discharged. COUNTY BUSINESS. The following County Business was transacted about noon:— THE NEW GAOL.—Mr. KENDALL presented the following Report from the Building Committee, and it was read by the CHAIRMAN:—

“October 16, 1860. The Building Committee of the New County Gaol beg to present Mr. Porter's report received this day. They recommend, that the Drop be placed at the end of the Female Ward, as suggested by Mr. Perry, the Prison Inspector; that, in order to give more light and air, the covered way at the main entrance be reduced by about two-thirds; that in accordance with Mr. Perry's suggestion, a wall be built from the North-East corner of the Male Wing to the Boundary Wall; and that the sum of £6000, granted at the Easter Sessions 1858, be forthwith raised." The Report was adopted, and it was resolved that the sum of £6000 already granted towards completing the erection of the new Gaol be forthwith raised by loan. COUNTY RATE.—The CHAIRMAN now, on information from the Clerk of the Peace, stated that for the general purposes of the County in the ensuing quarter, there would be required a Penny Rate. This information he was unable to give in his charge yesterday. COUNTY CORONERS.—The CHAIRMAN then read the following Report from the Committee appointed yesterday to confer with the Coroners on the subject of their salaries. "At a meeting of the Committee for considering the salaries to be paid to the County Coroners, it was resolved that Mr. Coode, the Clerk of the Peace, be requested to send a copy of his analysis of their bills for the five years ending 31st December 1859, to each of the coroners for their inspection; and that this meeting be adjourned to Monday the 3rd December, at the County Hall, Bodmin, at half past one o'clock, to receive the opinion of the Coroners on such analysis. COUNTY FINANCE.—Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH moved that the following gentlemen be appointed the Committee of County Finance:—The three Chairmen of Quarter Sessions; the four County Members; Mr. Tremayne; Mr. Pearse; Mr. Gully Bennet; Mr. Glencross; Mr. Norway; Mr. T. S. Bolitho; Dr. Smith; Rev. C. M. Edward Collins; and Mr. R. G. Lakes; three to form a quorum. Mr. SAWLE seconded the motion; and it was agreed to nem. con. ______After discharge of the Petty Jury, the Court passed sentence on the prisoners as follows:—[See individual cases above and following] The group of female prisoners—Mannell, Cornish, Eade, and Williams, but Mannell less so than the others—were exceedingly ill-behaved and impudent to the Court while they were in the dock, and as they received sentence. The three first-named seemed to be incited by the evil example and influence of the fortune-teller Williams. Cornish, on receiving her sentence, made use of an offensive oath to the bench; Eade hoped the Chairman would sit there till she came back; and Williams was still more impudent in her language, and, as we have already stated, she used violent resistance to the Turnkeys who removed her from the dock, and for some time afterwards, the sounds of her violent disturbance below was audible in Court.—The soldier William Berry also behaved himself most disgracefully, when receiving sentence.—The CHAIRMAN told him that every Englishman would feel pained to see one in soldier's uniform occupying his present position, and that he was a reckless, disgraceful fellow.—“I know l am,” was the prisoner's reply.—You are a disgrace to the name of an Englishman.—"Very well, go on”—But I believe you have not appeared before in any Court of Justice.—“Oh, yes I have; I was in prison before I enlisted.”—The sentence of the Court is that for your offence of assaulting in a most infamous manner, the constable who had you in charge you be imprisoned for 12 calendar months, with hard labour.—“I want to explain to you; I am not half satisfied with that; if you don’t transport me, I’ll do something to get myself hung."—He was then removed below by the Turnkeys; but still used resistance, and tried to continue his abusive language. BENJAMIN D’ARCY, a seaman, aged 65 years, belonging, he said, to the parish of Workington, in Cumberland, had been committed from Falmouth, on the 5th October, as a vagrant, unlawfully wandering abroad to beg or gather alms, at Flushing, he having been twice previously convicted of being a rogue and a vagabond.—Evidence of his begging alms at Flushing was given by William Coombs, policeman, examined by Mr. Commins, and some evidence of previous convictions was given by Police Inspector Harris; but the Clerk of the Peace stated that the recognizances had not been returned.—Capt. COLVILLE, the governor of the prison, stated that D’Arcy had been 11 times in Bodmin Prison under the Vagrancy Act.—The old man’s demeanour in court was civil and placid. He said he first went to sea in 1814, but had been unable to go to sea for the last 4 or 5 years, and he had no friend in the world.—The CHAIRMAN told him it was only by accident that he was not sent back to prison again. He was then admonished and discharged. FANNY TAYLOR, aged 37, had been committed from Launceston on the 15th September, for want of sureties to keep the peace towards her deceased husband’s father, John Taylor, of Laneast.—John Taylor appeared, and swore that he was still in fear of Fanny Taylor, not only for himself but also for his wife and daughter who lived with him.