sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bissoe, Blisland, Bolingey, Botusfleming, Chenhalls, Goldsithney

1863 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, . 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. , 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. , Budock. Mr. John Barrett, Northhill. Mr. Henry Burt, Newport. Mr. J. Cocking, . Mr. J. Crocker, St. Columb Minor. Mr. N. Dawe, . Mr. N. Davey, Northhill. Mr. Thomas Grose, St. Austell. Mr. J. Hodge, . Mr. George Heard, . Mr. Burgess Oliver, Calstock. Mr. John Perkin, Week St. Mary. Mr. John Rooke, . Mr. John Roberts, Falmouth. Mr. W. Roose, Lanteglos by . Mr. Charles Rundle, ditto. Mr. W. Rundle, St. Eval. Mr. W. Simmons, Gwennap. Mr. J. Secombe, Lanteglos by Camelford. Mr. A. Scantlebury, West . 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 , 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. Symonds, the person met him and asked, "Is that Mr. Symonds's meat?" and on the boy replying in the affirmative, he observed, "I have to take that." The boy's words are "A man came to me and said 'is that Symonds's meat?' I said 'yes,' and he said 'I have to take that,' and he then took it away." Now you must be satisfied that in using these words he wished the boy to believe that Mr. Symonds had sent him for the meat. It is not necessary that he should have said that Mr. Symonds sent him, but it is enough if he assumed the character of an agent of Mr. Symonds and led the boy to believe that he was sent for the meat. (The Chairman referred to a case in which this had been laid down by the Judges.) It turns out that the prisoner had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Symonds purchase the meat, because he stood by when that gentleman bought it of the butcher. What you must be satisfied of is that he led the boy to believe he was sent by Mr. Symonds, and that he was acting as his agent. The only other case to which I need refer is one of misdemeanour, in which a prisoner named Charles Hickes, is charged with an indecent assault on a little girl under 12 years of age. I am not aware in what way the indictment will be presented to you—whether for an indecent assault, or for an assault with intent to ravish. Whichever way it may come before you, you will of course deal with it, and I merely refer to it to show that it will be presented in one of these forms. If the indictment should be for an assault, with intent to ravish, it does not matter whether the girl was a consenting party or not, as she was under the age of twelve. These are the only cases with which I need trouble you. As I have before observed at these sessions, if any doubt should arise in any case which comes before you, the court will be happy to afford all the assistance in its power. It has been usual at these sessions to state from the chair what rates will be required. I should first state that at these sessions, for the first time, the court has received a report from the Finance Committee which were appointed at the last Quarter Sessions, and who are authorised to examine the county finances. That report will be presented and read to the court in due order. The rate which will be required for general purposes is 24-32ds. of a penny—the same as last year, with the addition of 1-32d for county bridges. There will also be required, on account of the county police, 20-32ds. of a penny, which is the same amount as at these sessions last year. With respect to the gaol, l am happy to announce that the new table of dietary adopted at the last sessions, has been efficient, and I believe you will hear from the chairman of the committee that it has answered every purpose the court intended. These are the only topics on which I need touch, and I will only further remind you that we have no less than 50 prisoners for trial, and hope that you will see the necessity of proceeding with the bills as quickly as possible. COUNTY BUSINESS. FINANCE REPORT. The CHAIRMAN read the following report:— The Finance Committee met yesterday and examined the treasurer’s account and vouchers which were found correct, also the Coroners' bills, and the bill of the Deputy Clerk of the Peace, and the annual bill of cravings, which they also found correct. The committee recommend that all accounts for payment at the sessions should be transmitted to the Treasurer for their inspection at least three weeks prior to each session. The committee find that a rate of 25-32nds of one penny will be required for the Bridge Surveyors and general expenditure of the county during the ensuing quarter.—RICHARD FOSTER, Chairman. The Chairman said that the Treasurer had presented his accounts, from which it appeared there was £1027 10s. 3d. due to that officer on the general purpose account, and £1442 on a Gaol Building account due to the county. He also read a bill from the Deputy Clerk of the Peace for the revision of lists of voters and other sources, of £130 15s. 4d. These accounts had been examined by the Finance Committee, and they were now passed. The CHAIRMAN said that he received a bill for cravings but he did not mention the amount. This was also allowed. Rates of 24-32nds of a penny for general purposes, and 20-32nds of a penny for police purposes, were then granted. CORONERS’ ACCOUNTS. The following bills were read and allowed: — Mr. Hichens, 19 inquests £77 17 3 Mr. , 21 “ 96 2 10 Mr. Hamley, 25 “ 77 18 4 Mr. Jago, 12 “ 49 4 9 Mr. Good 17 “ _ 49 13 6 Total £350 16 8 The CHAIRMAN embraced the opportunity to observe that the Finance Committee had been put to great inconvenience in consequence of some of the Coroners’ bills not having been before them yesterday. The mistake might have arisen from their not being aware of the standing order which he read, and which was to the effect that in future all bills be forwarded to the Treasurer on the Saturday before the holding of the Sessions. He had to thank the Coroners for attending to the directions of the court as to the drawing up of these tables, and the court hoped that while this would facilitate the labours of the Finance Committee it would not impose any further trouble on the Coroners. COUNTY GAOL. The CHAIRMAN read the following report from the Governor of the gaol:— Since the date of my last report nothing has occurred which requires any special notice at my hands. The new scale of diet for prisoners sanctioned at the last quarter sessions, has been in operation during the past three months; and the result anticipated has been realized. The conduct of the prisoners generally has been good and orderly. [The usual certificates were appended specifying that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with, and that the buildings were in good order.] The report was adopted without discussion. The Visiting Committee beg to report very favourable (sic) of the county gaol and bridewell, and the establishment generally. The committee have been most anxious since the discussion held in the Midsummer quarter sessions, on the relative expenses of county gaols, to ascertain, as far as possible, what are the real facts of the case. Great care was necessary that a fair basis should be had for a just comparison, and the committee decided to take the whole of the western district, under the inspection of Mr. Perry, consisting of 45 prisons, and from every one of these, returns for 1861-2 have been solicited. 35 have forwarded them, and of these, only such were available for comparison as were under the separate system—they are in number 23, six being in excess of Cornwall, 3 nearly equal, and 14 under Cornwall. Amongst the latter was , which was as £21 17s. 7d. to £32 8s. 5d. Since the discussion referred to that which was applied for some years since, at the suggestion of the Visiting Committee, but refused by the Home Office, viz., a power to reduce the dietary of the prisoners, has been granted, and the immediate consequence is a reduction in this quarter's expenditure, below even that of Devon in 1851, Devon being 2s. 3d. and Cornwall 2s. 0¾d. per head per week. The committee cannot pledge themselves to carry this out throughout the whole year, but still a great saving is very obvious, and they see no reason why the expenses of the Cornwall County Gaol should not be as moderate as Devon or any in , if the committee are permitted by the Home Office to have equal advantages. The sum of £380 asked for by the Committee to meet the current expenses of the quarter was granted.

EXPENSES OF THE NEW GAOL. The Chairman next read the following report from the New Gaol Building Committee:— The New Gaol Building Committee take the earliest opportunity of announcing the completion of the works, and the payment in full to the contractors, and of laying before the Justices in Quarter Sessions assembled an account, in full, of the costs incurred. The contracts were as follows: — £ s. d. Building expenses, with Mr. Goodyear 32,099 0 0 Warming and ventilating, Mr. Haden 1,602 1 0 Gas, and water works, Mr. Dickray 1,650 0 0 Bell hanging, locks, &c, Mr. Thomas 665 8 0 Architect, Mr. Porter 800 0 0 £36,816 9 0 To this must be added — Lawcosts 237 8 0 Disbursements of Governors during a period of six years 2,720 17 1½ Supplemental Architect's charges (if allowed) 69 6 0 Allowed for painting and papering Chaplain's house 45 17 3 £39,889 17 4 The Committee beg to state that the disbursements of Governors of the County Gaol commenced in 1855, so soon as it was decided to build a new gaol, but before the contracts were made to meet the expenses of opening quarries, covering in the town drain, &c., &c., that they were always kept distinct from any contracts, and were of necessity continued to meet incidental expenses during the building of the gaol; and further, that they were audited quarterly by the committee, and charged to the new building account in County Treasurer's annual sheet of disbursements. The £39,889 17s. 4½d, the amount in full which has been expended, has been met by loans amounting to £39,000; but in consequence of disbursements referred to by the Governors of the Gaol during a period of six years, and taken from, though distinctly accounted for in, the current gaol expenses, there is a balance now in the treasurer's hands of £1,832 8s. 6d. to be handed over in aid of the County Rates for this year, and seeing that an exact loan to meet an uncertain expenditure was impossible, the committee feel they have made a very near approximation. The committee append an appeal from Mr. Porter, the architect, for an allowance beyond his actual contract. The committee are ready to admit his work has been well done, but beyond the additional sum of £69 6s. for extra work, ordered by the committee, they see no cause for advising any deviation from the very specific words of the contract. GAOL EXPENSES. The CHAIRMAN next read the following expenses connected with the county gaol. £ s. d. Subsistence 163 16 1 Clothing 30 5 0 Fuel 89 3 3 Sundries 63 8 3 Salaries 345 19 0 Alterations and repairs 64 8 9 These were allowed. The expenses of the County Hall, for the quarter, were £4 7s. 2d, which were likewise allowed. Mr. LAKES, referring to the law charges in the New Gaol Building Committee's Report, said he thought it should be known that an enormous sum had been incurred in borrowing the money required to erect the gaol. It might be supposed that this money went into the lawyers' pockets, but such was not the case. It seemed that certain gentlemen came down from London who had their expenses paid in addition to their heavy charges for services, and this had swelled the item out to the amount stated in the committee's report. It showed that this borrowing of money was a most expensive proceeding. Mr. KENDALL—Am I to understand you to say it is an extravagant expenditure on the part of the committee? Mr. LAKES—Not at all. My opinion is quite contrary to that. Mr. E. COODE, junr., entered into some explanation of the proceedings of the gentlemen who came from London to make enquiries, but his observations were almost inaudible to the reporters. The CHAIRMAN observed that he was one of those who had to deal with the case at the time, and it struck the committee that the charges were very heavy, but as they were made by the parties from whom they were borrowing the money, the committee felt that they must pay them. Mr. KENDALL said, with respect to Mr. Porter's memorial the committee felt that they could not recommend any extra allowances to be made to him beyond the supplemental charge of £69 6s. mentioned in the report. The Court allowed the charges to Mr. Porter, as referred to. The CHAIRMAN asked if it was the opinion of the court that Mr. Porter's letter applying for an additional allowance should be read? Several magistrates intimated that as the committe (sic) had considered the matter, and Mr. Kendall had expressed their views, it was unnecessary, and the letter was passed over. Mr. KENDALL moved that the same magistrates be appointed the visiting justices of the gaol for the ensuing quarter, as had filled the appointment for the past quarter. Mr. LAKES said there was one matter that he wished to mention, and which, although he approached not with reluctance, yet with a certain degree of diffidence. Perhaps there were many magistrates who would agree with him that many criminals were brought into court, tried and found guilty, whose friends were waiting anxiously to hear their sentence, but they were unable to satisfy their desire in consequence of the prisoner, after trial, being ordered to stand down and their sentence being deferred until the last day of the sessions. If these sentences were passed after the prisoners were tried, then friends and others in court would have an opportunity of hearing them, and they might serve as a warning to evil doers. It would ill become him to make a motion on the subject, but he would suggest whether it would not be advantageous to pass sentence on criminals found guilty, immediately after their convictions, instead of leaving them to the last day of the sessions, when there was an empty court and an empty bench. He did not say this should be done in all cases, because cases might occur in which it would be desirable for the magistrates to consult together as to the sentence which should be passed. The CHAIRMAN—I may say this is a subject which has often been under consideration of the magistrates and of the chairmen of this court, and I have felt that in this county the practice is peculiar and almost an exception to that of any other in the kingdom. I allude to the sentencing of the prisoners in the manner that it is done here. But we have felt that it is a subject that ought to be dealt with by the magistrates. At the same time I can say on my own part, and I think I may say on the part of my brother chairmen, that we shall be happy to carry out the views of the court, if they should come to the decision to adopt the suggestion of Mr. Lakes by a resolution. Indeed, I have no doubt my brother chairmen would be glad to carry out the views of the court on such a subject; but I think the court will agree with me that it would be a difficult matter for the chairman to offer a suggestion in the first instance. I have felt in considering the balance of advantages and disadvantages attending the present plan and the one suggested by Mr. Lakes that it would be better to sentence the prisoners immediately after the trial of the cases; but, at the same time, that plan would involve a degree of responsibility on the chairman much greater than at present; for, after trial, difficulties might be felt, and they could not apply to their brother magistrates so coolly and so collectively immediately at the conclusion of a case as afterwards. Yet, I think that the advantages do preponderate in favour of our passing the sentences in the manner that is done at the assizes. Still, cases may arise of an exceptional character, when it may be necessary to consult the opinion of the magistrates. If the court should express, by resolution, an opinion that the sentences should be passed as at the assizes, both myself and the other chairmen, will, I am sure, be happy to comply with that opinion. (Hear, hear). LORD VIVIAN—I think it would be desirable that the court should be informed as to the views of the chairman of Quarter Sessions on the subject—hear, hear—because I consider that question is one with respect to which the court is disposed to be guided entirely by the opinion of these gentlemen. So far as I can gather, the opinion expressed by the chairman is rather in favour of the suggestion of Mr. Lakes than against it, and I have the opinion of another chairman, Sir Colman Rashleigh, and it is a most decided one, that advantage would result from the sentences being passed as the cases are tried. I also agree with Mr. Lakes, that these sentences would act as a warning to many who attend the court; and there would be this further advantage—that if the sentences were passed immediately after conviction, hints might be thrown out at the time by those who have given evidence in a trial, which might affect the sentence that might be passed. I think, however, that the court would be materially guided by the opinion of the chairmen, and I feel sure that all the magistrates would, before taking any step, like to hear such opinion expressed. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH: As my name has been mentioned by the noble lord, and as I have been asked to give an opinion, I have no hesitation in stating that I consider great advantage will be found to arise from the passing of the sentence at the time of the trials. Cases now are when, it appears that, a light sentence has been passed on a heavy crime, and a heavy sentence in a light crime—at least it appears so from the reports in the newspapers, owing to the sentences not being passed at the time of the trial, and in consequence of the reason why this is done not being stated. Previous convictions being unknown to those who tried the case, and only to the chairmen who have had all the facts before them. I believe great advantage will arise from the adoption of Mr. Lake’s suggestion. Mr. C. B. G. SAWLE: I perfectly agree with the Chairman and Sir Colman Rashleigh for this reason—that I think those who attend the sessions should know the reasons why the sentences are passed. At present, when the sentences are passed, the parties engaged in the trials and have heard all the facts, have gone home, and those only are present who are in no way interested in the cases. The CHAIRMAN asked if any gentleman had a resolution to propose on the subject. Mr. CAREW did not consider that this was a case in which it was necessary to pass a resolution. The magistrates all appeared to be unanimous, and that being so, it was unnecessary to take the sense of the court. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH: In nine cases out of ten the chairman would have the advantage of consulting more magistrates as to any sentence, in case the suggestion is adopted, than under the present system. Mr. CAREW: And in case of any difficulty, the chairman can suspend the sitting of the court and retire with the magistrates into another room for consultation. Lord VIVIAN: I do not think this is a case which really requires any motion. It is a mere matter of form, and as the chairmen are all agreed it would be an advantage, and the magistrates offer no objection, no resolution is necessary. The CHAIRMAN—Then it is the opinion of the court that the plan of sentencing the prisoners after trial should be commenced at these sessions. (Cries of "Hear, hear.") COUNTY BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Jenkin, the Surveyor of County Bridges for the Eastern Division, presented the following report.— or Wooda Bridge.—I have to apply for a grant of a sum not exceeding £5, for repairing the walls of the approach road to this bridge. Bridge.—I have to apply for a grant not exceeding £25. for making a drain at this bridge. I beg to submit to you a proposal from the trustees of the Turnpike Trust for keeping certain bridge-roads in repair. An agreement on somewhat similar terms was last year made with the trustees of the Launceston Trust. I shall require one levy at this time. The several sums asked for by Mr. Jenkin, were granted, and the proposal of the trustees of the Callington Turnpike Trust for keeping in repair certain bridge roads, was adopted. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Hickes, the surveyor of bridges for the western division of the county, reported as follows:—In laying before you my usual report, I beg to state that most of the bridge-roads are in a good state of repair. Mylor.—This road requires cleaning and stoning, which I estimate will cost £2. .—There are some repairs wanting to the guard-walls; I estimate the cost at 10s. The report was adopted. The CHAIRMAN said it would be recollected that at the last sessions Mr. Carveth reported on bridge, and perhaps Mr. Kendall had something to say on the subject. Mr. KENDALL said the matter was deferred in order that Mr. Carveth might survey the bridge at low water. No opportunity had since occurred for their doing so and he would therefore move that the matter be still further postponed until next sessions. In answer to questions by Mr. Kendall, Mr. Jenkin said that he did not consider the bridge safe in its present state, and that the sum of £20 would cover the expense of examining its foundations. Mr. KENDALL gave notice that he should at the next sessions ask for a sum of £20 for the purpose of ascertaining the state of the bridge's foundations. COUNTY POLICE. The CHAIRMAN read a letter from the office of the Secretary of State, expressing satisfaction at the number and discipline of the police force of the county, and certifying that the force had been maintained in a satisfactory condition in point of numbers and efficiency during the past year. Mr. EDWARD COODE, jun., read the report of the Police Committee as follows:— COUNTY POLICE COMMITTEE'S REPORT. A meeting of the Committee was held yesterday, Edward Coode, Esq., in the chair. The accounts of last quarter were approved, and the vouchers for the contingent expenses of the previous quarter were also certified by the chairman as correct. ROOMS FOR PETTY SESSIONS.—The committee having considered this subject as referred to them by the order at the Michaelmas Sessions, begs to report that it appears to them from the information furnished by Mr. Collins, the chairman of the committee specially appointed to consider this subject, that there are 16 Petty Sessional Divisions in this county, that out of these 8 are accommodated gratuitously by the inhabitants of corporations, or of private companies, or individuals, while in the other 8 cases, payments have to be made for such accommodation, and it is with these last only that the Police Committee conceive they have to deal. They have considered each case separately with reference to the probability of providing accommodation in the small police stations, the result of which is as follows:— ST. AUSTELL.—Police Station already built, but there is space enough for a detached court room. .— Police Station already built ; no space left for providing a court room. ST. COLUMB.—A site is provided for a police station, which contains space enough for a court room in addition. A rough estimate has been given for a room 30 feet by 16 feet, with a retiring room 10 feet square, and watercloset, of about £200. This may probably be taken as an approximation to the probable cost of other court rooms, unless required to be of larger dimensions. CALLINGTON.—No site yet provided, but a court room might doubtless be provided in a manner similar to the last case. LAUNCESTON.—No site nor any immediate prospect of building a station there. PENRYN.— No Police Station contemplated. RUAN HIGHLANES.—No Police Station contemplated. .—The same remark as above is applicable. BODMIN STATION.—The Committee have instructed Mr Hudson to take such steps as he may deem advisable against the late occupier for damage done to the freehold. STRATTON and ST. COLUMB.—The Committee have examined and approved plans for these stations, and directed specifications to be prepared, and tenders invited, for the execution of the works in time for the next meeting. LOAN FOR STATIONS.