Quick viewing(Text Mode)

1858 Cornwall Quarter Sessions & Assizes

1858 Cornwall Quarter Sessions & Assizes

1858 Quarter Sessions & Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes ...... 18 3. Easter Sessions ...... 59 4. Cornwall Midsummer Sessions ...... 69 5. Lammas Assizes ...... 83 6. Michaelmas Sessions ...... 113 7. Winter Assize ...... 140

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 8 and 15 January 1858

1. Epiphany Sessions

These sessions were opened on Tuesday the 5th inst., at the County Hall, , before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman. Lord Vivian. H. Thomson, Esq. Lord Valletort. W. Morshead, Esq. Hon. G.M. Fortescue. Goldsworthy Gurney, Esq. Sir Henry Onslow, Bart. J.W. Peard, Esq. Sir S.T. Spry. E. Stephens, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. S.U.N. Usticke, Esq. T.J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. Neville Norway, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. F.M. Williams, Esq. E.W. Brydges Willyams, C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Esq., M.P. Thomas Paynter, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. T.R. Avery, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. R.H.S. Vyvyan, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. J.P. Magor, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. W.R.C. Potter, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. R.G. Lakes, Esq. C.G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. E. Collins, Esq. Rev. Vyell F. Vyvyan. J. Jope Rogers, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. C.M, Edward Collins. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. S. Borlase, Esq. Rev. W. Thomas. W. Horton Davey, Esq., of ; and the Rev. Lewis Morgan Peter, of Treviles, qualified as magistrates. The following gentlemen were sworn on the :—Mr. John Rogers Moon, , foreman; Mr. James Allen, ; Mr. John Andrew, ; Mr. Henry Brendon, Liskeard; Mr. John Karswell, jun., Liskeard; Mr. Robert Coath, Liskeard; Mr. john Crossman, St. Mewan; Mr. John Davey, St. Stephens by Launceston; Mr. Michael Frost, St. Mary Magdalene; Mr. T. Treweeke Golding, ; Mr. T. Peter Hamlyn, St. Mary Magdalene; Mr. John Mayers, St. Neot; Mr. John Mason, Callington; Mr. Nicholas Michell, St. Neot; Mr. Nettleton Moore, St. Clement; Mr. W. George Nettell, Liskeard; Mr. George Stanaway, Probus; Mr. Richard Tremain, St. Clement; Mr. Henry Tresawna, Probus; Mr. George Tooker, St. Neot; Mr. James Webber, Probus; and Mr. George Weekes, Probus. After the customary formalities, the CHAIRMAN delivered the following charge: [not transcribed] The Grand Jury then retired to their room, after receiving from the Chairman some instructions as to the mode of swearing witnesses and returning bills. WARNING TO MAGISTRATES’ CLERKS.—The CHAIRMAN complained that there were three cases of parties admitted to bail for trial at these sessions, in which no information had been forwarded to Mr. Everest, and consequently the names of the parties charged were not on the Calendar; although the depositions were taken so long back as in December and November. The names of these parties were William Parnell, Thomas Barrett and Henry Baker. The chairman remarked that it was very important that the Calendar should present the name of every person to be tried; but this could not be done unless timely information was sent to Mr. Everest. Subsequently, in the course of the day, the Chairman had occasion to repeat his complaints of the non- return of depositions; there was an instance of four depositions being just returned, from Callington. Mr. SAWLE suggested that the Chairman should in such cases, disallow the Magistrate’s Clerk’s expenses. VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The Visiting Justices reported the cleanly state of the gaol, and the efficient discipline maintained therein. [’ BILLS.—not transcribed] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor reported that nothing had occurred within the prison since his last report, calling for any special remark. The prisoners, with some few exceptions, had been orderly and well-conducted. The Rules and Regulations for the government of the prison had been as far as practicable, complied with. Several defects and dilapidations continued to exist, but under present circumstances the Governor did not recommend that any repairs, of consequence, should be undertaken. [GAOL EXPENSES FOR T HE PAST QUARTER.—not transcribed] EASTERN DIVISION OF BRIDGES.—The report from Mr. Sylvanus W. Jenkin, surveyor, was as follows:— “ Bridge:—There is a dangerous opening to a mill-leat near the end of this bridge, at which I would recommend a gate or door to be placed; the cost will be about 12 shillings: I have no other application to make at this time.—I beg to submit a notice which I have received from Mr. Childs, of Liskeard, of an application intrusted to be made to Parliament by the Liskeard and Union Canal Company, for power to construct a Railway from to Looe.” WESTERN DIVISION OF BRIDGES.—Mr. Hicks, surveyor, reported as follows:— “The Bridge Road requires cleaning, and some parts stoning, which will cost about £1 15s. There are also some repairs wanting to the south guard-wall, which will cost 4s. 6d. .—There are some repairs wanting to the guard-wall, which I consider will cost about five shillings. COUNTY CONSTABULARY.—The CHAIRMAN read the following report from the Chief Constable:— Chief Constable’s Office, Bodmin, 4th January, 1858. My Lords and Gentlemen; I have the honour to lay before you the quarterly returns of crime committed in the county; and also a return showing the number and distribution of the constabulary. The force is now nearly full; and as the instruction of those at head quarters will shortly be completed, I trust soon to occupy the entire county. I have much pleasure in adding that the general behaviour of the force is very satisfactory.—I have to ask this Sessions to sanction the purchase of another horse for the district, as all prisoners committed to gaol in the and districts, including the boroughs of Falmouth, Penryn, Helston, Penzance, St. Ives, and Truro (under a distinct police force) are brought to Truro for conveyance to Bodmin, and one horse has been found quite unequal to this work. I would also recommend that another horse should be purchased, to be kept at head quarters, and available for any district where a horse shall happen to be sick or unable to work, or for any emergency; and I am sure the county will benefit by this arrangement.—The charge for extra horse-hire in the conveyance of prisoners from the Western Divisions has amounted to £26 16s. in this quarter,—an expense which I hope will be entirely avoided for the future by the arrangement I propose.—I have submitted to the committee the names of four places at which I propose building stations and locks-up as soon as possible; and I trust the county will see the necessity of a notice for a further grant for this purpose; as it is impossible the working of the force can be efficiently carried out until these building are completed.—I have to submit a new arrangement of the Petty Sessional Divisions, which I hold to be essential for the convenience of the public, and the well-working of the police force; but I beg to add that the buildings I have proposed are quite irrespective of this arrangement. I have the honour to be, My Lords and Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, W.R. GILBERT, Lieut.-Col. —The CHAIRMAN said there were also, from the Chief Constable very voluminous returns:—of the expense of contingencies, &c. incurred during the quarter ending the 31st December, 1857—of the strength and disposition of the force—of the crimes committed (so far as known), and number of persons apprehended—of the offences charged, &c. The total amount of contingencies for the quarter was 405l. 4s. 2½ d.—There was also a charge of 150l. 7s. 3d., for services performed by the constabulary in the apprehension, subsistence and conveyance of prisoners during the quarter; and another charge of 21l. 12s. 6d., for giving notice to coroners and attending at 41 inquests; but it was explained that these two sums, amounting to 171l. 19s. 9d., were paid, not to the police themselves, but in reduction of the police expenditure generally.—The CHAIRMAN further reminded the court that 2½ per cent. On the salary of every police constable went for the forming a superannuation fund, and fines for misconduct also went in aid of that fund. The last sum applied to that fund was 75l. 19s. 4d. invested in the purchase of 84l. 6s. 3d. in the Three per Cents. In the past quarter there had accrued a further sum, of 77l. 15s.— It was resolved that this sum also should be invested in the Three per Cents. [REPORT OF THE COUNTY POLICE COMMITTEE.—not transcribed] COUNTY ASYLUM.—On the motion by Mr. KENDALL, the following magistrates were named the visitors on behalf of the county:—Lord Vivian, Lord Valletort, Mr. Sawle, Mr. Tremayne, Mr. Brune, Rev. C.M. Edward Collins, Mr. Rogers, Colonel Coryton, Mr. E. Coode, jun., and Mr. Brydges Willyams.—Mr. KENDALL stated that the following magistrates were “subscribers’ visitors”:—Mayor , Rev. G.H. , Mr. Howell, Mr. Norway, and Mr. Kendall. —The CHAIRMAN read the annual reports from the Commissioners in Lunacy, the medical officer, and the visitors. Mr. KENDALL said, since the visitors report was written, it had come to their knowledge that within the last week 10 patients had been admitted, two of whom were idiots. It was fair to give notice to the county that if idiots were sent to the asylum, it would be necessary to build, at no distant period.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., said the two idiots had been sent from the St. Austell union-house, where they had been kept for years. It had been much desired to keep them there, and not put the parish to the expense of keeping them in the asylum; but, last week, the master of the house found one of them almost strangled with a handkerchief around his neck; and the other had alarmed the other inmates by concealing about his person pieces of metal and so on, with an expressed purpose of doing them violence. After that, the union authorities could not take the responsibility of keeping them there.—Mr. STEPHENS thought it ought not go to the public that idiots should not be sent to the asylum; in the absence of any separate building for them, it was the proper place to send them to. Mr. GULLY BENNET made complaint of what he termed a piece of extravagance on the part of the Asylum Authorities. A pauper inmate, chargeable to the parish of , was discharged, cured, and was sent home at a cost of 15s. to the ratepayers. The man was fat, well and strong; might have been sent in a van within three or four miles of his home, and then have walked home.—Mr. KENDALL was glad, at all events, to learn that the man was cured and in good condition. It was the object of the asylum committee to carry out the recommendation of the Poor Commissioners, not to turn out those poor people into the hands of persons not able to take care of them, but to see that they were lodged in some responsible person’s hands. The sum charged, he thought was high, and this was not the only remonstrance the Committee had had; they had taken the matter into consideration and had come to the resolution to send pauper patients back at the lowest possible charge; and, in extreme cases, they hoped to be able to send a nurse or keeper. Mr. BENNET said the matter had been animadverted on by the Board of Guardians; and he was the more surprised at the charge of 15s. inasmuch as two other persons, going farther west, were sent with this patient to Newlyn.—Lord VIVIAN, (we understood) said the Committee frankly admitted that this was an over-charge.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., did not know that the charge was too high, if it was necessary to convey him at all. Mr. HICKS, of the asylum, made some explanations to the Bench; the purport of which, we understand was, that the charge in this particular instance was really less than the ordinary charge, for conveyance authorized by the committee. The patient to Newlyn was one of three travelling westward; and on a division of the whole costs according to mileage 15s. was found to be a fair proportion for his conveyance, at the rate of 9d per mile, 3s. 6d. for driver, and 1s. for turnpikes. NEW GAOL BUILDINGS.—Mr. KENDALL read a report from the New Gaol Building Committee, on an unexpected difficulty that had, of late, arisen as regards the supply of stone, which had involved an expense of £1500, and would occasion a further serious outlay. For a long time the quarry on the premises afforded such an abundance of large and strong stone, as led the architect, the governor, and the committee to suppose that a full supply would easily be obtained, in clearing the site, for the buildings, and about 20,000 tons had already been raised and used. The quarrymen, however, met unexpectedly in their progress with various small veins which not only rendered the greater part of the stone friable and useless, but which, as rubbish, had to be carted away at great expense. In order that there might be no breach of contract (the committee having no power to enter into one for the supply of stone) the committee arranged, after much consideration, that the contractor should, himself, put on such a force for clearing the site as would enable him to keep up the supply of stone, notwithstanding the waste. The committee begged to remark that the original contract was made on the assumption, not only that the quarry would supply all the stone, but that the prison labour would raise it; but as both in some measure failed and the power of the committee was limited, it was hoped that the means adopted to meet the unexpected difficulty would be deemed satisfactory by the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions assembled; and as there were difficulties still existing, the committee asked for such further power as would enable them to make efficient and economical arrangements for the supply of stone, as might from time to time appear necessary. Tenders for the supply of stone had been sent in; but as the prices were, on calculation, higher than the cost now incurred in raising stone on the premises, the committee did not think it necessary to refer to them, especially as the County Quarry was somewhat improved and the prospective cost of raising stone less. The committee, whilst sitting yesterday, received a tender from the contractors, Messrs. Goodyear, for the supply of all the stone and granite required for the main building. On this tender, the architect was requested to report. The tender and report were considered by the committee at an adjourned meeting, and both were now submitted to the bench. The committee were disposed to recommend that Mr. Porter’s views as regards the tender be adopted, rather than that the county should undertake the further responsibility of raising stone for the building. In answer to a question from Mr. Le GRICE as to what became of Mr. Goodyear’s claim for £512 for quarrying, made at the last sessions, Mr. KENDALL stated that the committee, to whom the matter was referred, found, on investigation, that Mr. Goodyear had not taken advantage from the difficulties which had arisen in the supply of stone; the committee consequently advanced him £400, and now recommended that he be paid the balance. Mr. KENDALL further stated that, to the present time, the cost of raising stone had been £1520. Mr. Goodyear’s contract for the supply of stone for the main building, and of the granite required, was 3,788l. £500 would be the cost of raising the stone required for completing the wall and taking down other buildings. So that the sum total for the supply of stone would be about £6,000.—Mr. Kendall added, that the County had been put to no more serious expense by the course that had been pursued, than if they had originally advertised for stone. It was now for the county to determine whether to go on with any more quarrying on their own account, or adopt Mr. Goodyear’s tender.—Mr. SAWLE, and also Mr. Porter, the architect, confirmed Mr. Kendall’s statement that the county had been put to no additional expense by the course pursued.—In reply to a question from the Bench, the CLERK of the PEACE stated that the sum authorized to be borrowed for the building of this gaol was 28,000l.; of which 10,000l. had been drawn.—It was resolved on the motion of Lord VIVIAN, seconded by Mr. R.H.S. VYVYAN, that the report of the New Gaol Committee be received, and remitted to that committee with power to act thereon. Mr. KENDALL then have notice of motion for 6,000l., for the purposes of the New Gaol, at the next Sessions. TUESDAY, January 5. AGENDA. PROPOSED ALTERATION OF THE COURT.—On the subject of proposed alterations for promoting the convenience and comfort of the bench, it was resolved on the motion of Mr. SAWLE, seconded by Mr. KENDALL, that at future sessions, immediately after the charge to the grand jury, the magistrates adjourn to the Court for the transaction of county business, and that the table, (with the exception of a place for the reporters) be reserved for the magistrates. It was also resolved that a sum not exceeding £10 be granted for improving the seats in the petty jury box in the ,—part of the proposed improvement being an alteration of the backs of the seats. COUNTY POLICE STATIONS.—On the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., it was resolved that the police committee be empowered to apply a portion of the sum of £3000 granted at the last Sessions for the purpose of providing police stations, as recommended in their Report. —On the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., seconded by Mr. Kendall it was resolved that the parish of North Petherwyn together with such parts of the parish of Werrington and Northcott Hamlet, as lie on the western side of the , be, for police purposes, transferred to this County, provided the consent of the Quarter Sessions of Devonshire can be obtained, and if terms satisfactory to both Courts of Quarter Session can be agreed on. CORONERS.—The next item on the Agenda was:—“The notice given by the Right Hon. Lord Vivian, that he shall move that in the futrue (sic), inquests, as far as possible, be confined and limited to deaths by violence, and to other cases of death, where reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct or culpable neglect exists.—Lord Vivian said it was not his intention to proceed on this notice. His sole object in giving it was to prevent the recurrence of such censures as had been thrown on the coroners from time to time, for excess of zeal. He hoped that the suggestion which had been made by the Chairman, and the notice taken from time to time, by Magistrates, of excessive expenditure, would prevent the necessity of any such stringent resolution as he had proposed to adopt under his notice. Under these circumstances, he should drop the resolution for the time. [INSPECTORS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—not transcribed] —Lord VIVIAN, in accordance with the notice in the Agenda, proceeded to submit a motion for remunerating the County Treasurer for additional duties under the County Police Act. He said he need say but very few words to recommend this motion to the Court. The Clerk of the Peace had very onerous duties in respect of the County Police; and the remuneration he was about to propose he considered was but commensurate therewith. But he understood that in some other counties an allowance of £50 a year was made; and therefore, he begged to propose that an allowance of £50 a year be made to the County Treasurer in consideration of the additional duties imposed upon him by the New County Police. Lord VALLETORT seconded the motion. [……..] There being no amendment proposed, Lord Vivian’s motion for granting the salary was agreed to. […..] COUNTY CONSTABULARY.—Mr. E. COODE jun., gave notice that at the next sessions, he will move, in accordance with instructions in the Police Committee’s Report, that the present rate of pay to Police Superintendents, viz., 2 at £75 a year each, 2 at £85, and 2 at £95, be altered; and that, in future the rates of pay be, 3 at £85 each, and 3 at £95 each; and that the County Police perform the duty of attending the Courts of Quarter Sessions, and of escorting prisoners to and from the Gaol, at Sessions and Assizes. The CLERK of the PEACE presented the following bills, which were allowed for expenses connected with the registration of voters, £144, inclusive of £47 10s 2d. paid for printing.—Cravings, £55. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. (Before C.B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq.) (Mr. Lethbridge retired from the chair, in consequence of his inability, from failing eye-sight, to undertake the duties of the chairmanship by candle-light). ELIZA CHEEVE, aged 19, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a shawl, the property of Edward Bennett, at St. Austell, on the 27th of December.—To another indictment, charging her with stealing a pewter pint, the property of Robert Dunn at St. Austell, on the 28th December, she also pleaded GUILTY. (Sentence: three months hard labour) SUSAN THOMAS, 30, pleaded GUILTY of stealing two waistcoat pieces and a piece of cloth, the property of James Sowden at Liskeard on the 6th of November. To another indictment charging her with stealing five plaid scarfs and a dress, the property of William Barrett, at Liskeard, on the 28th of October, she pleaded not guilty; but the prosecutor offered no evidence. (Sentence: three months imprisonment — Editor’s Note: Sentence not reported in the Royal Cornwall Gazette, but taken from Cornwall Criminal Registers held at the National Archives)) FRANCIS GLANVELL, 21, a needle-woman, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a box, a half-crown piece, 4 shillings, and 6 sixpences, the property of John Thomas, at , on the 6th of November. (Sentence: twelve months hard labour) JOHN CLARKE, 47, gardener, pleaded GUILTY of embezzling the sum of 8l. 18s. 8d., the property of his master, William Henry Pole Carew, Esq., at Antony, on the 2nd of September. (Sentence: twelve months hard labour) The court then rose. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6. (Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq.) SUSAN BLIGHT, a young married woman on bail, was charged with stealing from James Sampson, a miner, of St. Agnes, on the 21st of November, a number of pieces of the current coin of the realm, value 27l., and also an American Five cent. piece, the property of the said James Sampson.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—James Sampson, the prosecutor, stated that the prisoner was his nearest neighbour. In November last, he discovered that his chest, in which he had kept money locked up, had been broken open, and about 27l. worth of gold and silver coins had been taken away and two foreign coins, one of which was an American five-cent. piece. In the chest in which he kept his money, had also been a piece of paper of peculiar sort.—Nicholas Bryant, constable of St, Agnes, about 7 o’clock in the morning of the 26th November went with a search warrant to prisoner’s house, in company with another constable. She said they were at liberty to search every part of the house. Shortly after they entered she went up stairs to dress her children. While she was up-stairs, I searched one cupboard down stairs, and while doing so, I heard the noise of something falling into the other cupboard; I ran up-stairs into the room where prisoner was; she was standing near the place where money had fallen into the cupboard below; she turned round as I came up, and let fall a considerable lot of money on the floor, and she was rolling in her hand a piece of wet paper. I picked up from the floor of the room and the stairs, 5l. 13s. 0d. I then went down stairs, and in the cupboard where I had heard something fall, I found £5 4s. 0d. Both these sums were in sovereigns and silver. I then went up-stairs, with two females to search the prisoner, and in the pocket of her dress found three or four half-pence and the American silver coin; which Sampson identified.—James Sampson recalled, identified the American coin, by a punch-hole in it.—On cross-examination, he said he had about £40 in the box altogether. I have a wife and seven children, the eldest boy being about 16; the box is kept in the room in which I and my family sleep. I had not counted my money in my chest for a year and half or more; but on the 13th of November I put in 4½ sovereigns, and then saw other gold and silver there:— Richard Hooper, also a parish constable of St. Agnes, who accompanied last witness on the search, corroborated his evidence. He added that while he was down stairs, a woman brought down the chamber utensil; he followed her to see it emptied, and saw that it contained a purse, 28 shillings, and 4d. After that he went up-stairs and found two sovereigns more on the floor.—Cross-examined. It was Bryant who told the prisoner to go up-stairs and dress the children, who had followed her down, naked.—For the defence, Mr. SHILSON suggested that the evidence for the prosecution left it uncertain whether or not he had lost any money; but, assuming that he had, there was no evidence that the prisoner had ever been in prosecutor’s house or knew any thing about it; while it was proved that the box was kept under the bed in the room in which the prosecutor and all his family slept. Another fact for the defence was that though the prosecutor said he lost about £27, and that there was about £40 in the box, only £14 5s. had been found in the prisoner’s possession; while no evidence had been given to account for the remainder, or to show that it had been used by her. Mr. Shilson disputed the evidence of the identity of the American coin; and suggested that the money she was apparently intending to secrete was about £14, which she possessed of her own, her husband being a miner, and which she was fearful of losing, on the arrival of the constables. If the money had been the prosecutor’s, she could have no object in secreting it, as it was not capable of being identified; she would rather have directed her attention to the secreting of the American coin.—In summing up, the CHAIRMAN put several points in favour of the prisoner, and from her examination before the magistrates read that she stated she had save up £14, and that when the constables came she was afraid of losing it, and was taking means of concealment when they came into her room; but on the other hand, it was unfavourable to her case that she made no mention of this when the house was searched. The chairman further remarked that it was possible the robbery may have been committed by her husband, who was not before the court.— Verdict, NOT GUILTY. KITTING.—JAMES TEAGUE (sic), THOMAS COCK, and FRANCIS TEAGUE, young miners, were charged with stealing 20 cwt. of copper ore, from Great South Tolgus mine at Redruth, on the 11th of September, the property of John Daw and others. adventurers in the said mine.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—Mr. STOKES opened the following case for the prosecution. The change was of the offence commonly called “kitting”—the removing of ores in a mine for the purpose of increasing the wages payable on tribute to the parties charged. Exhibiting plans to the court and jury, Mr. Stokes stated that in the 70 fathom level of this mine there were two pitches—one, called Middleton’s or Cock’s pitch, in which the prisoner Cock worked; and the other, on the other side of the shaft, called Davey’s pitch, in which the two other prisoners worked. Middleton, who had worked with Cock in Middleton’s pitch, had left the country and was believed to be in Australia. At the July setting for two months, Cock and Middleton took their pitch at 10s. in the £, and Davey’s pitch was taken by Davey and Teague at 12s. in the £—high tributes, the ore being poor. Davey’s pitch was an entirely new one; but Cock’s or Middleton’s had been worked before. In September, those two pairs of men claimed to have broken in their several pitches a very considerable quantity of very rich ore—more than 7 tons in Davey’s pitch, and more than 6½ tons in Middleton’s pitch. Consequently, a large sum of money was paid to the prisoners, in respect of subsist and tribute; the captains at that time, though having their suspicions, having no such evidence as would warrant their withholding payment.—The case against the prisoners would very much depend on the evidence of two men, named Richards and , who were employed as skip-fillers in the 70 fathom level; and they would state that they saw the three prisoners, in September, take the rich ore from the adventurers piles, near the stopes, worked at tut work, and carry it away to their own piles, in barrows, in their shirts and pockets, and by other means. The quantity charged to have been thus taken was very large indeed; it would be proved that the ground said to have been “spent” in Davey’s pitch would not contain the dressed ore contained in Teague and Davey’s pile, and on which they claimed and received payment. Proof of this kind would not be offered in respect of the pitch worked by Cock and Middleton; but it would be shown that the ores in both of the prisoners pitches differed in colour as well as quality from the ores at the adventurers’ stopes; and ores from the various places mentioned would be submitted to the jury.—Evidence in the case was then given.—The first witness called was Captain John Daw, manager of Great South Tolgus mine. In the course of his evidence, he stated that, in September, at the close of their two months’ take, Davey and Teague claimed to have broken in their pitch, 7 tons 6 cwt. 2 qrs., dry weight, which sold at £7 12s. per ton; and the tribute paid to them after deducting for costs, was £28 18s. 4d. Middleton and Cock claimed for 6 tons 12 cwt. 3 qrs. of ore, dry weight, which sold at 5l. 1s. per ton; and they were paid a net tribute of 12l. 10s. 6d. The produce of the ore claimed by Davey and Teague was 7⅝—a high produce. The produce of the ore claimed as from the other pitch, was 5½—a good produce. The ore at the stopes was a rich yellow ore, which in some places made a produce of 9 or 10, and in other places a produce of 15;—a very high produce. On the prisoners’ piles he saw rich yellow ore, which he was satisfied came from the stopes in the 70 level, and could not have been broken in the prisoners’ pitches.—Evidence was also given by Joseph Richards and Thomas Pengelly, skip-fillers, and by Captain Joseph Jewell, managing agent of East Wheal Tolgus. A portion of the evidence of Capt. Jewell was that on his measuring the ground which had been broken in Davey’s pitch, he made it 82½ cubic feet, which space could not possibly contain 7 tons of dressed ore, irrespective of attle. The usual calculation was that about 20 cubic feet of dressed ore made a ton weight.—Samples of ores were produced from the adventurers’ stopes, and from Middleton’s and Davey’s pitches.—Mr. SHILSON ably addressed the jury for the defence; and the CHAIRMAN summed up carefully, and in the course of doing so, strongly urged that, in cases of kitting, when samples of ore were taken from the levels or piles, this should be done in the presence of the accused or suspected parties; which had not been done in the present case.—The jury, after nearly half an hour’s conference in their box, retired for further consultation, and, after an absence of nearly an hour, they returned into court, with a verdict finding all three prisoners GUILTY. (Sentences: James DAVEY—six months hard labour; Thomas COCK—four months hard labour; Francis TEAGUE —two months hard labour) WILLIAM HENRY PARNELL was charged with stealing 36 bushels of barley, the property of John Hawken, jun.—Mr. G.B. Collins conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—In this case, both the prosecutor and the prisoner were respectable merchants of , engaged in the purchase and shipment of corn.—After the examination of several witnesses for the prosecution, the CHAIRMAN, on the facts elicited, stopped the case and directed a verdict of acquittal, on the ground, that there seemed to have been a dispute as to the purchase of some barley, but that clearly there was no felony.—We were informed that the clergyman of St. Breock and many respectable merchants and other inhabitants of Wadebridge were waiting in court to give the prisoner an excellent character, had he been called for defence; they would have stated, we understand, that in his commercial transactions he had never been found other than honest and upright. [Editor’s Note: In the following week’s newspaper, the following correction was printed: In our notice, last week, of the trial and acquittal of a merchant charged with stealing 36 bushels of barley, the accused was wrongly named William Henry Parnell. The correct name is William Werry Parnall, of Pengelly.] Mr. Lethbridge here retired from the chair, which was occupied, during the remainder of the sitting, by JOHN JOPE ROGERS, Esq. PAUL GLAZER, 39, hawker, was indicted for uttering at St. Agnes, on the 6th of Nov., a counterfeit half- crown to Elizabeth Terrell; a counterfeit crown to John Tredinnick; and a counterfeit half-crown to Ann Langworthy;—these parties being shopkeepers.—The case was clearly proved against the prisoners (sic) by numerous witnesses, some of whom he addressed and cross-examined with an almost religious solemnity of voice and manner, and, in one instance, with an impressive adjuration not to think of deceiving the One above.—The evidence against him was closed by his own statement before the committing magistrate at Truro, in which he acknowledged having passed the counterfeit coins, as charged, adding that he bought the so-called half-crowns at sixpence each, and the counterfeit crown for 10d.—Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: six months hard labour) HENRY DAY, 30, plumber, was charged with stealing, at , two pieces of lead and one piece of iron pipe, the property of the Right Honourable Evelyn, Viscount Falmouth.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Shilson.—Evidence in the case was given by John Mac Lean, plumber and brazier, of Truro, (the prisoner’s employer at the time of the felony); William Henry Randall, an apprentice to Mr. Mac Lean; William Joseph Nash, superintendant of police of Truro; William Woolcock, serjeant of police at Truro; Henry Baker, shoemaker, who had been in custody on a charge of feloniously receiving lead and iron from the prisoner, but was now admitted as Queen’s evidence against him; and Henry Ivey, watchmaker and whitesmith of Truro.—Evidence in favour of prisoner’s previous character, from boyhood, was given by William Plyming of Truro, formerly a contractor for the conveyance of prisoners; and it was stated that Joseph Trenerry of Truro had waited until a late hour of the day for the purpose of giving similar testimony.—Verdict, Guilty.—There was another indictment against the prisoner, charging him with stealing lead, the property of Mr. Mac Lean; but on this indictment no evidence was offered. (Sentence: three months hard labour) The Court then rose. The Grand Jury were discharged to-day.—Bills against the following prisoners were ignored:— Matthew Stephens, Thomas Trathen, John Miners, James Matthews, and Joseph Seccombe. ______SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq.) SOLOMON MARTIN, 24, labourer, was indicted for stealing a donkey, the property of John Richards, on the 31st of October. Mr. COMMINS for the prosecution, and Mr. CHILDS for the defence. Prosecutor, who lives in , had a donkey called “Billy,” which used to follow him. He turned the donkey on the common, and missed him for some time, but on the 6th of November found the animal at Lanner, in , and on calling him, the donkey at once came to his master. Eleanor Kneebone, at Lanner, had purchased the donkey of the prisoner. The defence was, that the prisoner found the donkey straying and could not discover the owner. John Thomas, constable at , and two farmers of gave the prisoner a good character. Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: six months hard labour) SARAH MOYLE, 56, and HARRIET MOYLE, 18, a tailoress, mother and daughter, were indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Brown, at Penryn, and stealing therefrom a silver watch, guard-chain and keys, a purse and sovereign. Another count charged larceny, and a third count, receiving knowing to have been stolen. Mr. JENKINS conducted the prosecution, and called as witnesses Mrs. Elizabeth Brown, wife of prosecutor, her sister Jane Pearce, and police-constable White. The prisoners was (sic) undefended. It appeared that on Sunday afternoon, the 8th of November, one of the prisoners, Harriet Moyle, who was a neighbour of prosecutor, came into Mrs. Brown’s house at Penryn, and whilst there, Mrs. Brown took out of her pocket a bead purse containing a sovereign. Harriet Moyle asked to see it, and after looking at the purse, returned it to Mrs. Brown, who placed it in a cupboard. About half-past three, they both left the house, and the watch was then hanging over the mantel-piece. Mrs. Brown locked the door and took the key with her. The window had been fastened in the morning, but Mrs. Brown said, whilst she was up-stairs, Harriet Brown might have unfastened it. Mrs. Brown returned home about half-past eleven, when she observed that the window curtain was down, but the door was locked. She missed her watch and chain, and the purse and sovereign. She went to Moyle’s house, and charged Harriet Moyle with robbing her, which she denied. The assistance of police constable White was then obtained, and in consequence of what had been seen by Jane Pearce, prosecutor’s watch and part of the guard were found in the fire in prisoners’ house. Harriet Moyle admitted that she had changed the sovereign, and spent a penny or two; and Sarah Moyle produced 19s. and some pence from the end of a white handkerchief. Both prisoners were found Guilty on the first count of breaking and entering. (Sentence: each eight months hard labour) THOMAS BARRETT was charged with stealing, on the 23rd of October, two pieces of timber, the property of the Company; and in the second count with receiving, knowing the timber to have been stolen. Mr. Cornish for the Prosecution; and Mr. Childs for the prisoner. In erecting the bridge at , the company have been using a great deal of scaffolding. One of the tubes having been completed, the scaffolding was taken to pieces, and the timber stacked on the bank of the river. From time to time some of the balk had been stolen; a search warrant was obtained, and in prisoner’s carpenter’s shop, timber was found which Mr. Whiting, the foreman of the railway works at Saltash, was enabled to identify as the property of the company. The defence was, that the prisoner had purchased the timber of a merchant at Devonport, and Mr. CHILDS, in an able speech, urged that there was no attempt at concealment by his client, and that the lapse of time (about 4 months) before the timber was found, was such that he ought not to be called to account for its possession. The CHAIRMAN summed up in the prisoner’s favour and the jury gave a verdict of not guilty. WILLIAM DAVEY, 32, labourer, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, the property of Joseph Trenerry, at Redruth, on the 30th of October last. Mr. Cornish prosecuted. Prosecutor lives at Truro, and is in the habit of attending Redruth market, and on the day in question his wife was there with a standing. The prisoner was seen loitering about the standing, and subsequently came and stood close by. Prosecutor’s wife asked him if he wanted a pair of boots, but he made no reply. He left, and shortly after she discovered that a pair of boots, which were on the end of the standing near where the prisoner was, had been taken away. He was apprehended by Sergeant Coombs, of the county constabulary, with the boots on his feet. Prisoner in defence said that he bought the boots of the prosecutor’s wife, and gave 8s. 6d. for them, which she emphatically denied.—Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: three months hard labour) , 22, seaman, was indicted for stealing nine sovereigns, a pair of boots, and a key, the property of Elinne* Rogers, at Falmouth on the 10th of December. The felony was committed whilst the prisoner was lodging at Radford’s lodging-house, at Falmouth. Prisoner received the key of prosecutor’s chest to give to a little boy to take some money out for prosecutor, but instead of giving the key to the boy as requested, he unlocked the chest and helped himself to the articles set out in the indictment. He proceeded to Penryn, where he was apprehended, and in the examination before the magistrates, (which was put in as evidence) he admitted taking 3l. 12s. 6d., and the boots. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY. (Sentence: five months hard labour) *[Editor’s Note: Other papers have the name as Etienne ROGERS] SAMUEL HOSKIN, described in the calendar as of the age of 13, and a labourer, but presented the appearance of being much younger, was charged with assaulting, stabbing, cutting, and wounding Richard Nicholls a boy of about the same age, at Mawgan, on the 30th of October. In the evening of that day John Nicholls was at the house of Jane Hoskin the prisoner’s mother, in company with another lad named Frederick John Crapp, playing at cards, when Nicholl’s (sic) brothers, Richard and William came to the house, and commenced hollowing and making a noise outside the window. The prisoner with John Nicholls went outside; a chase ensued, and ultimately a general fight took place between the boys. In the scuffle, the prisoner drew a knife from his pocket and stabbed his opponent Richard Nicholls, in the side of the abdomen. Darke Martin, surgeon, of St. Columb, was called in, but he found the wound very trifling, or at least anticipated no danger, and therefore did not repeat his visit. Mr. G.B. COLLINS prosecuted. Mr. CHILDS in defending the prisoner, remarked that the case although made out in parchment as a serious one, was truly of a trifling character. He asked the jury for an immediate acquittal, and suggested that a severe chastisement by the prisoner’s parents at home, would have been far better than bringing a child of the prisoner’s age into court on such a charge. The CHAIRMAN likewise said there appeared to be no felonious intent on the prisoner’s part, and thought the highest verdict the jury could arrive at, would be that of a common assault. He also stated that the prisoner had been in gaol ever since the offence was committed. A verdict of acquittal was returned. MATTHIAS JOLL, pleaded guilty to stealing the sum of £2 10s. from his master, James Rundle, of . (Sentence: six months hard labour) SAMUEL MICHELL, 20, labourer, pleaded guilty of embezzling monies the property of his master, James Bush. (Sentence: six months hard labour) JOSEPH DOWDLE, 18, soldier of the 37th regiment, and appearing in his regimental uniform, was sharged (sic) with killing a ewe sheep and stealing a shoulder thereof, the property of the , at Maker, on the 20th November last. Mr. CHILDS prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. The jury did not consider the evidence conclusive, and acquitted the prisoner. There was another charge against him as accessory after the fact, but on this no evidence was offered. WILLIAM BARRETT, 20, horsetrainer, was found guilty of stealing, on the 16th November last, at , in the parish of , a beaver hat and a chip hat, the property of Mr. John Cory. A prior conviction was proved against him at the assizes in July, 1853, when he was sentenced to seven years’ transportation. (Sentence: (a ticket of leave man) seven years penal servitude) The Court then rose. THURSDAY, JAN. 7, 1858 (Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq.) JOSIAH HOCKIN, was charged with stealing, on the 8th of December, a quantity of brass, the property of Messrs. Michael Williams and others, from their manganese works at Slimesford, in the parish of .—There was a second count charging felonious reception of the stolen property; but this count was abandoned.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—Thomas Grenfell, agent for the Messrs. Williams and Co., at the Manganese works, deposed that in connection with machinery for stamping and breaking manganese, there was a water-wheel, attached to which there had been certain brasses. On the 9th of December he received information of the loss of some pieces of brass from the wheel; within two or three days afterwards he went to the spot and found that all the brasses—three in number—connecting the flat-rods with the crank, had been removed.—Isaac Roskilly, manager of Mr. Bowhay’s foundry, at , stated that he had occasionally been employed at the Slimesford Manganese Works, and had several times repaired the water-wheel; about four months since he put a new nipple to the crank, and at that time all the brasses were in place.—Richard Vosper had been employed at the Slimesford works, but they stopped on the 4th of December. He was there on the 7th of December, looked at the water-wheel, and saw the brasses all in place; on the 9th he was there again, and found that the rod was out of its place in the nipple, and that all the three brasses were gone.—Cross-examined. There were only four or five men were employed at the works. The machinery was in an open field adjoining a public road. The prisoner was a bargeman.—Re-examined. The place is about 8 or 900 yards from the river Tamar. The works were idle after the 4th of December, and no men were in employ there. Witness was left in charge of the machinery.—Jane Ferguson, marine store dealer at , stated that on the 11th of December, prisoner came to her shop; he said he had some pieces of brass for sale, and showed it to her; it was in numerous pieces; some so small that they looked like cinders or ashes. She asked him where it came from; he said it came out of some old iron which he had sold. She then weighed it; it was 1 quarter and 24 lbs., and she gave him nineteen shillings and sixpence for it. He gave his name as James Simons of St. Germans. About the 17th of December, she was Police Serjeant Pappin, and delivered to him the brass she had bought of prisoner, and in precisely the same state; she had kept it in a bag by itself.—Georgina Ferguson, daughter of the last witness, and living with her, corroborated her evidence; the prisoner having the first place, spoken to her (the daughter) about selling the brass.—George Pappin, Serjeant of the County Constabulary, stated that on the 17th of December, he received from Mrs. Ferguson at Plymouth, the brass and bag which were now produced in court. On the 26th of December, he apprehended the prisoner at Calstock. On the 29th, witness, in company with the witnesses Grenfell and Roskilly, went to the Slimesford works, and saw Grenfell and Roskilly fit some of the pieces of brass which he had received from Mrs. Ferguson, into parts of the water-wheel, and they corresponded exactly. The prisoner lived at Calstock, was called Josiah Hocking (sic), and never went by the name of James Simons.—Cross-examined. Had other brasses here, which were not charged to have been stolen by the prisoner; received 12 lbs. from Mr. Roskilly at the foundry, but did not compare any of that with the engine. There were charges against other parties for stealing the brasses not included in the present case.—Isaac Roskilly recalled, stated that on the 29th of December he fitted some of the pieces of brass produced by Pappin to the water-wheel, and found them to match exactly; the pieces of brass now produced had formed a brass bearing of the nipple of the water-wheel belonging to the crank. Could not get all the pieces in place, because some of the small pieces had been burnt. Was positive that the brass produced must have belonged to that wheel. Had frequently had the handling of the brass, and could identify some of the pieces by marks of a cutter which had been connected with them.—Cross-examined. Had known the prisoner several years, and lived in the same parish with him; but never before heard of any thing against him.—Thomas Grenfell confirmed the last witness’s evidence as to the identity of the brasses; and, having known the prisoner 4 years, said he had never, before this charge, heard any thing against him.—Mr. SHILSON addressed the jury, in defence. The count for felonious receiving having been abandoned, the indictment in that respect being bad, the jury were bound to have positive proof that the prisoner himself stole the brasses from the wheel, before they could be justified in finding him guilty; and, in the prisoner’s favour, they might fairly infer that the brasses in the present case, had been stolen by the party or parties against whom charges were to be made for stealing other brasses from the same wheel.—Mr. Edward Bowhay, farmer, of Calstock, gave the prisoner a good character.—In summing up, the CHAIRMAN directed the jury that the prisoner was held by the ordinary rule of law, to be accountable for his possession of property which had been recently stolen.—Verdict GUILTY. (Sentence: four months hard labour) [Editor’s Note: Surname recorded as HAWKING in Cornwall Criminal Registers, held at the National Archives] JAMES HARLING, alias LANKEY, was then indicted for stealing brass, also the property of Messrs. Michael Williams and others, from their manganese works at Slimesford. In this case also, there was a second count for felonious receiving—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution, Mr. Shilson (for Mr. Childs) conducted the defence.—The brass stolen was missed from the water-wheel at Slimesford at the same time as the brass referred to in the previous case; and, consequently, much of the evidence was similar to that already given.—Thomas Grenfell stated that having, on the 11th of December, missed brasses from the water wheel, he afterwards saw some at Mr. Bowhay’s foundry; and also some at Callington and Launceston; it was broken up and burnt, like that now produced.—Isaac Roskilly stated that there had been two bearing-brasses and another brass used as a fitter, to the water-wheel in question; two of these brasses he had himself cast, and was enabled to identify a piece produced, in consequence of there having been a strain in casting, which strain he had chipped off. The prisoner came to Mr. Bowhay’s foundry, on the 18th of December, and offered some brass for sale; I put it in the scales and found that it weighed 12 lbs.; it appeared to have been brass bearing that had been put into a fire and nearly melted, until it fell in pieces. I paid the prisoner 6s. 6d. for it; but told him that it appeared to be something like some brass bearings that had been lost in the neighbourhood. He said he came by it honestly, and that he bought it of a man, whose name he did not know, at Metherall; which was about 3 miles from Callington, and 2 miles from the manganese works. I put this brass in the foundry and kept it there about a week, when I gave information to the police officer Pappin, and delivered the brass to him. In this brass which I bought of prisoner there was no mark by which I could identify it.—Cross-examined. The prisoner is a dealer in marine stores, and it is his business to buy and sell old metal.—John Walkey:—I work at Mr. Brendon’s, ironmonger, at Callington. On the 24th of December the prisoner brought there some brass for sale; I put it in the scales; it weighed 5¼ lbs; our price was 6d. a lb., and I paid him 2s. 6d. for it. I had never before bought brass of that description, but I thought it was old castings.—This witness identified one piece, among the pieces produced, as having been noticed by him when he bought the lot; he was enabled to identify it by some file marks.—Daniel Huggins: I live at Mr. Hayman’s, a marine store dealer at Launceston. In the morning of the 19th December the prisoner came there with another man, and asked me what my master was giving for brass. I told him 6d. a lb. The prisoner produced a quantity of brass, and the man with him assisted to bring it in. I weighed it; it was 27¾ lbs; I put the brass into a room, and gave them a ticket to take to my master, for payment. The brass was not touched, until Thursday night the 31st of December, when it was delivered to the policeman Ward. Some of the brass now on the table is like that which I bought of prisoner on the 19th.—Mary Ann Huggins, sister of last witness:—I and my brother attend at the stores belonging to Mr. Hayman. On the 23rd December, the prisoner came there with his wife, in a cart, with brass, iron, bones, and other things. He brought ¼ cwt. of brass, which I bought, and gave him a ticket to take to my master for payment. We put that brass in a hole, with other brass. I had never before bought any of that burnt brass. When Ward the policeman came a few days afterwards, I saw, among the pieces of brass weighed, on particular piece that I had noticed when I was buying of the prisoner on the 23rd.— Police Serjeant Pappin stated that on the 28th of December, at Mr. Bowhay’s foundry, Isaac Roskilly delivered to him 12 lbs. of brass, which he had had in his possession, and now produced; amongst it was one particular piece that Roskilly pointed out as being able to identify.—William Ward, inspector of police at Callington. I apprehended the prisoner on the 29th of December, and charged him with stealing brass from Messrs. Williams. He said he had not stolen any brass. I said if he had not stolen any, he had sold some to Mr. Roskilly at the foundry. He said “yes, I did sell 12 lbs., but I bought it of a young man at Metherall.” I asked him if that was all he had bought; he said yes, he had not bought or sold any more. I asked him if he knew the young man he bought it of; he said he did not, but that he bought it at Mrs. Peter’s public house. I then took him into custody. Afterwards, the same morning, I went to Mr. Brendon’s at Callington, and there received from John Walkey 4 lbs. and one ounce of brass; I was told that the prisoner had sold there 5¼ lbs., but some of it was so small that it could not be picked up. I informed the prisoner that I had received some brass at Mr. Brendon’s; he said “you will not find any more, for I have not sold any at any other place.” On the 31st of December I went to Launceston, and at Mr. Hayman’s, a marine store dealer, I ascertained that the prisoner had sold brass there; I went into the store, and Mr. Hayman, Daniel Huggins, and myself picked out some cast brass that I now produce. I took it the next day to the Slimesford works; Grenfell, Roskilly, and Serjeant Pappin were there. Immediately that I showed the brass to Roskilly, he took out two pieces which he said he would swear to; I saw him fix one piece into an indentation, and where it was rubbed, it exactly corresponded with the ironwork of the wheel; I can swear positively that it came from that place.—When I took the prisoner his breakfast on the 1st of January I said I shall have to get you remanded till to morrow because you have told me so many falsehoods; you told me you had not sold any brass whatever except to Roskilly and Brendon, and now I find you have been to Launceston. He said, well, if you’ve got the brass, that’s all right. On the following day he was taken before the magistrates, and was committed; and after that he said he had bought 3h4 lbs. of brass, (including what is now produced) from Simon Parrish, a blacksmith at , in the parish of Calstock.—Cross-examined.—Parrish has told me that he did sell the brass to prisoner.—Thomas Grenfell and Isaac Roskilly, separately recalled, identified certain pieces of the brass produced, and gave corroborative evidence as to the exact fitting of some pieces to the wheel, on the 1st of January; but Roskilly, on cross-examination, said he could not identify any of the brass that had been sold to him.—Mr. SHILSON, for the prisoner, in the first place, objected that the wording of the indictment would not support the count for felonious receiving; and the court, after hearing arguments on both sides, decided in favour of the objection.—Mr. Shilson then addressed the jury, as to the charge of stealing. He urged that the prisoner was a marine store dealer, and consequently it was his business to buy and sell old metal. There was no identification of the pieces sold to Roskilly; and as to the remainder, the prisoner’s statement was that he had bought it of the blacksmith Parrish, and Parrish stated that he sold it to the prisoner. At the time he made that statement, Parrish was not in custody. If these statements of the prisoner and Parrish could have been contradicted, it was the duty of the prosecution to have done so. In the absence of such contradiction, the jury were bound to receive the statements as true; and then the prisoner must be acquitted, inasmuch as he had properly accounted for his possession of the only portion of the stolen brass which had been identified.—The CHAIRMAN summed up for an acquittal, on the line of defence taken by Mr. Shilson, and observed that the prisoner could not be expected to produce Parrish in corroboration of his statement, inasmuch as Parrish was himself in custody on a similar charge; and if he were produced in court, might reasonably refuse to give an answer that might criminate himself.—The jury, in compliance with the directions of the court, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. SIMON PARRISH was then charged, as the previous prisoner had been, with stealing 40 lbs. of brass, the property of Messrs. Michael Williams and others. A second count for receiving was abandoned, after the ruling of the court in the previous case.—William Ward, inspector of police, deposed: I apprehended the prisoner at Calstock town on Saturday night last: he is a blacksmith, residing at Albaston, in the parish of Calstock. I charged him with stealing brass from Messrs. Williams’s manganese works. He said, “Oh, I expected you before; who told you I took it?” I said “Lankey,” (meaning Harling, the man just tried and acquitted). The prisoner said “what did he tell you?” I said “he told me you had sold him 34 lbs. of brass.” After a little hesitation, he said, “well, I did sell it to him; did he say how much he gave for it?” I said “yes, he stated that he gave you 11s. for it then, and was to give you a trifle more.” As I was afterwards conveying him to Callington, he said we should not find any more, and that there was no one else concerned in it. He had, before that , stated to me that he found this brass in his garden. After he had been before the magistrates he said he did not sell Harling the flanges, but admitted that he had sold him all the rest. All the brass except the flanges, had been in the fire, and from the shape of one of the pieces it was clear that it had been melted at a smith’s forge; there was a mark of the blast from the nozzle of the bellows.—Serjeant Pappin, who accompanied last witness, on his apprehension of prisoner, corroborated his evidence.—James Roskilly, looking at the brass produced in this case, said the only pieces he could identify were two flanges, and the parts of another flange.—James Harling, who had just been tried and acquitted, was now sworn as a witness:—He said, on the Monday or Tuesday before Christmas day, I bought of the prisoner 34 lbs. of brass; I sold 29 lbs. of it to Mr. Hayman, of Launceston, and 5 lbs. to Mr. Brendon, of Callington. I cannot recognize any of the brass produced, except the large burnt piece. (This was the piece to which a former witness had referred as having apparently been melted at a smith’s forge). I know nothing about the flanges. The brass which I bought of the prisoner was in the same state as that now produced. All that I bought of the prisoner was the 34 lbs.; but the week before, I sold 12 lbs. to Roskilly. The first time he spoke to me about some brass was about two months ago, when he said he had some brass for sale, and he would let me know when I should fetch it, but it was no use for me to call at his house except in the evening when he had left work. On a Sunday, either three weeks or a fortnight before last Sunday, he told me to come for the brass; and I fetched it on the Monday or Tuesday before Christmas-day; I paid him 11s. 8d., and was to pay him 2s. 4d. more last Saturday night.—Cross-examined: I have heard that he denies having some small flanges; I don’t recollect having seen such things among what I bought of him; what I bought of him was one of the large burnt pieces. That which I sold to Roskilly I had bought on that same day.—As to the first lot of brass sold to Mr. Hayman, of Launceston, I had nothing at all to do with it; it was sold by another man, a dealer in stores, and I only went with him to know the price of brass. When I went to Hayman’s the second time, my wife was with me, and I sold the 29 lbs; among that lot I did not see those small flanges, but I saw them when before the magistrates.—Re-examined: It was on the Wednesday before Christmas-day that I was sold the 29 lbs. at Hayman’s; I will not swear whether the flanges were, or were not, among that lot. When I bought the brass of the prisoner, he said he had had it a long time, and that some of it had belonged to his old father-in-law, who was a blacksmith, and died about 12 months ago.—Mary Ann Huggins: On the Saturday before Christmas the last witness, Harling, came to Mr. Hayman’s stores in Launceston. There was a man with him, and one of them asked my brother the price of brass. They had brass with them; my brother weighed it, and it was left at the stores.—I saw Harling again at the stores on the 23rd of December; he brought, with other things, ¼ cwt. of brass, in black pieces like those now on the table; the large piece I particularly noticed, because I was obliged to look into it clearly to see that it was brass. The little pieces (the flanges), were not in that lot which I bought; I am quite clear of that; but I saw pieces like those flanges in what my brother took in, on the Saturday before. What I bought on the 23rd was put into the same hole with that which my brother had bought; and I afterwards saw the Constable Ward take possession of the whole; we had no other brass of that description.—Daniel Huggins: On Saturday, the 19th December, Harling came to Mr. Hayman’s store, with another man. Both men together asked me what Mr. Hayman was giving for old brass. I said sixpence. They said they had a quantity to sell, and they took it out; one assisting the other; they put it into the scales; I weighed it, 27¾ lbs., and gave the other man (not Harling), the ticket for payment; they went away together, and I never saw them afterwards. I am sure that square pieces like these flanges were among the brass I thus bought. We had no other brass of that sort in our stores. On the Thursday following, the policeman came and took possession of all the brass we had.—On this evidence, the CHAIRMAN, addressing the jury, said it appeared that some other man, not Harling, was the person to whom the brass belonged, which included the flanges—the only pieces which had been identified in the present case. It seemed very much to be lamented, but he could hardly call on the jury, whatever their feelings might be, to give a verdict of guilty against the prisoners, under the circumstances proved. If the jury wished him to read over the whole evidence in the case he was ready to do so; he felt the immense responsibility of the case; but at the same time, if they were to find a verdict of guilty on grounds which were insufficient, there would be other proceedings; and he felt that he should not be justified in allowing a verdict that was not legally right.—The jury, with obvious reluctance, returned a verdict of not guilty; and the CHAIRMAN, addressing the prisoner, said:—“You have had a narrow-escape.” This concluded the criminal business, and the jury were discharged. THE SALMON FISHERY.—Mr. SHILSON, on behalf of Mr. Benjamin Hawken, draper of Bodmin, who, it appears, sends fish for sale in the market, made application for an alteration of the Fence Days on the River Camel. The Fence Days at present are from the 23rd December to the 15th May; and the application was that, in future, the Fence Days should be from the 1st of March to the 1st of June, both days inclusive. The ground of the application was that in the months of January and February, a particular and superior kind of salmon, called the “Blue Pol,” or “Candlemas Shoal” is met with in that point of the county, and at no other period of the year; so that, these months being included in the Fence Days, salmon of that kind were unattainable. The COURT declined to entertain the application, because notice of intention to make it had not been advertised.—One of the magistrates, Mr. SAWLE, expressed an opinion opposed to the application; he stated that what are called the “Blue Pol,” were no peculiar kind of salmon; they were the male salmon proceeding up the river, and if their capture were allowed, there would obviously be a destruction of the fishery. ______SECOND COURT. (Before C.B.G. Sawle, Esq.) GREGORY PHILIPS was charged with stealing an ox hide, the property of Edward Bowhay, of Calstock, on the 10th of November last. Mr. CORNISH for the prosecution: Mr. CHILDS for the defence. Edward Bowhay, the prosecutor said, I am a tanner, and live at Albaston, in the parish of Calstock, and am in the habit of buying hides of Mr. Rickard, a butcher. When Mr. Rickard has hides for me, he leaves them at Mr. Moor’s, on the turnpike-road leading down to . On Thursday, the 12th of November, in consequence of information I received, I went to a person called Michael Ruce, of Sidwell, to see a hide which I had been informed belonged to me. Mr. Rickard the butcher accompanied me; we were shown a hide which Mr. Rickard identified as being the hide of the bullock that he had killed. A man named Peter Williams, also informed us that the prisoner had brought it there; I paid Mr. Rickard £1 10s. 5d. for the hide, and the one produced is my property.—William Rickard said, I am a butcher, and live with my father at Crockadon, in St. Mellion; on the 5th of November I assisted my father in killing a fat ox; I and my brother took the hide on as far as Mr. Moor’s at St. Ann’s Chapel; a place where we had been accustomed to leave hides for Mr. Bowhay; I took the hide out of the cart and left it at Moor’s, and requested some parties standing by to inform Mr. Bowhay that I had left a hide there for him. I know the hide by my father’s initials being burnt in both horns, and also a mark in the near ear, and it is the same I left at Moor’s, on Friday, the 6th of November, for Mr. Bowhay. Michael Ruse.—I am a tanner and live at Sidwell, in Stokeclimsland. Prisoner came to me about the 8th of November and asked me to buy a hide. I put the hide into the scale, and found it weighed 74 lbs. and I paid for 73 lbs. at 4½d per lb. We then went up to my house, when I said I don’t think it is a real fat bullock. The prisoner said it was a cow that had been bad, and it was killed and the beef carried to Devonport market. I paid prisoner’s brother, James, £1 7s. 6d. for the hide; the prisoner gave me three half pence change. The hide produced is the same I bought. George Pappin of the Cornwall Constabulary proved apprehending the prisoner at his house, when he told witness he took the hide by the side of his house, and then took it upon the downs. The prisoner’s house is about sixty feet from prosecutor’s house. Mr. CHILDS made an able appeal to the jury, and called a witness as to character.—The CHAIRMAN summed up, directing the jury first to consider whether or not the property was laid in the prosecutor; if the thought not, then they would acquit the prisoner. The jury, after a few minutes deliberation, found the prisoner guilty. (Sentence: two months hard labour) CHARLES LIMPANY, alias CURREY, 19, seaman, was charged with stealing a silver watch and guard, on the 10th December last, at , the property of William Lewis. Mr. HAMLEY prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended, but applied to the court to have all the witnesses out. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor and Grace his wife, that on the night of the 9th December the prisoner came to the prosecutor’s house and asked for lodgings, stating that he was called Moles, and had an uncle and cousin working in the dockyard. Prosecutor’s wife knowing such parties were there, took the prisoner to lodge. On the following morning prosecutor went to the dockyard to work as usual, and left his watch under the pillow in the bed; he left his wife in the bedroom dressing, who also saw the watch there just before leaving. About ten o’clock she went out of the house and left prisoner in. On her return she discovered that the watch was gone. Prisoner also left the place shortly afterwards. Sergeant Bond, of the county constabulary, apprehended him at East Looe, with the watch bearing the prosecutor’s name on his person. Verdict Guilty. A former conviction was proved against the prisoner for assaulting a constable. (Sentence: six months hard labour) STEPHEN SQUIRE, 25, miner, surrendered to take his trial on a charge of assaulting Thomas Daddow, a constable of the parish of Tywardreath, whilst in the execution of his duty, on the 24th of August. A second count charged the prisoner with a common assault. Mr. CHILDS prosecuted, and stated the case to the jury. It appeared that Thomas Daddow, the prosecutor, who was a constable of the parish of Tywardreath, had the prisoner committed to his custody at the Porcupine Inn, on Monday the 24th of August, prisoner having just been before been (sic) committed and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment for an assault on the same person. Prisoner on being removed to the magistrates’ room, became troublesome, and would not walk; he was ultimately got out of the room, and taken to an inn adjoining, when prosecutor, with the assistance of Rundle, another constable, attempted to put on him a pair of hand-cuffs. Prisoner submitted to have one put on quietly, but as Daddow was putting on the other on the left hand, prisoner struck him over the cheek bone with the hand-cuff which was on the right hand. He repeated the blow twice, but was afterwards secured by Rundle and Daddow, and conveyed to a cart outside to be taken to prison. A mob of miners congregated around, some of whom advised the prisoner not to go along quietly, and followed him half a mile towards Bodmin, when they returned back. Prisoner, after they left, rode on perfectly quiet with his head under the seat in the cart, but whilst there he was playing a game with Daddow’s coat, and so artful and mischievous was he that he tore the skirts of the coat in ribbons. Prosecutor was astonished when he came to the gaol, to be told of his fashionable coat. Thomas Daddow and William Rundle gave corroborative evidence of the above facts. The Chairman, Mr. J.J. ROGERS, (Mr. Sawle having left the chair during the trial of this case) remarked that the assault had been clearly made out against the prisoner; the coat being torn in such a manner no doubt aggravated the prosecutor, yet, that was apart from the charge the jury had to consider. The charge was of great magnitude as it was committed almost under the noses of the magistrates assembled on the day in question at the Petty Sessions at the Porcupine Inn. The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of GUILTY on the first count. (Sentence: six months hard labour) Mr. Sawle having resumed the chair, proceeded with the following and last case in this court. RICHARD LANE, 32, miner, was indicted for unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, the sum of 3s. 11d. on the 1st September, 1857, and the sum of 2s. 8d on the 2d September last from John Huggins, at St. Mary Magdalene, with intent to defraud the said John Huggins. The evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution was conclusive, and the jury found the prisoner GUILTY. Mr. CHILDS conducted the prosecution. (Sentence: six months hard labour) The Court then rose. ______After an adjournment of the first Court, for two hours, the court re-assembled at 4 o’clock, when the CHAIRMAN passed the following sentences:— [See individual trials]. This concluded the business of the sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 26th March 1858

2. Lent Assizes

The learned Judge, Mr. Justice CROWDER, took his seat in this court at eleven o’clock. The following magistrates were sworn of the Grand Jury: Hon. Lord Viscount VALLETORT, Foreman Hon. G.M. Fortescue. J. Jope Rogers, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. James B. Messenger, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. D.W.H.J. Horndon, Esq. John Tremayne, Esq. Richard Johns, Esq. Charles Lygon Cocks, Esq. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. Humphry Willyams, Esq. J. Coryton Roberts, Esq. Richard Foster, Esq. William Morshead, Esq. Francis Howell, Esq. Francis Hext, Esq. Samuel Borlase, Esq. H.R. Salusbury Trelawny, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. Nevill Norway, Esq. W. Pryce Michell, Esq. W.R.C. Potter, Esq. Besides the above, the following magistrates answered to their names: E. Coode, jun., Esq., W. Horton Davey, Esq., W.R. Crawford, Esq., J.W. Peard, Esq., C.A. Reynolds, Esq., R.H. Stackhouse Vyvyan, Esq., Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend Boscawen, Rev. R. Buller, Rev. J. Glencross, Rev. A. Tatham, Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. The following Mayors answered to their names:—The Mayors of Bodmin, , Launceston, Liskeard, and . The following Coroners answered: —Mr. E.G. Hamley, and Mr. John Jagoe. The royal proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, the learned JUDGE delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY [not transcribed] —The learned judge then requested the grand jury to retire and consider the bills laid before them. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. SIMON TAMBLYN, 27, miner, was indicted for stealing, on the 5th February, 1854, three bushels of wheat, the property of Peter Vosper, of . Mr. COLE conducted the prosecution. On the day in question, prosecutor missed a quantity of wheat from a large heap in his barn. The constables, and a farmer named Kelly, of the parish of St. Germans, went to search the house of Thomas Tamblyn, and Simon Tamblyn, the prisoner. They found in the prisoner’s bedroom a bushel and a half of wheat, and upwards of four bushels of barley. Both Tamblyns were taken into custody, and prisoner, after committal by the magistrates, was given in custody to constable Bullen; but on the road to Liskeard, he contrived to escape, and having absconded from the neighbourhood, was not apprehended until recently. The prosecutor was enabled to identify the wheat from it having only been through the machine once, and there being two sorts of oats mixed with it; he and the other farmer, Mr. Kelly, said it exactly corresponded with the wheat in prosecutor’s barn. The barn was locked, and must have been unlocked with a false key.—Verdict, GUILTY. Sentence, six months’ hard labour. THOMAS KELLOW, 30, labourer, and THOMAS WARNE, 34, miner, were charged with stealing a quantity of potatoes, the property of William Grose, at St. Kew. The second count charged the prisoners with receiving, knowing to have been stolen. Warne pleaded guilty, and said, “I hope you will give me a short time, Sir, I have had a large family.” Thomas Kellow pleaded not guilty. Mr. Holdsworth appeared for the prosecution. On Sunday, March 14, Thomas Sherston, inspector of police, at Wadebridge, called on prosecutor, who is a farmer in St. Kew, and in consequence of what he said, Mr. Grose went to a potatoe (sic) cave in his mowhay, and found that a hole had been made on each side in the thatch, and a quantity of potatoes stolen. Prosecutor said prisoner was afterwards brought to his house, and he said to him, “this is a bad job, Tom;” to which prisoner replied, “this is the first time I ever stole anything from you, and I beg your .” It further appeared that the police inspector searched prisoner’s house, and found in the back kitchen, under a quantity of straw, 104 lbs. weight of potatoes. Prisoner’s house was searched in consequence of police-constable Hodge, in company with another policeman, having heard footsteps approaching at half-past one in the morning, when they were near prosecutor’s house. The footsteps were those of two men; one came up to the policeman, and the other turned off. The one that came up was Thomas Warne, who was carrying something. He said it was a “grist,” but policeman Hodge turned his light upon him, and found he had potatoes; he said he had them of his father, and told the constables that the man who turned away was Thomas Kellow. Mr. Grose identified the potatoes found in Kellow’s house as being like those in his cave, which were ship potatoes. Prisoner’s defence was, that constable Hodge told him to go in and beg Mr. Grose’s pardon, and that he would then let him go; prisoner said, he was frightened and did so; but this statement the policeman said was untrue. Prisoner also said he had some of the seed of Mr. Grose’s potatoes when he worked for him about two years ago. Prosecutor, on being asked by the Judge, said his workmen sometimes had seed potatoes of him.—GUILTY OF STEALING. Kellow was sentenced to four months hard labour. Warne, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to similar imprisonment. JOSEPH WILLIAMS, 29, mason, was charged with stealing five fowls, on the 6th of March, the property of William Henry Hicks, in the parish of Paul. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. WALTER CORNISH was indicted for stealing a bag and six pecks of oats, the property of Thomas Botters. Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prosecution. Mr. Botters is a farmer in the parish of . On the 12th of January, about seven in the morning, a lad in his employ, 18 years of age, was sent with a waggon and twenty bags of oats to . The bags were placed in rows, the under row the long way of the waggon, the upper across, and the whole bound down with ropes. On reaching a village called Trebollet, the lad went to the back of the waggon and missed one of the bags. He rode back but could not find it, and then went on to Cotehele with other bags. The prisoner, Cornish, lives at a short distance from the village of Trebollet, and the bag of oats was found in his house on the day it was lost. He told police-constable Luxton that he had found the oats, and it appeared that another bag had fallen off the waggon further on the road. Evidence was given of prisoner’s conduct and expressions after he was taken in custody; and the statement of a witness called Curtis went to show that the bag of oats was found in the road. The learned JUDGE, in summing up, said the question for the jury to consider was, whether the prisoner, when he became possessed of the bag of oats, intended to steal and appropriate it to his own use. If a man finds anything, and has no reasonable ground for believing that he can find the owner, he may appropriate the article, and it is not theft; but if there is reasonable ground to believe that it belongs to another, and that he could, with a reasonable amount of trouble find the owner, he has no right to appropriate the property. The jury retired from the court, and after long deliberation found the prisoner NOT GUILTY. STEALING TIN.—JAMES UREN, 80, tin smelter, and STEPHEN DORRIN, 36, marine-store dealer, were charged with stealing a tin basin and 7lbs. weight of tin, the property of Mr. Michael Williams and others. A second count charged prisoners with receiving, knowing the tin to have been stolen. Uren pleaded guilty, and, “I give myself up to the mercy of the court.” Dorrin pleaded NOT GUILTY. Mr. STOCK, for the prosecution, called James Bawden, who said, he is manager of smelting works at Truro, carried on by Mr. Michael Williams, M.P., Mr. William Williams, Mr. Richard Harvey, and others in partnership. The prisoner Uren, who had pleaded guilty, had been employed about twenty years by the company as a smelter. He had been absent about five or six weeks before the 5th of March in consequence of illness. On the 5th of March he was at the works about half an hour.—Henry Ivey, watchmaker and whitesmith in Pydar-street, Truro, said, on the morning of the 6th of March, a man brought some tin to his shop for sale. He did not know the man, and refused to purchase it. The man took it away again. About half-an-hour or an hour afterwards, Stephen Dorrin, the prisoner, brought the same tin for sale. Witness had bought some metal a day or two before of a woman called Paine. Prisoner said that she was his wife, and from that he thought prisoner’s name was Paine, and not Dorrin. Prisoner asked him why he did not purchase the tin of the man who had brought it to him? He replied, that he only bought of parties that he knew. Dorrin offered to sell the tin to him, and after some time he purchased it, and gave him 8d. per lb. for 9 lbs. less one ounce, paying him 5s. 11d. On the following Monday, Mr. Nash came, and witness delivered the tin to him. William Joseph Nash, police super- intendent at Truro, produced the tin he received from last witness. He also said, he went to Dorrin’s house in Charles’s Street, who is an itinerant collector of marine stores. He asked Dorrin to show his book, and witness looked at the entries. (book produced). It was entered in the book 7 lbs. of pewter, at 4½d. and there was no date; he said he purchased it on the previous Saturday, the 6th; and the name of the seller was put down as James Newman, Daniell-street, Truro. He told witness that what he sold to Ivey was pewter, and that he got it of James Newman, Daniell Street. Witness made inquiries, and found there was no such person there or in the neighbourhood. Witness went back and further questioned him about the man, and at last he said he got the tin of James Uren, who worked at the smelting- works.—Mr. Bawden, recalled, identified some of the tin produced. Some of it was bar tin cast in stone moulds, with the letters G.P. thereon; and some of it was assay tin, taken in making blocks.—Walter Bray, assayer and foreman to Messrs. Williams and Co, at the smelting works at Truro, identified the tin basin which he saw on the 4th of March at the works. He had also looked at the five assays produced, and they corresponded exactly with the moulds.—Prisoner, on being called on for his defence, said the old man, James Uren, sold him the tin. The learned JUDGE, in summing up, drew attention to various circumstances in the case, and said it would be for the jury to say how far they showed a guilty knowledge on the part of Dorrin. After some consideration, the jury returned Dorrin NOT GUILTY. Uren, who had pleaded Guilty was then called up for judgment. Mr. STOCK said he was instructed, on the part of Mr. Williams, to recommend Uren to the mercy of the court; he had been in the company’s service a long time. The learned JUDGE, in passing sentence said, you have been twenty years in the employ of Messrs. Williams and Co. Although you were not working, through illness you were receiving your pay, and were on the premises for that purpose when you stole this property. The prosecutors have recommended you to mercy on account of the length of your service, and also, I suppose, from your not having been found doing anything of the kind before. In consideration of that, the sentence of the court is, that you be sent to prison for Three Calendar Months and kept to hard labour. CHARGE OF STABBING AND WOUNDING.—WILLIAM HARVEY, miner, was indicted for maliciously stabbing, cutting, and wounding William Eva, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. COLERIDGE for the prosecution, and Mr. COLE for the defence.—William Eva said, I am a miner living at Gwinear. About six o’clock in the evening of the 2nd of January, I was at a public-house at Carnell-green, in Gwinear. Prisoner was there; there had been some differences between us; he shook hands with me and said we should give up old grievances. I and John Mitchell had five pints of beer between us, and after that we had a quart between five; prisoner had some of the quart. Henry Hoskin and I left the house about ten o’clock. Harvey afterwards overtook us; we shook hands and he said, “Eva, you are a good fellow.” I said, “Yes, as good a man as any one around here.” He said, I was not a better man than he was. We argued on as to which was the best man until we got to a place called “Two Stiles,” and there we went into a field to fight, with Henry Hoskin to see fair play. Harvey did not strip, but I did. We fought, and had three rounds. After we had two rounds, I tried to persuade him to give up and go home, saying he was not a man for me. He said he would go home if I would allow that he was as good a man as I was. I said he was not. He said, then we will have another round. I am now “in coose” for you. He was on a little path by the hedge. He had another round, and we both fell against the hedge. I asked why he was scratching me so; I thought he was scratching me with his nails. We were both then taken up; I felt blood coming down, and I put up my hand, and thought my bowels were coming out. I felt pain, and said to John Saunders, who was there, “Jack, I am ruined for ever.” He said, “I think you are.” I went after Harvey, and asked what he had done by me; I said he had better cut me in pieces. He said I was a liar, and that I had nearly kicked his teeth out. I went back to the public house, and fell faint on the floor of the passage. Mr. Vincent the surgeon was sent for. He came and dressed my wounds, and I was in bed for a week afterwards. I had fought with him twice before, but not much. I am sure I did not kick him; did not use anything but my fists. Cross-examined—I was not drunk; was perfectly sober; besides part of the quart and five pints, had a glass of toddy with another man. There was no furze stumps in the field; no flint about there.—Henry Hoskin, miner, said when Harvey overtook Eva and him, Harvey said, “You are a good fellow.” Eva said, “I am as good a man as any man around here.” Harvey said he was not a better man than he was, and then Eva stripped for fighting. Harvey said he was unwell, and he would give up all fighting; he said Eva should come to-morrow and take dinner with him, and witness (Hoskin) should come with him. Harvey was leading his little boy, and said he would not fight. Eva swore, and asked him to come into the field to fight. Harvey went into the field, it being his road home. Eva went in after him, and knocked him down; that was before there had been any fighting between them. Eva beat him whilst he was down very much; witness tried to take Eva away, but could not till he got assistance; Harvey’s little boy was screeching out saying, “Don’t kill father.” It was moonlight but cloudy. Cross- examined—After they were down in the ditch, witness took Eva from Harvey, and put Harvey home a little way. They were down among a lot of furze; there was a great deal of “furze stubs” where they fell into the ditch. Eva was stripped.—John Michell, a miner, saw Harvey at the public house on the 2nd of January, before the fight took place. He was paring his nails; witness saw the point of something in his hand, which he thought was a knife. Henry Miller, superintendent of police, saw Eva at the public-house after the fight. His side was very much cut in a great many places, also his neck. Witness sent for the surgeon; he then went to Harvey’s house and found him in bed; told him what he came for, and asked for the clothes he had worn that night. His wife said they were down stairs in the back room. Witness found them on some lumber placed over the “joists.” The coat, trowsers, waistcoat, and shirt, had blood on them, and the trousers pocket had marks of blood inside, as if something bloody had been put in. He said Eva had knocked him down, and what he had done he did to get rid of him, and as soon as he did so he went home. He said what he did was through having too much beer; he did not say his teeth were knocked out.—Philip Vincent, surgeon at , was sent for in the middle of the night, and on arriving at the public-house found Harvey, Eva, and Mr. Miller there. Found several cuts over Eva’s back, one in his neck; that in the neck was more of a stab than a cut. It was about the size of the end of his little finger; it was just inside the skin, it did not go deep into the neck. The cuts over the back and shoulders were rather extensive, but not deep; they were merely through the skin, not through the muscular part of the body. There was a large cut in the side which divided the skin about four inches; it did not extend into the muscular part of his body. He believed there were about seventeen cuts. Eva’s clothes were saturated with blood, but he was not losing much blood when witness saw him. The wounds were made with some sharp instrument; a knife would have inflicted such wounds, he should say they were made with a knife. Stumps of furze or flints would not have produced such wounds. Witness attended Eva till his cure, in about three weeks or a month; he was in bed a few days. Witness did not consider him in much danger, as the wounds were not deep.—Cross-examined.—Had seen furze stumps cut off sharp; such a stump might have produced the wound in the neck, but it must have been small. The cut in the side was too clean to have been caused by a furze stump; that would tear the edges of the skin. It was a stony country; sharp flints would make tremendous cuts. Some days afterwards, he saw Harvey had two teeth out; he was bruised very much, and had a black eye. Witness believed he was a quiet man, and had the sympathy of the neighbourhood with him.—Re-examined.—Witness had very little doubt that the cuts were inflicted with a knife.—A witness called Spur, examined by Mr. COLE, said he was present at the end of the fight, and went to help Hoskin. After they had parted them, he put his hand upon Harvey; he was sure Harvey had no knife in his hand.—Another witness, called Saunders, went back with Eva after the fight; Eva said what he had got was from his own fault.—Mr. COLE addressed the jury for the defence, contending that there was no evidence of injuries having been inflicted with a knife or any instrument. The man was naked, and wounds would be caused by his falling into the ditch on sharp stones, stumps, flints, slates, or glass. He called as witnesses to prisoner’s good character, John Old, mine agent, Richard Rosewarne, and John Thomas, farmer. The learned JUDGE, in summing up, said the law did not sanction the use of any instrument in fighting, so as to cause wounds. The jury would have to consider whether any such instrument was used in this case, and if so, whether the prisoner intended grievous bodily harm. If that was not the intention, the jury might find the prisoner guilty of the lesser offence of unlawfully wounding; but if they believed the wounds were caused by falling amongst stumps and stones when stripped for fighting, the prisoner must be acquitted. —The jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner NOT GUILTY. The court then rose. NISI PRIUS COURT; FRIDAY, MARCH 19. At 11 o’clock, Mr. Justice Willes took his seat in the Nisi Prius Court. The following is a copy of the Cause List:— Plffs Attys. Plaintiff. Defendant. Defts. Attorney Whitehurst Long v. Jeffreys Thompson. Smith & Roberts, and Reynolds Buckley Minet and Hodge & Hockin and others v. Smith. Bishop & Wreford Hockaday v. Burgess Woodward.