—Between the two relatives, there was in Court some considerable altercation and recrimination, which was especially violent and incoherent on the part of the prisoner; and Capt. COLVILLE stated, from his observation of her in prison, that he believed she was not always in her right mind.—This, however, she stoutly denied in Court; though much of her language and demeanour there would seem to confirm Capt. Colville’s impression.—There appeared to have been some disputes between the parties as to property which she believed to have been left for her by her late husband; her father-in-law, however, stating that her husband died insolvent. Another grievance which she alleged was that she was prevented seeing her three children, who were kept by her husband’s father, and who asserted that she was not fit to have charge of them.—In default of sureties for her future good behaviour towards her husband's father, the CHAIRMAN said he had no alternative but to order her remand till the next Quarter Sessions.— She exclaimed, with passionate vehemence, that she would never go back to prison, and, grasping the dock rails and otherwise using violent resistance, the Turnkeys were obliged to employ no inconsiderable force in removing her below. FORFEITED RECOGNIZANCE.—JOSEPH NEWTON, a labourer, aged 30, (apparently a navvy), had been committed by the High Sheriff, to await the decision of the Justices at Quarter Sessions,— because he came not at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, holden in and for the County of Cornwall, on the 29th day of June, 1858, to prefer a Bill of Indictment against Samuel Pooley for Felony, and duly prosecute such Indictment, and give evidence thereon, as by a certain Recognizance taken before John Coryton Roberts, Esq., one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in and for the said County, he undertook.—In answer to questions from the Court, he said he was working at Honiton, in Devonshire, and having no money he did not think it was any odds his not coming down to prosecute. The charge against Pooley was that he stole 12s. 6d. from out of his (Newton's) pocket; he had not seen Pooley since he lived at Landrake.—He was admonished and discharged. The Court was then adjourned till next morning, for the hearing of Appeals. SECOND COURT—WEDNESDAY. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) DISORDERLY HOUSE. MARY ANN RICKARD, 33, pleaded GUILTY to maintaining and keeping a certain common, ill- governed, and disorderly house at Kenwyn. (Sentence: Four Months’ hard labour) CHARGE OF WOUNDING AT REDRUTH JOSEPH RIPPER, 52, gardener, was charged with unlawfully and maliciously inflicting upon Thomas Pearce grievous bodily harm, with a certain instrument called a garden shears, at Redruth, on the 21st of August. A second count charged him with maliciously wounding; and a third with a common assault. Mr. CORNISH prosecuted, and Mr. STOKES defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is a common carrier, residing at Penryn, and on the day in question he was at Redruth. About seven o'clock in the evening he called at a beerhouse in Redruth, where he found a woman named Evans, who was going part of the way home with him. They found the prisoner in the house, who was in liquor, and who asked Pearce if he would give him a lift in his waggon on his way home. Pearce consented, and the prisoner then fell asleep. When the prosecutor was ready to go, he endeavoured to rouse the prisoner, but he made two or three attempts before he succeeded. At last the prisoner woke up, suddenly jumped up, and wounded the prosecutor in the face with a pair of garden shears which were lying beside him, inflicting a wound about an inch long, and separating the cartilage of the nose to the nasal bone. Mr. Harris, surgeon, who attended Pearce, and all the witnesses, gave him an excellent character, as a harmless, peaceable man; and Mr Stokes submitted that the evidence did not show any wicked or malicious intention on the part of the prisoner to injure the prosecutor; but that the act was the result of drunkenness, and the prisoner being suddenly awoke. He called Mr. Nicholls, of Redruth, who said he had known the prisoner all his life, and had always found him a peaceable man. The jury acquitted the prisoner of all the charges, and he was discharged. ASSAULTS. JOHN DARCH, 27, labourer, was charged with assaulting P.C. John Perry Wood, at Stratton, on the 17th July, whilst in the execution of his duty. On the day in question the prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment by the magistrates at the petty sessions, at Stratton, for an assault upon a woman, and while Wood was removing him to the lock-up, he assaulted and resisted him violently.—GUILTY. (Sentence: Four Months’ hard labour) WILLIAM BERRY, 25, a private in the 36th Regiment, was charged with assaulting P.C. John Richards, at Kenwyn, on the 16th of August, with intent to resist and prevent his lawful apprehension. Mr. COMMINS prosecuted. The prosecutor is stationed at Perranarworthal, and on the 16th of August, having received information that the prisoner had deserted and committed a felony, he went in pursuit of him, following him eight miles. He came up with him and charged him with the offences named, and took him into custody. Just then Lake's omnibus came up, and he held up his finger as a signal for the driver to stop, on which the prisoner struck him a violent blow on the face, seized him by the throat, and threw him down, and while on the ground struck him several blows. The driver and passengers of the omnibus came to his assistance, and the prisoner was secured. Mr. Lake gave corroborative evidence. The prisoner denied that he had thrown the prosecutor down by the throat, and said that he had knocked him down by a fair, clean blow. He regretted that he had not finished him, and said that he should like to have just half an hour with him, as he should in that time do for him. The Chairman cautioned him that he was not improving his case by such language, but he implied that he did not care what they did with him. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: Twelve Months’ hard labour) The Court then rose. The grand jury ignored the bills in the cases of John Oxford charged with an indecent assault at St. Austell, and Elizabeth Merrin, charwoman, for stealing £2 2s., the property of Mary Ann Hicks, at Redruth. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18. APPEALS. CONSTANTINE, appellant; Mr. Stokes and Mr. Pender. MABE, respondent; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Childs. An appeal against order, dated 19th May, 1860, for the removal of Catherine Lowry, single woman, and her infant child, from Mabe to Constantine.—Proof of Notices being required by the respondents, Mr. STOKES called Charles Edward Reynolds, who proved service of notice of appeal on Mr. Thomas Medlyn, overseer, of Mabe, on the 3rd of July.—John Reynolds, overseer of Constantine, proved signatures of church-wardens and overseers; and further deposed that he received the Order and Grounds of Removal, within a week from the date of the Order; and within 21 days from the date of that Order, he applied to Mr. Genn, the Magistrates' Clerk, for a copy of the Depositions, and received it on the 21st of June.—Mr. SHILSON (it being admitted by Mr. Stokes that there was no entry of the appeal at the Midsummer Sessions) objected that the Appellant could not go on. Referring to the dates in proof, Mr. SHILSON contended that the appeal ought either to have been tried at the last Sessions, or at that time to have been entered and respited. Between the 26th of May and the 3rd of July, (the date of the Midsummer Sessions) there was ample time for taking necessary steps to prosecute the appeal "at the next practicable Sessions." The learned Advocate cited a decision of Lord Chief Justice Campbell, in Queen v. Justices of West Riding, Bromsgrove and Halifax, Law Journal, New Series, November 1858, p. 265.—Mr. CHILDS followed in support, and cited Queen v. Justices of the West Riding, 27 Law Journal p. 269; Queen v. Justices of Peterborough, 26 Law Journal, p. 153; Queen v. Inhabitants of Skircoat, 28 Law Journal, p. 224.—Mr. STOKES contended that, as the copy of the depositions had not been received from the Magistrates' Clerk till the 21st of June, there was not a period of 14 days available before the next Sessions, and therefore the last Sessions was not "the next practicable Sessions," and consequently it was not necessary to proceed at all at that time.—The COURT held in favour of the objection. It had come out, on cross-examination of Mr. John Reynolds, that the Order and Grounds of Removal were not served by the respondent parish on him, but on another person in Constantine, named Harvey, from whom Mr. Reynolds received them. On this fact, Mr. STOKES now contended that the appellant parish was justified in treating the Order of Removal as a nullity, as it had not been served on the Overseer.—Mr. SHILSON and Mr. CHILDS urged that the appellants could not now take this objection, as they had appeared to the notice, and had given no notice of such an objection, in the grounds of appeal.—The appeal was dismissed, without costs.—It was, however, intimated that as the Order of Removal had not been legally served, it would still be treated as a nullity. RICHARD DAVEY, appellant; JUSTICES OF THE EAST DIVISION OF THE HUNDRED OF WEST, respondent. Mr. BISHOP for appellant; no appearance for the respondents.—The appellant, in this case, was Mr. Richard Davey, an auctioneer, of Lanreath, where he had for some years kept a beer- house, with the sign of "the White Horse." For some three or four years he had, unsuccessfully, applied at the Trecan Gate Petty Sessions, for a public-house license; a majority of the magistrates there being opposed to his application. Mr. BISHOP stated that, on the first occasion when application was made, Lord Vivian, on the Bench, told the applicant that if he would enlarge and improve his house, he (Lord Vivian) would vote for granting him a public-house license. Mr. Davey accordingly enlarged and improved his house; and, in 1859, again made application; but the magistrates were divided in opinion, and the majority was against him. In September, 1860, he renewed his application; and on that occasion the consideration of the case was adjourned for the purpose of taking the opinion of the vestry. But, instead of this being done, the rival landlord obtained signatures to a memorial against granting the license applied for by Mr. Davey. That memorial was signed by several persons who had appended their signatures to a memorial in Mr. Davey's favour (laughter). It was then determined to adjourn the case to the Petty Sessions in November; but after that determination had been arrived at, it was discovered that the Justices had no such power of adjournment—the case having previously been adjourned once.