—The first portion of the loan of £10,000 already authorised, amounting to £4000, being now exhausted, the Committee suggest that the Deputy Clerk of the Peace should be instructed to take the necessary steps to obtain tenders for the remaining £6000 with the least possible delay. Two vacancies have occurred in the Police Committee and the Divisions of East and Trigg are now unrepresented. The magistrates of each of these divisions should be requested (according to the usual practice) to nominate some one of their number to supply the deficiency. The following sums should be charged to the County Rate, and carried to the credit of the Police Rate:— Conveyance of Prisoners £159 14 4 Coroners’ allowances 45 7 0 Weights and Measures 16 8 4 £221 9 8 With respect to the subject of weights and measures, the Committee’s attention has been called to the singular fact that the moieties of penalties returned to the chief Constable by the Police during the year ending Sept. 29 last, have very much exceeded the other moieties returned by the Clerks of Petty Sessions to the County Treasurer during the same period. The Committee mention it merely as a matter requiring explanation. The Committee, on the recommendation of the chief Constable, have instructed him to endeavour to procure a site for a small police station with stable attached, at or near , partly with a view to the requirements of the district, but chiefly as a resting place for the police horses, when conveying prisoners from the west of the County to Bodmin. A sum of £120 12s. 4d. has accrued to the superannuation fund during the past quarter, which should be invested as heretofore. A police rate of 20-32nds, of a penny is recommended for the present year. Mr. E. Collins stated that Lady Basset had fitted up a room at Camborne for the magistrates to meet in at Petty Sessions for which nothing was paid, but the bench paid an annual sum of about £3 for the cleaning of the room. Mr. E. COODE, jun., said he ought to state that since drawing up the above report he had seen three magistrates of the Camborne bench, and they were of opinion that it would be satisfactory if Mr. Reynolds were elected on the police committee in the place of the late Mr. Magor. He had also ascertained that it would he satisfactory if Mr. Potter were elected on the committee in the place of Mr. Hext. Mr. POTTER and Mr. REYNOLDS were elected accordingly. Mr. E. COODE, jun., moved that the Clerk of the Peace be authorised to take steps to obtain tenders for the raising of £6000 on the police rate, for the purposes of the police. Carried. The Rev. U. TONKIN asked why a police station had not been provided at . The Chief CONSTABLE said he had been endeavouring to obtain a site at Hayle, for a station, for some time, but had been unsuccessful. In answer to Mr. Tonkin, the Chief Constable stated that he considered Hayle to be a place in which it was highly desirable a police station should be provided. Lord Vivian then called attention to the discrepancies between the sums published in the printed abstract as fines returned by the Inspector of Weights and Measures, and the amount paid by the police. In the latter case his Lordship said the sums amounted to £23 7s. 3d, while only about £12 had been returned by the clerks of Petty Sessions to the Treasurer. The Finance Committee, after some discussion, were asked to retire into another room and investigate the matter and report upon it. Mr. KENDALL said an order had been made that those boroughs in the county which did not contribute to the county rate should be charged 1s. 9d. per diem for each person sent to the county gaol, but there were several sums due from two or three boroughs, especially from Falmouth, which a short time ago owed £300 for the maintenance of its prisoners. The committee had since received £100 from the borough, and the remainder was still due. St. Ives was also considerably in arrears, and was also indebted, but the two former were the two principal places more in arrears. The matter had been brought before the Finance Committee, and Mr. Shilson, the Deputy Clerk of the Peace, would explain what then took place. Mr. SHILSON said there were three boroughs in arrears to the county for the maintenance of their prisoners—Falmouth, St. Ives, and Fowey, the latter owing only a small sum. Falmouth, on his applying to them, paid £100, and some time ago he wrote to them for a settlement of the balance. They sent him a letter to which he replied, but no answer had been since received. He also wrote to St. Ives and had received an answer from Mr. Hichens, who stated that the overseers were about to pay the balance due out of the Poor Rates. He suggested to Mr. Hichens that the best course would be to pay the amount by a borough rate. With respect to Falmouth he had sent the magistrates there the resolution of the committee, which was to the effect that until the amount due from them to the county had been paid, the county would receive no more of their prisoners. In answer the magistrates sent their local Act of Parliament to show that they had no right to send prisoners to the county, but that was a matter in which he did not agree. Lord VIVIAN would propose that the Deputy Clerk of the Peace be directed to take such steps as were necessary to recover the amount due to the county. Mr. EDWARD COLLINS said this was the view taken at the last meeting of the gaol committee, and he moved that the Deputy Clerk of the Peace be instructed to take the necessary steps for the recovery of the amounts due from Falmouth, St. Ives, and Fowey, for the maintenance of prisoners in the county gaol. Lord VIVIAN said they ought not, perhaps, to be too precipitate, as it might cost the county more to recover the amounts than the money they would actually receive; therefore the best course would perhaps be to refer the matter to the gaol committee. On the motion of Mr. E. C. Coode, junr., it was resolved that the gaol committee be authorised to take such proceedings as were necessary to recover the arrears for the three boroughs specified. The CHARIMAN then read the report of the Chief Constable as follows:— My Lords and Gentlemen:—I have the honour to lay before you the usual quarterly returns of crime committed in this county, so far as is known to the county constabulary. Also a return shewing the numbers and distribution of the force; and I would beg to draw the attention of the court to the fact that, whereas only 16 persons were charged with assault on the police in the corresponding quarter of last year, no less than 32 persons appear charged with the same offence during the past quarter. The sum of £403 1s. 6½d. was allowed for police contingencies during the quarter. STANDING ORDERS. Mr. CAREW said the committee on standing orders reported that they had made certain alterations in the table of fees to magistrates' clerks, which had been granted, and they then invited the magistrates' clerks to forward such suggestions as might occur to them with regard to the new tables. He might state that if he had had a list of the clerks of the magistrates, he should have supplied each of them with a copy of the new table, but by to-morrow, he trusted, he should be able to place a copy in their hands, and if they would forward such criticisms as might occur to them on the subject, he would take care they should be laid before the committee. Mr. LAKES asked if these criticisms were to be confined to the clerks of magistrates only? Mr. CAREW said he should be happy to receive the opinion of any magistrates also. The report, after a few observations, was adopted. THE MILITIA STORES. Mr. COLLINS moved that a grant of £15 be made for providing fuel for the militia stores, and he entered into an explanation as to the number of fires now required in the stores in question, to shew that the sum asked for would not cover the expense incurred. Mr. N. NORWAY seconded the motion, which was carried. The CHAIRMAN read the following letter:— Treasury Chambers, Sir, 17th Dec, 1862. The attention of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury having been recently called to the arrears of fines and forfeitures imposed by the Court of Quarter Sessions, or by Justices of the Peace out of Sessions, for the recovery of which the usual process authorized by the Acts of 3rd Geo. 4, cap. 46, and 4th Geo. 4, cap. 37, has been hitherto issued without effect; and it appearing that there is little probability that any of the monies so remaining due to Her Majesty for past years will be recovered, I am commanded to acquaint you that, in order to save unnecessary trouble to the several Clerks of the Peace and Sheriffs, their lordships are pleased to authorise the suspension of the issue of the process for the recovery of the arrears of fines and forfeitures imposed or incurred between the 1st of Jan. 1856 and the end of the year 1858, leaving it to the discretion of the magistrates to direct a renewal of the process in any instance, where the nature of the offence committed, and the probability of executing the writ may, in their opinion, render it expedient so to do. Your obedient servant, F. PEEL. To the Clerk of the Peace in Cornwall. Mr. E. COODE, jun., withdrew his notice of motion that the expense of heating and ventilation be charged to the gaol building fund, provided the committee were satisfied they had a sufficient surplus to meet it. Mr. E. COLLINS stated that the temperature of the prisoners' cells that day, at twelve o'clock, was as follows:—In the male cells, in which there are 34 prisoners, the temperature was 64; and in the female cells, in which there are 13 prisoners, the temperature was 62. The cells were perfectly sweet, and the ventilation acted most satisfactorily. The CHAIRMAN observed that he had taken an opportunity before the fires were lighted, of going round the cells, and he was pleased to find that every precaution was taken for insuring the health of the prisoners; and he trusted that the present mode of heating and ventilation would be found most effectual. The court was cooler by the improved system of warming, and every one present, he thought, would admit the very material advantage of the new system, but that improvement would become effectual when the ventilating apparatus was inserted in the roof of the hall. COUNTY ASYLUM. The CHAIRMAN read the following report of the Visitors to the County Lunatic Asylum:— The Committee of Visitors have to report to the Justices in Quarter Sessions assembled, that the Asylum contains, at present, room for 384 patients, and that there are 168 males and 191 females within the walls, still leaving accommodation for 25 patients. The wards are in good order, the patients comfortable, and the officers and servants attentive. Two of the male servants have been superannuated this year at two-thirds of their respective salaries; Wm. Seccombe, after a service of 42 years and Richard Dreadon, after a service of 23 years. The committee having thought fit to require the resignation of the Rev. C. W. Drew, the Rev. W. Jago was chosen as chaplain from eight candidates who offered themselves for election. The Commissioners in Lunacy have strongly urged on the Committee the necessity of a larger supply of water than can be obtained by the two-horse pumps now in use. This can only be effected by means of a steam-engine; to this steam-engine a grist mill will be attached, by which a great saving will be caused, and, from an estimate made by W. West Esq., C. E., the committee believe that the sum of £80 will be required for the same. The Committee have long had this matter in contemplation, and have only deferred it from motives of economy, but the necessity is so great that they think it right to apply to the county for a sum not exceeding £600. Whatever amount may be further required the Committee undertake to meet from the profits of private patients now in hand, and what will accrue before the erection is complete. The weekly charge to Unions is 8s. per head, and the actual cost about 8s. 1d. The attention of the magistrates is called to Mr. Lumley's letter to the Poor Law Unions, on the 25 and 26 Vic., chap 111, and more especially to his remarks on the 8th section. The Report of the Commissioners on Tuesday was approved but not read. Mr. CAREW said he could not allow this opportunity to pass without referring to a gentleman whom they had seen as Chairman of the Asylum Committee for years. He alluded to Mr. Kendall, and perhaps it would not seem ungraceful in him, when for a considerable period he had sat under that gentleman, to express his regret at his retirement. He felt sure he expressed the feeling of the court generally when he did so. The situation was a very painful and a very onerous one, and he felt called upon to bear his testimony to the very able manner in which Mr. Kendall had performed the duty during the time he (Mr. Carew) sat on the Committee. He would also add that not only did Mr. Kendall carry out his duties most efficiently, but also in a manner most economically to the county. He begged to move that the thanks of the Court be presented for his services. (Hear, hear.) The Rev. T. PASCOE was understood to second the motion. Mr. COODE, Jun., did not rise with the intention of opposing the motion, but he could not agree altogether in the statement as to the efficient manner in which Mr. Kendall had discharged his duties. He had said, and he still thought that the retiring pension granted to the late Superintendent of the Asylum, was illegal; still although he differed from Mr. Kendall on this point, he felt that they were much indebted to him for his services. The motion was agreed to nem dis. Mr. KENDALL had hoped that he should be allowed to retire quietly, but he could not but feel grateful for the manner in which Mr. Carew had referred to his services. He had wished to retire when he became a member for the county, and many years ago he had announced his intention to do so in the hope that the noble lord who was now present would take the chair. His lordship, however, having other duties to perform could not do so, and he (Mr. Kendall) still remained. He had now retired, and he hoped that some one would fill the chair better able to discharge the duties than himself. He did not find fault with anything that had been said, but felt that in voting for the pension to Mr. Hicks, although it was a most unpopular thing, yet it was an act he had never regretted. Mr. Hicks was one of the best servants the county ever had, and had it not been for his very able and efficient service, he (Mr. Kendall) should never have been able to carry on as he had done. A better, more able, and more economical servant than Mr. Hicks, the county never possessed, and he felt bound to support the pension granted to him. The following were appointed Visitors for the ensuing year: Lord Mount Edgcumbe, Mr. Carew, Mr. Tremayne, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Coulson, Colonel Coryton, Mr. Foster, Major Trelawney, Mr. St. Aubyn, M.P., Colonel Cocks, and Mr. E. Collins. Mr. KENDALL, in accordance with a notice, asked the permission of the court to pay over out of the profits from the private patients in the Lunatic Asylum, the sum of £100 as a donation towards the expenses of the New Bodmin Cemetery. He said that a year and a half ago this matter was brought before the Court, and it was admitted to be a grant which was very desirable, but the Clerk of the Peace was of opinion that the money could not be granted out of the County rate. The County, however now, was not asked to contribute this £100, but what was proposed was, that the Visiting Committee might be allowed to contribute the money out of the profits derived from the private patients in the Asylum. He wished in the first place to obtain the opinion of the Deputy Clerk of the Peace whether the Committee would not be justified, under clause 9 of the Act, to vote the money without the sanction of the Court, and if the Clerk of the Peace should be of opinion that they were, he should withdraw his motion and the Committee would then, on the authority of the clause, pay over the money. Some discussion took place, in which the Rev. U. Tonkin, Mr. E. Coode, Junr., and Mr. Kendall took part as to whether the accounts of the private and pauper patients were kept separate, and if so, why the account was not furnished to the county. Mr. Kendall asserted that Mr. S. Hicks had kept them separate, and that he was able to shew at any time the cost of the two classes. If Mr. Coode had any doubt on the subject he might satisfy himself by examining the accounts at the Asylum. Lord VIVIAN said that as Mr. Coode had served on the Committee for so long a time, he might easily satisfy himself on this subject without occupying the time of the Court uselessly. He had examined the books of the Committee, and had satisfied himself that not one penny was charged for the maintenance of the pauper patients over the actual cost. He thought the questions of Mr. Coode were calculated to mislead the ratepayers, and convey the impression that more was paid for pauper patients than was really necessary. Mr. E. COODE, Junr.: I think the remark of the noble lord in attributing to me an intention to mislead the ratepayers, is most offensive and unjust. The CHAIRMAN: I must rise to order. I think the noble lord did not wish to say that you had an intention to mislead the ratepayers, but only that your questions were calculated to do so. Mr. E. COODE admitted that when on the Asylum Committee he might not have attended to these matters so closely as he ought to have done, and whatever blame was due to him for his neglect he must take upon his own shoulders, but he could not accept the doctrine of the noble lord that because he did not then enquire into these matters so closely as he ought to have done, he should abstain from enquiring into them now. Mr. Le GRICE did not think the Court had anything to do with a dispute between the visitors. The question which the magistrates had to deal with was whether or not they would grant £100 to the Bodmin Cemetery. The CHAIRMAN said that if the hon. gentleman would refer to the Agenda paper he would find that it was proposed not to pay the money out of the county rate, but out of the profits from the private patients. Mr. Le GRICE asked if it was not the people's money, what business had they to interfere with it at all. Mr. KENDALL, in reply, repeated his previous explanation. Mr. Le GRICE said that if it was objected that he had no right to speak, he would sit down. The CHAIRMAN did not think that Mr. Kendall meant anything of that kind. Mr. KENDALL: I do not object to your speaking, but what I do object to is, your misrepresenting me as you have often done before, and I shall object to anyone doing so, however respectable his station. Mr. SHILSON read clause 9 of the Act referred to, and was of opinion that it did not give the committee power to vote the money without the sanction of the court. He thought, however, it would be competent for the visitors of the Asylum to enter into an agreement with the Burial Board of Bodmin for the interment of paupers in that ground, but that arrangement must be subject to the approval of this court. Mr. KENDALL then pressed his motion, which was seconded by Lord Vivian. Mr. LAKES said he was ignorant as to the relationship that existed between the number of the Asylum Committee appointed by the magistrates, and that portion appointed by the county. It appeared that 7- 11ths of the visitors belonged to the county, and 4-11ths belonged to some other parts. From what had been said, it appeared that the seven-eleventh's were in poverty, and the four-eleventh's in affluence, and that the majority being in that condition, the minority—the men of affluence were now to be called on to relieve them. As he had never been on the committee, he took the liberty of asking how that happened. Mr. KENDALL said the answer was a very simple one. When the County Asylum was erected, 7-11ths of the building was erected at the expense of the County, and 4-11ths by private subscriptions; consequently the 7-11ths could not make any profit from the pauper patients, the law not permitting it. The 4-11ths, however, many of whom had subscribed largely (amongst them the father of Mr. Carew), could make a profit from private patients. Although they did this, the charge for private patients was lower than in any other similar institution in the kingdom; perhaps there never was an asylum so favourable to private patients of small means. Notwithstanding these small charges, a profit was made, and that was handed over for the benefit of the County, and now it was asked that this £100 might be voted from these profits. He trusted Mr. Lakes was now satisfied. Mr. LAKES : Will you believe me if I say so? Mr. KENDALL: Yes, I will. Mr. LAKES: Well, then, I am perfectly satisfied. After some further uninteresting discussion, the motion was agreed to. HIGHWAY DISTRICTS. The next subject on the Agenda paper was to consider the confirmation of provisional orders made at the last sessions, constituting the parishes of Southill, , Stokeclimsland, Callington, St. Ive, , , St. Mellion, St. Dominick, Calstock, , , and St. Erney, St. Stephens by , and Menheniot, in the County of Cornwall, a Highway District; and secondly, the parishes of Advent, St. Cleather, , Forrabury, St. Gennis, St. Juliot, Lanteglos by Camelford, , , Minster, , St. Teath, , , , and , in the County of Cornwall, a Highway District. The CHAIRMAN stated that he had received a number of petitions from parishes in the county relative to the highway districts. Mr. E. COLLINS asked whether the court had power legally to receive these petitions. The CHAIRMAN did not think that it would be illegal for any Board of Guardians or other county ratepayers to present a petition on the subject, but it was for the court to determine in what way they would act in regard to them. Mr. CAREW said that after the decision of the court at the last sessions, he would not have again proposed the course he then advocated, had it not been that a great many of the gentlemen who then voted against him, having since expressed a very strong opinion that the motion similar to the one he then introduced, should be adopted at these sessions. He now found that it was the very general opinion of the magistrates that the matter should be thoroughly inquired into, and that a committee should be appointed to go into it generally. He now moved "That a committee be formed, consisting of two magistrates from each petty sessional district, to take into consideration the provisions of the Highway Act, with a view to recommend into what divisions the county should be apportioned for the best and most effectual adoption of the act." He was the more convinced of the necessity of this course by considering the district moved by Colonel Coryton at the last sessions; because on a reference to the maps it would be found that the parish of Simondward (sic) would be taken into one district on one side, and into another district over the other. Moreover, he considered it was absolutely necessary that some consideration should be paid to the size of the districts. It stood to reason that one of the districts to which he had referred was either too large or the other was too small. The district proposed by Colonel Coryton contained over 6,000 acres of land, and over 500 miles of roads. He could only say that he had found the parishes themselves almost unanimously adverse to the scheme, and in his own Board of Guardians at a very strong opinion was expressed against it. In fact, he only saw confusion resulting from this scheme by proceeding in the way proposed, and he was of opinion that great advantages would accrue from the appointment of a committee. On these grounds he thought he ought still to press the amendment which he had placed in the hands of the chairman. The Rev. U. TONKIN seconded the amendment. Lord VIVIAN said that having been one who opposed the motion of Mr. Carew, he now felt bound to avow that he was wrong in the view he had then taken. He then urged that there was a right of appeal in the ratepayers of the county, and he also urged, and he believed truly urged, that if the court were to become a court of appeal, that they should institute a mode in which the appeals should be taken. He found that he was wrong, and that the responsibility rested on the magistrates; that there was no power of action given to the ratepayers under the act. He had read the act over carefully, with one of the leading counsel, Mr. Phinn, Q.C., who agreed with him that the whole power rested with magistrates. That being so, he thought it was their duty to take every care in the course pursued, and that they should appoint a committee of magistrates from every portion of the County who would weigh over the matter carefully and closely, and consider not only the extent over which these districts should be formed, but the way in which they should be worked. There was another difficulty. The Act required that the two magistrates signing the provisional order should live within a district, and therefore all the efforts of the County might be rendered futile and of no avail by the magistrates living within the district refusing to compliance. Therefore until two magistrates comply with the requirements of the Act, any steps that might be taken would be of no avail, but at the same time he was quite certain there were no two magistrates in any district who would be found to oppose the action of a Committee appointed by the County. Mr. E. COLLINS also supported the amendment, although he had opposed the motion at the last sessions. He entirely concurred in the opinion of the noble lord who had just sat down. Mr. Carew had referred to one district and he would mention another—the Truro district. They would find that it extended from St. Mawes on the one side to St. Agnes Beacon on the other, and it would be impossible for any one man to work the district satisfactorily. He thought, therefore, that everything connected with these districts should be brought before the committee and carefully considered. When he questioned whether the petitions could be read, he did so because he thought an amendment would be proposed similar to the one Mr. Carew had moved, and that it would be better the matter should not at present be carried further. The Rev. R. BULLER also expressed himself favourable to the appointment of a committee, and hoped Mr. Carew would withdraw his motion. Mr. REGINALD TRELAWNY battered the objections which had been urged against the confirmation of the provisional orders by the present sessions. The CHAIRMAN then stated that seven petitions out of the nine which had been sent in, were merely in general terms, asking that the Highway districts should be conterminus (sic) with the union. Calstock parish was the only parish that had petitioned in favour of the confirmation of the provisional order. Colonel CORYTON urged that unless the committee, should it be appointed, walked over each district and examined it thoroughly, it would be impossible for them to form a correct opinion as to what was required in regard to roads. The maps that had been published would not show what roads were necessary. The Rev. H. M. RICE said that in his district all had been marked out; the magistrates who had signed the provisional order, were the only ones acting in it. If the union district was adopted, there would be only one magistrate left in it. If the Fowey Union, also, were adopted as a district, it would shut off entirely the magistrates. The amendment was then put, when 23 magistrates voted for it, and 6 against. Declared carried. It was then resolved that the following magistrates be members of the committee—Messrs. Gregor T. Boscawen, J. Tremayne, E. Coode, jun., Glencross, Tatham, Coryton, R. Trelawny, E. Collins, Peter, Sir Colman Rashleigh, N. Kendall, Rodd, Archer, Le Grice, T. S. Bolitho, W. H. Pole Cares, W. Robartes, Kinsman, Wilkinson, Sir R. Vyvyan, Trevenen, R. Davey, Reynolds, B. Willyams, Gully Bennet, Enys, jun., John Borlase, Potter, Pascoe, Kingdon, and John Glanville; that the first meeting of the committee be held at St. Austell, on Friday, the 6th day of February, 1863, at one o'clock; and that the Deputy Clerk of the Peace be requested to give notice to each member of his appointment, and of the time and place of meeting, and further requesting such member who is unable to attend to secure the attendance of some other magistrate from his district. It was then proposed by Col. Coryton that the Provisional order relating to the Highway Districts which stood first in the Agenda paper, be respited until next sessions; and on the motion of the Rev. R. B. Kinsman that confirmation of the Provisional order standing second on the same paper relating to the Highway District of Leslewth (sic) be in like manner respited. The motions were agreed to. Mr. F RODD then proposed that such part of the County of Cornwall as is comprised within so much of the following Parishes, namely, the Parishes of Alternun, Boyton, , , Lewannick, Northill, and Southpetherwin, with the Hamlet of Trewarlet, Tremain, , , St Thomas the Apostle, St. Stephens by Launceston, and , as is not comprised within any District constituted under the Public Health Act, 1848, and the Local Government Act, 1858, or either of such Acts, or within any Parish or Place, or part of a Parish or Place, the Highways whereof are maintained under the provisions of any Local Act of Parliament, or within any Parish or Place, or part of a Parish or Place within the limits of a Borough, within the meaning of an Act 25 and 26 Victoria cap. 61, be constituted a Highway District under the provisions of the same Act, pursuant to notice given by the Deputy Clerk of the Peace, on the requisition of Francis Rodd, Edward Archer, W. D. Hanson, Reginald Kelly, Esquires, and the Rev. John Glanville, Clerk. The motion was agreed to. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH withdrew the notice to consider a proposal to constitute the parishes of , Bodmin, , , Endellion, , St. Kew, , , , Lostwithiel, , St. Mabyn, St. Minver Highlands, St. Minver Lowlands, Temple, , , St. Winnow and , in the County of Cornwall, a Highway District, pursuant to notice given by the Deputy Clerk of the Peace, on the requisition of Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart, N. Kendall, C. B. Graves Sawle, N. Norway, and W. Morshead, Esquires. FINANCE COMMITTEE. The Finance Committee now returned into court, and presented a return relative to the discrepancies between sums published in the printed abstract and those paid by the police as fines. From this it appeared that the amounts published as received from Penryn, , St. Columb, Washaway, , , St. Austell, Truro, Ruan, Trecan Gate, Saltash, Camelford, Callington, Stratton, Launceston, were less than the sums paid by the Police; in some instances the discrepancies being considerable; and that the total of the fines published in a printed abstract were only £12 0s. 11d., while the amount paid by the police was £32 11s. 3d., being nearly treble. Mr E. COLLINS gave notice that at the next Sessions he would move that the appeals be taken immediately after the county business and before the trials of prisoners. The County Business was concluded at about four o’clock, and the Court immediately afterwards proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. ROBBERY AT . Jenefer Beckerleg, 17, pleaded guilty to having stolen two flannel petticoats, the property of the Guardians of the Union, at Illogan. The Chairman in sentencing the prisoner to one month's imprisonment expressed his regret that a young woman of such respectable appearance should be found at the criminal bar. The Court were inclined to believe, however, she had committed the offence, more from thoughtlessness than any real desire to perpetrate crime. Such being the impression, only a light sentence would be passed in hopes that it would have the desired effect. STEALING WEARING APPAREL. John Hocking, 27, miner, and Elizabeth Coad, 29, were indicted for stealing a quantity of apparel, the property of different working men residing at Penryn and , on the 9th and 16th of Oct. To one of the offences the male prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr. Commins prosecuted, and succeeded in fully establishing the charge against Hocking; and although it was also shown that his female companion, who pawned a coat for 2s., was culpable, yet it was only to a moderate extent, and the Court sentenced her to one day's imprisonment, and Hocking to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. STEALING AT ST. JUST. William James, the younger, 19, pleaded guilty to having stolen, on the 6th Nov., 1862, a saddle and bridle, the property of James Olds, at St. Just. The CHAIRMAN reminded him that as, on his own confession, he had committed no less than five different crimes, and that as the punishment hitherto inflicted had evidently been of no avail, the Court had no alternative than to pass upon him a severe sentence, which was that he be kept to penal servitude for 3 years. STEALING AT WENDRON. Thomas Mill, 25, miner, pleaded guilty to having stolen a quantity of wearing apparel, the property of John Tremayne and William Johns, at Wendron, on the 16th Oct. 1862. He had been previously convicted, and was sentenced to three years' penal servitude. HOUSE BREAKING AT UNY . William Pearce, 18, miner, acknowledged having, on the 12th of Nov., 1862, broken into the dwelling- house of James Cooper, at Uny Lelant, and stolen a purse containing the sum of £1 11s. 4d. The CHAIRMAN observed that although the prisoner had committed a very serious offence in the eye of the law, yet, so far as the Court was aware, it was the first time he had been placed in so disgraceful a position; and they would be materially influenced thereby in inflicting punishment. It was hoped that a term of four months' imprisonment, with hard labour, would bring him to his senses. STEALING AT UNY LELANT. Grace Thomas, 20, servant, pleaded guilty to having stolen at Uny Lelant, on the 5th November, one shawl and pair of boots, the property of Charlotte Cooper, and on the 2nd December, one shawl, the property of Thomas Gall. The court was not aware that she had been previously convicted, and agreed to give her another chance. The light sentence of one month's imprisonment was accordingly pronounced. STEALING FROM A SHIP. James Kenward, 18, seaman, pleaded guilty to having stolen several articles of apparel, the property of the captain and mate of the ketch "Stag," of the port of . The CHAIRMAN said he had ill-reposed the trust which had been placed in him by the captain of the vessel, and although the court was not aware of his ever having been previously convicted, yet a sentence would he passed sufficiently heavy, it was to be hoped, to induce him, after reflection, to abandon the dishonourable course he had commenced. Two months' imprisonment. SECOND COURT (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart) Samuel Nixon, 18, baker, pleaded guilty to having, at , on the 3rd of December, stolen a silver watch and a gold chain, the property of William Barnicoat. Sentenced to six months' hard labour. Mary Ann Grenfell, 19, servant, pleaded guilty to having, at Camborne, on the 21st of October, stolen a pair of boots, the property of William Gribble, and was sentenced to one month's hard labour. Nicholas Sara, 39, blacksmith, was charged with stealing a rug, value 10s, the property of Mr. John Tippet, at , on the 3rd of December. Mr. MARRACK prosecuted; and Mr. JENKINS defended the prisoner. On the day in question, Mr. Tippet had to go from his residence in Truro to Penryn. He travelled there in a carriage and pair, and on his way back about eight o'clock in the evening, on arriving at Perran Wharf, he stopped for a few minutes at the Norway Inn, leaving his rug inside the carriage, the door of which was closed after him by the postboy. After he had got into the carriage again and being driven about 100 yards, he missed the rug, and he returned to the inn and made enquiries about it, but no one could give him any tidings of it. Information was then given to the police stationed at Perran Wharf, and on the 24th Dec, P.C. Westlake went to the prisoner's house and received from his daughter the missing rug, which she produced from a closet under the stairs. He then went to Perran Foundry and saw the prisoner, whom he charged with stealing the rug from the carriage. The prisoner said that he knew nothing about any rug, and that he had not touched a carriage. Westlake said that he was charged with stealing the rug, and he must take him into custody, on which the prisoner said that he had found the rug in the road. Mr. JENKINS, for the defence, contended that the rug must have fallen out of the carriage, as Mr. Tippet was leaving the vehicle; that Mr. Tippet was mistaken as to the postboy shutting the carriage door after him; and that the prisoner had afterwards found it on the road, and had taken it home and dried it, after which it had been placed in the closet from which it was brought when delivered to the police officer. The jury gave the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and returned a verdict of not guilty. Harriet Jones, 45, pleaded guilty to having on the 17th of December, at Truro, stolen three pairs of boots, of the value of 20s, the property of Samuel Richards. She was then further charged with having on or about the 30th of September, at Redruth, stolen a coat, pair of trousers, a waistcoat, a cap, and two umbrellas, value £3 9s. 11d, the property of Messrs. Clarke and Moore. She pleaded that she had bought some of the articles, and this was considered a plea of not guilty. Mr. STOKES prosecuted. The prisoner was in custody of the Truro police on a charge of stealing a dress while in the shop of Mr. Gill, draper, and on the 19th of December, Superintendent Nash proceeded to search her house at , in the parish of Gwennap. He found among a variety of other articles of drapery, the property mentioned above, which he now produced. He showed them to the prisoner in the station-house, asking her to account for her possession of them, and she said that she had stolen some of them from the shop of Messrs. Clarke and Moore, of Redruth. She also said that her husband knew nothing about the articles—that she had stolen them herself, and she had stolen so many things that it was quite impossible for her to tell from whom she took them. Mr. Moore identified the articles as belonging to himself and partner, and the jury at once found the prisoner guilty. There was a third charge of stealing 12 yards of Coburg dress, value 15s. the property of Mr. N. Gill, draper, Truro, but no evidence was offered in in (sic) support of it. For the first offence the prisoner was sentenced to two months'; and for the second, six months' hard labour, the latter term to commence on the expiration of the former. The Court then adjourned. APPEAL. The COMPANY appellants; advocate—Mr. P.P. Smith. The PARISHES of LISKEARD, MENHENIOT, ST. GERMANS, and LANDRAKE, with ST. ERNEY, respondents; advocate—Mr. Childs. This was an appeal against the poor-rate assessments made on the Cornwall Railway in the above parishes; and it will be recollected that the case has been adjourned from session to session for the last year or two. Mr. Smith, on the part of the appellants, now stated that an arrangement had been come to with the respondent parishes, by which the rateable value of the railway was to be reduced in Liskeard from £335 to £225; in Menheniot, from £243 15s. to £162 10s.; in St. Germans, from £385 to £275; and in Landrake, cum St. Erney, from £50 to £25. On the part of the Cornwall Railway Company, he had to tender his best thanks to the three chairmen for having consented to act as arbitrators, and he wished to state his belief that their doing so had resulted in a great saving of expense. He was extremely glad that an arrangement had been come to with the repondent (sic) parishes, as they would now be relieved of the duty of hearing and determining these appeals, which would have involved considerable trouble, loss of time, and difficulty. Mr. Childs, on the part of the parishes also expressed his satisfaction at the arrangement which had been adopted, and his concurrence in the expression of thanks to the three chairmen. The Court then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7. (Before Mr. J. J. Rogers, M.P.) Richard Benoy, 20, labourer, pleaded guilty to stealing at Anthony (sic), on the 21st December, a pair of trousers of the value of 8s. the property of George Clark, and was sentenced to one month's hard labour. Thomas Mill, 25, miner, pleaded guilty to the four (sic) following charges, after a previous conviction for house breaking:—First, stealing a pair of trousers and a pair of drawers, on the 16th October, at Wendron, the property of John Tremayne; second, stealing a pair of boots and a pair of stockings, at Constantine on the 16th October, the property of William Johns; thirdly stealing a jacket, a waistcoat, and a brace the property of Melchesidick Tremayne, at Wendron, on the same day. Sentenced to three years' penal servitude. FELONY AT CAMBORNE. Stephen Willcocks, 21, servant, was indicted for stealing at Camborne on the 20th December, a coat, the property of Ellen Rogers. Mr Cornish prosecuted. In December last the prisoner was in the service of Mr. Vincent, surgeon, of Camborne and on the 20th of that month that gentleman found it necessary to discharge him, and ordered him to return his livery. The prisoner refused to this, until Mr. Vincent told him that unless he did so, he should not pay him any wages. The prisoner then brought a pair of breeches, pair of gaiters and a hat, his livery, which the prosecutor gave to his cook who took them upstairs into the garret. On the evening of the same day, the prisoner returned to the house during the absence of Mr. Vincent, and said that he had come to take his things away. He then went upstairs to the garret he had occupied, and came down with two bundles, and apparently something stuffed into his pockets. It was afterwards found that a coat belonging to Ellen Rogers, a nurse in Mr. Vincent’s service, and which she had placed under a box in the prisoner’s bedroom, and the hat, breeches and gaiters belonging to Mr. Vincent had been stolen. By a mistake the latter articles had not been included in the indictment, and the case as regarded the coat only was proceeded with. On the 22nd December the prisoner offered to sell the coat to a labourer named Thomas, at Penryn, and on his declining to purchase it, he asked him to sell it for him, which Thomas afterwards did to Walter Trevena, fishmonger, of Redruth for 5s. On Christmas-day, Trevena gave it to the police. The coat was produced and identified by Ellen Rogers as her property, and the jury found the prisoner guilty. Mr. Cornish said that he should not ask for a verdict on the charge of stealing the pair of breeches, pair of gaiters, and hat belonging to Mr. Vincent, and the jury acquitted him of this offence.—Sentence, three months' hard labour. STEALING AT PHILLACK. Thomas Davey alias Devenly, 29, seaman, was charged with stealing at Phillack, on the 18th November, 10 lbs. of beef the property of Samuel Rees. Mr. Cornish prosecuted, and Mr. Jenkins defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is the master of the vessel Ocean, which on the 18th November last was lying alongside the wharf at Hayle. On the 14th he bought a piece of beef, a breast quarter, some of which he had cut into small pieces for the purpose of being salted, and the remainder he had hung up on the main boom. On the 18th of November what was left of this piece was safe in the place where it had been hung, a portion having been cut off about half-past ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the cook, for dinner. The prisoner was on board assisting the crew at three o'clock in the afternoon of that day, and he was also seen at the wharf at six o'clock the same evening. The next morning the beef was missed. Information was given to the police, and on their searching the prisoner's house, a piece of beef was found in a salting pan, which in quality, appearance, and the manner in which it had been cut, corresponded with that stolen. The prisoner denied to the police having been out after five o'clock on the evening when the beef must have been stolen, and said that his wife had bought the meat from a man in the service of Mr. Runnells, butcher, a day or two previously. This man was now called, and he deposed that no such piece of meat had been sold to her at the time stated. Mr. JENKINS contended that the identity of the beef was not made out, and that there was no evidence to show that the prisoner was near the vessel at the time stated. The jury found a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. STEALING AT . John Carroll, 29, chimney-sweep, pleaded guilty to stealing from waggon, at Wadebridge, on the 9th October, a pair of boots, Guernsey frock, a coat, pair of trowsers, and sundry other articles, the property of Joseph Burton. The prisoner had been convicted of forgery and sentenced to six years' penal servitude, and had only been liberated on license a short time previous to the commission of the present offence. The Chairman said there could be little doubt that he would have to undergo the remainder of his sentence of penal servitude, on the expiration of the term of imprisonment which the court would now pass on him. Sentenced to six months hard labour. HOUSEBREAKING AT . John Letter, 21, seaman, was charged with having, on the 14th December, at Sheviock, broken into the dwelling-house of Robert Hancock and stolen a silver watch, a gold chain, three gold rings, a writing-desk, containing various papers, and a quantity of copper coins, altogether of the value of at least £7, the property of Mr. Hancock. Mr. Beer, of Devonport, prosecuted; and Mr. Childs defended the prisoner. Mr. Hancock is a boot and shoemaker, residing at , in Sheviock, and on the evening of Sunday the 14th December, he, his wife, and servant, left the house for the purpose of attending divine service at the Methodist Chapel. Previously to doing so, the doors and windows were locked up and secured. On their return, it was found that a pane had been broken in the pantry window, the hapse or fastening undone, an entrance effected, and the house ransacked, the articles described above having been stolen. An examination of the premises by the police and Mr. Hancock, led to the conclusion, that the person who had committed the offence, not only knew the habits of the prosecutor and his family, but was also perfectly acquainted with the premises. The prisoner had been an apprentice to Mr. Davis, blacksmith, at Crafthole, who lived next door to Mr. Hancock, but for some time he had belonged to Her Majesty's steam reserve at Plymouth, and had recently been dratted to H.M.S. Sheerwater, and was to have joined that ship on the day of the robbery, the vessel being under sailing orders. The evidence connecting the prisoner with the offence was what was called circumstantial. No portion of the property had been found in the possession of the prisoner, but on the evening of the robbery he was seen near to Mr. Hancock's house, and on joining the Sheerwater, the day after, he showed his shipmates articles corresponding with those that had been stolen. On the Monday morning, the police found footmarks under the pantry window, and these were traced through Mr. Hancock's and Mrs. Davis's gardens into an adjoining field, where they found a writing-desk, part of the stolen property, which has been broken open and ransacked. From a communication with the prisoner made to the police, they obtained possession of a pair of boots which he had worn on the Sunday of the robbery, and a comparison of these boots with the foot-marks referred to left no doubt on the minds of the police that the person who had committed the offence had worn these boots. Mr. CHILDS, for the defence, contended that none of the articles spoken of by the witnesses as having been seen in the prisoner's possession, had been shown to form any portion of the stolen property; that the evidence did not show the footmarks found in the prosecutor's and Mr. Davis's gardens and the adjoining field were made by the prisoner's boots; and that the fact of his having been seen near the Methodist chapel on the evening of the robbery, was satisfactory evidence that he knew nothing about the occurrence. The jury, after about twenty minutes' consideration, returned a verdict of not guilty against the prisoner, who was then discharged. STEALING FROM A DRAPER’S SHOP. Elizabeth Champion, 43, was charged with stealing, on the 22nd November, at Truro, a piece of silk, value £3, the property of John Henry Bawden and another. Mr. F. Hill, jun., prosecuted; and Mr. Shilson defended the prisoner. On Saturday, the 22nd of November, the prisoner went to the shop of Messrs. Bawden and Trewartha, drapers, Truro, and asked to be shown some silks. She was waited upon by Miss May, an assistant. The prisoner, who had on previous occasions represented that her name was Harris, and that she lived at Feock, was suspected of dishonest practices, and Miss May informed her employer of her visit, after which she took her up to an upstairs room, where she showed her some silks, but the prisoner said that they were not good enough. Miss May then left the room and told her employers that they were not good enough for the prisoner upstairs. In the meantime, Miss Mary Jane Williams, another assistant had been directed to watch the prisoner, and after Miss May had left the room, she saw the prisoner get up from the chair where she was sitting, walk to the counter, and take up a piece of 30 yards of silk, worth between £3 and £4, with which she returned to her chair, then lifted up her dress and concealed the silk under it, smoothing her dress down after she had done so. Miss Williams came forward, seized the prisoner by the hands, and held her hands untill (sic) Miss May and her employers came, when the piece of silk was taken from under her dress. Superintendent Nash was sent for, and the prisoner was given into custody and she then stated that her name was Harris, and she lived at Camborne. Mr. SHILSON contended that the prisoner when she took up the silk had no felonious intention to make away with it. The explanation he had to offer was that the prisoner went to the counter when the piece of silk stuck to her dress, that it fell on the floor, and by some means got under her dress. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. A previous conviction for felony in 1857 was proved against the prisoner, and she was sentenced to twelve months' hard labour. FELONY AT PADSTOW. Charlotte Tresidder, 44, a charwoman, was charged with having at Padstow, on the 29th November, entered the house and shop of Jane Cawl, and stolen a quantity of butter, ham, tea, potatoes, and money. Mr. G. Collins prosecuted. The prosecutrix is a widow, and keeps a small grocer's shop at Padstow. Her son resides with her and he was in the habit of going to his work at six or half-past six o'clock in the morning. On leaving the house he did not lock or fasten the door after him, but merely pulled it to. On the morning of the 29th November the five half pounds of butter were stolen from Mrs. Cawl, and on the police afterwards searching the prisoner's house, they found on the shelf under the stairs a piece of ham, five half pounds of butter, and a quantity of tea and currants concealed in a bed-tie up stairs. Three of these half pounds of butter and the ham were identified by the prosecutrix as her property. The prisoner was seen to open the door of Mrs. Cawl's house and walk in, by Mr. Tremain, grocer, shortly after six o'clock on the morning of the 26th, when there was no one up in the house. The jury found the prisoner guilty and she was sentenced to three months' hard labour. Sedwell Jane Oats, 17, servant, was charged with stealing at Camborne on or about the 31st of December, a purse and the sum of £1 8s. 4d., the property of Geo. Williams. Mr. Cornish prosecuted. The prisoner is the person, who at the assizes about two years ago, brought a charge against her step-mother who then resided near St. Ives, of attempting to poison her, by putting some mineral poison in a pasty which she had prepared for the prisoner's dinner. The prosecutor is a miner living at Camborne, and the prisoner was servant to Peter James, his uncle, and had been in the habit of calling almost daily at his house. On Saturday, the 27th of December, Mrs. Williams placed 8s. 4d. in a drawer in her bedroom upstairs, and on the Monday following, she placed a purse containing a sovereign in the same drawer. On Tuesday, the purse and money were safe where she had placed them, but on looking into the drawer on Wednesday evening they were gone. During this day Mrs. Williams had occasion to leave the house to fetch some water, and in the afternoon she went into a turnip field, from whence she could be seen from Mr. James's house. On returning home again, she observed marks on the stairs as if a person with dirty feet had gone up them, but she took no notice of the circumstance. On the evening of Wednesday, the 31st of December, the prisoner went to the shop of Mr. Thomas Davey, draper, in Camborne, and purchased a pair of boots, a skirt, two pairs of stockings, a scarf, a collar, ten yards of calico, a pair of gloves, a hat, some ribbon, velvet, two flowers, and lining for a skirt, in payment for which she tendered a sovereign, a 2s. piece, 1s., and some pence—money which corresponded with much of that which had been stolen. Information was given to the police, and suspicion attaching to the prisoner, she was taken into custody by P.C. Allan on the 1st instant. The next day she was brought back to Mr. James's, in order that a search might be instituted for the stolen money, and on the way she said she would tell the officer where she had concealed the purse. On arriving at Mr. James's premises, she went into a pig-sty, from whence she brought out a bundle containing the articles she had bought at the shop of Mr. Davey, which she handed to one of the officers; and she then dug up the purse from a heap of sand in an outhouse. There was no money in it. The purse was now identified by the prosecutor, and the jury almost immediately found the prisoner guilty. She was sentenced to three months' hard labour. ______SECOND COURT WEDNESDAY. Sir Colman Rashleigh took his seat at about 10 o'clock. STEALING TIMBER AT ST. IVE. John Aunger, the younger, a respectable looking man, was indicted for stealing a quantity of timber the property of the adventurers in North Wrey Mine at St. Ive. Mr. Commins prosecuted; prisoner was undefended. It appeared that on the 15th of November he unlawfully possessed himself of several pieces of timber from the mine, and was proceeding with them on the road when he was met by a policeman whose suspicions were excited. Questions were put and unsatisfactorily answered, and the prisoner at length expressed his regret that he had committed the crime, and pleaded poverty as his excuse. The wood was identified. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty but recommended him to mercy. The CHAIRMAN assured him that had it not been that the Jury had thought fit to recommend him to mercy, probably in consideration of his poverty, a very heavy sentence would have been inflicted. He was a young man who had up to the present time evidently borne a good character, a matter, as well as the pleading of the Jury, which would be taken into consideration. The prisoner had stolen goods which he was paid to protect, and the offence was consequently more serious than had the robbery been committed by a person differently situated. Sentenced to one month's imprisonment. ROBBERY FROM A SHIP. George Stone, 18, seaman, pleaded guilty to having broken into the ship "Climax," at Par, on the 25th of November and stolen therefrom, 4 pairs of trowsers, 2 guernsey frocks, 2 shirts, one cap, one pair of stockings, and one coat, the property of Mr. Henry Scantlebury. The CHAIRMAN said it was fortunate for him that he had not, so far as the Court was aware, committed any previous offence, and a much lighter sentence would be given than would otherwise have been the case. It was hoped that after three months' imprisonment with hard labour, he would see the necessity for leading a different life. ROBBERY BY A SERVANT AT ST. ERME. Sarah Ann Manning, 22, servant, pleaded guilty to having stolen, on the 15th Oct., 1862, articles to the value of £2, the property of her mistress Jane Gatley, at St. Erme. Mr. Stokes, who appeared for the prosecution, was instructed to recommend the girl to mercy. She went into the employ of her mistress with a very excellent character, which she had maintained until the period when the stolen articles in question were found in her box. The CHAIRMAN took the recommendation into consideration and trusted that the tears which rolled down her cheeks were tears of sincerity, and the light punishment which she would have to suffer would have its proper effect. Sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment in the house of correction. STEALING MONEY AT NORTHILL. Caroline Pearse, an innocent-looking servant, 18 years of age, was indicted for stealing a sovereign, the property of Frances Downing at Northill, on the 11th of Nov. 1862. Mr. Kempson, after the Court had been kept waiting for nearly half an hour, attended on behalf of the prosecution; prisoner was undefended. From the evidence given by witnesses for the prosecution, it appeared that on the Saturday night, prior to Mr. Downing leaving his home, he deposited in a desk a certain amount of cash. It having been, to the best of his knowledge, secured by lock and key, the latter was handed, with some others, to his wife, who expressed her belief that they were for some time laying about the house, having been given to the children to play with. On the Sunday a sovereign was found to be missing from the amount placed in the desk on the Saturday. Inquiries were instituted and eventually the prisoner was searched, but no cash was found in her possession. When accused of the robbery she protested her innocence, but her employers could not divest their minds of suspicion, and she was accordingly discharged. On the 10th November she went to the shop of Mary Ann Pearde and purchased some goods, and payment was taken out of a sovereign. The prisoner volunteered the information that the coin was not that which had been lost from the house of the prosecutor. The policeman caught the prisoner writing a letter to her sister asking her to send a sovereign; and afterwards a letter was furnished to the police by the prisoner purporting to be the production of her sister, who was represented as having acceded to the request in reference to the coin. The sister in question in her evidence, denied that he had either written the letter or sent the money. The handwriting of both letters was very similar. The CHAIRMAN summed up the case with considerable clearness, reminding the Jury that they would have to give their careful attention to the whole train of circumstantial evidence. He recalled to their recollections that in many cases it was a difficult matter to link the guilt home to parties who had committed the crime of stealing coins of the realm, as, in very few instances only, there were means of identification. In the present case, as he before intimated, the evidence was entirely of a circumstantial character. The jury, after a brief consultation acquitted the prisoner, and appeared anxious to state their reasons for the adoption of such a course, but the Chairman declined to permit the gratification of their unusual wish. The prisoner who had sobbed bitterly during the trial, then left the dock. HOUSEBREAKING AT FEOCK. John Oulds, 19, blacksmith, and Thos. Harvey, 17, shoe maker, pleaded guilty to having broken into the dwelling-house of Mary Francis, at Feock, on the 29th of December, 1862, and stealing therefrom the sum of 16s. The CHAIRMAN regretted to see two young men who, from their testimonials, had evidently borne unexceptionable characters, in such a disgraceful position, and sentenced them each to nine months' imprisonment. STEALING AT ST. STEPHENS. Richard Banbury, 17, labourer, pleaded guilty to having stolen an umbrella, value 5s., the property of Thos. Pollard, of St. Stephens, on the 27th of November. He also acknowledged having been summarily convicted for felony. Sentenced to two months imprisonment. STEALING AT . Christopher Anthoney was indicted for stealing a pair of new boots and a pair of stockings, the property of Robert Gully, miner, residing at Gunnislake. Mr. Commins prosecuted; prisoner was undefended. It appeared that on the 16th of December prosecutor had occasion to go into the “changing room" prior to going into the mine, and there left among other articles those in question. On re-entering the room, about two hours afterwards, the boots and shoes (sic) were missing. He suspected the prisoner whom he never saw after that day for a fortnight, as he left the town. On his returning the police were apprised of the circumstance, and he was apprehended with the boots in his possession. They were identified by the shoemaker. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment in the House of Correction. STEALING TEA AT KEA. Stephen Harris, 33, miner, was indicted for stealing, on the 20th of December, 1862, one Caddy of Pekoe Tea, value £3. Mr. Stokes appeared on behalf of the prosecution; the prisoner was not defended. The facts detailed by the prosecution are these: On the 20th ult., Mr. Tonkin, traveller to Mr. Joseph Benoni Thomas, sent per Mr. John Curgenven's van, a caddy of tea for delivery at the house of Mr. Matthew Bray, Twelvetrees. It was tightly fastened with a cord behind the van, and was known to be secure a short distance from Crosslands. Near thereto the driver got out and further secured the package in question. Whilst on the road he first saw the prisoner, who was for some time afterwards noticed following the van. Darkness, however, ultimately proved a veil to his form, but Mr. Curgenven positively swore to his identity as the man who was following his van. When the package was wanting it was non est, and the police were apprised of the circumstance. On the following morning, the dwelling of the prisoner was entered by the “blue” officials, and a strict search was made. The missing package and its contents were found buried 'neath a sod. The prisoner maintained that he was about to speculate as a tea merchant, and had, in consequence, purchased the said property of an auctioneer. Its peculiar situation, he said, was attributable to his desire to have it kept in good condition. The case was fully established and the jury having found the prisoner guilty, the chairman sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment. He remarked that the punishment would have been much more severe were he (the Chairman) not made aware that the state of his intellect at some periods, rendered him scarcely responsible for his actions. The prisoner had been wounded in the head whilst engaged in the Crimean war, and for which he was discharged from the army. STEALING AT . Thomas James Stutton, 16, labourer, was indicted for stealing a pair of boots, the property of Simon Marshall Hicks, on the 7th December. Mr. Shilson, jun., prosecuted; prisoner, who was a simple looking lad, was not defended. The boots were found in the possession of the prisoner at his father's house, on the morning after they were missed and were identified. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth. Sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment in the House of Correction. STEALING BOOTS AT PHILLACK. William Harvey, 16, Thomas Henry Michell, 13, John Thomas Trestrail, 13, and Alfred Haines, 12, pleaded guilty to having stolen eleven pairs of boots, the property of Edwin Eddy at Phillack, on or about the 30th of December. There was also a second indictment against them, to which they pleaded not guilty, but Mr. Cornish, on behalf of the prosecution, did not offer any evidence, and the Court therefore dealt with the first count only. Harvey was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment, and the other three to 14 days, with the further proviso that each be once privately whipped, and receive 12 strokes. STEALING FROM A SHIP AT ST. IVES. George Edwards, 16, pleaded guilty to having stolen from the ship “Sarah Ann," at St. Ives, a quantity of wearing apparel, on the 7th of December, and was sentenced to two months imprisonment. STEALING BOOTS AT PHILLACK. Tobias Michell, 16, was charged with stealing two pairs of boots the property of Edwin Eddy, shoemaker, Phillack. Mr. Cornish prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The Jury found him guilty of receiving the goods knowing them to have been stolen. Two months' imprisonment. WATCH STEALING AT REDRUTH. WilliamTrethewey, 29, labourer, was indicted for stealing on the 27th of December, a silver watch the property of Thos. Bilkey. Mr. Cornish prosecuted; prisoner was undefended. It appeared on the day in question the prosecutor (an old man) went at an early hour into Sharp's beerhouse and remained until about half-past four o'clock. Whilst in the house he went to sleep for a considerable time on a chair near the fire. The total quantity of liquor he imbibed was a pint of "half and half." Near him was the prisoner in an intoxicated condition, and after rousing, contrary to the wishes of the landlady, the old man from his slumbers, he left for the Oxford Inn. He went into the kitchen and found a man whom he requested to pawn the watch for him, and the solicited individual, after some hesitation, complied with the wish. The pawn ticket, and 5s. was handed to the prisoner who protested that he had found the watch in the street. He was found guilty, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the House of Correction. STEALING MONEY AT PHILLACK. Joseph Williams, 15, was indicted for stealing the sum of £1, the property of Eliza Ingram, at Phillack, on the 28th of November. Mr. Cornish prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. Prosecutrix is a shopkeeper, and the amount was stolen from the till. He contended that he knew nothing of the affair, but Mrs. Ingram was positive in that respect. He was found guilty, and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment in the House of Correction. FOWL STEALING AT . Thomas Perryman, 27, was indicted for stealing seven fowls value 14s., the property of John Hill, at Tregony, on the 21st December; and Susan Perryman and Mary Perryman (mother and daughter) were indicted for having received the same, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. Stokes prosecuted, the prisoners were undefended. The police having reason to suspect the male prisoner of the robbery, a watch was kept, and he was suddenly intruded upon whilst eating, at 2 o'clock in the morning, portions of fowl. He denied that he was eating anything but bread, but on a search being made there were found portions of fowl cooked and uncooked. Several heads were discovered concealed in the clock, and the prosecutor identified one in particular as being the head of one of the fowls which were missing. The police were considerably opposed in their investigation by the female prisoner especially, and on their first appearance, everything possible was done to conceal what was eventually found. The three prisoners contended that the fowls were bought—three of them of a person named Buckingham, and four at Truro; but Buckingham denied having ever either sold or given anything of the sort to the prisoners. The jury found all guilty of unlawfully receiving. The father was sentenced to 4 months' and the mother and daughter to 3 months' imprisonment with hard labour. The court rose at 6 o'clock. ______THURSDAY. The Chairman took his seat a 9 a.m. BREACH OF THE PEACE. Mary Wellington, 19, servant, who was committed to the sessions for want of sureties to keep the peace towards her father living at Luxulyan, was discharged, arrangements having been made with her friends. The Chairman administered an appropriate admonition, and the girl manifested a feeling of penitence. IMPUDENT ROBBERY AT LAUNCESTON. Thomas Gill pleaded guilty to having obtained, by false pretences, at Launceston, a quantity of meat the property of John Rundle. The particulars of this case are detailed in the Chairman’s address to the grand jury, at the opening of the sessions. The prisoner pleaded guilty to two other indictments; but Mr. Shilson, jun., for the prosecution, did not offer any evidence. Sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour. STEALING SHIRTS AT LAUNCESTON. Richard Avery, 29, miller, was indicted for stealing, on the 10th of December, at Launceston, two shirts, the property of William Marshall. Mr. Shilson, jun., prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. The articles were hung out to dry on a line in the prosecutor’s yard, and during the night they were stolen. The prisoner was apprehended in a field near Stratton, with one of the shirts in his possession. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. SECOND COURT—THURSDAY. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) Martin Whitford, 18, shoemaker, was charged with stealing, at St. Austell, on November 21st., a pair of female's boots the property of his master, Thomas John Trezize. Mr. F. Hill, junr., prosecuted. The prosecutor is a boot and shoe maker at St. Austell, and the prisoner was in his employ. The prisoner had made a pair of female's boots for the prosecutor and on the evening of the 21st November he saw them in the workshop. The prisoner was the only person there when he left, and the next morning the boots were gone. Information was given to the police, and the prisoner was apprehended. While in the custody of the police, he admitted he stated that he had given the boots away, and they were found under a cart in a field adjoining the lodging of a girl named Elizabeth Crowl, with whom he cohabited, and who had been indicted for receiving them knowing them to have been stolen, but the bill against her had been thrown out by the grand jury. The prisoner denied that he intended to steal the boots, and said that the prosecutor then owed him more than would have paid for them. This appeared to be true. The jury found a verdict of not guilty. Charles Hicks, 22, labourer, was indicted for an indecent assault on Mary Ann Isaac, a little girl under twelve years of age, at St. Austell, on the 24th November. Mr. F. Hill prosecuted. The details are unfit for publication. Found guilty; and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour. Postscript. APPEAL. ROBERT GRANVILLE, appellant; advocate, Mr. Childs, instructed by Mr. Rundle. THE JUSTICES OF SALTASH respondents; advocate, Mr Stokes, instructed by Mr. Cleverton. This was an appeal against the refusal of the justices of the borough of Saltash, to grant a licence to a house belonging to the appellant for the sale of spirits, &c., by retail. The court, after hearing the case, considered it was not one in which they ought to interfere with the decision of the magistrates, and, on the application of Mr. Stokes, the usual costs, amounting to £5, were allowed to the respondents. The court rose shortly before two o'clock.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 20 and 27 March 1863

2. Lent Assizes The Spring Assizes for the county of Cornwall commenced at Bodmin, on Wednesday evening, the commission having been opened by Serjeant William Shee, who, in consequence of the severe indisposition of Baron Wylde, accompanies Mr. Justice Byles on the Western circuit during the present assize. Rumour in has it that this is only the prefatory step to the learned Serjeant's promotion to the bench—an honourable and satisfactory recognition of his valuable and long-tried services at the bar. The Devon Assises terminated yesterday, and the learned Serjeant arrived from Exeter about four o'clock at the Bodmin road station, where he was met by the High Sheriff of the county, William Coulson, Esq., of Kenegie, the Sheriff's chaplain (the Rev. W. W. Wingfield, rector of , near ), the undersheriff, John Roscorla, Esq., solicitor, of Penzance, and Rowland Augustus G. Davies, Esq., solicitor, of Penzance, county clerk. He was accompanied in the state carriage (which was drawn by four splendid greys) by the High Sheriff and his chaplain, the second carriage being occupied by the undersheriff and the county clerk. Near the Priory, the seat of Col. Gilbert, a body of the county police force was drawn up, and forming a body guard escorted the Judge to the Mayoralty house, where having enrobed, his lordship re-entered the sheriff's carriage and proceeded to the County Hall and opened her Majesty’s commission for the holding of the assize. The formalities, proper to the occasion having been gone through, the Court was adjourned till 10 o'clock the next morning. [……] Mr. Justice Byles did not arrive with Serjeant Shee, he having been detained in the Nisi Prius Court at Exeter, where the civil business was this year unusually heavy, and did not terminate till late on Wednesday afternoon. His lordship, however, arrived in the evening by the last down train from Plymouth. [THE SERMON—not transcribed.] CROWN COURT, THURSDAY. (Before Mr. Justice BYLES). His Lordship entered the court this morning at ten o'clock, being accompanied by the High Sheriff, the Deputy Sheriff, and the Sheriff's Chaplain. The court having been opened with the usual formalities, the names of the magistrates were called, when most of the gentlemen who were subsequently empannelled on the Grand Jury answered to their names. Amongst the mayors of boroughs in the county, the following gentlemen were in attendance:—The Mayor of Bodmin, the Mayor of Camelford, the Mayor of Helston, the Mayor of Liskeard, the Mayor of Penryn, and the Mayor of Penzance. The coroners were then called, when Edmund Gilbert Hamley, Esq., answered. The following gentlemen were empannelled and sworn on the

GRAND JURY. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., foreman, Richard Foster, Esq. Wm. David Hornden, Esq., Fred. Martin Williams, Esq., Day Pe Le Grice, Esq., Charles Dacres Bevan, Esq., John Thos. Henry Peter, Esq., Hugh G. Fortescue, Esq., Thos. Simon Bolitho, Esq., Edward Wm. Brydges Wil- John Batten, Esq., lyams, Esq., Michl. Henry Williams, Esq., Chas. Andrew Reynolds, Esq., John Kinsman, Esq., Rd. Vivian Stackhouse, Esq., James Trevenen, Esq., Thomas Hext, Esq., Francis Gilbert Ennis, Esq., Edwd. Coode, the younger , Esq., John , Esq. The proclamation against vice, immorality, and profaneness was then read by Mr. Gurney, the clerk of arraigns, after which his Lordship delivered THE CHARGE. Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—Having frequently had the honour of sitting in this place, I shall venture to hope that your calendar is not much more serious or numerous than usual, and there are very few cases upon which it will be necessary for me to trouble you with any observations. The list, however, does contain one very serious case, and upon that I shall venture to trouble you with a few remarks, not of course presuming to instruct you in the law, but simply to remind you of it. It is the case which is number six on the calendar—of William Beggeran, a seaman of 30 years of age, who is charged with the wilful murder of Henry Jones, at the borough of Falmouth, on the 26th November last. Now, gentlemen, it appears that both the prisoner and the man who is alleged to have been murdered, were seamen on board an American vessel. The deceased was first mate, the prisoner as I collect from the depositions, was a carpenter, ln seems that the deceased was in his cabin, reading by the light of a lamp from Sharpe's London Magazine. It appears that this periodical attracted his attention and detained him for some time in its perusal at that moment and up to the time of the fatal blow. The prisoner came into the cabin to put some fuel in the stove, but he was told by the deceased that that was not necessary. He appeared to go out of the cabin and the deceased who had been stopped in his reading went on again as before, intently engaged upon his book, and on a sudden he felt a very violent blow on the side of his head. The effect of that blow was to fracture his skull, and there can be no doubt that the hand alone could not have inflicted that blow, neither was it done by any sharp instrument. It must have been inflicted by some heavy and blunt implement. Immediately afterwards the prisoner is proved to have ran away and to have come up to a Russian vessel, and witnesses will be called, as I understand, who will state that the prisoner said that he had struck the mate, and he desired to be put on board a British vessel, which was then in the stream. The Russian sailors assisted him, and they put him into a boat, and he himself navigated the boat to the British vessel. In the meantime, the wound inflicted on Jones, the first mate, proved to be extremely serious, and a search was instituted by the police for the prisoner, and I understand they could not find him on board this vessel, and they returned from the search without attaining their object. The search was, however, renewed on the ship, and at length, in the fore part of the vessel, under a boarded floor, and concealed among a quantity of coals, the prisoner was found. Upon looking into the cabin a carpenter's mallet was found, close by the deceased. The unhappy deceased had the most eminent medical assistance which could be procured. He languished and lingered for a short time, and ultimately he died of his wounds. Now, gentlemen, in looking over carefully and repeatedly the depositions, and going through them, I do not discover any direct evidence of motive, but it is my duty to tell you, or rather as I said before to remind you, that that is not necessary. Prima facie, all homicides are murders, and it lies upon those who would reduce such a crime to a lower degree than murder, to reduce it upon competent proof. If, therefore, you believe that the prisoner struck the fatal blow, he is undoubtedly, in the absence of any other evidence, guilty of the crime of wilful murder. Gentlemen, this crime was perpetrated on board an American vessel. You are no doubt aware that if any English vessel sails from an English port she carries with her, spread over all the crew the protection of the English law. She is, as it were a floating island, and is as much subject to the law of the country as the Isle of Wight itself, and it is extremely probable, but upon that matter it is not necessary to speculate, that the American law being founded on our own law, is precisely the same, and if that be so, as most likely it is, the prisoner is amenable to the law of his native country, but he is not less amenable to the law of this land. It was committed, as I understand, in a British harbour, at all events in a British estuary, and it therefore brings him within the jurisdiction of the law of this country, as it must have occurred on British soil. The assailant is subject to the vindication of public justice by the English law, and the victim is entitled to its protection. There can be no doubt that if the vessel was in Falmouth harbour, and though it may be that she was in the water and although it may be that she was an American vessel, still the case is one for the cognizance of the Grand Jury of this county. As far as I can judge the vessel was in the body of the county—of this county. Gentlemen, there is no evidence against the prisoner sufficient to convict him, except the statement of the deceased man, but usually the statements of the deceased we take as evidence against the prisoner. You are aware that it is necessary that it should be shown that the deceased apprehended immediate or approaching death in order that that exception to the rule that hearsay was no evidence may be restrained within the narrowest possible limits, and the deponent may be supposed to speak under the awful sanction of another world. But you need not trouble yourselves with a question of that kind on the present occasion, because as I understand, it will be you (sic) duty to see that proved. The depositions were taken in the presence of the prisoner, and he consequently had an opportunity of cross-examining the deceased, and if I read the depositions aright, he did actually cross-examine the deceased. That being so, these depositions, fall within the ordinary rule that where the deponent has died, and no better evidence can be procurred (sic), his depositions, regularly taken, are admissible in evidence, and these are are (sic) all the observations which I need trouble you with upon that case; but I perceive that there are in this calendar, no fewer than five cases of concealment of birth, and two or three of them are indicated by the charge of wilful murder. Now, Gentlemen, the crime of concealment of birth does not consist, as I beg to remind you, simply, in concealing the birth, in the ordinary and common sense of the word. No woman is obliged by law to proclaim her shame to all the world, but it must be concealing the birth by the particular act specified in this statute, viz., secret burying or otherwise disposing of the body of the child, and unless that is proved to your satisfaction to have been done by the mother, she is not guilty of the crime of concealment. With respect to the charges of wilful murder, I wish to remind you that although while a child in gremio matris is under the protection of the law, and if abortion or miscarriage is procured by the mother, she is criminally responsible, yet it is not the subject of murder until the child is born, and it is your duty to inquire into that matter before you send down a bill of wilful murder. If you think that it is a matter to be investigated, and likely to lead to the conviction of the accused person, it will be your duty to find a bill, but if you do not think that there is sufficient evidence to support that charge, you must ignore the bill, as you are not competent to send the case to a petty jury on a charge of concealment of birth. In this case, another bill for the concealment of birth will be sent up for your consideration. I think I ought not to detain you upon any other cases in the calendar, but commit them to your discrimination and judgment. I have no doubt that you will find true bills in those cases in which a conviction will follow, and I trust that the calendar is not so numerous that it will detain you for any considerable length of time. The grand jury were then dismissed to their duties, and the court shortly afterwards proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY AT . THOMAS AVER, 43, miner, who can neither read nor write, was indicted for receiving at Perranzabuloe a silver watch, a silver chain, a brooch, two bracelets, and six electro-plated spoons, from James Aver, well knowing the same to have been stolen on the 27th December last. To the indictment the prisoner pleaded not guilty, the case for the prosecution was conducted by Mr. Stock. Henry Martins, a miner of Kea Downs in the parish of Kea, said that he left home on the 27th of December, leaving his watch and chain and other property safe in a box in his room, and on his return in the evening he found they were missing, he identified the property stolen as his property, and his sister Mary Martin, said that she accompanied her brother to the Truro Market on the day mentioned by her brother, and when she returned in the evening she found the window of the house broken, and the watch and chain of her brother missing. Francis Aver, son of the prisoner said that he recollected his brother, James Aver, bringing a watch and chain home to the house on the Saturday after Christmas day, and he gave it to his father saying "father, I have got another watch," and he offered it to his father, but he refused to take it. He then offered it to witness, but he also said that he would have nothing to do with it. The prisoner denied all knowledge of the robbery, and said that he never stole anything in his life. Sobie, a Truro policeman, stated that when he went to the prisoner's house, he found the watch hanging up at the head of prisoner's bed. On a subsequent search made by Superintendent Complin, of the Truro police, a watch chain was found in the prisoner's box, concealed among some of his clothes. The prisoner said that his son had told him that he purchased the watch, when he brought it home, and he did not know that it was stolen: The prisoner was found Not Guilty. There was another indictment against him of receiving some jewellery which had been stolen from Nicholas Hitchins, a farmer living in Kea, on the 10th of January. As in the former case, Mr. Stock prosecuted. The house of the prosecutor was broken into, in the absence of his wife, and in the house they found several articles missing from a room upstairs. The stolen property was identified by Mrs. Grace Hitchins. P.C. Richard Dawe, one of the Truro policemen, said when he went to search the house for the stolen property, the prisoner's wife said that she would not allow him to search the house as they had no property in it belonging to any person. He afterwards found a small box, in which there were a watch and other articles which were identified by the prosecutor as his property. The Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY, and he was acquitted. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN AT TRURO. THOMAS SIMPSON, 26, hawker, imperfectly instructed, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with having at Truro, on the 29th January last, unlawfully uttered counterfeit coins, resembling half-crowns, to Martha Hosking, Anne Hicks, and Elizabeth Wroath. The prisoner threw himself on the mercy of the court; and Mr. Stock, who prosecuted, said that there had been a previous conviction against the accused, who was sentenced to 12 Calendar Months' Imprisonment. STEALING A WAISTCOAT AT ST. JUST. JOHN DAVIS, 23, a labourer, pleaded not guilty to stealing a waistcoat, the property of William Henry Boyns, at St. Just, on the 22nd February. The prosecutor Boyns, a miner living at St. Just, deposed to having lost the vest from the lodgings which were occupied by himself and the prisoner. After the prisoner removed to another house he missed the waistcoat, which was subsequently found in the prisoner's possession by P.C. Samuel Pomery. He was wearing the vest at the time he was apprehended by the policeman. The prisoner admitted having taken the garment, but not with any felonious intention. The prisoner and prosecutor had lodged in the same room, and were in the habit of leaving their clothes in the same place. The prisoner stated that he took the vest to go to chapel with, and did not think it any harm to take it for a short time and then to return it; but before he had time to do so he was taken into custody. He hoped that the court would deal leniently with him, as he had never before appeared before a judge, and he hoped never to do so again, except, to use his own phrase, at the last day when all should have to appear before the one great Judge. The jury found him NOT GUILTY, and he was acquitted. JUVENILE THEFT AT ST. KEVERNE. GEORGE PHILPOTT, 13, and JAMES PHILPOTT, 11, chairmakers, were indicted for stealing a pair of boots, value 6s., the property of a Mr. Richards, at St. Keverne, on the 13th January, and also for stealing two cotton shirts, a pair of stockings, and two smock frocks, value 10s, the property of Sampson Hodge, at , on the 13th January. The head of either prisoners scarcely reached the rail of the bar. George pleaded guilty, and the other prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. ROGERS prosecuted, and having briefly detailed the facts of the case, called evidence in support of the indictment. Margaret Hodge said that she lived at a place called Menis, in the parish of Keverne, and on the day she missed her property she put some under clothes to dry on a line in her garden. When she found that the articles were missed, she gave information to the policeman. P.C. George Furness, said that on Thursday, the 14th January, he was informed by the prosecutrix that she missed some shirts, and he found the prisoner James Phillpotts wearing the missing smock in Trehill, near Helston, and he was also at the time carrying two shirts in a small handkerchief, the other prisoner accompanied his brother and had a frock and another article, which the prosecutrix identified as her property. In reply to the policeman's questions, the older prisoner, George, who pleaded guilty, said that the things had been given to him when the other prisoner said, ' George, do not say that didn't you take them from the hedge.' The prisoner when asked what defence he had to make, said his brother gave him the articles and said that he had received them at a farmhouse. The intelligence and distinctness with which the young prisoner made his statement to the learned judge evoked general surprise in the court. From his appearance he did not seem to be more than nine years of age. The prisoner having been found guilty, the learned judge said he would send both prisoners to a reformatory, but he would like to consider for what period. The learned counsel abandoned the other indictment upon which the prisoners were charged for stealing a pair of boots. (Sentence: each 6 months’ imprisonment, with hard labour)[Editor’s Note: sentence recorded in Cornwall Criminal Registers – 14 days’ imprisonment and 5 years Reformatory] ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON AT TRURO. RICHARD MENHENNIOTT, 24, sawyer, can read only, was convicted for stealing five half-crowns, from the person of James Jose, at Truro, on the 6th February last. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, the case for the prosecution being conducted by Mr. Cox, who stated that the prosecutor was a miner, and while drinking in the Dolphin Inn, in Truro, he fell asleep, when he was robbed of his money by the prisoner who was in the place at the time. James Jose was called and deposed that he was a miner living at , and on the 9th February, he was at Truro, and on the evening of that day he went into the Dolphin Inn, and was perfectly sober. He had six half-crowns in his pocket when he entered the house, and shortly after he had been there, the prisoner came into the same room. They had some drink together, and prosecutor got sick and placed his head on the table and fell asleep, when he felt some person's hand in his pocket. (Laughter). He corrected himself by stating that he was awake when he felt the prisoner’s hand in his pocket, and when he accused him of taking his money he made for the door and ran off from the house. In reply to the prisoner, the prosecutor stated that there was a woman in the room sitting alongside of him. He (witness) did not give her any drink. I can swear that you did put your hand in my pocket and take my money. I charged you with taking my money, when you attempted to make away out of the room. Edwin Knight stated that he was a butcher living at Truro, and was at the Dolphin on the night in question, where he saw the prisoner, prosecutor, and another man. Jose was sitting down with his head on the table, and when he entered the room he saw the prisoner's hand in prosecutor's pocket, and prisoner's other hand on the prosecutor's neck. The prosecutor suddenly wakened up and accused the man of robbing him, when the latter made an attempt to get to the door and said "I'll soon let you know when I come back whether I have robbed you or not."—ln reply to the prisoner witness stated that he had caught him in the act of robbing the prosecutor when he entered the room. He accused him of it at the time, for he said to him " Hallo, old fellow, what do you call that." Information was subsequently given at the police station of the robbery.— Henry Rowe deposed that he kept the New Inn at Truro, and remembered seeing the prisoner on the night in question; he saw him about 11 o'clock that night, when he came in he called for a pint of beer which was given to him, and he paid for it out of a half-crown. P.C. Richard Cornish a Truro policeman, said that he took the prisoner into custody that night in Lemon street in Truro, about quarter of a mile from the New Inn. He did not find any money on the prisoner when he searched him. He asked who charged him with the robbery, and he was then told who preferred the charge, and that it was a man named Jose with whom he had been drinking.—The prisoner asked the policeman if at the time he took him into custody he did not tell him that he had borrowed money from Jose, and the constable answered in the affirmative.—The landlord of the New Inn said that about 11 o'clock that night the prisoner changed half-a-crown at his public-house to pay for some drink which he had. He received the change out of it. The robbery was alleged to have been committed about 7 o'clock in the evening. The prisoner in his statement to the jury said, that it was not at all likely that he would have been let out of the room with the money, if it were the fact that he had stolen it. He had borrowed the money from the prosecutor, and had every intention of repaying him. He was a poor man with a wife and large family, and if he was possessed of means he said he could produce evidence to show that he was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged. The prisoner handed in some document to the court, which the learned Judge said he had read himself, but he could not submit it to the jury. The prisoner then said that he could produce a good character from the Capt. and Adjutant of the County Militia, and as the Capt. was not in town the Judge said that he would have an opportunity of testifying to the character of the prisoner to-morrow. Mr. Cox said that Capt. Alms had told the prosecution that he would be prepared to give the prisoner a character for general good conduct. The jury found him GUILTY, and on Saturday the learned Judge sentenced him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. STEALING AND RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY AT FALMOUTH. BENJAMIN BELLETI, 52, labourer, pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing two cwt. of rope, the property of Amy Laboutellier and others, in the parish of Mylor, on the 2nd March last. Mr. Cox prosecuted. The prosecutor, Charles Laboutellier, mate of the schooner Tickler, which was lying in Falmouth, in February, and the rigging of which had been taken down, stated that he missed some of the rope of the rigging from the ship yard, where Emanuel Corsi, a foreign seaman, charged also with this offence, worked. A waterman named Charles Taylor, said that Belletti came to him on the 2nd March for the purpose of taking him to Flushing from Falmouth, and after Belleti got out from the boat, the two prisoners, Corsi and Tuffery, joined him. Tuffery brought some rope from a ship-wright's yard, and the rope was stowed away in the boat, which was then taken to Penryn, all the parties being in the boat and conveyed to Penryn. Belleti, when they got out of the boat at Penryn, paid the Spaniard, Corsi, 7s., but the witness said he could not state what the money was given for. Belleti said to the Spaniard here is 7s. for it. The boat containing the rope was afterwards taken to the Green Bank quay, where the rope was put in possession of Belleti, who took it away with him.—Philip Mitchell, a marine- store dealer at Penryn, said that late one night in March the prisoner Belleti came to his house and offered some rope for sale, but Mitchell refused to buy it, as it was so late at night. The next morning he purchased the rope from Belleti for 6s. 2d. It weighed ¾ of a cwt. and 14 lb., and he afterwards gave it to the police.—John Wesley, a policeman, said that when he took the rope into his possession at the same time that he apprehended the prisoner, the latter said that he bought it near the Bassett's Arms, between Falmouth and Penryn. The rope was produced and identified by the prosecutor, who said it was worth about 14s. when new, but in its present condition it would fetch only 7s.—The prisoner said that he unfortunately had bought the rope, but that he was not aware that it had been stolen, and he gave more to the Spaniard for it than he received afterwards from the marine store dealer, Mitchell.—The learned Judge pointed out to the jury that there was one fact in the evidence which seemed in favour of the prisoner, and that was that he bought the rope for 7s., and afterwards sold it for 6s. 2d., which certainly did not look like as if he had come by it in an improper manner. At the same time, however, it seemed a very suspicious case that he should go in a boat at night to fetch the rope and purchase it from two such vendors as the prisoners, Tuffery and Corsi.—The prisoner Belleti was ACQUITTED. DOING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM AT . RICHARD DANIEL, 20, labourer, imperfectly educated, was indicted for having attempted to discharge a loaded gun at Charles Warren, a gamekeeper, in the employ of Henry Francis Stephens, Esq., with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, at Madron, on the 21st Oct. Mr. Prideaux prosecuted; and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Cole. The facts of the case were opened at some length by the learned counsel for the prosecution. Charles Warren deposed that he was a gamekeeper in the employ of Henry , Esq., and was his gamekeeper at Trengwenton, and rented the shooting of a moor near that land; he was in the habit of shooting there, and on the 31st October he was on the Trengwenton grounds; he saw the prisoner in the adjoining ground beating about for rabbits, and that was about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. He had a gun with him, and witness asked him if he had good sport, and he replied "No, that he wanted to kill two rabbits for Mr. Noble, of St. Just, it being St. Just feast, but that he had not killed one.” He said that he had received permission from Mr. Hall to shoot over the ground, and witness said that was not true, as he himself rented the ground from Hall, and he was certain that Hall did not tell him to shoot over the land. Witness then told him that he should bring him before the magistrates, and at that time he was about 30 yards from the prisoner. He observed that the gun had a new looking cap on the nipple; and when witness said that he would bring him before the magistrates, the prisoner said " thou wost," and he then pointed the gun and said "I'll blow thee brains out." Witness seeing the gun pointed at him, stooped and he heard the cap snap. He ran to him, threw him on the ground, and took the gun from him. He afterwards gave the gun to the policeman, West; and a few days afterwards he went before the magistrates and took out a summons. He afterwards saw the policeman, West, discharge the gun, the contents of which were shot and powder, and there was a piece of paper used as wadding. By Mr. Cole: He was not out there on the grounds the day before the occurrence, and he would swear that he did not see the prisoner's father with a gun on that occasion. He obtained permission from Hall to shoot over the ground in May or June, and he could not say that the prisoner's father had a horse feeding on the ground. He did not know that the elder Daniel rented the croft from Hall, and that he had leave to shoot there. Witness had shot on the grounds many times before this took place. He did not demand of the prisoner to give up his gun, and this was not the cause of the struggle which ensued between them. He did not see James Edwards on the ground that day; Edwards gave evidence before the magistrates in reference to this case. He did not know if he had told any person the beginning of the occurrence that a gun had been pointed at him, except his wife, but he was not sure whether he told his wife the same night or not. He did not meet any other person that night to tell them that he had been shot at. He did not make a charge of common assault against the prisoner at the time he laid the information before the magistrates. He told Mr. Millett, the solicitor at Penzance, what was done by the prisoner who came before the magistrates voluntarily and not on a summons. He was a distance of some 15 or 20 yards from the prisoner when he pointed the gun at him. He heard a cap snap, but he could not say if there were any mark of an exploded cap on the nipple, shortly after the prisoner pointed it at him. He kept the gun in his custody before he gave it to the constable. Re- examined by Mr. Prideaux: He was quite sure that he saw a cap on the nipple of the gun when the prisoner pointed it at him. Frederick Wm. West, a sergeant of the county police, said that he had received the gun from the last witness, and he kept it in the same state in which he had received it till he went before the magistrates, and at that time he took steps to ascertain its contents. The muzzle of the gun, and between the ramrod and the muzzle, were soiled with earth, and he found that the gun was loaded with powder and shot and wadding. By Mr. Cole: There was no mark of any cap on the nipple, and the hammer and nipple were at that time in just the same condition in which it was now. When the prosecutor first made the charge against the prisoner is (sic) was a charge of assault. James Edwards, in reply to Mr. Cole, said that he was near the croft in the afternoon of the day on which the occurrence took place, and he saw the gamekeeper come up to the prisoner and ask him who had given him liberty to shoot over the ground, and he said Hall. He did not see the gun pointed at the keeper by the prisoner; but shortly after he saw the keeper with the prisoner's gun, and Daniel was following him and wanted his gun back from him. The father of the prisoner Daniel was called, and said that he had permission to shoot over the moor, and both he and his son were allowed to shoot over it, and he was sure that the gamekeeper had no authority to do so. Witness kept a horse on the ground, for which he paid a certain amount to Mr. Hall. He himself had been on the moor the day before, and he saw the keeper on the adjoining ground, but he had no conversation with him. He told his son to go and take the gun and shoot a rabbit or a blackbird, but he brought back neither. Mr. Cole in his speech for the defence, said he did not know what the jury would think of the case, but a more extraordinary charge against a respectable young man, he had never heard in his life. The prisoner was now upon his trial upon a charge of attempting to shoot a gamekeeper by pointing a gun at him and with intent to murder him. That was the most serious charge, next to murder itself that could possibly be laid before a jury, and which, if committed a short time ago, he would have to sacrifice his life for the offence on the scaffold. The learned counsel went on to say that the case relied alone upon the sole and uncorroborated evidence of the keeper, who said nothing about it until late the next day, and could not even swear that he had said anything about it to his wife in the evening. The charge made before the magistrates was, in the first instance, a charge of common assault. The prisoner had been proved from the evidence to have a perfect right on the ground, and, therefore, he had no motive for committing the offence with which he was charged; for the keeper could do no harm, and his threat to shoot him was a mere idle threat. He commented upon the fact of the prosecutor not having made any charge against the prisoner at once, but that no step was taken, and no summons isued (sic), until eight days after. The prosecutor called no witness but the gun, and to the gun (the learned gentleman), appealed. If a cap had been discharged, as the prosecutor alleged, the marks of the explosion must have been there; but none were to be found. After a few more observations, his Lordship summed up very carefully, and the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The prisoner was then indicted for a common assault. No evidence was offered for the prosecution, and a verdict of acquittal was accordingly at once given. STEALING DUCKS AT . JOHN GEORGE NICHOLLS, 15, labourer, can read only, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with having stolen four ducks, belonging to John Quick, at Towednack, on the 22nd December. The prosecutor said he knew nothing against the character of the prisoner previous to this transaction, for he had lived quite convenient to him. The learned Judge, in passing sentence, said it appeared that the prisoner had already passed some two or three months in gaol, and he would therefore have to undergo another month of imprisonment for this offence. ROBERRY AT GULVAL. WILLIAM JAMES EASTERBROOK, 18, baker, who was described as being imperfectly instructed was arraigned on an indictment of having stolen a silver watch, the property of James Rowe, at Gulval, on the 11th February last. Mr. Oxenham was engaged in the prosecution. His lordship said that the prisoner had already suffered a term of six weeks' imprisonment, and the sentence now passed on him was that he should be further imprisoned for a period of six weeks in the gaol. STEALING A SOVEREIGN AT TOWEDNACK. JOHN MARTINS, 37, miner, who cannot read or write, was indicted for stealing a sovereign belonging to Wm. Pooley, at the parish of Towednack, on the 6th March last. The prosecutor who is a miner was in a public house along with the prisoner, who asked him to change a sovereign for him. The prosecutor who had some money on the table gave him the desired change, and the prisoner availed himself of the opportunity of stealing a sovereign from the money which Pooley had placed on the table. When P.C. Roberts took him into custody on the charge, the prisoner said that he found the coin on the floor of the room where he and the prosecutor had been drinking, and he did not know to whom the money belonged. The jury having returned a verdict of GUILTY, the learned judge sentenced the prisoner to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN AT ST. AUSTELL. WM. REDMONDS, 41, compositor and marine store dealer, who was described in the calendar as being imperfectly educated, pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with having in his possession at , on the 17th Jan. last, five pieces of counterfeit coin, to wit, halt-crowns, with intent to utter the same well knowing them to have been false and counterfeit. Mr Stock prosecuted, and the prisoner was defended by Mr Cole. The prisoner who looks considerably older than the age at which he is set down in the calendar, seemed very much affected during the trial, and cried bitterly as his learned counsel was pleading in his defence. It appeared that the prisoner went to the shop of a Mrs Bennett, and there tendered in payment for something with which he was supplied a bad half crown, which she refused to take. P.C. Thomas Rouse shortly after visited the prisoner's house and there found in a hay stack in the yard a bad half crown and another spurious coin in a roll of butter. He afterwards searched the house, and among a lot of old things, which the prisoner, who keeps a marine store, had for sale, three more pieces of bad money were found. ln reply to Mr Cole the policeman said that the pieces were evidently so badly coined that scarcely any one could he deceived as to their being good, they were of a different mould, and bore different dates. A silversmith, named Thomas Edward Hawkin, living at St Austell said it was plain that the coins were bad, and it did not require much perception to discover that.—Mr Cole argued that it was necessary to constitute an offence of this nature that the person was found in the actual possession of spurious coin, but here no such thing had been proved by the prosecution. They should remember that the prisoner was a person who kept a marine store shop, and dealt in all sorts of old things, and it was therefore not at all improbable that he might have taken these among other old rubbish which he had bought. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty and the prisoner was discharged. STEALING A FLANNEL PETTICOAT AT ST. AUSTELL MARY ANNE AXFORD, 52, charwoman, who can read only, was indicted for stealing a flannel petticoat, the property of Wm. Clarke; also a handkerchief, the property of John Osborne, at St. Austell, on the 13th February, 1863. Mr. Gully prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. The things were missed, and the house of the prisoner searched where the articles were found. Prisoner alleged that she had taken them in mistake and had intended to return them that evening. This view of the case, however, was not taken by the jury, who returned a verdict of GUILTY. Two previous summary convictions having been proved against the prisoner, she was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. ROBBERY AT ILLOGAN. ELIZABETH ROGERS, 23, who works at a mine, and can read only, was charged with stealing one flannel petticoat, the property of George Roberts, at the parish of Illogan, on the 13th of March, 1863. Mr. Oxenham prosecuted. From the evidence it appeared that the petticoat belonged to the prosecutor's wife, and that she had washed it and hung it upon a bush. On returning to fetch it, however, she found that it was gone, and, on further search being made, it was discovered in the house of the prisoner. Prisoner alleged that she found the petticoat in the road, but the jury returned a verdict of GUILTY, and she was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. ROBBERY OF GUANO AT MADRON. FRANCIS LADNER, 29, labourer, was charged with stealing a bag of guano and a sack, the property of Francis Craze, at Madron, on the 18th February, 1863. Mr. Toswill prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. The prisoner was seen by a policeman, at four o'clock in the morning, coming across the country with a bag of guano. This bag was not recognized by the prosecutor, but the latter had lost a quantity of guano corresponding to the quantity found in the bag. The policeman acknowledged that he had never seen the prisoner before, and that it was dark at the time that he met the man. The jury could not agree about their verdict, and were therefore locked up, a fresh jury being sworn. At length they returned a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: 6 months’ imprisonment with hard labour) EMMANUEL CORSI, 16, a Spanish sailor, who can not read nor write, and GEORGE TUFFERY, 16, sailor, who cannot read, were charged with stealing 2 cwt. of rope the property of Amy Laboutellier, and others, at the parish of Mylor, on the 2nd March, 1863. Corsi and Tuffery pleaded guilty. Mr. Cox prosecuted. The rope belonged to the schooner 'Tickler,' and was stolen while the ship was being repaired. The prisoners were sentenced to three months' imprisonment each. ELIZA HICKS, 28, works at a mine (n), was charged with stealing a quantity of drapery goods, at Liskeard, on the 7th of February, 1863, the property of Oliver Colmer, and pleaded guilty. (Sentence: 6 months’ hard labour) SAMUEL KNIGHT, 23, miner (imp.) pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing a duck and three drakes, the property of William Winn, at Calstock. A second indictment, charging the prisoner with stealing a duck and a drake, the property of Richard Fiddick, at Calstock, was ignored by the Grand Jury. (Sentence: 4 months’ imprisonment with hard labour) WILLIAM HENWOOD, 43, labourer, pleaded guilty to burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Samuel Tregenza, at Tregony, on the 12th February, 1863, and stealing a half-pound of tea and a quantity of sweets, the property of the said Samuel Tregenza. (Sentence: 6 months’ hard labour) UNITY RICKARD, 20, servant, pleaded guilty to endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at Quethiock, on the 8th Feb., 1863. (Sentence: 5 months’ imprisonment with hard labour) JOHN SHERIDAN, 48, French polisher, pleaded guilty to unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, certain account books, the property of George Sandry Drew, at St. Columb Major, on the 17th March, 1863. (Sentence: two months’ hard labour) SAMUEL THOMAS, 13, miner, was charged with breaking into the account house of North Wheal Vor Mine, at Breage, on the 8th December, 1862, and stealing a case of mathematical instruments, of the value of 10s., the property of the adventurers and others. He pleaded guilty. (Sentence: two weeks’ imprisonment with hard labour, and at the expiration of that term five years in a reformatory) Edward Warne, 19, engine driver, pleaded guilty to stealing one silver watch and chain, and two keys, of the value of £3, the property of Frances Nicholls, at the parish of Kenwyn, on the 11th of February, 1863. The prisoner also acknowledged a previous conviction. (Sentence: 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour) THE ALLEGED LOOE MURDER. The grand jury ignored the bill against Honor Yeo, 30, charwoman, for feloniously, wilfully, and of her malice aforethought, killing and murdering a certain female child, of which she, the said Honor Yeo, had then lately been delivered at St. Martin's-by-Looe, on the 27th Oct., 1862. BILLS IGNORED.