The case of Reynolds v. Buckley was the only one for a Special Jury. JOHN LONG v. GEORGE JEFFREYS.—Mr. Collier and Mr. Karslake, counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Coleridge, for defendant.—Attorneys: Mr. Whitehurst, of London, for plaintiff; Mr. Thompson, also of London, for defendant.—This was an action for the recovery of a title- deed; the defendant pleading, first, that he did not detain the title-deed; and next, that the title-deed was not the title-deed of the plaintiff. Mr. COLLIER, stating the case to the Jury, said the action was brought to recover possession of a certain title-deed, remaining to an estate called , in the parish of ; but, in consequence of an order from a learned Judge, this action, though brought nominally for the recovery of this one title-deed, would in fact decide the question as to other property. It appeared that one Richard Long, (of Penzance) by his will dated the 22nd January, 1853, devised the estate of Trewint, with other property, to his only sister, Betsy Amelia, the wife of the Reverend Benjamin Woodyard, in fee-simple, for her separate use. Richard Long died in March 1853, and his sister, Mrs. Woodyard, took possession of the devised property, and died in December 1854. On her death her husband, the Rev. Benjamin Woodyard, occupied by the courtesy, until his death, on the 4th of May, 1857. The defendant was the administrator of the Rev. Benjamin Woodyard, and as such administrator, claimed and still held the title- deed in question. The plaintiff claimed the title-deed, as being the heir of the Rev. Benjamin Woodyard, and also (though it was not necessary to prove this), of Richard Long, the devisor. It would be shown that the plaintiff was heir, in this way. Betsy Amelia, (Mrs. Woodyard) and her brother Richard Long, the devisor, were children of one Richard Long, who died in December 1829. This Richard Long was the youngest of four sons of John Long of St. Austell, who, in March 1858, married one Jane or Jenny or Jenifer Symonds, and by her had four sons, John, William, James, and (the youngest) Richard. The marriage of John Long the elder to his wife Jane would be proved by marriage register, and the birth of the four sons by baptismal registers; and would be shown, as was probably well known to the jury, that “Jane” and “Jennifer” were names often used synonymously. Of the four sons of John and Jane (or Jennifer) Long, John the eldest died without issue; and the second son, William, had eight children, of whom the eldest was Mary Ann; the second was William, who died in November 1832 without issue; and the third was John, the present plaintiff, the heir of Betsy Amelia Woodyard and of her brother Richard Long, who devised the estate to her.—He (Mr. Collier) believed there would be no question as to the detention of the title-deed. On the part of the plaintiff, it would be shown that John Long, the plaintiff, was the heir; and, on such proof, of course, the defendant, who held the deed as administrator of the Rev. Benjamin Woodyard, would be glad to give it up to the plaintiff who now sought to recover it. Mr. KARSLAKE stated that by admission between the parties dated March 1858, an office copy of the will of Richard Long was put in, instead of the original will. By this will, dated the 22nd January 1853, Richard Long gave this meassuage (sic) of Trewint in Poundstock, some fields and meadows called Round Pool in the borough of Bodmin, and some premises in St. Columb, to his dear and only sister Betsy Amelia, wife of the Reverend Benjamin Woodyard, in fee, and to her heirs and assigns for ever. Oral testimony was then taken from William Harvey, a beer-house keeper in Bodmin; Mrs. Grace Clark of St. Austell, sister of Mr. John Long, who died in in 1832; Mrs. Mary Ann Fyfield, of St. Austell; Mr. Edward Beal Clark, of St. Austell, husband of a previous witness; Rev. Fortescue Todd, vicar of St. Austell; James Sleeman, the present occupier of Trewint; William Clark, a clerk to the plaintiff’s attorney, who attended at chambers before Mr. Justice Erle, with defendant’s attorney.—In the course of the evidence by the Rev. Mr. Todd, various copies from registers of baptisms, marriages, and burial were put in. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, after over-ruling a legal objection by Mr. Montague Smith, the learned JUDGE directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, who, by evidence which, his lordship said was rather for himself than for the jury, had been proved to be the heir; and, as amount of damages, his lordship directed the jury to take as their calculation, 20 years purchase of the estate at £36 rental.—The jury, accordingly, found a verdict for plaintiff, and assessed the value of the deed at £720.—Mr. THOMPSON, the defendant’s attorney, said the deed would be given up with the greatest pleasure; the defendant’s only object had been to ascertain who was the proper heir-at-law. In the course of this cause, some quasi-philological discussion took place as to the name Jennifer. The Rev. F. Todd said, it was within his own knowledge as vicar of St. Austell, and as formerly, curate of another parish, that persons named Jane were frequently called Jennifer, and vice versa; he himself had a daughter baptized Jane, but who was frequently called Jennifer; but still “Jane” and “Jennifer” were distinct baptismal names. The lawyers seemed puzzled to account for the addition of the syllable fer to Jenny; various conjectures were hazarded, and the learned judge suggested that the whole name “Jennifer” might possibly be a corruption of Ginevra! A more homely and reasonable suggestion was that Jennifer was merely a Cornish mode of giving a familiar endearment to the name; and a similar explanation was given of the name “Un-Jane,” by which it appeared the “Jane” of this case was sometimes called by her friends; the prefix “Un” it was suggested might represent “Aunt”; the terms “aunt” and “uncle” being employed in Cornwall as expressive of respect and affection, without intimating relationship. HOCKADAY v. BURGESS.—Mr. Karslake for plaintiff; Mr. Kingdon for defendant.—Attorneys—Messrs. Bishop and Wreford for plaintiff; Mr. J. Basset Collins for defendant.—In this case the plaintiff was Mr. George Hockaday, formerly managing agent of Perran Iron Mine; and the defendant Mr. William Burgess, a manufacturer of chemical manures, at Bermondsey, near London, and proprietor of the Perran Iron Mine. The plaintiff’s claim was for £52 10s., for four months salary, at ten guineas per month, during the months of April, May, June, and July, 1857, and for the month of August in lieu of a month’s notice on his dismissal. It appeared that the plaintiff went into defendant’s employ, as manager of the Perran Iron Mine, on the 1st March, 1857, at a salary of 10 guineas a month, and to have a month’s notice to quit; it being understood that a person was to be sent down as clerk, but that meanwhile the plaintiff was to perform the duties of clerk. Towards the end of May, a person named Dearman came as clerk, and Hockaday gave up to defendant for Dearman, papers &c., connected with the office of clerk of the mine; the defendant telling Dearman that he was to receive his instructions from plaintiff. Meanwhile, differences arose between plaintiff and defendant as to the mode of working the mine, and particularly with reference to a shaft, or rather a steep incline, which was being worked under Hockaday’s superintendence, from East to West, whilst the defendant insisted it would be better to lay down in incline from North to South, along the lode, and at an easy gradient. Hockaday strongly objected to this proposed alteration and said it would be a waste of money—like “burning £5 notes.” On the 1st of April, however, Mr. Burgess directed Hockaday to lay down an incline from North to South; but, on his next visit to the mine on the 9th of May, he found that Hockaday had done little, if anything on this new work. Mr. Burgess complaining, some high words ensued, and Hockaday refusing to go on with the work, or telling Mr. Burgess that if he wished the new incline to be laid, he had better give his own instructions for having it done, Mr. Burgess, verbally, discharged him from all employment on the mine; but a few days afterwards, at Perran Porth, he gave the plaintiff notice in writing that his services were to cease altogether on the 31st of May, to which time, according to Mr. Burgess’s statement, the plaintiff was at liberty to attend to the shipping of ores, but was not to do anything on the mine. Hockaday, it was alleged, went on giving necessary advice on the mine, especially to Dearman, and attending to shipment of ores to as late as the end of July; on the 28th of which month, there was evidence of his having superintended the shipment of two cargoes of iron ore on board the “Endeavour” and “New Parliament.” On that day the plaintiff received two notices, from the defendant; one of which directed him to give up to Dearman all books and papers relating to the mine; and in the other he was requested to abstain from interference with the shipment of ores and with the working of the Perran Iron Mine, as his engagement had terminated on the 31st of May. This the plaintiff denied, asserting that he received nothing like a dismissal until the 28th of July and that was without a month’s notice. The plaintiff’s claim was therefore for 60 guineas, for six months, from March to August both inclusive; but the plaintiff admitted that he had been paid for March; his receipt was produced showing payment for April; and the defendant had paid 10 guineas into Court for the month of May; these three items reducing the claim to 30 guineas; while, on the part of the defendant, evidence was given that, at plaintiff’s request, he had paid £10 to a person in London, to stay execution of a judgment obtained against Hockaday. But Mr. Burgess’s main defence was that the employment of the plaintiff ceased on the 31st of May, in accordance with the written notice given shortly after the interview and dispute on the 9th of May; and that he was justified in discharging the plaintiff without month’s notice, in consequence of the plaintiff’s wilful disobedience of his (Mr. Burgess’s) orders as to the mode of working the mine. The learned Judge ruled that wilful disobedience by a servant of a master’s legal orders would justify dismissal without notice; but on the other hand, if the employer thought proper to continue the servant in his employ, he must also continue to pay him wages. On this point in the case, a letter, of which the following is a copy, was much dwelt on in plaintiff’s behalf, as showing that the defendant, after the alleged notice, in the early part of May, recognized plaintiff’s services in connection with the mine:— “London, May 21, 1857. Mr. George Hockaday. Dear Sir, I have received several letters from you inclosing altogether 3 bills of lading. You keep asking me to write, but I want to know what would be the use of my constantly writing to you? When I left you, I particularly requested you to do six things:—1st, to get the affair settled, and let me know the result. 2nd, to get the new incline down as fast as possible in the manner I pointed out. 3rd, to get to know about the office and smith’s shop. 4th, to get to know about the house at Perran Porth. 5th, to get the price of the boiler. 6th, to get all the ore possible out of the mine, and get it carted and shipped.— Now, you have not in all your letters, reported that you have done one of these things. You keep on saying from time to time that you can do a thousand tons per month, and other things in proportion; but you not only fail to do that, but you fail to do half the quantity. You keep a good look-out for excuses, such as Whitford getting the halliers, &c., &c.; with which you have nothing whatever to do. I am so tired of this kind of thing that I have no patience to write to you, and I have quite made up my mind to change the whole face of the thing, even if I stop the mine altogether. With every advantage as to season, weather, &c., you still manage to spend all, or very nearly so, that the mine makes. You speak of buying tackle, rope, &c., for the new incline. I desire you will do nothing of the kind; if you have done as I directed, you want none. I shall probably be with you on Sunday afternoon; in fact you had better send the gig over to Truro for me at 12 o’clock on that day. Yours truly, Wm. BURGESS. The oral testimony, in support of the plaintiff’s case, was given by the plaintiff himself, and by Richard Hocking, innkeeper and shipper of ores at , and Joseph Reckless, a miner of .—For the defence, the only witness was Mr. William Burgess.—The plaintiff and defendant were long under examination, and in many points their evidence was very conflicting. There was also some unusually smart conflicts between the contending counsel; and, as a very rare event, we may mention that one of the attorneys—Mr. Bishop—was ordered out of Court by the learned judge. Mr. Kingdon, in summing up the evidence for the defence, commented somewhat severely on conduct by Mr. Bishop in reference to his client and Mr. Burgess. Mr. Bishop hastily contradicted a statement made by Mr. Kingdon; and on this, the learned judge, refusing alike to hear Mr. Bishop’s proffered explanation, or the counsel’s intercession on behalf of a professional engaged in the cause, peremptorily repeated his command that Mr. Bishop leave the court until the conclusion of the case; and, of course, Mr. Bishop obeyed.—Mr. Kingdon’s observations originated in the following circumstance. As we have already mentioned, Mr. Burgess, by request of Mr. Hockaday, paid 10l. to a judgment creditor of Hockaday’s, in London, in order to stay execution. Afterwards, on Hockaday’s declining to allow this 10l. in account, out of his claim for a month’s salary, Mr. Burgess bought the judgment-debt by payment of £7 10s. more to the judgment creditor, and then proceeded to execution by distraint on Hockaday’s goods, for a sum of upwards of £40; but on Mr. Burgess’s proceeding to levy, Mr. Kingdon stated it was found that Mr. Bishop, by his bailiff, was already in possession. Mr. Kingdon was commenting on this transaction (which we understand, was afterwards admitted not to be true) when Mr. Bishop interrupted in the manner and with the result we have already stated. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff, for £21 10s. The Court then rose. CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY, MARCH 20. (Before Mr. Justice CROWDER). ELLEN STEVENS, 24, a tailoress, pleaded guilty of stealing a pair of scissors, the property of Arscott Maker, an innkeeper at Callington. Two days imprisonment. The prisoner was committed on the 18th of February. JAMES JONES, 16, miner, was charged with assaulting and ill-treating Eliza Jane Trahar, being under 10 years of age, with intent feloniously to ravish and carnally know her, at Gwennap, on the 11th February. A second count charged indecent assault.—Mr. Yonge conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—The prisoner and prosecutrix, a little girl aged 8 years in July last, live in adjoining houses at , in Gwennap; the little girl living with her father and mother. Eliza Trahar, the mother, stated that about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of the 11th February, she leaned over the hatch and called in the little girl and her brother to tea. The little girl was on the left side of Jones’s door, and answered, “here I am;” she came in, but did not take any tea, but went forth and sat down by the fire. She made no complaint; but between 6 and 7 o’clock, as the mother was loosening the child’s clothes by the fire, she remarked appearances on the clothes, and the child then made some complaint. The father went for a doctor, who did not come; and the mother went into Jones’s house and told his mother to come in and see the child. The prisoner went with his mother into Trahar’s house, and said “Eliza, I have not touched your maid;” and the little girl replied “yes, James Jones, you have done it.” He then went out of doors. Just after witness called the child in to tea, she was put out of Jones’s house, and witness heard his door locked.—Cross-examined. After the child came into my house, she was never outside the door again for the evening; I swear that. On my oath, I have never asked James Jones to come into my house to go to bed with me, nor that I should go into his house with him. I never said that I would lay a trap for him. Some time since there was a charge against me and my husband of breaking into John Bennett’s house (opposite the Trehars’ house); my husband said there was no light in our house; I do not know that the prisoner said there was a light. I have myself been convicted of taking two spoons, from a person called Tonkin; they were found in my house, and I had three months’ imprisonment.—Eliza Jane Trahar was then placed in the box, and afterwards near the Judge; the mother being ordered out of court, by request of prisoner’s counsel. The little girl, being questioned by the JUDGE, stated that she said her prayers, and knew that it was wicked not to tell truth. The JUDGE then ordered her to be sworn. Her evidence was:—On one day in February—a Thursday—I was outside my mother’s house by the door, and James Jones called me in to his house to see his father’s likeness; I went in, and went over to the fire, and took up the bellows to blow the fire; Jones locked the door, and then took me on his lap. (Witness then gave evidence of unreportable character, but not of a nature to support the first count of the indictment). He did not say any thing to me; I did not say anything to him; he put his arms round my neck and squeezed me because I should not screech; after he had done what he had a mind to, he put me off his lap, and I took up the bellows and throwed at him, and the bellows fell down and broke the cat’s saucer; then he unlocked the door and told me “don’t you tell your mother;” then I went away home, and he locked himself in when I went out; as I was outside the door I heard mother call and I went in; I did not have any tea; I could not drink it.—Cross-examined. I went before the Justices; I could not say any prayers then; I say my prayers when I go to bed; I say “Our father, which art in heaven”; I can’t say anything more than that; mother told me to say that I can say my prayers; my mother told me to say what I have said to-day; mother did not tell me to say what I did before the Justices.— Subsequently, the witness, after much hesitation, said her mother did tell her to say what she said before the justices. After I went into mother’s house from James Jones’s, I never went out again; I know Mary Bath who brings the milk; I did not see her outside my mother’s house that evening.—Re- examined.—Before I went to the Justices mother told me to speak up; what I told the Justices was true; I had told mother of what took place at James Jones’s.—William Boyle, surgeon, of , who examined the little girl’s person and clothes on Saturday morning the 13th February, gave evidence, the general result of which was that internal injury had been caused by some external substance—could not say what.—Cross-examined. The injury might have been caused by her falling on a substance, if of such a form as to reach the part.—The physical injury was not great, but it might have caused pain. William Lorton, inspector of county constabulary, apprehended prisoner on the 13th February, underground at United Mines, and, in his presence, took possession of his clothes at grass; which clothes the witness now produced, together with the little girl’s clothes—all which were shown to the Jury.—At the close of the case for the prosecution, the learned JUDGE, on the application of Mr. Cole, ruled that there was no evidence to support the first count.—Mr. COLE then addressed the jury, characterizing the charge as the result of a wicked conspiracy by the Trahars against the young man, who had made a statement in opposition to them when they were charged with breaking into Bennett’s house. John Bennett, a farmer and builder living in Gwennap, said: the cottages in which the prosecutor and prisoner live are my property, and I live opposite them, at a distance of 26 Cornish yards. Between Jones’s and Trahar’s kitchens, there is only a lath-and-plaster partition, and the cry of a child, or even of a cat, in one house can easily be heard in the other. Some time since, in January, I charged the Trahars with breaking into my house, and part of the evidence was as to a light in Trahars’s house; Trahar said their light had been put out, while the prisoner said there was still a light burning down-stairs in Trahars’ house. I have known the prisoner 8 years; there is not a more respectable lad in the parish of Gwennap. One day, when I was in my yard, I heard the woman Trahar offer to go into bed to the young man—the prisoner.—Cross-examined. This was about two or three months ago; it was in the afternoon; the lad was in bed, as he worked night-core; and the woman was outside Jones’s door in the yard; she called up to him “James Jones, shall I come up to bed to you?” I heard nothing more. I saw her, but I don’t know if she saw me.—Mary Bath, who bought milk of Mr. Bennett, stated that between 5 and 6 o’clock—well on to 6 o’clock—she was at Bennett’s, and saw the little girl, Eliza Jane Trahar, outside; witness spoke to her, and she looked up and laughed, and went on very briskly to her mother’s house.—Mrs. Philippa Bennet gave evidence in corroboration of last witness.—William Collins, a tin dresser, stated that on a day shortly before the 11th of February he saw Hobson Trahar, who complained that some boys were calling him names. I said to him, I did not take notice of what boys said. Hobby Trahar said he did not take much notice of that, but he had a worse enemy than they—a young man called James Jones who lived next door to him. Trahar added: “I don’t mind him; I’ll do up he before the week is out.”—Evidence in favour of prisoner’s respectable, decent character, was given by John Thomas, a constable and school master of Gwennap; and Richard Dabb, of the Ale and Cakes mine, in Kea, where the prisoner had worked.—Mr. YONGE replied, and the learned JUDGE then summed up, directing the jury to disregard the first and principal count, and on the second count, with much particularity his lordship stated and commented on the evidence on both sides; the general tenor of his lordship’s observations being in support of the prosecution; his lordship being of opinion that, in its main substantial facts, the little girl’s evidence in chief was uncontradicted and undamaged by other circumstances given in evidence for the defence; and, especially, his lordship treated as incredible the suggestion that the mother had inflicted injury on the child’s person for the purpose of founding a criminal charge against the prisoner.—Verdict, guilty of indecent assault.—In passing sentence, the learned JUDGE said:—James Jones, you have been convicted of this indecent assault, on the clearest and most satisfactory and conclusive evidence that I ever heard in a Court of Justice. Some wicked people have endeavoured to get up a case of most abominable description against the mother and family of that little child. I cannot suppose that you have had much to do with that, and the punishment you will receive will be quite independent of that, which, nevertheless, I must say is one of the most gross and shameful attempts I have ever seen in a court of Justice, to brand that woman, the mother, with having done that which you did; and that, for the purpose of getting up a conspiracy against you. I am not able to punish those who did this. His lordship then addressed the prisoner on the offence of which he had been found guilty, and sentenced him to six months hard labour. MARTHA MATTHEWS, 22, a respectable looking domestic servant, was indicted for unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her male, illegitimate child, at Illogan, on the 18th of October last. Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—The prisoner had been about three months in the service of Mrs. Charles Paull, in the parish of Illogan, at the time of the birth on the 18th of October last, of a dead male child; the birth taking place in the prisoner’s sleeping room, in the morning, and the body being found in the place she herself mentioned to an elderly female servant who went into her room; and under circumstances which the learned JUDGE held would not warrant a supposition of unlawful concealment. Her own statement, at the close of the case, was that she put the child out of the way, for decency’s sake, on the entrance into her room of two little boys. There was also evidence that, although there was no actual knowledge by her mistress, of her having made preparations of baby-linen, it was possible she had done so, as she occupied a bed-room alone, and the room was rarely visited by her mistress.—The learned JUDGE summed up favourably to the prisoner, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. TOBIAS RODDA, 35, a miner, was indicted for feloniously assaulting and ravishing Ann Moyle, aged 14 years, on the 26th December last. Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—At the time of the alleged offence, in the evening of the day named, the prosecutrix was employed serving customers at the Half-way House Inn, at , in the parish of Gwinear. The prisoner was in the house as a , and the offence was alleged to have been committed in the back-kitchen, where the prosecutrix had gone to warm some beer. An intelligible report of the evidence could not be published with decency. The case occupied the Court several hours,—the witnesses examined being Ann Moyle, the prosecutrix; Ann Richards Harvey, and Mary Hocking Harvey, daughters of the landlord; Mrs. Mary Harvey, the landlord’s wife; Jane and Richard Moyle, parents of the prosecutrix; Thomas Sambell, serjeant of County Police; and James Mudge, surgeon at .—Verdict, Not Guilty. THOMAS STONE, 16, labourer, indicted for assaulting Susan Ann Mills with intent feloniously to ravish and carnally know her, at St. Ewe, on the 23rd February.—Mr. CARTER conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. About the middle of the day, on Tuesday the 23rd February, the prosecutrix, a girl of about 15 years of age, was on the road from where she lived, to meet her brother. As she was walking on, the prisoner came behind her, put his hand round her waist, and said “where be going, my dear?” She said, “going to meet my brother.” He said “shall I go with you, my dear?”—She replied, “I don’t want you, nor no body else.” He then hauled her along the road and wanted to get her inside a gate, but she would not go. He then threw her down on the road, and tried to effect his purpose. She screamed, and he stuffed her shawl into her mouth; and then, finding that she was able to scream through the shawl, he stopped her mouth with his hands; he held her hand, and knelt on her, and offered her sixpence; she replied that she did not want him nor his sixpence. She called out on her brother; and he said if she called on her brother, he would choke her. He kept her on the ground some time; and while she was struggling, a man in the field came to her; when this man came in sight, the prisoner got up and ran away. Her brother came to her shortly afterwards, and she told him what had happened.—John Barrett, of Gorran, was on the 23rd February, working in a field of Mr. Michell’s, along side of the road, and heard a noise which, at first, he thought was that of two children quarrelling; but hearing the noise continued, he went towards the place it came from—about 60 yards distant—and came on the young woman and prisoner; she was down on the ground, and he was on his knees. Witness more closely described the appearance of their persons and dress; and said on his coming to them, he called out—“what are you about?” and on that, the prisoner got up and ran away. Barrett went to the girl, and lifted her; she appeared to be alarmed a good deal, and was crying; he saw her tears.—William Rodda, police-constable of Mevagissey, about ¼ past 12 on Tuesday, the 23rd February, was on the road to St. Ewe, and saw the girl Mills and her brother; her clothes were dirty and disorderly, as if she had been on the ground. On the 26th he apprehended the prisoner, and charged him with having assaulted the girl Mills. He said it was as much her fault as his.—Verdict, GUILTY. Nine months hard labour. THOMAS HENRY WHITFORD, 33, grocer and draper, was charged with assaulting Ann Dabb, a girl between 10 and 12 years of age, with intent feloniously to ravish and carnally know her, at Gwennap, on the 21st January. In a second count there was a charge of indecent assault.—Mr. Coleridge conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stock the defence.—Thomas Dabb, father of the young girl:—I am a labourer working on the Truro Turnpike roads, and live at a place called the Four Hundreds. The prisoner lives about 200 yards from me, and keeps a grocer’s and linen-draper’s shop; there is no entrance to the shop, except at the back of the house. On the 21st of January, I came home from my work in the evening, and between 6 and 7 o’clock, sent my little girl to Whitford’s for half an ounce of tobacco. She will be 12 years old the 25th of this month. She was absent something better than 20 minutes, and then brought back some tobacco, but not enough, and I said I would send her again; but she refused to go a second time. About a fortnight after that, my wife told me something about the little girl, and I went to the police.—Cross-examined. When I asked her why she stayed so long for the tobacco, she said she came away as soon as she was served. When she said she was afraid to go again, I thought it was because of the darkness in the evening.—Ann Dabb, a very intelligent and voluble little girl, deposed:—I am a daughter of last witness; on the 21st of January, between 6 and 7 o’clock in the evening, father sent me to Mr. Whitford’s for some tobacco; when I got to Mr. Whitford’s, the window-shutters were up, and the shop door was latched; I opened it, went in, and asked for half an ounce of tobacco; he said “in a minute or two,” and went up the steps into the kitchen; he went and bolted the kitchen door and then he came and bolted the shop door; he then threw me down. (Witness described further particulars of conduct by the prisoner). I screeched murder; he told me if I would stop a minute or two, he would give me some nicey from a bottle, and some nuts. I would not stop; he gave me the tobacco, and told me if I went home and told my mother of it he would murder me; I went home; I did not say anything to father or mother about it for a fortnight; I was afraid; I did tell a little maid who went to the shop for a ha’porth of sand, that he behaved saucy to me. Now I’ve nothing more to say, sir (curtseying smartly and about to leave the witness box).—On cross-examination, she was first asked by Mr. Stock, to repeat her , which she did with minute accuracy, and without any alteration in the arrangement of sentences.—I have never said that over before; never; only to the gentleman yesterday, and at Scorrier, before the justice; I never said it over to mother, or to any body; I’m sure of that. I went to the shop again on the Saturday after Thursday the 21st for some barm; I was afraid to go but father made me; I did not tell father why I was afraid to go.—Mary Ann Dabb, mother of the little girl, after confirming the father’s evidence of what took place after the little girl’s return from the shop on the Thursday evening, said:—On the Wednesday week afterwards, she was with me at the mine, and complained of being in pain; the next day a woman called Elizabeth Sutton told me something which I told my husband, and he went to the magistrate; and on the Friday I examined her; I did not go to any surgeon about it.—The witness was then questioned as to a variety of circumstances and statements, on which to base contradictions in defence. She gave positive denial to the various statements which it was alleged were to be produced against her, and especially by a woman called Susanna Craze, her next neighbour. For the defence, Mr. STOCK submitted that there was no evidence to support the first count; and in this, Mr. COLERIDGE concurred.—Mr. STOCK then addressed the jury, submitting that the evidence for the prosecution, whatever suspicion it might lead to, would not justify a verdict against the prisoner; and he then opened a case of alibi and also that he should bring forward evidence in contradiction and disparagement of much of the evidence for the prosecution; he also commented on the evidence and manner of the little girl, as showing that she must have been tutored what to say:—Jane Scobell: I am the wife of James Scobell, who went to Cuba before Christmas last. I am a servant at Mr. Whitford’s; he is a married man, with no children. His shop is very near the Scorrier-gate Station of the West Cornwall Railway. The witness gave evidence, differing from the little girl’s, as to the rooms, doors, and door- fastenings of the house; and also stated that the partition between that house and the adjoining one, occupied by a family called Keast, was so slight that even loud talking in one could be heard in the other. She then went on to say:—My master goes every Friday to Redruth market; and generally on Thursdays to Penryn. I remember that on Thursday the 21st of January he went to Penryn. I served in the shop every day, and I know that on that Thursday, there was not a bit of tobacco in the house. I was in the shop all day, and did not see the little girl Ann Dabb come there. Mr. Whitford did not return from Penryn till about 9 o’clock in the evening. The next day, Friday, I saw little Ann Dabb at the shop between 6 and 7 o’clock in the evening; Mr. Whitford was then inside the counter serving customers with meat, and I was attending customers with other things; the shop was so full that Ann Dabb could not be attended to, and she stayed there about an hour; she had half an ounce of tobacco and a half- penny worth of barm, and gave me twopence for it. I next saw her in the shop between 10 and 11 at night, on the Saturday week following, when she had a ha’porth of barm.—Jane Stanlake, wife of William Stanlake, miner: I live about two minutes walk from Mr. Whitford and am in the habit of going to his shop; I was there about half past 10 on Thursday morning the 21st of January; I went for some tobacco, among other things, but did not get any. I helped hitch his pony into the cart and saw him drive off. I was at Whitford’s shop shortly before 6 on the Friday evening, and saw little Ann Dabb there; she had some tobacco and barm, which was given to her by Mrs. Scobell.—Susanna Craze:—I live next door to the Dabb family; I and my daughters work at the Burrows mine with Mary Ann Dabb and her daughter. In the evening of the Friday before the Monday when Mr. Whitford was taken before the magistrates, Mrs. Dabb was in my house and told me she should get a summons against him, and that Annie (the little girl) should say whatever she (the mother) had a mind for her to say—that Mr. Whitford had riffled her. I said “For shame, Mary Ann, when we all do know that Mr. Whitford never touched her, and never did anything to her.” She said “Tis no business of yours, nor nobody’s else; she shall say what I’ve got a mind for her to say; she shall say that Mr. Whitford (here the witness made use of expressions similar to some used by the little girl when describing Mr. Whitford’s conduct towards her).—[In this part of the evidence, there was much doubt and confusion, in consequence of the witness expressing herself thus:—“Mrs. Dabb told me that her child should say.” The learned Judge said the word should was frequently used in Cornwall, to signify past and definite action, as well as that which was future and contingent. His lordship questioned the witness on the important point, as closely as possible without putting a leading question; but she persisted in using the word should].—Cross-examined.—I did not advise Mary Ann Dabb to say that Mr. Whitford had done so and so to her daughter; I did not tell her that I had once put a young man here to Bodmin and punished him; I never said to Mrs. Dabb that if I were she I would do the same. Before I had this conversation with Mrs. Dabb I had heard nothing from any one about Mr. Whitford having ill-treated Ann Dabb. Mrs. Dabb did not tell me in that conversation on Friday the 5th February, that her child had told her about Mr. Whitford having ill-treated her; what she said was, that she would put up the child to say so.—Re-examined.—I saw the mother and daughter on the mine every day from the 21st of January to the 5th of February; but they told me nothing about it, and the little girl appeared in good health as usual.—After an able reply, and careful summing up, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. ELIZABETH TREVETHAN, 28, was charged with having unlawfully endeavoured to conceal the birth of a female illegitimate child, of which she had been delivered, at Redgate, in the parish of St. Cleer.—Mr. Coleridge conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Frederick Wreford, inspector of County Police, proved that on Saturday the 27th of February he searched the house of a man called George Cowling at Redgate, and in the back-kitchen, found the body of a recently-born female child, buried about a foot deep in earth.—Mr. Hingston, surgeon, of Liskeard, on the 1st of March, made a post mortem examination on the body; it had been born about 8 or 10 days, and had died from strangulation, which, probably, might have been produced by natural causes, and not by violence.— Stephen Traer, a miner living at Redgate, stated that the prisoner was a widow with 4 children, and lived with her father. Shortly before discovery of the child on the 27th February, he had observed that she appeared to be in the family way, and that afterwards there was an alteration in her appearance.— Verdict, GUILTY.—Sentence, Three months hard labour. The court then rose. NISI PRIUS COURT, SATURDAY, MARCH 20. (Before Mr. Justice Willes). I M P O R T A N T M I N I N G C A S E. REYNOLDS v. BUCKLEY AND OTHERS.—(Special Jury). —Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH, Q.C., and Mr. KARSLAKE; attorneys, Messrs. SMITH and ROBERTS, and HODGE and HOCKIN, Truro. Counsel for defendants, Mr. LUSH, Q.C., (of the Home Circuit), Mr. COLERIDGE, and Mr. BULLER; attorneys, Messrs. MINET and SMITH, London. Considerable interest was excited by this case amongst gentlemen connected with mines, and we therefore give a copious report. Mr. KARSLAKE opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Charles Andrew Reynolds, and the defendants were William Augustus Buckley, William Castle Smith, and William Alexander Thomas. The declaration stated that defendants broke and entered a certain mine of the plaintiffs commonly known as the South Wheal Frances Mine, and dug up, took, and carried away, certain quantities of ore. Secondly, that defendants seized, took, and carried away, divers goods and chattels of the plaintiff, that is to say, copper, copper ore, and other minerals, and converted the same to their own use. Damages were laid at £10,000. Defendants had pleaded that they had paid into court the sum of £100, which was enough to satisfy all the damages sustained. Plaintiff denied that the sum paid was sufficient, and thereupon issue was joined. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH stated the case to the jury. The plaintiff, Mr. Reynolds, is the executor of a gentleman called William Reynolds, who was the grantee, under Lady Basset, of a mine called South Wheal Frances, in this county. In fact, Mr. Reynolds is merely a representative, the real plaintiffs being the shareholders in South Wheal Frances. The defendants, Mr. Buckley and others, are the committee, and the three principal shareholders in West Basset mine. That mine is also held under Lady Basset, and adjoins on one side the South Frances mine. The action is brought for trespasses committed by the West Basset adventurers in taking ore from the South Frances sett, and the question involves the consideration of the boundaries of the two setts where they are coterminous—where the boundaries adjoin. It involves the question of the southern boundary of West Basset and the northern boundary of South Frances. The ore actually taken out of South Frances sett before the present action was brought, is to a considerable amount—upwards of £1,000, and, in one view of it, a much larger amount. But the ore which has been taken by no means represents the value of what is now in litigation between these two mines; I believe I may say that ore to the value of fifteen or twenty thousand pounds has been already discovered by the miners. Now when the setts were granted, the precise boundaries were not very material. Probably some of you are connected with mining, and you may all know that setts are granted by landowners to miners, to search for and take minerals over a very large extent. I believe in this case the South Frances sett extends over some 350 acres. Therefore the precise boundary, when setts are granted, is not considered of very much importance; the parties do not look at it until questions arise. Now at first the workings in South Wheal Frances were in other parts of the sett, far from the boundary which is the subject of this action; but, by some strange accident, it happens that a very rich lode runs just where the boundary comes. That being so, it becomes of course essential to ascertain what is the precise boundary between those two mines, and that is the question which my lord and you have to determine. The South Frances mine is held under two setts granted by Lady Basset, both dated the 17th May, 1843; and one in granted over an estate called Gryllis and some wastrel, which may be called the Gryllis part of the sett; and the other is granted over Filtrick and some wastrel, which may be called the Filtrick sett. I will read the description of the Gryllis sett. (Maps were here handed to the jury, to follow the description). The grant gives full and free liberty, license, &c., to mine and search for minerals, &c., throughout and within the following limits. “To include the whole of the estate of Gryllis and , and to extend from the highway leading from Redruth to Helston, at the junction of the estates called Lanyon and Forest (marked A on the plan) in a north-west direction to where it joins with Gryllis; from thence north-westerly as far as the right extends to the river, and where it adjoins with the parish of Camborne; and from thence northwards following the course of the river, and as the right extends, to where it adjoins with the estate called , and property of Lady Grenville; and from thence eastward against the said Treskillard estate to join the estate called Filtrick; and from thence southward against Filtrick estate to the high-road above mentioned; and from thence westward on the said high-road to where Lanyon estate joins Forest estate; and likewise to include the whole of the wastrel plots situate on the north between Gryllis and the lands of Lord Grenville.” After directing attention to the letters on the coloured maps, marking the points of the boundaries, the learned Counsel read the description of the Filtrick sett, as follows:— To include the whole of the estate called Filtrick, and to extend from a stone post (marked A on the plan annexed hereto) fixed at the mouth of the lane or road leading from the Piece to Carnkie (and which post is the north-west boundary of South Wheal Basset sett) southward against the western boundary of South Wheal Basset sett as far as the right extends to the highroad leading from Redruth to Helston, and the junction of the two parishes of Illogan and Wendron; and from thence westward on the abovementioned road to where that part of Filtrick called Loscombe Common joins with that part of Gryllis called Lanyon; and from thence northward by Gryllis estate to join Wheal Haste sett; and from thence eastward in a straight line against Wheal Haste sett to the first mentioned boundstone; and likewise to include the whole of the wastrel plots situate on the north between Filtrick and the lands of Grenville.” The learned counsel explained that the “Wheal Haste,” referred to in the Filtrick sett, was the original name of West Wheal Basset. The general purpose and intent of the Filtrick sett, he said, was to give liberty to mine over the whole of the Filtrick estate, and the whole of the wastrel spots northward between Filtrick and the lands of Lord Grenville. The northern boundary, however, was limited by the Wheal Haste sett, which took a small part of the Filtrick estate, and the question to be decided was, what part was taken by that Wheal Haste sett? That sett was granted on the 24th of March 1835; it was between Frances Lady Basset and William Richards, and gave liberty, license, &c., to search and mine for minerals throughout the following limits:— “To be bounded on the north and west by the estate of Bosleake, the property of Edward William Wynne Pendarves, Esq., and the estate of Treskillard, the property of Lord Grenville; on the south by a straight line of about 355 fathoms from John Vincent’s house at the south-west extremity of the sett, to a boundstone at the north-west extremity of South Wh. Basset sett; and from thence eastward by the north side of the road leading to Carnkie, to a boundstone fixed at the south-west corner of North Wheal Basset sett; and from thence due north by the magnet about 170 fathoms to a boundstone fixed at the south-east corner of Bosleake estate; and which said premises are particularly delineated by the map on the back of this sett, and are situate in the parish of Illogan, in the said county of Cornwall.” The learned COUNSEL said, from this description it would be seen that the northern boundary of Wheal Haste sett (now West Basset) was the Bosleake estate, and the western was the Treskillard estate. Then comes the important part, the southern boundary. The sett was to be bounded “on the south by a straight line of about 355 fathoms from John Vincent’s house, at the south-west extremity of the sett, to a boundstone at the north-west extremity of South Wh. Basset sett, and from thence eastward by the north side of the road leading to Carnkie, to a boundstone fixed at the south-west corner of North Wheal Basset sett.” On reference to the map, the jury would find that the line which ought to form the southern boundary, should cut the Treskillard estate just where the fence turns down to the south; because where, further westward, it becomes straight, it hardly forms any boundary at all. The line of 355 fathoms from the boundstone would cut Treskillard line of fence some fathoms to the east of John Vincent’s house, and thus would form the southern boundary of West Basset, and, if continued, would touch the northern part of John Vincent’s house. That house was four fathoms or a little more in depth, and it was in those four fathoms—in the space between the line drawn from the northern extremity of that house, and the line drawn from the southern, to the boundstone eastward— that the very rich ore to which he had already directed their attention was to be found. Now the material thing to be relied upon was the description in the lease; the map was merely given as a sort of picture of that description. The description in the words of the lease, he contended, showed clearly that the line was to be drawn from the north of John Vincent’s house. You are coming down from the north, you get to the western extremity of the sett, and as soon as you get to the first point of John Vincent’s house, you draw the boundary line. The line drawn on the map annexed to Wheal Haste also confirmed that view, it being drawn from the north corner of the house; and there was another point of importance: the road at the western boundary runs down roughly, he might say, from north to south, but tending westward, and they would see on the map, just below Vincent’s house, some lines indicating a fence or fences, and which undoubtedly marked the fences that formerly existed. There is a fence on Filtrick estate just below the line marked on Wheal Haste map as the boundary line, and it comes up nearly to that line. Now, if the boundary line were taken from the south corner of Vincent’s house, it would cut that fence, and of course the fence would have been shown on the map; on the contrary, it was not cut, but the boundary line was shown north of that fence. The map, however, as he had said, must be treated merely as a picture, because the person who drew it made a great mistake, and that was admitted on both sides. John Vincent’s house is not placed it its true position on the map; it ought to have been shown at least fifty fathoms further east, and the mistake evidently arose in this way; the person who drew the map seemed to suppose that the 355 fathoms were to be obtained between John Vincent’s house and the first boundstone, instead of the boundstone which was in fact the termination of the sett eastward; and in order to show the 355 fathoms from the first stone, he put Vincent’s house back fifty fathoms on the map. That formerly raised the question whether West Basset sett did not extend to the westward of Vincent’s house; but that did not affect the present question, which only concerned the southern boundary. John Vincent’s house was, in fact, not in the sett of West Basset, because the 355 fathoms from the proper boundstone fell short of it, but yet made a good western boundary in the way he had already stated. Vincent’s house was in the westrel of the sett of Gryllis belonging to South Frances, and also granted by Lady Basset. It could not have been her ladyship’s intention to grant that wastrel to both parties. Vincent’s house was merely used as a point at the western extremity of Wheal Haste sett, to give the direction in which to draw the line for the southern boundary. The sett of Wheal Haste, was granted in 1835, was surrendered to Lady Basset in 1852, and a new sett was then granted to West Basset with the same limits, with the omission of a map. Before that however, namely in 1843, the two sets of Filtrick and Gryllis had been granted by Lady Basset to South Frances. For some time neither mine was successful, and the workings were at some considerable distance from the boundary between them. The copper lodes in Cornwall, as they were aware, run east and west. He believed it was in the summer of 1853 that South Wheal Frances mine, in driving a cross-cut north intersected the very rich lode which was not far from the boundary line now in question. They first cut it in their own sett, in the 80-fathoms level, when they saw from the underlay that it was tending northward towards West Basset sett, and would be found further north in the upper levels. It was known by West Basset people that such a lode had been cut, and they drove a cross-cut south and intersected the lode at the 40 fathoms level, forty fathoms above where it had been cut by South Frances agents. Where it was first intersected by West Basset, it was in their own undoubted right, being to the north of the north line from Vincent’s house. Attention was now called to the importance of the boundary. South Wheal Frances adventurers had their attention first called to the matter, and seeing it was likely to give occasion to dispute, they wished to have the boundary settled. A proposition was made by South Frances adventurers as early as the year 1854, of a mode of settlement; they then gave a line roughly as one which might be adopted by the two mines. Nothing was heard from West Basset people in answer to that for upwards of two years, until in April 1856, West Basset adventurers stirred the question; they had then not only approached the ground, but were actually working in it on both sides. There was a great number of interviews and of correspondence, between the gentlemen interested in the two mines. South Frances adventurers said, “In 1854 we were willing, without having our rights looked into, to take a centre line as our boundary; you gave us no answer, and that matter is off.” Various discussions too place, and the West Basset people made a proposition, or a very influential gentleman amongst them, which would well have satisfied South Frances adventurers; but that line was abandoned. South Frances adventurers at one time were anxious to settle the matter, and a great deal of correspondence took place between the parties, “without prejudice” as it is termed. The parties, however, are now here to ascertain their rights. When the matter came into the hands of the lawyers, the setts were looked into very closely, and it certainly seemed strange that this lode should go down just between the lines taken on the north or the south of John Vincent’s house. It happened to go down very perpendicularly, and there happens to be, a very rich deposit of ore at that spot; if we were to live a hundred years, we should not be likely to see such a thing again. The working went on, and West Basset adventurers worked not only north of the line from John Vincent’s house, which was their own right, but south of a central line, and even south of the south line. They have gone beyond that which is confessedly their boundary in any point of view which can be put forward. The learned Counsel here handed one of the larger plans to the jury (there being a number of plans on the table) and said the defendants had paid into court the sum of £100 to cover the value of the ore they had taken, and they denied that they were liable for more. He was not aware of the principle upon which that sum had been paid into court. The value of the ore which had been actually taken by West Basset from South Frances had been estimated, and after making allowance for dressing, it amounted, in one view of it, to £1618 15s. 9d., and in another, to £1059 5s. He would show them how the difference arose between those two sums, and it would give them some idea of the importance of this bit of ground. He contended that the line of boundary was to be drawn from the north of John Vincent’s house; but in the plan now before the jury that house was laid down on a larger scale than upon the map on the setts, and there was a question whether the boundary line was to be taken from the north- east corner, or the north-west corner of the house. The north-west corner was further to the north than the north-east corner; but he confessed, from reading the sett, that he was disposed to think the north- east corner was the proper line. If, however, West Basset contended that their sett extended further west than the house, it would follow that the line must be taken from the north-west corner. His contention was that the house was not in West Basset sett, but a point at the extremity for drawing the boundary line, as he had before said. If however, the north-east corner of the house were taken for the boundary line, it would give £1059 5s. as South Frances claim for the ore taken away; if the north-west corner, the claim would be £1618 15s 9d. Thus the small space between those two points made a difference in the claim of £559, without reference to the immense body of ore that lies below.— Remarking on other points, the learned Counsel said he did not think much assistance in the case could be derived from measuring the lines laid down on the lease, and then measuring on the ground to see how it would affect those lines. The position of the house being confessedly misplaced upon the map, it was very difficult to say that a line drawn from that house could be accurate when measured upon the ground, although it might give a perfectly good indication that the line was to be drawn from the north and not from the south of the house. After stating that he should call witnesses to prove that Vincent’s house was in the same position now as it occupied in 1835, but that an old fence running down from Filtrick estate had been removed, he said he was at a loss to know what his learned friend could rely upon to show that the boundary line ought to be drawn at the south of Vincent’s house. He thought some misapprehension must have arisen from a Mr. Phillips, who was now gone to Australia, having made a map of South Frances sett in 1847, and in that map placed the boundary at the south of the house. He was not one of the mine agents, but a man who went about the country making maps of different mines. Perhaps he was told that Vincent’s house was the boundary, and he drew the line as soon as he came to the nearest point on the sett. The learned counsel said these were the points on which he relied on the part of plaintiff; the facts would be for the jury, but ultimately the construction of the leases would probably be for the court. In reply to Mr. Lush, Mr. Montague Smith admitted, on the part of plaintiff, that the £100 paid into court was sufficient compensation for the trespass West Basset acknowledged having committed south of the southern boundary line from Vincent’s house. It was also agreed that the amount of damages, if the verdict were given for plaintiff, should be ascertained by reference to a mining captain to be appointed by the parties, or by the Judge in case of dispute. Mr. Lush admitted that the site of Vincent’s house was in the plaintiff’s sett, and was not included in Wheal Haste sett of 1835. Various admissions were then made by both parties to enable the simple question of the line of boundary to go to the jury. Mr. Whitley, surveyor, in reply to a question, stated that there were 64 fathoms 3 feet between the two boundstones. The witnesses then called by Plaintiff’s counsel were Mr. Silvanus Jenkin, surveyor, at Liskeard, and county surveyor for the eastern division, steward for part of Mr. Robartes’s property, and having had experience in mine and other surveying; Elizabeth Richards, about seventy years of age, daughter of John Vincent, who built the house upwards of fifty years ago; and Henry Prisk, farmer of Filtrick estate, who had formerly been an agent of South Frances. These witnesses were examined and cross-examined at considerable length, and on many details which it would be impossible to render intelligible without a map. Mr. Jenkin produced plans made from a survey of the ground; No. 1 being a plan of the strip of land at and about the disputed boundary; and No. 2, a plan of the old Wheal Haste sett, and of the boundaries of the South Frances setts.—Mrs. Richards, the daughter of Vincent, proved that several additions had been made to the house, and that all were made before her father died, which was about the year 1830.—Mr. Prisk said he was born on Filtrick estate, had lived there all his lifetime, and recollected when Vincent’s house was built. The boundary fences on the north against the waste plots were the same now as they had been ever since he could remember them. This witness and Mrs. Richards also spoke of a cross-fence formerly running down from Filtrick estate to the road which had been removed by Vincent in improving his tenement, and that this was a different fence from that which now existed running from Gryllis to the road. Vincent’s house and building had been altered into 3 dwelling houses. The witness was asked questions, on cross-examination, about the working map of South Frances mine, which he, as being formerly an agent, had seen in the account-house; also about a gentleman coming on the sett to make a map some years ago; and whether a new map had not been made of the manor of Tehidy. On these points, however, the witness gave very little information. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH said this was the plaintiff’s case; upon which some consultation took place between the learned Judge and counsel, when at length Mr. LUSH said he would go to the jury upon the facts as already proved; it being understood that whichever way the verdict was given, the other party should have leave to move to enter up a verdict on legal grounds as regarded the construction of the leases. The learned Judge, said he had a strong opinion as to the legal effect of the leases, but he would not now express it. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH then summed up the evidence on the part of plaintiff. After a humourous allusion to his learned friend having come from the east, whence it was a popular de---? to suppose that all the wise men proceeded, he drew attention to a statement by Mr. Jenkin that if a boundary line were drawn at all south of the north-east corner of the house, it would cut the old fence which ran down from Filtrick estate, and if the line were drawn from the south corner of the house, it would not only cut the fence, but take off sixteen feet of the Maria field on Filtrick estate. That was not shown on Wheal Haste map on the sett, and was strong evidence that the boundary line was intended to go to the north of that Maria field, and therefore to the north of Vincent’s house. After further remarking on the evidence, he said his learned friend had asked Mr. Jenkin, the surveyor, whether it was not usual to take the centre of a bound stone in defining a boundary. But the house was not a boundstone, it was a block of buildings, and the point to be taken for drawing the boundary line, was the point you first reach when coming down southward to the western extremity of the sett. By drawing the line there you get a good boundary, but by drawing the line further south you get no boundary at all. Mr. LUSH addressed the jury for defendants. Though he came from the east, where traditionally some little wisdom was to be found, he had come to the west to learn something of the tactics of a case, such as often he did not see in the east. It was for his friend to prove that the boundary line extended from the north of that house, yet it was his tactics to keep back every witness who knew anything about it. Capt. Pascoe, whom they had heard of; also the gentleman who took up the lease and knew what the boundaries were, and other witnesses, were all kept back, and the jury were asked to make their way in the dark, and to find a verdict which his friend had not called evidence to substantiate. His friend had to make out that the boundary extended to the north side of the house; it was enough for him (Mr. Lush) to satisfy them that it did not; if the jury could not see that it did, that would be sufficient for him. The description in the Wheal Haste lease of 1835 was exceedingly minute; and he would call attention to one or two principles which his lordship would not controvert. Whatever was granted in the lease of 1835 by Lady Basset, belonged to the defendants now; if she then granted them a southern boundary to that house, it belonged to them now. He would also submit, rather for the consideration of his lordship than for the jury, that if there was an ambiguity in the terms of Wheal Haste lease, he was entitled to construe it on the terms most favourable to himself. The principle of the law was, that if he had a grant of something in terms ambiguous, he had a right to take it on the terms most strongly against the grantor, and most favourable to himself. He would call attention to the Wheal Haste sett of 1835, it being admitted that West Basset stands on the same terms. The first thing to be observed was the very great attention bestowed by those who framed that lease, in defining the boundary of the sett on every side. The evident intention was to be as accurate as possible, so that there should be no mistake hereafter. When you look at the plan, there is a boundary on the north, and on the west; but there is a bit of the estate which runs off in a south western direction, and as to that the western boundary will not apply. Lord Grenville’s property does not come lower down than the road, so that if they had stopped there with the bounds they would have not given a description for the south-west corner. The shape of Lord Grenville’s property would leave a nook to be filled up. But after saying that the sett is to be bounded on the north by the property of Mr. Pendarves, on the west by the property of Lord Grenville, and on the south by a straight line of about 355 fathoms from John Vincent’s house at the south-west extremity of the sett, they go on to describe where that line is to be drawn and trace the boundaries up to the north so as to enclose the whole sett in a perfect boundary, intending to give the grantees a limit on every side. What they did they mean when they said it was to be bounded at the south-west extremity by John Vincent’s house? You will observe that the south-west extremity is the utmost boundary of the sett; and if you take the mere four walls of John Vincent’s house, it does not fill up that south-western extremity. But if it were meant by “house” what in law may well be called a house, and is popularly so called—if it were meant John Vincent’s premises, you will then find that those premises form a complete boundary of the sett to the south-west. Take that as the meaning, and all is filled up and complete. You are then to have a straight line from those premises to your other extremity eastward. You have heard from one of the surveyors, that when you have a boundstone you are to go to the middle of it. Now take the map and draw the line as I suggest to you, taking the word “house” to mean John Vincent’s house and yard, or the premises occupied by Vincent, the line will then run through the middle of John Vincent’s premises, and along the southern front of his house. The line we claim at the south of the house runs through the very centre of the hedge—the very centre of the line described in the lease as the south-west boundary of the sett.—He would go a little further to show the meaning of the parties. There were to be 355 fathoms to Vincent’s house at the south-west extremity. The parties were so minute that they put the number of fathoms, and the jury would remember the evidence, that from Vincent’s hedge, the outer boundary of his premises, to the boundstone was exactly 355 fathoms. Mr. M. SMITH—That was the old butt, not the [hedge?]. Mr. LUSH—It made no appreciable difference; [the words?] were “about 355 fathoms,” but if they went on to [the north?] walls of Vincent’s house, they would have eleven fathoms more; so that according to plaintiff’s interpretation of the word “house,” there would be 366 fathoms from the bound- stone instead of 355. The parties therefore who made the lease must have meant the boundary to stop at John Vincent’s premises—at that hedge which of itself formed a boundary. But that was not all; defendants had no claim upon those premises. The grant of Gryllis in 1843 leased to plaintiffs the whole of the ore under the whole of John Vincent’s premises, not only under the house, but under the yard and garden, up to the fence. But if defendants were entitled to draw the line up to Vincent’s house, they were entitled to the ore up to that line, within limits which by the lease of Gryllis, were demised to plaintiff. It was therefore clear that defendants were not to go up to the house with their sett, but to the boundary of the yard adjoining the house. Popularly speaking, the house would include not merely the four walls, but the yard and garden. If John Vincent had contracted to sell his house, would he have said to the purchaser, “you take the four walls, and I am to retain the yard and garden.” If “house” were taken to mean premises in this case, it would make the whole of the plans consistent’ it would answer to the measurements given in defendants’ leases, and the descriptions given in plaintiffs’ leases. He contended that defendants were entitled to the line drawn from the south of the house, which plaintiffs never thought of disputing until they found that little triangle contained some of the richest ore in that neighbourhood. Even plaintiffs had admitted the southern boundary line by the working plan in their own office ever since they had had the leases. Mr. M. SMITH—That was before our attention was called to it, long before the litigation. Mr. LUSH—They have not dared to call their manager or captain, or the party who negotiated the leases, because they would be obliged to admit that when they took them they had a plan showing where our boundary was, and which gave us a line south of that house. Mr. M. SMITH—It is not so. Mr. LUSH—Why then did you not call your witnesses? You have had a plan for many years in the office, and, you say, have altered it since. That makes it worse. What right have you now, when you find it of importance to say it is not your boundary, to go and alter your plan? You have not the courage to bring it before the jury, who would see it was not in the condition it was in before this question arose. Mr. M. SMITH—I don’t think that is fair, Mr. Lush. The learned JUDGE said any observation on the plan was fair after the evidence of one of the witnesses. Mr. M. SMITH—My friend must take the admission as I made it to him. The plan was not altered for the jury, but at the time of negotiation when a compromise was suggested. Mr. LUSH—The jury must see that the plan had been altered for no proper purpose, and in such a way that they dared not bring it before them. Supposing plaintiffs had been told of the limits of Wheal Haste, and their working plan contained the line, they no right now to claim more because the lode was valuable. His friend had endeavoured to create some confusion as to the position of Vincent’s boundary hedge. It was quite enough for him (Mr. Lush) that the fence was not where it was in 1835. The mistake on the plan of 1835 was the only shadow plaintiffs had for this litigation; but the description in the lease was perfect without the plan, and it was a well-known rule of law, as well as common sense, that if you have the description on your deed complete, it is not matter if the map contains an error. This map was evidently drawn by a person who did not know the premises, and he put Vincent’s house sixty fathoms out of its place to the west. But plaintiffs say, “though it is a mistake to put it there, it is not a mistake in putting it to the south of the boundary line.” Why not? Test it by the scale on the map, and you will find from the spot where Vincent’s house ought to be on the map, that the line should be drawn to the south of the house. They had now plaintiffs’ plan, by Mr. Jenkin, and would find that from the hedge at the north down to the front, which is the south-eastern front of Vincent’s house, is exactly seven fathoms. Then on putting the compasses to the small plan on the sett, they would find that the line came down exactly seven fathoms, from the north bank. The person who drew the map had to make it accurate according to scale, and it showed seven fathoms to the north. Those very seven fathoms were given to defendants by the red line showing the boundary they claimed; and the man who put in the house, put it down too far south as well as too far west. It was objected that defendants’ line if carried on, would take in part of Filtrick. In plaintiffs’ own map on Filtrick sett, the line of defendants’ sett was shown running through the top of Filtrick, and how absurd it then was to say that the line? claimed by defendants was inaccurate because it would give them a part of Filtrick. In conclusion, the learned counsel submitted that to adopt John Vincent’s house as meaning premises would render all the leases, measurements, and maps consistent with each other; and that defendants were entitled to a line drawn through the centre of the premises, and running to the south of Vincent’s house. The learned JUDGE proceeded to sum up the case to the jury He said, this is an action to try which of the parties is right as to the boundaries of their respective mines; and the question is, as correctly stated to you by the learned counsel on either side, whether the boundary of the sett of 1835, under which, substantially, the defendants’ claim, is bounded upon the south by a line drawn from the north-east corner of Vincent’s house or by a line drawn from the south corner of that house, That really is the whole matter. A great many topics have been introduced which I may call topics tending rather to prejudice the one party or the other—to dispose your minds to find for them upon grounds of favour, but which do not appear to me to bear directly upon the question before you. It has been said, this is a set of 1835, and they were not likely to be exceedingly particular at that time as to whether the line was to be drawn from the north or south of Vincent’s house. But though a valuable lode has been since discovered, not then known; it cannot in the least affect the question of what was then granted. The question turns upon the language of that sett, of a technical nature, together with the proved facts of the case. Again, it is said, plaintiff is clearly in the wrong, because upon obtaining the sett or setts of 1843 under which he claims, he or his agents made out a map of the mine which he supposed he took under that sett or setts, and as he did not include the particular place in question, it would show, in substance, that the line must be drawn from the south side of the house. That however may be looked at in one or two views. You may say, “Oh, this is conclusive, because a man is not likely to put forward as a right that which is less than he is really entitled to, and it shows clearly a man must have that only, unless some point of law is conclusive in his favour. On the other hand, the observation made with respect to the lease of 1835 applies;—that probably the person who acted for the plaintiff in making that plan, did not at all consider closely whether his line should run to the north or south of the house, but set it down for working purposes, and not for the purpose of stating strictly to certain lawyers what the title was. I feel some little difficulty in addressing you upon this case, for this reason;—because the facts appear to be all but admitted, and the documents speak for themselves. The question is as nearly a question of law as one can conceive; still, as a party of the adventurers have brought the question before a body of gentlemen of this county, the greater part of whom must be intimately acquainted with this matter, if I were to take upon myself to decide the point as a matter of law, it might afterwards turn out that I had taken a wrong view of the case, and ought to have left it to the jury. Now, of course, the great question would have been upon the plan annexed to the sett of 1835, (Wheal Haste), if that plan had been strictly accurate. There is no doubt that whatever the defendants did not get by the sett of 1835 to the south, the plaintiff did get by the setts of 1843. The great question is, what is granted by the sett of 1835? The greater certainty a plan is annexed to that sett,; and to that plan the description of what is intended refers therefore, the language not being positive as to the question in dispute, if that plan were strictly accurate, the question would be determined by it. It would be for you to say whether, by that plan, the line was taken from the north corner of the house or the south corner. I don’t wish to intrude upon your province; I speak only as to the conclusion my own eyes draw from it, but I beg you to use your own. The line, as I look at it, seems to be drawn from the north corner of the house; but you must draw your own conclusions, and take what I say merely as an observation. It turns out however that the plan is not strictly correct; and the question is, whether its inaccuracy in one admitted point is not enough, in your judgment, to disparage its effect with respect to the part of the house from which the line appears to be drawn. Another remark one has to make upon the plan of 1835 is this. Supposing it to be accurate, and that you can rely upon it in respect of the boundaries that are shown, it is said that if a line (and I have not heard that contradicted) were taken from the southern corner of the house instead of the northern (recollect this was formerly waste land), and drawn from that to the bound- stone, it would cut off not only a portion of the Filtrick property, but it would also cut off sixteen feet of the Filtrick property at a spot between the extremity nearest the house, and the house. The surveyor says, taking a line from the southern extremity of the house, and drawing it to the bound-stone, it would cut off a portion of this close, near to what is called the burrows. Now whether it be from that not having been the intention of the parties when the lease of 1835 was granted, or whether from the fact of the plan being on so small a scale, certain it is that no part of that intermediate close is shown to be cut off on the plan which accompanies that sett of 1835. Here, of course, one’s reliance on that plan is diminished; and I will call attention to another inaccuracy. The description of the sett gives about 355 fathoms as the length of boundary from the house to the further bound-stone; but it is quite clear that the person who drew the plan mistook that description. He must have been given the description to draw by, but instead of showing the 355 fathoms from the farthest boundstone, he took it from the nearest boundstone, and accordingly he threw back the house the difference between the two boundstones, which is about 64 fathoms. The house must be brought forward to the east 64 fathoms; I take that extent as well as I can upon the scale, and that brings up the house as nearly as possible to that place which you see represented on the plan to the east of it, running down from the road; speaking roughly, it would bring up the house to about there. Assuming that were so, I think you will find it pretty clear, when you look at the large plan together with the small one, that the line represented on the small plan would be a line running as the stream in the direction of Filtrick, and not a line running on the road to Gryllis. The only explanation of this is, that formerly, before Vincent built the house, there was an old fence running along the stream, and that fence is said to have come down, not from Gryllis as the present one, but from Filtrick, and adjoining the house where Vincent subsequently lived. It looks as if the person who made this plan on the sett of 1835, had taken some old plan, and filled in Vincent’s house wrong. But whether that be so or not, it seems pretty clear that the plan upon the sett of 1835, although professing to be upon a scale of fathoms, is not an exceedingly accurate plan. The case for the plaintiff is, that the plan upon the sett shows that the boundary line must be to the north; that if you take the line to the south, you will cut off a portion of Filtrick, which is clearly not shown on that plan; therefore the line must be drawn from the north, and not from the south of the house. That being the case as to the plan, let me draw attention to the description which accompanies that plan. The sett is to be bounded “on the south by a straight line of about 355 fathoms from John Vincent’s house, at the south-west extremity of the sett.” That is a most remarkable expression in the description, “John Vincent’s house at the south-west extremity of the sett.” It is suggested on the one hand, that that means the house itself, the place where the man was living, and that it does not refer to that which surrounded the house?, the courtlage used with the house. If Vincent were to make a will respecting his house, you would be surprised if the person who had the land and house under the will, had not the small buildings and yard with it. But that does not at all conclude the question whether one would be likely to take the large plot occupied with a house as being the south-west extremity of a sett, or whether he would be more likely to take the house itself, as being a fixed place, and not so likely to be altered as the boundaries of land might be. “John Vincent’s house at the south-west extremity of the sett.” Should you have thought that a person speaking of a house in such a position , was speaking of a place occupied by the householder, or rather of a fixed building from which he could measure with certainty. Possibly, you might speak of a house at the south-western extremity which did not join on to the corner of a sett. You might talk of the south-western extremity of some of the squares in London, without meaning a house in the square. I draw attention to it, because the language is not of that fixed certainty as to whether the house is in the sett, or whether it may not abut on one side of the extremity of it. It will be for you to consider whether, looking at the sense in which the parties were speaking, namely, of having a fixed point from which the boundary was to be measured, you think they were speaking in a loose way; or whether you don’t think it was more likely the house should be spoken of as being actually at the extremity of the sett, in which case you must draw your southern and your western lines, one would think, from the corner of the house. That really is the whole of the matter, as I understand it, arising upon the sett, and upon which your opinion is asked. But then your attention is drawn, on the part of the defendants, to several points by the able and learned Counsel who has addressed you. In the first place he relies on the admitted inaccuracy, in some respects, of the plan at the back of the sett of 1835; and next, he replies to the circumstance of the southern line, as plaintiff represents, cutting off some portion of Filtrick, by saying that the scale is so small you would not expect it to be shown; and he contends you ought to draw the line from the middle of the boundary as it now exists, that is, the boundary of Vincent’s place. I presume that the object of plaintiff in showing that the old boundary ran along the course of the stream, was to show that that might possibly be taken as a boundary, to do away with the conclusion. Mr. Lush endeavours to draw from the fact of the present boundary being from the centre of the place. I do not think, if any such conclusion were to be drawn, that it can be raised upon the facts appearing; because if the parties took the trouble of going to the house in 1835, if they were dealing precisely with the state of the premises at that time, it is clear from the evidence of the old lady, the daughter of Vincent, that the alteration had been made before 1835, and that the fence had been made as it at present stands, long before that. If they were dealing with reference to the precise state of the premises, and a knowledge of how they stood at that time, they must have been dealing with reference to the present hedge, and not the hedge running along the stream. There is another point which has been suggested by the learned counsel for the defendants, with regard to a measurement upon the plan. I should have thought myself—you will judge of it for yourselves—that when you have established that the house has been put sixty-four fathoms out if its place by the surveyor who made the plan of 1835, that you cannot draw very strict conclusions as to the precise distance of the house either from the north or the south of the place where it is put, because you are dealing with an admitted blunder by the person who put it where it is.