—It was then signified to Mr. Bishop by the Bench that they could not grant the license; and hence the present appeal.—Some of the persons who signed the memorial against Mr. Davey's application have since admitted that they did so in error. One of them had stated that at the time he signed, he did not see the heading of the paper, it being turned down; another that he signed the memorial in the belief that its purpose was simply to retain the license for the other publican; and another that he signed merely because he saw certain gentlemen's names at the head of the paper. He had been desirous to prove these facts before the Magistrates, in order to show in what way the memorial had been signed, and he tendered witnesses for that purpose; but the Magistrates, under the advice of their clerk, held that they had no power to receive evidence on oath. This was one of the grounds of the present appeal; for it was clear, from the 23rd section of the Alehouse Act—9 Geo. 4, cap. 61—that the Justices had such power; although, he confessed, that at the Petty Sessions he was not prepared to refute the opinion of the Bench and their Clerk.—He was now prepared with evidence to support his statement as to the signing of the memorial, and to show that a second public-house was desirable in Lanreath. Mr. Davey had for several years kept the house in question as a beer-house, and the police could prove that it had always been kept in an orderly and proper manner. But, by granting the license applied for, there would be a greater check on any possible misconduct of the house, than if it was continued as a beer-house. The population of the parish of Lanreath had greatly increased within the last few years; and some of the largest village fairs in the County were held at that place. Mr. Richard Davey, sworn, proved notice of appeal; and deposed that he had kept the White Horse beer-house, in Lanreath, for six years. His first application for a spirit license was in 1857; at that time Lord Vivian, the Chairman of the Bench, stated that if he would make some improvements in his house, the license should be granted; it was reported that his house was small and inconvenient. He made a large parlour, and there was a large room up-stairs over the parlour. Attached to the house was a yard and a stalled stable; the stable would contain 5 horses, and the stable and yard together, about 30. There were three large cattle fairs held yearly at Lanreath. In the years 1857, 58, and 59, he obtained the signatures of farmers, merchants, and others, in Lanreath and other parishes, in favour of his application. (The Memorial referred to was handed to the Bench). There was a market at Lanreath on Fridays. The fairs were largely attended by cattle-dealers from Plymouth and other places, east and west, who had expressed their dislike to come into a beer- house to settle their business, and their desire that he should have a spirit license. But for the hint given him by Lord Vivian on the Bench, he did not believe that he should have made the alteration in his house;—it had cost him about £30. The house and premises were rated at £10 a year. Mr. Glencross, a clergyman, one of the Bench at Trecan, was in favour of his having a license. (In reply to a question from the Rev. U. Tonkin, Mr. BISHOP stated that the Rev. R. Buller, the clergyman of Lanreath, was opposed to the application; but he had taken no part on the Bench).— Mr. William Searle, farmer, of Lanreath, occupying 300 acres, had attended the fairs at that place, almost regularly during the last 20 years; and it was his opinion that a second public-house was required there. He had heard many persons express their dislike to go into Mr. Davey's house, because it was a beer-shop. The fairs at Lanreath were largely attended, especially when they occurred in the early part of the week; and he had heard complaints of want of accommodation there. The nearest public- house, out of the village, was about 2½ miles off—at Trecan Gate, within a few yards of Boconnoc parish. The only public-house at present, in the village, was the Punch Bowl, kept by Mr. Lean; it was a respectable house, but was not nearly sufficient for the accommodation of persons attending the fairs.—John Gilbert, farmer, of Trecan, in the parish of Lanreath, had for some years, almost regularly attended the fairs at Lanreath and had heard many persons who came there express a desire for a second public-house. The alterations which had been made by Mr. Davey at the White Horse made it a very tidy house, and there is good stabling there. The stable at the other house is small. Mr. Davey being a business-man, it would be an accommodation to persons if they could go there to sit down comfortable (sic) and settle their business. Mr. Davey's house was, at the present time, much frequented by respectable farmers and others; and if he had a spirit license, it would be still more so.