—The Grand Jury ignored the bills against Jane Pentecost, 18, servant, imperfectly instructed, who was charged with unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at Falmouth, on the 30th Jan. last, and against Nicholas Plint, on bail, charged with stealing two sovereigns, two half sovereigns, two half crowns, one florin, four shillings, and two sixpenny pieces from the person of John Holvill, at Truro, on the 6th January last. The Court rose at six o'clock and adjourned until nine the next morning; and shortly before the adjournment the learned Judge dismissed the Grand Jury, thanking them for their services and hoping he would have the pleasure of meeting them that evening at the Assize dinner. N I S I P R I U S C O U R T. THURSDAY, MARCH 19. (Before Mr. Serjeant Shee.) Before the opening of the commission at these assizes it was understood that there were seven or eight causes for trial, and that the civil business would be heavier than usual of late years. On the appearance of the cause-list, however, it was found that only three cases had been entered for trial, the venue in one of the others having been changed to the assizes, and the remainder settled without the aid of the court. The first cause called on was that of TREDWEN v. TREDWEN. Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon, instructed by Messrs. Shilson and Co., were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Karslake, Q.C., instructed by Messrs. Whitford and Sons, appeared for the defendant. Mr. Kingdon opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Mr. Richard Tredwen, and the defendant Mr. John Tredwen. The plaintiff by his declaration claimed certain arrears of rent for premises rented by the defendant from him, compensation for dilapidations to certain other premises also rented from him, and for the removal by the defendant of certain fixtures. To this the defendant pleaded in answer, first, that there was no rent due; secondly, a set-off; thirdly, that he had not been tenant of the premises which had become dilapidated; fourthly, that he had not committed the dilapidations; and, lastly, that he had not taken away any fixtures. On these pleas issue was joined. Mr. COLLIER stated the case. The plaintiff, Mr. Richard Tredwen, was a retired shipbuilder and general merchant, carrying on business at , in this county, and the defendant, Mr. John Tredwen, is his brother, a merchant at Padstow. The action had been brought to recover certain arrears of rent due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and there were also, as they had heard, claims for compensation for dilapidations of premises, and for the removal of fixtures from these premises. The circumstances under which this unfortunate litigation between the brothers had arisen were these. In the year 1843, the two young Tredwens, as they then were, took the business at Padstow from their father's hands, obtaining possession of the business premises there belonging to Mr. Tredwen, senior, including the building yard, docks, and quay, together with some buildings and land. These premises were considerable, and for the sake of distinction, he would term them the dock premises, in referring to them in the course of his address. The ownership of the property, which was partly freehold, and partly held under a long lease from Mr. Prideaux Brune, continued in the father until 1845, when two or three transactions took place to which he must call the attention of the jury. The first was that the father sold all his interest in the property to his brother, Mr. Richard Tredwen, of Cardiff, the uncle of the plaintiff and defendant, but stipulating with his brother, that he should retain possession of a dwelling house and field, part of the premises, for his own use during his life. The next transaction that took place was that Richard and John Tredwen, the sons, took the premises from their uncle Richard, by the year, subject to the stipulation, which the uncle insisted upon, that they should allow their father and mother to continue to occupy the reserved house and field. Things went on this way for some time, but the young Tredwens finding it inconvenient to allow their parents to retain possession of the house and field, first, because they required them for the purposes of their business; and, secondly, because the old man naturally feeling great interest in the business, and living so near to the docks, was in the habit of interfering rather more than was agreeable; and the consequence was that a new arrangement was adopted. They spoke to their uncle on the subject, and that gentleman, though averse to his brother being asked to remove from his house, ultimately said that he would grant them a lease of a small estate belonging to him, which was situated at near Padstow, at a rent of £35 a year, and if their father was willing to remove there, they could let him have the premises. The lease was dated November 12, 1845, and the terms were for 50 years, at a rent of £35 a year. Almost immediately after, the sons underlet this farm to their father for 45 years, at the nominal rent of one penny a year, and he on his part gave up the house and field which he had occupied, to his sons for business purposes. No partnership deed had been executed between the brothers, and things continued in this state until the year 1850, when a regular deed was executed. On the 5th July, 1852, however, the partnership was dissolved; Mr. Richard Tredwen retired, and Mr. John Tredwen continued to carry on the business. The arrangement then made was that Mr. John Tredwen was to become, and did actually become, the sole tenant of the dock premises which up to that time had been jointly occupied by the brothers, and as a consequence, he also took upon himself the payment of the rent for Little Trevone farm. He took all the advantages of the business of the partnership, and of course, he also took all the burdens and liabilities of that partnership. The partnership was accordingly dissolved, and matters continued to go on in this way up to 1857, during the whole of which time no misunderstanding or differences appeared to have arisen between the brothers, Mr. John Tredwen continuing to occupy the dock premises, and to pay the rent for them and for Little Trevone farm. In 1857 a change occurred; Mr. Richard Tredwen, of Cardiff, the uncle, died, leaving a will, in which he devised the whole of the dock premises and Little Trevone estate to his nephew Richard Tredwen, the present plaintiff. Now, Mr. John Tredwen having been from the time of the dissolution of partnership in 1852 to the death of his uncle in 1857, the sole tenant of the dock premises, now became the tenant of his brother Richard; but it appeared that the latter afterwards had some difficulty in obtaining the rent, and the matter was taken into Chancery, and he believed Mr. John Tredwen had paid the rent through the court. The defendant continued his tenancy of the dock premises under his brother until 1860—three years after the death of his uncle, when at Midsummer of that year he gave notice to quit at the expiration of half a year, and did leave the premises at the Christmas following. He (the learned Counsel) was sorry to find that the brothers had not been on good terms for some time, and he was instructed that as soon as Mr. John Tredwen found that his brother had become possessed of the property, he allowed the premises to go into disrepair, and not only that, he had carried away certain fixtures. Among other things he had taken away an entire greenhouse, which it was ridiculous to say was a chattel and not a fixture; also a flag staff la laugh) and other things, and though he had paid the rent of the dock premises through the Court of Chancery, yet he was liable for these dilapidations and the value of the fixtures which had been removed. With respect to Little Trevone estate, there was some difference in the arrangement. The dock premises were let by word of mouth, no written agreement having been entered into; but Little Trevone was let by deed, the effect of which was that up to the death of the uncle the plaintiff and the defendant were joint tenants. After the death of the uncle the joint tenancy became severed, and Mr. Richard Tredwen was then entitled to claim from his brother one half the rent of the farm. The latter had not, however, paid any rent at all in respect of this property, and the plaintiff now claimed from him one half of the rent of £35 a year, for four years, which would amount to £70. After referring to the pleas which the defendant had placed on the record, the learned counsel contended that the defendant having become the sole occupier of the premises, was responsible for all the liabilities of the partnership; that the father having given up his house and field for the purposes of the business, and received Trevone farm in lieu thereof, the defendant continuing to enjoy the advantage of the change, he was liable for the rent of the estate; and this he had admitted by continuing for a period of five years after the dissolution of the partnership, to pay the whole of the rent for the farm to his uncle, and never making any claim for rent against his brother. Mr. Richard Tredwen, the plaintiff, was then called, but after he had been under examination for a short time, the learned Judge suggested that the case was one which would be much more satisfactorily settled by a reference. A rather lengthy consultation took place between the learned gentlemen engaged, and it was ultimately agreed that a verdict should be nominally taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference of the matters in dispute, excepting the Chancery suit. DAVEY v. WOOLLCOMBE. This was a special jury cause, and although the amount in dispute was not comparatively large, yet the question involved was one of considerable importance both to landlords and tenants. Mr Collier, Q.C., with whom was Mr Pinder, appeared for plaintiff; and Mr Montague Smith, Q.C., with whom was Mr Kingdon, for the defendant. Mr Pinder opened the pleadings. The plaintiff by his declaration alleged that the defendant had broken into and entered a farm called Barnham, occupied by the plaintiff, and taken away a quantity of corn and a number of cattle, which he had confiscated to his own use. A second count stated that the plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant, and that the defendant had wrongfully seized and distrained the corn and cattle of the plaintiff, and that the distraint had been excessive and unreasonable. To this the plaintiff pleaded that he was not guilty, and upon this issue was joined. Mr COLLIER, in stating the case, said that the farm called Barnham was situated in the parish of Lawhitton, near Launceston, and belonged to Mr Woolcombe, the defendant. The plaintiff took the farm in 1852, and he found that it had been greatly exhausted by the previous tenant, who had allowed the gates and fences to be broken down and injured. In fact the farm had been completely racked, and he (Mr Collier) had been told that among other things no rough timber had been allowed by the owner for repairs. The rent to be paid was £100 a year, but no lease was executed at the time. In 1853 the plaintiff, who was an illiterate man, executed a counterpart of a lease by affixing his mark to it, without knowing the provisions and covenants of the document, and without ever being furnished with a copy. That counterpart, provided that he should take the farm for a term of 14 years, at a rent of £100 per annum, and should farm it according to the rules of good husbandry, but there were certain penal clauses which were material to this action in addition, to which he would call the attention of the jury. Besides the rent, and the clauses attaching to it, there was a stipulation that the plaintiff should pay an additional rent of £10 per acre, and so on in proportion, for all meadow and pasture land which he should break up or convert to tillage, or should mow contrary to the manner therein mentioned; next, there was a proviso that he should pay similar extra rent for every acre of tillage land which he should convert to tillage without manuring it in the manner mentioned in the said document, such additional rents to commence from the breaches of the covenants and to be payable quarterly during the continuance of the term; and then followed the following stipulation, "provided, lastly, that the rent recovered and received from Mr Davey by virtue of these presents, shall never in one year exceed the sum of £150." He had said that the plaintiff never received a copy of this counterpart, and never knew its contents until he was distrained upon; but according to the last clause it was provided that the landlord was not to receive more than £150 in any one year; and this stipulation involved a point of law on which he should probably have to take the opinion of his lordship. Mr Davey would also tell them that not only did he never receive a copy of the counterpart, but he never got the original lease, although he had paid for it. Mr Davey continued to farm the estate to the best of his ability, and to pay his rent regularly, and there were no arrears of rent until Michaelmas, 1861, when, having lost some horses and cows, he was some £14 or £15 in arrear. In 1861 Mr Davey wished to leave the farm, and he told Mr Bard, solicitor, of Oakhampton, the defendant's steward, so. Some negotiations took place on the subject, which were continued to the beginning of the next year. The plaintiff, being an illiterate man, obtained the assistance of Mr Huxham, auctioneer, to conduct the correspondence on his behalf; on the 1st January, 1862, Mr. Huxham wrote to Mr. Burd stating that Mr. Davey had informed him that he wished to give up the farm, and that if he were allowed to take from the incoming tenant at Lady Day payment for those things—such as green crops, unused manure, threshing machine, &c., which he had to pay for when he entered on the farm, he should feel obliged; if not, then he must give them up. To this Mr. Burd replied that before he could consult Mr. Woolcombe relative to the application in this letter, he must request Mr. Davy to pay up his arrears of rent, £14. This was at once done, and on the 18th of the same month Mr. Burd having been paid the arrears, wrote to Mr. Huxham, stating that he was now in a position to refer his application of the 1st January to Mr. Woolcombe, but before he did so he must request to be furnished with the particulars of the items for which the plaintiff wished to claim, and at the same time stating that Mr. Davy had farmed the estate in an abominable way. The plaintiff had never heard of such a charge before, and he treated it as a trick intended to assist in getting rid of him on easy terms. Mr. Huxham wrote on the 20th, stating that it was impossible to tell what would be done on the farm between that and Lady-day, Mr. Davy desired him to say that he was willing to leave the matter to arbitration, the arbitrators to decide the amount to be paid to him; and he was willing to sign an agreement to that effect, if Mr. Burd would draw it up. Five days after Mr. Burd wrote to Mr. Huxham stating that if Mr. Woolcombe allowed Mr. Davey to quit the farm at Lady-day, he should not require him to do anything on the farm which would be the subject matter of a charge. But for this request the plaintiff would have gone on as usual tilling the farm, and sowing the ordinary crops, considering that he would be entitled to compensation; but in consequence he desisted, in the expectation that he would be met by a fair valuation at that time. Another tenant of the name of Vosper was proposed, but it appeared that he would not agree to some of the terms usual in the case of a tenant entering upon a farm, and the negotiations (sic) came to nothing. Finding however, that no steps were taken by Mr. Burd to ascertain the amount that would be due to him if he then left, and that he should, after all, be compelled to remain on the farm, he set to work about ten days before Lady-day to till the farm, manuring the land, and doing what he could to make up for the delay caused by Mr. Burd's letter; but he was unable to complete the work before Lady-day. On the 9th of May he paid the half-year's rent up to Lady-day, £50, for which Mr. Burd gave him a receipt, which contained the words—"without prejudice to covenants previously made,"—which words had not been inserted in any previous receipt, but, notwithstanding that, the learned counsel submitted that the receipt was conclusive evidence in point of law, that no more rent was due at that time from the plaintiff to the defendant. Another quarter's rent—£25—became due at Midsummer, and the plaintiff offered to pay it, but Mr. Burd refused to receive it, although he said he should treat the offer as a tender. On the 12th or 13th of August a ditress (sic) was put in, partly for this £25, and partly for alleged breaches of covenant, amounting together to £155. The plaintiff, who was ignorant of the provisions of the counter-part of the lease which he had signed in 1853, and who had never received the lease for which he had paid, employed Mr. Peter, solicitor, of Launceston, to act for him. Mr. Peter wrote to Mr. Burd for a copy of the lease or to be informed what covenant Mr. Davey had broken; but both his requests were refused; and although Mr. Burd afterwards came to Launceston with the counterpart in his pocket, he refused to let Mr. Peter see it. It was not until Mr. Peter had written a very strong letter stating that it was the intention of Mr. Davey to adopt proceedings to obtain a copy of the counterpart, that Mr. Burd condescended so far as to come to Launceston on the 16th of August, four days after the distress had been put in, and to allow Mr. Peter to see the document for a few minutes. Mr. Peter was, of course, unable to remember the contents of such a document after a perusal, and he required to be furnished with a copy, but it was not until after Mr. Davey's stock and crops had been sold under the distress that this was supplied. It was only then that the plaintiff was able to ascertain what were the covenants of the counterpart which in his ignorance he had signed, and even up to the present hour he had never been informed what covenants of the lease he was supposed to have broken. The amount distrained for was £155, and the learned counsel submitted that the distraint itself was a breach of the express proviso of the lease, that the defendant should never receive or recover from the plaintiff more than £150 in one year. By that distress the defendant had recovered £155, and he had received as rent £75 more, making in all £230 in one year. The whole amount which the plaintiff had been required to pay upon the distress was £181 11s., of which £26 was charged as expenses, including four guineas as attorney's charge, and he justly complained that the distress was excessive as well as improper. The plaintiff, Mr. James Davey, was then called and examined at considerable length, his evidence supporting the statement given above. In cross-examination he admitted that he had worked the farm after he had received Mr. Burd's letter requesting him to desist, and up to five or six weeks of Lady-day; also that he had ploughed up some of the meadow and pasture land, but said that a great portion of the former had been greatly improved during his occupancy. Mr. John Huxham, auctioneer, Launceston, John Brown, farm servant, and James Davey, son of the plaintiff, were also examined. Mr. Huxham considered that the charges for appraisement were excessive and that the property seized and sold under the distress would have sold for considerably more than £300 in the market. He admitted that the plaintiff had at the time assigned the corn crops over to him. All the witnesses acknowledged that some of the fields had been manured after the crops had been put in—a plan which, though adopted occasionally by some farmers, was not in his opinion, so judicious as ploughing in the manure when the land was broken up; and that in some cases guano had been used, whereas dun and lime should have been employed, according to agreement. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH said that the defendant, Mr. Woolcombe, was a gentleman of considerable property, being the owner of a great number of farms, and having about 230 or 240 tenants. He was perfectly well known as a just and liberal landlord, and he believed that although he was now an old man, and his estates had been managed by Mr. Burd and his father for a great number of years, this was the first action that had ever been brought between the landlord and any of his tenants. The statement of the plaintiff that he was not made acquainted with the terms of the counterpart was not correct. It was the invariable practice of Mr. Woolcombe to grant leases to all his tenants; and there could be no doubt that the plaintiff before he entered into possession of the farm had signed an agreement, though he evidently did not recollect it, containing all the conditions afterwards embodied in the lease, and that at the time he signed the counterpart these conditions were read over to him. The plaintiff was also wrong in saying that during his tenancy from 1852 to 1862, no complaints had been made respecting his bad farming. So far from that, repeated complaints were made to him on the subject, and in consequence he had contemplated for some time resigning the farm. On the 1st of January, 1862, Mr. Huxham, on behalf of the plaintiff, wrote to Mr. Burd, stating that Mr Davey wished to give up the farm at Lady-day, and asked to be paid £26 for certain things which he mentioned, and Mr. Burd replied that it was ridiculous to ask for such a sum, considering the abominable way in which he had farmed the land, so that he must have known that complaints had been made relative to the manner in which he had cultivated the land. Some correspondence then took place, and on the 25th of January, Mr. Burd wrote to Mr. Huxham, stating that " if Mr. Woolcombe permitted Mr. Davey to quit at Lady-day, he will not allow him to do any work which will be the subject of a any charge against him." You can, therefore, tell me at once what you expect to receive for Mr. Davey; but that letter was never intended to prevent the plaintiff from continuing the proper farming operations, and had not been understood in that sense by the plaintiff himself. To this letter, which had been so strongly relied upon by his learned friend, although it was not acted upon; no reply whatever was returned by Mr. Huxham, the plaintiff's man of business, or by any other person on his behalf, and nothing further was heard on the subject until some six weeks after, when a communication was received by Mr. Burd relative to Mr. Vosper becoming the tenant. That gentleman and Mr. Davey met, and they endeavoured to agree as to the terms on which the one should give up and the other enter on the farm, but as they could not do so, the plaintiff, of course, remained in the occupation, there being four years of his lease still unexpired. Mr. Woolcombe would have no objection to a change of tenancy, but as they could not agree, of course, he expected that the plaintiff should continue his occupancy. Mr. Burd's suspicions were aroused by the circumstance of Mr. Davey coming to him on the 5th of May to pay the half-year's rent, which was previously due, and ought to have been paid at the usual rent audit. Mr. Burd had not applied to him or demanded payment of the rent, and on the plaintiff's paying the money, his attention was then called to the breaches of the covenant which he had committed in cultivating the farm, and the receipt was given him, with the words—"without prejudice to covenants previously made." The next thing that Mr. Burd learnt, was that an advertisement had been circulated about the country announcing that all the corn and green crops on the farm would he sold by auction by Mr. Huxham, showing that the plaintiff did not intend to continue the occupation of the estate. Although there were still four years of his lease unexpired, he had made no arrangement with his landlord or any other person for tak- (sic) the farm off his hands during the remainder of his term; and the jury had heard that he was indebted to Mr. Huxham, who would have received the whole of the proceeds of the sale. Consequently, had the sale taken place, Mr. Woolcombe would have no remedy against the plaintiff for any rent that was due, or any breaches of covenant that had been committed, as doubtless the tenant would have disappeared. One quarter's rent had been refused, because of the previous breach of several covenants of the lease, which made the defendant's claim much greater, and it was resolved to put in a distress for the amount. These were the circumstances under which the distress was put in, and it appeared that this was done on the morning of the very day on which the sale by Mr. Huxham was announced to take place. A writ was placed in the hands of Thomas Short, the bailiff, directing him to distrain for £155 on behalf of Woolcombe, and the question for the consideration of the jury was—was the defendant entitled under the lease to the additional rent for breaches of covenant. If he was, then he was entitled to the verdict of the jury. Whether he was so entitled would depend on whether there had been any breaches of the covenants in the lease. One of the covenants provided that the plaintiff should manure every acre of meadow or pasture land which he should break for tillage, with specific quantities of lime and dung before the seed was put in, and if he failed to do so, he should pay £10. Again, it was provided that after such dressing the plaintiff should not take more than two grain crops from the same land, only one of which was to be wheat, and that generally, the farm should be managed according to the principles of good husbandry. Had these covenants been observed? So far from that, the evidence of the plaintiff's own witnesses showed that certain fields had neither been manured or sown according to the covenants in the lease. The amount of property taken had not been excessive, especially when it was considered that a much larger sum was due from the plaintiff for breaches of covenant than had been seized; neither were the expenses of the distraint unfair or unreasonable. Two or three witnesses were then called in support of the defendant’s case, and at the conclusion of their evidence, the court adjourned till the next morning. CROWN COURT, FRIDAY, MARCH 20. (Before MR. JUSTICE BYLES). The court was opened this morning at nine o'clock, the learned Judge having taken his seat on the bench precisely at the time mentioned. NIGHT POACHING AT ST. GERMANS. JOHN BURSTON, a tall and robust looking man, pleaded guilty to having entered a plantation for the purpose of taking and destroying game in company with three other persons, one of whom was armed with a gun between the hours of two or three o'clock in the night time, at St. Germans on the 8th January. The prosecutor said he did not know anything of the prisoner, who was sentenced to four calendar months' imprisonment, the learned Judge inflicting such a lenient sentence in consequence of the prisoner not having made use of the gun with which he was armed. ALLEGED MURDER OF AN AMERICAN SEAMAN AT FALMOUTH. WILLIAM BEGGERAN, 30, a Swedish sailor, was indicted with having murdered William Henry Jones, at Falmouth, on the 26th November last. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and though he had the option of being tried by a jury equally composed of Englishmen and foreigners, he preferred all Englishmen on the jury. He is a low sized intelligent looking man, and seemed to understand the English language very clearly. Mr. Cox prosecuted and Mr. Bere, at the request of the learned Judge, defended the prisoner. The case was stated at considerable length by Mr. Cox. The learned counsel for the prosecution, (Mr. COX) then opened the case, and detailed the facts of it to the jury. He said it appeared that the deceased, into the cause of whose death the jury were about to inquire, was chief mate of the 'Emma Jane', an American barque, belonging to Bath, Maine, United States. The prisoner was carpenter and third officer on board that vessel. she arrived in Falmouth on the 7th November. On the 18th or 19 she was hauled up alongside the dock for the purpose of repair. On Wednesday, the 26th November, at six o'clock in the evening, the deceased went into the cabin, and after partaking of some supper he took up a book, and by the light of a lamp commenced reading. The deceased stated that after he had been doing this for some time he heard a slight noise behind him, and on looking round he saw the prisoner at the stove. He spoke to the prisoner, and asked him what he was doing there, to which he replied he had come to see that the fire was all right. The deceased told him that he had no business there, and the fire did not want any attention, and turned to read his book again. In a minute or two afterwards he (deceased) felt a violent blow on the head, which laid him senseless. On recovering his senses he jumped up and raised a cry of "Murder." He went out of the cabin door, and called for the carpenter, but received no answer. He continued to shout “Murder", and a man on board a ship which was lying alongside heard the noise and came to his assistance. In the cabin just within the cabin door he found a maul, and on the table the book that the deceased had been reading, covered with blood. The cap worn by the deceased had fallen upon the lamp, and was partly consumed. The deceased, he believed, at that time seemed to have had his senses about him. The blow was a very serious one, and for a moment deprived him of his senses, but it was quite clear at the moment he recovered them he knew what was going on, and was competent to give a clear description of what passed afterwards. The surgeon was sent for, and it was found that his skull had been fractured—broken by the blow of some heavy instrument, for some splinters of the bone had penetrated the brain. Some were taken out, and some must have remained for two days, after that he was seized with convulsions, and died in a strange state of stupor. These were the facts as far as the deceased told them. His statement did not give them any account of the previous relationship between the prisoner and deceased during the whole time of the voyage, nor anything in the statement by which he could trace any motive on the part of the prisoner for committing this act, but there was something more than the mere recollection of what the deceased had seen at the time when the offence was committed, for he said that when he recovered himself he heard somebody running away from the ship. He should show them by two witnesses, who were in a vessel alongside the ship in which the murder was committed, that about the time the cry was raised by the deceased, the prisoner jumped on board, and told the crew who were there assembled that he had struck the mate, and requested them to put him on board an English brig that was lying off in the roads. One of the witnesses would tell them that at this time he noticed the prisoner had on no boots nor shoes. They accordingly got their boat ready, and two men, with a German who could not speak English, took him from their ship to the English brig 'Wentworth Beaumont', lying in the roads. The witnesses would tell them that during the passage the prisoner said nothing, but he told them previous to leaving the vessel that he had left his clothes on board this brig, and that was the reason he wanted to go. The prisoner afterwards boarded the brig, and the men in the boat returned to their own ship. He was not in a position to show them what the prisoner actually said or did to any of the persons when he came on board that brig. Of course, when the man of whom he had before spoken had seen what had taken place in the cabin of the 'Emma Jane', an alarm was immediately given, and a surgeon came, and with him a policeman. The latter would tell them, that having heard what had taken place, he went on board the 'Wentworth Beaumont brig and made a search, but could find nothing. He paced the deck for some time, but still the prisoner was not to be seen. He then went ashore, but before he got to the police office he received information which induced him to return to the ship again, and after an hour's search he found the prisoner buried among coals and rope without any boots or shoes on. These were the facts of the case which he should have to lay before them on the part of the prosecution, and upon those facts one would suppose that there would be very little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was by the prisoner’s hands, that this offence was committed, and that the only question for them (the jury) would be, was it a premeditated murder or was there any provocation or quarrel, or anything that might reduce it to manslaughter. On the part of the prisoner, it would be contended that it was a mistake altogether, and that it was not by his hand but by the hand of some other of the crew that this crime was committed. As he should not have the opportunity of addressing them again, and as this was really the question before them, because the facts were scarcely disputed, he thought it but right that he should point out to them the views of the case, which would lead to the inference that the defence set up by the prisoner was not true, and that the facts were to be taken and not his (prisoner’s) explanation of them. Having read the prisoner's statement, which will be found below, he said, the question for the jury would be whether this story which the prisoner told them was consistent or inconsistent with the facts which would undoubtedly be proved. Another question would be, why he did not go to the deceased's assistance, who was being murdered, and why he remained there quietly and let the deed be done. The prisoner, according to his own admission, left the place where the foul murder had been committed and went on board a brig lying alongside; and, according to the evidence of two witnesses he should call before them, the prisoner said, "I struck the mate." The answer which the prisoner had given to that was, that he did not say he struck the mate, but that the mate was struck. The question for the jury would be, if the prisoner’s story was true, why he did not alarm the crew of the vessel lying alongside, and call them to his assistance The next was a still graver question. It was this—Why the prisoner went on board the brig and buried himself among rope and coals instead of going into the town and informing the authorities of the crime that had been committed In this case they had heard that the prisoner was found without his shoes, and it would be distinctly proved that the prisoner, when he jumped on board the vessel lying alongside, was noticed to have no shoes on. When the prisoner desired to go on board the British brig he said that he had left his clothes behind; but he should prove that his boots were found on board his own ship, the Emma Jane. It would be for them to compare the defence with the facts of the case, and if the jury were satisfied that the defence was improbable, and almost impossible, he presumed that they could come to but one conclusion with respect to the author of this crime. If they had any reasonable doubt about it, it would be their duty, as he was sure it would be their pleasure to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. He was quite sure they would perform their duty with that firmness which was usual to justice, but at the same time with that mercy due to the prisoner. They would hear the evidence, and then upon the face of it they would have to say whether the prisoner was guilty or not of the grave charge made against him. The learned counsel then called the following evidence:— William James Genn, solicitor, of Falmouth, deposed: I acted as clerk to the magistrates and took the depositions put in; I went to see William Henry Jones and took his deposition in the presence of the prisoner (the deposition produced was the one); at that time the deceased appeared perfectly composed and collected, and the deposition taken in his cabin on the 29th November; the prisoner cross-examined the deceased. By Mr. Bere: William Henry Jones was in bed at the time, which was about mid-day. I heard that he died next day; I heard the prisoner speak on that occasion and he spoke English with a foreign accent. He is a Swede. The deposition of the deceased man, which is as follows was then read:— "I am chief mate of the ‘Emma Jane,' of Bath, Maine, United States. The prisoner shipped as carpenter and third officer of the same ship. About the 7th instant, we arrived at Falmouth, and about the the (sic) 18th or 19th inst. hauled alongside the breakwater of . on Wednesday last, about six in the evening, I came into the cabin, had my supper, and then sat at the cabin table to read a red-covered book—a magazine. There was a lamp in the cabin. The book was on the table. I leaned over it to read, and had about a quarter of the back of my head towards the door. After I had been reading half-an-hour, sitting near the stove, I heard a noise, and looked round and saw the prisoner (the carpenter) on his knees before the stove door. I asked him what he was doing there. He answered ‘Putting on some fire.' I said 'There is no occasion for putting on any more at present.' The prisoner then left the stove, and I saw him go towards the door. It was not the carpenter’s duty to keep the fire up. He had not done so before when he was told to do it. I continued to read, and, after the lapse of three to five minutes, I received a blow on my head, which knocked me senseless for about a minute. I called ‘Murder!’ as soon as I recovered. I went towards the door, and heard some one running very fast from the wharf towards the town. It was too dark to see who it was. The wharf is made of wood, and the noise is very distinct. I then looked into the carpenter's cabin, but received no reply, neither could I see him. I went on deck, and sung out 'Murder!’ and called to the men of the Russian brig lying near. I saw no person and I went to the cabin door. After some time the steward of the brig lying near came, and I returned to the cabin with him. Inside the door we found a carpenter's maul, and my book was on the table covered with blood. My cap had been knocked off, and was on the lamp burning. Two or three nights before the prisoner came into the cabin. I asked what he wanted. He replied to see if there was any fire wanted. I told him that there was plenty of fire, and he left. The book I was reading I have since seen in the possession of Prater. I know the maul well. I had used it that same afternoon. My cap was made of blue cloth with a glazed cover over it. "Cross-examined by the Prisoner: I did not on that night give you orders to have the maul handy; but I did on two or three previous occasions. I told you that night to take the tools off the deck, and put them away. I did speak to you when you came to the stove. On the afternoon of the 26th, I asked you where the maul was, and went into your room, where you said it was. I found it was not there; but I found it in an opposite room." Henry Smith deposed: I am a seaman on board the Russian ship, 'Kourland,' which in November last was lying astern of the 'Emma Jane,' in Falmouth breakwater; there was a brig at the head of the 'Emma Jane'; I was on board my own ship on the afternoon of the 26th November, along with others of the crew, and while sitting in the forecastle I saw a man who seemed very much frightened jump into the door of the forecastle, and he cried out "I have I struck the mate, you will be kind enough to put me on board the English vessel lying out in the roads." We said we would do so, and at the time I saw that the man had no boots on; we got a boat ready, and Edward White, a Russian, myself, and the prisoner got into the boat which was rowed by the three of us, while the prisoner steered. We went to an English brig in the roads, on board of which the prisoner got and wished us good bye; he said nothing to us on the voyage; he said that his clothes were on board the English vessel, and he made this statement before we got to the vessel, and while he was in the boat.—By Mr. Bere: l am an Englishman and he is a foreigner; the prisoner said, "I struck the mate when he came into the forcastle" (sic); I will not swear that the words he made use of were, "I deve struck de mate"; the crew on board our ship numbers ten, and they are mostly foreigners, two of whom are Swedes, and they speak English with a peculiar accent; the prisoner might have got on board our ship from his own vessel without going on the wharf at all; I had not known the mate of the 'Emma Jane’; I did not know that eight men had run away from that vessel before this had occurred; but I have heard it since; before the prisoner came on board I had not heard a cry of murder; we were only three feet from the 'Emma Jane.' I heard some dogs bark frequently on board the 'Emma Jane, but I did not hear that a dog barked on board it that night.—By his Lordship: I and others of the crew, about five in number, were smoking in the forecastle that night; the foreigners were Russians, Dutch, and Swedes. James White testified: I am a seaman on board the ‘Kourland,' and was on board of her on the 20th November last, when I was in the forecastle along with eight or ten other seamen, smoking my pipe; among the number was Henry Smith; while I was smoking in the forecastle a man jumped into the forecastle and said, "I have de struck de mate, and will you be so kind as to put me on board the English brig that is out on the roads, as my clothes are on board her." We went and put him on board the ship, and while taking him in the boat to the vessel the prisoner did not say anything. By the learned Judge: l am a Hollander, a Dutchman. Thomas Prater, a police officer stationed at Falmouth, said: I remember the night of the 26th November, when about eight o'clock I was called to go on board the 'Emma Jane,' which was lying alongside the wharf in the dock; there were three other vessels there, a Russian barque was close astern of the 'Emma Jane,' and an English vessel was also near her; the vessels, the 'Emma Jane' and the Russian barque were not close enough for one to get on board each from the other without getting on the wharf; in the cabin of the 'Emma Jane' I saw the deceased bleeding, and in the cabin made a search and found a book, and a maul. The book was produced. It was opened at the place where the deceased was reading at the time of the blow. The pages were rather torn and appeared to have been well thumbed. The spots of blood were very numerous. The book was found on the table. Outside the cabin door the policeman found the maul. The instrument was produced. It is the ordinary maul which is kept on board vessels for the general repairs which are needed in the course of a voyage. It has a blunt edge on one side so as to act as a large hammer, and on the other it gradually tapers to a point. It is in length about three feet. I then went on board an English vessel the 'Wentworth Beaumont,' which was lying about a mile off in the roads, and on board the vessel I made a search, but found nothing. At first, I remained on board searching for nine hours, and then went on shore, and having remained about ¾ of an hour I returned and found the prisoner concealed in what is called the forepeak, under some coal and coils of rope; I should say that we had to get through four feet of coal and ropes before we came to the prisoner who was completely embedded in coils of old rope; he was also surrounded by some chains of the ship, and he was protected from the coals pressing on him by some boarding, which were placed above him. I then took him into custody; By Mr. Bere: I cautioned the prisoner to be careful as to what statement he made when I apprehended him. I charged him with assaulting the chief mate, and he said "I did not do it, the reason that I ran away from the ship was I was afraid that the mate would think it was me and he would kill me," He had no boots or shoes on at the time, and when I asked him where his boots were he said they were on board the ship; he said the reason he ran away from the ship without his boots was that he had no time to put them on, and his clothes were on board the American ship. Mr. Bere: Have you ever said before a word about his having said that his clothes were on board the American vessel? I think that was what he said; I took that to be his meaning; he said, I believe, that his clothes were "on board," and not on board the American vessel; I do not think that it was possible to get from the 'Emma Jane' on board the Russian barque that was lying alongside her; I did not see any dogs in the 'Emma Jane;' I heard that eight men had run away shortly before this occurrence from the 'Emma Jane,' which was a vessel of large tonnage, of some 1200 tons; the mate's cabin was a poop cabin on deck, and near it was the prisoner's cabin, which I had to get through to get to the chief mates’ (sic) cabin. I found the maul standing up in the passage leading to the mate's cabin; the prisoner said that the mate had mentioned something about pistols, but I dont recollect the exact words he used. Henry Smith, recalled by his LORDSHIP: The 'Emma Jane' was a larger ship than the 'Kurland.' (sic) He should think there were 20 hands on board the 'Emma Jane.' Thomas Prater, examined by his LORDSHIP: Had not been able to find the second mate. He was searching for him before the time of the accident. The second mate was one of the men who had run away. Mr. Vigurs was then called. Mr. BERE said he considered he ought to discharge his duty to the prisoner and to leave nothing undone. From what he had heard, he thought it necessary to ask Mr. Vigurs whether he believed in a future state? His LORDSHIP said that Mr. Bere had a perfect right to do so, but it was always an extreme measure. Mr. BERE then withdrew his objection, and Mr. Vigurs was sworn. Dr. Rd. Vigurs said he was called on board the ' Emma Jane’ about 8 o'clock in the evening of the 26th Nov. to see the mate. He had a wound on the right side of the upper part of the head; the skull was broken; the wound on the scalp was about an inch and a half in length; the deceased was sensible at the time that I examined him. I removed some of the bone, and I continued to attend him till the Sunday following, when he died; he remained sensible nearly up to the time of his death; on Sunday morning he became comatose, and he died; the wound, from the effects of which he died, might be inflicted by such an instrument as that produced (the maul). By Mr. Bere: Or, it might be produced by a bar of iron. One of the sailors, named Smith, was re-called and stated, in reply to his Lordship, that every ship has such a maul. It is called a top maul. Others on board the vessel as well as the carpenter use it. It is used for knocking in nails and spikes, and so on. Prisoner's statement, which was as follows, was then put in and read:— "I was sitting on my chest, cutting up a piece of tobacco. I saw a man come in in the shape of the second mate. First the second mate said, " Die you b—! you must die." Then the mate was singing out for his pistols, saying, " Who is here? Where is my pistol ?" First I saw that person what struck him go over the rail, and two other men were with him, dressed in blue. I dropped my pipe of tobacco. I went on shore, and ran as far as I could to the pier head. Then I went ion board the Russian brig, and I said just this way—"Oh!" says I, "They have struck the mate, will you put me on board the English brig." I stated to the captain of the brig two nights before to put me to Aberdeen. He asked me if I was clear of the ship. I said, "I am not clear, sir, but I can run away as well as the rest of them." The second mate said he should kill the mate before he left the port, and four others said so too. When I was filling my pipe, that maul was alongside of my chest. The maul was not moved when the mate was struck. It was not the maul that did it. Thomas Prater recalled and examined by his Lordship—Believed the brig sailed the next morning. Mr. Bere then proceeded to address the jury for the defence. He remarked that as soon as the grand jury returned a true bill against the prisoner on the previous day, his lordship asked him to watch the case on his behalf. To ask a member of the English bar to do this, and especially on such a trial as this was, had a strong meaning. It meant that the prisoner was unprotected and defenceless, and that neither by his own means nor by the aid of his friends could he obtain that assistance which was generously given him by the judge. It was his duty on behalf of the prisoner to take care that if they convicted—which he trusted they would not do—that that conviction should only be arrived at by the hearing of legal and proper evidence, and to make such remarks as might occur to him to show that the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution, by which they sought to establish the guilt of the prisoner, was unsatisfactory, and evidence which they could not rely upon. The prisoner was a Swede, and was a sailor on board the American vessel, bound, he believed, from Sunderland to the East Indies, but had put into Falmouth from stress of weather. It was quite clear, from the statement that they had heard from the policeman, and from the reports circulated in Falmouth, that a certain amount of discontent had prevailed in that crew; from what cause they were entirely left in the dark to discover. They had no means of knowing whether the deceased was a man who ill-used the crew, or whether he was kind in his treatment of them, or whether from a cause of dissatisfaction he had caused them to leave the ship; but they had this fact, that eight men—the second mate being one—ran away as soon as they arrived at Falmouth. It appeared that the prisoner was not discontented by any ill-usage he had received, because he had remained on board until this unfortunate occurrence took place. That he then made up his mind to leave the ship, he (the learned counsel) submitted had been clearly made out. It was not from circumstances of mere suspicion that they had to judge of the prisoner's guilt; but it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to make out the case to their satisfaction. He had, on the part of the prisoner, to complain of the manner in which the prosecution had been conducted, and the extremely strong inferences the learned counsel had drawn from the facts, which inferences were utterly unwarrantable. The Judge having remarked that he did not think there was any cause for complaint, Mr. Bere said he bowed to his lordship's opinion. He confessed that listening to his learned friend's statement, and knowing what facts would be proved in the case, he was surprised to hear the conclusions that he drew from the facts, as compared with the statement of the prisoner; and he thought that they would be all of the same opinion as he was, that the conclusions were not warranted, and were not founded on the facts proved before them (the jury). He had another complaint, which was a very unusual one. In general the prosecution assisted by money, able advisers, skilful attornies, and counsel, exhausted all the possible evidence that could be produced on the subject which the jury had to consider; but in this case he must say that the prosecution had neglected their duty in matters which, had they been brought forward, might have proved favourable to the prisoner; and a more shadowy, unsubstantial, and ragged case he would venture to say was never heard in a court of justice. Asking men to convict without the means of knowing what had previously passed in the vessel. Everything was mysterious. They knew nothing at all of the conduct of the crew, except that eight men ran away; and they could only inferentially discover what the conduct of some one of the officers was, and they did not know that it was the first mate. The place where the tools were kept, the habit of using them, and how they were used, was also kept in darkness; no one knew anything about them. As the prosecution had not contradicted the statement made by the prisoner, he had a right, and he should claim the statement as far as it was not inconsistent with the facts of the case as a fair and true one. the prisoner had no means to obtain the attendance of witnesses who could support his statement. The brig in which he said he put his clothes sailed the following day for foreign countries; but if the prosecution had had that foresight which he should imagine they might have had, those sailors would have been present. According to the statement of the first mate, the prisoner was in a position to commit the act, and the prosecution followed up their story by relating the expressions used by the prisoner. His learned friend had admitted that he could show no motive whatsoever, and he had not hinted at any motive. There seems to have been no quarrel—at any rate up to the end of the 26th November—which could have caused the prisoner to revenge himself on the mate. The prosecution had said that the prisoner was in a position to have committed the offence; so were others. The crew of that ship, according to its size, was about 16. Eight of them were gone; but where were the others? There was no proof that