—The learned JUDGE here asked Mr. Lush to repeat his point with regard to measurement, and he then said, the other argument which is most relied upon on the part of defendant is this. He says, if you measure about 355 fathoms from the boundstone, it will reach not to the house, but to the hedge, or near it; and he says, you will then have the boundary distance of 355 fathoms complete, and that that is an additionally strong argument why you should measure from Vincent’s premises, popularly called the house, and which a man might pass by his will as a house. With regard to the argument he addressed to you as to the seven fathoms, I think proper to make no observation upon it; I have not been able to take the measurement, and I must beg you to dispose of the matter for yourselves. Gentlemen, if you think the line of boundary is to be drawn from the north of Vincent’s house you will find for the plaintiff, and the amount of damages will be settled elsewhere. If you think the line ought to be drawn from the south of the house, you will find for the defendant, and no question as to damages will arise. The jury retired at a quarter to three, and returned into court at 25 minutes to four. They then gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £10,000, subjectt o (sic) be reduced on reference. Defendants have leave to move, on legal grounds with regard to the construction of the leases, to enter a verdict for defendants. Defendants have also a cross-action against plaintiffs, which we understand was not ready for trial. We are informed that Mr. Lush received 300 guineas from defendants as his special retainer, besides fees. This concluded the Nisi Prius business, and the court then proceeded with the following:— TRIALS OF PRISONERS. ELIZABETH WARNE, 31, was indicted for stealing, on the 22nd of January, two pieces of brass, from the parish church of St. Hilary, the property of the churchwardens. Another count charged feloniously receiving the property. Mr. BERE, for the prosecution, called witnesses, from whom it appeared that some brass bearings connected with the machinery of one of the bells were placed under a seat at the western end of the church, where they were seen on Christmas eve by Mr. Floyd, one of the churchwardens. On the 22nd of January, prisoner offered brass for sale at Mr. Levin’s shop, Penzance. Mr. Levin suspected that it had been stolen from some mine, and questioned prisoner, who then went with him to the police office at Penzance, where prisoner repeated to Superintendent Olds the same story she had told Mr. Levin—that she was the wife of a miner called Thomas, of Perran, who had found the brass under a cliff. Subsequently, however, she told the superintendent that she was not a married woman, that she was the daughter of Betsy Warne, who lived at St. Hilary, that her mother cleaned the church, and she hoped Mr. Olds would say nothing about it to the Rev. T. Pascoe, as her mother would then lose her employment. She did not say where she got the brass. She went to her mother’s house at St. Hilary, and on the 23rd January, Superintendent Miller, of Camborne County Police, called there, and asked her about the brass she had offered at Penzance for sale on the previous day. She denied that she had done so, that she had even been to the police-office at Penzance, or had spoken to anybody in the place. On her going to Penzance, however, with Mr. Miller, she was identified by Mr. Olds as having been there the previous day Mr. Floyd, on the 23rd, in consequence of information, went to the church, and missed the brass bearings. Superintendent Miller afterwards showed him the bearings prisoner had offered for sale, and they fitted into their place in the belfry. It appeared that John Stribley, servant to the Rev. T. Pascoe, on the previous Friday had been showing the church to a stranger. He left the keys in the door, having occasion to go to the vicarage, and on his return prisoner was in the church. When taken into custody by Superintendent Miller, she said she picked up the brasses under a hedge, with some rubbish which had been wheeled out of the church. Prisoner, who cried a great deal, was found GUILTY; she was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour for a week. JOHN POMEROY, 42, miner, was charged with stealing fowls, the property of George Yelland, at St. Stephens in Branwell, on the 12th February. Mr. CARTER for the prosecution; Mr. COX for the prisoner. Prosecutor had about 50 fowls, and about twenty of them were stolen. This was discovered on a Saturday, and on the Monday morning, prisoner’s house was searched by George Barnes, inspector of police at St. Austell. He found up-stairs on a table, three fowls, two picked, and one partly picked; another partly picked in a tub under the table, some fowl bones, and a quantity of feathers in a tub. Prisoner said there was nothing in his house but what belonged to himself. There were footmarks about prosecutor’s premises, but not like the prisoner’s shoes. The leg of one of the fowls found in prisoner’s house was produced, and sworn to by the prosecutor, who said that fowl had had its leg broken, and he had tied it up and cured it. Prosecutor’s son and a boy also gave evidence, and a fowl found in prisoner’s house was identified from its comb having been split. Verdict, GUILTY; sentence deferred. WILLIAM VINCENT, 29, miner, was charged with stealing ten fowls from George Yelland, the prosecutor in the previous case. These were alleged to be part of the fifteen or twenty stolen from prosecutor on the 12th of February. Mr. CARTER prosecuted, and Mr. COX defended the case. Inspector Barnes went to search prisoner’s house. In the bedroom was a large chest with three or four boxes upon it. Prisoner’s wife said she had lost the key several weeks. The inspector broke open the chest, and found therein four or five fowls picked, fresh and cut in pieces. He apprehended prisoner at St. Austell Consols mine the same night; prisoner said he knew nothing about the fowls. The inspector compared one of prisoner’s shoes with a footmark on prosecutor’s premises, and he described in what way it corresponded. Whilst the case was proceeding, one of the jury was taken ill, and obliged to leave the court. After some time he returned, and the Judge having summed up, the jury retired to consider their verdict. After being a considerable time absent, they returned, and the Judge was informed that the juryman was so ill that he could not proceed with considering the case. He was then sworn, and said his name was Thomas Allen, and he was so unwell he could not remain on the jury. The Judge said: then, gentlemen, I must discharge you as a jury from considering this case. He also suggested to Mr. Carter, that as the jury, from the time they had been absent, had evidently some doubts, it would not be advisable to have the case again gone into before another jury. Mr. Carter acquiesced, and the learned Judge then ordered the prisoner to be bound over in his own recognizances in £20, to appear for trial at the next Assizes, if he received notice to do so. ASSAULT.—BENJAMIN HOSKING, 29, cutler and grinder, was indicted for assaulting police constable Rickard and police sergeant Coombe, in the execution of their duty at Redruth. Mr. BERE conducted the prosecution. It appeared that on Friday evening the 12th of February, there was a disturbance in John Lukey’s beershop at Redruth; a quarrel took place between a man called Hicks and the prisoner, and the landlord sent for the police. Police-constable Rickard came, and according to Lukey’s statement, tried to make prisoner peaceable, but Hosking was “wild and resolute,’ and “lifted his hand against the police.” Rickard defended himself with his staff, and prisoner caught hold of the staff, and tried to strike him.— The evidence of Rickard was, that he struck prisoner on the arms with his staff; he did it in his own defence. Prisoner ran out at the door after the man he had been fighting with; the policeman followed, and prisoner gave him a blow in the face. He kept coming round him for half an hour aiming blows at him, and witness struck him with the staff in self-defence. Sergeant Coombe then came up, and prisoner ran into his lodging-house, into the back kitchen, where he took up a poker. They took him into custody, and conveyed him to the lock-up.—The policeman, in reply to prisoner and the learned judge, said he struck prisoner on the head when he was outside the door, but he did not see much blood flow. He did not put prisoner under a cock with boiling water pouring upon him in the lodging-house; that was done by prisoner’s own party, and prisoner was scalded.—Police Sergeant Coombe stated that prisoner was brandishing a poker in the lodging-house, and said he would knock down the first man that touched him. Witness jumped at him, and took away the poker. He told him he was charged with assaulting one of the police in the execution of his duty, and he had better come quietly. Prisoner said he would not, and they had a violent struggle on the ground before he could handcuff him. It was after that, the hot water ran over him from the fountain, and witness turned it off; there were many people in the house, and the lights were put out several times. Prisoner was the most violent man he ever saw; he threw witness down once in the road as he was conveying him to the lock-up; constable Nicholls came to his assistance.—Prisoner, in his defence, complained of ill-usage by the police and said to Sergeant Coombe, “you tore the shirt off my back, and the skin off my bones.”—The learned JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury to confine their attention to the assault upon Rickard.—When the policeman was called to the beer-shop he had no right to commence belabouring Hosking, but if he at first attempted to keep the peace, and Hosking attacked him, he was justified in using his staff.—Verdict, GUILTY.—The JUDGE said it did not appear the prisoner had inflicted any serious injury on the policeman, and he had not used the poker, which were two circumstances in his favour. Prisoner was a ticket-of-leave man, and may have forfeited his leave. He (the Judge) had nothing to do with that, but should pass sentence upon him for the present offence. He then sentenced him to two months’ hard labour. PERJURY.—JOHN OLD, 59, miner, was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury in the at Redruth, on the 8th of October last. Prisoner, on being arraigned, said, I received a hurt in the head thirty years ago, and was greatly hurried when I stood before the bench; I never did so before; I swore the letter was read to me in my name, and I give myself up to the mercy of your Honor. In answer to the Court, prisoner said, I am guilty, sir; I cannot plead my own cause, and have not a friend to speak for me. Mr. COX said he appeared for the prosecution, and was requested by the County Court Judge, and by the prosecutor to recommend the prisoner to the mercy of the Court; they thought he was somewhat hurried at the time. He had been in prison some time, and they hoped this example would be a warning to others.—Sentence deferred. JOHN CHUDLEIGH, 34, dealer in marine stores, was charged with stealing 70 lbs. of iron, the property of Matthew Care, at , on the 1st of February. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. The Court then rose. CROWN COURT, MONDAY, MARCH 22. Before Mr. Justice CROWDER. JOHN RICHARDS was indicted for stealing three printed books, a piece of broad cloth, two yards of oil table-cloth, and a tailors’ measure, the property of John Worth, of Pengelly, near Camelford, on the 23rd of December. Mr. Cox conducted the prosecution; Mr. Coleridge the defence. It appeared that the prosecutor, who had been carrying on business as a draper at Pengelly, on the 16th and 17th of November had a sale of his goods; at which the prisoner had been employed to mark lots and otherwise assist, and he also purchased a quantity of goods. Shortly after the sale, the prosecutor missed the articles named in the indictment, and on search being found, they were found in the prisoner’s house.— On the examination of the prosecutor, it turned out that he had let the prisoner have the piece of cloth, for custody; and after the examination of other witnesses, Mr. Cox said he felt that the evidence did sustain the case for the prosecution.—There was a failure of proof as to felonious concealment of the measure; the table oil-cloth the prisoner took, openly, for the protection of his purchased goods from rain, when removing them in a cart; and there was a suggested possibility of mistake on the prosecutor’s part as to the books, and that they were bona fide the prisoner’s property. By direction of the JUDGE the jury returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL. CHARGE OF MURDER. WILLIAM NATTLE, 41, labourer, was indicted for the wilful murder of Maria Nattle, at the parish of St. Dominick, on the 21st of November last.—Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Bere were counsel for the prosecution; Mr. Cole for the defence. Attorneys:—Mr. Peter, of Callington, for the prosecution; Mr. Ladd, also of Callington, for the defence. The following gentlemen were sworn of the jury: Messrs. William Pearson, Robert Jane, William Hawke, John Brendon, Samuel Snell, William George Vosper, William Tucker, Henry Hawke, John Morris, Thomas Biddick, Joseph Nettell, and Henry Harris. By request of prisoner’s counsel, all the witnesses were ordered out of court, with the exception of the surgeons. Mr. COLERIDGE opened the case to the Jury, giving a succinct narrative of facts and circumstances which afterwards came out more fully in evidence; and concluding by submitting as the questions for the Jury’s determination; 1st, whether Mrs. Nattle, the prisoner’s mother, came to her death by violence, at all; and, secondly, if her death was owing to violence, whether the prisoner at the bar was the person guilty of that violence. The circumstances of the case for the prosecution were mainly these:—The prisoner was, when in drink, a violent man; he had been heard the day before to threaten his mother; he came home, probably in drink, just before the injury was received by the mother, whether naturally or otherwise; the surgeons were of opinion that death was caused by a blow on the head, whether the result of a fall, or of violence from some person; and the prisoner’s subsequent conduct, he stating distinctly that on his return home he found his mother lying in the wood-house and breathing heavily, whereas if the evidence of the man Burnard was to be believed, Mrs. Nattle was unquestionably seen alive and walking about the kitchen after the prisoner’s return home. The case was one wholly of circumstantial evidence. He need not say that the value of circumstantial evidence was infinitely various; in some cases it might be very slight, in others it might amount almost to demonstration. He might observe that all the facts of circumstantial evidence were to be weighed rather than numbered. The question was, was there any one, or were there any two or three facts which were reasonably inconsistent with the prisoner being innocent. If there was any one fact which, as reasonable men, the jury could not hold to be consistent with the prisoner’s innocence, that fact was sufficient for them to act on. On the other hand, if there were five hundred facts, all equally consistent with his guilt or innocence, of course they were not entitled to act upon them. The question for the jury was, did the case presented by the prosecution leave any reasonable doubt on their minds as reasonable men that the prisoner committed the act which caused the deceased’s death. If there were reasonable doubts, certainly let them say not guilty. But if there were not such reasonable doubt, it was equally their duty to convict. In a case of life and death, such as this, the jury were, more than in any other, the earthly ministers of a Power that was not—(the learned counsel unfortunately dropped his voice at what appeared to be a very emphatic word or phrase). He therefore prayed them, in the discharge of the tremendous duty which the law had cast upon them to remember, in their discharge of it, what they owed to the prisoner, to their country, and to God. Thomas Dymond, carpenter, of St. Dominick, remembered the death of Mrs. Nattle; made the coffin for her, assisted in putting her body into it, and saw her buried; was afterwards present when the grave was opened; took out and opened the coffin, and was present while the surgeons, Messrs. Kempthorne and Bowden, made the post mortem examination of Mrs. Nattle’s body. John Kempthorne:—I am a surgeon, living at Callington. On the 21st of December last, I, together with Mr. Bowden, made a post mortem examination, at St. Dominick Churchyard, of the body of a woman which I saw lying in a coffin; the last witness, Dymond, was present; I took the body out of the coffin, laid it on a plank, and examined it. First of all, I shaved the head; the skin was then in such a state as admitted of the head being shaved without the skin coming off. On the right side of the head I found a considerable swelling extending behind a line drawn from the upper part of the ear to the top of the head, backward over the head. (The witness pointed out the place to the jury, by means of a skull, which he exhibited. with ink lines on it; and also made use of the skull for explanations of further portions of his evidence; indeed, in very much of it, he informed the jury rather by pointing to portions of the skull, than by verbal description). The skin was swollen and very dark—port-wine colour; there was a very great difference between the colour of the skin at this portion of the skull, and that at other parts; the discoloration was very different from the ordinary discoloration that takes place after death. After having discovered this external injury, I made an incision from the back part of the head forward to the root of the nose; and anther incision around the head. With the exception of the part included between these marks (pointing out to the jury marks including the site of the swelling previously spoken of) the head presented no appearances different from ordinary. Reflecting the skin, I found there was a large clot at the spot near the top of the head on the right side; the cellular tissue there was very much disorganized and the true skin very much broken up; the cellular tissue was so broken up that the distinctive characteristics of cellular tissue were not to be distinguished. At that place there was a distinct clot of blood; and the whole of the cellular tissue, back, was gorged with blood.—The cellular tissue had been broken up by some violence from without. Within the area marked on this skull, both the cellular tissue and the skin over it were destroyed. The skin, when observed from without, was uninjured, but within, the true skin was all broken up, underneath the outer skin—the cuticle. Towards the hinder part of the skull, the cellular tissue was gorged with blood; the whole of the reflected part was gorged, except the spot where the skin and cellular tissue were broken up. The roots of hair were exposed; showing that the violence or blow, had destroyed the parts from which the hair-roots grow. We removed the skullcap; we found no fracture, either internal or external; there was no fracture, crack, or tissue anywhere in the skull; nor were there any clots of blood between the skull and its membranes, nor between the membranes themselves, nor under them upon the brain. In disserting the brain itself, I made an incision into it, and a clot of blood issued from the section; that clot exuded from the right lateral ventricle; the size of that clot was nearly that of a small hen’s egg. All the cavities of the brain itself were full of clotted blood, as well as the base of the brain; there was a good deal of blood found at the deep part—the base of the brain. There were clots of blood found in those parts, and the parts themselves were engorged with blood. The deeper part of the brain, as regards the structure of the brain itself, is one of the most important as to vitality. The brain was in a good state of preservation from decomposition; we discovered no disease, and it was not much decomposed; there was no disease either in the substance or the arteries of the brain. We proceeded to make examination of all the vital organs of the body; we found no traces of disease, nor any thing to account for death; the arteries of the lower extremities were ossified; but not so the upper parts of the body. I found no bruise on any part, except that which I have spoken of, near the top of the head on the right side. From the examination I made, I considered that the immediate cause of death was effusion of blood within the brain; that is, apoplexy. On reviewing the case, I considered that the apoplexy itself would be sufficient cause of death; and that the injury outside the skull would be quite sufficient to cause apoplexy. In my judgment, the blow, or the injury, or the violence of some sort on the outside of the skull was sufficient to account for the death. The position of the injury was such that it might be accounted for by supposing that the person had fallen on some hard substance projecting from a wall, with a rounded outline; but then, it would not be to the extent observed, unless the person were sent against the wall with some velocity. The position of the injury was such that, supposing the person fell against something projecting from a wall, of a rounded outline, that part of the head might have been struck. Or, by a person falling on the ground on some hard substance, projecting, and of a rounded outline. But neither of those conditions would account for the violence of the injury, or rather for the result of violence. To account for what I observed, some violence must have been used, either by driving a body against a projecting substance, or by driving a projecting substance against some body. Her falling forwards would not account for the injury I saw; the fall must have been sideways, if the injury were caused by a fall. I think the handle of a common weeding-iron would produce the injury I saw. There was no bruise on the body; if a person had fallen with some degree of violence, and struck some part of the body heavily, bruises would have been apparent. According to my experience, there might have been as much blood effused by natural apoplexy as I discovered. Cross-examined. Putting out of consideration the external bruise on the skull, and the injury of the cellular tissue, did you see any thing in the interior of the brain that was inconsistent with an ordinary case of apoplexy?—No; nothing whatever. From the removal of the skull-cap you found nothing below the skull inconsistent with an ordinary case of apoplexy?—No. Then your notion that it may have been produced by a blow is mere suspicion and does not amount to more?—It does not amount to more; I suspect that the injury which the skull received was caused by a violent blow and that that was the cause of apoplexy. Will you venture to swear that that apoplexy was not produced by a natural cause? No, I wont; I could not venture to swear a thing of that sort. Do you know that the family of the deceased woman were subject to apoplexy? Did you know a sister of hers named Doidge? I knew a person named Doidge, who died of apoplexy. The JUDGE.—Is apoplexy one of those diseases that run in families? It is. Mr. COLE.—You attended Mary Doidge, and she was a sister of the deceased? I knew Mary Doidge who lived in St. Dominick, and I am told she was a sister of deceased; I attended her, and she died of apoplexy. A person seized with apoplexy, is often struck down almost as by a flash of lightning? Yes; they fall down immediately. Of course, if they were walking forward, and tripped over any article on the ground, they might fall either to right or left? Yes. Did you go to the wood-house? No, I never saw it; I don’t know if the other medical gentleman did. Suppose a person to have been seized with giddiness or an attack of apoplexy and to have fallen on a lump of timber, don’t you think that injury would be caused? I don’t fancy it would. Suppose a person to have been walking quickly into the wood-house and to have been suddenly seized with giddiness on the approach of apoplexy, and to have stumbled and fallen violently forward on a piece of hard wood? I don’t think such injury as that could have been sustained. Would you venture to swear it would not? No; I would not. As I understand you, the cuticle was not even broken? No. But the cellular tissue—the flesh— immediately underneath, was disorganized—was broken up? Yes. Would not that disorganization have been a good deal increased after death by decomposition? I should not think so. Do you not think that decomposition sets in more rapidly underneath a place injured by a blow? It might do so. There was some amount of water underneath? No, I did not see it. Did you no observe fluctuation? I observed fluctuation. Did not that denote fluid? It denoted fluid underneath to some extent. I don’t think that fluid was produced by decomposition; I will not swear it was not; if it had been the result of decomposition, the clot of blood would have become fluid. But a clot of blood often remains in that state when there is a great deal of fluidity around it? Yes. I ask you whether you do not believe that the disorganization of the cellular tissue was not partly produced by decomposition. I have no reason to think so. I know that the body had been dead about a month. The time in which decomposition sets in depends very much on circumstances—on temperature and moisture. There was no decomposition of any consequence, that we could observe,—none to interfere with the medical examination; there was some decomposition, but not such as to disorganize the tissue. I ask you whether the injuries of the cellular tissue were not likely to produce tendency to decomposition? I don’t see why there should be more tendency to decomposition in that part than in any other. Did you not say that decomposition depended on heat and moisture? Yes. Was there not a considerable amount of fluid at this part? No more than was thrown out from the blood. If there had been decomposition at that part to any extent, there would have been no clot of blood found there; it would have been broken up by decomposition. I ask you whether decomposition had not something to do with the disorganization of cellular tissue which you observed? I don’t believe it had. You would not swear it had not? No, it would be impossible for me to do that. Don’t you think it is possible that the injury on the external part of the skull might have been caused by a fall consequent on apoplexy? I don’t believe that the injury I saw external to the skull was produced by a fall in a natural manner. Is there any difference between a fall in a natural manner, and a fall in an unnatural manner? I should say so; a person pushed would fall differently from one falling naturally. If a person fell from a natural attack of apoplexy, I dont think the blow would have been such as to produce the injury we discovered. Cannot you conceive of a person so tripping or falling forward as to fall more violently? No. Have you not known, or read, of cases of persons falling from their feet, and breaking their skull? No, I never knew or read of such a case; there may have been instances of that sort, but I am not acquainted with them. Re-examined. Do you believe, to the best of your judgment, it is possible by a natural fall produced by natural apoplexy, to account for all the appearances you observed—internally and externally? Externally, not. Then your answer is no? Yes. By the JUDGE. They might account for the internal appearances. Mr. COLERIDGE. Were the internal injuries such as would be accounted for by the external? Having examined the head internally, does the external injury sufficiently account for all the internal? Yes, I should think it would. In the answer you have given me, you are swearing to the best of your judgment on the facts as you saw them? Yes, quite so. William Bowden: I am a surgeon at Callington. I went to Mrs. Nattle’s on the 23rd of November, at 11 in the morning, and saw the body of the deceased woman on the bed. I merely looked at the countenance, I did not examine the body; I did not observe anything particular. I then left the house, and went there again at 4 o’clock in the afternoon; I then examined the head externally, and found on the right side of the top of the skull a swollen part—just over the ear, extending about three inches across. There was a black mark on the skin, visible through the hair, which was quite white. On the 21st of December I assisted Mr. Kempthorne in his post-mortem examination; I have heard his evidence, and I agree with it. Cross-examined.—You agree with him then that there was nothing in the inside of the brain, inconsistent with ordinary death by apoplexy? In ordinary death by apoplexy, there would be effusion of blood, just such as I observed in this case. Might not the external bruise have been caused by the deceased falling on any hard substance with an edge to it—such as a piece of timber lying on the ground? It might have been. Did you go into the wood-house? I saw it on the 23rd of November—two days after the death.—There was a piece of board about two feet high lying across the corner of the wood-house. If the deceased had fallen across that board, might it not have produced the injury you saw on the skull? I don’t believe it would. Have you not said it might? I said it might, as far as external appearance showed, before the scalp was removed. Will you venture to swear now it might not have produced such injury? I cannot swear it would not, but I don’t believe it would. I think if the external blow had been received in that way, the internal parts would not have been lacerated to the extent we saw. I cannot swear whether the external injury was caused by a hard substance touching the head, or by the head falling on a hard substance. The mere weight of the body itself I think would not be sufficient to produce the external injuries we observed. I gave evidence at the inquest; I stated that I believed she died of apoplexy, and the verdict was to that effect. Re-examined.—The piece of wood in the wood-house was about ¾ of an inch thick, and about two feet high. Mrs. Nattle was a short woman. Do you think it was possible for apoplexy from natural causes, and a natural fall, to have produced all the appearances you saw—internal and external? I do not think it would. You saw the body twice? I saw the body soon after death, and again with Mr. Kempthorne, and what I have stated now is the result of post mortem examination. Without speaking of possibilities, which no human being can venture to do, you are speaking to the best of your judgment on the facts you saw? Yes. Mary Ann Cozens, wife of John Cozens, who keeps the Butchers’ Arms Inn, in St. Dominick parish; about ¼ of a mile from St. Dominick in the direction towards Mrs. Nattle’s house, which is about ¼ of a mile farther on. The prisoner came to my house about ½ past 7 o’clock in the morning of Saturday the 21st of November and had a pint of beer; after sitting there some time, he said there had been a noise at his house the night before—that he came home and found his mother and sister quarrelling, and that he got out and brandished a pick over them and told them they had better hold their noise. I said he ought not to have done it. He then went away in the direction from his home, and I next saw him about ½ past 4 in the afternoon, coming from St. Dominick town towards his home; I saw that he was intoxicated; he asked me to let him come in and have a pint of beer, and I refused to let him have any, because I saw he had had enough. He turned away towards his house, and that was the last I saw of him for the evening. Fanny Martin:—I am the wife of — Martin, and live next door to the Nattles; there is a wall between the houses, but up-stairs it is only a plaster partition, and I can hear what takes place in the Nattle’s house, Mrs. Nattle had two bed-rooms up-stairs. I have sometimes been called in by Mrs. Nattle, and have found the prisoner sitting down by the fire; when he was tipsy, he would be singing, but he would talk to me. Mrs. Nattle never told me, in his presence, why she called me in. On Friday, the 20th of November, I went to bed about 8 o’clock, and about 11 o’clock I heard the prisoner come home; his sister was up waiting for him and began to scold him; she asked him why he had not come home before? and he said he had been to have a drop of beer, and began to sing and dance as usual, and was very noisy; he and his sister were falling out very much indeed; I got out of bed and spoke to the sister through the partition. After that, I heard him making a noise in his mother’s room; I did not hear the mother say any thing to him, but I heard her make a noise—not crying—but a sort of “oh, oh.” I said to the prisoner:—“How don’t you go into bed, you rogue?” He said “I’m going directly.” After that he went into his bed, and I did not hear any more noise that night. I have never heard him threaten his mother; but I have heard him swearing upon her when he was tipsy, and she has been aggravating him.—On Saturday the 21st of November, I saw Mrs. Nattle many times during the day; about 4 o’clock she came to me for change for a shilling, and she was as well as I had seen her a long while. About half or three parts of an hour after that I saw William Nattle pass on before my door and go to his mother’s door; he was very tipsy; I went over to my hatch, and heard that he went in very quietly, and did not hear any noise in the house after he went in; I heard speaking, but I could not say what it was. Some time after that, I went to feed my pig, and had to pass by the Nattle’s house; as I came back from feeding my pig, I saw William Nattle sitting down at the table, eating; and there was a candle on the table, close to the fire-place. I did not see anybody else in the house; there was a hanging screen in front of the fire-place that might have prevented my seeing any other person. I went back into my house, and did not hear any more noise; about half past 7, before going to bed, I went out to listen; I heard no noise, but saw a light through the Nattles’ door; I did not hear William Nattle go to bed that night. About 9 or 10 days after that, Elizabeth Nattle brought me two parts of a weeding iron; the handle part was about three feet long, and the other part about eighteen inches; about six days afterwards my husband gave the pieces back to Elizabeth Nattle.—Cross-examined. About a fortnight before her death Mrs. Nattle said to me, “Fanny, I fell all along the floor, and how long I laid there I can’t say.” There is no window in the front of Nattle’s house; the windows are at the side and back. I did not hear any noise that Saturday evening; no scuffle, or cries of murder, or anything of the sort. On the Friday night I heard his sister say she would hallo “murder” if he did not go into bed; and it was just after that he went to bed. When he came home on the Saturday evening, he was drunk; I heard talking as he was going in at the door way. Re- examined.—I did not hear what he said; I heard two voices for a minute or two, and then there was silence; I heard another voice besides his, but I cannot say who that other person was. The night before, when the sister said she would hallo “murder,” she had been scolding him very much; he was singing, dancing, and swearing; he is a very quiet man when sober, but very noisy when drunk. Mary Ann Weeks:—I live at St. Dominick, not very far from the Nattles; in the afternoon of Saturday the 21st of November, I was in the house of last witness. While there, I saw prisoner come home. Mrs. Martin and I rose up and went forward to the hatch to hear if he was keeping any noise; Mrs. Nattle’s door was open, and I heard nothing more than some talking after he went in; I heard two voices, and I thought they were William Nattle’s and his mother’s. I was outside the hatch, and the two doors—Mrs. Martin’s and Mrs. Nattle’s—are very close together. I had known William Nattle and his mother ever since I can mind; and I knew the two voices to be those of William Nattle and his mother.—When I saw him come home he appeared to be tipsy.—In cross-examination, this witness was questioned very closely, and somewhat severely, with the purpose of shaking her evidence as to hearing two voices. She was, however, very positive in stating repeatedly that there were two voices, and that she knew them to be the voices of William Nattle and his mother, although she could not hear what they said. Edwin Grylls: I am a son of Stephen Grylls and live at St. Dominick; I left my father’s house about ¼ to 5 in the afternoon of the 21st of November, and went towards Halton Quay; as I passed Mrs. Nattle’s house, I saw her looking out at the door; I spoke to her and she to me; she appeared to be as well as I had seen her for some time. Robert Burnard: I am a shoemaker, and live right opposite Mrs. Nattle’s; there is a parish road between our houses. From my door, we can look right into Nattle’s house. On the 21st of November, I saw the last witness, Edwin Grylls speak to Mrs. Nattle; I cannot tell the time exactly; I think it was about 5 o’clock; it was between the two lights. Not five minutes after that, I saw prisoner come home, and go into his house. When the prisoner went in I saw his mother go across the house and put a candle on a little table, by the fire-place. At that time I saw the prisoner going in; I saw him and his mother at the same time. After that I went to my work, and did not pay any more attention to matters at the Nattle’s house. When the prisoner’s sister came home, between 7 and 8 o’clock, I heard a scream of murder; it came from Nattles’ house. I went over to the house, and found Mrs. Nattle lying on the floor, and a servant girl called Shears was holding up her head; I had never been in the house before. I did not see the prisoner in the house that Saturday night while I was there. Sometimes when he has been drunk I have heard him tell about his mother, and have heard him say he would kill old “Grammer-Ri and Liz.” “Grammer-Ri” was his mother; her name was Maria, and the name she went by was generally “Grammer-Ri.” I have heard him say that several times when drunk, in the public house. The parish road between my house and the Nattles is 47 feet across.—I met the prisoner after the inquest, and told him that I saw his mother alive, after he came home; he said “go on, say nothing about it.”—Cross-examined. When he said he would kill old “Grammer Ri;” I don’t know if he meaned it or not. He said “there’s old Grammer Ri and Liz; I’ll kill old Grammer Ri.” I did not say anything to him about it; I did’nt use to take any notice of him. He used always to be singing and dancing when drunk. Elizabeth Nattle:—I am daughter of deceased Mrs. Nattle and sister of the prisoner. I and my mother lived together, and my brother with us, and a little boy about 7 years old, My mother was 77. My brother is a labour-man; I and he used to work together at a farm called Halton Barton. He used to go to work at half past 6, and I and ¼ past 7. For about the last six months, I have worked in-doors at Halton Barton, and have returned at evenings before him; his time for coming home was from half-past 6 to 7. On Saturday, the 21st of November, I had my breakfast and left home before him; I went away at ¼ before 7, leaving him at breakfast. I did not see him at Halton Barton that day. I came home in the evening about half-past 7, and saw my mother lying by the fire-side, in the kitchen; she was breathing like any one in a large snore, with foam coming out of her mouth; she was lying on her side; I spoke to her several times, but she never said any thing; there was a candle up-stairs; I went and fetched it, and after looking on her, I put it on the table; then I went into Rickard’s, and called Elizabeth Shears, and a little boy. My brother was in bed; I called him and asked him “how mother got here?” He said, “when I came home at 5 o’clock, she was lying in the wood-house, and a candle in the window,” and then he said “I spoke to her several times and no answer from her;” and then he said he went in, put his arms around her, brought her from the wood-house into the kitchen, heaved her in and put her to sit in the chair; she could not sit, and he held her up for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, and then he laid her by the fire with her head in the chimney corner, and her feet out into the kitchen. Her shoes were off when I saw her; I asked him how her shoes got off, and he said he took them off. I asked him how he came to go away to bed and leave mother. He said he thought she would come to herself, as she had been so before. I never did see her so before; but once when I came home from work, she told me that she had fallen along the floor and had lain there for an hour. I could tell that my brother was drunk that night.—The night before this, by brother had come home drunk; Mother called him a drunken blackguard and a drunken rogue; he said “I’ll not be called a rogue; there’s no one can call me a rogue, and I’ll not be called a rogue by no one.” He and me had a skirmish; he kept on dancing, and I flied to ‘un, because he would not go to bed.—On the Saturday morning, I saw part of the weeding iron lying on the floor, a brave distance from the fire-place where mother was lying. The weeding-iron had been kept in the kitchen, and was about 4 feet long; the piece that I saw on the Sunday morning was about 18 inches long, and had the iron attached. I saw nothing of the handle part for 6 or 7 days, when I found it over the bacon rack; that was the place where I had put it. I brought home the weeding iron and put it on the bacon rack, and did not see it again till that Sunday; we only use it at weeding time. During the six or seven days before I found the handle end, I put the other piece back under an old cupboard. When I saw the handle part on the bacon rack, my brother was present; I asked him to take it down; he took it down and gave it to me; I said “I hope you didn’t strike mother with this, William.” He said “I never seed the weeding-iron, nor never struck mother with it, no more than you.” After the handle had been found, I gave it to Fanny Martin, with the piece of iron, & the rest of his tools; that was the evening of the same day that I found the handle; just before this, my brother had taken up both parts and thrown them away outside the door. I asked him several times how mother came to die; and he always said he found her in the wood-house. Six or seven days after I had given the iron and handle to Fanny Martin, Stephen Martin brought it back again with all my brother’s tools, and I throwed the weeding iron and handle into the fire; it was no service after the handle was broke. Stephen Martin was present when I threw it into the fire; I dont know whether my brother was there; it was in the evening after his time for being home from work; no one ever told me to put the pieces into the fire; I never told my brother what I had done with the weeding iron. The Friday night, when I had a skirmish with him, there was a pick in his room. When I was jawing and falling foul of him, he took the pick out of his room, and came into the other room where mother and me was—I did not call out for any assistance—and he said, “you had better hold your noise.” Mother told him to go back into bed and be quiet; very often she would do like that; she screeched; she said “oh, oh”—not very loud; she said “oh, Will, go along into bed;” she did not seem frightened.—Cross-examined.—My brother was a quiet inoffensive fellow when sober; and when he was drunk and noisy, I never saw him touch my mother. I had a sort of scrimmage with him; and was angry with him for being drunk; he went into bed and never put his hand to neither of us. The weeding-iron I had not seen from the time I put it in its place; whether it was broken months before or not I cannot tell; before we could put in a new handle, we were obliged to burn out the old wood, and it was for that purpose I threw it into the fire.—Some time before, mother told me she had fallen down and laid on the floor; she hurt her leg, and I put some barm to it. I had an aunt called Mary Doidge; I remember she was attended by Mr. Kempthorne, and died; I have another aunt called Betsy Hill, who fell about the house once, and it was thought she would have died; she is a sister of my mother’s. When I asked my brother if he had touched mother with the weeding-iron, he at once said he never touched her with it; when he threw away the weeding-iron, it was right out into the street, where any person could have seen it. Mother also had a brother die like that; he never spoke after he was taken; his name was William. Elizabeth Shears, servant to Mr. Rickard, farmer, in St. Dominick. My master’s house is about a minute’s walk from Mrs. Nattle’s. On Saturday evening, the 21st of November, about half-past 7, Elizabeth Nattle came to me; I went with her to her house, and saw old Mrs. Nattle lying with her head in the chimney corner; she was lying on her back; I helped to lift her up, and she was carried up-stairs. Selina Grylls: I live with my father Stephen Grylls, a few yards from the house of Mrs. Nattle; I had known her and the prisoner for the last 16 years; on the night of the 21st of November I was called by Elizabeth Shears to go with her to Mrs. Nattle’s house. I saw the deceased supported by Elizabeth Shears, near the fire; I don’t remember seeing any chair or seat of any kind in the room. I called to the prisoner to come down and speak to his mother, and told him his mother was dying. No answer was made to that—not that I remember. I spoke to him again and asked him to come down and assist in carrying his mother to bed; he said “you had better start, or else I’ll kill all the lot.” There were two people outside, and I got them to help to carry Mrs. Nattle up. I did not go up. To go to her room, a person must pass through his room.—Cross-examined. The kitchen was the ordinary one, in which they lived and took their meals; tables and things about; I did not see any chair or seat in the room—not that I remember; I saw two tables; there might have been chairs there. Prisoner was a very steady, quiet fellow, when sober; when he was intoxicated, he used to sing and dance; I have often seen him in that state, but I never heard him use any threats towards his mother. When he was up in bed, I spoke rather sharpish to him, and he said “you had better start, or I’ll kill all the lot;” he used to use that sort of language; I did not observe much about that; he was very drunk at that time. William Ward, inspector of police at Callington. I apprehended Nattle on Saturday the 12th of December at Halton Quay; I read the warrant to him, which charged him with having caused the death of his mother; he said “I did not kill mother.” After I had cautioned him that what he said I should take down in writing and give in evidence before the magistrates, he said—“When I got home, that night that mother died, as I went into the door I saw a light in the wood-house, and saw mother lying down in the wood-house; the candle was on the window-ledge; I spoke to her, and she did not speak; I then took her up and carried her into the kitchen and set her up in a chair; I held her there for a long time, but as she appeared to be dying, and I was not able to hold her any longer, I laid her down before the fire; there did not seem to be much life in her; I then had my supper, and went to bed.”—He afterwards repeated this to me several times, while he was in the lock-up. He also told me two days afterwards, that he held his mother in the chair for half an hour. He also said “when I am drunk, I don’t know what I’m about; but I know I have done wrong by leaving mother senseless and going to bed.” Just after I apprehended him, I took him to the farm where his sister was; she said “how is it you can apprehend him now, after the ’s inquest? I don’t see how any one can do that; they settled that.” Prisoner said “No, I don’t see how you can take me, after that.” On the day the body was exhumed and examined, I went to the house again; I had several times before searched for the weeding-iron and could not find it; but on that day— the 21st of December, I looked into the ashes and there found the iron. Standing in Burnard’s doorway, I could see through the passage at Nattle’s, to the farther end of the kitchen, past the fire-place; I could not see the fire-place, but I could see the best part of the table that has been spoken of as having had a candle put upon it; I could see nearly four feet wide of the room, and through the whole length of the kitchen; the distance from Nattle’s front door to the table where it generally stands, is nearly 16 feet. The wood-house is the first compartment you come to as you enter the house from the front; it is on the left-hand side. These are all the rooms down-stairs; I also examined the rooms up-stairs and saw that the partition from the next house was very thin.—This witness produced the iron part of the weeding- iron, and Elizabeth Nattle, recalled, said it was like the one she put into the fire.—The witness Ward, stated to the judge that weeding-iron handles were generally about the size of a good-sized mop-stick, and was generally made of ash. At a later stage in the trial—namely, as late as in course of his lordship’s summing-up—it was thought necessary to take some evidence concerning the little boy of 7 years of age—(a son of Elizabeth Nattle)—who lived in the house. The learned JUDGE was proceeding to draw the attention of the jury to the position of parties in the house on the evening of the murder and was saying that those parties were only the deceased and her son and daughter; when Mr. Cole reminded his lordship of evidence that there was a little boy in the house.—On this, Elizabeth Nattle was recalled, and examined by his lordship. She said: The little boy came home between me and my brother; he had gone to bed; he slept with my brother; when I came in, he spoke to me and said he had been calling to Granny several times, and could not make her hear. That was in hearing of the prisoner; the boy was in bed with my brother. The little boy said he had been calling to Granny several times and could not wake her, and that then we went up stairs for the light, brought it down, and catched her hold by the shoulder and gave her a shake; but said “I could not wake her, to save my life.” Mr. COLE then addressed the jury for the defence. He asserted, generally, that the jury were called on to convict, and so to take away the life of a fellow-creature, upon mere guesswork. The prisoner having had imputed to him the horrible crime of taking away the life of an aged parent, and that without any imputed motive, the prosecution were bound to satisfy the jury of two things—1st, that the deceased died from violence, and 2nd, that the violence was inflicted by the prisoner. Reviewing and commenting on the surgeons’ evidence, the learned Counsel asserted that it would not sustain the first proposition. There was no doubt that the immediate cause of death was apoplexy; the question was, whether that apoplexy was natural, or caused by external violence, either the result of injury received from the hands of another, or of an accidental fall. He remarked on the fact that at the coroner’s inquest a verdict of death from natural causes had been returned; and observed that if there had been any ground for suspicion in the case, a post-mortem examination would have been then taken, before decomposition of the body. A month, however, elapsed before the post mortem examination was made. Both surgeons, however, had said that, from anything they saw inside the skull, there was nothing inconsistent with death by apoplexy; and there was sufficient cause of death arising internally, wholly distinct from any appearance on the external part of the skull. The learned Counsel contended and felt assured that the jury would concur with him, that the internal apoplexy could not, in the slightest degree, have been produced by injury on the outside. It had been shown too that apoplexy was hereditary in the deceased’s family; and that she herself, about a fortnight before her death, stated that she had fallen down in the house and lain there—evidently having had a slight attack of the disease of which she afterwards died. The disorganization of cellular tissue spoken to by the surgeons, Mr. Cole explained by suggesting that it might be considerably due to more rapid decomposition at the top of the head, where the old woman had received a bruise which had not divided the skin. The surgeons, however, were of opinion that there was more injury of the cellular tissue than could be accounted for by a person merely falling accidentally on the head; and so, this case was to be decided by a question of degree—a little more or less of disorganization of the cellular tissue at this particular part. Mr. Cole next argued that, if the external blow had been of such violence as to induce effusion of blood on the brain, blood would have been so found immediately beneath the external injury; but that was not so; there was no blood found innwards from the skull, until arriving at the ventricle, where clots were found such as, the surgeons said, were always found in cases of apoplexy; and that being so, could the jury possibly say that the woman’s death was not owing to natural apoplexy? Then it was said, that the blow would have been caused, either by some round substance being struck on the head, or by the poor woman falling on a round substance; and the surgeons were of opinion that an accidental fall, without a push, would not be sufficient to cause the blow observed. The learned counsel characterized the whole case on the first question, as based on probabilities and possibilities in the medical evidence; and he suggested that an accidental fall by the deceased on the piece of wood some two feet high and ¾ inch thick, in the corner of the wood-house, was an equally probable cause of the injury on the outside of head.—The learned counsel next proceeded to comment on the remaining evidence for the prosecution, adduced for the purpose of connecting the prisoner with the blow on the deceased’s head. He asserted that the evidence showed the prisoner to have been a quiet inoffensive fellow when sober, and when drunk to be foolish and noisy, but not violent; the threat concerning his mother, spoken to by one witness, being merely drunken nonsense. As to the disturbance in the night before the old woman’s death, it was clear that it had reference only to the sister, who had been teazing him and had a scrimmage with him. And next, as to the death of the old woman, if it was by murder, that murder must have been committed with the house door open, with women and other people around, with Burnard’s house and Burnard himself immediately opposite, and with women in the very adjoining house who mast have heard any disturbance. With reference to the weeding-iron, it had been placed on the bacon rack in June previous; there was no evidence of when it was last seen before its being found in November, not that it might not have been broken months before. When the prisoner was asked if he had used it against his mother, he at once denied it; and afterwards threw away the pieces—not in the way of concealment—but out into the street.—In conclusion, the learned Counsel submitted that the prisoner’s account of his mother’s death was consistent with the probabilities of the case, and that she died from natural apoplexy, with which she was seized in the wood-house. Even if there were any ground for believing that the woman’s death was the result of injury inflicted on her by some person, there was no proof that that person was the prisoner. It was not for the defence to make out the prisoner’s innocence; it was for the prosecution to establish his guilty; and he (Mr. Cole) submitted that in that, the prosecution had utterly failed. The learned JUDGE then at 3 o’clock proceeded to his summing up; which, with the interposition of a piece of supplementary evidence already referred to, occupied about an hour and half. On the subject of circumstantial evidence, the learned judge directed the jury, that in order from such evidence to find a verdict of guilty, they must be satisfied, not only that it was consistent with guilt, but, further, that it was inconsistent with innocence on the part of the prisoner. There was no doubt that in this case, death was immediately caused by apoplexy—effusion of blood on the brain; and his lordship thought it was also clear that the deceased, at her death, received considerable injury on the head—whether from a blow inflicted by some human hand, or by an accidental fall; the difficulty in this case seemed to be on this question—the prosecution alleging that that external injury was caused by a blow inflicted by a person, and that person the prisoner; while for the defence it was urged that death was caused by natural apoplexy, and that on the deceased falling, she received the injury on the head. Shortly after ½ past 4, the learned judge’s summing up, which had lasted an hour and half, was closed, and the jury retired for consultation. At ¼ to 6, they returned into Court, and gave as their verdict:—“Guilty of Manslaughter.” The JUDGE:—Gentlemen, there is no question of Manslaughter. You must return and consider your verdict. The FOREMAN:—We have considered our verdict. The JUDGE:—It is either guilty of murder, or not guilty of murder; there is no evidence of manslaughter. Mr. COLERIDGE, over the Judge’s desk, held some conversation with his lordship; and afterwards, His Lordship directed the jury to retire for the present, while he would consult with his brother Willes, whether the finding of the jury would do. His Lordship then withdrew to the judges’ consulting room; and the jury returned to their room, but shortly afterwards, and before his lordship’s return, sent a message that they were agreed; but, of course, their verdict could not be taken in the absence of the Judge. On his lordship’s return, the jury were sent for, and the prisoner, who had been taken below, was again placed in the dock. The jurors having severally answered to their names, the JUDGE said:— Gentlemen of the jury, you brought in a verdict just now, which I thought I could not receive; you found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. I have consulted with my learned brother on the question, and he is of opinion with me, that, as the case has been left to you and on the evidence you have heard, the question you have to decide is whether the prisoner was guilty of murder, or not. No question of manslaughter was at all made or at all adverted to, either in the speeches of counsel or in any of the evidence. There is only one possible way I can understand you have been considering the question, to arrive at any conclusion of manslaughter. I had not laid down to you what the law was differing murder from manslaughter, because it did not appear to me that the evidence would warrant such conclusion as you had arrived at. But the law is that if the prisoner, intentionally, with an instrument calculated to do grievous bodily injury, applied that instrument to the deceased and so inflicted a wound that caused her death, he is guilty of the crime of murder. If he did it unintentionally, or the killing was with such an instrument as was not likely to produce any grievous bodily injury, then, and then only, the crime of murder would be reduced to manslaughter. In the case you have had before you there is no evidence of the manner in which the prisoner applied the instrument, if he applied it, to this woman. The only evidence you have respecting any weapon is that of the weeding-iron; and there is a suggestion that that might have been the instrument. You have heard evidence, as to the nature of the injury, from the surgeons—and as to the character of it; from which alone you will be able to judge of the violence of the blow, and as to the probability of how it was inflicted. All I can say is that on the evidence you have, that which you have to decide is whether or not the prisoner is guilty of having committed murder. If he did the act, there is, I conceive, nothing, on the evidence, that can reduce the crime to manslaughter. You will now consider your verdict, after the observations I have made. The FOREMAN.—We have considered, my lord, and are now ready to return our verdict. The JUDGE.—Perhaps you had better retire, after the observations I have made. The FOREMAN.—We have all agreed. And another juror said:—We have all agreed. The verdict was then required, in due form, by the Clerk of Arraigns, Mr. Horn; and the foreman said NOT GUILTY. The prisoner was then discharged. The trial thus concluded at 6 o’clock. RESISTING POLICEMEN.—HAMBLY GEORGE, 37, miller, was indicted for assaulting John Bone, a peace officer, in the execution of his duty, at St. Teath, on the 23rd February.—Mr. Coleridge for the prosecution; Mr. Cole for the defence.—It appears that about 12 o’clock at night of the 23rd February,— St. Teath fair day—Bone, one of the county constabulary, was sent for by the landlord of the White Hart Inn, to suppress some disturbance and fighting going on there. Bone, accordingly, went to the public- house, and stopped the disturbance; another policeman called Harris being also present, and both dressed in their police uniform. It was after the suppression of this disturbance among people up-stairs that the prisoner, using some violent language, committed the assault on Bone by striking and kicking him.—The assault was proved by Bone and Harris; and Mr. COLE said, although he had witnesses who would state that the prisoner did not strike the policeman, he would refrain from calling them; feeling assured, after the evidence given by Bone, that these witnesses, in the confusion of the affray, must have been mistaken. He would however call some respectable witnesses to character, and then would leave the case in the hands of his lordship; the prisoner was generally of quiet, orderly behaviour, and the prosecution were not anxious to press for severe punishment.—Evidence that the prisoner was a quiet, respectable, inoffensive man, was given by Mr. Charles Hicks, and Mr. Seccombe, farmers, and by Mr. John Pearce of St. Teath. Verdict, GUILTY—SAMUEL LOBB, 21, labourer, was indicted for assaulting John Bone, a peace officer, with intent to resist and prevent the lawful apprehension of Hambly George—his uncle. This case was proved and dealt with in the same way as the preceding; and the prisoner received a good character from Mr. Seccombe, and Mr. John Pearce. Verdict, GUILTY.—In passing sentence, the learned JUDGE said:—It is most important that it should be known thoroughly in this County that a policeman, when called on to quell a disturbance, is to be respected; that is to say, his uniform is to protect him from assault, such as you may thing yourselves entitled to inflict on another man. Policemen have important duties to perform; and it is absolutely necessary that they should be protected and respected in the discharge of those duties. On the other hand, policemen are bound, on their part, to act temperately, prudently, and with caution. It does not seem that in the present case, the policemen acted otherwise; they were called on, and it was necessary they should exercise their power. That being so, you, George, took upon you to interfere and strike a blow at Bone; and you, Lobb, your uncle having been taken into custody, tried to get him away; but did not exhibit any violence. Both of you have received good characters. It is said you were both in liquor; I dare say you were; the vice of drunkenness very often leads men to be placed in the position you now occupy. You have been in custody a month; you have had good characters given you, and the prosecutors do not wish to press for punishment, but are only anxious that it should be known and acknowledged that policemen must be protected. I shall therefore give you a light punishment. But it must be known that if assaults are made on policemen, the punishment will be severe.—His lordship then sentenced each prisoner to a week’s imprisonment, without hard labour. The men appeared very grateful for the leniency shown them. JAMES DONEY, 21, a miner, was charged with stealing on the 24th of December a pistol, the property of William Short, a farm labourer in the service of Mr. Oliver of Calstock. He was convicted, and was sentenced to Two months hard labour. S E C O N D C O U R T. MONDAY MARCH 22. (Before Mr. Justice Willes) JOHN POMERY, convicted of stealing fowls, was brought up, and sentenced to Three Calendar Months’ hard labour. THOMAS TOZER and WILLIAM LOGG were charged with stealing from the roof of a house some lead, the property of the Duke of ; and Logg also with receiving the same. Mr. BULLER prosecuted; the prisoners were undefended. On the 27th of January, Mr. William Burt, a builder, discovered that the lead was missing, and communicated the fact to Mr. Henry Burt, the Superintendent of the Duke’s property. Tozer had access in his work to the yard adjoining the building from which the lead was taken. Daniel Huggins, a young man in the employ of Mr. Hayman, of Launceston, a marine store dealer, deposed that on the 25th of January, the prisoner Tozer came to the shop with some lead for sale. Mary Hicks, whose brother-in-law, John Huggins, is a marine store dealer in Launceston, also deposed to having on several occasions purchased lead about this time from Logg. Inspector Fleet, of the County Court Police, who took the prisoners into custody, produced the lead. That sold by prisoners to the marine store dealers corresponded with what remained on the roof. The prisoners were together at the Bridge Inn, Launceston, on the evening of the 16th January. While in custody, Logg said to Serjeant Dreadon, of the police, that Tozer brought him the lead to sell for him, saying that he found it. William Skown, who worked at the same place with Logg, deposed to Tozer having sent messages to Logg to meet him. Logg, in his defence, stated that he had the lead from Tozer; and the latter said he had it from a waggoner. Tozer was found GUILTY of stealing the lead, and Logg of receiving it, knowing it to have been stolen.—Four Calendar Month’s Hard Labour. JOHN FRAMPTON and RICHARD LANSALLES were charged with cutting and wounding James and Joseph Hicks, at , near Launceston, with intent to do them some grievous bodily harm. Mr. OXENHAM prosecuted, Mr. CARTER defended the prisoners. James Hicks said that on the evening of December 22nd, he was returning to Launceston from his mother’s funeral, with his brother Joseph Hicks and his two young daughters. At Lawhitton Cross, they saw prisoners before them, rambling about the road. Prisoner began to push against them as they came up. After they had passed on, Joseph Hicks called back to prisoners that they had better go home saying “I am a bit of a peace-maker myself.” One of them said, “We will see whether you are, or not;” and Frampton ran up and collared Joseph Hicks. Witness went to his brother’s assistance, and in the scuffle which ensued, his brother called out, “Hold him tight, James”, he has cut my trowsers, and I think he has cut my leg.” After this, witness was cut by Frampton over the wrist. They held Frampton, and took him to the Bennett Arms; he was afterwards taken by the policeman to Launceston. Witness showed his wrist to a surgeon; had not been able to work since. Prisoners appeared very tipsy. Cross-examined:—They first took hold of Joseph Hicks, and witness then went forward and laid hold of Frampton. Joseph Hicks said, “hold him tight, James, he has cut my trowsers, and I think he has cut my leg.” It was while holding him after this that witness was cut. Lansalles meanwhile had gone away. Witness saw no knife in Frampton’s hand, and believed he must have had it in his hand when they came up, as he had no time to take it from his pocket.—Joseph Hicks, brother of last witness, deposed to the same facts. Witness advised prisoners to go home, saying, “I’m a bit of a peace-maker myself.” They said, “We will see whether you are or not,” and came up and collared him. In the scuffle which followed, witness felt a cut across his leg. His brother afterwards said “hold him tight, he has just cut my hand off.”—Cross-examined.—Frampton said when they came up that he had charge of a drunken man; but witness did not see “that one was drunker than the other.” Witness saw no knife. The trousers which were cut were here produced, and shown to the jury.— Elizabeth Hicks, daughter of James Hicks, corroborated the evidence of the preceding witnesses.— Edward Lawrence West, a surgeon practising at Launceston, said that James and Joseph Hicks were brought to him. The former was almost fainting from loss of blood, he had a clean cut on the back of his left wrist, about three or four inches long; it extended down to the muscles and tendons; it exposed the tendons, but without injuring them. Did not think the injury would be permanent. The knife in charge of the police would have produced such wounds. West, a policeman, who took Frampton and Lansalles into custody, produced Frampton’s trowsers, which were much marked with blood,—when the trowsers were taken, the blood was fresh; this was in the evening, after Frampton was in bed. Inspector Fleet, of the police, produced a knife. After being taken into custody, Frampton said “Richard Lansalles saw and heard the whole of it.” Frampton accounted for the blood on his trowsers by saying he had hurt his leg; there was no wound found on his leg, and he then said he had hurt his hand, and pointed to an old wound on it. John Burt, a shoemaker, picked up a knife by the side of the road at Lawhitton Cross,—the same knife as that produced by the Inspector. The knife was shut; and there was no appearance of blood on it. Mr. CARTER contended for the defence, that there was no evidence whatever against Lansalles, and that, as regarded Frampton, there was no evidence that the knife was his, or that he had any knife in his possession, and that even if he had used one it was used in order to get away from James and Joseph Hicks, and to resist an unlawful apprehension.—His Lordship observed to the jury that there appeared to be no evidence against Lansalles; and that the evidence against Frampton appeared to be rather of unlawfully wounding, than of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. It was for the jury to consider whether the fact of unlawfully wounding had been proved. The jury ACQUITTED Lansalles, and found Frampton GUILTY of unlawfully wounding.—Three Calendar Months Hard Labour. JOHN THOMAS was charged with setting fire to a mow of wheat at Kenwyn, the property of Thomas Solomon. Mr. COX prosecuted; Mr. CARTER defended the prisoner. Thomas Solomon said, I am a farmer living at Rose in the valley in Kenwyn. On the morning of the 27th November, about 4 o’clock, I was awakened by my wife; I got up and found the wheat mow on fire. The mow was in a field, not in the mowhay. I should think it had been burning three or four hours. On the Saturday following I saw two foot marks about fourteen inches from the hedge near the mow, as if a man had jumped from the hedge. They were directed towards the mow. After that I saw other footsteps in a field of seeds near; they were going from the mow rather towards Holman’s, which is about a mile off. I only traced the steps a few yards. On the Sunday morning, the Superintendent of police, in my presence, found a box of lucifers in the mowhay. On the night of Tuesday following I sent a boy called Tank, to watch, with a dog. Tank afterwards showed me some foot-marks. Prisoner is a son-in-law to a man called Holman, with whom I have a law-suit. Cross-examined—Holman was my landlord in part. I had an insurance in the “West of ” Office. About four years ago I had a fire in the thatch of a house. I was paid the insurance money in both cases. We saw it was useless to attempt putting out the fire in the mow. Prisoner has worked at Great Consols. I never heard him say anything in anger about the case between myself and Holman. After the boy had been watching, he told me that he had seen somebody go away about my size. We covered over the foot-marks with boards and stalks, to keep them secure. Miners frequently pass my premises, both by day and night. Robert Tank.—On the Tuesday night after the fire, I watched in the mowhay with a dog. About twelve the dog got very uneasy. I saw a man about thirty-five feet on the other side of the hedge. I looked over the hedge. It was bright moonlight. We made a noise and the man went away. I could not see his face, but he was dressed in a dark suit; I am quite sure that prisoner is the man. Cross-examined—The man was in a stooping position when he went away. My master came out in the course of the night—he had on a bluish jacket. I recognised the man I saw by his clothes and his height. I did not see his face. I did not see the man do anything. It was a fortnight after that I saw the prisoner and recognised him as a man I had seen in the night. William Lawton—I am an inspector of police. Prisoner was asked by the superintendent to show his boots; he said he had none but what he had on. I afterwards found at St. Day, in a public house, a bag containing under-ground clothes, and a pair of boots and shoes. I recognised the shoes as having been worn by the prisoner. I saw them shown to the prisoner, and the latter said they were his. I examined the footmarks on the premises, and compared them with the shoes I had found in the bag. They corresponded in every particular. The shoes were not alike, having particular marks. One had a toe-plate and the other a “skute.” (The shoes were here produced.) Cross-examined—The impressions were not complete where the man appeared to have jumped from the hedge; as the heels only were there deeply indented. The house where the shoes were found is the house where the van stops, and I was told they had come by the van.—Superintendent Jarrett—I found footmarks where the man appeared to have jumped from the hedge. They were impressions of the entire feet, but more deeply indented at the heels. They were more plain when I saw them first than afterwards when the comparison was made. There were also other footsteps distinct. Afterwards a plan was pointed out to me as the spot were Tank had seen the man. I saw footmarks in the hedge; I did not compare them with the boots, but I could see two different toe-marks. I took prisoner into custody, and he said he came down from Wheal Maria on the 29th, and returned on the 30th; that he was at Wheal Maria on the 28th, and at home on the 27th. I took his boots and compared them with the tracks and they exactly corresponded. There was a great number of footmarks of persons about the mow. His LORDSHIP here asked the jury whether they wished to hear the Counsel for the defence; he thought the evidence was exceedingly vague. The jury agreed with his lordship that there was not evidence enough for a conviction, and ACQUITTED the prisoner. HENRY PASCOE was charged with stealing brass from Mine. Mr. CARTER appeared for the prosecution; Mr. COX for the defence. There appearing to be no evidence to prove that the brass produced had ever been the property of the prosecutors, his Lordship directed an ACQUITTAL. EDWARD SANDERS was charged with stealing hay, &c., at Truro, and EDWARD CRAGOE with receiving the same. Mr. STOCK prosecuted. Alfred Tedder said, I am a coach proprietor, at Truro. I keep in my stables, which I rent of Mr. Pearce, hay, oats, beans, Indian corn, and chaff. I have other stables near the gas works, and it had been the duty of Sanders to take the oats, chaff, &c., when mixed in the latter stables, down to the former for the horses of the early mail. William Woolcock, police-sergeant of the borough of Truro, On the morning of Saturday, January 9th, I saw Sanders at Lemon Quay, coming with a bundle of hay or straw. He turned into Tabernacle Street, near which Cragoe has a stable. On the Tuesday following, in consequence of information received. I went to Cragoe’s stables, between three and four in the morning. I went into the stable, and examined the contents of the corn-bin. I found white beans mixed with bran, and oats; the beans were crushed. Next day I went again, about a quarter after four in the morning, and found there Indian corn, beans and oats. I took a sample. I obtained samples, unmixed, from Mr. Tedder’s on the Tuesday, and also some on the 18th in a mixed state. (The samples were here produced, and shown to the jury.) There was no hay in Cragoe’s stables when I went in on the morning of the 13th. Having gone up into the loft, I heard some one come into the stable below. I opened the loft window, intending to jump out, when I saw Sanders leave the stable and close the lock; he had nothing with him. I went down into the stable and found a truss of hay near the corn- bin. I marked the truss with a twist in the bind. I had to go upstairs again and get out of the window, as, although not locked, the padlock was closed, and could not be opened from the inside. Afterwards Mr. Nash and I watched for several mornings, and on the following Sunday morning about a quarter after 5, while concealed opposite Cragoe’s stable, I saw Sanders come up with hay and carry it into the stable. Mr. Nash and I followed him into the stable and took him in custody on a charge of stealing his master’s corn and hay. He said it did not belong to his master, and that it was the first he had brought there. I told him he had brought a bundle of hay there on the Wednesday, and he said that was the only one he had taken from his master. We could see no other hay until we had tumbled over the straw in the loft, when we found two trusses,—one of them the truss that I had marked. CROSS-EXAMINED by SANDERS—I saw you on the Wednesday morning by gas light. I saw your face plainly.—Superintendent Nash, of the Truro police, deposed to having seen Sanders enter the stable with hay, when he watched with last witness, and to Sanders having said that the bundle of hay which he took there on Wednesday morning, was the only one he had taken from his master. CROSS-EXAMINED by Cragoe.—The straw over the hay was loose. Except some hay which he put into the rick for the horse, he brought away all the hay.—Alfred Tedder RE-EXAMINED.—I have examined the samples taken from Cragoe’s stable, and they correspond exactly with mine. I had trusses of hay on my premises like that produced—but cannot say it is the same.—Thomas Stanning, a hay-trusser, who had been in the habit of trussing for Mr. Tedder, said he could identify the hay found in Cragoe’s loft, as Mr. Tedder’s property. He was strongly cross- examined on this point by Cragoe. Edward Cragoe, in his defence, said that he bought the hay of a man at , and found the beans, oats, Indian Corn, and chaff, in a bad, on Lemonquay. The jury found Sanders GUILTY of stealing, and Cragoe GUILTY of receiving. There was another charge to which Sanders had pleaded GUILTY; no evidence on this was offered against Cragoe. Cragoe called on Mr. Nash for a character. Nash said he could not say anything in his favour, though he did not know of his being engaged in any felony before. In passing sentence, his lordship said he should take into consideration the fact that Sanders had been some time in gaol. He sentenced Sanders to Four calendar months, and Cragoe to Seven calendar months’ hard labour. JOHN OLD, who had pleaded GUILTY on Saturday of perjury, was now brought up for judgment, and sentenced to Six calendar months hard labour. JOHN BRAY was charged with stealing two fowls, the property of William Sowden, at . Mr. HOLDSWORTH prosecuted, Mr. COX defended. On the evening of Saturday, January 16th, Mr. Sowden saw his fowls safe at roost. On the following morning, on going to the pigs’ house, he found a hat, and on looking for his fowls, found that two were gone. He saw some footsteps outside. He went towards the prisoner’s house, and about two hundred yards from it, found a quantity of feathers, the same sort as those of his fowls. About four or five o’clock on Sunday afternoon, he pointed out the foot marks to Marshall, a constable, and on Monday they got some boots from the prisoner’s mother. These boots belonged to the prisoner’s brother, but the prisoner had worn them on the Saturday night.—Cross- examined. The fowls and pigs were kept in the same house. There were houses besides the prisoner’s on the common.—William Marshall, constable, of Lanivet, went to the prisoner’s house, and found a part of a fowl, and a quantity of blood on the floor. Under a heap of ashes he found a quantity of fowls’ bones. At the mother’s house, next door, he got a pair of boots; he took one and compared it with the foot-prints near Mr. Sowden’s fowl-house. They corresponded; the heel of the boot was worn away on one side. The footsteps were near the road from Bodmin to prisoner’s house.—Caroline Bray, niece of the prisoner, said that on Saturday the 16th January, prisoner came into his mother’s house and got a pair of his brother’s boots.—William Harris, constable, of Bodmin, on the night of Saturday, the 16th of January, went to the Garland Ox. Prisoner was outside the door in fits. They took him inside. After he had recovered somewhat he asked for his hat, which had mud on it, and was like the one produced. The hat found in the fowls’ house, which was marked with mud, was here produced. Mr. Sowden was re- called, and stated that the feathers found were those of his fowls. Mr. Cox addressed the jury, contending that there was no evidence to show that the hat or the tracks were those of the prisoner; or that the bones and feathers which were found were those of the prosecutor’s fowls. Verdict GUILTY. Thomas Dungey, head warder at the county gaol, proved a previous conviction against the prisoner. Six calendar months hard labour. The court then rose. The business of the Assizes was finished in the CROWN COURT, at 7 o’clock on Monday evening; and next morning, the Judges left Bodmin for Somersetshire.

