1863 Cornwall Quarter Sessions and Assizes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1863 Cornwall Quarter Sessions and Assizes Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Lent Assizes ........................................................................................................................... 23 3. Easter Sessions ...................................................................................................................... 50 4. Midsummer Sessions ............................................................................................................. 62 5. Summer Assizes ..................................................................................................................... 77 6. Michaelmas Sessions ............................................................................................................. 91 Royal Cornwall Gazette Friday, January 9, 1863 1. Epiphany Sessions The general Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county of Cornwall commenced on Tuesday last, in the County Hall, Bodmin. The following magistrates were present: — J. Jope Rogers, Esq., M.P. presiding, Chairmen, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq. Lord Vivian., W.R.C. Potter, Esq., Sir J. Trelawny., Bart., Goldsworthy Gurney, Esq. Hon. And Rev. J. Townshend R.G. Lakes, Esq., Boscawen, Nevil Norway, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P., J. Trevenen, Esq., J. St. Aubyn, Esq., M.P., J.T.H. Peter, Esq., J. Tremayne, Esq., F.C. Enys, Esq., W.H. Pole Carew, Esq., W. Pascoe, Esq., E. Coode, jun., Esq., E.B. Tucker, Esq., F. Rodd, Esq., Rev. Prebendary Tatham, T.S. Bolitho, Esq., Rev. R. Buller,. C.G.P. Brune Esq., Rev. T. Pascoe, D.P. Le Grice, Esq., Rev. R.B. Kinsman,. R. Foster, Esq., Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. Augustus Coryton, Esq., Rev. U. Tonkin, E. Collins, Esq., Rev. S. Symonds. W. Michell, Esq., Rev. J. Glencross, C.A. Reynolds, Esq., Rev. H. Rice. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury: — Mr. Charles Pearce, Newport, St. Stephens, foreman. Mr. William Ash, Northhill Mr. Andrew James, St. Austell. Mr. John Bull, Budock. Mr. John Barrett, Northhill. Mr. Henry Burt, Newport. Mr. J. Cocking, Calstock. Mr. J. Crocker, St. Columb Minor. Mr. N. Dawe, Lewannick. Mr. N. Davey, Northhill. Mr. Thomas Grose, St. Austell. Mr. J. Hodge, Menheniot. Mr. George Heard, North Tamerton. Mr. Burgess Oliver, Calstock. Mr. John Perkin, Week St. Mary. Mr. John Rooke, Gwennap. Mr. John Roberts, Falmouth. Mr. W. Roose, Lanteglos by Camelford. Mr. Charles Rundle, ditto. Mr. W. Rundle, St. Eval. Mr. W. Simmons, Gwennap. Mr. J. Secombe, Lanteglos by Camelford. Mr. A. Scantlebury, West Looe. The following also answered to their names: — Mr. Geo. Wickett, Mr. Emanuel Wakeham, and Mr. John Tremain, jun. The DEPUTY CLERK OF THE PEACE then read Her Majesty’s proclamation against vice, profanity, and immorality. The CHAIRMAN then delivered the following CHARGE. Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—It is always a gratification to the county to see the satisfactory attendance of grand jurors, which the Court has the pleasure of invariably finding on these occasions in this county. It is most gratifying to them to see gentlemen in your position coming forward to perform your public duty to the county in this manner. It appears from the calendar, which will be laid before you, that there is an unusually heavy amount of crime for investigation, but it is satisfactory to know that the importance of this calendar is due more to the number of prisoners for trial than to the gravity of the offences. You will find that the majority of the cases, which you will have to investigate, are not of a description which will occasion you much trouble as regards the law bearing upon them, and you will also find that very many of the cases are not of an aggravated nature in themselves, so that I think the county has not anything to apprehend from the formidable appearance of the calendar as might be feared on first glancing at it. I have before me the usual return presented by the Governor of the Gaol, which shows the number of prisoners for trial at these sessions, as compared with the corresponding sessions of last year. I find that we have now a grand total of prisoners for trial, coupled with those who have been committed under the Criminal Justice Act and the Juvenile Offenders' Act, 65 against 59 last year. That shows an increase of six over the corresponding period of last year; but when we come to the calendar, we find there has been a considerable increase. It shows that there are 24 cases of felony; and including misdemeanours, a total of 48 cases for trial against thirty-nine last year, making nine more for trial now than there were at the sessions last year. But as I said