—John Marshall, miller and merchant, of St. Veep. For 24 years he had attended Lanreath fairs; he knew Mr. Davey's house, and had never known it kept otherwise than respectably. Had heard many farmers attending the fairs express a desire that there should be another spirit house in the village; and he himself desired it. Had signed the memorial in favour of Mr. Davey's application; and, having looked over it, could state that the persons who signed it were all respectable dealers and farmers of the neighbourhood. The Magistrates—Mr. Rogers, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. Sawle, Rev. U. Tonkin, and Rev. T. Pascoe—consulted; and the Chairman said:—the Court have taken the circumstances of this case into their careful consideration, and they have decided on granting the license applied for. (Mr. Norway was on the Bench, but he took no part in the consultation). Rev. U. TONKIN:—I hope Mr. Davey will take care to keep a respectable house. The CHAIRMAN:— He appears to be a highly respectable man. This concluded the business of the Sessions. ______THE COUNTY GAOL. The following Annual Reports were read and adopted at the Quarter Sessions on Tuesday: CHAPLAIN’S REPORT. The Chaplain's House, County Jail, Oct. 15, 1860. My Lords and Gentlemen, I have the honour to lay before you my 3rd Annual Report of the moral and religious instruction and condition of the prisoners committed to the County Jail during the past year. The calendars which have been submitted to you show no case of superior education, and there appears but one, and that the case of a foreigner, among the summary convictions. Of those who could read and write well, the calendars record only 2, and the summary convictions 3. The majority of the prisoners, however, whether as appearing in the calendars, or among the summary convictions, were able to read, and many of them to write "imperfectly."—The number destitute of any instruction whatever amounts to 85. I am concerned to state that the proportion of youthful offenders exceeds that of last year. I have endeavoured, as far as lay in my power, to supply to these poor children, mostly very ignorant, the want of school instruction, as well as to influence them for good in other ways. How far any real improvement has been effected in them, I feel it difficult to say, since the only true test of such improvement in a prisoner, whether juvenile, or adult, is not what he appears to be, or the manner in which he conducts himself in prison, but his conduct after his discharge; and in the case of most of these juvenile delinquents, I am sorry to say, I have not been able to ascertain what their conduct subsequent to their liberation has been. Amongst the adult prisoners there is one case which has certainly, by God's mercy, turned out well, and another which I have every reason to believe will do so. In both instances the prisoners had been guilty of felony, and sentenced to many months (sic) imprisonment. It is right, however, to say that in neither case are there much previous criminality,—in fact, that one was a first offence. The prisoners, with few exceptions, have been uniformly well behaved, and attentive to my instructions; but, in the face of the recommitments, which have been very numerous, it is hardly possible for me to indulge the hope of their having been materially benefited. The very low state as to morals and religion of the generality of those who have come under my care during the past year, may be judged of from the fact, that while drunkenness and unchastity have, in the great majority of instances, more or less directly led the way to crime, not one-third of the prisoners were acquainted with even the rudiments of Christianity, and only 16 out of the whole number of the year's admissions had been in the habit of saying any kind of private prayer. And yet it is a startling fact, that out of that number, no less than 370 had attended Sunday Schools for periods ranging from 6 months to 7or 8 years. My own firm conviction is, that this low moral and religious condition of the prisoners arises mainly, if not entirely, from the want of home training, and example in youth, and is the strongest predisposing cause to that ruinous vice, against which no natural intelligence, or mere intellectual acquirements, would seem to be any sufficient protection. As some proof of this, I may inform the Court that the very best instructed, and most intelligent prisoner committed during the year, perpetrated the crime which has consigned him to penal servitude, after a day's hard drinking. In my last Report, I expressed a confident hope that on the occupation of the New Jail I should be provided with a Schoomaster (sic) and Mistress, and the prisoners thereby brought under regular daily instruction. Circumstances, however, have arisen to interfere with the apointment (sic) of these officers hitherto; but I have reason to believe that your Visiting Committee will soon feel themselves in a position to afford me this most necessary help. I have the honor to be, My Lords and Gentlemen, Your faithful bumble servant, W. F. EVEREST, Chaplain. To the Worshipful the Chairman, and other Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace at Quarter Sessions assembled. SURGEON’S REPORT. During the last twelve months, the Cornwall County Gaol has been in a very healthy condition.—No epidemic has been prevalent, neither has any increase of sickness taken place, from the introduction of the separate system of confinement. Only one death has occurred. I have much pleasure in stating that the present sanitary condition of the Gaol is satisfactory. I append the usual tabular form of cases. JOHN WARD, Surgeon. Bodmin, 29th September, 1860. Cases of Sickness for the Year ending 29th September, 1860.

Indisposition

number at number of

Infirmary

one time

Greatest

Slight Slight

cases cases

Total Deaths Insanity

M F M F M F M F M F M F 10 4 1 0 5 0 176 59 0 1 181 59

Signed, J. WARD, Surgeon.