======Royal Cornwall Gazette 9th April 1858

3. Easter Sessions

These sessions were opened at the Crown Court Bodmin, at 11 o’clock on Tuesday, the 6th instant, before the following magistrates:— JOHN KING LETHBRIDGE, ESQ., Chairman; Lord Valletort. R. Gould Lakes, Esq. Hon. G.M, Fortescue. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. Sir Henry Onslow, Bart. W. Morshead, Esq. John Francis Buller, Esq. T. S. Bolitho, Esq. T. J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. S. Borlase, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. W. R. C. Potter, Esq. E. W. Brydges Willyams, Esq., M.P. Thomas Paynter, Esq. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. W. Coulson, Esq. J. Jope Rogers, Esq. W. Sloggatt Rosevear, Esq. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. Hon. And Rev. J. Townshend Boscawen. F. Howell, Esq. Rev. Prebendary Lyne. Humphry Willyams, Esq. Rev. J. Buller Kitson. C. G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. C. M. Edward Collins. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Rev. R. B. Kinsman. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. Thomas Hext, Esq. Rev. J. Perry. R. Gully Benner, Esq. Rev. Uriah Tonkin. H. Thomson, Esq. Rev. J. Glencross. F. J. Hext, Esq. Rev. John Glanville. J. B. Messenger, Esq. Rev. H. Farwell Roe. J. F. Trist, Esq. Rev. Samuel Symonds. T. R. Avery, Esq, Rev. Horatio Morgan Rice. C. A. Reynolds, Esq, Rev. E. J. Treffry. J. W. Peard, Esq. Rev. J. J. Wilkinson. Neville Norway, Esq. Rev. R. R. Wright. E. Stephens, Esq. Rev. Tobias Furneaux. The following gentlemen qualified as Magistrates:— Thomas Moor Horsford, Esq., of Falmouth; John Knill Kinsman, Esq., of Falmouth; and Reginald Kelly, Esq. The Rev. James Buller Kitson took the oaths on his appointment to the vicarage of Morval.—John Francis Buller, Esq., took the oaths as High Sheriff; and Humphry Millett Grylls Esq., as Under Sheriff. —In consequence of the death of Mr. Chapple, Crier of the Court, the first duty of the Bench was to provide for the performance of the duties of that office. The CLERK of the PEACE stated that applications had been received from three very good and respectable men; Mr. White, who had assisted Mr. Chapple, and had frequently officiated as Crier in the second Court; Mr. Elias Liddell, who had been Inspector of Weights and Measures; and Mr. Pearce, formerly postmaster in Bodmin. Mr. SAWLE considered that the appointment of a successor to the late Mr. Chapple was in the Clerk of the Peace— the Crier being, in fact, one of his staff; but the CLERK of the PEACE appeared unwilling to assume the responsibility of selection, and said he would rather take the instructions of the Court. The CHAIRMAN then laid the subject before the Bench, submitting for consideration whether they might appoint at once, without notice; the Chairman himself being of opinion, that without notice, the court might at once elect by show of hands, from among the candidates. Mr. CAREW thought if there was to be a contest, the Court ought to wait awhile; and the Rev. J. GLENCROSS said he had been informed that a Mr. Stripp also was a candidate for the office. Ultimately, the election was postponed till the Midsummer sessions; and, for the present Sessions, the CLERK of the PEACE requested Mr. White to perform the duties of Crier; and he did so during the Sessions. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. Thomas Sobey, , foreman. — James Andrew, . — James Brewer, Probus. — Richard Billing, St. Tudy. — Charles Cottle, St. Tudy. — Sampson Dunn, St. Austell. — John Dale, St. Stephens in Branwell. — Richard Doble, Probus. — W. Ford Geake, St. Columb Major. — Jonathan George, Endellion. — Andrew Robert Guy, Endellion. — Joseph Hicks, St. Columb Major. — Henry Hawke, Padstow. — William Hawkey, St. Dennis. — Richard Hicks, St. Columb Minor. — William Lyne Henwood, Lanteglos. — William Jennings, St. Breock. — William Marshall Knapp, St. Breock. — Richard Luscombe, jun., . — John May, Mawgan. — William Polkinhorne, Tywardreath. — Frank Roberts, Mawgan. — William Rouse, Lanteglos. The following gentlemen also answered to their names: —Mr. William Reynolds, Advent; Mr. Henry Steell, ; Mr. Robert Sandercock, Alternun; Mr. William Searle, St. Columb Minor; Mr. William Stephens, Bodmin; Mr. James Searle, Calstock; Mr. George Truscott, St Stephens; and Mr. John West, St. Kew. After reading, by the CLERK of the PEACE, of the Queen’s Proclamation, the CHAIRMAN delivered his Charge to the Grand Jury [not transcribed] The Grand Jury then retired to their chamber; and the Magistrates adjourned, for the transaction of county business to the Nisi Prius Court, where they occupied the Table-seats, and parts of the Court immediately adjacent. There was a very full attendance of Magistrates, in consequence of having to elect a Chaplain for the County Gaol, in place of the Rev. N. Kendall, deceased. ELECTION OF CHAPLAIN. [not transcribed] FINAL RESULT.—For the Rev. J.B. Everest, 34:—For the Rev. C. Hocker, 18. The CHAIRMAN declared the Rev. J.B. Everest, duly elected. VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The Visiting Justices reported that the state of the prison was as satisfactory as was possible under existing circumstances. They further reported the death of the late chaplain—the Rev. Nicholas Kendall, and that they made temporary arrangements with the Rev. Mr. Webb (curate of Bodmin), aided by the Rev. C. M. E. Collins, and the Rev. Fras. Kendall, for the due performance of the services until the Easter Sessions. The Visiting Justices further reported the discharge of William Beard, in consequence of infirmity; by reason of his service of 10 years, he was entitled to pension. Mr. KENDALL afterwards stated that Beard’s 10 years service entitled him to a pension equal to one- fourth the amount of his salary, which (Mr. COLLINS stated) was about £37, or, with some perquisites and dress, about £40. Ordinarily, he would therefore be entitled to a pension of £10; but, under circumstances which Mr. Kendall stated, he thought Beard was not entitled to this amount. It appeared that he was appointed in 1847, at the age of 53, being then an army pensioner, with a pension of £20 a year; for a time he was a very efficient officer, but, on the escape of two prisoners, it was discovered that Beard was deaf. He was, however, allowed to continue in service at the gaol a short time afterwards, in order to complete his 10 years for pension. Mr. KENDALL thought that, considering Beard’s 10 years service was not during the best period of his life, a pension of £5 would fairly meet the justice of the case; and the court unanimously adopted this suggestion. [CORONERS’ BILLS.—not transcribed] [GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE PAST QUARTER.—not transcribed] HALL EXPENSES, £14 3s. 5d., inclusive of £7 10s 11d. for alterations of the jury box, &c. EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF NEW GAOL.—£73 6s. 2d. GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor reported that nothing had occurred within the prison during the last quarter to call for any special report. The prisoners had been orderly and well conducted, considering unavoidable associations. The committals had rather exceeded those in the corresponding quarter last year; but the terms of imprisonment being short, there had not been much extra cost to the county. The rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been as far as practicable complied with. Several defects and dilapidations before reported continued to exist, but under existing circumstances, the Governor did not think it right to recommend the undertaking of repairs. BRIDGES WESTERN DIVISION.—The following report was presented from Mr. Hickes, surveyor for the Western Division of Bridges:— “The bridge roads in my division, not under contract, are still in good repair; but I am sorry that I have to complain of the state of the and bridge-roads; I have for some time called the attention of the contractor to their condition, but I find little or nothing has been done. Bolingey:— There are some repairs wanted to the base of the arch of this bridge, which will cost about 15 shillings. Grampound:— There are some repairs wanted to the coping of the guard-walls of this bridge, which will cost about 10 shillings. In reply to questions from the Bench, Mr. HICKES said he had withheld certain payments from contractors referred to in his report; and he was instructed by the court to give notice to the contractors that if they failed to do their work according to their contract, it would be done by the county, at the contractors’ expense. EASTERN DIVISION.—The report from Mr. Sylvanus W. Jenkin, surveyor for the Eastern Division, was as follows:— St. Austell Higher Bridge.—I have to apply for the sum of £15, to continue re-building the parapet walls at this bridge. Bridge.—The eastern pier of this bridge requires pointing, and otherwise repairing; the cost will be about 30s. Sowden’s Bridge.—I have received a letter from the Rev. Richard Buller, on the subject of the eastern approach road to this bridge, which is a very dangerous one. It will be necessary for me to communicate with the waywardens of the parish of Duloe, and with other parties interested, before I shall be able to give an estimate of the cost to the county of any alteration. Rev. R. BULLER gave notice that at the next sessions, he will apply for a sum not exceeding £65, for the improvement of the eastern end of Sowden’s bridge; and he requested the surveyor to report at the next sessions as to the proposed improvement. REFORMATORIES.—The CHAIRMAN said he would put a notice on the book that at the next sessions the chairman will call the attention of the county to the late statute for the erection of Reformatory Schools; with the view of making an arrangement with the county of Devon, for their reception, at the expense of this county, of any juvenile offenders send hence. He had received a letter from Mr. Bere on the subject, and probably the court would think it necessary to do something in the matter. COUNTY POLICE. Mr. E. COODE, jun., chairman of the Police Committee, read the following report:— Report of County Police Committee, Easter Sessions, 1858. The Committee have to report that at a meeting held at the Chief Constables’ Office yesterday, when the following members were present, viz:—C. B. G. Sawle, N. Kendall, W. H. P. Carew, P. Howell, R. Foster, and D. P. Le Grice Esquires, and the Chairman, it was resolved: That the Committee consider it desirable that two additional carts and one additional set of harness be procured, and recommend that the Chief Constable be authorised to procure the same.—With regard to the new Station at Camborne, Mr. Porter has completed the working plans and specifications, and tenders have been procured for the work and examined by the Committee, and the Committee recommended the tenders of Messrs. Sambells and Son of Helston, for £1649 13s. 9d. for the acceptance of the Court.—The Chief Constable having reported that W. H. P. Carew Esq., of Antony is willing to grant on lease a site for a new Police Station at Torpoint, on certain terms mentioned in a letter from Mr. Carew to the Chief Constable, dated March 5th, 1858; the Committee are of opinion that such site on the proposed terms should be accepted by the Court.—The Committee have also examined the plans submitted to them by Mr. Porter for the new Station at Torpoint, containing accommodation for a serjeant and one married constable, which plans are now produced, and recommend them for the approval of this Court.—The Chief Constable having also reported to the Committee that Mr. H. Rogers if willing to sell to the County a site for a new Station at St. Cleer on certain terms mentioned in a letter from him to the Chief Constable dated January 9, 1858, the Committee are of opinion that the same should be accepted by this Court.—The Committee have also examined the plans for such Station at St. Cleer, with accommodation for two married constables, submitted to them by Mr. Porter and which are now produced, and recommend them for the approval of the Court.—The Chief Constable having also reported to the Committee the terms on which Mr. Honey is willing to grant a site for a Police Station at , they are of opinion that the terms this day offered by Mr. Honey’s agent, Mr. Jennings, should be accepted by the County. The same plan as recommended for the Station at St. Cleer, will also be applicable for Menheniot:—The Committee also recommend that the Chief Constable be authorized to expend a sum not exceeding £30 in fitting up two cells for prisoners under the National School-room at St. Blazey, the Trustees of the said School-room granting the County a term of 21 years in the said cells at a rent of £2 10s. per year, and the County being at liberty to remove all building materials, fittings &c., employed in the construction of the cells, and restoring the building to its former state at the end of the term. The Committee also recommend that the Clerk of the Peace be instructed to act as the legal adviser of the Committee, and to take all necessary steps for carrying out the before mentioned recommendations of the Committee as to new Police Stations and Cells (provided they be approved by this Court) and preparing contracts for building the same when required. In accordance with the order of Sessions that the County Police shall henceforward perform the duties of Inspectors of Weights and Measures, the Committee suggest that the several Superintendents of Police should be appointed Inspectors of Weights and Measures within the respective districts. For this purpose it will be desirable that the sets of Weights and measures returned by the late Inspectors should be re-adjusted, and if necessary, new sets procured, in order that each Superintendent may have a perfect set to work with.—With regard to the annexation of the parish of North Petherwyn and such parts of the parish of Werrington and Northcott Hamlet as lie to the west of the River Tamar to the County of Cornwall for Police purposes, the Committee recommend that the following terms be proposed to the Quarter Sessions of Devon, viz.: that in consideration of the Quarter Sessions of Cornwall taking charge of such parish of North Petherwyn, part of Werrington and Northcott Hamlet, for police purposes, the County Treasurer of Devon shall pay to the County Treasurer of Cornwall 60l. per annum.—Government Inspector having reported favourably of the efficiency of the Police force, the County Treasurer has received from the Treasury the sum of 901l. 3s. 10d. as one fourth of the expense of pay and clothing up to 29th of September last. The Committee consider that a Police Rate of three farthings in the pound will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the next quarter.—It appears by the County Treasurer’s account that there is a balance in his hands on account of the Police Superannuation Fund up to March 21st last of 112l. 3s. 10d. COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM.—The CHAIRMAN stated that the total of receipts from the 1st January to 31st December 1857, was £7194 7s. 10d. The total of payments was £6430 18s. 11d.; leaving a balance of £763 8s. 11d. Mr. LAKES asked if there would be any difficulty or objection to the furnishing a more detailed account of the Asylum Expenses. Mr. KENDALL, Chairman of the Asylum Committee, stated that the account sent to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was as required by the Lunacy Commissioners. There was also a detailed account of every item of expense in the Asylum, in which every thing was classified, to the minutest item. This account had been sent to some of the magistrates who had made inquiry for it; but, in future, he (Mr. Kendall) would take care that it be sent to ever magistrate, and also to every union, so that every rate- payer might have an opportunity of seeing it.—Mr. LAKES said that would quite meet his wish. [INSPECTORSHIP OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—not transcribed] FEES IN VAGRANCY CASES.— Mr. E. COODE, jun. asked what was to be done with respect to Magistrates’ Clerks' fees in vagrancy and other cases in which the Police were prosecutors. In most of such cases the parties charged were committed, and paid nothing towards the costs of proceedings, and he supposed the policemen, as prosecutors were legally liable. But, it could not be expected that policemen would be very active in their duties, if they were to be saddled with these expenses. He wished to know if the Court would authorise the charging of these expenses on the Police-Rate.—Mr. BORLASE said that, by the old law, it was provided that any person bringing up a vagrant was to be paid by the parish in which the vagrant was taken; and Mr. SAWLE said that liability of the parish had been affirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. E. COODE thought such a course, though legal, was inexpedient; and in this opinion, Mr. REYNOLDS and Mr. KENDALL concurred; and, finally, it was understood to be the opinion of the Bench that the expenses referred to should be charged on the Police Rate. POLICE STATIONS. — Mr. E. COODE junr., next brought under consideration the question—to whom should sites for Police Stations be conveyed, and who was the proper person to sign contracts on behalf of the County, for the erection of Stations.—Mr. SAWLE moved that the Chairman for the time being, do accept conveyance, and sign contracts for building, under the Police Act.—Mr. PAYNTER, from results of his experience as a Magistrate in town, suggested that it would be preferable to vest such power in the County Treasurer; and we understood that this suggestion was adopted. SUPERINTENDENTS OF COUNTY POLICE.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., moved that, in future, the Superintendents of Police be paid as follows:—3 at £85, and 3 at £95; and that in future the County Police perform the duties of attending the Courts of Quarter Sessions, and escorting prisoners to and from the Gaol at Sessions and Assizes. Mr. COODE stated that the increase of pay now proposed would amount to £30 a year; which would be but a pound or two more than would be saved by avoiding the employment of extra hands, as had been usual, for attendance at Assizes and Sessions. The motion was agreed to. THE NEW GAOL.— Mr. KENDALL moved for the grant of an additional sum of £6000, for the purposes of the New Gaol, to be raised from time to time as may be required.— The CLERK of the PEACE said that none of this money would be wanted immediately; but Mr. Polkinhorne had offered to lend £3,500 at 4½ per cent.; at present the county paid 5 per cent. to the West of England Insurance Society. —Some conversation, originated by the Rev. J. GLANVILLE, took place with reference to the parish of Bridgerule, in relation to the New County Police; and this was followed by the reading, by the CLERK of the PEACE, of various notices and memorials concerning proposed alterations of Petty Sessional Divisions, consequent on recommendations by the Chief Constable; but in no instance was any definite conclusion attained. CHIEF CONSTABLE’S REPORT.—The Chairman read the following:— Chief Constable's Office, Bodmin, 6th April, 1858. My Lords and Gentlemen; I have the honour to lay before you the usual quarterly return of crime in the county; also a return showing the number and disposition of the constabulary; and a copy of a general order I have found it necessary to issue since the last sessions. I trust the county will take into consideration the alteration of the petty-sessional divisions, as proposed by the committee at the last quarter sessions; for until this re-arrangement is decided on, it is impossible for me to determine on the size of the stations necessary to be built in the different localities; and I would urge this on the magistrates, as the force is at present working under great disadvantage from not having suitable stations with locks-up.—ln compliance with the order of last sessions, the inspection of weights and measures will be undertaken by the police the moment the necessary arrangements are made as regards the weights and measures.—l am, my lords and gentlemen, your obedient servant, W. R. GILBERT, Lieut. Colonel, and Chief Constable of Cornwall. The report was adopted. The court then adjourned into the Crown Court for the trial of prisoners. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. THOMAS MOYSE, 35, labourer, was charged with stealing 8 cwt. of coals, the property of William Sloggatt Rosevear and William Slogatt, of , merchants, his masters, at the parishes of Alternun and Lewannick, on the 18th of March. Mr. Shilson and Mr. Claude C. Hawker conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence. The case having been opened by Mr. Shilson, the following evidence was adduced:—Gerrance Hayne, a yardman in prosecutors’ employ at Boscastle, deposed that in the evening of the 12th of March he and the prisoner weighted 2 tons of coal into a waggon which was then left in the yard, open to the road, and in charge of the prisoner. After the coals had been weighed into the waggon I gave in the account to the clerk at the office; and the prisoner came in and had an invoice of the coal.—Henry Wadge, a labourer in the employ of Mr. Archer, at Trelaske. On the 13th of March I saw the prisoner bring there a wagon load of coal; I asked him if he had a full load (which would be 2 tons); and he said he had. He had been in the habit of bringing 2 tons at a time. Fry the gardener, a man called Stacey, myself, and the prisoner proceeded to weigh the coals. As soon as we began to weigh, the prisoner said “weigh fair.” He and the others weighed, and I kept account. When the weighing was finished, the prisoner asked how much it was, and I said 32 cwt. He then said he had been out a long journey, to Bennetts Arms, the day before with a load, and he supposed they had sent him a slight load to Trelaske in consequence. I had received directions to weigh the coal.— Jabez Brown, a Clerk in the Employ of Messrs. Rosevear and Sloggatt. On Friday, the 12th of March, I was at Camelford. About 8 o’clock in the morning of Saturday, the 13th of March, I was in the office, and Gerrance Hayne brought me a wet and dirty envelope directed to Edward Archer, Esq., Trelaske. I saw that it was in the writing of William Nicholls, and that it was an envelope of Messrs. Rosevear and Sloggatt. I opened that envelope (the same as is now produced) and found that it contained an invoice of 2 tons of coal; I put it into a clean envelope, and sent it by post on Saturday morning to Edward Archer, Esq., Trelaske. About 8 o’clock on the Monday morning, the prisoner came to me in the office and told me that the load he had taken to Trelaske was 8 cwt, short, and that the invoice which he had received from Mr. Nicholls he had put in his waistcoat-pocket and lost; he requested me to send on an invoice for 32 cwt.; I told him I could not do that, as I had already forwarded an invoice by post for 40 cwt. He said that Mr. Archer had ordered the coals to be weighed, which had not been done before. It is untrue that the prisoner went to the Bennett’s Arms on the Friday; he went there on the Thursday, but on the Friday the prisoner was home, and the horses were resting for the journey on Saturday. The prisoner had no authority whatever to sell coals on the road.—Elizabeth Wadge: I am a widow living at Plasha Cross in Lewannick, and keep a turnpike-gate. The prisoner came to the gate on Saturday, the 13th of March, with a load of coals, and I bought two bags of coal of him, and paid him three shillings; the coals I bought were in bags. I had bought one bag of him about a fortnight before Christmas and gave 1s. 6d., for it. I don’t know what quantity it was; I never weighed it. The other coal in the wagon on the 13th March was open—not in bags. On the Wednesday after, a man riding on a mule came to me and told me if any person came to me to ask about coals I was not to say any thing about it; and in consequence of what this man told me, I went to Davis’s wife.—Christopher Davis; I live at Plasha Cross. On Saturday the 13th of March, the prisoner had a wagon of coals, and carried some into my house before I came home from work. I had had some coals of him before. On the 13th of March, I bought one bushel of him, and paid him one shilling. Some few days afterwards the policeman Harris came to me and I showed him the coal I had bought of prisoner. I had been in the habit of buying coals of the prisoner for several years.—Pentecost Simmons; I am a sander at Boscastle, and keep a team of mules. On a Tuesday in March, I think about 4 weeks ago, the prisoner came to me and asked me to go to Plasha Cross and see the turnpike woman there, and to tell her if any person came to her about the coal she was not to know any thing about it. He said he had taken up a bag or two of coal just to save carriage, but that young master was now searching into these things and would not allow that to be done. On the following day I went to the woman’s and told her what the prisoner had told me; I have since learned that the woman’s name is Wadge. I told her I was going to call on a person at the first door on the opposite side, and she said she would manage that. The prisoner had given me directions to tell that other person the same as I told Mrs. Wadge. I also went to Congdon’s shop, not far from Mr. Archer’s, where the prisoner had told me to go with a similar message to another person. On my return to Boscastle, I saw the prisoner, and told him what I had done, and he paid me for the job. On my return, the old woman Wadge came forth to her door and said “all’s right.” I have heard that the name of the man opposite Mrs. Wadge’s is Davis.—Joseph Paull; I live at Boscastle, and am in the employ of Messrs. Rosevear and Sloggatt. In the evening of the 12th March the prisoner came to me about having my mare to help him over the hill next morning, as he was going to Mr. Archer’s with 2 tons of coal. Next morning, about 3 o’clock, he called on me, and after feeding his horses and my mare, I helped to put them to his wagon; I observed the wagon and thought it was in the same state as I had seen it loaded, the night before; if 8 cwt. of coal had been taken from it, I must have missed it. The wagon was covered, as I had not seen it the night before; I believe the coal was all loose—not in bags.—Gerrance Hayne, recalled, stated that when he loaded the wagon on the Friday evening, the coal was all loose— none of it was in bags. The prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrates was then read:—In it, he stated: I am charged wrongfully, I am charged with stealing 8 cwt. of coal, of which I am not guilty; what Davis has stated is false; I was never in his house that day, but I saw him on the road to Five Lanes, and the words he used to me was that he owed me for a bushel of coal and he had no money for it. And now I will tell you how I had these coals; I had had them, they had been charged to me, and I had paid Mr. Sloggatt for them; they had been carried to my house; if I did wrong, I did it to make a little profit in carriage; I used to get 4d. a bushel for them; I had had from a bushel to a bushel and half a week, and my missus being out to work a good deal, we did not use so much; I had three bushels when I went away with the wagon to Mr. Archer’s, and I sold them to Mrs. Wadge. Christopher Davis’s statement is not true; he said I sold to him 10 years ago; I did not pass the road ten years ago. For the defence, Mr. STOKES ably addressed the jury; but, after a careful summing up, the jury found the prisoner, Guilty as a servant. The prisoner was next morning sentenced to six months hard labour. ELIZABETH WADGE, 40, who had given evidence in the preceding case, was then indicted for having, on the 13th of March, feloniously received 3 cwt of coals, the property of Messrs, Rosevear and Sloggatt of Boscastle, she well knowing the same to have been stolen. Mr SHILSON stated that in this case the prosecution would offer no evidence; and the CHAIRMAN consequently directed a verdict of acquittal. The CHAIRMAN however admonished Mrs. Wadge. Mr. FROST, attorney for the defence, hoped their worships would not object to his saying that if the case had been gone into, he felt sure that he should have satisfied the jury that nothing could be proved against this woman. He was the more anxious to say this, as she was in a situation of trust, and had a long family. He hoped, as the prosecution had not offered any evidence, that it would not go forth to the public that she left the Court with any imputation on her character. A bill against Christopher Davis for feloniously receiving coal, stolen from Messrs. Rosevear and Sloggatt, was ignored. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7 MARY ANN BURLEY, on bail, was charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Robert Clements, in the parish of St. Austell, on the 1st of March, and stealing therefrom 17 lbs. of flour, the property of the said Robert Clements. Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence. Both the prosecutor and the prisoner’s husband were labourers, in the employ of Mr. Nicholls, a farmer, and both occupying the same dwelling-house, with a division between their several portions, formed by a low cob and tab wall, covered on the top with and thorns; and living together in a neighbourly manner. The case for the prosecution was that about 11 o’clock in the forenoon of the 1st of March, Mrs. Clements left her house, locking the door, to take some tea to her husband who was unwell, and at work in a barn about a quarter of a mile distant. At this time, she left the prisoner in the adjoining portion of the house. During the absence of Mrs. Clements, her son, a lad of about 17 years of age, hearing a noise inside his parents’ house, looked through the key-hole of the door, and saw, at a landing on the top of the stairs, the prisoner helping herself to flour from a bag, and putting it into a pan. In about 10 minutes his mother returned, and he told her of what he had seen on the landing, and that he also saw the prisoner come down over the stairs with the pan of flour in her hand, and go out at the Clements’s door, from which, he said, to get into her own house, she must have got over the low wall above mentioned. Mrs. Clements, on her return went up-stairs, and saw that flour had been taken from her sack; and then went to the wall, and charged Mrs. Burley, who was then “in her own right,” with stealing flour; which the prisoner denied. At this time, Mrs Clements observed that part of the low wall had been pulled down, together with some of the and thorns. She then went and informed her husband of what had happened; and on their return, found that the wall had been further re-built during her absence. The witnesses for the prosecution were Mrs. Clements and her son, and a policeman, George Barnes, who merely proved, from examination of the premises, that it was possible to see the landing of the stairs from the key-hole of the door. The case, thought unimportant and uninteresting, occupied the Court some hours, the first two witnesses undergoing close cross-examination. For the defence, Mr. Childs, after addressing the Jury, examined William Nicholls, the employer of the prosecutor and of prisoner’s husband. He rents a farm at Menacuddle, and has an off farm called Knighter, at which the prisoner’s husband acts as his hind. He gave excellent characters to the prisoner and her husband, who had been in his service for some years; and was also examined in contradiction to the case for the prosecution. The trial resulted in a verdict of acquittal. ALEXANDER MUDIE, 23, a seaman, was charged with stealing a purse, containing £5 10s., the property of John Cook, at the parish of Falmouth, on the 28th of March. Mr. CHILDS conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. John Cook, the prosecutor, said:— I am a seaman, and a Prussian by birth. I was in Falmouth in Marsh last, and lodged at a beer-house kept by Thomas Wills. I slept there on Sunday the 28th of March, and the prisoner lodged in the same room with me. I went to bed about 11 o’clock; I had £5 10s. in gold and a little silver, which I kept in a purse in my waistcoat pocket; I had seen it there about half an hour before going to bed. When I went to bed, I put my waistcoat with the purse of money in the pocket, on a chair by the bed-side. The prisoner did not go to bed until shortly after I did. Another man called Clark slept in the same bed with prisoner. I woke about 8 o’clock next morning; the prisoner and Clark had at that time both left the room. When dressing myself, I found that my purse and money were gone. John McDowell, a lad—a shipwright living at Falmouth:— On the morning of Monday the 29th of March, as I was going to my work about 6 o’clock, I passed the Public News Room at Falmouth, and there saw a purse in the gutter; I picked it up; it was closed, but had no money in it. About 10 minutes past 6 I saw the prisoner at the Fish-strand, about 60 yards from the News-room; I had met him just before I picked up the purse. On Tuesday I gave the purse to the policeman Prater—Thomas Prater, police constable at Falmouth. On Monday the 29th March, I apprehended the prisoner on this charge; he was very drunk; I searched him, and took from him £2 10s. in gold and some silver in his hand; afterwards, at the station, I found in his boots 3s. 6d. in silver and some pence. The whole amount of money I found on him was 2l. 19s. 2d. Witness produced the purse given to him by last witness.—John Clark: I am a boatman in the employ of Wills who keeps a beer-shop at Falmouth. On Sunday night the 28th of March, I slept in the same bed with prisoner; I have known him since Christmas last; he was in bed before me. The next morning a little before 6, I roused him up to go on board. When he got up I saw him go to the window to untie two knots in his frock, and then he went and sat down on the chair where it was usual for Cook’s waistcoat to lie; Cook was then in bed.— When he came to bed on the Sunday night I asked him “Well, Allic, is your spree out?” His answer was “yes, he was stumped.” By that I understood he had no tin. I asked him that question because I thought if he had had any money, he would have been out sleeping somewhere else; it was an unusual thing for him to come to bed there. I afterwards went with Cook to search for him; we found him at the Spread Eagle a few minutes before 9; he was very drink, and kneeling down by the door. He was steady when he came to be on the Sunday night, and when he left the house next morning. To go from my master’s to the Spread Eagle, a person must pass the Public News Room.—William Richards, police-constable, of Falmouth: On Monday the 29th of March, the prisoner was placed in my custody and locked up. About 7 o’clock in the evening he asked me what he was locked up for—whether he had been drink or fighting, or what was the matter—he did not know. I said “have you taken anything from any person?” He said “oh, I know all about it; it is about the purse I found on the floor at the place where I lodged.” He said he thought it had only contained a few pence and a shilling or two, and when he opened it and found it contained gold it frightened him. I said, “Why didn’t you return it; you know it did not belong to you.” He said, “no one would have known any thing about it, had I not been such a bloody fool with the money.” I told him again he ought to have returned the money. His answer was, “any person would have done as I have done, for I would have sold my soul at the time for a glass of grog.”—At the close of the case for the prosecution, the prisoner addressed the jury: He confessed that he found the money on the floor as he went out, and the first place he went to was a public-house, where he had two glasses of rum; and he was sorry for it. On going to the water-closet, he found three sovereigns of his own in his frock that he had tied up a few nights before. He was going to return and make application as to whose purse it was, but he was frightened when he found what the money was. On meeting some of his shipmates, they called him in to have some drink, and he lost recollection of every thing; he did not know what became of the purse or any thing. He was sorry for what he had done, and he hoped the jury would judge him with mercy. He confessed that he took away the thing that was not his right; but as for stealing or robbing, he never did from any one. The prisoner, with a sudden and somewhat violent gush of feeling, wept and sobbed. The jury found him GUILTY; and he was sentenced to Four Months hard labour. JOSEPH SECCOMBE, 37, blacksmith, committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace toward Samuel Butler, master of the St. Austell Union-house, on the 24th of January, was reprimanded and discharged; Mr. Butler not appearing against him. ELIZA GORDON, 86 years old, had been committed to the Cornwall House of Correction for the 88th time, for want of sureties in a breach of the peace. No one appeared against her; but, on the other hand, no one was willing to become surety for her good behaviour, and she was therefore ordered back to the House of Correction till next Sessions; the CHAIRMAN telling her that he thought, under all circumstances, this was the most merciful mode of dealing with her. The old woman is from Scotland— she says from Aberdeen—and prated away most volubly in her native tongue. Much of her talk and exclamations it was difficult to understand; but it appeared from her statements that her husband was in the Scots Greys and was killed at Waterloo, and that she had had a son killed in London. I’ve had my trials, said she; Granny’s an afflicted woman, and turned my 86 last Good Friday; I am ashamed ‘twas all for a drop of drink; I’ll gang away to Worcester or to Bristol, where there’s a Scotch Society will send me on to Aberdeen; I’ve done no harm; but the generality of the Scotch are a hot, quick-tempered people; the Rev. Mr. Reynolds has known me for years, and knows no harm of me; will the Reverend Mr. Reynolds give me 15 pence; I haven’t a bawbee about me; I’ll gang back to Scotland, only gie me my liberty; I have £10 a year; my James was next step to a commissioned officer when he was killed at Waterloo; there’s no blame to me for being a crazy old woman; tis 23 years ago since Mr. Everest knew me, and if he were in court, he’d say I know no harm of Elisa; I have never stole a baubee worth, and I never speak against the government; but I take a drop of toddy (laughter); I was sent to Bristol some years ago from this gaol; but I came down to Penzance to see my Betsy—my daughter, a poor afflicted bedlyer; I have nobody now but God and myself in this county, but I’ll keep the peace if you’ll let me have my liberty; come, give me a chance, and the widow says she’ll gang away to or Bristol; there are Scotch people there who will support me and send me to Aberdeen. When told that she would be taken back the House of Correction, till the Midsummer Sessions, she exclaimed, “Praise the Lord, when’s that? I’m near the next world. I am only in people’s way down there (meaning the gaol). How long is it to next Sessions? Will you then let me gang home to Scotland? Will Mr. Everest let granny have some tea? I am lost for want of tea; if they don’t let me have some, I’ll break the windows. The old dame was then removed, exclaiming as she went down over the stairs “I wish you well.” COUNTY BUSINESS INSPECTION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—Mr. E. COODE, junr., read a Report from the Police Committee, which was substantially the same as the following Resolution, afterwards adopted on Mr. Coode's proposition:— "That the six Superintendents of Police be appointed Inspectors of Weights and Measures, within their respective police districts, and that it is further necessary that each of them should be provided with a perfect set of weights and measures. That, in addition to the five sets of weights and measures in the possession of the late Inspectors, one new set shall be procured by which the sets at present belonging to the County (when deposited with the Chief Constable) shall be tested before the Police Committee, with a view to the re-adjustment of the same at the Exchequer, if possible, or, in case of necessity, to the purchase of new sets.—That the following be the list of Inspectors of Weights and Measures, with the several districts to be assigned to them:— Superintendent James Brazier, for the Bodmin district, to be marked A. Superintendent Henry Brice, for the Helston district, to be marked B. Superintendent Henry James Complin, for the Launceston district, to be marked C. Superintendent Alfred Stephens, for the Liskeard district, to be marked D. Superintendent Henry Miller, for the Penzance district, to be marked E. Superintendent Alfred Hipwood Jarrett, for the Truro district, to be marked F. A long discussion on the subject of the non-return of standard weights and measures by the late inspectors, resulted in the adoption of the following resolution moved by Mr, E. COODE, jun., and seconded by Mr. SAWLE:— That the Clerk of the Peace immediately give notice to the late inspectors of weights and measures, personally to deliver all copies of weights and measures, and stamps, with the indentures belonging thereto, to the Chief Constable at his office at Bodmin, on Wednesday next, the 14th of April, under the penalty expressed in the bond or recognizance given by each of them on their original appointment. SIR GEORGE GREY’S SCALE OF FEES FOR WITNESSES.—Police constables Prater and Richards, from Falmouth, made a complaint to the Clerk of the Peace, and to the bench, of the insufficiency of the fees allowed them as witnesses. Prater said he had been allowed but 15s.; while it cost him 10s. 6d. to come up from Falmouth, and by the time he got back he should be 16s. out of pocket. Richards appeared to be in similar predicament.—Both the Chairman and the Clerk of the Peace expressed regret and commiseration for the applicants, but said they could give them no help; as the fees which had been allowed were in accordance with Sir George Grey's instructions.—This concluded the business of the sessions. ======

Royal Cornwall Gazette July 2nd 1858

4. Cornwall Midsummer Sessions

These sessions were opened at Bodmin on Tuesday last before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, ESQ., Chairman. Lord Vivian. T. S. Bolitho. Sir Henry Onslow, Bart. R. G. Lakes. C. B. Graves Sawle. J. W. Peard. Gordon W. F. Gregor. T. R. Avery, Esqrs. W. Hext. The Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen. F. Rodd. W. R. C. Potter, Esq. F. Howell. Thomas Paynter, Esq. R. Foster. W. Coulson, Esq. J. Jope Rogers. W. Sloggatt Rosevear, Esq. E. Coode, jun. Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend Boscawen. R. Gully Bennet. Revs. Vyell F. Vyvyan. Thomas Paynter. Rev Uriah Tonkin. J. T. H. Peter. Rev. T. Pascoe. H. Thomson. Rev. John Glanville. C. A. Reynolds. Rev. R. Buller. Neville Norway. Rev. E. J. Treffry. Rev. C. M. Edward Collins. Rev. J. Vivian Vivian. Rev. S. Symonds. William Traer Chappel, Esq., qualified as a magistrate; and the Rev. John H. Borwell took the oaths on his appointment at the living of . The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury:— Mr. Edward Augustus Bullmore, Budock, foreman; Messrs. John Abraham, Stratton; William Bridgeman, ; Joseph Barnes, Gulval; John Bull, Budock; George Copeland, Constantine; George , St. Just; William Cory, Stratton; John Eddy, Gulval; Richard Hidderley, Camborne; , Constantine; William Jewell, Poughill; John Lyle, ; Joseph Penlerick, Budock; John Phillips, Falmouth; William Roberts, St. Levan; John Rooke, Gwennap; John Roberts, Falmouth; William Thomas, Camborne; James Tyacke, Gwinear; William Trewhella, Gulval; Francis Verrant, St. Erth; William Valour, Falmouth. The following gentlemen answered to their names; Mr. John Roberts, St. Keverne; Mr. Edwards Laurence, St. Keverne; Mr. James Lugg, St. Keverne. The CHAIRMAN, in charging the Grand Jury …… [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY not transcribed] ELECTION OF A CRIER OF THE COURT.—[not transcribed] The CHAIRMAN declared Mr. White elected. VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The report from the Visiting Justices stated that the state of the prison was as satisfactory as was possible under existing circumstances. They reported the [additional?] purchase of a meadow adjoining the prison, called the Flax Moor, from the representatives of the late Preston Wallis, [Esquire?]. [CORONERS’ BILLS.—not transcribed] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor regretted that he was unable to give so satisfactory an account of the conduct of the prisoners as at the last Sessions; some of the females particularly had been most disorderly. The Governor certified that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with; and the several defects and dilapidations before reported continued to exist but under present circumstances, the governor did not recommend that any repairs of consequence should be undertaken. [GAOL EXPENSES.—not transcribed] COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF PRISONERS.—The CHAIRMAN read the following statement:— At Midsummer Sessions, 1857,—felonies, in custody, 30; ditto, on bail, 5; misdemeanour, in custody, 2; on bail, 4; assaults, in custody, 3; total, 44. At Midsummer Sessions, 1858: felonies, in custody, 17; ditto, on bail, 2; misdemeanours, in custody, 2; breach of the peace, in custody, 2; ditto, on bail, 1; total, 24.—Committed under the Criminal Justice Act, in the Quarter ending Midsummer 1857, 18; in the same quarter of 1858, 12. Under the Juvenile Offenders’ Act, Midsummer, 1857, one; in the same quarter of 1858, two. BRIDGES Mr. S. W. Jenkin, surveyor for the Eastern Division, reported as follows:— Helland Bridge:—The foundation of one of the piers of this bridge has failed, and requires to be repaired whilst the water is low; it will be necessary to construct a dam around it, in order to examine it, and until that is done it is impossible to estimate the expense. I have therefore to apply for a grant not exceeding £40, although the actual cost may not exceed half that sum. There is also a drain required at the end of the bridge.—Slades Bridge.—Some slight repairs are required to the arch and abutments of this bridge; I estimate the cost at about £1.—Lostwithiel Bridge.—An expenditure of about £2 is required to repair the injury done to one of the arches of this bridge during the flood of April last. The whole of the eastern part of the bridge was much shaken at the time.—Trekerner Bridge. The paving of the water-way under this bridge has been washed out and requires to be repaired; the cost will be about £1. A fence is also much required between the eastern approach road and a leat running close to it; the cost of a proper post-and-rail fence would be about £9 10s. 0d.—The Surveyor also reported slight repairs as being required to the following Bridges on the Notter river, in consequence of the damage done by the flood, viz, Berriow, Sterra, Rilla Mill, Plasha, Trekerner, Callington Newbridge, Clapper, , and Notter; the whole of these repairs amounting to £6 2s. 6d. The Surveyor also presented the following special report on Sowden’s Bridge:—As instructed by you, I have made an estimate of the cost of the proposed alteration in the approach-road to this bridge, which is shown on the accompanying plan and section. I estimate it at £180, but a portion of it would be beyond the County boundary, reducing it to about £150, exclusive of the cost of land for the additional width. Mr Jenkin added that he required two levies. It was understood that the Report was adopted; and with reference to Sowden Bridge, the Rev. R. BULLER said he had intended to give notice for a grant of £65; but after hearing the Bridge Surveyor’s Report, he would give notice that at the next Sessions he will move for a grant of £150. The Report from Mr. Hicks, Surveyor for the Western Division, presented in his absence, by his son, was as follows:—Since my last report some repairs having been done at Bolingey and Trevemper Bridge- roads, they are now in tolerable repair. The other bridges and bridge-roads in my division are much in the same state of repair as when I last reported on them. I require one levy. ______—Mr. SAWLE gave notice that at the next Sessions he would move for a grant of £150 for the purchase of a field near the gaol, as recommended in the Visiting Justices’ Report. —Lord Vivian, (on behalf of Mr. Kendall as chairman of the Asylum Committee) gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move for the grant of £100, as a contribution towards the purchase of burial ground by the Borough of Bodmin. THE COUNTY MILITIA.—Lord Vivian said he had received instructions from the Secretary of State at War, for the amalgamation of the two regiments of Militia; in consequence of which the County would be saved the expense of a store-house at Launceston. He had received from the Adjutant of the 2nd Regiment, a suggestion that certain furniture provided at the Launceston store-house should be sold; as it would not be required for the 1st Regiment; and he now proposed that the county should sanction such sale. Captain Trelawney said he had retained in hand money sufficient for the rental of the storehouse till the 30th of October, when the term of lease expired; and he had also a further sum of about £3 15s. in hand; which, with the proceeds of sale of furniture, would meet the required expenditure of about £5 for moving the stores and paying for the lodging, or house rent of two serjeants.—The Court assented to the proposed arrangement. POLICE COMMITTEE’S REPORT.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., chairman of the Police Committee, read the following report:— The County Police Committee beg to report that a meeting was held at the Chief Constable's office yesterday, when the following members were present, viz.; Lord Vivian, G. W. F. Gregor, F. Rodd, F. Howell, T. R. Avery, and E. Coode, jun., Esqrs.; when, after the usual examination and approval of the accounts of the past and of the previous quarter, the following matters were discussed:—Camborne Station.—Since the last Sessions Mr. Coode bas been instructed by the committee as their legal adviser to take the proper steps for carrying out the agreement entered into by them with Mr. Reynolds in this matter. It appears however that certain difficulties (entirely unforeseen by the committee) have arisen, inasmuch as the Court of Quarter Sessions is not a corporation capable of taking a lease, or of entering into covenants for rent, so as to guarantee the same in a manner satisfactory to the lessor, Mr. Reynolds. It is therefore impossible to proceed further, unless some means can be found of getting over this difficulty; and Mr. Coode is instructed to communicate further with Mr. Reynold’s attornies on the subject.— Torpoint Station.—The covenants in the lease as to the specifications for building are reported to the committee as having been satisfactorily arranged between Mr. Carew's steward and the County Architect; but as the same legal difficulty occurs as in the case of the Camborne Station, it will be impossible to proceed further until this has been got over.—Menheniot and St. Cleer Stations.—The purchases in fee of the sites for these two stations are in a fair way of being accomplished, and as soon as the conveyances have been signed, the chief constable will advertize for tenders tor the building.— The committee are of opinion that a station for two married, and a room for single constables with two cells, should be provided at Pool, and another of a similar kind at . The chief constable bas been instructed in future to advertize for tenders for sites for Police Stations in those places where it may be deemed necessary to apply to the Court to provide them, with a view of getting, if possible, a greater number of offers to select from. This course will be taken forthwith with regard to the stations required at Pool and Chacewater. The Committee are of opinion that a police rate of three-farthings in the £ will be required for the ensuing quarter. It appears that a sum of £107 0s. 11d. has accrued, to the Superannuation Fund for this quarter, and the committee recommend the same to be invested as heretofore.—Weights and Measures.—The sets of Weights and Measures received by the Chief Constable from the late Inspectors have been examined by the Committee, and having been compared with the new set procured by the Chief Constable, under the direction of the court, and with the indentures belonging to them, appear to be all more or less defective, some to a considerable extent; and the committee fear it will be necessary that they should all be sent to be re-adjusted at the Exchequer, after supplying such deficiencies as are required.—The committee subjoin a more particular statement of the condition in which each set has been returned. The committee beg to call the attention of the magistrates generally to the fact that the accounts of fees and allowances paid to police constables at Petty Sessions have not (except in one or two cases) been forwarded to the County Treasurer, as required by the statute. Mr. E. COODE, junr., moved the adoption of the Report; and the motion was seconded by Mr. GREGOR. The Rev. R. BULLER complained that there was no constable for the district of Trecan Gate. Col. GILBERT replied that he had no man to place there; and he had brought the subject before the committee yesterday. He had 9 recruits at head-quarters, and as soon as these were efficient he should probably be able to send one out. Mr. E. COODE, jun., said the committee were unwilling to propose any increase of the force before knowing the result of inspection by the Government Inspector, which would take place shortly; the committee thought it would depend on the nature of his report, what additional force, if any, was necessary. It seemed clear, from the Chief Constable, that the present number was not sufficient to enable him to occupy the county as he could wish. The Rev. R. BULLER did not know what the other arrangements might be; but he thought there ought to be a constable for the Trecan District—a very large district to be left without a constable. Col. GILBERT said he should be very glad to have one appointed there, in order to keep up his communications; as he had explained to the committee yesterday, by map. But there were 8 men taken from the force to look after horses and for the conveyance of prisoners; and besides this, there were two men required for Looe and Saltash—boroughs not included in the original arrangement. The original proportion of police was one to 1766 population; and if he took a policeman from another district in order to supply Trecan, that other district would not have the fair amount of protection to which it was entitled according to assessment and population. And, although he had 9 recruits at head-quarters, 8 of these were supposed to be reserves, to supply vacancies when necessary. Lord VIVIAN said it seemed to him that at present the force was not sufficient to supply the county; and that being so, he thought it was the duty of the committee to meet the difficulty at once and represent the matter to the court. He did not understand how the government inspector, coming down for a few days, could judge the matter so well as the committee; the inspector must take the advice of the chief constable as to sufficiency or insufficiency of the force, in point of numbers. If the county generally contributed towards the maintenance of the force, he did not think it was right to deprive any district of its proper proportion of police. The committee ought to meet the difficulty at once. Mr. E. COODE, jun., said the allowance from the government would depend on the report of the inspector, not on the advice of the chief constable. The government inspector had already reported that the force in this county was efficient; and he made that report when the force was not so large as at present. On his last inspection, he reported that the force was in an efficient state.—(Col. GILBERT: As far as it went.) Lord VIVIAN said the question was—had the chief constable a sufficient number of men, or not? Col. GILBERT said he had not; he had shown that to the committee, and had explained to them how it was that certain districts were unoccupied. If the county chose to reduce the proportion of police—say to one for every 2000 of population—he should be able to supply all the districts.—ln reply to Mr. REYNOLDS, Col. GILBERT said he should not have a sufficient number for the occupation of the districts, when his 9 recruits were drilled; and he repeated that 8 of these were intended as reserves, and not to be sent out. There were some places at present to which he was obliged to send an extra force. At St. Germans, where there were 3 or 400 navvies he was obliged to send extra men, while the railway work was going on there. But still, in that particular district, the number of police was 4 short of its proper proportion. Mr. E. COODE, jun., said the committee, in postponing the matter until after the inspection by the government inspector, had been actuated only by a desire to save expense to the county. But, if the court felt that the matter should be put in train at once, he should be happy to give notice for the next sessions, of a motion for increasing the police force to the extent of 12 second-class constables. Lord VIVIAN quite concurred in thinking that all caution was necessary; but since the police force had been forced upon them, it behoved them to make it thoroughly efficient, and also, to deal fairly with all parts of the county. If any portions of the county were now deprived of sufficient protection by having too few men, it behoved the court speedily to increase the force. Col. GILBERT stated that within the last 24 hours, there had been three applications for increased force; and the Rev. U. TONKIN and the Rev. J. GLANVILLE complained of insufficiency of force in their respective districts. Subsequently, Mr. E. COODE, jun., gave notice that at the next sessions he will move that the police force be increased to the extent of 12 second-class constables. It was also ordered, on the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., seconded by Mr. RODD,—that the sites for police stations at Menheniot and St. Cleer, be conveyed in fee to the Clerk of the Peace upon trust for the purposes of the 12th section of the 3 and 4 Victoria, cap. 86; and that the purchase money £40 and £30, for the same respectively be paid by the Treasurer of the county to the Vendors respectively. ESCAPE FROM THE ASYLUM.—Mr. GREGOR said he had been requested to ask an important question:—who is responsible for the safe custody of criminals confined in the Asylum. Lord VIVIAN was sorry the Chairman of the Asylum Committee (Mr. Kendall) was not present. But, being himself on that committee, when he heard of the case to which Mr. Gregor referred—the escape of a criminal lunatic named Lark, he made it a point to attend a special meeting of the committee. That special meeting was held yesterday. In answer to the question—who was responsible? he (Lord Vivian) had no hesitation in saying that the doctor of the asylum was responsible, and that he, no doubt, was neglectful in allowing that man to have such liberty as he had. The doctor represented at a meeting of the committee, at which he (Lord Vivian) was not present, that it was essential to the man's health that he should have the same indulgence as other patients; the committee accepted that suggestion and did allow that man to have greater liberty than, under the circumstances, he (Lord Vivian) thought was justifiable. The committee had instructed the doctor henceforth to be much more careful; he would not be allowed henceforth at any time to give a criminal lunatic leave to go without the walls of the asylum unless under special sanction of the committee for the time being. No doubt, in the present case the doctor alone was responsible. Mr. GREGOR said this man Lark was out for several hours, and, it appeared, was walking outside the walls with a woman. Lord VIVIAN said the committee yesterday inquired most minutely into the matter; and his lordship had no doubt that the reports which had reached Mr. Gregor's ears had been greatly exaggerated. The fact was, that there were 3 superintendents who had under their charge 43 patients—marching them out like a company of soldiers, but, of course, straggling about more than soldiers would. In this case there was no doubt that one of the superintendents (and the committee had punished him for it) did allow a woman to join this criminal patient, and she walked with him, but always within sight of the three superintendents. Although this was wrong on the part of the superintendent, the committee did not think his conduct was so blameable as that of the medical man who allowed the man to go out in that way. The man having since escaped, it was possible that he might have been furnished by the woman with an implement by which he effected his escape.—After some further remarks by Mr. GREGOR, Lord VIVIAN said the fault was rather with the Government than with the Asylum. The Asylum was for the treatment of lunatics; and criminal lunatics ought never to be committed to such an asylum. The Government was now remedying the defect, and was constructing a very large criminal asylum for the express purpose of receiving criminal lunatics. It was always within the power of magistrates to recommend to the Secretary of State that a criminal lunatic be removed to Bedlam; and in this case he had suggested to the committee that if the man be re-captured, he should be at once removed to Bedlam. Mr. GREGOR said it was most extraordinary to send this man to be confined in this asylum, from which he had previously escaped. Lord VIVIAN said he was told yesterday at the asylum that this was not the fact. Mr. HICKS (of the asylum) said the man had escaped once, before he was a criminal lunatic. Lord VIVIAN said this was denied to him yesterday at the asylum; and then after some further observations by Mr. GREGOR, Lord VIVIAN said the man escaped at night out of his sleeping cell; whether or not he was supplied with an implement for effecting his escape, by the woman he walked with, the committee did not know; it was a mere surmise on their part. Mr. LARK, brother of the escaped lunatic, (and for stabbing whose cattle he had been committed), said he was now put to great expense in watching his cattle and property, and he applied to the court for re- payment. The CHAIRMAN thought the whole matter was one rather for the Asylum Committee than for this court; and after some further conversation between Mr. Gregor and Lord Vivian, the subject dropped. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—An application having been made by Mr. Burt, late Inspector of Weights and Measures at Launceston, for payment of £1 8s. 3d. for cost of bringing down his standard weights and measures from Launceston to Bodmin, it was resolved that payment be postponed until a missing weight from Mr. Burt's lot be accounted for. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT.—The following Report from the Chief Constable was read:— My Lords and Gentlemen; I have the honour to lay before you the usual Quarterly Returns of crime in the county; also a Return showing the number and distribution of the constabulary. I have received a communication from Capt. Willis, the Government Inspector of Constabulary, stating that it is his intention to commence his inspection of the police of this county on Thursday, the 8th of July. BASIS FOR COUNTY RATING.—The County Rate Committee having, through Mr. E. COODE, jun., laid before this court their proposed basis or standard for a county rate (the same having been finally corrected and approved by the said committee on the 22nd day of June instant) it was ordered by the court that public notice be given, by advertisement, that such basis or standard will be taken into consideration at the next General Quarter Sessions. MILITIA STORES.—On the motion of Lord VIVIAN, a committee was appointed to take into consideration the erection, or renting for a term, of a militia store house, in compliance with the Act of Parliament; the committee to consist of Mr. Sawle, Mr. Norway, Col. Coryton, Mr. Gregor, Mr. Rodd, Mr. Howell, and Capt. Peard. ALTERATION OF PETTY SESSIONS.—On proof by the CLERK of the PEACE, of due publication of notice, it was ordered that the parish of Poundstock be removed from the Petty Sessional Division of to the Petty Sessional Division of Stratton. Mr. AVERY gave notice of application for the removal of the parish of St. Breward from the Petty Sessional Division of Washaway, in the Hundred of Trigg, to that of the Camelford in Lesnewth. TUESDAY, JUNE 29. REFORMATORIES.—The CHAIRMAN, after relating the provisions of several Acts of Parliament on the subject of reformatories, submitted a motion (which was agreed to nem. con.) that a notice, signed by five magistrates, be sent to the Clerk of the Peace, calling on this court at the next sessions, to adopt such resolution as shall be necessary for the purpose of putting this county in communication with one or more of the certified reformatories of the country; with a view (Mr. LETHBRIDGE explained) to some arrangement by which such reformatory or reformatories may take from this county 2 or 3 juvenile offenders annually. This court might then sentence such juvenile offenders to any short sentence of imprisonment, to which might be super-added the term in the reformatory. The required five signatures were readily offered, and several magistrates spoke approvingly of the object. Mr. PAYNTER, being applied to my Mr. BOLITHO for his opinion, said he had certainly visited a considerable number of reformatories; there could not be the slightest doubt that they were generally, the salvation of girls, and of great use in the case of boys. But he would say that sentences should never be for less than three months hard labour in the first instance, so that a boy might know what a prison was, and the difference between a prison and a reformatory; and then the term of confinement should not be less than three years.—There was a strong objection to reformatories—that by their means, there was given to the worthless sons of worthless parents a far better education than could be given, generally, to the sons of honest parents, and that too at the expense of those honest parents. That was an objection not easily met; but it was met, in some measure, by the fact that the boy so educated in the reformatory was sent out of the country. REGISTRATION.—The Court passed a bill, presented by the Clerk of the Peace, amounting to £40 7s. 5d. for expenses connected with the Registration of Voters. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. MARY ANN HARVEY, aged 22, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, as a servant, and after former conviction, a cloak, a dress, a pair of boots, and a petticoat, the property of William Peter, at , on the 10th of April. (Sentence: three years penal servitude) JOHN BOLITHO was charged with stealing pieces of timber, the property of Stephen Edwin Orchard, at Truro, on or about the 1st of January.—Mr. J. B. Collins conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Stephen Edwin Orchard deposed that he lived in Truro, and in the month of November last he pulled down some old premises there, and placed the timber in a yard near the Barley Sheaf Inn and the Mill-pool. Having missed several pieces, he applied to Mr. Nash, and under his instructions marked some scores of pieces with his initials, S. E. O. In April last he accompanied Police Serjeant Woolcock to the prisoner’s premises at Mill-place, close adjoining the Barley Sheaf yard, and found two of his marked pieces of timber used as door posts of prisoner’s piggery.—Cross-examined. Was quite sure he did not begin pulling down his old premises before the 1st November last, and the timber he missed was part of those premises; first missed some pieces in the middle of January. (Two pieces of timber being produced by Serjeant Woolcock, they were identified by the prosecutor, who pointed out his initials on them, but on one of the pieces the letters were very faint and indistinct).—Serjeant Woolcock, stated that his search of the prisoner’s premises with the prosecutor was on the 9th of April, and that before the posts were discovered, the prosecutor described the marks that would be found on timber of his. The prisoner when in custody at the Police Station, said he bought the two posts at the Railway Station.—Elizabeth Snell stated that she lived with her husband who quartered at the Barley-sheaf. About 12 o’clock at night, in January last, she saw a man go out of the Barley-sheaf yard into Mill-place with two beams on his shoulder.—Mr. STOKES addressed the jury for the defence, and called Hamley Inch, who deposed that he worked on the West Cornwall Railway, and had done so for many years. On the 7th of October last, witness built a pig’s house for the prisoner at Mill Place; the roof rested on these two pieces of timber now produced. Saw the building again in December, and there was no appearance of any change, either in the door-posts or in any other respect. Knew that it was the 7th of October when he built the pig’s house, because that was the Indian Fast Day, and as there was no work on the Railway, he did this little job for Bolitho. Would swear that the two pieces of timber now produced were the same as used by him in that building on the 7th of October. Cross-examined. Thought the pieces had been used as railway sleepers. Some 12 months ago, or rather better, the railway company sold about a thousand sleepers.—By request of a juror, the prosecutor was recalled and wrote his initials in court with pencil; he also stated, in reply to a question from a juror, through the Court, that he had not marked any of his timber previous to November.—The Jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. MARY ARCHER, 30; JOHN FENNING, 44; MILES HOAY, 27; and JOHN BOLLIVER, 32, were charged with stealing, on the 27th of May, at Truro, a gold watch, the property of James Veale, from his person.—A second count charged felonious receiving.—Mary Archer pleaded guilty.—The men pleaded not guilty; and Mr. STOKES, for the prosecution, addressing the Court, said he had no evidence to offer further than appeared on the depositions; and on these the CHAIRMAN said there was no case against any of the prisoners except Mary Archer, and it would be occupying the time of the court unnecessarily to receive evidence that must result in acquittal.—The jury, consequently, gave a verdict, as against the three men, of not guilty. (Sentence: Mary ARCHER –six months hard labour) MARY ARCHER, JOHN FENNING, MILES HOAY, and JOHN BOLLIVER were then severally charged with stealing, (and in a second count with feloniously receiving) two Brazilian gold coins, the property of William Jenkin, from the person of Mary Ann Jenkin, at Truro, on the 26th of May.—In this case also, Mr. STOKES for the prosecution, offered no evidence; satisfied, as the Court was, that the only evidence, that which appeared on the depositions, must result in acquittal.—Verdict, Not Guilty. PHILEMON ROW, 32, blacksmith, was charged with stealing 75lbs. of steel, the property of his employers, Henry Lambe and Rebecca Martin, at St. Stephens in Branwell, on the 15th of May.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Robert Bullock, an agent in the employ of the prosecutors, at Clay work, stated that on the 12th of May there was delivered at the smith’s shop, 5 cwt. 2 qrs. 16lbs. of steel. The key of the shop was kept in witness’s house. On Saturday, the 15th of May, he was in the shop in the evening, and at that time everything was right there. On Sunday morning, in consequence of what he had heard he went to the smith’s shop and found that a part of a window had been broken open, large enough for a man to pass through; he fastened up the window with nails and left it in the same state till the Monday, when he found the house in the same condition, and on weighing the steel, found it was 50 lbs. short. About one o’clock on Monday saw the prisoner, and he said it was a bad job. Before that, when, in his presence, the steel was weighed and found wanting, prisoners said it was not him that done it—he wished his arm might drop off if it was. He afterwards said he went to St. Dennis and got drunk, and coming back he went into the shop, but did not know how long he stopped there.—James Crowle, who had worked at the prosecutor’s clay-works with the prisoner, stated that on Sunday evening the 16th May, the prisoner came to him at his house, said he had taken, the night before, two or three bars of steel from the shop at the Treviskey Clay-works and had thrown them into Tellam’s pool, and he wished witness to go and take them out of the pool and take them back to the shop and make all right. On Monday morning about 3 o’clock witness went to the pool, found one bar of steel and carried it back to the prosecutors’ shop, and put it in at the back window, as prisoner had told him to do.—James Bennetto, a blacksmith living at St. Dennis, knew the prisoner. In the evening of Saturday the 15th May, prisoner came to his house and wanted him to buy some steel, which he said he had bought reasonable. He said it was at Restarrick Downs; and witness went with him towards that place with a horse and cart; and on getting near Slip gate, an entrance to Treviskey Clay-works, prisoner jumped off the cart and, saying he would be back in five minutes, went away down the road towards the clay-works; and witness, as the steel was not there where he expected, turned about and went home, without getting any steel, and did not see any thing more of Row.—Benjamin Drew Julian, a clay agent living at St. Austell, and a brother of Mrs. Martin, stated that on the 25th of May the prisoner came to him, and asked him to go to Mr. William Martin, son of the prosecutrix, and try to get him to take him back again to work, as he was very sorry for what he had done, and that this was the first time. Prisoner said he had been at St. Dennis and got tipsy, and he believed the “old fellow” had hold of him, and he broke into the shop at a little window, and dropped the steel into Tellam’s pool; that he believed he was mad—that he went home and told his wife of it, and the first thing he did was to go to Crowle and ask him to take the steel back again to the shop. Some confirmatory evidence was given by Thomas Bullock who lives in the parish of St. Stephens; after which, Mr. STOKES addressed the jury, admitting the offence, and calling evidence to prisoner’s previous good character for honesty. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy; in which recommendation, the prosecutors, through Mr. Childs, joined. (Sentence: two months hard labour) The Chairman then resigned the chair to JOHN JOPE ROGERS, Esq., who proceeded with the trial of the following cases:— JOHN PERRY, 44, colt trainer, was charged with stealing a saddle, two stirrups, and two girths, the property of Joseph Thomas. Mr. COMMINS called the prosecutor, who stated that he is a farmer of the parish of Constantine. On the 28th of May he was at Redruth, and left his horse in the charge of the ostler at the Buller’s Arms, kept by Mr. Trevena. This was between nine and ten in the morning, and he went on to Penzance. He returned by the half-past seven train in the evening, went to Mr. Trevena’s, and ordered his horse about eight o’clock. He saw the ostler walking across the yard with a pair of stirrups and stirrup-leathers detached from the saddle. He saw they were his, and followed the ostler into the stable, when he found a saddle on his horse which did not belong to him. He went to speak to Mr. Trevena about it, and whilst they were in the yard together, the ostler returned with a policeman. Prosecutor’s saddle and girths were afterwards produced to him. Henry Everley, ostler at the Buller’s Arms, said Mr. Thomas, on the 28th of May, when he went to Penzance, left his horse, bridge, and saddle in witness’s charge. Witness took off the bridle and saddle, and hitched up behind the horse, and when Mr. Thomas returned in the evening, he thought he should find them there, but about 8 o’clock in the evening, on taking down the saddle he found no stirrups attached to it. Between 3 and 4 in the afternoon, the prisoner, John Perry, came to him, and handed him a pair of stirrups. He asked where they were, and Perry said, “Never mind, I give them to you to save them up, as a gentleman will call for them.” When Mr. Thomas said the stirrups were his, but not the saddle or girths, witness said Perry delivered to him the stirrups, and he must have the saddle. He then went for the police. Perry left the yard about seven in the evening; he was there several times in the afternoon, and during the day. There were eight horses in the stable, but Mr. Thomas’s was the only saddle horse; the others were all harness horses.—Henry Coomb, police-sergeant at Redruth, received information from last witness, and went to search for prisoner in the night; found him, at four o’clock in the morning, sleeping in a hayloft at the King’s Head, Redruth. Before that saw a colt in the yard with a saddle and bridle upon it, and a horse-cloth. When the prisoner came down from the loft, he said he saw the colt was all right. Witness told him he was charged with stealing a saddle, stirrups, and girths from Mr. Thomas. Prisoner said, it is a bad job, and he admitted the saddle was not his. Witness took possession of the saddle, girths, and stirrups, and he now produced them, and the prosecutor identified them as his property. In his defence prisoner said he did not put Mr. Thomas’s saddle on the colt; his own saddle was on the colt when he put it into the stable at the Buller’s Arms, where the colt was for six or seven hours, and he rode off afterwards without seeing that he had not his saddle; there were many people going into the stable in the day.—The ostler was recalled and questioned by the court, and said he did not know that the colt was unsaddled; it was in the next stall to Mr. Thomas’s. Verdict, GUILTY. A former conviction was proved against the prisoner in 1847, when he was sentenced to Three Months’ Hard Labour for stealing a jacket. (Sentence: twelve months hard labour) MARY GWYNN, 27, was charged with stealing a sovereign, the property of John Symons, at Redruth. Mr. CHILDS for the prosecution; Mr. STOKES for the defence. Prosecutor stated that he is a carpenter at . On Friday the 11th of June he was at Redruth; met the prisoner between nine and ten in the evening; they went to a public-house, and afterwards to another public-house together. They then took a walk, and prosecutor (who was strictly cross-examined by Mr. Stokes), described where they were, and denied that he gave prisoner any money, but said she put her arm round him and robbed him. He said he had only drank two or three points of porter during the day. When he found she had robbed him, he took her to the police. He felt the sovereign in his waistcoat pocket about 10 minutes before; he had not seen it since he left Hayle station in the morning.—Henry Coomb, police sergeant, said prosecutor was a little “sprung”, but sober enough to know what he was about; prisoner was also a little “sprung” when prosecutor brought her to him. Witness told her she was charged with stealing a sovereign; she began to cry and said, “I’m ruined, I’m ruined.” She said she had only 2½d., no gold or silver; but afterwards turned out fourpence, some nuts, and a sovereign. Before the magistrates next day, she said prosecutor had given her a shilling. The defence was, that the prosecutor had given the woman a sovereign, intending it for a shilling, and that his testimony to the contrary was not to be believed under the circumstances, and being uncorroborated.—The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. SAMUEL POOLEY, 27, labourer, was charged on the calendar with stealing a half-sovereign and a half- crown, the property of Mr. Joseph Newton, at St. Germans, on the 28th April. Joseph Newton failed to appear. He was called three times by the crier of the court, and not answering, his recognizances were estreated. The Court then rose. SECOND COURT (Before C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq.) MARGARET PEARN, 17, a servant, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of shoes and a bonnet from her mistress, Mary Searle, at , on the 2nd of May. (Sentence: four months hard labour) After waiting some time for more bills, the Court adjourned. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29. (Before C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq.) RICHARD JAMES, 26, miner, was charged with stealing a horse value £12, the property of Edward James, at , on the 3rd of June. Mr. Stokes for prosecution; Mr. Childs for defence.— Edward James, the prosecutor, deposed:—I live in the parish of Perranzabuloe, and on the 1st of June I had a horse on Goonavern Moors, and missed it on the 3rd of June. The prisoner is my brother, and lives with my mother, next door to me. In consequence of some information I received, I went to St. Just in , to a man called William Oatey, and found my horse in his possession. It is my own horse, and I bred it; and my brother has no property in it; I never allowed him to ride or use it, and I did not authorize him to take the horse to Penzance.—William Oatey:—I live at St. Just in Penwith. On the 3rd of June, Penzance fair day, I was at Penzance, and saw the prisoner there; he had a small horse with him, which he was offering for sale; I asked him the price, and he said £6; I afterwards bought it for £5, and asked the prisoner’s name; he said his name was Richard James of Perranzabuloe; I took the horse home to St. Just, and on the 8th of June the prosecutor came to me with a police constable and claimed the horse, and the policeman took possession of it.—Cross-examined. I should think £5 was a fair price for the horse. When the prosecutor came to me he said his name was Edward James; I said the man who sold the horse to me was called Richard James, and I should think that he was of the same family or some relation; and Edward James said “No, I am not; but we are near neighbours.” (The prosecutor, in cross-examination, had denied that he said this; and stated that he did not say anything about himself and Richard James being brothers, but only that he (prosecutor) was called Edward James, and the other Richard James).—Joseph Warne, police constable, who went with prosecutor to Oatey’s, confirmed a portion of his evidence. In defence, Mr. CHILDS, after strongly commenting on the prosecution of brother by brother under any circumstances, urged that the prosecutor was unworthy of credit because of his having to Oates denied his relationship to the prisoner. Mr. Childs also spoke of the hardship of the law by which statements of prisoners in defence are excluded from evidence, and hoped the time would soon come when such statements would be made admissible. His statement, as received from the prisoner, was that he had an interest in the horse, having bought an interest in it for 10s. when it was a colt, and on his return from , where he had been working as a miner, he seized and sold the horse by way of assertion of his supposed right; and he (Mr. Childs) contended that the prisoner’s conduct in selling the horse was consistent with honesty and inconsistent with a felonious intent.— Verdict; GUILTY.—A former conviction was proved against the prisoner; at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions in 1853, he was convicted and sentenced to 4 months hard labour for stealing articles of clothing from John Nicholls, of Newlyn. (Sentence: three years penal servitude) SAMUEL CURNOW, 63, carpenter, pleaded guilty of stealing a sash plane, the property of at St. Erth, on the 5th day of May. (Sentence: two months hard labour) THOMAS SAYER, 15, pleaded guilty of stealing a pair of stirrup irons, the property of Abel Hicks, at Castlewich farm, on the 6th of May.—He also pleaded guilty to another indictment, charging him with stealing a jug, an accordion, two pasties, and some cake and butter, from the dwelling-house of John Letcher, at Callington, on the 6th of May. (Sentence: three months hard labour) JOHN PASCOE pleaded guilty of stealing certain monies, the property of James Saunders, from the person of William Henry Carter, at , on the 23rd of June.—He also pleaded guilty of stealing certain monies and a knife, the property of William Henry Carter, from the person of the said William Henry Carter. (Sentence: one month imprisonment; to be once privately whipped) MATTHEW TYACKE, 49, was charged with stealing a watch, value £5, the property of Fidelis Berenger and Jacob Schwerer, at Gwennap, on the 3rd of April.—Mr. T. Commins conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Joseph Pfaff, a German, deposed; I am a traveller in the employ of Berenger and Schwerer, watch-makers, of Redruth. The prisoner lives at near St. Day, and rather more than two months ago I went to his house intending to sell him a watch; he asked me to meet him at Grenfell’s public-house, and I was there on Saturday the 3rd of April. The prisoner, his wife and son, and about 20 other people were there. I showed him my watches, placing them on a table before him, his wife and son being at the head of the table. There were 14 watches. The prisoner asked me about a five-guinea watch whether it was a Geneva watch; I told him it was an English lever, and took it up. At that time his son bought a 9s. watch of me, and my attention was called off from the father. The prisoner did not hand back the watch to me, and in about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes afterwards, I found it missing. I have never seen the watch since the prisoner took it up. Afterwards the prisoner bought the 34s. watch that he had spoken about the day before at his house. It was some time after that, when a person wanted to change for a Geneva watch, that I missed the five-guinea English lever; I said I had missed it, and the prisoner said he had handed it back to me. Shortly afterwards the prisoner left, and on his way I overtook him, and told him he had better give up the watch, and that either he must have taken it, or must know who had it. He said he was very sorry that he should have called me to the house and that I should have lost a watch; and he said too that he had £5 in his pocket and would rather pay £5 than that I should lose my watch. I was afterwards with the inspector of police when he went to prisoner’s house; the policeman charged him with stealing a watch, and he said the policeman was very welcome to search his house. Mr. Schwerer was present, and the prisoner said to him that he would rather pay for the watch than go with the policeman; the policeman said he could not take any money.—Cross-examined: The prisoner is a married man with several children. When I opened my watches on the table, I did not count them; there were about 14. I was in a business state at the time; I was not tipsy; I had had two or three glasses of sheneegrim (laughter)—a mixture of beer, sugar, and spirit; and two glasses of grog; and was having a pint of beer when I missed my watch. I told Mr. Grenfell, the landlord, about the watch, but he walked about and did not take much notice; I did not tell the landlord that I had missed the watch somewhere, but did not condemn any one in the room about it.—William Coombe, policeman; about half-past 7 in the evening of Saturday the 3rd of April Mr. Pfaff came to me and told me he had lost a watch; I went to the room where it was said the watch had been lost, and searched, but could not find any thing. On the following Monday I went with Pfaff and Mr. Schwerer to the prisoner’s house; and, after I had searched the house, the prisoner said he would rather pay any money than be taken away from his wife and family.—Cross-examined. The prisoner said he was getting good wages where he was working, and he should lose a good deal if he was taken away.— For the defence, Mr. STOKES addressed the Jury on the uncertainty of the evidence given by Pfaff, and called the following witnesses.—Thomas Pearce, a miner, aged 22 years:—I was at Grenfell’s public- house when Pfaff brought the watches there; I was sitting at the same table with prisoner, his wife and son, and a miner called Richard Webber. There was a number of people in the house; it was pay-day at United and Clifford, and the miners came to Grenfell’s to change their money. I was present when Pfaff came in; he took out of his bag three watches—a 10s., a 30s., and a 35s. one. The 10s. one was bought by prisoner’s son for 9s.; and for the 35s. one, the prisoner agreed to give 34s. The 30s. one Pfaff took over to the other table and changed with Dicky Jackson. These were all the watches that Pfaff put out on the table; but he sold some guard-chains at the other table. About an hour or more afterwards, I heard Pfaff tell Mr. Grenfell that he had lost a five-guinea watch. Mr. Grenfell asked him if he had missed it there; and he said he was not sure whether he had lost it there, or before he came into the house. Mr. Grenfell said “if you think you have lost it here, send for a policeman, and I will have every person searched before they leave the house.” Plaintiff said “I don’t condemn any person here.” He then said no more about it, but went on selling guard-chains and drinking beer.—Cross-examined: I did not see the prisoner take any watch from the table all the time I was there.—Richard Grenfell, innkeeper at St. Day. I remember the day when Pfaff came to my house with watches; it was pay-day at United Mines and Clifford. In the afternoon, I saw prisoner and his family sitting at the long table against the wall; there were many more beside at that table, and there were many men at another table near the window. As I was picking up empties, I took up a pint in which was some beer, and one of the young men said it belonged to the Jew (meaning Pfaff). I turned to him and asked if it was his, and he said it was; and then he said he had missed a watch. I asked him if he thought he had missed it there. He said he did not know whether he had missed it there, or before he came there. I offered to send for the police, to search all who were there; but he would not do it—he did not pay any attention to me. He remained there an hour afterwards, and the prisoner remained long after Pfaff had left. I have known the prisoner 15 years; I know he had a bargain on tribute at that time in the United Mines, and if he had been sent up here, he would have lost his wages; it was a good take, I never heard any thing against the prisoner in my life; and I don’t believe any one else ever did.—Thomas Jones, a carrier living at St. Day, who lived in the same village with prisoner, and had known him 17 years, also gave him a good character for honesty. The CHAIRMAN summed up, and the Jury immediately returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The Jury were then discharged. ( Before J. K. Lethbridge, Esq. ) JOHN WELLINGTON, 35 engine-driver, was charged with stealing from the dwelling-house of John Holme, at St. Blazey, on the 25th of April, one pair of drawers, two shirts, two collars, two pair of trousers, four pair of stockings, a coat, vest, necktie, wrapper, a “church service,” and about 13 yards of black Cobourg cloth. The prisoner pleaded GUILTY. (Sentence: eight months hard labour) HENRY ALLEN, was charged, after a former conviction, with stealing, on the 15th of April, three fowls, the property of Richard Congdon. In a second indictment the prisoner was charged with stealing, on the 2nd of April, two fowls the property of Antony Barrett; and in a third indictment the prisoner was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Joseph Physick, and stealing a pair of trousers and a pair of boots. The prisoner pleaded GUILTY to each of these indictments. (Sentence: four years penal servitude) FOWL STEALING—WILLIAM SCOBLE, 22, labourer, was charged with stealing 15 fowls, the property of Tomas Smale Skinner, of the parish of Falmouth. Mr. COMMINS conducted the prosecution. Mary Ann Skinner, servant to prosecutor, said her master has a fowl-house in a field in the parish of Falmouth. On the 22nd of April, about seven in the evening, she locked the fowl-house door, there being then 18 fowls in the house. At seven o’clock the next morning, 15 of the fowls were missing, and two were in the field. She found that the staple of the fowl-house door had been broken on one side and drawn on the other. John Pollard accompanied last witness to the fowl house on the morning of the 33rd, when the fowls were missed. Witness saw a book on the ground, and picked it up. Thomas Rogers, blacksmith, saw prisoner at half-past four in the morning of the 23rd about 100 yards from prosecutor’s premises; he had a bag on his back, about two-thirds full, and was coming from the direction of Mr. Skinner’s premises. Thomas Prater, policeman at the borough of Falmouth, took prisoner into custody on the morning of April 23rd. In the evening prisoner said to witness, I was in at Mr. Lewis’s about a week ago, and she asked me if I could not get some fowls. I said I did not know whether I could or not. She said she had been in the habit of buying such a thing, and giving a shilling each. That morning I brought the fowls and put them inside Mrs. Lewis’s window. I went again at breakfast time and asked Mr. Lewis if he had seen what was in the higher room; he said 15 fowls. Mrs. Lewis then came down stairs and said, I think Scoble, they are too many for me, I don’t know what to do with them, I have very few lodgers at present (she keeps a sailors’ board and lodging house.) She said if she had more lodgers she would gladly take the whole; she said, Scoble, let them alone till the evening, and I will try what I can do; she said, don’t you come too often, it will lead to suspicion; when you come in, bring a bushel of coal, and parties will think it is all right.—George Julyan, police superintendent at Falmouth, received a book from prosecutor on the morning of the 23rd April; made inquiries of the only person in the town who sold that book, and caused prisoner to be apprehended. Received some information from Lewis, and in consequence went to Lewis’s house and found a bag there containing 15 fowls. Witness produced one of the fowls which was identified by prosecutor, being a peculiar sort of fancy fowl. The Chairman, in summing up, said from the evidence given, he thought some steps should have been taken against Lewis. Verdict, GUILTY. (We are informed that Mr. and Mrs. Lewis were charged before the magistrates at Falmouth, but the case failed for want of evidence. Prisoner denied when before the magistrates, that he had made the statement to Prater. (Sentence: six months hard labour) UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN.—THOMAS BRAY, 55, tailor, and ANN SMITH, 59, hawker, were indicted for uttering two counterfeit half sovereigns to Charles Vivian Harris and Joseph Stephens. Mr. FROST conducted the prosecution. Charles Vivian Harris stated that he is a butcher at Tywardreath, and had a stall at St. Blazey market on the 29th of May. Between ten and eleven at night, the prisoner Thomas Bray came to his stall and purchased 4½lbs. of beef, for which he tendered a half sovereign. Witness threw it on the stall to ring, and then put it between his teeth and found it was soft. He told prisoner it was a bad one; prisoner said it was not. He said he lived at Par and worked at the Foundry at St. Blazey, and that his name was Clements. Witness gave him a charge to policeman Rodda.—William Rodda, police constable, said when he was taking Bray to the lock-up he said, I shall hardly be hung for this, but they will perhaps give me three or four months. (Prisoner here denied that he said anything about three or four months). Joseph Stephens, butcher at Lostwithiel, attended St. Blazey market on the 29th of May; in the evening the female prisoner came to his stall to buy meat; the meat came to 15d., she tendered a half-sovereign, and witness gave her 8s. 9d. change. On the next day he took out his purse, and found a bad half-sovereign in it; he did not take any half-sovereign besides the one given him by the female prisoner.—Joseph Bawden, policeman at Lostwithiel, between twelve and one o’clock on Sunday morning the 30th of May, saw the female knocking at Crapp’s lodging-house door at Lostwithiel. Had seen her in company with the male prisoner during the week. He asked her where her husband was; she said she had left him on the Liskeard road drunk. When she was afterwards taken into custody she said her name was Ann Smith, and that she had lodged with Bray. When searched she had between 2 and 3 lbs. of meat on her person; she said she had bought it of a butcher at Lostwithiel.—John Knight had meat for sale at St. Blazey market on the 22nd of May. Between ten and eleven at night, the male prisoner bought 6 lbs of beef at his stall; prisoner tendered a sovereign, and witness gave him the change. He put the sovereign into his pocket; had other gold there, and afterwards found a bad sovereign amongst it.—John Crowle said his father is a butcher in St. Austell; at the market on Friday, May 21st, prisoner Bray bought 7 lbs. of beef at his father’s stall, and tendered a bad sovereign. His father took away the beef and threatened to give him into custody.—Charles Trevaile, butcher, was at St. Blazey market on the 29th of May; about ten o’clock at night, the female prisoner bought between 3 lbs. and 4 lbs. of meat at witness’s stall, and paid with a half-sovereign. Witness put it in his purse; he had seven or eight other half-sovereigns in his purse, and afterwards found a bad one amongst them; he could not swear that he received it from the prisoner. —John Powell Crapp keeps a beerhouse at Lostwithiel, and takes lodgers. The two prisoners lodged at his house, had one bedroom, and took their meals together. He thought they were man and wife. The prisoners were found guilty on the first count, for uttering base coin more than once the same day. (Sentences: each six months hard labour) The jury were then discharged, and the Court proceeded with the cases of breach of the peace. ELIZA GORDON, an old Scotchwoman, stated on the calendar to be 85 years of age, had been remanded from the last sessions for want of sureties to be of good behaviour. Mr. EVEREST said she had been 38 times in prison; they could not keep her in any union, she would be drunk again in an hour if at liberty. The old woman said it was the “toddy” that had brought her there, but if they would let her go this time, she would go to the Scotch society at Bristol. The CHAIRMAN advised her to abstain from “toddy,” and said the Court would now discharge her, trusting that she would not appear there again. SARAH MENEAR, a young woman, had been committed for a breach towards her husband, Jos. Menear, at St. Austell. The husband appeared, and said he was still afraid of his wife; she had thrown a knife at him and cut his head; they had been married twelve months next July.—The wife denied that she had thrown the knife at him; there was a scuffle and he cut his head; he was often getting drunk at public houses, and going out with other women; he had been many times with a servant at a public house. The husband said this statement was untrue; she had once threatened to cut his throat with a razor; he was obliged to carry the razor to the “bal” for five weeks, fearing she would do it. In reply to the Chairman, the wife said since she had been charged with assault she had been living separate from her husband, who allowed her 3s. 6d. a week; he used to get drunk and go to the wrestling. The CHAIRMAN advised the parties to make up their differences, and live together again. The husband said he never would; he was not half as bad as she was. The CHAIRMAN thought the husband was also to blame. He then discharged the prisoner, and said if her husband did not keep up the pay of 3s. 6d. a week, she must apply to the authorities. JAMES ROBERTS, 42, stone-cutter, had been committed for want of sureties to be of good behaviour. He promised not to indulge in drink for the future, and was discharged. BILL IGNORED. The Grand Jury ignored the bill against Jane Ellis, charged with stealing £3 7s, from Henry Lory, at , on the 12th of June. APPEALS.—WILLIAM DUNGEY, appellant; MARIA TRUSCOTT, respondent. Mr. STOKES appeared for the appellant, and Mr. CHILDS for the respondent. This was an appeal against an order made at the Ruan Highlanes Petty Sessions, by Mr. Gregor and the Rev. S. Symonds, magistrates, by which William Dungey, of the parish of Creed, was adjudged to pay 2s. a week for the maintenance of the illegitimate child of Maria Truscott. Evidence was given on both sides, and the Court confirmed the order; costs £5. This concluded the business of the sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 6th August 1858