before, I think when the calendar comes to be analysed it will not appear that the larger number now for trial necessarily leads to the presumption that crime is on the increase. I should say also, that there has been a larger number of prisoners, by thirty, received by the governor of the gaol this quarter than in the corresponding quarter of last year. This quarter there have been 183 received against 153 in the quarter of last year. Now, with regard to the cases respecting which it will be necessary for me to trouble you, there are only four to which, I think, I need call your attention. The first of these is No. 10 in the calendar; the case of James Hooper, the younger, who is charged with stealing the sum of 12s. 4d., at St. Agnes. This is a case of a very painful character, although not of an aggravated one, for you will see that the prosecutor is the father of the prisoner, and I draw your attention to it in order that you may, after carefully weighing the evidence, distinguish whether or not the prisoner is an intelligent lad— whether, in fact, he knew the distinction between right and wrong, and that when he stole the money, he was committing the crime for which he is charged. If you are satisfied of this and there is no plea of insanity, you must find a true bill. As far as the case is concerned it is a very simple one, and you will have to say, as I before reminded you, whether the boy had or had not a notion of what he was doing at the time he committed the offence. If you should be of opinion that there is no ground for supposing insanity, it will be your duty to find a true bill. The next case to which I will call your attention is No. 30 in the calendar, that of John Letten, and it is almost the only one of an aggravated nature. It is a case of housebreaking, and there are a great number of witnesses in support of it. My object in drawing your attention to it is to show that it is a case depending on which is called circumstantial evidence, that is evidence of a circumstantial character, and you will have to draw your inference whether on the evidence—whether on all the circumstances you are satisfied that it leads to the inference of his guilt or innocence. The facts are these. The house of the prosecutor was broken into, but this was not done after the hours which would make the offence that of burglary. The house was broken into while the owners were at chapel, and the evidence against the prisoner is—first, that he was seen near the premises on the day in question about the time when the prosecutor and his family were at chapel. He was afterwards seen by some sailors belonging to the ship Sheerwater, now lying at Plymouth, who have been detained in consequence of this case. There are no less than three persons who speak to having seen the prisoner show articles which correspond with those stolen. These articles, however, will not be brought here before you, because they have been most likely concealed; at all events they have not come into the hands of the police. They have, however, got possession of a desk in which there were some papers belonging to the prosecutor. This was found in a field by the police, who traced some footmarks from the spot to the house of the prisoner. Now that is the only property which will be deposed to by the prosecutor, and which has been discovered since the house was broken into. It will be for you to sift and to weigh the evidence carefully, and if you should be satisfied that the articles which the prisoner showed at one time to one person and at another time to another person, are the property of the prosecutor—if you believe the evidence of the witness who speaks to having seen the prisoner near the premises, and who will explain to you the reason he had for knowing him—if, also, you are satisfied of the identity of the footmarks from the place where the desk was found to the prisoner's house—if you are satisfied of all these things, I think it can lead you to no other conclusion than that it is your duty to find a bill and to send the case down here for trial. As I said the case is one of circumstantial evidence, and you will take the facts into your consideration and say whether, in your opinion, they are sufficient to justify you in sending the case here for trial. The next case is that of Thomas Gill, against whom there are two charges, but there is only one to which I need refer, namely, a charge of misdemeanour, in having obtained by false pretences, some meat from the person who was taking it to the purchaser, a Mr. Symons (sic) in Launceston. My object in calling attention to it is that you may know what is the law bearing upon the case, because the false pretence is of an unusual character. It is, that while the son of a butcher, from whom the meat was bought, was taking it along the street to the home of Mr.