5. Lammas Assizes These Assizes were opened on Saturday the 31st ult.; the Judges being the Hon. Sir William Henry Watson, Knt., and the Hon. Sir William Fry Channell, Knt., Barons of the Court of Exchequer. The High Sheriff is John Francis Buller, Esq., of Morval; the Under Sheriff, Humphry Millett Grylls, Esq., of Liskeard, and the County Clerk, Charles Roberts Esq.—The learned Judges left Exeter on Saturday morning, the Devon Assizes having been concluded the previous evening. About half past 7 o'clock on Saturday evening, Baron Channell arrived at Bodmin, being escorted into the Town and immediately to the Crown Court, by the High Sheriff, and his official retinue; and the various commissions for holding the assizes were opened and read, and the Sheriff’s precepts returned, with due formality. [….] CROWN COURT. This court was opened at 11 o'clock, before Baron Watson. The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury:— Hon. George Matthew Fortescue, foreman. Thomas James Agar Robartes, Esq. Nicholas Kendall, Esq. Richard Davey, Esq. John St. Aubyn, Esq. Charles Brune Graves Sawle, Esq. Augustus Coryton, Esq. Francis Glanville, Esq. Francis Rodd, Esq. Charles Glynn Prideaux Brune, Esq. William Williams, Esq. Francis Howell, Esq. Samuel Borlase, Esq. Richard Henry Stackhouse Vyvyan, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. Edward Coode, jun., Esq. James Bryant Messenger, Esq. David William Hext John Horndon, Esq. William Morshead, Esq. Francis John Hext, Esq. Harry Reginald Salusbury Trelawny, Esq. John Borlase, Esq. John Batten, Esq. The following magistrates also answered to their names:— Hon. and Rev. John Townshend Boscawen. Reginald Kelly, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. John Whitehead Peard, Esq. Charles Andrew Reynolds, Esq. William Sloggett Rosevear, Esq. Hender John Molesworth St. Aubyn, Esq. James Glencross, clerk. Samuel Symons, clerk. John James Wilkinson, clerk. The Mayors for the various boroughs, and the Coroners for the County having been called, Mr. Sydney Gurney, the Clerk of Assize, read the Queen's Proclamation for the encouragement of virtue and for the prevention and punishment of vice and immorality. The learned JUDGE then delivered the following Charge to the Grand Jury. [not transcribed] The Grand Jury then retired; and, after some time, returned a few bills; but several times in the early part of the day, complained that they were not supplied with sufficient promptitude; and the Judge threatened to disallow expenses if such cause for complaint continued. GEORGE HARDING, 39, was indicted for feloniously obtaining by false pretences from Thomas Cory, at Launceston, a quart of beer, with intent thereby to defraud, on the 28th of June. He was also charged with having, on the same day, unlawfully obtained by false pretences, from Mary May, the sum of thirty shillings, with intent to defraud.—Mr. Oxnam conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Thomas Cory, innkeeper of Launceston, deposed:—On the morning of the 28th of June I saw prisoner at my house; he said he had come with an order from his master to have a quart of beer, as he had been assisting his master to take some cattle on to Menheniot Fair; he had a pair of sheep- shears in his hand and said his master had sent him back to examine the sheep and have a quart of beer. I knew that he was living in the service of Mr. Buckler, who is a farmer and cattle dealer; he was at my house on the Saturday night before, with his master, and he said his master had sent him to know whether on the Saturday night, he (the master) had his change against a half-sovereign, as he fancied he had not. On that I let him have two pints of beer and he said his master would call the next Saturday night and pay for it.—Mary May. I am the wife of Charles May and live at Launceston: on the 28th of June the prisoner called at my house, and, after speaking to me about some pigs, he said "Have you some money left here for my master?” I said "Yes". He said that I was to pay the money to him. I hesitated, and said "I dont know whether l am safe in paying the money to you or not." He said "you are safer in paying the money to me than to master, for he is always drunk.” He then said he had to make haste, for he had to go to North Petherwyn to receive 35s. more. I then paid him the money—a sovereign and 10s. in silver.—Jane May (a little girl) daughter of last witness, corroborated her evidence, having been present at the conversation with prisoner.—William Buckler: I live in the parish of Launceston, and the prisoner was in my employ, and on the 28th of June he helped me about some cattle. l did not authorize him to get any beer any where; I did not ever send him to Mrs. May about my money, and I never gave him orders to go to North Petherwyn for money. It is not part of his duty to receive money for me, and I have never given him authority to do so.—After the learned JUDGE had summed up, the Foreman of the jury asked the question whether the master had, or had not received the money?—On this the master was recalled and stated that he had not received the money.—The prisoner was found GUILTY on both indictments; and was sentenced to two calendar months hard labour. JOHN GENDALL, 18, pleaded GUILTY of burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of John Maddern, at on the 24th of May, and stealing a wood box, 2 lbs. of tobacco, and £2 in money, the property of the said John Maddern.—Sentence, four months hard labour. GEORGE SMITH, 23, a soldier, was indicted for burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Philip Protheroe Smith, Esq., at Truro, on the 12th July, and stealing seven loaves of bread, a quantity of meat, and a basket, the property of the said Philip Protheroe Smith. The prisoner pleaded GUILTY, and was sentenced to six weeks hard labour. In passing sentence, the learned Judge said he was sorry to see prisoners at the bar wearing the uniform of Her Majesty's army. There were, however, some circumstances in his favour, and particularly that he did not take away some articles of considerable value, which he had the opportunity of taking. His Lordship hoped this would be the last time he would ever be guilty of any such offence. WILLIAM WALSH, 20, a seaman, was charged with stealing a cloth coat, cloth trousers, cloth waistcoat, a Guernsey frock(?), two shirts, two prints, one neck-tie, and one pocket-handkerchief, the property of James Carter, at lllogan, on the ?-- July.—A second count charged felonious receiving of the goods.—The prisoner pleaded GUILTY, and was sentenced to two months hard labour. THOMAS HICKS, 17, labourer, was charged with stealing a duck, the property of John Clemoes, at Endellion, on the 7th July. Mr. Mouldsworth conducted the prosecution; Mr. ?---- defended the prisoner.—John Clemoes, the prosecutor, deposed that he was a farmer living at Trecreage, in the parish of Endellion, and also occupied a farm about two miles distant in the parish of St. Minver. He had 8 ducks removed from his farm in St. Minver, to Trecreage ; on the 7th July, seven of them strayed, and only six of them were brought back to him: the one that he did not get back was lame.—?--- Rendall, a farmer living in St. Minver, on the 7th July was travelling with his servant in a cart to see his friend(?), the prosecutor, at Trecreage. As he was going along the road and about 1¼ mile from Trecreage, he saw prisoner, and gave him a lift in the cart. After riding on about half a mile towards Trecreage, they saw a drake lying by the road-side and witness said to his servant (and the prisoner heard him) “there’s a duck there, either wounded or tired." After this(?), prisoner went on about 50 or 60 paces, and then jumped down, saying he must go into a field after a donkey. Witness and his man went on to Trecreage, and gave information of what they had seen. Witness then returned, across some fields(?) to the place in the road where he had seen the drake some minutes before, but found that the drake was gone. Afterwards saw the drake at the office of Mr. Symons, clerk to the committing magistrate.—William Lamerton, police constable at Endellion, went to the prisoner's house about 12 o’clock at night of the 7th of July; prisoner lived about half a mile from Endellion Church-town. At the house, saw the prisoner and his wife, and told the prisoner that he was suspected of having a duck in his possession. He said he had no duck in the house. Witness asked him if he was willing for him to search the house. Prisoner said, "not to-night; you can search tomorrow morning, if you like” (laughter). Prisoner afterwards said he had not got the duck in his house, but he knew where it was, and that it was just out at the back, and “if you go round at the back, I will go through the house". Witness having a brother constable placed at the back(?), refused to go round, but went through the house with prisoner. When they came to the back door, prisoner walked (?) outside to a spot where he said the duck could be ?--. Witness went and looked and saw there was no duck and, turning round, he looked into the back kitchen and saw a duck on the floor; upon which he took charge of the duck and apprehended the prisoner.—The drake being produced was identified by the prosecutor.—Verdict, GUILTY.—Sentence, one month’s hard labour.— There was another indictment against the prisoner, for stealing four geese, the property of Edward(?) Williams, at Endellion, on or about the 12th of July; this charge was not tried. JOHN MACDONALD, 21, a seaman, was charged with stealing a pair of trousers and a Guernsey frock, the property of George Radford, at the parish of Falmouth, on the 20th of July.—Mr. Cox conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Mary Radford, a lodging-house keeper, at Falmouth, stated that on the 20th of July the prisoner was lodging at her house. At that time she had in her house, in charge of a little boy, a bundle containing a pair of pilot trowsers and a new knitted frock, tied up in the boy's bag. About half-past 9 in the evening of the 20th of July, she missed the bag(?), the prisoner having been in the room where the boy slept during the afternoon. She saw him come down stairs with his oil coat on, and looking very large under the arm.—Francis Anglesey, who keeps an outfitting shop in Falmouth, remembered the prisoner coming there between 9 and 10 o’clock at night, with a frock which he asked witness to buy; witness gave him 3s. for it.—Loveday Paddon, living at Falmouth, deposed that on the 20th of July, prisoner came to her and said, “mother, would you be kind enough to do me a favour: will you sell a pair of trowsers for me?" He gave her a pair of trowsers which she pawned at Mrs. Owen's, for ?--, and gave the money and the ticket to the prisoner.—Emma ?---, pawn-broker, proved that she received the trowsers in ?-- from the last witness, and gave them to the policeman.—William Hichens, the policeman, apprehended the prisoner on the 20th July, and on the same day received the trowsers from last witness, and the knitted frock from Anglesey. Witness produced the articles, which were identified, generally by Mrs. Radford.—The prisoner's statement before the committing magistrates was:—“I don't know anything about it; I was in liquor;” and the prisoner now made a similar statement to the jury.—Verdict, GUILTY. Sentence, Two Months Hard Labour. WILLIAM PHILIP AVER, 13, labourer, and WILLIAM , 21, miner, were charged with burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Mary Ann Blight of St. Agnes, on the 5th of July, and stealing £2 10s. in silver coin of the realm, two metal seals, an American silver coin called a half-dime, and a Mexican silver coin.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stock defended Kernick, Aver was undefended.—Mrs. Blight, the prosecutrix, deposed:—l live at , in the parish of St. Agnes and keep a shop there. On the 5th of July I saw Aver there several times during the day, having gooseberries and pears, and sweets ; he lives about half a mile off from me. When he came there, he saw me put money into a sweet(?)-drawer. I have a large bull-terrier, and Aver would very often shoo(?) him away from the door and feed him; I saw him that afternoon, playing with the dog a great while, and giving him crusts and other things. On the night of the 5th July, I went to bed about 12 o'clock, fastening my house properly; I left the dog in the parlour, with the middle door open(?), leading into the shop. When I came down next morning about 6 o’clock, I saw that the house had been entered, at the back window leading into the flour-closet; a pane of glass had been taken out with a knife, large enough for a hand to be passed through; and the back window of the closet was opened enough for a person to pass through. The door of the shop was opened, and on going into the shop, I found that the ?-- was taken away, together with the drawer in which it had been placed; there was quite a pile of silver there the night before—I have put it low in stating that it was 50s.; there were two seals, and two foreign coins— American and Mexican. I sent for a police officer. That same morning, Kernick came into my shop and said he had heard a noise in the town that my shop had been broken open; he said, "I hear you con--? Aver for it." I answered “I do." He said “I dont think(?) he did it any more than I did, and as for myself I was never(?) in your shop but once before in my life."' He instantly ?—to where Aver had got in: I had not pointed to him where it was, but he walked straight to the spot, and came out to Aver who was standing outside the door, and said to him "Aver, do you know the police are up in the town? If you do not I tell you of it." They then went off together. Before Kernick left the shop, I said to him "it was a fortunate thing you did not carry off my sovereigns, which were ?-- in a drawer adjoining the silver- drawer."—Alfred Hip--? Jarrett: l am superintendent of police for the Truro district. On the 6th of July I got information of the burglary at Mrs. Blight’s, and in the morning of the 7th I went and examined the premises, and ascertained how the burglary had been effected. On a portion of the putty remaining at the lower part(?) of the window, I observed marks which had been made with a knife. I apprehended Aver on the 12th of July, and after that, in consequence of a statement made by Aver, I apprehended Kernick on the 16th. Afterwards I traced the possession of a knife to John Kernick, prisoner's brother; I compared the knife with marks on the window and found it to correspond; in my judgment, the window was opened with the knife, and before the magistrates, Aver admitted that the window was opened with that knife. (Witness produced the knife.)—Susan Harris: I am a servant at Mr. Letcher's public- house in Mithian, a very short distance from Mrs. Blight's. About 11 o’clock of the night that Mrs. Blight's house was broken into, I saw Aver in my master's court and asked him what he was doing there, and he said he was waiting for Samuel Moon, who, he said, was in my master's house. Aver stopped there till about 12 o'clock. I had seen Kernick in the house; he went away about 11 o'clock.—Mark Flint, a sawyer, living in the parish of Kenwyn, and working at was at Mithian on the 9th of July in the evening, at Letcher's public-house. When I first went in, Kernick was there alone, but after that, Aver came, and Kernick asked him to come in. After that, I and Kernick tossed for a pint of beer; I could not see how much money Kernick then had; I did not see any money with Aver. Afterwards Aver and Kernick went away, and when they came back again, there was not much money in Kernick’s purse.—Edward Parnell, a boy, stated that the day after Mrs. Blight's house had been broken into, he saw Aver at Mithian; Aver had a knife with him, which witness bought for three-half-pence. (It was the same knife as was now produced). Witness bought it for John Kernick, who gave him the money to do so.—John Kernick, another boy, confirmed the last witness's evidence, and stated that he gave the knife to Mr. Jarrett.—Nicholas Cooke, a miner living at Mithian, on Sunday the 11th of July was going from Mithian towards Redruth, and about 50 yards from Kernick’s house picked up a small bit of money which he afterwards gave to Mrs. Blight. (This was the Mexican coin, and it was identified by Mrs. Blight, by means of some marks on it.—Peter Sammons(?), policeman in the Truro district: I had charge of Aver when he was in custody; he was taken before the magistrates on the 11th of July; after we had been before the magistrates he said he kept the dog quiet, while the other went in—and he mentioned the other’s name; he had before that said that the knife produced was the one used.—Eliza Solomon:—I am the wife of Richard Solomon, of St. Agnes; the prisoner Aver is my son, and used to live with my mother at Perranzabuloe, about half a mile from Mithian. On the 6th of July, the day after the robbery at Mrs. Blight’s, Kernick came in. I had never seen him there before. Kernick and my boy went outside the house; and Kernick said he would give my boy a pair of boots and trowsers, better than those he had on, because people would not talk so much about his (Kernick’s) having new ones, as they would if my boy had new ones. I heard Kernick afterwards say to my boy “What a d—d fool I was that I did not take away Mrs. Bright’s pocket-book with the sovereigns, as well as the rest; I would have left this place and would not have been in it five hours.” They then went away together, and said they were going to to seek for work.—This witness was severely cross-examined with a view of discrediting her testimony; it appearing that although the conversation of which she spoke was alleged to have taken place on the 6th of July, she so delayed to give information, though living at only a short distance from Mrs. Blight, that she was not examined before any magistrate on the subject until the 27th of July; and her answers on cross-examination were not satisfactory either in substance or in manner of delivery.—Franciso Aver, grandfather of the prisoner Aver, and with whom he used to live, said:—I remember the night of the 5th of July; I went to bed between 9 and 10 and slept; I afterwards heard the boy come hollowing to me to come down and let him in; he was timid of being out at night; when he came home, it was good light, it might have been morning,—it might have been day-light. The following statements by the prisoners before the committing magistrates were then put in and read; the jury being repeatedly cautioned strictly that they were not to accept as evidence any statement made by one prisoner against another. Avers statement:—On Saturday the 19th of June last, William Kernick and I were coming into Truro, and he asked me about the money which had been stolen from a person about Christmas, and he said "I should like to get another such a lot;" and I said "you may if you mind to;" and he said "I will if I can." We went into Truro together, when he was disappointed of his place; then he told me to go home and he would put me the nearest way, and he said "I shall be home to-morrow." On the Sunday I went down to his house, but he was not there. On the Monday following, about 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, I saw Kernick by his gate, and then he said, "Are you going to do that to-night?" I then went away from him driving two donkeys, and came back again and stood up with him, and he then went into the public- house; and after being there a long time he came out, and I said to him “Are you going home?" and he said "No, damn it, I am going to get drunk first." There was a show at the next village; I asked him if he was going there; he said "No, I shall get drunk first." It was then coming on tolerably late, and then we went down the lane, and Mrs. Blight was not then gone to bed, and he then went into Mrs. Letcher's again; he did not stop there long, but I heard him say "Good night," and after a brave bit afterwards, I don't know what time it was, he came out and we stopped a bit, and then went down the lane when she was gone to bed. We went the lower side of the pigs' house and looked over the hedge and took hold of a , and then went in. I stayed at the back door, and the dog was at the back door; he knew my voice, and then Kernick said "Let me see your knife," and I stayed at the back door, and he went in through the window. There were 3 or 4 pitchers in the window; he took them out and put them down, and when he was going in he said "I would as soon a core as do this;" and then he was in there a brave bit, and I do not think he could find the door of the shop. I said "Bill, I shall not stop here any longer," and he said “I shall be out in a minute;" and then he came out of the shop door and came down and hollowed, "Robert, I am out;" and I came up to him and asked him what he was going to do with the money, and he said "Damn me, "I'll find enough to do with it;" and he said "you must not have any, before it is all gone quiet." Then he went towards his own house, and I went home. On Tuesday I asked him what he was going to do with it; he said "you must not have any until it is all gone quiet for a fortnight or three weeks." The same day he went into the public-house, and I went in a little while after and sat down, and he asked whether I would have a glass of beer, and I said “No, I shall not drink any beer." He said it would not do to give me any silver, but offered me three halfpence to buy some tobacco. Kernick's Statement:—I have heard Aver’s statement, it is all untrue. Mr. STOCK addressed the jury for the defence of Kernick, submitting that as against him there was no evidence at all, except that of the woman Solomon, and that he insisted was unworthy of credit. The learned JUDGE summed up much to the same effect.—At 20 minutes to 5, the jury retired for consultation, and after an absence of an hour, during which another jury was sworn and other cases proceeded with, they returned into Court, unable to agree on a verdict.—The learned JUDGE again reminded them that they must wholly disregard the statement of one prisoner against another, and therefore, although Aver stood self-convicted, his evidence against Kernick was of no value; the case against Kernick rested wholly on the evidence of the woman Solomon; this evidence, accordingly, the JUDGE read over and commented on again, unfavourably to the woman's credit: and in conclusion he told the Jury that they must give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt they might have.— Hereupon, the jury, after brief re-consideration, found Aver guilty, with recommendation to mercy on account of his youth, and Kernick not guilty. It was stated that Aver had been once summarily convicted under the Juvenile Offenders Act.—Sentence was deferred. RICHARD MAY, a young boy, and MICHAEL O'BRIEN rag-gatherer, aged 45, were charged with stealing two quart pewter measures and four pint pewter measures, and some parts of brass cocks, the property of Samuel Treleving at Calstock, on or about the 26th of June.—O'Brien was charged, in a second count, with feloniously receiving.—May pleaded guilty of stealing; and, after trial, O'Brien was found guilty of feloniously receiving. Sentences were deferred.—The property was stolen from the Steam Packet Inn, in Calstock, which, being unoccupied, was in charge of Mr. Joel Down, mason, of Calstock, as agent for the owner, Mr. Samuel Treliving.—The stolen property was disposed of by O'Brien to John Roan, a store dealer in Plymouth; and the detection of the accused was effected by Police Serjeant Pappin, of the Callington district; while the identification of the property was made in court by Mrs. Phillips, wife of Mr. Joseph Henry Phillips, now of Plymouth, but formerly occupying the Steam Packet Inn at Calstock. MARY ANN FIELDING, 29, pleaded guilty of stealing a handkerchief, the property of Joseph Kitto, at Antony.—Sentence deferred. MARK MINERS, 13, pleaded guilty of stealing the sum of £1 9s. and a leather purse, at St. Agnes on the 30th of June. The Grand Jury were discharged this afternoon at about 5 o'clock, after having found true bills in all the cases submitted to them. ______NISI PRIUS COURT. The Honorable Mr. Baron CHANNELL took his seat in this Court at ten o'clock. The following was the CAUSE LIST. Plaintiff’s Defendant’s Plaintiff. Defendant. Attorney. Attorney. Symons & Son Collins …………… v. Symons ……… Commins & Son. Gill ……………… Phillips v. Ball & others Same Same ………….. Ivimey & others v. Pascoe ………. Smith & Roberts. ([S.J.] Smith ………….. Lyle [S.J.] v. Richards Same. and others

COLLINS v. SYMONS.—Mr. COLLIER, Q.C., and Mr. COLERIDGE for the plaintiff; Mr. COLE for the defendant. Mr. COLERIDGE having opened the pleadings, Mr. COLLIER stated the case. The plaintiff was a carpenter and joiner at Wadebridge, and the defendant was formerly a servant of the late Sir William Molesworth. In the year 1850, defendant applied to plaintiff to take his son as an apprentice. Plaintiff was at first reluctant, but afterwards agreed to do so, and defendant's son entered into his service in 1851. An indenture of apprenticeship was executed; defendant's son was bound for seven years from the 3rd of March, 1851, and the term expired on the 3rd of March, 1858. He remained with plaintiff 4½ years; plaintiff had taught him his business, he was an intelligent youth, and was become of much use to his master. In August 1855, he absconded, and his master had never seen him since. He was worth at that time 13s. a week to his master, who had then some heavy contracts. Plaintiff applied to the lad's father, and got nothing but evasive answers. He told his father he was answerable for the boy's remaining, and that if the boy stayed away, he (the father) would have to pay for it. The father said he would not pay a farthing. Since then the plaintiff had learnt that the lad had been in London earning good wages, and had afterwards gone to America. Plaintiff believed the father knew of his son's going away, and he now claimed from the defendant, for the loss of his son's time and labour, the sum of £94 5s. There had been certain sums agreed to be paid annually by plaintiff to the lad's parents, and deducting those sums the amount claimed would be £71 5s. John Collins, the plaintiff, was then called, and said the terms upon which he agreed with Aaron Symons to take his son John were set down in the deed of indenture. He was here asked by Mr. Cole (for the defendant) whether he could swear that the words “and to be answerable for the presence of the aforesaid apprentice during the said term" were in the indenture when it was signed by the parties. Plaintiff said he would swear the words were there then. Defendant's son was with him from February 1851 to August 1855. He had not seen him since. He made inquiry of defendant, who spoke to him in an improper manner, such as led plaintiff to think defendant knew where his boy was gone. Plaintiff said, "well, remember you are responsible for his presence, and if you don't get him, I shall make you pay for it." Defendant said he should not try to get him, and he should never pay a farthing. Plaintiff heard after some months where he was, and tried to get him back, but failed, and the lad went to America. Defendant applied to buy the boy’s time out just before the 12th of August 1855, when the boy left. The boy was worth 18s. a week when he absconded; he was a clever boy and very useful. Plaintiff's claim was made up as follows:—from August 12th, 1855, to March 3rd, 1856, 29 weeks at 13s., £18 7s; from March 3rd, 1856, to March 3rd, 1857, 52 weeks at 14s., £36 8s.; and from that time to March 3rd, 1858, 52 weeks at 15s., £39. Plaintiff said the boy was worth a great deal more than that to him. The deductions for what plaintiff had to pay to the parents during that time amounted to £13. On cross-examination, plaintiff said he never struck the boy but once: he then gave him a "clout" in the head; he believed that was before he was bound. He never struck him with a hammer, or threw a hammer at him. He kept him up half the night sometimes, making coffins, and paid 2½d. per hour for overtime. Sometimes that was set against holiday time which he had. In the 4½ years he had lost 521 days. At one time he cut off the top of his thumb, or pulled it off; he then lost three weeks; he did not do it in plaintiff’s work; he had that time to make up. He gave him a holiday twice a year, on Christmas-day and Good Friday. Plaintiff found defendant was going to America, and arrested him under a Judge's order, for a claim of £94. Defendant had been in prison about three months. Re-examined: The apprentices would ask for holidays, and sometimes plaintiff would grant them, on condition that they worked the time up again. He had made no claim for the 52 days. The making of coffins was of great urgency, and required working extra hours; he had paid the boy for extra hours.—Robert Lewis Marshall, a coach-builder and carpenter, at Lanivet, thought plaintiff's estimate at 13s. a week for a useful apprentice in his fifth year was reasonable. In the sixth and seventh years such an apprentice would be worth 2s. 9d. and 3s. a day.—Mr. COLE addressed the jury for the defence, stating that the defendant was a respectable man who had been in the service of the late Sir William Molesworth for a long period. It was a very hard case. The boy had been ill-treated and had absconded. The father knew nothing about it, yet by the terms of the indenture he was liable. Plaintiff had sworn he owed him £94, had obtained a Judge's order, got him arrested when he was going in a van from Bodmin to Plymouth to emigrate to America, and defendant had been in gaol three months. The action might have been brought in the County Court, instead of incurring the expense of the superior court. The boy had a hard taskmaster; he had to work up the three weeks he was idle from chopping his thumb; he should call tradesmen to show that 7s. a week was quite enough for such a boy. He then called Aaron Symons, the defendant, who said he knew nothing of his boy's intention to leave; he did not know where he was till nine months afterwards. He endeavoured to get him back, but the boy gave him reasons for not coming back. He went to America; defendant did not give him money to go. No claim was made upon defendant before he was arrested. He had been in jail up to that morning, and was in custody now. He had lost his freight for passage to America in consequence of being arrested; he was a married man, had sold his furniture, and had no place to go to. Cross-examined: Plaintiff did not tell him he would have to pay for his boy going away. He did not apply to buy out the rest of his time: what passed was between his son and plaintiff; his son used to come home and spit blood.—John Bray, master carpenter and builder, at Bodmin, thought £20 would be a fair compensation for the apprentice's absence. He never found an apprentice to do so well as a journeyman; they were not so interested in the work; a master had to provide tools for the apprentice.—Richard Marks, cabinet maker, Bodmin, could get many a young man for 7s. a week after serving the whole of his time. They were not generally competent when they were out of their time, without further work and instruction.—Mr. COLE replied, admitting that the verdict must be for the plaintiff, but saying that the hardship of the case was such that the damages should be reduced to a very small amount. Mr. COLLIER addressed the jury denying that there was any foundation for saying that the lad was ill-treated. None of the other apprentices had been called to show that. It suited the father that his son should go away, because the father had no longer to pay for his board and lodging. No doubt the son was making good wages in America, and the father was going out there to join him. The case could not be taken into the county court, because the claim was beyond the amount. If Symons had not been arrested, plaintiff would have got nothing. The learned JUDGE then summed up, stating that the verdict must be for plaintiff, and that the question was simply one of damages. After some consideration, the jury gave a verdict for plaintiff for £40, clear of deductions. PHILLIP v. BALL and OTHERS.—Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH, Q.C., and Mr. KARSLAKE; attorney, Mr. GILL, Counsel for the defendants, Mr. SERJEANT KINGLAKE and Mr. KINGDON; attorneys, Messrs. Commins and Son. Mr. KARSLAKE opened the pleadings. Joseph Phillips was the plaintiff; and Agnes Ball, Lavinia Vian, Richard Williams, Joseph Robins, and William Bennallack were the defendants. The action was one of ejectment, brought to recover possession of certain premises at St. Austell, and the defendants occupy different parts of those premises. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH stated the case to the jury. The plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Phillips, had brought this action of ejectment to recover possession of property at St. Austell, consisting of the Red Lion Public- house, other houses, and some fields. The case he believed was defended by the landlord, or some persons who claimed under the title of Mr. Flamank, deceased. The property is a copyhold of the manor of Courtenay, which was part of the possessions of the ; and the plaintiff claimed under a copy of court roll dated 15th April, 1797. By the custom of the manor, it appeared that grants were made by the Duke of Cornwall for lives, to certain persons to hold successively one after the other; and the widow of any tenant who died in possession, was also entitled to hold the copyhold during her widowhood, and to protect the morals of the manor it was to be, “during her chaste widowhood." The copyhold tenement in question was formerly held by a family called Williams, and he would explain how it came into the hands of Phillips. The question of title, however, would be more for his lordship than for the jury, inasmuch as it was connected with the copies of court rolls, and there would be the question as to the custom of the manor, and the power of any tenant to surrender his copyhold. It appeared that Richard Williams became possessed of this copyhold tenement in 1762. Ann Wallis and Richard Williams the younger were granted for their lives and the longest liver of them successively in reversion of John Wallis, on the 11th of November, 1762, "and thereon Ann Wallis and Richard Williams the younger were admitted tenants in reversion according to the custom of the said manor, and their fealties were respited until their particular estates happen." There were courts held within the manor from time to time, and presentments were made by the juries of those courts of the deaths of the tenants and the persons entitled in succession. After this grant in 1762, there was a presentment of the jury of a court held on the 19th June 1778, when they presented the deaths of Ann Wallis and John Wallis, "and that on the death of the survivor, the said tenements or cottages descended to Richard Williams, of St. Austell, now the only life on the premises." Then on the 6th of August, 1769, Richard Williams, of St. Austell, took of the lord of the manor, by delivery of the steward, the tenement in question, for the lives of Richard, son of Richard Williams, aged about nine months, and Mary his daughter, aged about three years, by nomination of Richard Williams, the father, to hold for their lives and the life of the longest liver of them successively, in reversion of the said Richard Williams, according to the custom of the manor, under the old yearly rent of 8s. 6d. That was a grant made to Richard and Mary, the son and daughter of Richard Williams, and in reversion of the estate which Richard the father held. Now in 1784, Richard the father died, and left a widow, Elizabeth, who by the custom of the manor became entitled to the tenement during her widowhood. So far the title was plain. Then it appeared that on the 19th of January, 1786, Elizabeth, the widow surrendered the tenement and took a fresh grant. If she had married she would have forfeited it, and the surrender seems to have been made to avoid the forfeiture. The lord allowed her to make the surrender, and then there was a grant by the lord for the lives of Joseph Phillips, late of Redruth, tinner, aged 30 years, and Richard Williams, aged about 7 years, and Mary aged about 10 years, the son and daughter of Richard Williams, deceased, (entitled under the former grant), and it went on to say "and thereupon the said Elizabeth Williams is admitted tenant, and the said Richard Williams and Mary Williams are admitted tenants, for their lives successively, according to the custom of the said manor, and their fealties are respited until their particular estates shall respectively happen. Shortly after this grant, Elizabeth Williams, the widow, married Joseph Phillips, of Redruth, one of the persons mentioned in the grant of 1786, and she had children by that marriage, one of whom was the plaintiff, Joseph Phillips. Then, on the 27th of September, 1792, the jury at a court presented the death of Elizabeth Phillips, wife of Joseph Phillips, “who died tenant for her own life of the premises, and that her husband, Joseph Phillips (late of Redruth) was entitled to the same for his own life, being the next life named in the court roll of this manor, and that he is admitted and taken tenant of the same." Then, in 1797, April 15th, Joseph Phillips made three surrenders, one of which related to this property, and Joseph Phillips again took the premises "for the lives of the said Joseph Phillips, aged about 43 years, Joseph Phillips, his son (the present plaintiff), aged about 9 years, and Eliza Phillips, his daughter, aged about 4 years, the lord of the manor for such an estate and entry to have £80, "and thereupon the said Joseph Phillips was admitted tenant and did his fealty, and the said Joseph Phillips, his son, and Eliza Phillips, his daughter, were admitted tenants for their lives successively, according to the custom of the manor, and their fealties were respited until their respective estates should respectively happen." That being the copy of court rolls under which the plaintiff claimed, he (Mr. M. Smith) would now call the attention of the jury to the subsequent transactions. It appeared that in 1799, Mr. Flamank purchased of the Duke of Cornwall the freehold and reversion of these copyhold tenements, and by the covenant under which he purchased, the purchase was made expressly subject to the last grant to Joseph Phillips, of April 15th, 1797. The purchase was carried out by the Surveyor-General of the duchy under an act of Parliament. Mr. Flamank having the reversion, Joseph Phillips, the father, sold his interest in this copyhold tenement to Mr. Flamank, and by deed dated Dec. 13th. 1803, he. conveyed to Mr. Flamank the copyhold as far as he could convey it. Now, on the part of plaintiff, it is said that Joseph Phillips, plaintiff’s father, could not by that sale, or surrender, or conveyance, affect the plaintiff's interest; but that his interest survived by the copy of court roll of 1797. It became, then, necessary to consider when the right of the plaintiff accrued as a right in possession. It did not accrue till the death of a person called Catherine Williams, who was the wife of Richard Williams, the son, who was entitled under the grant of 1786, and the former grant of 1775. In the subsequent grant to Elizabeth Williams, the interests of the children she had by her previous marriage, were disregarded, but it appeared those were two good outstanding estates, and that the grant to Jos. Phillips, in 1797, could only be possessed after the lives of those two children, Richard and Mary Williams, were disposed of. Accordingly, in 1817, Richard Williams claimed under the former grant, and filed a bill against Mr. Flamank to establish his right to the tenements. Mr. Flamank had no defence, and there was a deed of arrangement entered into on the 5th of September, 1817, by which some conveyance was made to Mr. Flamank, and by which, in lieu of their copyhold interest during their lifetime, Richard Williams was to receive an annuity of £90 a-year, and his wife, Catherine, who would be entitled during widowhood, was to receive £60 a-year. Richard Williams's sister, Mary, was out of the case, because she died in 1809. (So that, during a very considerable period, the estate which intervened between Joseph Phillips, the present claimant, and his right to immediate possession was that of Richard Williams and Catherine, his wife, who became a widow, and did not die till March' 1857. He (Mr. M. Smith) should prove these facts, and the custom of the manor by the court rolls. He believed his friend, on behalf of the defence, would endeavour to set up some custom, to the effect that when there was a grant to three persons in succession, the first life might surrender the whole copyhold, so as to deprive the lives in succession of the life estates after him. He believed, however, that the court rolls of this manor, from the earliest times for which they could be found, entirely negatived (sic) the existence of any such custom, but showed that each tenant was to hold one after the other in succession, and that one could not interfere with the rights of another. A considerable amount of documentary evidence was then put in, consisting of court rolls and deeds. Some conversation took place between the learned Judge and the counsel, and various admissions were made in order that the case might go before the Court of Common Pleas. It was admitted that Mr. William Flamank, the purchaser, and Mr. Joseph Phillips were both of the homage of the courts mentioned in the admissions. It was admitted that Mr. Flamank died on the 16th October, 1810; that the defendants are tenants of the devisees named in the will of Mr. Flamank ; and that the devisees had received the rents since the time of his death. It was stated that there was no court roll of the manor extant previous to 1628. The cost of Mr. Flamank's purchase was 1000l. Mr. Commins, sen., solicitor, was called by Serjeant KINGLAKE in reference to the execution of the deed of arrangement referred to by Mr. M. Smith, and which was amongst the documents put in. Witness was one of the parties to the deed, and was called with the view of showing that Mr. Joseph Edyvean Flamank, another of the parties to the deed, was not in a state of mind to know what he was doing when he signed it, and that a commission of lunacy was issued against him directly afterwards. On cross-examination, Mr. Commins was asked if he would swear that Mr. J. E. Flamank was a lunatic when he signed the deed? He repied (sic) that he would not say if he was or not, he thought he was in a state of imbecility. The learned JUDGE, addressing the jury, then said—Gentlemen: you will be so good as to return your verdict, as a matter of form, for the plaintiff. The case involves several points of law of some nicety and delicacy, and it is agreed that the case be taken to the court from which the record is issued. A verdict was then given for the plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to move to enter a verdict for the defendant; the court to draw such inferences as the jury would have drawn, and if then the verdict stands for the plaintiff, the verdict to be entered for meyne profits at the rate of £105 per annum, from February, 1857. The court then proceeded with the following TRIALS OF PRISONERS. FANNY REYNALDS, 29, was charged with stealing a cheque for £3 16s. 7d., two sovereigns and other money, from the person of Ralph Stephens. LOUISA BONDS, 40, was charged with receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Hold worth conducted the prosecution. Ralph Stephens said he is a farmer in the parish of Perranarworthal. On the 28th of July he went to Truro to collect some rates. He received from Mr. Gunn, the steward of Lord Falmouth a cheque for £3 16s. 7d. for wayrates. He received the cheque between four and five o'clock, and put it in his canvas bag. He also received from the assistant clerk of the Truro Union two sovereigns, half-a-sovereign, four or five half-crowns, a fourpenny piece and a sixpence. He put that in the same bag, and had 8s. besides, making altogether £3 5s. 10d. besides the cheque. In the evening he was at the King's Head, Lemon Street, and left there about half-past ten. His bag and money were then in the breast pocket of his pocket. He was going up Lemon Street, when the woman Fanny Reynolds spoke to him, and asked him to go with her. He refused, and said "be off." She then caught him round the waist and put her hand in his pocket, and pulled out his bag and ran away. He went into the public-house and said he was robbed, and then went to the police station and told Mr. Nash, the police superintendent, of the robbery.—James Bryant, a little boy, was going to the King's Head for some beer about eleven o'clock, and saw Fanny Reynalds in the street with her arm round a man's waist. He went into the King's Head, and a man came in and said he had been robbed.—Police Sergeant Woolcock, of the Truro police, said he received information of the robbery, and went between one and two o'clock in the morning to the house of Fanny Reynalds, who keeps a brothel. He called her and she came downstairs. He examined the fire-place, and saw what appeared to be the remains of a canvas bag on the top of the coals. He searched the house, but found only a sixpence, which was in Reynalds' pocket. He asked her some questions, and then went to Louisa Bond's, who keeps a house of the same kind, and is a companion of Reynalds. Bonds said she left Reynalds about half-past eleven the previous night; she denied that Reynalds had given her any money; she said she might have a trifle in the house. Witness told her of the charge against Reynalds, and said he must search the house, and he and police-constable Northey proceeded to do so. They did not find any money down-stairs, but found up-stairs a half-sovereign, two sixpences, and a fourpenny piece on the table. Witness asked her if she had any more; she then produced a sixpence and two threepenny pieces from her pocket. They then searched two or three of her boxes, and in one found a handkerchief containing two sovereigns, five half-crowns and a sixpence. He left her in custody of constable Northey, and then went back to Reynalds and asked her what money she had given "Frenchy," the name by which Bonds was known. She considered a moment, and said she gave her about £3.—Police-constable Northey gave corroborative evidence. The learned Judge having summed up, the jury found the prisoners GUILTY. Sentence, each Six months hard labour. ANN O'SULLIVAN, 25, was charged with burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Joseph Tamblinson, at , and stealing two currant cakes. Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prosecution; Mr. COX for the prisoner. About six in the evening of the 26th of May, prosecutor left his house, and returned at 11 o'clock. His family had gone to bed, the front door was locked, and he went round to the back door, which was left on the latch. As he was passing the back-kitchen window he saw a light, but it was put out when he entered. He called out "who is here," but there was no answer. It was a dusky light, and he saw the likeness of some person near the back-kitchen table. He found it was a female, partly undressed. He put out his hand, and it came down on her shoulder. He said, "who is this," and the answer was, "it's me, sir." He heard it was the voice of Mary, an Irish servant who had lived in his house about nine months previously. She had no cap, gown, or shoes on. She got out of the house and tried to escape; he pursued and brought her back; she said that she had come into the house to have something to eat, and to lie down. She was taking things out of the cupboard when prosecutor passed the back- kitchen; he then thought it was one of the servants. It was found subsequently that she had taken two cakes.—Mrs. Maria Tamblinson stated that the back-kitchen window was fastened when she went to bed. About 20 minutes afterwards she heard a smash of glass but thought it was her husband who had come home. After her husband had found the prisoner in the house, witness came down stairs, and found the back-kitchen casement open, and one of the panes broken, which would enable prisoner to open the window. Mr. Cox addressed the jury, submitting that there was no felonious intent on the part of the prisoner. Verdict, GUILTY. Sentence deferred. The Court then rose. CROWN COURT. TUESDAY AUGUST 3. (Before Mr. Baron Watson.) Three or four young prisoners who had been convicted on the previous day, were placed at the bar this morning to receive sentence. The learned Judge asked if there was a Reformatory in the county, and Mr. Everest, the governor of the county prison, said there was not. WILLIAM PHILIP AVER, 13 years of age, had been convicted of burglary in the dwelling-house of Mary Ann Blight, at St. Agnes, and stealing £2 10s. and some foreign coins. The learned Judge said; you have been imprisoned and kept to hard labour, and received a whipping on a former occasion, and that you are a very bad boy there can be no question, but I will give you another chance and not send you out of the country, though I am doubtful whether I shall not give you too slight a sentence. He then sentenced him to twelvemonths' hard labour, and to be twice whipped, once publicly and once privately. The learned Judge subsequently remitted the whipping, saying (as we understood) that there was some difficulty about carrying it out. RICHARD MAY, a lad who had been found guilty of stealing, and MICHAEL O'BRIEN, convicted of receiving pewter measures stolen at Calstock, were next sentenced. The learned Judge said: I am very sorry there is not a Reformatory in this county; if there was, I would have sent you there, and you might have corrected your bad associations. He then sentenced each prisoner to one month's hard labour. MARK MINERS, 13, found GUILTY yesterday of stealing money at St. Agnes, was sentenced to one month's hard labour. MARY ANN FIELDING, 29, convicted on Monday of stealing a handkerchief at Antony, was sentenced to one fortnight's hard labour. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER AT CHACEWATER. EMMA RICHARDS, 30, described on the calendar as a needlewoman, was indicted for the wilful murder of her male child, at the parish of Kenwyn. She was also charged with the same offence on the coroner's inquisition. On being arraigned, the prisoner pleaded NOT GUILTY. The following were the jury sworn to try the case:—Thos. Shepherd, foreman, Richard James, John Carah, Thos. Ivey, Richard Harris, John Cole Simmons, Thomas Hicks, Thomas Thomas, Charles Osborne, John Michell, John Berryman, and John Hearle. Mr. COLE was the counsel for the prosecution, and Mr. STOCK for the defence. Mr. Cole addressed the jury on the serious nature of the charge, and stated the facts of the case. He then called the following witnesses. Elizabeth Lean said:—The prisoner is my sister; we reside in the same courtlage at Chacewater; she has been a widow three years and three months. Before the 5th of April I knew she was in the family way. That was on Monday; in the morning I was at my sister's house, and my brother's little boy came with a message about half-past one. In consequence I went to my sister's directly; looked into her bed-room and saw her standing against the bed, leaning forward. I asked her what was the matter: she cried, and told me to go in and call Catherine. I thought she was in labour, and went for Catherine, and sent her to the prisoner; I went on to fetch Harriet Dabb, and returned with her. I then saw the baby lying on the foot of the bed wrapped up. I had not been absent more than ten minutes. My sister was standing against the bed when I returned. We helped her into the bed and attended to her. I did not examine the baby. I saw Harriet Dabb wash it and dress it and put it in bed with the mother. I was in the house all the time; from two o'clock till five; I went down to get some tea, but was in the room all the rest of the time; when I went down to get tea, no one was left in the room but my sister. About five o'clock I observed some yellow matter stuff come out of the baby's mouth; it was upon the baby's robe. I saw nothing else about the child; did not look at its mouth. I saw Catherine Lean take the child up; did not see anything then more than was upon the robe before. In consequence of that we sent for the doctor. I believe he came about six o'clock; I was not in the house when he came. I slept with my sister all that week. I saw Harriet Dabb tried to feed it the first time with sugar and water, about half an hour after it was born; the child would not taste anything; it was a very weakly child. On the next day (Tuesday) I was at the house; did not observe anything particular on that day. On Wednesday my sister called me upstairs about three o'clock in the afternoon; she told me the baby was uneasier than it had been; she asked me to take it out of bed; I said I should not, but should call Catherine, my sister-in-law. The mother said she did not know the reason it was so weak; she did not say anything about its throat. Catherine Lean came immediately and took out the child, she said she thought it was dying. I went to Jane Warne's, and on returning found the baby in the bed. I went and looked at it, and found it greatly altered. I told her I thought it was greatly altered or dying, and I went in and called Catherine. After the baby was dead I again saw it; that was not more than a minute or two after I called Catherine. Mr. Moyle came and saw the child after it was dead. Cross-examined by Mr. STOCK: My sister had two children by her marriage, and took care of a third child by another person. I know the person who was reputed to be the father of this child; he is a person in good circumstances. Harriett Dabb is a person who attends women in labour. I know that my sister when she was confined had a quantity of baby linen; it was washed and prepared for her confinement. I did not at any time try to feed the child. Harriet Dabb tried about half an hour after it was born, and several times attempts were made to feed it with sugar and water, but it never took anything. Harriet Dabb and Catherine Lean tried several times to feed the baby before I went down to get the tea. They tried to feed it with a spoon. By the JUDGE: It was about three o'clock that I went down to get tea. Catherine Lean; I am sister-in-law of Emma Richards; I remember Elizabeth Lean calling me to go Emma Richard's (sic) house ; she was then calling for help and leaning in the bed with her clothes on. I saw the baby in the chamber utensil, the head up. I took it up and placed it on some woollen on the bed. Harriet Dabb and Elizabeth Lean then came in, and we three women assisted her into bed. The child appeared very weak when I took it up. I was in the room when it was washed by Harriet Dabb. I fetched Mr. Moyle because I thought the baby was very weak, and it was proper Mr. Moyle should come. I saw a little matter about the baby's mouth. I saw Harriet Dabb offer the child water and sugar, after she had washed and dressed it; I saw her do that once. When I came from Mr. Moyle's, I mention and spoke to Emma Richards; she seemed very weak; the child was then in the bed. I never attempted to feed it. I saw the baby again on the Tuesday; it seemed very weak: I saw nothing particular about any part of it. On Wednesday about three in the afternoon, Elizabeth Lean said the baby was very weak, and she thought it was dying. I took up the child and placed it on my lap about ten minutes; did not do anything to it; placed it in bed by its mother. In about half-an-hour Elizabeth Lean called me again; the baby was then dead. CROSS-EXAMINED: I was confined on the 18th March last; Harriet Dabb attended me; Emma Richards came to see me; I heard Mrs’ Dabb say to Emma Richards, “I suppose you will be the next.” Emma Richards said, “if I send for you, will you come to me.” Mrs. Dabb said she would. I went for Mr. Moyle about five o’clock; before that, I went into my own house directly after Harriet Dabb had washed and dressed the child. By the JUDGE: I have had two children; I give them sugar and water as the first thing after they are born; a healthy child will generally take it. Harriett Dabb: l am a married woman, and nursed the last witness. On the 5th of April I was fetched to attend Emma Richards about two o'clock. I helped the woman into bed, and then took the baby to wash and dress it; it was at the foot of the bed wrapped up in a woollen. I saw it appeared very weak; it had a very weak low cry. I secured the cord before washing and dressing it. I offered it sugar and water after washing it; I just put it inside its lips with a little spoon, but it did not appear to swallow it; it appeared trying to swallow and could not. I did not put the spoon into the child's mouth, but just inside the lip. I then put the baby by the right' side of the mother in bed. I did not then observe any thing about the child's mouth or dress. I then left the house, and returned about eight o'clock the same evening, and took the baby out of bed; I did not then observe anything; the child had a very weak cry, as in the morning. I attempted to feed it with the same spoon; the child would not then take the sugar and water. I did not put the spoon inside its mouth; it did not appear to swallow at all. I did not see the mother attempt to suckle the child. I saw it again next day in the forenoon; washed and dressed it and tried to give it sugar and water again but it did not swallow any. I saw something of a stain with matter; I did not take much notice of it. I said either to Elizabeth or Catherine Lean, how came this here, and the answer was, "it came from its mouth." John Moyle: l am a surgeon at Chacewater, and have practised for 24 years. On Monday the 5th of April I was called on by Catherine Lean, and about six o'clock the same evening I went to the house of Emma Richards, and found both mother and child in bed. My attention was first directed to a spot of florid blood mixed with saliva on the left breast of the child's robe. I satisfied myself that it did not come from the umbilical cord being insecurely tied, as happens in the country. I asked the mother if the stain could have come accidentally from any portion of her dress, and she said no. On looking closely at the child's face, I observed blood mixed with saliva coming from its mouth. I attempted to examine its mouth with a broken metal teaspoon, but was unable to discover any abrasion or laceration. I could not see more than an inch into the child's mouth. I asked if the child had been fed, and was told (I think by Catherine Lean) that they had made several ineffectual attempts to give it sugar and water. I asked for sugar and water, and attempted to give it some myself; the child would not take it, but forced it out of its mouth tinged with blood. I then left the house, and saw no more of the child till after its death. On Wednesday evening, Elizabeth Lean came to me about six o'clock, and I saw the child the same evening. I made a superficial external examination that night, and observed nothing of a suspicious character. I attended the inquest next day, and by the direction of the coroner made a post mortem examination. I was again unable to discover any external mark of violence; it was a fully developed child, and was born at the full period. I next proceeded to examine it internally, and first directed my attention to the mouth by dividing the lip, the flesh of the chin, and the lower jawbone. On depressing the portions of the lower jaw and the tongue, and looking into the mouth, far back on the left side of the roof of the mouth there was a small oval spot about one eighth of an inch in diameter. Its centre was of an ash-grey colour, with raised and inflamed edges, and from which the mucous membrane had been removed. Mr. COLE: How had that been removed? Witness: By some hard body coming in contact with it. I then cut through the fleshy attachments on the inside of the left portion of the lower jaw, pulled down the tongue, and saw on the right side at its root three oval wounds, the centre one of which was large enough for me to insert the tip of my finger into. The other two wounds were one before and the other behind the middle one. I then divided the muscular attachments on that side of the jaw, and found that what appeared to be three wounds, when the parts were in their natural position was in reality one wound having raised and ragged edges and surrounded by a broad patch of inflammation. The wound was about five-eights of an inch long and three-eighths broad.—Mr. COLE: What would be the distance of the wound from the gum of the child?—Witness: I did not measure it, but should suppose it was from 2 to 2¼ inches. Mr. COLE; In your judgment could it have been produced by attempts to feed the child with a spoon ? Witness: Certainly not; it must have been produced by some body being put into the mouth. Mr. COLE: Could you say whether it must have been a hard body, could a finger have done it? Witness: The impression I came to was that a finger had done it. The JUDGE: But could anything else have done it? Witness: It could, but from the nature and character of the wounds, and their shape, my impression was that they might have been caused by a finger. Mr. COLE: Is that your impression still? Witness: It is. Mr. COLE: Describe what further examination you made of the child. Witness: I proceeded to make an incision down the median line of the body, and immediately underneath the skin, and between that and the muscles, there was a thick layer of fat. I then opened the chest and found the right lung healthy, but not so fully inflated with air as I had before seen in other children. The left lung was collapsed, very dark coloured, and almost solidified. The heart was healthy in its formation, but the ventricles were empty and free from blood. In the abdomen, in the anterior portion of the left lobe of the liver, for the space of about two inches by about 1½, the peritoneal covering of the liver had been raised from its surface, and contained underneath it very dark fluid and coagulated blood. I then made a second and more I minute examination of the external walls of the abdomen, and I was unable to find any mark or bruise of any kind. That circumstance, together with the fact of the liver itself being uninjured led me to suppose that the appearance might have been produced previous to the birth of the infant. I have had no reason to alter that opinion since; it might have arisen from natural causes. The stomach was empty or nearly so, containing only about a tea-spoonful of gelatinous mucus. The intestines were all empty, and almost bloodless; the urinary bladder was empty and firmly collapsed. That closed the examination on that day; on the second day I examined the body in conjunction with Mr. Spry, who made a further examination himself, and I assisted him. With the aid of an ordinary lens we were enabled to detect inflammation of the mucous membrane of the larynx and the windpipe, through the bronchial tube leading to the left lung. The inflammation was continuous, and proceeded from the injury done to the child's mouth. The left bronchial tube contained a considerable quantity of blood with watery fluid mixed with small quantities of air. The uvula presented an unusual appearance, swollen, infiltrated with fluid, and bifid in its appearance. Mr. COLE: Having made these examinations on these two days, to what do you attribute the death of the child? Witness: To suffocation, the result of inflammation caused by the injuries before described about the mouth, the one under the tongue especially.—Cross-examined by Mr. STOCK: I saw the prisoner's brother last March, when his wife was confined. On this occasion I had some conversation with him about the prisoner being with child. When I first saw blood and saliva issuing from the child's mouth, I did not consider those symptoms were of a serious nature. I did not make any inquiries as to the manner in which the child was delivered. The wounds could not have been inflicted in self-delivery by the woman, if the delivery was in the natural position; there are very many in a different position. Mr. STOCK: Suppose an unnatural presentation, might not the mother in her struggles without assistance, get her finger into the infant's mouth? Witness: She might do so certainly, but it would not be so far back, and there would be corresponding external marks. Mr. STOCK: As I understand you, the wound was only from 2 inches to 2½ inches back, and the length of the human finger is more than that? Witness: It is. Then it would be possible for a finger to reach so far?—It would certainly. Then I collect that in your opinion it would not reach so far when the process of labour was going on?—I think not. The witness was also asked questions respecting the appearance of the lungs and liver of the child, and on the question of death by suffocation, said he did not observe any livid appearance about the head and face. From the appearance of the umbilical cord he thought there had been considerable loss of blood; that might cause the death of a weakly child.—On re-examination by Mr. Cole, the witness said: In my judgment the state of the liver had nothing to do with the cause of death. Mr. COLE: Would you expect, in the case of a weakly child dying from suffocation, to see lividity of the face ? Witness: Not so much as I should in a strong one. Would that appearance vary by reason of the time the child was dying by suffocation?—Yes, it would vary through time and also the position of the child. According to your judgment, suffocation was produced in this case very slowly?—Yes, gradually increasing until the glottis was closed, and the air could not pass.—At the close of his evidence Mr. MOYLE said: May I be allowed to address the court in favor of the prisoner. I have known her from a child, and up to this period she has borne an irreproachable character; she has lived within a hundred yards of my house. The JUDGE:— Her family seem to be respectable? Mr. Moyle: They are, my lord. Edward John Spry: I am a surgeon, and have been in practice at Truro about thirty years. On the 9th of April, at the request of the coroner, I examined this child. Witness said he had heard Mr. Moyle's evidence, and could confirm it as far as it went. He also described the wound at the root of the tongue, and the changes produced. He said, these are changes which denote the existence of active inflammation for a considerable time, and my opinion is that the child died from suffocation, the result of all this inflammation set up by the injury done the root of the tongue where it joins the windpipe. Mr. COLE: How might such a wound have been caused? Witness: By any instrument such as a finger, or any blunt instrument sufficiently hard to tear through the lining of the mouth; it was not done by any sharp instrument. The smaller wound in the roof of the mouth was evidently also occasioned by pressure of some hard substance sufficiently hard to detach the lining membrane from the palate and to set up inflammation around it as described.—Mr. STOCK said he should not ask the witness any questions. Joseph Higman produced the robe of the child, which was identified by Elizabeth Lean. This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr. STOCK, addressing the learned Judge said, I don't know whether your lordship thinks I ought in this case to address the jury. The learned JUDGE: I cannot say there is no evidence for the jury, though as regards any motive or suggestion why the woman should destroy the child, the evidence is all the other way. The question is on the surgeon’s evidence. As far as the moral evidence on the subject is concerned, it entirely negatives any idea that the woman put an end to her child; but you must address the jury on the surgeon's evidence. Mr. STOCK: I might perhaps ask the jury if they wish me to address them. Gentlemen, do you wish me to address you or not? The FOREMAN said they did not wish it. The learned JUDGE: Before you can convict the woman of this act, you must be satisfied that if she did it, she did it with the intention of murdering her child. But the first question is, did she do it at all? That respectable gentleman, the surgeon, said children were often suffocated by their mothers overlying them in bed. If the prisoner had wanted to destroy her child, she need not have put her finger in its mouth, she would have lain it over. Sometimes, when a woman was pregnant, she wanted to conceal the birth of her child, and that was a strong circumstance. But it was not so in this case. She had told her sister of it, the surgeon was made acquainted with it in March last; she told the nurse of it, and asked her to come; and she prepared the baby linen for the child. The child was delivered as had been described in the room; they offered it soon afterwards sugar and water, it attempted to swallow, but could not. When the surgeon came in the evening, he was not surprised at the marks he found: he tried to give the child sugar and water, but with the same result as the others. When the robe stained with blood was shown the mother, if she had done the act, she would have tried to make some excuse for it; but, instead of doing so, she said it did not come from her person. The injury to the child might have taken place in the course of delivery, or afterwards in moving it, for immediately afterwards it would not swallow. I should feel excessively uncomfortable if the prisoner was convicted on such evidence as we have heard. If, however, you wish it, the learned counsel will address you for the defence. The CLERK of ASSIZE: What say you, gentlemen, is the prisoner guilty or not guilty. The FOREMAN: NOT GUILTY. The JUDGE: Let the prisoner be discharged. BURGLARY.—RICHARD ASHLEIGH was indicted (having before been convicted of felony), for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Frances (sic) Hearle, at , on the 9th of March, and stealing a quantity of plate and other articles. Mr. COX and Mr. POWELL appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. YOUNGE defended the prisoner. The prosecutor, Mr. Hearle, is an elderly gentleman, living with his wife at a place called Pedenpoll, or , in the parish of Mawnan, near Falmouth. Two servants lived in the house called Elizabeth Pascoe and Fanny Martin. Mr. Hearle also employed some labourers, but they did not live in the house. On the 14th of February, Mr. and Mrs. Hearle went to London, leaving the two female servants in charge of the house. On the 8th of March it was Constantine revel at a village called Durgan, about three quarters of a mile from Penpoll going the shortest way. On Monday evening the 8th of March, Hearle’s two servants went to the revel, leaving no person in the house, and on the following evening they went again. They reached the inn at Durgan at about half-past seven and saw the prisoner there, but did not speak to him. They left the inn at about eleven o'clock, accompanied by John Jenkin and his wife, and a young man called Runnalls. Elizabeth Pascoe said in her evidence, when she arrived home the outside door was closed; she unlocked it, and perceiving a draught, saw that a pane was broken in the window, and that a candle and matches she had left on the table were gone. The lobby door was also open. She went into the parlour, and found her master's escritoire and all the drawers open and the drawers of the sideboard. She went to and called John Jenkin, their workman, and his wife, and then found the closet at the top of the stairs open, all the boxes open, and the plate gone, the drawers of the wardrobe open, the locks broken, the dressing case open, and the jewels gone from the box. All the keys had been previously locked in the escritoire except two or three small ones. On the lobby table she found a candlestick with a rushlight, in which she had left a wick candle. There was no bottle of brandy in the cupboard after the robbery. John Jenkin, a workman in Mr. Hearle's employ, and living in a cottage close to the house, stated that he was at the revel at Durgan on both evenings, and there was dancing there. On the evening of the 9th, about half- past seven, he saw prisoner in the inn at Durgan, and he asked witness if both the girls were coming down that night. He meant the servants at Mr. Hearle's. Witness said they were coming, and they came about half an hour afterwards. He did not see the prisoner there after half-past seven; witness left the inn about eleven o'clock with his wife and Mr. Hearle's two servants.—William James Troon, carpenter at Mawnan, was also at the revel on the 9th of March. Witness gave some evidence about some betting at the inn, in which prisoner was concerned, and that he produced a brass box. Witness went into the dancing room, and returned to the kitchen in about a quarter of an hour; prisoner had then left the kitchen, and came in again about eleven o'clock; he said he had been out sleeping on the quay. He seemed sleepy and a little tipsy; it was a hard frost that night. Cross-examined: It was about nine o'clock when witness went into the dancing room.—Police constable William Lobb said he went to an old mine on the 15th March, little more than quarter of a mile from, Penpoll, and found there a gold brooch and a brass box in a pit; found also a quantity of plate in chamois leather. This was identified by Mrs. Hearle.— Henry Bice, police superintendent, examined the premises at Penpoll on the 10th of March; found the kitchen window broken, and some blood on the wall inside. Two instruments appeared to have been used in breaking open the drawers and boxes, a chisel, and an instrument with a handle. On the 13th of .March searched prisoner's house and found a pair of pincers; did not find any chisel; compared the pincers with various marks, which appeared to have been made by the pincers. (Pieces of wood marked had been cut out for the sake of comparison, and were here shown to the jury.) On the 25th of March, prisoner when in custody told witness he borrowed the pincers of Charles Ching, of , twelve months ago. He said he did not know the brass box, but he lost one about a fortnight ago. On the 27th when taking prisoner to Helston, he asked where transports were sent to. Witness told him, to different parts. He said "what do you think I shall be done to in this case, do you think they will transport me?" Witness said he did not know anything about it.—Cross-examined: The pincers is a common sized shoemaker's pincers. Cyrus Tippet, police constable, apprehended prisoner on the 18th of March; observed like a scratch that had been healed up on his left hand. Saw blood inside the window of the house upon the wall. Prisoner told witness he had lost a brass box in which he kept tinder to light his pipe; he said he lost it about a fortnight before. Mrs. Hearle wife of prosecutor, said, when she went to London she put some brandy in the sideboard drawer, and locked it. On her return she missed the brandy. Josiah Morcom, labourer, said he had seen the prisoner with a brass box similar to that now produced. The only other evidence in the case was that of Thomas Martin, a county policeman, who, it appeared, in the evening of the 21st of March, when the prisoner was in custody, went into the cell in a working man's dress, with handcuffs on his wrist, and prisoner believing him to be another prisoner, told him that he had committed the robbery, and the way in which he had effected it, not only stating all the particulars which had come out in evidence, but adding other matters respecting the brandy, the candle, the jewels, the chisel, &c. This witness was all night in the cell. The JUDGE strongly condemned this mode of proceeding, and questioned the policeman, who said his superintendent did not know of his going to the cell until afterwards (sic). It was William Hichens, a policeman of Helston, who suggested to him to go in this way into the cell. Witness said he went into the cell for the purpose of ascertaining whether somebody else was not connected with the prisoner in the robbery; he did not intend to give evidence, he refused to go before the magistrates; he told his story for the first time to Mr. Pender, the attorney for the prosecution, when he was subpoenaed last Saturday. Mr. YONGE then addressed the jury for the defence, and contended that it was entirely a case of circumstantial evidence, and that the circumstances were insufficient to support that prosecution, apart from the evidence given by the policeman Martin, and he called upon the jury to wholly discredit that evidence. The learned JUDGE summed up, and pointed out that there was evidence for them to consider independent of that of the policeman who had acted the part of a spy. The other evidence related to the brass box, the pincers, and the scratch. The learned JUDGE commented on those points, and put it to the jury whether they thought them sufficient to find a verdict against the prisoner; he could not himself make out from those circumstances the guilt of the prisoner. He then made some strong observations on the conduct and evidence of the policeman, saying that in this country we have a detestation of spies or anything like them. He would have a jury to pause before they believed the story of such a man. On the 9th of March he went into the cell; on the 27th the magistrates committed the prisoner; and that man never went before the magistrates. He states that he told the superintendent on the 21st that the prisoner had confessed, though he did not tell the details. The police were at a loss for evidence at that time, and it seemed as if this man came forward to supply it. It was dealing improperly with the course of justice to bring such a man forward at the last moment, and when he had to recollect himself last Sunday, four months after he was in the cell. The case depended almost entirely upon the credit the jury gave to the policeman, and there was no one to contradict him. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY, and the learned JUDGE said he hoped the magistrates would take notice of this case. The police were a respectable body of men, and he thought when a policeman acted as a spy in this way, it ought to be taken notice of. He then ordered the prisoner to be discharged. MARIA HICK was charged with stealing a purse and 17s. 6d., the property of William Doney, at Bodmin, on the 18th of June. Mr. OXENHAM appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. COLE for the defence. The witnesses called for the prosecution were Mrs. Elizabeth Doney, William Burton, a boy ten years of age, Nicholas Marshall, mason, at Bodmin, Elizabeth Verran, assistant in the shop of Messrs. Pascoe and Marshall, drapers, and Mr. Doney, the prosecutor. It was endeavoured to be set out, on the part of the prosecution, that Mrs. Doney had dropped her purse in Mr. Pascoe's shop, at Bodmin, and that Mrs. Hick had picked it up and kept it. The learned JUDGE in the course of evidence being given, more than once expressed his opinion that there had been some mistake made in the case; and at the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the foreman of the jury intimated that they did not wish Mr. Cole to address them for the defence, and they then gave a verdict of acquittal. Mr. COLE said he was anxious to state on the part of Mrs. Hick, that he had witnesses in court who could explain or rebut every circumstance that appeared to be suspicious. The learned JUDGE said there was discrepancy in the evidence, and the charge was evidently a mistake in some way; the parties were both respectable. The prisoner is acquitted and let her be discharged. WILLIAM GRIFFIN, 73, parchment maker, was charged with stealing certain brass, the property of the trustees of the Treffry estate, on the 26th of June. Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prosecution, and Mr. COLE for the prisoner. Thomas Treffry, a carpenter, employed on the Treffry estates, at the granite works, between and Lanlivery, had some brasses delivered to him on the 22nd of June and missed them on the 26th.—John Gilbert, a fitter in the employ of Consols adventurers, cast the brasses which were delivered to the last witness. Some parts of brasses were here produced by a policeman, for the witness to identify; but he failed to identify them to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, who thereupon directed an acquittal.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY. STABBING.—WILLIAM JOHNSON, 23, seaman, was indicted for feloniously stabbing Thomas Golden, another seaman, at Falmouth, on the 21st of July, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr. COX conducted the prosecution. It appeared that the prosecutor, prisoner, and some of prosecutor's shipmates were in a public-house at Falmouth, and some quarrelling took place between prisoner and one of the other seamen. Prisoner wanted to fight one of the prosecutor's shipmates; he also wanted to. fight prosecutor, who told him to come out into the street to fight, and not to make a disturbance in the house. Prosecutor went into the street first; prisoner followed him, and stabbed him in the right knee with a knife. It was a deep wound; prosecutor bled very much, and his knee was not yet well. He did not see the knife; he admitted that he drew his own knife, but that was after he was stabbed. Another witness saw prisoner throw his knife over the quay, and it was afterwards found by a boy called Andrew. William Roberts, a constable of Falmouth, also saw prisoner running away with the knife in his hand. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY of the lesser offence of unlawfully wounding. The learned JUDGE thought the jury had come to a correct conclusion. He could not, however, allow it to be understood in this country that the use of the knife was to be passed by without severe punishment. The sentence of the court was, that the prisoner be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for eight calendar months. CHARLES HOAL, 31, labourer, was indicted for a bestial offence, against the order of nature, in the parish of Tywardreath, on the 15th of April last. Mr. COLE for the prosecution. The offence was proved by John Matthews and several little boys. William Osborne, one of the principle (sic) warders of the county goal (sic), in whose custody the prisoner had been since the 16th of April, was then called and stated that the prisoner was not in a sound state of mind, and was not accountable for his actions. John Matthews also stated that he was not in his right mind, and has been in the lunatic asylum; and the Rev. Mr. Glubb, who was curate of Tywardreath, gave evidence that the prisoner was imbecile and deranged, and not responsible for his actions. After hearing the summing up of the learned JUDGE, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on the ground of insanity. The Judge then ordered the prisoner to be removed and kept in safe custody, until the pleasure of the Crown was made known concerning him. This concluded the criminal business of the assizes, and the jury were discharged. ______NISI PRIUS COURT. TUESDAY, AUGUST 3. (Before Baron CHANNELL.) —At the opening of this Court this morning, Ann Sullivan, who had been convicted yesterday, was brought up for judgment. The learned JUDGE said he had given the case his best consideration since last evening. That the prisoner broke into the house in question, admitted of no doubt; the only question was, whether she had done so with intent to commit felony. The Jury, after careful consideration, found that she did. His lordship, however, was willing to believe that her main object was to get a night's lodging, and at the same time she took such provisions as she found in the larder, in order to satisfy the claims of hunger; and as he knew nothing else against her, her sentence would be only to one month's hard labour. —A Special Jury was then empanelled, and the cause of Ivimey and others v. Pascoe was called on. Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Kingdon were Counsel for plaintiff; Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Karslake, for defendant.—It had been expected that the case would occupy the Court a considerable time; but, after long consultation between the Counsel und Attornies, and the Judge, it appeared that an arrangement was agreed to. The Jury were then sworn, and, by direction of the Court, they returned a verdict for plaintiff, subject to a special case. We understand the case concerns a disputed water-course for supplying water to Clay-works and Mills, the property of Henry Lambe, Esq., of Truro, who is the real defendant; the plaintiffs being the trustees of the Trevanion property adjoining Mr. Lambe’s estates, in the parish of St. Austell, and near the Bugle Inn. These points in dispute have been referred to Mr. Buller, Barrister-at-law, who we understand will arbitrate in the case about September next. WEST BASSET and SOUTH FRANCES MINES.—LYLE v. RICHARDS AND OTHERS. Counsel for plaintiff; Mr. Collier, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge, and Mr. Buller.—Counsel for defendants: Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C.; and Mr. Karslake.—Attorney for plaintiff: Mr. Smith, of the firm of Minet and Smith, London; Attorneys for defendants, Messrs. Smith and Roberts, and Messrs. Hodge and Hockin, of Truro. Mr. BULLER opened the pleadings, stating that Joseph Lyle was the plaintiff; and John Richards and others defendants. The action was for breaking and entering a mine known as West Basset Mine, and removing copper ore from it; and there was a second count, charging the defendants with converting copper ore to their own use. The defendants had paid into court £525, saying that that was enough to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim. The defendants denied this, and this was the issue the jury had to try. Mr. COLLIER thus opened the case on the part of the plaintiff:—The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Lyle, is I believe a gentleman well-known in this county as extensively connected with the mining interest. He is the lessee of the sett called West Basset Mine. The defendants are shareholders in an adjoining mine called South Wheal Frances. Mr. Lyle brings this action against defendants for having gone beyond their boundary and taken a large quantity of ore which belonged to him as lessee of the sett of West Basset. I believe in any view of this case, the plaintiff will be entitled to your verdict; for whatever be the boundary between the two mines, it is beyond all question that the South Frances adventurers have trespassed beyond it, and have taken a large quantity of ore from Mr. Lyle's sett. The defendants, admitting that, have paid a sum of £525 into court; but we say that we have sustained damage far beyond that amount. But that is not the only question in the case. There is another question which will be determined by the amount of damages for which your verdict shall be given, viz:—What is the boundary between the two mines?—In 1852, Mr. Lyle obtained from Lady Basset a sett of West Wheal Basset, which in former times had been called Wheal Haste; and the description in that sett I will now read to you. Mr. Collier then read the following description of boundaries, remarking to the jury that the material part for their consideration was the southern boundary. "To be bounded on the north and west by the estate of Bosleake, the property of Edward William Wynne Pendarves, Esq., and the estate of Treskillard, the property of Lord Grenville; on the south by a straight line of about 355 fathoms from John Vincent's house at the south-west extremity of the sett, to a boundstone at the north-west extremity of South Wheal Basset sett; and from thence eastward by the north side of the road lending to Carnkie, to a boundstone fixed at the south-west corner of North Wheal Basset sett; and from thence due north by the magnet about 170 fathoms to a boundstone fixed at the south-east corner of Bosleake estate; and which said premises are particularly delineated by the map on the back of this sett, and are situate in the parish of lllogan." The south boundary is the only material one in this case; the issue between the parties being, whether the line from the bound-stone is to be drawn to the north or to the south of John Vincent's house? We contend that that boundary is on the south of the house; while they (the defendants) contend that it is on the north. You would hardly suppose that such a question could be very material; no person could have imagined that any great amount of property would depend on the drawing of two lines at so little distance from each other. But it so happens that one of the richest parts of the lode lies between these disputed boundaries. Before I proceed farther in my statement of the plaintiff’s case, I may say a few words in anticipation of my learned friend's defence. My learned friend may say that this case was tried at the last assizes and that we ought not to be trying it again. I answer that it is quite clear we have a right to try this action, because wherever the boundary line is, the defendants have transgressed it, as they admit by payment into court of upwards of £500. The determining this boundary line is a matter of difficulty; whether it be a question of fact or of law, or one more than the other, may not be settled here. It was the view of my clients that it was a question of law, and it was arranged that a special case should be stated for the Court; but at the very last possible day the other side gave us notice of trial; this took my clients in great measure by surprise, and at the last trial we were not prepared with some material and important evidence that we shall now lay before you. My clients are in great difficulties in reference to this case; our evidence lies for the most part in the- muniments of Lady Basset; we had to obtain our evidence as we best could from the muniments of our adversaries and the Tehidy office; the solicitors on the other side, Messrs. Smith and Roberts, being also agents for Lady Basset. We therefore laboured under considerable difficulty; and my learned friend Mr. Lush, who conducted this case at the last Assizes, still deeming it a question of law and not of fact, did not then present evidence. I now come before you with evidence on the part of West Basset Adventurers that has not yet been submitted to any Cornish jury; I do not ask you to set aside the verdict of a former jury; but I shall submit new evidence on which I trust I shall satisfy you that the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict on this question, aye or no—is the line to be drawn to the north or to the south of John Vincent's house? The parties appear to be very hot for litigation ; but I am not sure whether, in the end, you may not be disposed to split the difference between them.—We say, however, that the boundary is to the south of John Vincent's house; and I apprehend if the case had rested on the description in the sett to Mr. Lyle, his lordship would direct you that Mr. Lyle was entitled to draw this boundary line to the south of the cottage;—on this principle—that every grant is to be construed most strongly against the grantor; and when it is said the southern boundary is to be a straight line from John Vincent's house, I should say that we were entitled to take that part of Vincent's house which is most favourable to us; and that part is the front of the house, at the south. On that construction of the deed, we are entitled to draw the boundary line to the south of the house, including the house in the sett. It is not necessary, however, to decide that question. But I contend that we are entitled to draw the line from the south. This matter, however, has been discussed above, and the Court has intimated that it may be a question for the jury here; and I will now come to that point.—After exhibiting and explaining a plan to the jury, Mr. Collier proceeded:— I should state that Mr. Lyle, when he took this sett, made inquiries of the Captain at South Frances, and there found working and other plans, in all which the boundary was described as south of Vincent's house; it is material to consider what the parties thought about the boundaries before any litigation arose between them; and at that time, the maps shown to Mr. Lyle on his taking his sett, fixed the boundary south of Vincent's house. For the sett so described, and three other setts, Mr. Lyle paid £2500; and for years afterwards there was no question about the boundary. But subsequently it transpired that this boundary line was more valuable than had previously been supposed; and then the South Frances adventurers seemed to have a tendency northwards. At first they proceeded northwards as far as half way up the house; and they got a Mr. Lanyon, toller to Lady Basset, to make out a boundary from a stone placed at that spot; and they made a proposition to that effect. Perhaps it might have been as well if that proposition had been accepted. But I may put it to you. whether any Cornish miners knowing they had a right to go north of Vincent's house, would be content to go only half way.—ln connection with this part of the case, Mr. Collier read a letter dated January 21, 1854, from Mr. Broad on behalf of the South Frances adventurers, to Capt. Roberts of West Basset on the subject of the proposition; and stated that Capt. Roberts sent the letter on to Mr. Thomas, a leading shareholder in West Basset, who was out of the country at the time, and consequently no reply to the letter was sent.—But, continued the learned gentleman, they had the working plan (handing a copy to the jury), which was used in their mine for years, and by this working plan. the boundary is south of John Vincent's house. I believe that working plan was made soon after they had obtained their set in 1843; they had other similar plans, all showing the line south of Vincent's house, and there were also other plans in the Tehidy Office showing the line South, at the same spot. It was not till 1854 that the South Frances adventurers thought of going so far as to the centre of the house; and since that, they had gone to the north of the house; the line to the centre of the house being erased. You may say, what pretence can they have for saying the boundary was at the north of Vincent's house? I will tell you what I understand my learned friend's case to be. It seems the South Frances adventurers discovered that there had been a former lease of Wheal Haste sett, (which may be taken to be the same as West Basset,) which had been granted in 1835, to Capt. Richards, and was afterwards surrendered to Mr. Lyle; and in the small map attached to that lease of Wheal Haste, the line was drawn to the north of Vincent’s house. My answer to that is that in that small map, Vincent's house is wrongly placed;—that it is placed much too far to the west, and also too far to the south. If Vincent's house were in its right place, the boundary line would pass to the south of it. In an enlarged plan which shows the true position of the premises, you will see that Vincent's house is north of the boundary line. I shall prove by a surveyor that this larger plan is correct; and that is my answer to the observation grounded on the small map on the lease of 1835. To show how inaccurately these small plans were drawn, the map on the counterpart of the same lease shows the line drawn to the middle of Vincent's house. We have recently employed a surveyor of skill and eminence to examine this property, and he will put in another map, made by himself, which will satisfy you that what we contend for is the true position of the line.—The learned Counsel exhibited and further explained the maps to the jury; and went on to say:—I have now stated the main facts of the case. Whether in the end it be a question of law or of fact we shall hear from his lordship. I venture to express myself with some confidence in either view. But as far as it is a question of fact, you will have to determine it; and I think you will say that Mr. Lyle having purchased this property on the understanding that the line was to be south, it is not for the defendants, in 1854, to avail themselves of an error in the lease of 1835 as to the position of Vincent's cottage, and so place the boundary further north, because the sett had become more valuable. I think the status of affairs before 1852 when Mr. Lyle took the lease, is the status that parties must abide by. This question will be decided by the amount of your verdict. If the boundary line is, as we contend, to the south, we shall be entitled to about £1,500. If it be to the north, as they contend, we shall be entitled to 2 or £300 above what they have paid into court. If you should think that both parties are wrong, and that the line should be in the middle, then a medium amount would be a fair verdict. I venture to say that you will be of opinion that the proper and just boundary is at the south—a boundary that was never disputed until it was found that the mine at that part became valuable. The following witnesses were then examined in support of plaintiff's case:—Mr. Joseph Lyle, the plaintiff, part holder of West Basset mine; Mr. Francis Trevithick, steward of the Tehidy property; Mr. Robert Symons, land-surveyor, of Truro; Mr. James Webb, dialler, now residing at Callington; and Mr. James Henderson, civil engineer, of Truro. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH then opened the case for the defence. His learned friend was not wrong in anticipating that he should make some observations on the former trial; because he thought the present was a rather unfair proceeding. At the Spring Assizes an action was brought in which the very same question as the present was tried between the parties, and a verdict was given, which still stands. It was appealed against and confirmed; and was then appealed against in another court; and while that second appeal was still pending the present plaintiffs now came here to endeavour to induce another jury to come to a different conclusion from what was arrived at at the last assizes. They said they had at the present time different evidence; but, in fact, the evidence they had now they had in the Spring, though at that time they sought to gain certain advantages by not calling evidence, and now they had chosen to take the chance of calling evidence. On the former occasion they also took the chance of having the south line; but now they seemed disposed to take their chance of the centre line. At the last Assizes an arrangement was come to that in case the verdict then given should stand, the damages should be assessed by a mine captain; the damages had not been so assessed, and consequently the present defendants were unable, technically, to plead that in answer to the present claim. But in fairness the case was really and truly tried by the former jury; and it was almost an unheard-of thing that while a former verdict was being appealed against, parties should come here and seek to put the case before another jury. The effect would be, supposing a verdict should now be given adverse to the previous one, that the verdicts of two Cornish juries would be going through the Courts on appeal, and would ultimately come before the House of Lords. He thought this was hardly the way in which mining people ought to conduct their disputes. The West Basset party had had their fair fight; and let it not be pretended that they had not ample time and sufficient intelligence on the last occasion. As to time, this dispute between the parties had been going on since the year 1855; and in the year 1857, the South Frances people got a declaration of war from the other side; there was formal notice sent by the attorney who was now instructing his learned friend, that they were prepared for war; and declaration being issued, South Frances did not wait till the enemy's fleet got out of Cherbourg (laughter), but at once issued their declaration. There had been nothing new on the present occasion; the maps and plans were ready at the Spring Assizes, but it was not thought proper to put them in; Mr. Henderson was present, but was not called. On that occasion when he (Mr. Smith) opened his case on behalf of South Frances, he frankly stated that when the setts were originally granted and the maps made, the line of southern boundary was perfectly immaterial; and that afterwards, when it became material, the South Frances Adventurers were willing to abide by Mr. Marriott's line, in 1854 (from the centre of the east end of John Vincent's house). The West Basset adventurers would not accept that proposal, but now sought to come back to Mr. Marriott's line, and to endeavour to get their opponents to acquiesce, though they (the West Basset adventurers) would not accept it when offered them in 1854.—Mr. M. Smith next spoke of the able legal assistance which the West Basset adventurers had at the Spring Assizes; and, incidentally but strongly, denied that any information had at any time been withheld from the West Basset adventurers by Lady Basset or any one connected with the Tehidy Office; and his learned friend must have been mis-instructed, when he said so.—ln fact there had been no care, or time, or lavish expenditure of money wanting to the case on the other side; and yet, after the verdict of a Cornish jury given after an honest and fair trial they now sought to alter their tactics and so induce another jury to give a verdict in their favour. The judge, at the last trial, was not dissatisfied with the verdict, but, on the contrary, immediately expressed his concurrence in it, and the Court of Queen's Bench had since confirmed it.—Proceeding to speak of the facts of the present case, the learned counsel first adverted to the sett of Wheal Haste in 1835, and then spoke of the sett of South Frances in 1843— prior in time, he observed, to the sett under which the West Basset adventurers claimed, and which was of the date 1852. That sett of 1843 included the two estates of Gryllis and Filtrick. The sett of Gryllis was as follows:— "To include the whole of the estate of Gryllis and Lanyon, and to extend from the highway leading from Redruth to Helston, at the junction of the estates called Lanyon and Forest (marked A on the plan) in a north-west direction to where it joins with Gryllis; from thence north-westerly as far as the right extends to the river, and where it adjoins with the parish of Camborne; and from thence northwards following the course of the river, and as the right extends, to where it adjoins with the estate called Treskillard, the property of Lady Grenville; and from thence eastward against the said Treskillard estate to join the estate called Filtrick; and from thence southward against Filtrick estate to the high-road above-mentioned; and from thence westward on the said high-road to where Lanyon estate joins Forest estate; and likewise to include the whole of the wastrel plots situate on the north between Gryllis and the lands of Lord Grenville." On this description, Mr. Smith remarked that it left no doubt whatever that John Vincent's house was within the Gryllis portion of the sett to South Frances; and that was the point on which this case principally turned. The learned Counsel then proceeded to read the description of the Filtrick sett:— "To include the whole of the estate called Filtrick, and to extend from a stone post (marked A on the plan annexed hereto) fixed at the mouth of the lane or road leading from the Piece to Carn Kie (and which post is the north-west boundary of South Wheal Basset) southward against the western boundary of South Wheal Basset sett as far as the right extends to the high-road leading from Redruth to Helston, and the junction of the two parishes of Illogan and Wendron; and from thence westward on the above- mentioned road to where that part of Filtrick called the Luscombe Common joins with that part of Gryllis called Lanyon; and from thence northward by Gryllis estate to join Wheal Haste sett, and from thence eastward in a straight line against Wheal Haste sett to the first-mentioned bound-stone; and likewise to include the whole of the wastrel plots situate on the north between Filtrick and the lands of Lord Grenville." The general scope of this sett, the learned Counsel observed, was to give to the South Frances adventurers the whole of the Filtrick estate, except so far as any part of it might be included in the Wheal Haste sett; and it therefore now became necessary to see what was included in the Wheal Haste sett. The boundaries of this sett, granted in March 1835, the learned Counsel read, as we have already given them in Mr. Collier's speech; and remarked that those limits did not include Vincent's house, which, as he had already stated, was in Gryllis, as was admitted at the last Assizes by the learned Counsel, Mr. Lush. He would now again prove that Vincent's house was not in Wheal Haste sett, but was in Gryllis—part of the South Frances sett. In fact, it had never been claimed as belonging to Wheal Haste sett.—The learned Counsel, explaining and commenting on the descriptions of boundaries in this sett, argued that they clearly showed that the line of southern boundary must be taken north of John Vincent's house; and on the map this boundary line was so drawn.—His learned friend had opened that this house was placed, in the map, considerably west of its true position. The reason of this was, that the person who made the map was told to get 355 fathoms from Vincent's house to the bound-stone mentioned; but he measured the 355 fathoms to the nearest bound stone, and then put back the house to suit this measurement; and this fact had been admitted from the commencement of these proceedings.—After explaining to the jury that the apparent alteration in position of one of the bound- stones on the plan was accounted for by the cutting away of the fence in which it had formerly stood, the learned Counsel remarked that the drawing of the southern boundary on the north of Vincent's house was in perfect agreement with the description in the sett, and then proceeded to direct attention to what he submitted would be quite decisive of this case. Part of the Filtrick estate was a field called Wheal Maria Field; which field would be cut to the extent, of 19 feet in depth and 25 fathoms in length if the southern boundary were to proceed from the south-west corner of Vincent's house, as was contended for by the West Basset adventurers; and in fact, as had already been shown in Mr. Henderson's evidence, any line drawn from Vincent’s house, except the one from its north-east corner would cut the fence and take away portion of that Wheal Maria field. Stronger evidence than this in favour of the defendant's case, could not be given.—Mr. M. Smith next stated that he should offer proof that Vincent’s house and what had been called the “lean-to” attached were one block, with internal communication: and that, consequently, the "north-east corner" must apply to the whole block, and not to any particular portion of the premise.—Next, further explaining the plans submitted to the jury, he remarked that by drawing the southern boundary from the north-east comer of Vincent's house, there was obtained the exact distance of “355 fathoms" to the "boundstone at the north-west extremity of South Wheal Basset sett ;" and this distance could not be obtained by measurement from any other spot.—The learned gentleman then, generally, argued and contended that all the measurements in the defendants' view of the case were consistent with the proposition that the southern boundary was to proceed from the North-east comer of Vincent's house.—Apart from measurements, it was difficult to say what was the evidence on the part of West Basset; and when the case was argued in the Court above, Lord Campbell said the map was perfectly immaterial; the question was what were the facts of the case. The plaintiffs however had endeavoured to create prejudice by saying that in the South Francis (sic) working plan the disputed boundary line had at one time been placed south of Vincent's house. That fact had always been admitted by the defendants. The truth was that this was a very large sett, and at the time the sett was granted, the precise boundary was not at all material; but, subsequently, it was discovered that, by strange accident, there happened to be a very rich deposit of ore just between the two lines of disputed boundary. The map used by the South Frances people had been made by a person called Phillips without seeing the sett; he was simply told that John Vincent's house was to be the boundary, and as soon as he came to it he proceeded to draw the south line, and that at a time when no attention of the adventurers was called to a boundary which appeared to be immaterial; and so inaccurately was this line laid down that it gave the West Basset people 40 or 50 fathoms of wastrel from Vincent's house in its true position, although they never claimed it and had no pretence to claim it.—He contended that the South Frances adventurers were not to be bound by a map made in the manner and under the circumstances which he had stated.—When this southern boundary became material, Mr. Marriott, Lady Basset's agent, was at the mine, and was told of the dispute between the two sets of adventurers; and Mr. Marriott there- upon, directed that the southern boundary should proceed from the centre of the chimney at the east end of Vincent's house. A stone was accordingly placed there to mark that spot; and the South Frances adventurers were then willing to accept that compromise, and so informed the West Basset adventurers, by the letter of the 21st of January 1854; which letter the West Basset adventurers did not condescend to answer, but in 1857 they claimed the south line, while the South Frances adventurers claimed the north line; and it was rather hard now to ask South Frances adventurers to accept the centre line which, in 1854, they proposed for the sake of peace, but which the West Basset adventurers did not accept.—After commenting on some incidents that had occurred in the course of the present trial, Mr. Smith said the parties now stood on their strict rights, and he appealed most confidently to the jury to come to the conclusion that the southern boundary of the South Frances sett was a line drawn from the north of John Vincent's house, and that, consequently, the South Frances adventurers were entitled to their verdict. It being now nearly 6 o'clock, the Court was adjourned till the following morning. NISI PRIUS, WEDNESDAY, August 3. LYLE v. RICHARDS and OTHERS.—The case for the defendant was resumed this morning, and after the leases of Gryllis and Filtrick had been put in, oral testimony was taken, at considerable length, from the following witnesses.—Thomas Prisk, tenant of Lanyon estate, and brother of the tenant of Filtrick; Elizabeth Richards, daughter of James Vincent, who built the house so frequently mentioned in the case as John Vincent's; Mr. Marriott, the late Lady Basset's steward and agent from 1845 to 1857; Mr. James Lanyon, toller to Lady Basset; Mr. Sylvanus Jenkin, surveyor &c, resident at Liskeard; and Mr. Richard Carveth, surveyor, at St. Austell. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH then addressed the jury at considerable length, on the evidence adduced, and generally in support of the defendants' case. He said the decision of the case must depend on the construction of the language of the leases and on the maps attached to them, and on the facts proved in relation to the disputed boundaries ; and the governing document was the old Wheal Haste sett of 1835; because by the leases of Gryllis and Filtrick, the defendants had everything, (within the bounds mentioned) that was not included in that sett of Wheal Haste. Among the wastrel spots in the Gryllis lease, and consequently within the sett of South Frances, was the spot on which was built John Vincent's house; that house not being included in the Wheal Haste sett. Of the Filtrick lease Mr. Smith said its general intent was to grant to the defendants the whole of the Filtrick estate up to where it reached Wheal Haste; and also all the wastrel as far as the lands of Lord Grenville. By reference to the Wheal Haste sett it would be seen that it did not include John Vincent's house or anything to the west of it. Parts of the Filtrick estate that were cut by the Wheal Haste boundary line were shown on the map; but the Maria Field was not shown to be so cut, and he argued thence that, as between South Frances and West Basset there must be a boundary line which would not cut that field; and the only line that would not cut it was one drawn from the North of Vincent's house. On the descriptions in the leases he contended that the southern boundary line must be begun as soon as Vincent's house was struck by the western boundary; and that was on the north side of the house; and this view was confirmed by the plan on the Gryllis lease; it would be found too that this line from the north of Vincent's house did not cut the Maria Field, and it was clearly intended that the boundary line should run north of that field without cutting it, as was shown in the plan on the counterpart of the Wheal Haste sett; and also by the Wheal Haste boundary line shown in the plan on the counterpart of the Filtrick sett.—The learned gentleman thought it would not be the safest way to decide this case by measurements, from plans so minute as had been introduced; and in this view concurred the learned Judge who tried the case at the last assizes. But, assuming that the measurements were to be taken as of importance, he contended they availed for South Frances rather than for West Basset; and on this point he reviewed in much detail, and commented on, the evidence given by the several surveyors. He next adverted to the evidence concerning the building of Vincent's house and of the subsequent additions to it, for the purpose of showing that the whole block was in the same state now as it was at the time the lease was granted; and that therefore the line north of that house was to be taken from the whole house. The learned gentleman then commented on topics introduced, and incidents occurring, in the case, which he held to be non-relevant to its real merits; and in conclusion he said the South Frances adventurers were ready in 1854 to agree to the proposed compromise; but the West Basset adventurers would not accept it, and therefore, had no right now to complain if the South Frances people stood on their rights. Mr. COLLIER adressed (sic) the jury in reply. He contended that the plaintiff had a right to ask the present jury to differ from the former jury in their decision; because, he alleged, the case was different on both sides. He asserted that there was no earthly question that at the time Mr. Lyle took the setts of West Basset in 1852 every person concerned had considered the boundary to be south of Vincent’s house. He remarked that in the working plan which had been produced, the Wheal Maria Field was cut by the boundary line, as it was also, he believed, by the Marriott line; and that working plan also showed the boundary line south of Vincent's cottage; and that being so, it was for the defendants to show on what grounds they moved their boundary northward, till at length they reached not only the north of Vincent's house proper, but even to the north of the lean-to, on the north of the dwelling-house. The reason assigned was that in the old Wheal Haste sett there was a dotted line north of the house and north of the lean-to. But, on the counterpart of that lease, the line was drawn to the middle of the house. Mr. Collier's interpretation of the Wheal Haste boundaries, was that Vincent's house itself formed the South-west corner of the sett and was included within the sett; and that, consequently, the southern boundary was to begin south of that house. The learned gentleman then, in confirmation of his views, commented on the surveyors' plans; and then pursued a similar course with reference to the leases in evidence. On the subject of the Maria Field he expressed surprise that his learned friend should have considered it as of any importance, as the setts produced were for mining purposes and not for the occupation of land at surface, where it might be important to avoid cutting a fence by a boundary line; not so in mining, where men worked irrespective of field enclosures. The learned gentleman concluded with a recapitulation of his statements and arguments. The learned JUDGE proceeded to sum up. He observed that the proper course for the jury to take was to look only to the evidence laid before them, and to form their judgment unaffected by any decision that any other jury might have arrived at. Much had been said about the endeavour by Mr. Marriott to lay down a medium line. Whether it was wise, or not, to refuse that proposition was not for the jury now to consider. It did not appear that Mr. Marriott was authorized by both parties, or that any award that he might make or be instrumental in directing, would be binding on both parties. Though it might have been prudent to adopt that course, the parties had not thought fit to do so, and they had a right to come here and ask the judgment of a jury.—The plaintiff charged the defendants with breaking and entering a certain mine called West Basset mine and taking away a quantity of copper ore; and in another count of the declaration, the defendants were charged, in trover, with taking copper ore, the property of the plaintiff. The defendants did not deny that they were liable to some extent; they admitted that they did, inadvertently, by wrong dialling, go too far and take away some ore belonging to plaintiff; but that must be taken as an accidental trespass, and the defendants ought not to be prejudiced thereby. The defendants stated that they had paid into Court a sum of £525, which they contended was sufficient compensation for the copper ore they had taken away; but the plaintiff replied that that sum was not sufficient, and now sought to recover, by means of the Jury, a larger sum. The plaintiff made his claim in two ways. In the first place he said that, supposing there was no doubt as to the boundaries of West Basset mine, and that they were restricted as defendants asserted, the sum of money paid into Court was not sufficient to cover the damage sustained by plaintiff. It would have been open to the plaintiff to ask for a verdict for any sum beyond 525l. that the jury might think him entitled to with respect to the ore that had been taken inadvertently; but as such additional amount would have been but small, it might be hoped that the parties would hardly have come here to try that question. They really came here to try a question of right; the plaintiff's more substantial claim was that the defendants had entered on something which the plaintiff alleged was his, but which the defendants said was not; or, in other words, he asserted that the West Basset sett extended so as to include the whole of Vincent's house, and that the boundary was at the south of that house; whereas the defendant said the boundary of South Frances was north of Vincent's house; and with respect to the trespass supposed to have been committed, it was on that question as to north or south side of Vincent's house, that the main question now arose. The parties had properly agreed that the question as to amount of damages should he referred to some captain of a mine or other competent person; but inasmuch as the amount of compensation must depend very much indeed on the limits of the mine, the parties now called for a verdict on the question of the boundaries of West Basset mine. The case now put on the part of the plaintiff was that his mine extended to the south side of Vincent's house; or, supposing that that was pushing his claim too far, he asked to be declared entitled to some line of boundary intermediate between the north and south sides of Vincent's house; so that, at any rate, he asked the jury to fix the boundary. The defendants, on the contrary, contended that the true construction of the documents and other evidence offered, was that the defendants' mine—South Frances—extended to the north side of Vincent's house, and that south of that boundary the plaintiff had no claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Lyle, stated, as his title, that he took the West Basset mine under a lease granted to him in 1852 by Lady Basset, the owner in fee of the property in question. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff had put it that the question in this case was, possibly, one of law, for him (the learned judge); but he did not think it was a question of law for him; because each party had treated the words of that lease or sett as ambiguous, and had offered evidence, unobjected to, on which the jury were called on to explain that ambiguity. If it were a question for him to determine, he should feel no difficulty in entertaining it, but at present he declined to do so. He had, however, come to the opinion that, as matter of law, the plaintiff had not made out his case. He conceived however that the question was one of fact for the jury, and to them he should leave it. The documents to be referred to them were material only for the purpose of throwing light on that lease of the 20th February 1852, under which the plaintiff took his title.—The learned .fudge then read the description of boundaries in that sett, remarking that it was not materially different from the description given in the lease of Wheal Haste in 1835 to Capt. Richards; in fact, the two leases were substantially the same. In that demise, the parties intended to describe the boundaries of the sett, by giving the boundaries, under the four quarters, of the land intended to be worked under. "North" and “West" were, however, mentioned together, in consequence, it would appear, of the ground in question being bounded on both those sides by the estates of Bosleake and Treskillard. Of the western boundary there was no description, as to length; and therefore, in proceeding to ascertain its length, from the north, it was necessary to look to the parcels in order to find where the western boundary should end and the southern line begin. The defendants' argument was that the moment the western boundary struck the north side of Vincent's house, that western boundary was finished, and that there was the terminus a quo, whence to commence the southern boundary. Whether that southern boundary was to start from the north, south, or middle of Vincent's house admitted of doubt, and both parties had offered evidence with the view of applying the language of this deed in their favour, respectively, and it was for the jury to determine this question. The plaintiff contended that the southern line ought to be drawn from the south side of Vincent's house; the defendants' contention was that it should be drawn from the north side; but the plaintiff further contended that if he should be defeated as to his claim to take the line from the south, he had at any rate a right to draw the line from the centre of the house.—His lordship remarked that, with the multiplicity of documents which had been submitted, it would be convenient to endeavour to get a clear notion of the documents mainly relied on. There were certain plans and surveys on both sides, of the property as now existing; and besides these, there were plans on the lease and counterpart of the lease, of 1835, to Capt. Richards, who remained in possession of the sett down to 1852, when the present plaintiff took possession. The plans on that lease and counterpart did not entirely correspond; though it might be that they did not exactly contradict each other. In one respect there was a difference between them which had been strongly put by the plaintiff's counsel—with reference to the part from which the boundary line in dispute commenced at Vincent's house. There were, besides these plans on the lease and counterpart of 1835, two other sets of plans which had been relied on; these were plans which accompanied the sett to defendants in 1843; in this sett there were two leases of the same date—of Gryllis and Filtrick. The learned counsel had called for the counterpart of the lease of Filtrick, because, he said, there was a difference between the plan on the lease and that on the counterpart. Besides these plans, there was one other plan on which much observation had been made—a plan made by a person called Phillips; this plan appeared to have been seen by Mr. Lyle in the account-house of the South Frances Company before he took the sett of West Basset in 1852. It appeared that, after some doubt as to the rights of the parties had arisen, an attempt was made by Mr. Marriott to lay down an intermediate boundary, and then this plan of Phillips's had been altered accordingly. It seemed to his lordship that some observations should be addressed to the jury with a view to prevent their attaching too much importance to the alteration of that plan. Ordinarily speaking, if a plan was found to be altered or mutilated, it would justify strong observations against the party so altering it. But in the present case, he thought the alteration had been sufficiently explained, by the fact that when Mr. Marriott attempted to arbitrate between the parties and suggested a middle line, the map was altered to correspond with that new arrangement, and the old line was erased. That fact did not appear to his lordship to be very important, and the plaintiff said he did not impute fraud, but had called for this plan, in order to show what was the line laid down by the South Frances company antecedently to dispute. These were all the important documents relied on for the purpose of enabling the jury to determine whether the minerals between the north and south lines, were in West Basset or in South Frances mine.—There were some circumstances of agreement between the parties. The first was that each relied on the lease of 1835, though with different objects. Then, both parties agreed that the plans on the lease and counterpart were of extremely small size, and that neither Vincent's house nor the bound- stone was properly laid down in that plan. Each party contended that the evidence on those plans supported their respective views. His lordship proceeded to direct particular attention to the plans on the lease and counterpart of 1835, and particularly with reference to the Maria Field, observing that the bound-line, as shown on the lease, did not appear to cut through that field. That fact, however, did not interfere with the defendants' view—that that field was intended to be untouched; because, on the counterpart, the bound-line just skirted that field. The difference between the two was that the upper part of the Maria Field was shown on the counterpart, but not on the lease itself. On both the lease and counterpart, the line was shown to run in the same direction; but on the lease, the line was placed north of Vincent's house, whereas, on the counterpart Mr. Collier believed the line did not go farther north than the centre of the house. That point the jury would endeavour to ascertain. But possibly a more important question would be, where the line passed the Maria Field; because that would afford some means of ascertaining whether it went to the south of the house, or not. The jury must also bear in mind the observation made by plaintiff's counsel, that, though in demising surface land it would be extremely important not to divide a field, it was not the same in demising the subterranean part of a field; and he would ask them to look carefully at those two documents—the lease and counterpart, bearing in mind that on the lease, the line laid down was in favour of defendants; whereas, on the counterpart, Mr. Collier contended it came up only so far north as the centre of the house.—The defendants relied on the leases of Gryllis and Filtrick, which they took from Lady Basset in 1843; but it appeared to be clear that Gryllis and Filtrick—or rather Filtrick more particularly—was not to include any portion of that which had been under lease to Capt. Richards from 1835, as the Wheal Haste sett. What the defendants took in 1843 was to extend up to Wheal Haste sett, but was not to include any thing that had been demised in that sett.—His Lordship, having read the descriptions of boundaries in Gryllis and Filtrick, said he did not think much turned on the plans of Gryllis estate. But the Counsel for plaintiff had called for the counterpart of the lease of Filtrick, for the purpose of showing that not only was there the line of 1843, which he saw before he took his lease in 1852, but, further, that on the counterpart of the Filtrick lease, there was a line cutting through the upper part of the Maria Field.—His lordship next referred to the plan that was seen in the South Frances account-house just before the plaintiff took his lease.—The alteration of the line in that plan had been explained. The value of that plan was, that it showed the line that was laid down before the property in dispute became valuable.—With regard to the surface plans, both parties having agreed that the smallness of the plans on the lease and counterpart of 1835 made them difficult to be understood, large plans had been made founded on surveys immediately preceding the trial, and an endeavour had been made to put the house and bound stone in their right positions. The surveyors had produced their respective plans. Those by Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Carveth, on the part of defendants, seemed tolerably well to correspond; they made their plans at different times, and various tests were applied by them, in order to obtain evidence as to the division between the two mines, founded on comparison after the house and bound-stone had been placed, in the surveyors' judgment, in their right positions; and it was said that after those positions had been corrected, the measurements, in favour of defendants, corresponded with the descriptions in the deed, and also that then, a line from the north-east part of the house would not touch the Maria Field; whereas that field must be cut by another line—say, from the south or from the centre of the house.—After speaking of some more minute points with regard to measurements and bounds, the learned Judge said he did not think it would assist the jury if he were to read over the verbal evidence in the case, though he was willing to do so if they thought proper. The plaintiff ought to make out his case that he had gained the minerals under ground to which he was entitled; and that title he claimed to derive under the lease of 1852. That lease seemed to admit of doubts as to its proper meaning; at any rate, each party had appealed to other evidence to enable the jury to decide the question; and it was for the jury now to decide on the whole evidence. He advised them not to be influenced by any former verdict, but to inspect and examine the plans, forgetting those which had been mentioned and commented on, but not offered in evidence. Confining their attention to the plans put in, and to the evidence adduced, they would say whether, in their judgment, the boundary line was at the north, or the south, or the centre of Vincent's house; and on this last alternative, the learned Judge spoke of the additional buildings which had been adjoined to the original dwelling-house, remarking that the line laid down by Mr. Marriott seemed to proceed from the centre of the eastern end of the house proper, and not from the centre of the whole block. The Foreman of the Jury (Mr. BORLASE, of ), said he was desired to ask a question. The jury might possibly find for the north or south line, and yet think there might be hardship on one party or the other; would it be competent to the jury to recommend an arrangement?—The JUDGE:—You may recommend.—Mr. BORLASE:—I don't go further than that.—The JUDGE: You may recommend, certainly; and I don't know that it would not be a wise thing even at this time of day; but your verdict must be a verdict. The fact is that neither your recommendation nor mine would carry much weight; but I am quite sure that your recommendation would carry much more weight than mine. The jury retired for consultation at 25 minutes past 4. Shortly afterwards, the learned JUDGE stated to the counsel in the cause, that he had ruled that if it was matter of law, the plaintiff had not made out his case. The learned Judge soon afterwards retired to his lodgings, whither, about 6 o'clock, the Jury sent a note to his lordship, who at first penned a reply, but then preferred sending for the jury. On their arrival, his lordship said:—I have this note from you; I am requested to give you in writing the point to be decided, and I have written it out, but I wished to see you that you may understand what I have written. The plaintiff's right to recover may depend on the boundary of his mine. You are aware that his mine is taken under the lease of 1852 and that it is called the West Basset mine. You are not to decide the whole case. A Juror:—We have not gone into any thing like the whole case. The JUDGE. You are only to decide by agreement between the parties that question, which I shall take a note and the Arbitrator will adopt it. You are to decide and determine the Southern Boundary of the Plaintiff’s, or the West Basset mine, whether it is bounded on the southward by a line to be drawn from the south-east corner of John Vincent's house, or any intermediate point between the south-east corner of the buildings as they stood before the lease of 1852. Here is the South-east, and that (describing on the plan) is the north approach to any of the buildings; that takes us to the house; there is the dairy built behind, and the stable with it. Mr. Collier contends if he is not entitled to the line from the South, he is entitled to the line from some intermediate point, and you will have to say whether it is an intermediate point in the middle or centre of the buildings as they stand, or the original house. If you say it is from the North-east comer of the buildings as they now stand, you have said enough; if it is the South-east, you have said enough then; but if you think it is not from the South or North East, but from some intermediate part, you will say whether it is the centre or any intermediate part of the house as it originally stood, or of the buildings as they stood in 1852, or I may say from 1835, including the whole. The Foreman:—It appeared to me, as laid down on that plan there, that the front wall of the house is nearly East and West; but in this country it is very usual to call the South East and the North West. The Jury then returned to their consulting room, at the county hall. At half-past 8 o'clock, the jurors concluded their consultation and went again to the judge’s lodgings; counsel, attornies, and other persons interested being in attendance. The names of the jurors were called as follow:—William Allen, William Bell, Philip Blamey, Samuel Borlase, Edward Bowhay, William Conn, John Freeman, junior, Robert Glasson Michell, William Michell, Edward Pethybridge, Jeremiah Reynalds, Richard Wise. The ASSOCIATE:—Gentlemen, are you agreed? Do you find for Plaintiff or Defendant? Mr. BORLASE (foreman):—For the plaintiff; and that the south extremity should be a line to be drawn from the south-east corner of Vincent's house to a bound-stone at the north-west extremity of South Wheal Basset sett. The JUDGE:—I understand you are so good as to return this answer in reference to your own written question and my written answer to you. Will you be good enough to return, that to me?—Mr. BORLASE handed a paper to the JUDGE; who, after reading it said: that will be a verdict for plaintiff; I will take a note of that. It is the second bound-stone?—Mr. BORLASE: The proper bound-stone; l believe the further bound-stone; we understood there was no doubt about that. The Jury then returned to their place in the Nisi Prius Court, and, after receiving their fees, were discharged. This concluded the business of the Assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 22nd and 29th October 1858

6. Michaelmas Sessions

These sessions were opened on Tuesday last, at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following very full bench of Magistrates:— Lord Vivian S. Borlase, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. R. Foster, Esq. Sir S. T. Spry John Borlase, Esq. T.J. Agar Robarts, Esq., M.P. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. W. Hext, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. Augustus Coryton, Esq. J. St. Aubyn, Esq., M.P. E. Stephens, Esq. E.W.B. Willyams, Esq., M.P. W. Morshead, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. W.R.C. Potter, Esq. C.G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. C.W. Popham, Esq. J.B. Messenger, Esq. Hon. and Rev. J.T. Boscawen. R.G. Lakes, Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. T.R. Avery, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Rev. Uriah Tonkin. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. W.D. Hanson, Esr. (sic) Rev. L.M. Peter. J.P. Magor, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. R. Johns, Esq. Rev. J. Glanville. H. Thomson, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. Thomas Hext, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. Neville Norway, Esq. Rev. E.J. Treffry. F.M. Williams, Esq. Rev. James Glencross. E. Coode, jun. Esq. Rev. R. Buller, J. Jope Rogers, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. Rev. H. Farwell Roe. J.W. Peard, Esq. William Michell, Esq., of Truro, and the Rev. Henry John Morshead of Kelly, qualified as magistrates. It had been made known that Mr. Lethbridge, for many years Chairman of the Quarter Sessions would on this day publicly tender his resignation of that office; but unhappily, severe illness prevented his attendance, and there was, consequently, some unavoidable delay in opening the Court. At fully half- past 11, after consultation among the magistrates in their private room, Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., who had for some years assisted as Chairman of the second court, entered the court and took the chair. (Mr. Sawle, who also had often officiated as Chairman, was unable to attend the sessions, in consequence, we understand, of some domestic affliction.) On taking the Chair, Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said it appeared to be the opinion of the Court that before any other business were entered on, it should proceed to the election of a Chairman in place of Mr. Lethbridge. LORD VIVIAN:—And before that business is proceeded with, I think it well that I should read to the Court an Address that has been unanimously voted by the Magistrates of this County to our late most respected and most worthy Chairman (applause).—His lordship then read the following Address:— “We, the Magistrates of this County have learnt with very deep regret the determination which you have announced of resigning the Chairmanship of Quarter Sessions. “We feel that we owe you a warm acknowledgment of the services you have rendered whilst acting in the capacity of our Chairman. Your admirable judgment, temper, discretion, and your knowledge of law, eminently qualified you to preside over us, and these qualities have won for you the esteem, not only of your brother magistrates, but of all classes in this County. “The cause which you assign for the resignation of the Chairmanship precludes us from urging you to continue in the discharge of the onerous duties you have hitherto so well performed; but we sincerely hope that we may for long enjoy the advantage of your experience, in aid of whomsoever may succeed you.” His lordship added:—I need not say one word in addition expressive of the very strong feeling evidenced by every magistrate of this county, and their very deep regret that the Chairman has been obliged to vacate his office. (The various expressions of regard for the late esteemed Chairman were followed by manifestations of concurrence and approval, both from the Bench and the body of the Court.) At a later period of the day the following extracts from a letter written by Mr. Lethbridge to the Rev. T. Pascoe were read. The letter was dated “, October 18th; and in it Mr. Lethbridge writes:— “My dear Pascoe, “The pain and irritation and consequent discipline of my complaint, compel me to absent myself from these Sessions. It is an untoward event and one which I deeply lament, but it is quite unavoidable. I had hoped to attend and express publicly my acknowledgments for all the assistance and confidence which I have experienced from the magistracy for so many years; but it cannot be, and I must submit * * * * * * Offer my kind regards to the magistrates around you and to any others who may make inquiries about me, not forgetting the Lord Lieutenant, whose kindness has been very uniform.”] After the reading of the address, Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH vacated the chair, which was taken temporarily by Lord VIVIAN; who said: Gentlemen, I take the chair merely to receive the opinion of the magistrates assembled as to who shall succeed Mr. Lethbridge as Chairman of Quarter Sessions; and I ask any gentlemen present to propose and second those whom they may think fit and proper persons for that office. Mr. ROBARTES, M.P. said he had been requested to undertake the duty of making a proposition, which he would at once submit, without any comment. He begged to propose (naming the gentlemen in alphabetical order) that Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Sawle be appointed joint chairman, in place of Mr. Lethbridge. Mr. KENDALL, M.P., seconded the proposition. Lord VIVIAN:—It is proposed and seconded that Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Sawle act conjointly as chairmen to carry on the business of Quarter Sessions in this County. – His Lordship put the preposition to the bench, and declared it carried unanimously; and he then invited Sir Colman Rashleigh to resume the chair. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said; I rise, gentlemen, with feelings of great pleasure to return thanks for the honour you have done me in electing me a Chairman of Quarter Sessions in this County. I can only say that I feel, as any one succeeding our late excellent Chairman would, that I come before the County under great disadvantage. I must therefore crave your indulgence if I fall very far short of him. But I venture to hope that I have not served under him as deputy for a period of 14 or 15 years, without having reaped some advantages from the excellent example he set. I can only say that so far as my abilities will permit, I will endeavour to do my duty to the county and to give satisfaction. If I fail, it will be from want of ability – not from want of zeal and attention. I am very happy that the whole responsibility is not thrown upon one gentleman. I shall have great pleasure in sharing the honors and labours of my position with my excellent friends, Mr. Sawle and Mr. Rogers; I am very happy to have the assistance of such able men sitting on the bench with me. Mr. J. JOPE ROGERS:—My Lord and Gentlemen; after what has been said so appropriately by my friend Sir Colman Rashleigh, with regard to the excellent services of our late Chairman, it would be hardly becoming in me to refer to that subject. But I can say with sincerity that I feel quite humbled by the position in which the vote of my brother magistrates have placed me on this occasion. I have the disadvantage, which my friend Sir Colman Rashleigh has not, of being almost inexperienced in those subjects that come before us at Quarter Sessions. But I can only say, with all sincerity, that if nothing but zeal and eagerness in your behalf be expected of me, you shall have that most entirely; and any deficiency from inexperience or want of knowledge I hope to make up. I feel very much obliged to you for the kind vote which have placed me in this position; it will be my earnest endeavour to justify the choice you have this day made. The following gentlemen were then sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. William Hancock, St. Austell, foreman. — John Adams, Madron. — Edward Aver, . — James Blamey, Veryan. — Thomas Colman, Cuby. — Nicholas Holman, St. Just. — Hugh Hoskin, St. Erth. — William Hoskin, . — William John, Budock. — Thomas John, St. Just. — John Lawry, St. Just. — Samuel Lawry, Probus. — Stephen Penrose, Probus. — James George Philp, Budock. — Thomas Reed, Mylor. — James Roberts, Gulval. — James Rowe, Gulval. — William Southard, Penryn. — James Stephens, Tregony. — William Tonkin, Paul. — James Treweeke, Mawnan. — Charles Truscott, St. Austell — William Simmons Williams, Stithians. The Queen’s Proclamation for the encouragement of virtue was then read, and the CHAIRMAN next proceeded to charge the Grand Jury [not transcribed] COUNTY BUSINESS.—For the more convenient transaction of County business, it was resolved, on the motion of Lord VIVIAN, seconded by Mr. PETER, that with the exception of convenient space for the Reporters, the Table be wholly appropriated to Magistrates.—As many of the magistrates as could conveniently take position at the Table, proceeded further from the Bench; the Professional Gentlemen yielding their places there until the commencement of criminal business. CORONER’S BILLS.—On the presenting of these Bills, it was stated by Mr. GOOD, in answer to Mr. E. COODE jun., that he had held, and charged for an inquest in the parish of Bridgerule (on the body, it subsequently appeared, of Abraham Yelland, killed while erecting some machinery on the Canal). Mr. E. COODE said the parish of Bridgerule had refused to pay County Rates in Cornwall, on the ground that it did not belong to this County; and therefore he could not think it fair that the County should be called on to pay the expenses of an Inquest there. It appeared that by the Reform act the parish of Bridgerule was removed from Cornwall to Devon; and by a recent act it had been declared that Parliamentary boundaries should be taken as boundaries for all purposes; the parish of Bridgerule, on both sides of the Tamar, voted in North Devon, and therefore it was not considered part of the County of Cornwall; and the County Rate Committee had not included it in its new Basis. In answer to questions, Mr. GOOD stated that when he was appointed Coroner, the parish of Bridgerule was stated to be in his district; and until the present time, he had never been informed to the contrary. If the parish were in Cornwall, it would be clearly within his district. – Rev. J. GLANVILLE said, when Mr. Good was elected Coroner, the parish was in his district; it had only lately been removed to Devon. – Mr. E. COODE said he was not aware that Devon had accepted the parish; he only knew that Cornwall had abandoned it. Lord VIVIAN considered that, under the circumstances, it would be hard that the Coroner should go unpaid; but, in order to prevent recurrence of such an event he thought that the Clerk of the Peace should communicate with the Clerk of the Peace for Devonshire; a fatal accident might happen any day, and then under existing circumstances, a dead body might remain unburied, because the question of County jurisdiction remained unsettled; and his Lordship referred to some severe, and, he considered, just comments of the Times on a similar state of things with reference to two other co-terminous Counties. – Mr. KENDALL, concurring in the remarks by his lordship in respect of Mr. Good’s position and conduct, moved that Mr. Good’s charge for the inquest in question be paid, but that he be given to understand that Bridgerule does not now belong to Cornwall. – This motion was seconded by Mr. E. COODE junr., and adopted. – It was further resolved – on the motion of the Rev. J. GLANVILLE, seconded by Lord VIVIAN – that the Clerk of the Peace be requested to communicate the proceedings of this Court on the subject to the Clerk of the Peace for Devon, and to take such measures as may be necessary. The following Coroners’ Bills for the past Quarter were allowed:— £ s. d. Mr. Hichens … … … … … … … … … 89 5 4 Mr. Jago … … … … … … … … … 61 1 5 Mr. Carlyon … … … … … … … … … 116 14 5 Mr. Good … … … … … … … … … 49 9 2 Mr. Hamley … … … … … … … … … 67 3 5 VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The Visiting Justices reported that the state of the prison was as satisfactory as could be expected under existing circumstances. GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The CHAIRMAN read the following Report from Mr. Everest, the Governor of the Cornwall County Gaol and House of Correction:— “In my Report at the last Michaelmas Sessions, I called your Worships’ attention to the great increase of committals during the year ending Michaelmas 1857 as compared with that of 1856, amounting to no less than 112. I now regret to state that the committals for the present year exceed those of last year by 134, viz.:— Criminals. Debtors. Total Number of Prisoners received in the year ending 29th Sept., 1858 ………… 627 184 811 Do. Do. 29th Sept., 1857 ………… 570 104 677 Increase of committals in 1858 …………. 57 77 134 As regards the conduct of the prisoners I am happy to state that with a few exceptions amongst the Females, it has been quiet and orderly. —The CHAIRMAN read a comparative statement of prisoners, from which it appeared that the total number for trial at the Michaelmas Sessions 1857 was 27: ditto, 1858-31. Committed under the Criminal Justice Act, in the quarter ending Michaelmas 1857, 12; ditto 1858, 10. Committed under the Juvenile Offenders Act, 1857, one; 1858, three. Total number of criminal prisoners received during the quarter ending Michaelmas 1857, 190; ditto, 1858, 150; a decrease of 40. COUNTY COURT COMMITTALS.—The CHAIRMAN said Mr. Everest wished him to mention that great inconvenience was likely to accrue from the enormously increasing committals of debtors from the County Courts; they were increasing daily, and the accommodation was barely sufficient at present.—In reply to Mr. LAKES, Mr. EVEREST said the maintenance of these debtors was paid for out of the county rates.—Mr. LAKES said this was a very great hardship. It acted in two ways; in the first place, those parties that paid to the county rate paid for the maintenance of these debtors; and in the next place, in many instances, parishes had to maintain the families of those imprisoned. Such facts had frequently come under his notice lately; and he should appeal to his friend Mr. Coode to bear him out. He should like to be furnished with the costs of maintenance of parties committed from the small debt courts during the year ending Michaelmas 1858; so that he might be enabled to move on the subject at the next sessions. Would there be any difficulty in his being furnished with such information?—Mr. EVEREST said he could supply the information, if Mr. Lakes would explain what he wanted.—The CHAIRMAN said the gaol books were open to inspection by any magistrate.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., said several cases had come before the Board of Guardians where whole families had been thrown on the parish in consequence of the heads of those families having been committed, and sometimes re-committed, for debts of 4s. or 5s. Were it not a bad example, it would be far cheaper for parishes to pay the debts, and free the debtors from their obligations. CHAPLAIN’S REPORT.—The Chaplain’s Annual Report, was read by the Chairman On the motion of the Rev. VYELL VYVYAN, seconded by the Rev. R. B. KINSMAN, the Report, generally, was referred to the Visiting Committee; and a particular recommendation—that accommodation for kneeling in prayer be provided in the Gaol Chapel, was referred to the Building Committee. SURGEON’S REPORT.—This Annual Report was read by the CHAIRMAN. THE NEW GAOL. A Bill for £76 12s. 4d., for expenses on account of the New Gaol was mentioned by the CHAIRMAN, and allowed. HALL EXPENSES, for the past quarter.—£7 14s. 5d. GAOL EXPENSES, for the past quarter:—Total, £776 11s. 5½d. THE NEW GAOL.—In compliance with legislative requirements, the CLERK of the PEACE read a mortgage deed, dated this day, by which the county rates are mortgaged for payment of a loan of £10,000—the second instalment of like amount of a loan of £28,000 from the West of England Fire and Life Insurance Company, towards the expense of building the new gaol at Bodmin; with interest at 5 per cent. per annum payable half-yearly.—The deed was executed in court, on behalf of the county, by Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. Kendall, and Mr. E. Coode, jun. BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—The following report was presented by Mr. Sylvanus W. Jenkin, inspector of bridges in the Eastern Division. Treguddick Bridge.—An alteration of the parapet wall, and some slight repairs are required at this bridge; the cost will be about 30 shillings. Lostwithiel Bridge.—I have been requested by the Lostwithiel gas company to lay before this sessions an application for leave to lay gas pipes across this bridge. Seaton Bridge.—I have to apply for a grant of 10s. for the removal of a bank of shingle which has been injuring the road at this bridge. I shall require two levies at this time. —Some discussion took place on the application by the Lostwithiel Gas Company, whose object, it appeared, was to set about lighting the town with gas, including that portion of the town which lies in the parish of St. Winnow, with especial reference to the lighting of the Railway Station about to be erected near the bridge. They proposed not to disturb the centre of the road on the bridge; but to lay the pipes in a trench 10 inches deep by the road side.—Objection was strongly urged by Lord VIVIAN to the incommoding of the traffic on so narrow a bridge by the first laying, and possibly frequent repairing of the pipes on any part of the roadway; and his lordship suggested that strong iron pipes might be safely supported on the outside of the bridge—on the straight line just above the arches.—In reply to Mr. KENDALL, Mr. JENKYN, the bridge surveyor, said his impression, off-hand, was that the gas company, could provide some inexpensive mode of laying on gas across the river without injuring the roadway of the bridge. Mr. FOSTER suggested that any possible hindrance of traffic by acceding to the proposal of the gas company might be prevented by providing that the work should be done at night; and he moved that the gas company’s application be granted, on condition that the work be done under surveillance of the bridge inspector, and after certain hours.—Mr. BENNET seconded the motion.—Lord VIVIAN moved as an amendment—that the application by the Lostwithiel Gas Company be refused. The amendment was seconded by the Rev. J. GLANVILLE, and on a division it was carried by a majority of 18 to 10. WESTERN DIVISION.—The following was the Report from Mr. Hickes, Inspector of Bridges in the Western Division: “I beg to call your attention to the state of Bissoe Bridge; the arches are considerably filled by sand and silt from the mines, and unless removed, I fear in case of a flood the bridge will be seriously damaged; I would recommend the bed of the stream being deepened a foot or eighteen inches, for about 60 fathoms below and under the bridge, which I estimate may be done for 4 or 5l. Higher Carnon—There are some repairs required to the road, which will cost about 15 shillings. Mylor.—There is some pointing required to the guard-walls; also some repairs to the rails, on the south side of the bridge; which together will cost 1l. 4s. Tregony and Cornelly.—There are some repairs required to the roads, which will cost about 2l. 10s. After some discussion on the subject of Bissoe Bridge, it was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Borlase, seconded by Mr. Morshead, that a sum not exceeding 5l. be granted for the purpose named in the Surveyor’s Report. COUNTY ASYLUM.—No report was presented; but some considerable discussion took place, on complaints made by Mr. LAKES as to escape of lunatics, and as to the expenditure and some points of management in the Asylum.—Mr. KENDALL, as Chairman of the Asylum Committee, vindicated the management and expenditure of the Asylum.—The discussion was lengthy; but, as it involved some observations of interest, we may possibly revert to the subject in our next number. COUNTY CONSTABULARY.—The CHAIRMAN read the following Report from the Chief Constable:— “Chief Constable’s Office, Bodmin, 19th October, 1858. “My Lords and Gentlemen, “I have the honor to lay before you a return showing the distribution of the constabulary; also a return showing the amount of crime committed in this county, so far as is known to the constabulary, during the last twelve months, by which you will see that 2,688 persons have been dealt with summarily by magistrates, and 111 committed for trial.—With regard to the annual expenditure of the whole force, I would beg to observe that although the sum of £11,237 18s. 4d. appears in the cost sheet, the actual sum paid by the county after taking credit for services performed by police and a fourth of the pay and clothing to be paid by the government, amounts to only £7734 1s. 6½.—I have merely further to add that the general conduct of the force continues very satisfactory. “I have the honor to be, My Lords and Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, W.R. GILBERT Lieut.-Colonel and Chief Constable. POLICE COMMITTEE’S REPORT.—This report was read by Mr. E. COODE, jun., Chairman of the Police Committee:— “The County Police Committee beg to report that at a meeting held yesterday at the office of the chief constable, the following members were present:—Lord Vivian, N. Kendall, R. Foster, D. P. Le Grice, T. R. Avery, J. P. Magor, F. M. Williams, J. J. Rogers, and E. Coode, jun., Esquires.—The usual quarter’s accounts were examined and approved, and are now recommended to be passed by this court. The accounts passed at the last sessions were examined with the vouchers for the same, and found correct. Stations.—The lease for the station at Camborne has been in the main approved, and it is hoped if an arrangement of certain exceptions as to minerals, &c., can be effected by the legal advisers of both parties in time, may be executed at these sessions. As soon as the lease is executed, the contractors for the building will be able to commence operations so far as may be deemed desirable at this season of the year —The draft agreement for a lease of the station at Torpoint was approved.—The conveyances in fee of the sites for stations at St. Cleer and Menheniot are completed, and tenders for the buildings have been received and examined; but they all appear to the committee so disproportionately high that they do not deem it advisable to accept either of them, and have given instructions to the Chief Constable and Architect to take certain steps which it is hoped may elicit tenders on more reasonable terms. Weights and Measures.—The sets of weights and measures previously belonging to the county have been re-adjusted at the exchequer, as ordered at the last sessions, at the expense (including certain boxes and other articles made in this place) of £232 4s. 8½d ; and are now ready for delivery to the new Inspectors. Recognizances have been prepared to be entered into by the Inspectors, for safe custody, &c., of Weights and Measures as required by the act.—The court is required by the act to fix certain days on which the Inspectors are to attend at market-towns and such other places as the court may deem fit, for the purpose of stamping weights and measures. A scheme in accordance with this provision is annexed and is recommended for the approval of the Court. “The committee are informed by the Chief Constable that the Government Inspector recommends that in future each Constable should be provided with an Occurrence Book in addition to his journal; and as the expense will not be great, the Committee are of opinion that they should be provided. “The Committee are of opinion that a Police Rate, at the rate of three farthings in the pound will be sufficient for this Quarter.” Mr. E. COODE, jun., then moved that the Inspectors of Weights and Measures shall attend at the several market-towns and other places within their several districts on the days and at the times appointed for the purpose of comparing and stamping Weights and Measures according to the provisions of the Act; and that the Chief Constable be instructed to give notice of such days of attendance by advertising in the two County papers twice in every year, at least 14 days previous to such days of attendance. Mr. E. COODE also moved that Messrs. Nicholl and Towler’s Bill, amounting to 213l. 8s. 10d. for one new set of Weights and Measures, and including the cost of re-adjusting and stamping at the Exchequer, of the old sets, together with the sum of 18l 15s. 5½d. for boxes and other matters provided in the county be ordered to be paid out of the County Rate; and that the sums of 158l. 4s. 3d. for constables’ allowances, for giving notice to Coroners and attending inquests during the past quarter, be charged to the County Rate, and carried to the credit of the Police Rate. Mr. BENNET suggested that the Police might be usefully employed, when on their beats, in noticing, and afterwards reporting obstructions on roads, from the placing of heaps of stones, from the straying of cattle &c.—After some conversation on the subject—chiefly between Mr. BENNET and the CHIEF CONSTABLE—Mr. E. COODE’s two motions on the Police Committee’s Report, were agreed to. MILITIA STORES.—Col. CORYTON gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move for a grant not exceeding £3000 for the purchase of land adjoining the Bodmin Union Workhouse, and for the erection of a store-house for the Royal Cornwall Rangers Militia, in accordance with the Act of Parliament.—He also moved for authority to the Committee to procure plans and specifications for presentation at next Sessions.—The motion was seconded by Mr. MESSENGER, and was agreed to. COUNTY RATE.—The CHAIRMAN said the first item of the Agenda was:—“To take into consideration the basis or standard for a County Rate, laid before the Court at the last General Quarter Sessions, by the County Rate Committee.—Mr. E. COODE jun., as Chairman of the County Rate Committee, moved the adoption of the basis, with the exception of an alteration, from15521l. to 1360l., in the case of the parish of , for reasons which he explained. He said that, in submitting their basis, the Committee felt that the best basis that could be made could only be an approximation to correctness; it was almost impossible to frame a basis that should not be faulty in some small particulars; but in making their basis, the committee had taken all possible care and trouble, and had availed themselves of every source of information, by requiring returns from parish officers and from clerks to Property Tax Commissioners; they had also appointed days for hearing objections, and in some cases had allowed alterations. He stated that the old basis, made in 1844, was no doubt prepared with the greatest possible pains; but by lapse of time and changes as to mining property—and partly by mines taking setts by which they evaded payment of rates, it was obvious that a new basis was rendered necessary. In fact, instances had occurred in which certain parishes were assessed to the County Rate at more than the full amount of property assessed to the property tax. Lord VIVIAN seconded Mr. Coode’s motion. Rev. E.J. TREFFRY, complained on the part of parishioners of St. Blazey, that the parish was now assessed at £7230, whereas the former assessment was at £4672, and, for the present basis, they consented to be assessed at £6283 13s. 6d.—Mr. Treffry was informed that the parish of St. Blazey would have power of appeal against the rate; and, after some further conversation, the resolution, moved by Mr. E. COODE, and seconded by Lord VIVIAN, was adopted; and, in reply to a question from the CLERK of the PEACE, the CHAIRMAN said the county rates in future would be calculated on this new basis. THE NEW GAOL.—ln the absence of Mr. Sawle, a motion was submitted by Mr. Kendall, for the adoption of the Visiting Justices' Report, as to the purchase of a meadow adjoining the prison, called Flaxmoor, and for a grant of £150 to pay for it.—The motion, seconded by Mr. THOMPSON, was agreed to. LUNATIC ASYLUM, AND BODMIN BURIAL GROUND.—The next item of the Agenda was:—"The notice given by Lord Vivian for the Chairman of the Lunatic Asylum Committee, that he shall move for the grant of £100, to pay for the purchase and formation of a Burial ground for the Asylum, within the Borough of Bodmin”; but ultimately it appeared that this was not the correct form in which application for County aid was made.—It appeared from a statement by Lord VIVIAN, that the Asylum Committee received a Deputation from the town people of Bodmin who represented that, in consequence of the state of their present Burial Ground adjoining the Church, they should be obliged to purchase a cemetery elsewhere; and as a large portion of their Burial Ground was occupied by deceased Asylum Patients, they craved a free will offering from the County towards a new cemetery, and the Committee recommended a Grant of £100. That morning he (Lord Vivian) had received a Deputation from inhabitants of Bodmin, in favour of a General Cemetery, open to all denominations of Christians—Dissenters as well as Churchmen; and in that view his lordship expressed full concurrence; and he would now move a grant of £100, on the understanding that it be applied for a General Cemetery open to all denominations. He understood that the reason assigned for the limiting this aid to burial ground in connection with the Church, was that the Asylum had occupied considerable space in the old Church Burial Ground; but he affirmed that the Asylum, being within the parish of Bodmin had perfect right to bury its dead in the parish burial ground.—Mr. KENDALL explained that the notice in the agenda was an error, for that there was no intention to have a Burial Ground for the Asylum. The fact was that the Asylum had gone on for years burying in the Burial Ground at Bodmin Church, till at length the Vicar said there was no room there for inhabitants of Bodmin, who were about to procure a new Burial Ground and asked assistance from the County. But then came the question whether the asylum, being within the parish of Bodmin, could claim to bury its dead there; those dead having during their life-time in the Asylum, been maintained there at the cost of their respective parishes.—(The CLERK of the Peace said, when appealed to, he would not answer this question, off-hand).—The Rev. J. WALLIS, vicar of Bodmin, addressed some observations to the Court on the general subject, and, incidentally asserting an opinion that burial in the parish church- yard might legally be refused to deceased inmates of the Asylum.—He believed that a General Cemetery might be provided by subscriptions, and to avoid a rate; but the inhabitants of Bodmin were divided on the matter.—Mr. ROBARTES expressed concurrence in Lord Vivian's view that any contribution from County funds should be in aid, solely, of a Burial Ground open to all denominations.—Mr. KENDALL said there were two parties in Bodmin; the one anxious not to make a rate, but to have a private subscription for the purpose of making addition to the present Burial Ground, and have it open to all denominations; while the other party desired that there should be a general cemetery subject to all the provisions of the Act of Parliament. He thought that that Court had very little to do with that difference ; but that it might make its grant either for a General Cemetery, or for an addition to the present Burial Ground, as the inhabitants of Bodmin might think fit; and he should be glad to see the money given either way.—Mr. LE GRICE thought the Court had no right to apply County money to relieve the rate-payers of Bodmin. The inhabitants of Bodmin were more than compensated for any necessary outlay in this respect by the benefits it derived from the expenditure of county money to the amount of some £5,000 a year.—The CHAIRMAN said it seemed to him that application for County aid had been made in respect of a general Cemetery; but if the inhabitants of Bodmin had not decided that question, the motion must fall through.—Mr. KENDALL also observed that as the Bodmin people had not decided what to do, there must be a fresh application. COUNTY CONSTABULABY.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., moved that the County Constabulary Force be increased by the appointment of twelve second-class policemen. He made his motion under instructions from the Police Committee, and on the statement made yesterday before the Committee by the Chief Constable, that the present Force was inadequate to meet the demands of the County. It was also understood that the Government Inspector was of opinion that the proposed addition was necessary. (In corroboration of this statement, the CHAIRMAN read a letter from Capt. Willis, the Government Inspector, to Mr. Lethbridge; in which that gentleman said he felt it his duty to support the Chief Constable's recommendation of an increase of the Force by 12 second-class constables; and added that the force could not become thoroughly efficient with its present number, nor until Station-houses be provided).—Mr. E. COODE stated that the average cost of each of the 12 police men would be £60— making a total of £720; a serious item, and one which the Committee would not have instructed him to ask for unless they had a full conviction that it was necessary. Rev. URIAH TONKIN seconded the motion. Mr. BORLASE complained that from Hayle to —a distance of 9 or 10 miles, there was no policeman; and Col. Gilbert said he meant to place two there, if he could get the proposed increase. In the course of long discussion, the CHIEF CONSTABLE accounted for the employment of 11 men of his present force, by stating that at Saltash and Looe were now four policemen; but when the force was originated these places were not under the County Rate. Mr. E. COODE also showed that, with the exception of two counties, Cornwall has the smallest number of police in proportion of population. Mr. BENNET warmly opposed the proposed increase; he considered there was an adequate supply of police for this quiet, orderly county, and that it was high time some regard should be paid to the pockets of rate-payers. (Mr. Bennet's observations to this effect were followed by loud applause from the body of the court—a most unusual occurrence in the course of county business, and it was instantly checked by the CHAIRMAN). Mr. BENNET moved as an amendment, that the appointment of additional policemen be postponed.—The amendment was seconded by the Rev. T. PHILLPOTTS.—On a show of hands, there were—for the amendment, 6; for the original motion, in favour of the proposed increase of police —20. SOWDEN’S BRIDGE.— Rev. R. BULLER moved for a grant of £150, for making alterations in the approach road to Sowden’s Bridge, in the parish of Duloe; the grant being proposed for improvement of the 100 yards of road belonging to the county; while the remainder of a long hill it was intended to cut down and improve by means of private subscriptions.—Mr. Buller obtained no seconder for his motion. ALTERATION OF PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISION.—Notice having been given at the last Sessions to move the removal of the parish of St. Breward from the Hundred of Trigg to the Hundred of Lesnewth, the motion was now opposed by Capt. HEXT, seconded by Mr. E. STEPHENS, and supported by memorial, numerously and respectably signed, and agreed on in vestry of the parish of St. Breward.—Mr. AVERY, seconded by the Rev. JOHN GLANVILLE, moved that the parish of St. Breward be taken from Trigg and annexed to Lesnewth, in accordance with a recommendation from Col. Gilbert, for police purposes. On a division, Capt. Hext’s motion for the non-removal of the parish, was carried by a large majority. —Memorials were read by the Clerk of the Peace, for the removal of the parish of Boyton from the Hundred of Stratton to the North Division of East; and of the townships of from East Penwith to West Penwith. REFORMATORIES.—After the reading of communications on this subject from Mr. LETHBRIDGE, it was resolved, on the motion of the Rev. T. PASCOE, seconded by Mr. ROGERS, to appoint a Committee consisting of Mr. Lethbridge and the three Chairmen, and such other magistrates as they may appoint, to enquire of the directors of the Devon and Exeter Reformatory, and of any other duly certified Reformatory, on what terms they would be prepared to receive any offenders from this County; and to report at the next Sessions. (From Mr. Lethbridge’s letter to Mr. Pascoe, it appeared that the annual expence (sic) to this County per culprit, would not exceed 7l; the Institution receiving the Government allowance of 5s. per week. REGISTRATION.—The Clerk of the Peace’s bill for expenses connected with the Registration of voters was passed; it amounted to 51l. 9s. 1d. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. PATRICK JARMAN, 50, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pail, the property of William Barrett, of Bodmin on the 21st of September.—The prisoner had been detained on two other charges,—of stealing a virgey and a pick, the property, respectively, of William Godfrey and John Dennis, of Bodmin on the 21st of September. (Sentence: One month hard labour for each of the offences.) GEORGE WILLIAMS, 18, mason, was charged with stealing a waistcoat, the property of Edward Ball, at Padstow, on the 13th September.—Mr. G.B. Collins conducted the prosecution.—The prisoner, having been lodging with the prosecutor some six weeks, left early in the morning of the 13th Sept., apparently to go to his work as usual; but he did not, as usual, return to his breakfast at 8 o’clock. The same morning the prosecutor missed his waistcoat, and gave information of his loss to George Luxton, Sergeant of Police at Padstow, who went in search of prisoner and found him at Zelah, in the parish of St. Allen, with the waistcoat in his possession. The Police-sergeant produced the waistcoat in court and it was identified by the prosecutor.—The prisoner, in defence, said he took it in mistake.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: two months h.l.) REBECCA ARTHUR, 23, was charged with stealing 17s., the property of John Trescowthick, from his person, at Truro, on the 1st September. Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution,—John Trescowthick stated that he was a porter of , and on the 1st of September was passing through Truro on his way walking from Plymouth to Portreath; about 4 o’clock in the afternoon he went to the Railway Inn, and there fell asleep; after sleeping there some time—he did not know how long—he was awoke by a young man called William Pollard, and found that his money, 17s., had been taken from his trousers’ pocket. He then gave information to the police. Had never, at any time, seen the prisoner before the robbery.—William Pollard, a farm labourer, deposed:—I was at the Railway Inn, in the afternoon of the 1st September, and saw the last witness come in there, and go to sleep sitting on the settle. After he had gone to sleep, the prisoner came in; she took some silver out of his pocket, and said he was her man, and she would not rob him of a halfpenny. She put back the money into his pocket, and, after doing and saying the same a second time, she took out the money a third time and said “it is better for me to take it and keep it for him.” She then put the silver into her pocket and went away, saying she would be in again in a few minutes. I stayed there some time, but she did not return; I then went away, and in about an hour returned and woke the man.—John Gay, police-constable of Truro, proved apprehension of prisoner at her lodgings at 12 o’clock on the night of the 1st September; on her seeing him, she said “I know what you’re come for; you are come for that money that the young man was robbed of to-day at the Railway Inn; but I did not do it.”—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: nine months h.l.) The Court then rose. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) In the course of this day, Mr. SHILSON, addressing the Chairman said—Sir: I rise on behalf of the advocates practising in this Court to ask your permission to read an address which they have unanimously voted to Mr. Lethbridge, the late excellent Chairman, and have deputed me to present to him. I have peculiar pleasure in having this duty entrusted to me. For eighteen years of the twenty-one during which he, with so much honour to himself and advantage to the public, occupied that chair, I had the honour and the privilege to practise before him. His conduct was uniformly marked with the greatest kindness to me and to every other member of the profession. No harsh or unkind word ever fell from his lips to any one of us. The greatest cordiality and good understanding has always subsisted between him and the profession; and the address which I am now about to read, does but feebly express the sentiment of esteem and respect for him which is entertained by every one of us. To JOHN KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq. We, the advocates practising in the Court of Quarter Sessions for the county of Cornwall, over which you have so long and so well presided, express our deep regret that you are no longer Chairman of that Court; and also for the cause of your retirement. The very able manner in which, for a period of twenty-one years, you have filled the chair, has deservedly obtained for you the universal esteem and respect of all classes of the community; and whilst we cordially unite in that sentiment, we also feel that the unvarying courtesy, equanimity of temper, forbearance, and strict impartiality which have at all times characterised your conduct towards us, entitle you to our special regard, and we offer you our warmest thinks. In common with the whole county, we feel that in your retirement from the public duties of your office we have sustained a severe loss; and, permit us to add, that you will carry with you our affectionate regards and best wishes for your happiness and welfare. Signed by Mr. SHILSON on behalf of the Profession. Michaelmas Sessions, 1858. Mr. SHILSON: I also, Sir with your permission beg to say that I am desired by the Grand Jury who are now assembled, to express to Mr. Lethbridge their admiration of his talents and of the integrity of his conduct in the chair; and their sense of the value of his public services during the time he has occupied it. They also desire me to convey to him their feeling of regret that those services are now lost to the county; and they beg me to tender to him their respect and esteem, and their best wishes for his future happiness. ELIZABETH PAYNTER, 21, servant, pleaded guilty (after a former conviction) of stealing £13 and a chemise, the property of James Cory, from his house at Launceston, on the 20th of August. (Sentence: three years penal servitude.) JOHN JENKIN, labourer, was charged with stealing an iron wheel at St. Austell, the property of Timothy Sarah. Mr. Bishop for the prosecution; Mr. Stokes for the defence. Prosecutor lives at , and contracts for supply of waggons for the Pentewan railway. An accident happened to a waggon wheel, which was taken off and laid down in the company’s yard. The wheel was seen by William Clemens on Saturday the 11th of Sept.; on Monday the 13th it was missed. Prisoner worked for Mr. Julian, who has a yard touching the railway premises. Part of the wheel was left behind; other portions which fitted with the part left on the railway premises, were found in the yard of Mrs. Warne, a marine store dealer at St. Austell. Richard Warne said he bought the iron of prisoner on the 13th of September; it was 1½ cwt. of cast iron, for which the prisoner was paid 2s. 6d. After the police had been making inquiries, prisoner offered Richard Warne 5s. to strike his name off Warne’s entry book of purchases, and insert some other name. Warne said he should not have bought the iron of a stranger, as it was railway iron; he took the iron from Jenkin at Mr. Julian’s yard, and thought he was selling it for his master. After the theft, prosecutor and his son saw the prisoner at Mr. Julian’s house; prisoner said he had done it and was very sorry for it. Inspectors Barnes, of the county constabulary, compared the pieces of iron; he apprehended the prisoner, who said it was a very bad job. The identity of the wheel was spoken to by prosecutor, and by Thomas Hawken, foreman to Mr. West, ironfounder, at , who makes wheels for the railway. Prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrate was that he found the iron in his master’s field.—Mr. STOKES, in defence, contended that the prisoner’s statement to the magistrates was a correct one. He called as witnesses to prisoner’s good character, Mr. John Trewin, St. Austell, formerly clay agent; Mr. Bartlett, china-dealer at St. Austell; Mr. W. Hancock, St. Austell; and Mr. Charles Truscott, clay-merchant, St. Austell.—The CHAIRMAN having summed up, the jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended him to the consideration of the Court, on the ground of good character. The foreman said the jury regretted to see the facilities that existed for the disposal of such property. (Sentence: two months h.l.) STABBING.—RICHARD JAMES and THOMAS JAMES were charged with maliciously wounding two mares belonging to Mr. Walter Reynolds, innkeeper at , in Perranzabuloe. Mr. STOKES for the prosecution; Mr. DOWNING for the defence. On Tuesday, the 27th of July, prosecutor saw his two mares sound and well in the field; on the next morning it was found that they were cut and stabbed very badly; one of them had received nine wounds and the other five. Prosecutor’s wife gave evidence that the two prisoners were drinking in her house on the afternoon of July 27th. They had eight pints of beer and called for the ninth. She refused it unless they paid the reckoning. They swore and used threatening language, and tried to strike her. One of the prisoners, Richard James, said, “since you have been so clip, I will serve you out, you shall lose more than you get by it.” She asked him what he meant, and he said, “mind you don’t sell at prayer time.” A witness called Menadue said, after this he saw Richard James with a pike, and the other prisoner was with him; they went towards Penhallow Chapel, in the direction of the prosecutor’s field. Mary Kistle, servant at the public-house, saw Richard James with either a pole or a pike, and Thomas James was with him. John Clogg, police-constable, said he found a pike in Richard James’s outhouse, which had hair on it. It appeared to be horse-hair, but he would not swear to it; the hair had since been rubbed off. Police-sergeant Stripling and Mr. Ashton Johns, farrier at Truro, spoke of the correspondence of wounds in one mare with the prongs of the pike; other wounds appeared to have been inflicted singly, but might have been done with one of the prongs. Mr. DOWNING, in defence, said any other person might have taken the pike from Richard James’s outhouse, and have used it to inflict the wounds. He called John Annear, Robert Bennett, and John Inch; the two latter stated that Richard James had a pole and not a pike on the night in question. The jury, through their foreman, said they would give the prisoners the benefit of the doubt in the case. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. JOHN STEPHENS, 20, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of embezzling two shillings, the property of James Stacey Hichens, at Redruth. (Sentence: 6 weeks hard labour) JAMES ROSCORLA, 24, blacksmith, was charged with stealing a pair of reins, the property of Thomas Jennings, at Roche, on the 8th of October. Verdict, GUILTY. Mr. STOKES who conducted the prosecution, said there was another indictment against the prisoner, for stealing bacon from Samuel Hooper, at Roche; but he thought it unnecessary to proceed with the second charge. (Sentence: two months h.l.) PAUL MARTIN, 58, miner, was charged with stealing a quantity of timber, iron, &c., the property of Henry Williamson and others, adventurers in Reeth Consols mine, in Towednack. Mr. CORNISH for the prosecution: Mr. STOKES for the prisoner. It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner had been employed at the mine as a carrier, and previously as a miner. He lived close to the mine, and for many years had been in the habit of working there; as carrier he had access to the material yard. A number of articles had been missed from the mine, and from information received, prisoner’s house and premises were searched. There were found iron chisels, ropes, a piece of timber, a cistern board, a sledge hammer, split plank, lantern, 2 pieces of timber called a runner which had been fitted against the side of a shaft, eighteen borers, pick-hilts, and other things, and at the bottom of a furze-rick belonging to prisoner, twenty-one pieces of timber were discovered. Captain Benjamin Champion and other witnesses were called, and untrue statements of the prisoner with regard to some of the property were deposed to. There was much difficulty, however, in identifying the various articles as belonging to their mine. Evidence was given that the slab of wood was the outside part of a balk of timber which had been purchased of Mr. Coulson, merchant, at Penzance, for the mine about two years ago. This was identified by a mark on the slab. Evidence was also given for the purpose of identifying a cistern board, a piece of timber which had been split in a particular manner, a runner, some rope, and a lantern. Mr. STOKES, for the defence, contended that the identity of the articles as belonging to the mine, had not been sufficiently shown; and that a person was not called upon to account for property unless it was found in his possession within a reasonable time after it was missed. In this case it had not been shown when the various articles were lost from the mine. Other people might have taken the things, and sold them to the prisoner, which was his statement as to some of them. He called as witnesses to prisoner’s good character Captain Henry Taylor, who had been agent of the mine for 18 years, but was discharged last July on operations being reduced; and also a witness called Shugg. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said there was one article, the split piece of timber of which there was evidence as to the date of its loss. With regard to the other things, the jury must take them into consideration conjointly with all the circumstances of the case. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended him to the consideration of the court on the ground of character. (Sentence: six months h.l.) AMPHILIUS WILLIAM WATTS, 27, cabinet-maker, was found GUILTY of stealing a coat and a silk handkerchief, the property of John White, at Bude, on the 22d of September. (Sentence: two months h.l.) ELLEN WILLIAMS, 33, was charged with stealing certain monies from the person of John Hunt, at St. Austell, on the 10th of October. The prosecutor is a railway labourer, and on the day in question went to the Stag Inn, St. Austell, to drink. The prisoner was then drinking rum. She offered a belt for sale to the prosecutor, who bought it of her for 6d. Shortly after she left and went into another room. The prosecutor also left a short time after her, and on coming through the passage the prisoner called him in, and then it was the robbery took place; she took from his pocket 4 half-crowns and two sixpenny pieces. Information was given to Inspector Barnes, who apprehended her about an hour after, and found in her possession half-crowns and other money. Prisoner told her story to the jury, who acquitted her, saying they thought one party was as bad as the other. BILL IGNORED.—The grand jury ignored the bill against Mary Keast, charged with stealing a cotton sheet from William Oats, at St. Neot. The CHAIRMAN discharged the grand jury at four o’clock this day, thanking them, on behalf of the county for their services. The Rev. Vernon Page took the oaths this day, on appointment to be rector of St. Tuny (sic). The Court rose at about six o’clock. WEDNESDAY, October 20. Before J. JOPE ROGERS., Esq. RUTH THOMAS, 17, was charged with stealing a moire antique cape, the property of Thomas Hawke, at Redruth, on the 23rd of August.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution. Ellen Michell, an assistant in the prosecutor’s shop, said:—I recollect the prisoner being in the shop with two other girls, between 5 and 6 o’clock in the afternoon of the 23rd August; she asked to look at some low-price capes, and I showed her some; she then asked if we had anything better or larger, and I showed her some more; while I was doing so, she went behind the other two girls, and put her hand up under her cape that she was wearing, and at the same time I saw her take down a mantle; she then walked round towards a table on which were some bonnets, and I saw her put the mantle under her apron, and before she left the shop I saw the fringe of the mantle coming out by the side of her apron; after that I showed her some other capes, but she did not buy any; when she was leaving the shop I asked her to walk into another room, and she offered to go back into the room we came from; she went back there, walking before me, and when I came back into the room she was at the end of the table with an 11s. 6d. mantle in her hand that I had not shown her; that mantle is the property of Mr. Hawke.—Henry Coombe, at the time in question Serjeant of Police at Redruth, took the prisoner into custody at Hawke’s shop on the 23rd of August; on her being taken to the police station, no money was found on her. Witness produced a cape, or mantle, received by him at the shop, and it was identified by Miss Michell and Mr. Hawke.— Verdict GUILTY, with recommendation to mercy.—A previous conviction proved against the prisoner; at the Spring Assizes, 1856, she was convicted of stealing at Redruth three rings, the property of Peter Latora.—The jury on hearing of this previous conviction, of which they were not previously aware, withdrew their recommendation to mercy. (Sentence: twelve months h.l.) JOHN TREBELL, 63, a miner, was charged with stealing a bee-hive, and a quantity of honey, value 8s., the property of John Harper, also a miner, at Skinners’ Bottom, in the parish of St. Agnes.—Mr. Commins conducted the prosecution.—It appeared that on the morning of the 15th September, the prosecutor missed his bee-hive from a garden in front of his house; the garden-fence bearing marks of a person having broken into the garden. The prosecutor and police-sergeant Stripling making search, found the bee-hive lying about 10 or 12 yards from the garden, and droppings of honey at spots in fields leading to prisoner’s house about 400 yards distant. Live bees crawling about, and also dead ones were found at these spots; and honey was found on the step of prisoner’s house, and also inside on the table and floor; and there was also found there some sweet-drink.—When the prisoner was apprehended, in a field about 70 yards from his house, he had on his arm a basket in which was a basin containing honey, and portion of a honey-comb.—The hive being produced in court the prosecutor said he could not swear to the hive itself but he could swear to the pin in it, as he had himself made it, from a piece of a pick-hilt.— Verdict GUILTY.—A previous conviction was proved against the prisoner, of stealing in June 1853, a pig, the property of James Curnow. (Sentence: twelve months h.l.) JANE BULLOCK, 18, charged with stealing on the 12th of October, certain moneys, the property of Alice Louisa Polkinhorne, at St. Columb Major.—Mr. G.B. Collins conducted the prosecution.—Walter Truscott Polkinhorne:—I am a cabinet-maker living at St. Columb and have living with me a niece—Alice Louisa Polkinhorne, about 7 years old; she kept a money-box (which I produce), and which cannot be opened unless by being burst open. The money-box had stood in our parlour during the last three or four years, and from time to time I felt its weight; about four or five weeks since it was nearly full; I could see the money through the hole at the top, and I know that a great quantity of silver and halfpence had been put in there. On the 12th of October, the prisoner being at that time in my service, my wife brought me the box in my workshop, and I found there was scarcely anything in it; and I desired my wife to take it where the men were at work and have it opened; shortly afterwards I went into the men’s workshop, and took the opened box into the house and asked prisoner if she knew anything about it; she said she knew nothing about it; I told her she was the only person who could have taken the money, and I would have her taken up; she said that if I would not do that, she would give up the wages that was coming due to her. The only inmates in my house were myself and wife, the little girl and the prisoner. I had very often seen the little girl put silver and other money into the box; my wife has been in the habit of giving her fourpennies, sixpennies, and sometimes shillings—sometimes twice or three times a week.— Elizabeth Polkinghorne, wife of last witness:—My niece has kept this box between three and four years, and I was in the habit of giving her money—silver and pence—generally new coins. The box being kept on a side-table, I was in the habit of dusting it occasionally and lifting it. Not quite a fortnight before the 12th of October, the little girl brought me the box and shewed me that it was nearly full; on the 12th of October I gave her a new half-penny, and she brought me the box, requesting my permission to take it up-stairs because it was not so heavy. I felt its weight, and went into the back-kitchen to the prisoner and asked her if she knew anything about Alice’s box; she said ‘no, she knew nothing about the box nor the money. I then took the box first to my husband, and then to the men’s workshop; it was there opened in my presence, and found to contain only two shillings and three half-pence, all in copper; and some pieces of zinc, nails, needles, &c. (At this part of the case, Mr. Polkinghorne (sic), before the jury, opened the box, and exhibited the pieces of zinc, &c., which it contained). I then told the prisoner that she was a bad girl, and had better tell the truth; she said if I would not do anything to her, she would tell the truth; I told her she had better tell the truth, but I did not hold out any inducement; she then said she had taken the money out of the box, and that it was the bad people who had induced her to do it; she also said she had spent part of the money in sweet-meats. From the money I had given the little girl and what I saw other people give her, I considered there was between £4 and £5 in the box. Before the committing magistrate I heard her state that she took out the money, five shillings, by means of a knife.—Mr. Polkinghorne, recalled, stated that he used pieces of zinc in his trade; they were kept on the top of a cupboard in the kitchen beyond the reach of the little girl, but accessible to the prisoner.—At the close of the case for the prosecution, the Prisoner said she did take out the money, and that she did so to buy meat for she had not a bellyful at her place; she told her father that she was kept short, and he told her to give a four months’ warning.—The father, John Bullock, gave evidence in confirmation.—Mr. Polkinhorne recalled said the prisoner never complained that she had not enough food, nor of any ill treatment; she lived exactly in the same way as himself and family; they always sent out the meals into the kitchen before they ate their own, and cut off the same joints as their own.—Mrs. Polkinhorne also stated that the prisoner never made any complaint to her about her living.—The Prisoner indulged in violent recriminations against her late mistress, and oddly enough, seemed to make some favourable impression on the jury; for, spite of the prisoner’s confession, they were engaged no inconsiderable time in arriving at a verdict; which was, however, ultimately one of GUILTY. (Sentence: three months h.l.) MARY ANN RICHARDS, 21, was charged with stealing an umbrella, the property of Marina Pethick, at Bude, Stratton, on the 22nd of September.—Mr. Hamley conducted the prosecution, Mr. Childs, the defence. The prosecutrix was daughter of Arthur Richards, of Tremain, and was with her father at Bude Fair on the day in question.—The case for the prosecution was very weak as regards felonious intent; and the jury returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL.—The Prisoner was then indicted for stealing, also at Bude on the 22nd September, a shawl, the property of Jane Coles, also of Tremain. It appeared that the prosecutrix was at Bude fair, and, as well as the prisoner, put up at a Mrs. Cobledick’s beer shop.— Arriving at the house at about 11 or 12 o’clock, she placed her shawl on the bed in a room upstairs; and in the evening, being about to return home, she missed the shawl, and heard something going on at the door between the prisoner and a policeman, concerning an umbrella said to have been stolen. She went to the door and taxed the prisoner with stealing the shawl. The policeman asked her if she had it; she said she had no shawl in her backet (sic), but produced a shawl from under one which she was wearing, but which prosecutrix said was not hers. The policeman then, placing his hand on her arm, found a third shawl, resting over her arm under the handle of the basket and concealed by the shawl she was wearing. On the finding of this shawl, the prisoner said her sister had lost a shawl some time since, and she was going to take it to her to see if that was the one.—The shawl was identified by the prosecutrix, both on the occasion of its being found by the policeman, and also in court.—The prisoner’s sister, examined in her behalf, did not corroborate her statement as to her loss of a shawl some time since.— The prisoner received an excellent character from her master, her father, and other witnesses; and numerous letters from very respectable farmers and others were produced by her master in her behalf.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: two months h.l.) RICHARD SMITH and JAMES ANDREW, were charged with stealing one fowl, the property of Charles Parkins, at Tywardreath, on the 17th of August. Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution: the prisoner Smith, a ganger on the railway, was defended by Mr. Bishop.—The case, though unimportant in respect to value of property alleged to have been stolen, occupied the court a considerable time in consequence of circumstantial nature and the discrepancy of evidence; and resulted in a verdict of ACQUITTAL of both prisoners. THOMAS BASKIVELLE, 51, chimney-sweep, was charged with stealing 56 lbs. of brass bearings, the property of the Adventurers in Wheal Maudlin mine, in the parish of Lanlivery, on or about the 4th of September.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution.—William Tregay, mine-captain and agent at Wheal Maudlin, situate between Bodmin and Lostwithiel, and near Sweet’s toll-bar. In September last there were three large brass bearings and two small ones in the carpenter’s shop on the mine; they were placed there about three or four weeks before the 8th of September, and witness saw them there several times. On the 8th September he found one of the large brasses missing, informed the police, and next morning went with Superintendent Brazier to Bodmin, and there saw the brass broken up.—James Brazier, superintendent of police at Bodmin, on the 8th of September, went to St. Austell and apprehended prisoner at Warne’s, the marine store dealer. On the road to Bodmin, prisoner said he bought the brass on the St. Columb road, from a man named Thorn, and that he gave £1 4s. 0d. for it. Witness produced the piece of broken brass which he found at Warne’s, where they were pointed out to him by Warne and the prisoner.—Richard Daniel Warne:—I act for my mother, a marine store dealer at St. Austell. On Wednesday the 8th of September, the prisoner brought to the stores some old rags and brass; I purchased the whole, paying him £1 8s. 0d.; the brass weighed 56 lbs. I said we did not like to buy broken brass; and he said “you need not be afraid, for I bought it of Capt. Thomas Thorn, at a mine between St. Columb and Bodmin, and that there had been a sale there the day before, and there was to be another the next day.” I had known prisoner several years as a collector of rags and bones. While I was entering the purchase in our book, the policeman came, and took possession of the brasses, which were lying alongside of the door, just turned out of the scales into a mawn.—Benjamin Tyrrell, a miner, living at Halgavor, near Bodmin. I worked at Maudlin mine, and recollect some brasses being in the carpenter’s shop in Sept.; I saw them there on the morning of Saturday the 4th Sept.; there were three large brasses, like the one now put together on the table. On the 8th Sept. I found that one of the three large brasses was missing. I know of no agent at Maudlin called Thorn; there is an agent called Thorn at Iron Mine, between Lostwithiel and Liskeard. There had been no sale at Maudlin mine.— William Hawken, a miner, living at Redmoor in the parish of Lanlivery. On Saturday 4th Sept, I was at my work on Wheal Maudlin mine, with a man called Cook. About 11 o’clock we saw the prisoner on the road opposite the mine gate going towards Sweet’s House; a man with a donkey was going on before him, at a distance of about 30 paces. The prisoner had a bundle under his arm; the bundle was about the size of a hat; and the prisoner was walking slowly; the donkey had no load.—Cross-examined by Prisoner.—The bundle carried by prisoner did not appear to be heavy.—Josiah Cook, a miner, working at Wheal Maudlin mine in the forenoon of Saturday the 4th of September with last witness, corroborated his evidence.—Francis Goyne, a miner who had worked at Wheal Maudlin, identified the brass produced as belonging to that mine, by means of his own work on it; he having chipped away part of it in order to make it fit into the saddle.—Capt. Tregay also identified the brass, by means of the last witness’s work, which he (Tregay) had directed and witnessed. —Capt. Tregay further proved that he was an adventurer as well as agent of the mine, and that the brass was partly his property.—GUILTY. (Sentence: nine months h.l.) JANE HARVEY, 36, a servant was indicted for unlawfully obtaining, by false pretence, from James Gerry, at Linkinhorne, on the 24th December, 1857, a loaf of bread, a pound of bacon, an ounce of tea, and a half-pound of sugar, with intent to defraud.—Mr. J.B. Collins conducted the prosecution.—It appeared that about Christmas last the prisoner went to Gerry’s shop and delivered to Mrs. Gerry a note purporting to be written and signed by Mrs. Mary Hawke of that neighbourhood, requiring a supply of the articles named in the indictment. Mrs. Gerry after some hesitation, let the prisoner have the goods; the prisoner stating that Mrs. Hawke would be much obliged by Mrs. Gerry supplying the goods, as her family were in great distress, and the goods should be paid for on the Saturday fortnight, Mr. Sargent’s pay day. Mrs. Hawke who had been only an occasional customer, did not call at the shop for more than two months; but at the end of that time, she sent her little boy, and in consequence of what then took place, inquiries were set afloat and it was found that the prisoner had left the neighbourhood.—In August, it was found that the prisoner had returned to the neighbourhood, and on the 26th of that month, Mr. Gerry saw her at Mr. Trehane’s, where she was working, and on his asking her about her coming to his shop, she said she was on her way to her sister’s at Kingbear, when she was met by one Charlotte Martin, who wrote the note and asked her to take it to Mrs. Gerry’s and get the goods for Mrs. Hawke, and she (Charlotte Martin) would wait for her at Tailor Doney’s gate on Kingbear. She said she went to Mrs. Gerry’s and got the goods; but on returning to Doney’s gate she found that Charlotte Martin had not waited for her, and that then she took the goods to her own lodge in Farmer Laundry’s stable, and after keeping them all night, she did not like to take them back to the shop, and made use of them herself. She said Charlotte Martin lived near Darley Chapel and worked at Wheal Phoenix; but Mr. Gerry going to those places, could not find that any such person lived or was known in that neighbourhood. On the 6th of September, Serjeant Dreadon, of the County police, apprehended prisoner. She said Charlotte Martin sent her with the note to Gerry’s for the goods for Mrs. Hawke; and that she did not see her again after that evening for more than three months, when she saw her at Northill, and told her she had got her into a hobble; but Charlotte Martin said nothing, but only laughed.—Mrs. Mary Ann Hawke proved that she had never sent the prisoner nor any other person, to any shop for goods. Every one of the four witnesses in the case stated positively that there was no such person as Charlotte Martin in the neighbourhood—verdict GUILTY. (Sentence: two months h.l.) THOMAS MORRISH, stone-mason, aged 34, was charged with assaulting Elizabeth Hooper, a married woman, at St. Cleer, on the 6th March, with intent to ravish and carnally know her. A second count charged common assault.—Mr. Bishop conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence.—It appeared that the prosecutrix and her husband, a stone mason living at , were at Liskeard on Saturday the 6th of March last, and in the evening were at the Bell Tap, where Mrs. Hooper was awaiting the awaking of her husband, who was in a state of sleepy intoxication. After waiting there some time, at about 8 o’clock, Morrish, (a man with wife and family) came into the Tap and asked “Who’s for Cheesewring?” On which Mrs. Hooper, anxious to see her family of young children whom she had left at home, said she would go and be glad of company. Before this time she said she had never had conversation with Morrish, though she had occasionally said “good morning” to him, as a neighbour and working at the same quarry with her husband. Mrs. Hooper, Morrish, and a man called Reed left the Tap together to go to Cheesewring; but on their reaching the top of Lux-street, Reed said they were on the wrong road and he turned and left the others. Morrish, however, said they were in the right road, and he would take Mrs. Hooper to Cheesewring “as safe as gold.” He appears accordingly to have conducted her by a direct road, part of which lies through five fields, at a distance of about 2 miles from Liskeard. Conversation was on ordinary subjects, and Morrish’s conduct was proper, until they reached the third field, when Morrish commenced taking liberties with Mrs. Hooper, which she resisted and induced for a while to desist; but afterwards, in the last field and in the road he renewed his solicitations and proceeded at length to violence and to the offence now laid against him in the first count of the indictment; Mrs. Hooper screaming loudly and making all possible resistance. At length, the noise of approaching horses was heard, and the prisoner made off. The riders were Mr. Rule and Capt. Thomas Taylor proceeding from Liskeard to Crow’s Nest; they humanely assisted the woman, who appeared much exhausted and weary, (and who was in her sixth month of pregnancy) to the nearest house and were on the point of sending two men to conduct her home, when her husband arrived, on his walk homeward from Liskeard; and of course she placed herself under his charge.—The details of the case more immediately affecting the charge are unfit for publication.—She made her complaint to a magistrate on the following Tuesday; being unable to do so on the Monday, in consequence of weakness and fatigue; and a warrant was issued for apprehension of the prisoner; but he had absconded, and was not apprehended until the 4th of September at Camborne.—For the defence, Mr. CHILDS sought to limit the verdict to the second count; and, on behalf of Mrs. Hooper, he repeatedly and emphatically declared that he did not for a moment impute to her any consent to the prisoner’s advances; or any other ill-conduct, unless perhaps that it was indiscreet on her part to have left her husband at the tap, for the purpose of walking home with Morrish, whom she had scarcely spoken to previously.—The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, concurred in the belief that Mrs. Hooper was free from any imputation of consent or ill-conduct; and, even with regard to her leaving her husband asleep at the tap, it might fairly be suggested in her behalf that if there was a duty to her husband on one hand, there was also a duty to her young children, which might reasonably excuse her availing herself of an opportunity of walking home, and under safe conduct as she might have presumed.—The jury found the prisoner GUILTY on the first count. (Sentence: six months h.l.) The Court then rose. THURSDAY, OCT. 21. (Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart.) THOMAS HENRY BISHOP, aged 34, miner; WILLIAM POLKINGHORNE, 50, miner; and WILLIAM HARRIS, 42, farmer, were charged with stealing 8 cwt of tin ore, the property of Cardozo and others, adventurers in Pednandrea mine, in Redruth, on the 7th of October, 1858. A second count charged simple larceny.—Mr. Stokes and Mr. Henry Rogers conducted the prosecution; Mr. Downing defended the three prisoners.—By requirement of prisoners’ advocate, the witnesses were ordered out of court.—From the opening by Mr. ROGERS, and subsequent evidence, the facts of the case appeared to be as follow:—The prosecutor, Mr. William Page Cardozo, resident in the parish of , is one of the adventurers in the Pednandrea United Tin mine and the deputy purser thereof. The prisoner Bishop is an innkeeper, carrying on business in Redruth, and was also a tin-buyer, and kept a 3-heads water stamps, and formerly had management of a water stamps belonging to the Pednandrea Mines.— Polkinghorne, also living in Redruth, had been for many years in employ at the Pednandrea mines, having been for the last 12 months, superintendent watcher of the tin burning-house. Harris is a small farmer residing in Redruth, and he also keeps horses for the purpose of working whims, &c. The Pednandrea mines, which are extensive, are situate in almost the centre of the town of Redruth, and are surrounded by inhabited houses and traversed by numerous roads and paths. About 400 persons are employed in the mines, and their average monthly produce is about 25 tons of tin. The account-house and some principal portions of the mine are situated near the town itself; but for the purpose of preventing inconvenience to the inhabitants, the steam stamps have been erected at about a quarter of a mile distance from the account-house; and immediately adjoining the stamps are the dressing-floors, burning-house, calcining-house, dressing-house, and other buildings. (The situation of the premises was shown in plans exhibited and explained by Mr. Rogers to the court and jury; and frequent reference was made to them in the course of the trial). The front of the dressing-house—which is about 90 feet long, 25 feet wide, and 25 feet high—faces the dressing-floors in the open air; and attached to the dressing- house are a burning-house and a calcining-house; the burning-house being on the east, and the calcining-house on the north of the dressing house. The ground on which the dressing-house stands is considerably higher than the ground immediately in front, between it and the dressing-shed. The dressing-house is always closed on the inside by night, and when so closed can only be entered by means of a private door from the calcining house, to which is attached a ladder about 12 feet long; except by gaining admission through a hole in the roof, left open for ventilation and light; but entrance by this means would be difficult and dangerous, and, on the part of the prosecution, was alleged to be almost impossible, inasmuch as a person so entering would previously have to ascend a water-wheel always in motion, mount the roof, and then jump through the hole to the floor of the dressing-house; there being near the hole an iron chain which, if touched, lifts an iron door belonging to the calciner, which would immediately make a loud noise and so alarm the watcher. There is no entrance from the burning-house to the dressing-house when closed; and, according to the case presented on the part of the prosecution, it was almost impossible that any one could enter the dressing-house without the knowledge and concurrence of one of the watchers; and the watchers on the night of the alleged robbery were the prisoner Polkinghorne, and a boy named Samuel Stephens; no guilt, nor guilty knowledge, however, being imputed to the boy. It appears that for some time past the agents of Pednandrea mines had suspected that considerable quantities of tin had been stolen from the mines, and that the prisoner Polkinghorne was connected with the robberies; their suspicions of Polkinghorne being based on the facts,—that he was known to be intimate with Bishop, and that he had frequently changed cores by night, with the other watcher Nakervis (sic), and, generally, on occasions when tin was nearly ready for the smelting house.—On Thursday morning the 7th October, Polkinghorne asked Nakervis to allow him to watch that night— (Polkinghorne’s ordinary cores that week being by day), as he wanted to have the following day clear, in order to visit a friend at Chacewater. Nakervis consented, but at once made known the arrangement to the agents, who determined to set a watch, as there was in the dressing-house a quantity of tin prepared to be taken to the smelting house on the following Saturday; and instructions were accordingly given to the subordinate agents and to some policemen.—Early in the evening of the 7th of October, William Penberthy, tin-dresser, was in the dressing-house, and stamped, with the Adventurers’ stamp, P.D.M., a quantity of tin, (about 8 cwt.) in a kieve which stood about 30 feet from the principal door; the tin in this kieve was nearly ready for the smelting-house. Besides this there were two other kieves, one of which contained tin, nearer the door; and a quantity of best tin locked in a chest. Penberthy left the dressing house about half-past 5 o’clock; leaving in the house the watcher Polkinghorne and his boy Samuel Stephens; but before leaving, Penberthy barred on the inside, the large outer door of the dressing house, and also locked the door between the dressing-house and the calcining-house, giving the key to the boy Stephens, to be taken as usual to the Account-house; and he then left the house by means of the 12 feet ladder before spoken of. Between 6 and 7 o’clock the same evening, Captain James Thomas, night-captain on the night of the 7th October, was in the calcining house with Polkinghorne, and had conversation with him, about his changing core for the night-watch, and about the number of tons going to be sent to the smelting-house. As they were thus talking together, seated on some tin, Capt. Thomas began to yawn and stretch; whereupon Polkinghorne said, “you had better go and lie down to-night, if you are tired” and asked Captain Thomas if he slept in the same bed (at the account- house) in which Capt. Cooke used to sleep; and Capt. Thomas replied “yes.” After this, Capt. Thomas saw all the doors of the dressing-house safely secured, and was very particular in doing so because of the agents having determined to set watch that night. He then went from the calcining-house to the burning-house, Polkinghorne accompanying him; here they wished each other “good night”; and, on leaving, Capt. Thomas said to Polkinghorne, “mind, you look into things, and you can do as well as William Nakervis”; and Polkinghorne replied “I can do as well as William Nakervis, and I ought to do better, for I have been here longer than he.” After Captain Thomas had left, Polkinghorne told his boy, Samuel Stephens, to pile up the fire and look to the bed of tin and that then he might go and lie down; and Stephens accordingly, after tending the fires, went and lay down in the burning-house, but did not go to sleep for a “brave bit”; after laying there about half an hour he moved, and Polkinghorne standing by him, said, “Arn’t ye sleeping yet, Sammy?” He then moved away (as Stephens thought to fit his supper), and Stephens went to sleep. After he had been sleeping some time Polkinghorne woke him, saying “come up; I reckon there’s somebody gone into the calcining house;” this was about half-past 8.—Stephens stated in evidence that he did not himself know the time; but the Captain and Pitman and Policeman Rickard came in and took away Polkinghorne, and they said it was half-past 8. Among the watchers on duty on the night in question, was James Cocking, a pitman living within the sett. His evidence was very important. He said:—I was stationed at the middle frame-house opposite the dressing-house door. Between 7 and 8 o’clock I placed myself under a thorn tree, by the road to Wheal . But before that I had seen a man with a white jacket, and a handkerchief tied round his head; I bade him “good night,” but he made no reply; I turned round and said “hallo”; he made no reply, but kept going on. It was a dark closish evening, and it was raining fast. I then went under the tree, and squatted under it, on the top of the hedge; after remaining there about a quarter of an hour I saw two men pass by; I remained there some time—about a quarter of an hour longer—and then followed the track the men had taken, and when I came forth to the place where we turn up to the dressing house, I overtook the two men; they were standing against a hedge in the cart road leading to the Buller’s Arms road. One of the men bade me “good night”; and I said “good night” I said “tis a dirty evening”; and they replied, “yes, ‘tis.” I then kept straight on, and went by the back way, into the frame house right opposite the dressing-house door; and passing out of the frame house at the front, I went on my knees as low as I could, to look around. I did that three times, and the third time that I did so, I saw a man come up in a direction from the place where, (about half an hour before) I had left the two men in the road. This man went forth straight to the large door of the dressing-house. At this spot, the level of the dressing-house floor is 2 feet 2 in. above the dressing floor in front; and there is a sloping plank by which to pass up and down, and there is a ledge of wood, about 14 inches wide, in front of the door. As soon as the man came up to the dressing house door, I saw it was opened; and in my opinion it could not be opened from the place where that man stood. (The inference suggested by the prosecution was that it was opened from the inside). The man did not enter the house; but I saw him take something on his back and walk off, in a way that looked as if he was loaded with something heavy. He went down towards the corner where I had seen the two men. In about a minute or so, I saw a man come up again and go to the dressing-house door; he did not stop a minute, but took up something on his back and went down in the same direction as before. I then got on my hands and knees, and crawled to a pile of burnt leavings and threw myself down there. After waiting there about half a minute, I saw a man come up again; he passed me and went to the dressing house door, took up his burden (a sack of tin) and was walking off, when I seized him by both collars and said “You are my prisoner” That man was the prisoner Bishop; I had known him many years, intimately; he had been one of our dressers for some time. He begged of me not to hurt him, and said to me “You’re a man, and a man of principle, and I’ll give you £5 not to hurt me”; and he put his hand into his pocket; more than ten times he offered me £5.—I refused the £5, and said, “I shall take no money; I am here to protect my masters’ property; I have got my living from here, and my children’s also.” While I was talking to Bishop, I saw another man coming in the direction from the place where I had left the two men before. When this man came up, Bishop said “This is Cocking—Cocking is here.” The other man said “Oh!”, and appeared terrified; he was like a man paralysed from head to foot. That man was the prisoner Harris. Bishop said “Cocking won’t hurt us;” and Harris said “Don’t hurt us Cocking, for God’s sake.” At that time I did not know his name, but I had known him for years, and I have since learned his name. I put my hand inside his waistcoat and found that he was wearing a skin waistcoat—the same that he has on now. I said “Men, you had better clear out from here as soon as possible.” I was rather fearful, for I did not know how many men there might be there. Harris said “which way shall we go?” I said “You had better clear out this way here.” (This was the road from the floors to the south; and it was stated by Mr. Rogers that Cocking ingeniously directed them in this particular way, in order that they might fall into some slimes and thus mark themselves for identification). About the centre of the frame house door, there was a cutting through the slime, for the water to pass away; Harris fell down there and got marked. Farther on there were two slime-pits, and Bishop fell into the first of them—into the water and slime. I told them to go on and clear out as soon as they could, and I went to the Account-house to give information. But before they left, I had said to Bishop, in presence of Harris; “How are you going to get this tin away?” Bishop had a sack of tin on his back when I stopped him and took him by the collar; and that sack of tin was left at the place where I seized him. I said “Men, which way are you going to get your tin away? I am not going to hurt you;” and Bishop said, in Harris’s presence, “we have a horse and cart coming here directly.”—After I had given information at the account-house, I returned with Capt. Carpenter (one of the agents of the mines) to the dressing-house. I afterwards met with Policeman Rickard (policemen having been stationed around the mine that night) and took Rickard to the bag of tin that I had seized from Bishop, and gave it into Rickard’s custody. I then went with Rickard, and he apprehended Polkinghorne. Rickard and I then went to the corner where I had seen the two men together, and there we found inside the hedge of the cart road, two sacks of tin, which I also delivered to Rickard. Shortly after this I went down the street and saw Harris, and immediately identified him to the policeman; Harris had tin slimes about his clothes; I can swear they were slimes from Pednandrea, by their blueish colour; there’s no difficulty about an agent knowing the slimes of his mine. At this time, he had on the same skin-waistcoat that he had when I seized him, and the same that he is now wearing.—In cross-examination, Cocking said the distance from the spot where he was lying down in front of the frame house, to the dressing house door was 16 fathoms. Richard Roberts, an assistant ostler at the Buller’s Arms, stated, that in the afternoon of the 7th October, Harris brought there a horse and cart, and after unharnessing the horse, he put a saddle on it and rode away, saying he was going to Perran; in about two or three hours he returned, with another man, took the saddle and bridle off the horse and put on the harness; and after that, about 8 o’clock, the other man came and took away the horse and cart. When Harris called in the day-time, he had on a cloth waistcoat; but Roberts saw him take a skin waistcoat out of a bag, just before the cart was taken away; the skin waistcoat was of the same colour as the one he was wearing in court. When he was going away, he said he was going up the town on a little business.—John Courtis stated that he lived with Harris, a little way out of Redruth; and at the request of Bishop he went to Thomas Heard, a porter on the West Cornwall Railway, to borrow some sacks; this was about a fortnight before the robbery at Pednandrea. Bishop asked him to borrow the sacks for the purpose of carrying tin to smelting house.— Thomas Heard stated that, in consequence of the message by Courtis, he took 6 or 7 of the West Cornwall Railway sacks marked W.C.R., to Bishop’s house and delivered them to Bishop himself; this was on the Wednesday or Thursday before the robbery at Pednandrea. Witness expected them to be returned on the following Monday, but they had not been returned by any body.—Police constable James Rickard here produced the three sacks which were delivered to him by Cocking about half-past 8 on Thursday evening the 7th of October; and Heard, by means of the marks, identified them as West Cornwall Railway sacks; but he could not swear they were the same as he let Bishop have.—Richard Jory works at Pednandrea mines. In consequence of instructions received from Mr. Cardozo, he went to Bishop’s public-house about 25 minutes past 8, in the evening of the 7th October, and sat in the mixing bar; in about 5 minutes after he had been there, Bishop came in, and he and his wife went outside into the passage, and as they were standing by the door, Jory heard them whispering. Bishop had been out in the rain, and was looking wet; and his legs were looking muddy, as if from something like tin slimes; it was reddish. Witness lived near Bishop and had seen Polkinghorne in Bishop’s house some 7 or 8 times before this robbery—mostly on Sunday mornings.—Henry Coombe, on the 7th October was police serjeant of the Redruth district, and about ¼ to 9 o’clock that evening apprehended Bishop in front of his own door, and told him he was charged with stealing tin at Pednandrea mine; he said he knew nothing about it. I said “Cocking says he caught you with a bag of tin on your back.” He replied, “I can’t help what Cocking says.” He was then taken to the Police Station. At the time I apprehended him in his doorway, and also afterwards at the station, I observed his dress; his coat was wet, and the legs of his trowsers were covered with tin slimes. At the station, I called the attention of several people to the slimes on his dress, and Cocking said to Bishop it was tin slimes; but Bishop made no reply.—From the station I went to the mine, and Capt. Carpenter pointed out to me three sacks of tin in the doorway of the dressing-house, which sacks I now produce, and also samples of the tin. The total weight of tin in the six sacks (inclusive of the three taken charge of by P.C. Rickard) was 8 cwts. 1 qr. 15 lb.—After seeing the tin weighed at the dressing-house, I was present at the station when all three prisoners were there; as soon as Harris came in, Cocking identified him as one of the two men he had seized. Bishop and Polkinghorne were afterwards placed in the lock-up in a yard behind, and close adjoining the County Court.—Richard Rodda, one of the bailiffs of the Redruth County Court. On Sunday morning, I went, as usual, into the office of the County Court, and heard voices in the lock-up, but could not hear what was said. I went out into the yard, and heard that a conversation was going on between two persons; the sound of one voice I could not distinctly hear; it appeared to come from the farther cell. The voice in the nearer cell I heard say “I hope he won’t split; I’ll be my part.” I have known Polkinghorne 12 years, and have had occasion to serve him with summonses from the County Court; I don’t know that I could swear to his voice, but the voice I heard was from the cell nearest to the door.—James Rickard, police constable, after corroborating previous evidence as to his reception of three sacks of tin from Cocking, stated that shortly afterwards, he arrested Polkinghorne in the burning-house, and then saw three other sacks of tin inside of the door of the dressing-house. I told Polkinghorne that he was charged with having to do with Bishop and Harris with stealing tin; he said he knew nothing of it. I gave him up to Serjeant Coombe, who took him to the station-house. I afterwards went to the house of Harris at North Country, about a mile from Redruth; Cocking had described his person and I knew who he meant; I knew him by the description of the waistcoat. It was just after 10 when I got to his house; he was upstairs; I told him with what he was charged, and told him to dress in the same clothes he had taken off, and come down; and he did so; the waistcoat was the skin waistcoat he is wearing now, and on his coat I observed slime, like that of Pednandrea mine; I took him into custody, and Cocking identified him. On the following Sunday morning, I took breakfast to Polkinghorne and Bishop in the lock-up adjoining the County Court. Polkinghorne was in the cell nearest the door, and Bishop in the next cell. There were no other prisoners there. There is an air-hole, about 8 inches square, in the door of each cell; I heard Polkinghorne come forth to his air-hole and say “Bishop, my mind tells me that I shall not be committed for trial at all.” Bishop made answer “Don’t split.” “No,” Polkinghorne said, “I’ll be true blue, go up or not, and pay my third of the costs.” Polkinghorne said “if we could see Harris and tell him not to plead guilty, who could swear to him in the night? Cocking ought to have held him on, when he knew there was help there.” I heard this conversation before I gave them their breakfasts. Mr. W.P. Cardozo then gave proof that the tin in the dressing house was the property of himself and fellow adventurers; and this closed the case for the prosecution. For the defence, Mr. DOWNING, having shown much tact and ingenuity in his cross-examination of witnesses, now ably addressed the Jury, in the first place, generally, on the whole case, suggesting that even assuming that Cocking’s evidence was true, there was failure of proof that the sacks really contained tin; and also that the sack taken by him from the man whom he seized was the same afterwards found; the bag having been left exposed, and in almost a thoroughfare. Mr. Downing then applied his observations in defence, severally to the cases of the respective prisoners. At the close of Mr. Downing’s address, the CHAIRMAN was about to commence summing up, when one of the jurors (Mr. ROWE, of Treluswell) rose up and said:—I don’t think we need trouble you, sir, to sum up; our minds are made up. The CHAIRMAN, however, called attention to the Statute under which the prisoners were indicted; and also, adverting to an argument used by the learned advocate in defence, said if the Jury were of opinion that the sacks of tin inside the door of the dressing-house had been removed thither from the kieves, by the prisoners, such removal would constitute felony. The Jury immediately returned a verdict of GUILTY, against each of the three prisoners. The CHAIRMAN said: As I have not summed up, I would ask you, gentlemen, is there any chance of your altering your opinion, if I go through my notes? Mr. ROWE:—We have not the slightest doubt at all, Sir:—Mr. ROWE added:—The Jury desire me to say that they are indebted to Mr. Downing for the able manner in which he has defended the prisoners. At a later period of the day, the prisoners were sentenced by Sir Colman Rashleigh, in the following terms:— Thomas Henry Bishop, William Polkinghorne, and William Harris; you have severally been convicted of stealing tin, the property of the adventurers in Pednandrea mines, in the parish of Redruth. I need hardly say it was a very bad case. For myself, I have never tried so bad a case of the kind in this court; and I have hardly ever heard a worse case tried; and it is absolutely necessary that such sentences be passed upon you as will deter others from committing such an offence, especially as the plundering of mines is practised to a great extent in the west of Cornwall. I can have no doubt that the verdict of the jury, as regards all three of you, was perfectly right and just; they could come to no other conclusion than that all three were guilty. You, Bishop and Harris, were detected in the act, and there could be no doubt of your guilt. And as to Polkinghorne too the evidence was sufficient to convince the court that he was guilty. We shall make some difference in the sentences, inasmuch as you, Polkinghorne, were employed by the agents of the adventurers to watch that very property which you planned with others to plunder. You took advantage of the confidential situation you held, and instead of protecting the property of your employers, you associated with others to rob them. There can be very little doubt, from the circumstances that transpired, that such mine plunder as you have committed has been going on to a very large extent for some time. You have at last been overtaken in your guilt; and conviction has been brought home to you. This is your first appearance in this court, as far as we know. Should you be brought here again, a very much more severe sentence will be passed on you. But I do hope that the very lengthened period of imprisonment which this Court thinks it necessary to subject you to, each and all, will have due effect on you, and that you will use your time in gaol to repent of the evil courses you have been pursuing. Up to this period we know nothing against you; you have however lost your characters for a time; but while you are imprisoned, you will have opportunities of receiving instruction from the Chaplain of the Gaol, and I trust you will attend to it. Sir Colman Rashleigh then passed the following sentences: THOMAS HENRY BISHOP, eighteen months hard labour. WILLIAM HARRIS, eighteen months hard labour. WILLIAM POLKINGHORNE, two years hard labour. ______APPEAL. BARNARD, appellant; BUDOCK, respondent. This was an appeal by the Barrack-master of the Garrison at Pendennis against the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Budock, in respect of poor rate. Mr. STOKES appeared for the appellant; Mr. T. COMMINS for respondents.—By consent, the rate was ordered to be amended. ______SECOND COURT. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21. (Before J.J. Rogers, Esq., Chairman.) ASSAULT.—JOHN POWELL, (on bail,) was indicted for assaulting and illtreating Ann Westcott, on the 14th August, at Truro, with intent &c. There was also a second count for a common assault. Mr. BISHOP appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. STOKES defended the prisoner. Mr. Bishop having stated the outlines of the case, called the prosecutrix, Ann Westcott, who said:—I am a servant in the employ of Mr. Truscott, of Truro. My master keeps a beer-house called the “Plume of Feathers.” I have lived with him 8 years. On the 14th day of August last, I left his house to go to the Railway Inn, for some brandy for Mr. Gale, Mr. Truscott’s son-in-law. On going there I had occasion to pass the railway arch; it was about eleven o’clock. On entering the Railway Inn, I saw the prisoner standing in the door-way. I had the brandy, which was sixpennyworth, and on leaving the house I again saw the prisoner. He called out “Susan,” “Susan.” I said “my name is not Susan, you are mistaken.” He then said “you’ll do as well as Susan,” and ran after me; he overtook me at the railway arch; he laid hold of me and threw me down with violence; he also struck me twice in the face and put his hand over my mouth. Witness here further described the nature of the assault, and said “I screamed murder,” and a man called Lance came to my assistance. I was lying on my back on the ground when he came up. The prisoner then ran away; he tried to and I would not let him. I afterwards accompanied Mr. Gale to the Railway Inn, and pointed out prisoner to him. He took hold of him, but in consequence of some other men taking Mr. Gale by the hand, he made his escape. I suffered severely for a week after, from the blows I received from the prisoner. The blood flowed from my neck. I had known the prisoner, but never spoke to him before. Cross-examined by Mr. STOKES; Mr. Truscott’s beer house is about 80 yards from the Railway Inn, and at the top of Pydar-street. The railway arch is large, and it was light there; the gas was burning. The doors of the rooms in the inn that I passed were shut. I did not see any men or female there. I met no person on my way; there are houses near the railway arch. I told Mr. Gale it was Powell before I went back to the inn. On returning from the inn with Mr. Gale I saw a man called Christopher Stephens; I did not ask him who the man was that came after me. Stephens spoke to me and said, “was the man called Griffith or May?” Mr. Gale put his hand on May’s shoulder, and said it was not him. I never said to anyone it must be May or Griffiths. The prisoner had been drinking but was not drunk. He is a son of Mr. Powell, of , near Truro. Re-examined: I did not receive prisoner’s advances at all.—William Lance, shoemaker, of Castle-hill, Truro, said that on the 14th August about 11 o’clock at night, he heard cries of murder in the direction of the railway arch, and went to the spot. I saw a man run away from the prosecutrix who was lying on the ground. John Gale said: I am a railway contractor, and son-in-law to the prosecutrix’s master. I lodge with him at the Plume of Feathers. I sent prosecutrix to get some brandy for the toothache; on her return she told me what had happened, and I accompanied her to the Railway Inn, where she pointed out to me the prisoner. I had previously examined her neck and saw that it was torn in three places; the marks appeared as if done with a man’s nail. (Mr. Nash, the superintendent of police at Truro, here produced the dress prosecutrix wore on the night in question; it presented a ragged appearance). When I first went to the inn with the prosecutrix I saw 10 or 12 tipsy men; I saw Powell in a little room with three others. She pointed out Powell to me; he rose up and I laid hold of him; Stephens pulled me away, and the prisoner got off. I did not see any more of him until the Monday. Stephens repeated three or four times, “why don’t you leave the man go, it’s not the man.” There was a man there also, called May; he wore a dress like Powell. I thought it was him at first, his back was towards me. I afterwards gave information to the police of what had occurred. Re-examined:— I did not hear her say it was Griffiths. Some of the men in the room said it was May, but I am certain the girl at first told me it was Powell. There was a harvest supper there that evening, and the prisoner appeared to be about half gone. John Gay said: I am police officer for the borough of Truro; on the 16th of August I received a warrant to apprehend the prisoner. I apprehended him in an outhouse at the back part of the Railway Inn; he was concealed under some straw. I asked him what he was doing there, and he said he heard the police were coming after him, and was afraid and hid himself away. I told him I had a warrant to apprehend him on a charge of assaulting Ann Westcott; he said he had come in town that morning to make it up with the girl, but she would not do so. On reading the warrant to him he further stated that they had cut the neck home on Saturday night, and he had been at the harvest supper, and got tipsy, and did not know what he was about.—Mr. STOKES, in addressing the jury, adverted to the painful position of his client, who, up to the present time, had borne an irreproachable character, and put it to them that they should not, from the evidence adduced, find him guilty on the first count in the indictment (viz., an assault with intent). He thought there were extenuating circumstances in the case which would present themselves to induce them to find the prisoner guilty of the minor offence, viz., a common assault.—He submitted to them the probability of the prisoner being under the influence of liquor, and, having taken the prosecutrix for another party called Luxon, was not to a certain degree responsible for his acts, and that it was also to be borne in mind that it was unusual for a respectable young woman, like prosecutrix, to go to a public house like the Railway Inn, at so late an hour as 11 o’clock to purchase spirit. This fact in all likelihood misled the prisoner with regard to the character of the young woman, with whom he would have certainly taken no liberties if he had known who she was.—The CHAIRMAN having summed up the evidence, and commented thereon, left it to the jury to say whether the prisoner was guilty of the major offence, or of the minor. The jury, after consulting some time in the box retired, and on their return into court, three quarters of an hour afterwards, they gave a verdict of GUILTY on the first count. (Sentence: six months h.l.) ATTEMPTED STABBING AT TORPOINT.—ROSINA WREFORD, a neatly-dressed and rather good-looking girl, described in the calendar as 16 years of age, was indicted for unlawfully attempting to stab her father, George Wreford, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, at Torpoint, on the 10th of October. This was a very aggravated and dreadful case, for it presented the fact of a child, and that child a girl, not only attempting to destroy the life of her own father, merely because he had discharged his parental duty of remonstrating with her for her improper conduct, but afterwards, in her cool moments, expressing her regret that she had not succeeded in her murderous attempt, and boldly and unblushingly threatening to repeat it as soon as she had an opportunity. Wreford is a gardener living at Torpoint, and the prisoner, his daughter, had it seems for some time conducted herself in an improper manner, stopping out at nights long after the family had gone to bed, and pursuing, there was every reason to fear, a vicious course of life. When her father or mother spoke to her respecting the course she was pursuing, the only effect of their remonstrances was to produce violent outbursts of passion, during which the prisoner indulged in most disgusting language, frequently struck them, and threatened them with worse punishment. On Sunday morning, the 10th of October, the prisoner, upon the prosecutor remonstrating with her for stopping out the previous night, applied most disgusting epithets to him, and threatened to split his head. He lifted his foot to kick her, when she instantly seized a “gomberl” or a “spreader,” which he used in pig killing and threatened to strike him with it. He took it from her and then left the house. On his return, in a quarter of an hour, he sat down by the fire, and the prisoner, on hearing him, came out of another room, and threw a “barker” or stone used in sharpening scythes, between 5 and 6 pounds in weight, at him, striking him on the shoulder, and at the same time telling him that she had not done with him yet. She then left the room, but returned immediately after with a knife used in killing pigs, and ran at him with it as if to a strike a blow. The part of the knife was held towards him, and she grasped it as if holding a dagger, threatening, with a disgusting epithet, that she would kill him. He fortunately made his escape before she had accomplished her murderous intention, telling her that he should seek a police officer; and on his return, in a quarter of an hour, he found her standing in the doorway between the two down-stair rooms, and a knife in one hand and a saw in the other, waiting for him, and vowing that she would murder him. Prosecutor then went for a police officer, and on P.C. Foote, of the county constabulary, going to the house, Mrs. Wreford pointed to the front of a chest of drawers, from which a piece of wood had been knocked out, and said the prisoner had done it, when the latter struck her mother a blow in the face.—The prisoner, on being called upon for her defence, said her father had told nothing but infernal lies. She took the knife to stab him, and should have done it if she had had the chance. When she caught him out she would give him a bellyful of it.—The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, expressed his opinion that the evidence scarcely warranted the jury in finding the prisoner guilty on the first count, and the jury found her GUILTY on the second count of a common assault.—Sir Colman Rashleigh, passing sentence on this prisoner, said:— You have been found guilty of a common assault on your father, whom you ought to revere and honour. You were charged with a more serious offence; but the jury found you guilty of only a common assault. I apprehend your conduct has been excessively bad. Let me earnestly entreat you to amend, and to profit by the admonitions of the excellent chaplain of the gaol. The sentence of this court is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol of the county for the space of three months, and that at the expiration of that time you find sureties, yourself in £20 and two sureties in £10 each, to keep the peace towards your father, or to be further imprisoned till the then following sessions.—The prisoner, on leaving the dock, exclaimed: “It shant be long before I’m here again.” JOSEPH BENNET, 36, miner, was indicted for stealing the sum of two shillings, a sixpence, a four-penny piece and two pence in copper, the property of Mary Ann Branch, from her person at St. Stephens by Saltash on the 3d of August last. The prosecutrix resides at 74, King-street, Plymouth, and cohabits with a man called John Williams, who carries on the business of a tinker, and the prosecutrix travels the country with a basket selling goods which he makes. The evidence was insufficient. The Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY, and the chairman said it was a case where the expenses ought to be disallowed, and a case that ought not to have been sent to the sessions for the county to pay the costs. MATTHEW COLE, 28, labourer, was charged with stealing a shovel the property of Robert Hooper, at St. Cleer, on the 4th of October. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. MINE ROBBERY.—SAMUEL ESCULAPIUS NORMINGTON, (29) hawker, was indicted for stealing on the 10th of September, 100 lbs. weight of brass, the property of Mr. Thomas Tristram Spry Carlyon, at Great Crinnis Mine, in the parish of St. Austell. Mr. Bishop prosecuted. The facts connected with this case, as proved by the evidence of Edward Shaw, the manager of East Crinnis Mine; Robert Harris, an engine man on the mine; William Woolcock, captain; John Allen, collector of marine stores; Rosamond Warne, a marine store dealer, of St. Austell; George Barnes, Inspector of Police, and George Lucas, police constable, were as follow:—The mine it appeared had lately ceased to work, and the property had merged into the possession of the prosecutor, Major Carlyon. There was a drawing machine on the mine which was furnished with brass bearings. It was a peculiar sort of a machine, it having been introduced by Mr. Shaw into this county; it was a locomotive of his own construction, and this enabled him to identify the brass. Part of the brass mentioned in the indictment was taken from this machine, and the other portion of it was taken from a chest in the assay office. The brass produced was also spoken to as being the same, by the witnesses Harris and Woolcock. Allen identified it from having purchased some of prisoner, which he afterwards sold to Mrs. Warne. Inspector Barnes having obtained some information on the subject, and informed the managers of the mine of the discovery he had made, proceeded to search, and on doing so found the property before stated to have been stolen. The chest it appeared had been opened, and another lock put on it, and on their trying to open it, they found the key would not suit. There was also a cunning circumstance connected with the case; the person or persons concerned in the robbery took the precaution to cover over the place where the brass of the engine was, which prevented any one observing that the bearings were gone, and therefore, in consequence of the mine not working, the robbery might have remained undiscovered for some time had it not been for the information given by Inspector Barnes, who on being sworn said, on the 17th September I went to the house of the prisoner at Biscovey, about three-quarters of a mile from the mine. I arrived there with Lucas, another policeman, and Inspector Marshall, about five o’clock in the morning. The prisoner and his brother Charles were up stairs. I called, the prisoner came down; he was partly dressed, having on only his trowsers and shirt. I told him that in consequence of information I had received, I must search the house; he said I might do so. I searched, and in the meantime I handed him over to Lucas, from whom he made his escape. On the 17th September I went to Mrs. Warne, and obtained from him (sic) a quantity of brass. I also obtained another lot from her on the 21st. I saw the brass fitting in the places on the engine, and they corresponded exactly. The prisoner was afterwards apprehended by one of our force at Gunnislake, and brought back. On his examination before the magistrates, after the examination of the first witness, he said, “I plead guilty to the charge.”—George Lucas, of the county constabulary, said:—I went to the prisoner’s house with the last witness and Inspector Marshall. The prisoner was given in my charge. He went to the coal house; I went to see what he was doing, and he slipped out behind me; he bolted off and I ran after him, but he (sic) did not catch him; he had only his trowsers, braces, and shirt. The CHAIRMAN elaborately summed up the evidence to the jury, and they found the prisoner GUILTY. A previous commitment was proved against the prisoner, who, at the Midsummer Sessions of 1854, was sentenced to four years penal servitude for horse stealing. Mr. T. COMMINS said he appeared to prosecute an indictment against the same prisoner for stealing a pair of shoes, the property of John Williams, at St. Blazey, on the 24th July last; but he would not take up the time of the Court by offering any evidence. (Sentence: 6 years penal servitude.) CHARLES MORNINGTON (sic), 31, miner (a brother to the last prisoner,) was indicted for stealing a pair of copper scales, brass weights, a wrench and hand vice, the property of Edward Shaw, at St. Austell, on the 10th of September. Mr. BISHOP appeared for the prosecution, and called the prosecutor, who said he saw the whole of the articles before stated safe in the assay office of Great Crinnis Mine, on the 28th of August. William Clymo, a little boy about nine years of age, and living at St. Austell, said that the prisoner gave him the copper scales and a brass weight to sell, which he sold to Christiana Elfick, wife of Wm. Elfick, a marine store dealer, living at Carveth. Christiana Elfick corroborated the last witness, and said she gave him 4d for same, and that the prisoner was in the lane leading to her house, and consented to take that sum for it. William Elfick, the husband of the last witness, proved having the copper and weights, and selling them with other articles to Mrs. Polglase, another marine store dealer at Charles-town. George Barnes received the scales and weights from Mrs. Polglase, and said that on the 19th September he searched the prisoner’s house, and found on a shelf in the back room the wrench, and on a further search found the hand-vice and brass weights, which he produced. He also found various other articles, which no doubt were plundered property, and in a chest with a false bottom, he found several articles, and some bills with prisoner’s name on them, and dated this year. The scales, wrench, and vice were identified by the prosecutor and the other witnesses, as being the same which passed through their hands. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, put it to the jury to say whether, from the evidence, they thought the prisoner was guilty, or whether it was the prisoner’s brother who had committed the depredations, and the prisoner became implicated in the selling of the property, not knowing it was stolen. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY. Mr. COMMINS also said this prisoner was indicted jointly with the last prisoner, but he should offer no evidence. A previous conviction was proved against him at the Spring Assizes in 1852, for this county. (Sentence: 4 years penal servitude.) Mr. BISHOP here said that it was wholly in consequence of the urgent exertions of Inspector Barnes that these two prisoners had been brought to justice, and he thought the Court ought to award him some token for the services he had rendered in working up the cases. The CHAIRMAN said that in this, as in the last case, Inspector Barnes had shown great judgment and remarkable care, and justly deserved the commendation of the court, which he had great pleasure in awarding. The Court rose at half-past six, and the Magistrates then adjourned to the Crown Court to sentence the prisoners that had been found guilty: ______SENTENCES OF PRISONERS. The sentences were passed by Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH Bart., as follows:— [see individual cases above] BENJAMIN NEWTON, a shoemaker, aged 70, who had been committed for want of sureties to appear at these Sessions, having been convicted of being drunk and disorderly at Camborne, was now admonished and discharged; there being no appearance against him.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 17 December 1858

7. Winter Assize

The first Winter Assizes for the county of Cornwall, were opened on Saturday last, before Mr. Justice Byles. About six o'clock in the evening of that day his Lordship arrived at Bodmin from Exeter, and was met at the Judges' lodgings by Mr. John Francis Buller, the High Sheriff, and the usual cortege, and escorted to the County Hall. The commission of Assize having been opened, his Lordship adjourned the Court till 11 o'clock on Monday morning. [….] MONDAY, DECEMBER 13. Mr. Justice Byles took his seat upon the Bench this morning at eleven o'clock, when the following were sworn as THE GRAND JURY. HON. VISCOUNT VALLETORT, Foreman. Hon. H. Crespigny Vivian. W. H. P. Carew, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. H. R. S. Trelawny, Esq. Nicholas Kendall, Esq. J. Borlase, Esq. C. B. G. Sawle, Esq. F. M. Williams, Esq. John Tremayne. Esq. M. H. Williams, Esq. R. H. S. Vyvyan, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. W. R. C. Potter, Esq. D. W. H. J. Horndon. Esq. J. W. Peard, Esq. R. Johns, Esq. William Michell, Esq. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. Her Majesty's Proclamation against vice and immorality was then read, after which the JUDGE delivered his CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. He said that he believed the direction of a special commission in the County of Cornwall at that season of the year was an occurrence unusual, if not altogether unprecedented. Unfortunately, however, a cursory perusal of the calendar afforded more than sufficient justification for so unusual a proceeding. It was not a numerous list of prisoners, but of the nine prisoners whose names were found there, eight of them might be placed at the bar to take their trials for their lives. Upon that solemn occasion, he should think it very inappropriate to address to them any general observations, and such remarks as he should trouble them with, should be confined strictly to the cases which he found in the calendar. He rejoiced that there was such a numerous attendance of the gentlemen of the grand jury, and particularly as he should have the benefit of their effectual assistance in cases of some difficulty; for it would be their duty to discriminate between the innocent and the guilty, and to concentrate the evidence in those cases in which a verdict of guilty might be returned. The first case on this calendar was that of Mary Ann Craze, who was charged, first of all, with administering a quantity of arsenic with intent to kill and murder one Jane Paull; and there was a further capital charge against the same individual—a young woman, he had almost said a child, for she was only 16 years of age—of feloniously setting fire to a dwelling-house in the occupation of her master, Almond Paull. Now, in all cases of this kind—he alluded to the poisoning, the first thing to be established was the corpus delicti—was arsenic really administered. Their experience in criminal courts would have apprized them that in cases of poisoning, it was not only usual, but a very common practice to apply decisive tests in order to prove the actual presence of the mineral in its metallic form, so that there should not be a doubt upon the subject; but in this present case neither the substance taken nor any of the substances ejected from the stomach of the injured party had been preserved. Medical men stated that the symptoms exhibited by Jane Paull were those of a person who had been poisoned by arsenic, but these symptoms were not conclusive evidence that she had been poisoned. They would have to be satisfied whether there was arsenic in the milk or broth which was taken by Jane Paull, and next that the prisoner had put it there. It was also usual in cases of that kind to show that the person accused had bought or was in possession of arsenic, but he did not find any proof of this in the depositions against the prisoner. It was sought to strengthen the charge by a proof of a second attempt, and in this instance it would be shown, according to the depositions, that the prisoner was seen to take a paper which lay upon a shelf, and to mix the contents in some milk. This was mixed with some broth, and the latter was found to have a peculiar taste; and a few spoonfulls produced, though in a slighter degree, the symptoms similar to the first case. It appeared that young Mr. Paull had purchased some arsenic for the destruction of rats, and that he had placed some of it in the pigsty; and it would be for the jury to determine whether there was any satisfactory proof that the prisoner was in possession of arsenic at the time. If there was a deficiency of proof of the corpus delicti they must consider whether the capital charge was sustained. The circumstances of the case might be such as to raise a strong suspicion, but they must go further than that. Grave suspicion was not enough, but there must be reasonable proof to justify them in placing the prisoner upon her trial for the capital offence. He would leave the case in their hands, and he had no doubt that they would arive (sic) at such a decision as their judgement and experience would tell them was right. With respect to the second charge, of arson, this was an offence that was seldom brought home by direct evidence. In this case, the prisoner was said to be the only person who was seen in the room before the fire was discovered; but, although the case at present was one of grave suspicion, yet he would have them to bear in mind that if they found a true bill for either or both offences, the prisoner would be put upon her trial, and if there was not sufficient evidence to justify the jury in finding her guilty, the result would be that she would be acquitted, and in that case she could not be put upon her trial again; whereas if they threw out the bill, and further evidence should afterwards arise, she could then be brought to trial.—The next case was that of William Ball, who was charged with the wilful murder of a man named Daniel Donnaway, at Liskeard. In referring to this case, as well as another in the calendar, there were some distinctions which the grand jury would pardon him for noticing, as they might be of some service to them. He need not tell them that to stab a quiet person with the intention of killing, was the simplest form of murder; but to stab, not with the intent to kill, but to inflict grievous bodily harm, was, in the event of death, murder also. All homicides were prima facie murders, until those extenuating circumstances appeared which reduced the crime in some cases, to manslaughter, or even to excuse or justify the homicide. So stood the law with respect to a murderous assault upon a quiet peaceable person. But if that sufferer, instead of being a quiet peaceable person, was himself the assailant, and the deadly weapon was snatched up and used in hot blood, then the law looked with an indulgent eye on the weakness of human nature, and though it did not excuse the guilty party, yet it reduced the offence from murder to manslaughter. The question would be whether Ball struck Donnaway in hot blood, without premeditation, and under the provocation which he had received from the deceased. If they thought that he did, they would throw out the bill for murder, and he would direct a bill for manslaughter to be prepared.—The other case to which he had referred was that of six individuals who were charged with the wilful murder of a man named Hero Ackerman, at Falmouth. In this case there would not be, as in the last, any pretence for saying, so far as he could judge from the depositions, that the deceased was the assailant. On the contrary, it appeared to be a case in which a peaceable inoffensive person was stabbed; and it further appeared from the evidence that the wound was inflicted by only one person of the six. Supposing they had been able to fix upon the person who actually gave the stab, then the first legal question that would arise was, what was the crime of which he was guilty? and secondly, the more difficult one, what was the nature of the offence of the other five prisoners? The man who stabbed the deceased was clearly guilty of murder if he inflicted the wound with the intention of killing; prima facie the offence was murder, and there was nothing to reduce it to a lower crime. If they could point out the man who had given the stab, and the petty jury should be of opinion that they had selected the right person, he was of opinion that they would be clearly justified in finding him guilty of murder, whether he intended to kill, or only to inflict grievous bodily harm. His Lordship then briefly referred to the facts of the case, and said that if the five prisoners charged contemplated the use of the knife—if they participated in the common design to take the life of this man, though it was the act of one alone, they would be all equally guilty of murder. He would venture to submit one or two points for their consideration. In the first place, they were all guilty of murder together if they participated in a common design and attempt to kill. There would be some evidence—at least against some of the prisoners, of a murderous intention from the beginning; but supposing they should be of opinion that the others did not know that any one intended or had any design to kill, but if the knife was used in pursuance of a common design to do grievous bodily harm, then he thought that the hand that used the knife was the hand of all. Again, supposing there was no common design to kill or to use the knife, yet, if they were present, assisting in, and stimulating to, the violence, they were equally guilty as the person who struck the blow. If, however, they should be of opinion that none of those modes of putting the case would avail against the other prisoners, and they should be able to lay their finger on the man who had inflicted the stab, then they could find a true bill against him for murder, and acquit the others. Again, if they should be of opinion that not only was the offence not committed in pursuance of a common design to do grievous bodily harm, but that the assault was unpremeditated on the part of the five, and that they had no knowledge of the intention to use the knife, they would not be guilty of the offence of manslaughter; but it was quite clear that they had been guilty of a barbarous and aggravated assault. If therefore, the grand jury should be of opinion that the evidence did not support the capital offence they would return no bill against them, and he would direct an indictment for manslaughter to be prepared, which would enable them, so far as the law was concerned, to meet the difficulty of the case. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. CHARGE OF WILFUL MURDER. WILLIAM BALL, aged 20, was charged with having on the 4th September at the borough of Liskeard, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, killed and murdered Daniel Donnaway, by stabbing him with a knife in the left side of the belly, thereby inflicting a wound of which he died two days after. A second indictment charged the offence as that of manslaughter. Mr. Cole prosecuted; and Mr. Cox defended the prisoner. From the evidence for the prosecution it appeared that the deceased was a miner, living at Menheniot, and the prisoner was also a miner, living at St. Cleer. On Saturday evening the 4th of September, the deceased and a number of other miners, amongst whom was the prisoner, were drinking at the Bell Inn, Liskeard, it being pay day. They remained there till near 10 o'clock, when the prisoner and some others left for about an hour. Prior to this there had been some disputes between the men, and what was termed a "scuffle" had taken place between the deceased and the prisoner about a cap. The prisoner returned in about an hour and remained with the party till twelve o'clock, when the house was cleared, and they proceeded towards the Wheat Sheaf public-house, the deceased being in advance, and the prisoner walking beside a young woman. When they had arrived near to that house the party came to a standstill, when the prisoner walked to deceased, and the latter observed "you were rather fast with me down at the tap just now." The prisoner then asked "do you want to fight;" upon which (as was admitted by the counsel for the prosecution) the deceased replied that he did, and immediately struck the prisoner. Some of the witnesses for the prosecution stated in their examination that the prisoner struck the first blow, but in cross-examination they admitted that when before the coroner and the magistrates they had said that it was the deceased, and they believed this statement was correct. Upon being struck, the prisoners sprang back exclaiming, “stand back; give me fair play—one dog—one bone.” He was then seen by a young man to take a knife out of his pocket and open the blade, upon which he made a rush at the deceased and stabbed him in the body. The deceased did not for an instant feel the effects of the blow, and he ran at the prisoner and kicked him, on which the latter exclaimed that if he did not cease kicking him, he would rip him up. The deceased then complained that the prisoner had knocked the wind out of him, and as he began to be very ill some of his companions assisted him to the last house out of Liskeard on his way home. He here asked to be allowed to sit down to rest a little, as he was dying, and his request was accordingly complied with. One of the county police coming up in a short time, and thinking that there had been a drunken row, he desired the party to move on, when the deceased was carried to his own home, undressed and put to bed, and it was then found that he had been stabbed in the abdomen, that his shirt and trowsers were saturated with blood, and that a portion of the intestines were protruding from the wound. A surgeon was sent for, who attended the deceased, but he died in two days after. In support of this statement, Cornelius Donnaway, Richard George, — Bennett, Rose Margerey, Henry Williams, and Mr. Dionysius Donovan and Mr. A. Hingston, surgeons, were examined. Mr. Donovan deposed: That he was called in about three o'clock on the morning of the 5th of September, to attend the deceased who was suffering from a wound in the abdomen. The Omentum, which is an attachment of the bowels, protruded from the wound. It was a punctured wound, and passed completely through the front of the abdomen. It was about an inch deep, and slanted downwards. He returned the Omentum and attended the deceased, doing everything in his power for him, but he died on the evening of the 6th. Witness afterwards made a post mortem examination of the body, which satisfied him that death had resulted from internal haemorrhage. There was a large quantity of blood in the cavities of the abdomen. Mr. Hingston agreed with all that had been stated by Mr. Donovan, and added that there was a second wound on the left side of the back of deceased. Mr. Cox, for the defence, urged that the evidence had not brought the charge home to the prisoner, or shown that he was the person who used the knife. The only person who said he saw a knife in the hand of the prisoner was the boy Bennett, and yet he had not mentioned the circumstance till a fortnight after, when he told a blacksmith. There was nothing to show that the fatal blow had not been struck by some of the other miners present, with whom he had been quarrelling. If, however, the jury should be of opinion that it was the prisoner's hand which had inflicted the wound, then the jury must perform the solemn and difficult duty of deciding whether it was done with that malice aforethought—that malice prepense—that calmness and deliberation which was necessary to constitute the crime of wilful murder. If done by the prisoner at all, he submitted that it was done while he was under the influence of ungovernable rage and passion at being struck by the deceased, and then kicked in the un-English way they had heard described. If that was their opinion, they would only be justified in finding him guilty of the lesser crime. The JUDGE, after explaining the law upon the case in terms identical with those used in the charge to the Grand Jury, recapitulated the evidence, and then left it to the jury to decide whether the stab had been given after the deceased had struck, perhaps kicked the prisoner, and before any sufficient time had elapsed for passion to subside and reason and judgment to interpose. If they should be of opinion that this was the case, then they would take the milder view, acquit the prisoner of the charge of murder, and find him guilty of manslaughter. The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, acquitted the prisoner of murder, and found him guilty of manslaughter, he was ordered to stand down. ARSON AT PROBUS. MARY ANN CRAZE, 15, was arraigned for having feloniously set fire to a dwelling-house, in the occupation of Almond Paull, at Probus, on the 27th of August last, the said Almond Paull and his family being therein. The prisoner had also been committed for attempting to poison Jane Paull, daughter of Mr. Paull, by mixing in some milk a quantity of arsenic, which she drank, and from the effects of which Miss Paull suffered severely; but the grand jury ignored the bill in this case. Mr. Cox prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. Elizabeth Paull deposed. I am daughter of Almond Paull, of Nansmerrow in the parish of Probus, and I keep house for him, my mother having ceased to take any active part in household affairs. The prisoner lived with us as servant, and between 6 and 7 o'clock of the evening of the 27th of August, she was in the back kitchen. She came into the front kitchen where we were at tea, and took a box of lucifer matches and a candle, and returned to the back kitchen. There are means of getting up stairs from the back kitchen, but no person could go upstairs without being seen from the front kitchen. I went into the back kitchen about 10 minutes after, and I then beard her up stairs. I went up and asked her what she was doing there, and she said she was cleaning some boots. I had seen the candle she took out of the front kitchen on the back kitchen table, and some of the lucifer matches strewn on the floor. I desired her to go down stairs to tea, and she then went into the front kitchen, drank one cup of tea and ate one piece of bread hurriedly, and then she took up another piece of bread and left the room. In about ten minutes after desiring her to go down stairs the fire was discovered. This was about a quarter of an hour after she took away the lucifer matches. The prisoner had been with us about 10 months, but we had told her that we should be obliged to part with her, owing to her bad conduct and the bad company she kept. Mr. Joseph Paull: I remembered the fire in the lodging-room which I occupy, on the 27th of August; I first saw the smoke issuing out of the window; I ran up stairs and found the bed-clothes on fire; the bed was burnt, and the floor and ceiling were also charred. I did not look under the bed to see if there was anything. There is no way of getting into this room except through the back kitchen. Superintendent A. H. Jarrett: l am Superintendent of the County Police at Truro. I went to Nansmerrow, on the 28th of August and found the bed-clothes and bed-tie burnt, and the bedstead and floor charred. I also found under the bed some furze which must have been placed there by some person intentionally. The bedstead was a moveable article. This was the case for the prosecution. The JUDGE:—There is not sufficient evidence of the burning of house. The bedstead was a moveable article, and the floor was only charred. Mr. COX cited a case in which scorching had been held to be sufficient to support the charge, and another in which charring was deemed to be insufficient. The JUDGE in summing up said, that it appeared to him that the evidence did not sustain the capital charge of setting fire to a dwelling-house, but still setting fire to household furniture was a felony; and therefore, they must say, whether upon the evidence which had been adduced, they considered that she was guilty of setting fire to the bed. The jury considered that the case was a very doubtful one, and returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The Court then adjourned. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14. The Judge took his seat on the Bench this morning at half-past nine o'clock. The CHARGE of MURDER at FALMOUTH. WILLIAM PRICE, 22, DANIEL CRONIN, 21, GEORGE GABRIEL, 33, and THOMAS WRIGHT, 24, seamen, against whom the grand jury had found true bills for having feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought, murdered Hero Ackerman, at Falmouth, were then arraigned. Gabriel is a Frenchman, but he declined to exercise his privilege to be tried by a jury composed half of foreigners. Mr. Cox and Mr. Powell prosecuted; Mr. Cole defended the prisoners. Mr. Cox, in stating the case, said it was perhaps the first time during the experience of any one engaged in the investigation of that case—they as jurymen sitting in the box, his lordship on the bench, himself appearing as counsel for the prosecution, and his learned friend who was retained for the defence of the prisoners,—that they had ever had to take part in a case in which four men were placed upon their trial for their lives, charged with the murder of a fellow creature; and if their responsibility was great when a single individual stood before them on a charge, conviction for which would inevitably be death, that responsibility was immensely increased when four persons were placed in that awful position. The learned gentleman then proceeded to state the case to the jury. The evidence was of great length, and as we have recently reported this case, it will not be necessary to re-publish it in detail. The following are the facts of the case. The occurrence for which the prisoners now stood upon their trial, took place on the 24th of September last. On that day there was lying at the port of Falmouth, a Hanoverian vessel named the "Leopold," to which the deceased, Hero Ackerman, and a shipmate, named Nicholas Jungklas, belonged; and at the same time there was in the port another ship called the "Jane Lowden," to which all the prisoners at the bar belonged. Between 10 and 11 o'clock in the evening of that day, the deceased and Jungklas were on shore, and while walking in Church-street, near the Royal Hotel, they were accosted by a girl, named Amelia Pearce, whom they asked to partake of a glass of ale. She assented, and they turned up Winn's Hill, towards Bright's Coach and Horses beer shop. When they arrived at this house, they saw Wright, talking to Eliza Thomas, a companion of Pearce’s, and directly after he spoke to Pearce, Jungklas touched Pearce upon the elbow in order that she might receive her glass of ale, upon which Wright spoke to him. Jungklas replied that he was speaking to the girl, when Wright asked—"Do you want to fight." The deceased and Jungklas replied that they spoke German, and walked a short distance away, when they stopped. Wright then gave a shrill whistle, and a number of men came running into the street. Jungklas called upon Ackerman to come away, when the latter replied that they had nothing to do with these men. They then walked a short distance down Winn's Hill, but the men who were pursuing approaching near, they commenced running, turned the corner quickly and ran up Church Street towards the News Room, the men following them as fast as they could. As they proceeded, Jungklas fell twice, and though he was not aware at the time that he had sustained any injury, yet he afterwards found that he had been stabbed. On arriving at the News Room, Ackerman stopped at the palisades against which he leaned with his head bent down. The men who were following rushed upon him, struck and kicked him threw him upon the ground, and stabbed him in two places He was conveyed into the house of Mr. Williams, a surgeon, but he died in the passage almost immediately after. To connect the prisoners with the transaction, it was stated by Richard Jones, a mason, who was standing at the bottom of Fish Strand, or Winn’s Hill, at the time the crowd rushed down that when they reached the News Room, he saw Wright catch hold of Ackerman by the head and shoulders, and shout out—“Boot the —.” Wright then “booted” or kicked the deceased violently, and Cronin, or a man like him, also kicked him.—Francis Anglesea, outfitter, living in Fish Strand, Falmouth, saw all the prisoners, excepting Price, amongst the men who were pursuing the deceased and Jungklas. He followed them, and at the News Room Ackerman fell, and while he was on the ground Cronin said he would kick his guts out. He told Cronin that he should not do anything of the kind, but considering that he was rather too big for him to deal with, he picked Ackerman up, and in doing so his hands were covered with blood. He saw none of the prisoners there excepting Cronin and Gabriel, and he took hold of the latter.—Robert Gill, shipwright, Falmouth, was at his door in Church Street, between ten and eleven on the night in question, when the men rushed past shouting. He followed them to the News Room, where he saw Cronin kick another man who was partly on the ground, in a stooping position. Cronin was standing behind the man, and Wright was standing at deceased's head, telling Cronin to "Boot the —." Gabriel was there, but was standing at the side of the street. Heard Cronin afterwards say to a woman that he had not kicked the deceased, on which she called him a liar, when Cronin admitted that he had kicked him, and said that he would serve him or any one else in the same way that he (deceased) had attempted to serve him.—William Jewell, basket-maker, Church-street, directly opposite to the News Room, heard the disturbance, on which he looked out of the window and saw a man running up the street, and 10 or 12 feet behind him five or six men running after him. The five or six men, on coming up to him, threw themselves upon him, and one of them raised his arm and struck a blow. Another man cried "Boot him," went in front of him, and kicked the man who was down on his head or chest. The men, having done all they could to the man, ran off towards the Quay. Only one blow was struck, and immediately after the man that was hit fell.—Johanna Jewell corroborated the evidence of her husband, the last witness, adding that the tall man in front of deceased kicked him most violently. Another man came behind deceased and struck him a blow on the back, on which blood flowed. This man was a thick set person, and neither the tallest nor the least of the party.—Barbara Row, Church-street, Falmouth, was near Mr. Spargo’s shop on the night in question during the disturbance. Saw two of the men hold deceased by the hair of his head and beat and kick him, amongst whom was Cronin, who afterwards came over to her and said he would kick deceased's guts out, as he had stabbed a shipmate of his. Wright was one of the men who had hold of deceased by the hair of his head.—Charles Parry, assistant to Mr. Cobon, grocer, Falmouth, swore that he saw five men throw two other men down, and after one of them got up they begun to kick and strike him with their fists violently. He identified Price, Cronin, and Gabriel as amongst the assailants. Heard Cronin say—"I hope to Jesus Christ he is dead, and "I wish the — soul in hell." This was after the man had been stabbed. Gabriel had something in his right hand as he passed witness, and he went up and struck deceased, after which blood flowed. Was quite sure that it was Gabriel and not Price whom he saw strike deceased a blow with the instrument which he held in his hand. Saw both Cronin and Price strike and kick deceased.—Henry Harvey, assistant at the same shop with last witness, in whose company he was between ten and eleven on the night in question, said he saw three or four men beat and kick deceased, and directly after another came up and struck him a blow in the back. The man then fell, and the fellow ran off quickly towards the quay. Believed that Price was the man who struck this blow. Did not see his face, however, and only judged it was Price from his size and dress. Could not swear whether it was Gabriel or Price.—James Addison, borough constable, Falmouth, apprehended two of the prisoners at the Sailors' Home—Price and Wright, and on the left hand of the former he found blood, and a scratch which had been recently made on his right hand. He appeared to be agitated. There was also a scratch on his neck, which was bleeding.—Mr. John Williams, surgeon, said the deceased died in ten minutes after he was brought to his house. Made a post mortem examination of the body on Monday. The face was contused all over; the left temple was abrased, the left side of the face, neck, shoulder, and fore arm was much bruised. There was only one stab, which was between the 10th and 11th ribs about two inches from the spine, and it extended into the lower lobe of the right lung. He died from internal haemorrhage. The bruises on the head, &c., had nothing whatever to do with his death, but he died from the punctured wound, and from internal haemorrhage.—Mr. J. J. Pearson, purveyor of the Sailors’ Home, on the night in question, deposed to Wright, Lyons, and Holmes coming to the Home about five minutes to 11. Ten minutes after that hour Price rang at the gate. Witness went down and unlocked it, and let him in. He asked if the others had come in; was excited as if he had been running and drinking.—Thomas Prater, police-officer, deposed to apprehending Cronin and Gabriel first on the night in question, and to the former having admitted that he had kicked the deceased. He next apprehended Price, Wright, and Holmes, and on taking them to the station-house Price was so agitated that perspiration ran down his face. Found spots of blood in the inside of his right hand, and there was a bit of a scratch on his left hand.—William Richards, police- officer, gave corroborative evidence. He examined Price when he took him into custody, but found no blood on his right hand. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. COLE then submitted that there was no case to go to the jury as against the prisoners; and, at all events, if there was any evidence against two of them, there was no case whatever against Cronin and Wright. There was some direct evidence of a blow having been struck as regards Price and Gabriel, but not as regards the other two, and, therefore, there must be an acquittal in their case. The JUDGE—There is no evidence that Wright and Cronin struck the blow. Mr. COLE objected to Mr. Cox's interpretation of the law. His friend had stated, that if there was evidence to connect several parties in a common assault, and one of them committed an act which produced death, they would all be guilty of the more serious crime. Before they could make one party guilty for the act of another, it must be shown that they were all engaged in one common object, and that the act which caused death was the carrying out of that common object. Suppose, for instance, a poaching affray. A number of men went out in pursuit of game at night, and while they were so engaged the keepers came; some might run one way and some another, but if one of them should fire a gun and shoot one of the keepers, the others would not be guilty of the murder, although they were all engaged in an unlawful act. He cited several cases in support of his argument. The JUDGE apprehended that if several parties were out for the purpose of committing an illegal act, and in carrying out that act one of them used a knife, the others being present, and assenting and assisting in the illegal act, would all be equally guilty. To constitute the crime of murder, it was not necessary that there should be a design and intention on the part of all the persons engaged in the first instance, to inculpate then (sic) in the crime. Mr. COLE submitted that there was no evidence showing a participation, aiding and abetting in an unlawful act, and that one of them had used a knife, while carrying on that common let. It was true there was some brutal treatment, during which some one committed an act for which the others were not and ought not to be held answerable. Mr. COX contended that the evidence showed that the accused had acted on a common design and purpose. The whistle drew them together in the first instance, and from that moment till the fatal wound was given, they acted together with a common design and purpose. That being so, then all who were engaged in the transaction were equally guilty of the murder which was committed by the hand of one of them. The JUDGE said that he had no intention to withdraw the case from the jury, and overruled the objection. Mr. COLE addressed the jury for the prisoners. He pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence, and contended that there was nothing to show that any one of the prisoners had in reality committed the crime. They had been engaged since half-past nine o'clock that morning in endeavouring to ascertain who was the man that struck the blow, and now at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, he appealed to the jury whether they had any idea who the guilty party really was. The case was left full of doubt, difficulty, and improbability, and the jury were asked to take a leap in the dark, and to fix upon Price or Gabriel, whichever they thought proper. The prosecution, however, was bound to show that one man had given the stab, and that the others were aiding and assisting in the act which had produced the death.—If his learned friend failed in perfectly satisfying the jury on that point, the prosecution failed altogether; for it was impossible that any of the prisoners could have aided and abetted the act which had not been shown to have been done. It was not for the jury to say where the balance of probability lay, and then to hang four men on such an assumption. The probability was that a seventh man had struck the blow, for they had heard one of the witnesses state that as soon as the stab was given, the individual ran away and made his escape. He did not like to put the case to the jury as even one of manslaughter, as he submitted that the evidence did not support that charge against the prisoners. Still as the charge was laid as manslaughter in one of the indictments, he submitted that should the jury be of opinion that the evidence criminated any of the prisoners, they could only find them guilty of the lesser crime, and that they would not sacrifice the lives of four fellow creatures upon such improbable and imperfect testimony as had been laid before them. The JUDGE then summed up. He said that there was a discrepancy in the evidence as to who had inflicted the blow. There was evidence that it was done by the hand of Price, and there was evidence that Gabriel was the guilty party; and it would be the duty of the jury to decide this point; and whatever might be the fate of the other two, he was afraid that if they found that either Price or Gabriel inflicted the wound, that man, whoever he might be, would be guilty of wilful murder.—The learned counsel for the prosecution affirmed that the prisoners were all guilty of murder; and if not of that crime, at all events they were guilty of manslaughter; the learned counsel for the defence contended on the other hand that they were not guilty of anything, but if guilty at all, they were only guilty of manslaughter. In his judgment, there was very little ground for reducing this crime to manslaughter, for according to the evidence it amounted to murder or to nothing at all. If the deceased had struck the man who had dealt the blow, and the latter had in the heat of passion, and before reason could interpose, struck his assailant with a knife, and caused his death, then he would only be guilty of manslaughter and not murder, but there was no evidence showing that the unfortunate deceased ever struck a blow at any person. His lordship then proceeded to read over the whole of the evidence, pointing out such portions as bore for or against the prisoners; and in particular dwelling on the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. In conclusion he said that the first question the jury had to decide was who was the man who struck the blow—was it Price or was it Gabriel? One witness positively swore that it was not Price, but Gabriel; whilst another just as positively swore that the man who gave the stab had no whiskers, and Gabriel had large whiskers. Again, it was stated that the man after he gave the stab ran away, and there was positive evidence that Gabriel was present after the wound had been inflicted. They would probably consider it dangerous to convict the prisoners on such evidence of a crime which would render their lives forfeited Then came the question, supposing they could not decide as to the first point, were those men who it was admitted by the prosecution, had not inflicted the stab, guilty of that which would justify their conviction for murder. They were not, unless it was shown that from the first they intended to kill, or unless they knew that the deadly instrument would be used, and they assented to its use, and aided and abetted the guilty party in committing the act. In that case the hand of the one would be the hand of the other. The Jury, after a few minutes consideration, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY in the case of all the prisoners. William Price, Daniel Cronin, George Gabriel, Thomas Wright, John Holmes, 25, and William Lyon, 22, were then charged with having violently assaulted and inflicted bodily harm on Hero Ackerman, on the day in question. The Grand Jury had on the previous day ignored the bill against the two last named prisoners charging them with the capital offence. The prisoners all pleaded NOT GUILTY in the first instance, but after Mr. Cox had stated the case for the prosecution, Price, Cronin, and Wright withdrew that plea, and pleaded GUILTY. Holmes and Gabriel against whom there was no evidence in support of the charge were then ordered to sit down, and the trial of Lyon alone was proceeded with. The only evidence against him however was that of Charles Parry, and Amelia Pearce. The former said that he was “pretty certain” Lyon was amongst the assailants of Ackerman, and that he saw him strike and kick him. He admitted in answer to the judge, however, that in evidence before the magistrates, he had said that prisoner only struck the deceased, and he believed that statement was the correct one. Pearce said that she thought Lyon was one of those who ran after the deceased when Wright whistled. After a brief address from Mr. Cole, the jury acquitted the prisoner, and no evidence having been offered against Holmes and Gabriel they were also acquitted. Price, Wright, and Cronin were then called up to receive sentence. His lordship said they had pleaded guilty to a most cruel and barbarous assault; were he to inflict the utmost punishment which the law allowed, he was assured that it would endanger their health and lives, but the sentence would be a severe one, namely, that they be each imprisoned and kept at hard labour in the House of Correction for the space of two years. [Mr. Cox and Mr. Powell (instructed by Mr. Genn, solicitor, Falmouth), for the prosecution; and Mr. Cole (instructed by Stokes, solicitor), for the prisoner.] WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14th. The Court was opened this morning at half-past nine o'clock. THE STABBING AT LISKEARD. William Bell, who was found guilty on Monday of the manslaughter of Daniel Donnaway, at Liskeard, was then called up to receive sentence. His Lordship said that the jury had come to the merciful conclusion that he had not been guilty of murder, and while it would have been wrong to convict him of that crime, no one could doubt that it would have been equally wrong not to find him guilty of manslaughter. The most aggravated part of the case was that death had been caused by a wound inflicted with a knife; and the use of sharp instruments under such circumstances, must be put down by the strong arm of the law. The sentence of the court was that the prisoner be kept at penal servitude for the space of four years. CHARGE OF PERJURY. RICHARD HARVEY, 46, was placed at the bar, charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in the County Court at Truro, on the 6th of November. Mr. Cox and Mr. Powell, instructed by Mr. Bullmore, attorney of Falmouth, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Cole, instructed by Mr. Stokes of Truro, appeared for the prisoner. Prior to the Jury being sworn, Mr. COLE objected to the indictment on the ground that it disclosed no offence whatever and was without exception the worst indictment he ever saw, and for the honour of the Western Circuit he was happy to say that it had not been drawn by any barrister on that circuit. The indictment merely set forth that the defendant swore to certain facts, in a trial which took place in the County Court at Truro; but it did not allege that what he then swore was material to the issue before the court. The singular part of the matter was, that, as he was informed, the indictment had been drawn up by Mr. Archbold, and in that gentleman's book, it was expressly stated that it was material to constitute a charge of perjury, that it should be set forward in the indictment that what a defendant swore was material to the decision of the case. He proceeded to refer to several cases in support of his objection. Mr. COX submitted that the facts sworn to by the defendant disclosed sufficient materiality, although there was no averment to that effect. According to the usual practice, before the passing of the 14th and 15th Victoria, sec. 20, the indictment would have been good in itself; and under that act, any informality in the indictment could be amended by the judge. The JUDGE did not think that the omission was a mere formal matter, which he could amend under the 14th and 15th Victoria. But looking at the facts of the case, there could be no doubt that what the defendant swore was material to the issue tried in the County Court, and that being so, any averment of the materiality beyond what was stated, though it might be usual to insert it in indictments for perjury, was not necessary. He was, therefore, of opinion that the indictment was good. Should the prisoner, however, be convicted, and Mr. Cole would furnish him with a copy of the indictment, he would consider the objection more fully than he could do at that moment, and if he should be of opinion that the objection was good, the defendant should have the benefit of it. Mr. COX then stated the case. He said that the perjury with which the defendant stood charged was committed in an action for debt, brought against him in the County Court of Cornwall, held at Truro, on the 5th of November last. The defendant occupied a respectable situation in life, being the post-master at Chacewater; and was a married man with a family of children. The plaintiff in the action, Mr. Staff, was a mariner, but his wife kept a coffee-house at Penryn. In the month of February last, a person named Kitt called at this house with a female called Mary Paull, and took lodgings for her. Afterwards the defendant several times visited this woman, and from what Mrs. Staff saw, she was led to complain of Paull being in the house; on which the conversation took place out of which had arisen the first of the charges of perjury. The learned counsel having concluded his statement, called the following witnesses:— Mr. Reginald Rogers, Solicitor and the Registrar of the County Court of Cornwall, at Truro. Mr. Bevan is the Judge. I was in the court on the 5th of November. I produce the plaint book. The handwriting here is my clerk's, and he is not here. The practice is this—A solicitor for claimant comes to my office, for a summons against a debtor. We enter the names of the parties in this book, from which we make out a summons, one copy of which is served on the defendant, and the other filed in the office. The duplicate summons in this case is in possession of the Judge of the court, who is at Liskeard, but who was here yesterday. Mr. COLE submitted in limine that the summons, which was in reality the plaint, must be produced before the case could be proceeded with further. The JUDGE referred to the County Court Act, which directed that all plaints and summonses, judgments, and orders should be entered in a book by the Registrar, and observed that the entry in the book produced was the original plaint. Examination continued—I was present in an action in which Staff was the plaintiff and Harvey the defendant, on the 5th of November. The witness read the minutes of the case which he made at the time. Mr. Bullmore, solicitor, of Falmouth, deposed, that he was present at the trial of the action between Staff and the defendant and acted as the solicitor for the former. Took a note, but not of w hat he was going to state. When Harvey was called upon for his defence, he was asked whether he had told Mary Ann Staff to write for her husband to come home immediately. He swore that he gave no such orders. Witness cross-examined him and repeated the question whether he did not request her to send for her husband. So far as witness’s memory served him, he said that he had given no such instructions, and he stated what she did say—which was that she said her husband would be home soon, and probably he, defendant, would require him. A question was put to the defendant by his own attorney whether on Mary Ann Staff complaining of her husband being so long at home, he had said to her—“You are all right—his wages are going on all the time”; to which he said that he did not saything (sic) of that kind— she was mistaken. Witness cross-examined the defendant upon this statement, but he adhered to it. Staff had said in his evidence in the defendant’s presence, that he had complained to the defendant of the latter’s delay in not sending him away, to which Harvey replied—“You are all right enough—your wages are going on—what more do you want?—What does it matter to you how long you are about at home? I will send you away shortly.” Harvey, in answer to his own attorney, said that he had not made any such statement—that he had said nothing about wages, and that wages were not to commence until after the meeting on the 23rd of May. Harvey was cross-examined on this point but he adhered to the statement. Cross-examined:—I took notes of the proceedings, and I have part of them here, but no part refers to this indictment. I burnt the other part on returning to my office after the trial. I took no notes after the judge directed the prosecution for perjury. I am not prepared to swear t hat I have stated the identical words used, but I have stated the impression on my mind. Harvey said that he had paid 3l. 10s. to Staff, and that he then said, “You may take that for the time you have been at home; and you may give up the berth, or go and join the vessel.” I did not hear him say that he had “advanced” the money. I saw the judge’s notes of the case last Friday and again on Monday, after Mr. Stokes had seen them, but not to refresh my memory. I did not require it to be refreshed. I should have given the same evidence had I not read the notes, and I sent up instructions for the indictment on the Saturday previous. With the view of testing the accuracy of the witness, he was requested to repeat once or twice the statement he had just given as to what was said by the defendant at the trial, and although his versions were substantially the same in effect as in the first instance the language varied on every occasion. Mary Ann Staff was next called. She deposed that in the month of February the defendant was at her house, and asked her what her husband was. She said that he was a mate of a vessel. He said that he had bought a vessel which was at Southampton, at the same time showing her the certificate, and said that he meant to put her husband in as captain, and that she had better write to him to come home immediately. In consequence of this, she desired her daughter to write to her husband at Sunderland to come home, informing him that he was to be made master of the defendant’s ship, the “Caroline Alice.” On the 25th of March, Staff came to Penryn, and he remained at home, doing nothing for eight weeks, being told by the defendant that the “Caroline Alice” was not ready for sea. She asked defendant when he meant her husband to join his ship, when he said—what need you be afraid of, Mrs. Staff? Your husband’s wages are going on all the time.” —Staff, deposed that on the receipt of his wife’s letter, he returned to Penryn on the 27th of March, and saw the defendant, who said that he was very well satisfied with him for a master of his vessel; that six men had applied for the situation, but that he had made up his mind that no one but Staff should have it. He was to be paid £1 a week until he joined the ship. He remained at home doing nothing during eight weeks, and on complaining of this delay to the defendant, the latter said “You are all right, your wages are going on; what does it matter how long you are at home?” The witness proceeded to state further that on remonstrating with the defendant, on the 23rd of May, he paid him £3 10s. at a public house, telling him that he might take that money as a settlement of the matter, or he might go down to Southampton and remain with the vessel until she was ready to sail. He proceeded to Southampton the next day, but after remaining there some time, and finding he could obtain nothing satisfactory, he returned to Penryn, and demanded the wages due to him, amounting to £23 14s., which, with the travelling expenses, and money advanced on account of the vessel at Southampton, made the total sum of £27 14s. 9d., from which was to be deducted the £3 10s. advanced by the defendant, leaving a balance of £24 4s. 9d. A witness named Lewis corroborated the evidence of Mrs. Staff as to the defendant having directed her to send for her husband, and his saying that her husband’s wages were going on. Mary Paull also gave corroborative evidence. She said that when Mrs. Staff complained of her husband being kept at home idle, she added that he had had three berths offered to him, to which the defendant answered—“What does he want with berths; he has one already.” On cross-examination she said that the words were “he would have a berth” and “the wages would be going on.” Mr. COLE, for the defence, urged that this prosecution had arisen altogether through a mistake on the part of Mrs. Staff. The probability was that the defendant, on one of his visits to her house, had heard that she expected her husband home soon, and that he then requested her to tell him that he was in want of a master for the ship which he had bought. She, being deaf, had misunderstood, and thought that he had made her husband an offer of a situation. This was evident from the evidence of Staff himself, who admitted that no engagement was come to until the 23rd of May—a fact that was utterly inconsistent with the statement that he was to be paid wages from the commencement. He submitted that upon the evidence adduced the jury could not convict the defendant of the offence charged in the indictment. He concluded by calling Mr. Joseph Carne, collector of taxes, Truro, Mr. John Barnett, shop keeper, Chacewater, Mr. George Martin, of the same place, Mr. Thomas Wareham, merchant, ditto, who gave the defendant an excellent character, as an honest, upright, truthful, and honourable man. The JUDGE, in summing up, said that this was not an indictment for swearing falsely to any act that had taken place, but it was a prosecution for certain words which were alleged to have been spoken by the defendant, and there was no evidence of so uncertain and fluctuating a character as that relating to words. A man might allege that in the morning of a particular day he did not utter certain words imputed to him, and if they called ten witnesses who heard him, and examined them separately, the probability was that nine of them would all give different statements as to the language really uttered. In this case there were two sources of uncertainty—first, the uncertainty as to what Staff really swore in the County Court, and next, what it was alleged the defendant really swore in contradiction, and what it was asserted was false.—In the next place he must observe that what the defendant was alleged to have sworn was not proved in the most satisfactory way. He did not wish to cast any reflection or imputation on the respectable gentleman who was engaged in the prosecution, but still he stood in a peculiar position. When the action was brought, Mr. Bullmore was counsel for the plaintiff, and, therefore, the evidence which had been given as to what the defendant said came from a most unfriendly source. Then, again, that gentleman had told them that he had taken notes of the proceedings in the County Court, and whether these notes contained what was said by the defendant they had no means of knowing. He had burnt them, so that the counsel for the prisoner was deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining upon them. That gentleman had afforded them an instance of the way in which statements of persons varied; for on being asked to repeat his statement, he did so several times, and on every occasion the words varied. Therefore, however fair and honourable Mr. Bullmore might be thought, the jury would consider that it would be hardly right to convict the defendant on the evidence of the attorney who was against him, and whose accounts of what was said had varied in the way they had heard. Another observation arose on that gentleman’s evidence. They had heard that he had read the judge’s notes, and he (the judge) was not sure that he had not refreshed his memory from them. If he had been satisfied that he had done so, he should have felt it his duty to exclude his evidence entirely; but as he stated that he should have been able to give his evidence had he never seen the notes, he considered that it was admissible. Still, without intending to cast any imputation on Mr. Bullmore, they could not help looking upon his evidence with some suspicion. He expressed his regret that the judge’s notes had not been produced, as they would have constituted the very best evidence of what was sworn to at the trial, that could have been given. After recapitulating the evidence, his lordship observed in conclusion, that the jury must say whether, in the absence of the judge’s notes, they could fully rely on the evidence which had been given as to what the defendant swore to; if they could not do that, then they must not convict him of the charge. Secondly, if they thought that Mr. Bullmore’s memory had been refreshed by the judge’s notes—if they considered he had given his evidence partly from these notes and partly from memory, then he thought they ought not to convict, because these notes were not present, nor was the judge himself there to be examined on the subject. Thirdly, they must be satisfied that the other witnesses who had deposed to the words used, clearly and accurately remembered them. And lastly, they must be satisfied, not only that the defendant distinctly swore what was attributed to him, but that he did so wilfully and corruptly, knowing that he was committing perjury. If they were satisfied on all these points, they must find the defendant guilty, whatever might be the consequences; but if they were not satisfied on all these heads, then the case was one of those in which they might give the prisoner the benefit of the good character which he had received. The jury, after considering for two or three minutes, returned a verdict of “NOT GUILTY.” Harvey was at once ordered to be discharged. This concluded the business of the Assizes, and the Court separated. His Lordship soon after took his departure for , to open the Assizes for Somerset.

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

Top View