the prisoner and the mate were alone in the ship that night, and no proof that they lived aft in the officers' cabin; but they were left to pick out their way in the dark. The prosecution wished them to believe this, that while the mate was sitting reading his book, the prisoner or somebody came, took up this maul, dealt him a severe blow on the head, and then ran away. How was that? They had seen the weapon, which was more likely to be yielded (sic) by two hands than one. He would therefore ask them to use their common sense, and say whether if the blow had been dealt by two hands it would have been a far more serious injury than that spoken of by the surgeon. The man lived three or four days and then died, but would he not have died instantaneously had he been knocked down by that maul? Had it been used that way, no doubt there would have been blood and hair sticking to it; and he thought he might fairly assume that the deceased's cap was not on at the time. Had the instrument been used for committing the murder, the person who used it would have destroyed it, and he might inform them that nothing could be easier than to throw it overboard. But where was it found? In its usual place, quietly up in the corner of the cabin, with its handle upwards, and in a position where any person coming in might have taken it up. Referring to the evidence of the witnesses who said that the prisoner acknowledged that he struck the mate, he said he had been misinterpreted and misunderstood by them. They remembered that in the cross-examination the witness Smith would not positively swear that they were the words used by the prisoner, and when White was called he said the words were "he struck the mate." It was not a mere mistake, because if they remembered he went on to say "will you put me on board," showing at any rate he put a part of the conversation in the first and the other in the second person. He thought the fact of his going from one ship to the other corroborated the expression which he had used. If he had struck the mate, did they believe that any man in possession of his common faculties would go to another ship and furnish proof against himself of this outrageous conduct. No, he would have gone into the town of Falmouth as the other eight men had done, mingled with other foreign sailors, and would, in all probability, have escaped the detection, the search, and the scrutiny of the police. What was the prisoner's demeanour. He was frightened, and his learned friend said that it was inconsistent with his innocence. He did not know what his friend's bravery might be, but he could conceive many a brave man, finding a fellow creature killed beside him in the dark, grow timid, and his only wish became how to escape the danger his fellow man had fallen into. He was certainly frightened, but he soon recovered his fright, because he steered the boat. They might depend upon it that the Russian sailors did not think the prisoner had committed a very atrocious crime. If they had, they would never have furnished him with a certain amount of means for escape, but would have rendered him up to justice. He considered that the prisoner gave a good reason for his demeanour. The prisoner had stated that his clothes were on board the English brig. If this was a falsehood, why were not the sailors of the brig called to contradict it? The policeman very ingeniously would not swear, in cross-examination, that the prisoner said his clothes were on board the American ship, and no witness had been called to prove that they were on board the latter ship. He did not know whether the jury were aware of the penalties attendant upon seamen entering into a contract for a voyage and then breaking it; and whether they could convict a Swede in an English court he did not know. He would ask them whether they thought it probable that the prisoner could have hidden himself away in the fore peak of the brig without the knowledge of some one on board; and where was the crew of the vessel to show that they did help him. The learned counsel went on to contend that the statement of the deceased did not incriminate the prisoner, but that on the contrary it contained many remarks which tended to show that the prisoner could not have been the person who committed the murder. In the deceased's deposition it was stated he heard some person run over the wharf towards the town, but that it was too dark for him to see who it was, and upon that statement alone he thought a verdict of acquittal should be returned, inasmuch as he had conclusively shewn it could not have been the prisoner who was running away. Then again, why was not the steward of the brig lying near deceased's vessel in court, as he went to the assistance of the deceased, and consequently must have known something about the affair. But on that point also they were left in the same darkness as surrounded the whole of the case. Then as to the maul; it was no evidence against the prisoner, as it had been proved that other seamen on board the ship were in the habit of using it, as well as the prisoner. Another point in favour of the prisoner was that he had all along told the same story with reference to the case, and had never departed from it in the smallest degree, and it was not an inconsistent story. He thought also that it was very curious that no inquiry was ever made about the second mate. But supposing the jury should be of opinion that the arguments he had used had no effect at all and they believed the prisoner was the person who did it, did they think he meant to murder the deceased—did they think it was a malicious, deliberate and determined murder? Or might it not be that the prisoner was going to run away, and the mate finding him going a quarrel ensued resulting in a blow? This however, was only a suggestion, as there was no proof of such circumstances. He could not appeal to the feelings of the jury, although he might do so; as he thought they would agree with him that the circumstances of the case would not justify them in bringing in a verdict of guilty, and he fervently hoped that such would be the fact, and that if they erred at all it would be on the side of mercy. The learned counsel then went through all the evidence, upon which he commented, urging that it did not in any way inculpate the prisoner. The learned counsel, in conclusion, said,—Gentlemen, I could appeal to your feelings, but I am sure the kind hearts which you, as Englishmen, are possessed of, will urge all the arguments in favour of the prisoner, a friendless man. One short word, however, I will say. You cannot by any word of yours bring the dead man back again; he is gone, and the death of the prisoner, which may follow on a verdict of guilty, will not restore him to mingle with his fellow-men in this world again. If you err in acquitting the prisoner, you will do but very little harm; but if by an innocent mistake you should convict him, and should afterwards learn that your verdict was a mistaken one, you cannot bring him back to life again however much you may regret it. Gentlemen, no regret of yours will restore him to his mother in Sweden—no regret of yours can restore him to his friends and his life on this earth. The silver cord will be loosened, the golden bow will be broken, and the spirit will have returned to the God who gave it. May God, who gives a right judgment to all, guide you in your deliberations, and send the prisoner through you a good deliverance in this hour of trial! His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that it was a case which he need hardly say deserved, and he doubted not would receive, their attentive and impartial consideration. They had heard remarks made both on the part of the prosecution and on the part of the prisoner, and he had no fault to find whatever with what had been heard on behalf of the prosecution. On the contrary, he thought it the duty of the prosecuting counsel in cases of that nature not merely to state the facts, but also to state the bearings of the evidence. Many of those observations were well deserving of their consideration, and so equally were the observations made by the prisoner's counsel. There was, however, one head of the learned counsel's defence in which he could not at all concur. The case before them was one of wilful murder, or it was nothing at all. Prima facie, when a man took the life of a fellow creature, he was guilty of wilful murder, and, if he sought to reduce the crime below that high degree, it was necessary for him to bring evidence to show it. He saw no such evidence upon the transaction, and he repeated that it was a case of wilful murder, or they must acquit the prisoner. That being so, they would look at the evidence with the more jealousy, and see that the case was clearly made out against the prisoner for, as it was the duty of the defence to reduce the crime below murder if he struck the blow, so was it equally the duty of the prosecution to satisfy them that no one else committed the murder. His Lordship then proceeded to go through the evidence, and remark upon various portions of it. He said it seemed rather extraordinary that, if the blow were inflicted with the maul the least likely side should be employed; in addition to which, though there were plenty of spots of blood upon the book, there was neither blood nor hair upon the maul. There was, however, a remark on the other side, which was that the act of striking and removing the instrument might be so quick as not to leave blood upon it. That was, however, an observation worthy of consideration when they remembered that the deceased did not say that he was struck with the maul. The second mate ought to have been called. He was not there it is true; but in the absence of so important a witness, the case should have been postponed from assizes to assizes until he was produced. Even if he was abroad, he should think that his presence could have been procured by the Extradition treaties. The clothes ought also to have been produced by the prosecution. In their absence they had a right to assume that they were where the prisoner had stated them to be. Another defect in the prosecution was the not calling the sailors of the ship in which the murder was committed.—After commenting for some time upon various parts of the evidence, his lordship said he wished to call the attention of the jury very shortly to one or two observations which might be made, and which had been made, in favour of the prosecution, and in favour of the prisoner. It was quite clear from the evidence that not only had a foul murder been committed, but that the prisoner was present at the time it was done. If he were there and did not do it, yet if he assented he was guilty of murder. When he said "assented," he did not mean the simple witnessing the act, for that would be misprision of felony. With respect to his saying, "I have struck the mate, the learned counsel for the defence urged upon them that the evidence of the first witness upon that point was destroyed by cross-examination. The second witness upon that point was a foreigner deposing to the broken English of another foreigner. The prisoner's counsel also urged with great strength of reason that the prisoner would not go and accuse himself of murder. If, upon the evidence adduced, they were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the prisoner committed it, it would be their duty to find the prisoner guilty; but if, on the other hand, they were not satisfied, they would return a verdict of not guilty; and it was a golden rule in the administration of criminal justice never to be departed from, that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt by reasonable evidence, and if there were any fair and reasonable doubt the prisoner ought to have the benefit of it. The jury were then desired to consider their verdict. After being locked up for a considerable time, they returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY, and the prisoner was discharged. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER. CATHERINE , 20, servant (imp.) was charged with the wilful murder of her male illegitimate child on or about the 18th December, 1862, at Lanivet. Mr Oxenham prosecuted, and Mr. Cole defended. During the whole of the hearing of the case the prisoner seemed to be deeply affected. She wept almost without intermission, and did not once remove her handkerchief from her face. Mr. OXENHAM, in opening the case, said he was sure he need not bespeak the serious consideration of the jury to the case before them, involving as it did the highest offence recognized by the law. The prisoner appeared to be a female servant in the service of a Mr. and Mrs. , living at Woodley, in Lanivet, in the county of Cornwall. She resided with them only five months, and during that time the mistress did not appear to have had any suspicion with respect to her. Something, however, led her to make an examination in the girl's bedroom on the 18th of December last, and on that morning she found in a box, by the side of the bed in which the prisoner slept with a fellow-servant, the body of a dead child, wrapped up at that time in a bed-sheet. The lady appeared to have made no immediate communication, or to have taken any step until the return of her husband the same night, when she apprised of him what she had found. The prisoner was charged the next morning with having had a child, and also with having attempted to dispose of its body. She was told that further investigation would be necessary, and that the police would be sent for. A policeman was accordingly fetched, and they proceeded to the bedroom for the purpose of examination. Before reaching the room the prisoner herself told them that the child had been removed from the box, and would be found suspended upon a peg behind a dress in the same room; and upon investigation it was found to be true. The child was found to be dead. No marks or bruises were found upon any part of the body, excepting that there was round the neck a ligature tied in a bow. At that time there was no further investigation of the body. It remained until it could be properly examined by the surgeon, and the poor girl was taken into the custody of the police. The result of the surgeon's examination would be given in evidence. It would be certainly proper and necessary for them to ascertain from that gentleman whether he believed the child had been born alive, in order to constitute the offence with which the prisoner was charged; and it was his duty to add that in the present state of the law it was competent for them to find a different verdict from that severe consequence which the original charge involved. It was competent for them to find that the woman had intended secretly to dispose of the body of the child. That would constitute an offence of which she might be found guilty in case the evidence should not satisfy them that the original case was made out.—After a few more observations, the learned gentleman called the following evidence:— Sarah Retallack deposed that she was the wife of James Retallack. living in Woodley, in Lanivet, and in last December the prisoner lived with them as their servant, and on the 15th of that month she made a complaint, and in consequence of this she remained in bed; witness went into the bed room and examined her bed, the prisoner being down stairs at the time, and from what she saw she considered that she had given birth to a child; her box near her bed was then examined; it was not locked, and under the clothes in that box witness found the body of a dead child, which was wrapped in a bed sheet; she communicated to her husband what she had found out, and next morning Mr. Retallack called prisoner into the room and accused her of having given birth to a child, and that it would be his duty to give her in charge to a policeman. She wept and begged that he would not do so. Next morning the policeman was sent for, and in the parlour the prisoner refused to tell the constable where the body was; but afterwards she said that it was in her bedroom, where he found the body hung up on a peg, and wrapped up in some old clothes, the body being entirely concealed by a dress of the prisoners; the attention of witness was directed by the policeman to a string which was tied round the child's neck. By Mr. Cole: The prisoner had been five months in my service, and conducted herself very respectably and uprightly up to this occurrence. James Hutchins Retallack testified that he called his servant into his room on the morning following the day when his wife found the body of the child in the room, and he said he would give her into custody. In reply to Mr. Cole, the witness stated that the woman was very well conducted in his service. Catherine Hancock, a young girl in the same service, stated that she slept in the same room with the prisoner, and on the evening of the 15th December, she complained that she was very unwell, and that she would be compelled to keep to her bed the whole of the next day. On the following night (Wednesday) witness slept with prisoner, when she observed a good many stains on the blanket and the bed clothes. The prisoner then said that she was very unwell, and told witness to take the blanket to the cellar and put it in a pail of water which she did accordingly. P.C. John Williams said that he went to Mr. Retallack's house on the 19th December, and the prisoner was given into his custody by Mr. Retallack. He then went to the girl's bedroom, where he found a bundle, in which he found the body of a dead male child. He saw no marks of violence on the body, except a stay lace which was fastened round the neck and tied in a bow. He afterwards gave the body to the surgeon, Mr. Couch, of Bodmin, who said he examined the child. He made a post mortem examination. It was a fully developed child. It had no bruises over the body. There were marks of effused blood on the scalp. There was a cord twisted tightly round the neck for at least six times. On cutting it, which he did with difficulty, it left three indentations in the neck. The face was very much swollen. The flesh and skin had so much swollen as almost to bury the cord. The afterbirth was not separated showing that she had had no skilled attention during the delivery. He opened the chest. The lungs were partially inflated. They were of a light red colour, and crackled under pressure. He then tied them both both (sic) together, and even with the heart attached, they floated, though not buoyantly. From these circumstances, and the appearance of the lungs, he believed that the child had breathed. The cavities of the heart were both filled with blood. He took off the scalp, and found that there was no fracture of the skull whatever. A great deal of blood poured out beneath the skull. The brain was very much gorged with blood. He also examined the prisoner herself, and ascertained that she had been recently confined. With respect to the ligature round the neck, it must have produced strangulation. A blow would have produced the effusion under the scalp; but there were no marks of a blow. Could not say whether the child had been, or had not been, born alive. Could not say whether the child was totally separated at the time the ligature was put on. Mr. COLE put it to his lordship whether the case could go on after that evidence. His LORDSHIP: What do you say to that, Mr. Oxenham? Mr. OXENHAM said after that he did not think he ought to press for a higher conviction. His LORDSHIP then asked Mr. Cole if he was prepared to deny the concealment of birth. Mr. COLE replied in the negative, and After a few words from his LORDSHIP, the jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" on the capital charge, and "guilty” on the charge of concealment of birth. His LORDSHIP said that the jury had very properly acquitted the prisoner on the charge of wilful murder, and had found her guilty of concealment of birth. Such cases were very painful, and more so as the parties who were oftenest to blame generally escaped. The sentence on the prisoner was, that she should be imprisoned in the house of correction for six calendar months. PERJURY AT BODMIN. John Austin, on bail, was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury at Bodmin, on the 6th August last, Mr Cole prosecuted and the prisoner was defended by Mr Prideaux. The learned Counsel for the prisoner raised objection in limine to the validity of the indictment and he thought that that was the best time to take the objection, which was, however, overruled by the learned Judge, it having been merely technical— and legal. Mr Cole then stated the case and called Mr. Chambery, the associate for the Western Circuit, who said that he was present at the last Summer Assizes for Cornwall, when the two men, Jacka and Moorshead, were indicted with stealing two ducks and a drake, belonging to Mr Harris. Mr Prideaux here took an objection that the mere production of the indictment was not sufficient, as it did not prove that such a trial had ever taken place. Mr Cole asked the associate if he had the record in the case made up, but that learned gentleman said he had not the record in his possession.—The Judge said it was necessary to have a copy of the record. If in the Crown Court, it was due to the ends of justice that the roll should be made up, though this might not be so incumbent on the learned counsel in the Nisi Prius Court.—Mr Prideaux persisted in his objection that his learned friend only produced the verdict in the case, and he did not even show that there had been a plea of not guilty.— The learned Judge, however, overruled the objection as he thought that Mr Gurney, the clerk of arraigns, would be able to furnish sufficient information that the trial did take place.—ln reply to Mr Prideaux, Mr Chambery said that the learned judge, Mr Justice Keating, before whom the case had been tried, said that the two prisoners could not be convicted on the evidence of an accomplice. Mr Cole then called Mr Henry Hunter Thompson, reporter of the West Briton, who read the shorthand notes which he had taken of the trial of Jacka and Morshead, at the last Assizes. The following is a transcript of Mr Thompson's notes of the evidence given by the prisoner at the last Assizes of Bodmin before Mr Justice Keating, when the two young men, Jacka and Morshead, were convicted on the testimony of the prisoner Austin with having stolen two ducks belonging to Mr Harris. John Austin deposed: On the 20th March last, I was in the employ of the prisoner Jacka, as a baker. I know the other prisoner Moorshead, and on the 20th March I saw them both together between six and seven o'clock in the evening. Jacka asked me to assist him to drive two ducks and a drake into the stable, and to help him to kill them. I said I would not. He did not ask me anything more after that. About an hour after, his sister asked me to take a light into the stable, to John Jacka and Thomas Moorshead to see to take away the ducks. I took the candle and went with the light into the stable, where I saw the two prisoners. Moorshead went into the dry above the stable, and took from a barrel two ducks and a drake, which he handed to John Jacka. The ducks were taken from an American flour barrel. They were Mr. Harris's ducks and drake. They were dead. John Jacka put the ducks into a horse's nose-bag, which he carried to the house outside. Jacka said that he was going to carry them to , and he rode off on horseback with them. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length. He said—This was on the 20th March, and I first mentioned it to Mr. Harris on the 11th June. I did not mention it, because they accused me of taking the ducks. Mr. Harris did not accuse me over and over again. I first heard I was accused last Whit Monday. This is the first time I ever said I was asked to assist Jacka to drive the ducks into the stable and refused. I was working for John Jacka at that time. I will swear they did not turn me away. I took myself off. I was not accused of taking a bag and selling it before I took myself off. Before this, I worked for Mr. Cory, and "I took myself off" from him. I know Mary Ann Angove. I have heard that she is the school-mistress. I did not say to her, "I will be revenged on them yet." (Miss Angove was called and confronted with the prisoner, but he persisted in his denial of ever having used the expression stated by her.) Jacka is a respectable baker. Both his sisters were charged with this robbery, and were had up before the justices on my information. I said that they knew that the ducks were there. I know Mr. Rook of St. Day. I saw him at Jacka's, J. Jacka, Miss Jacka, and Mrs. Goldsworthy were there. I did not say to Mr. Rooke that I never saw the ducks, and that I did not know anything about them. I never said so in his presence. I was there when Mr. Harris came to Jacka's to search for the ducks. Jacka, Moorshead Miss Jacka, Mrs. Goldsworthy, and myself—all of us— were there. Mrs. Goldsworthy told me to take a candle into the stable for him to search. I did not tell Mr. Harris where the ducks were. I knew they were not there, because they were taken away then. Mr. Harris did not ask me, and I never said anything then to him about the ducks. This is quite as true as the Excise information I gave. When I "took myself off" from Jacka's service, they did not stop my tools, and refuse to give them up until I paid my debt. I owed their cousin something, and they asked me if I would leave my tools till I paid the debt, and I said no. The information I gave was this—When I was with Mr. Cory, he made his own malt; and I asked Mr. Elwood, the Excise Officer, if a man could make his own malt. He said No; certainly not. If I knew any one that did, he would bring him up. I said that Mr. Cory did. Mr. Cole then called John Jacka, a baker, residing at St. Day, who stated that on the 20th March of last year, the prisoner was in his employ as a journeyman baker, and he left there in consequence of a complaint made against him that he had stolen a bag; he did not help Austin to drive two ducks and a drake into his stable, and help him to kill them; it is not true that he ever asked the prisoner to do any such thing; the witness said that all the statements made by Austin at the last trial were false. In reply to Mr. Prideaux, the witness said that he never knew that Mr. Harris had any ducks; though he admitted he might have seen some ducks near his house, but he did not know to whom they belonged. Thomas Moorshead, a baker, in the employ of Mr. Jacka, said he had been tried at the last Assizes on a charge of stealing the ducks but he was acquitted. Mary Ann Angove, schoolmistress at Carharrack, stated that she heard the prisoner Austin, whom she saw at her residence, say that he would be revenged on the Jackas yet, this was after he had been dismissed from the service of Mr. Jacka. Mr. Prideaux then made an able and energetic speech in the prisoner's defence. A verdict of NOT GUILTY was returned and the prisoner was acquitted. ATTEMPTED MURDER AND SUICIDE AT PIER. In the case of Cornelius Buckley, who was charged with attempting to drown his wife, Caroline Buckley, at Millbay Pier, on the 13th of September last, and also with attempting to drown himself afterwards, it was decided that he should remain in custody during her Majesty's pleasure, he having been proved to be of unsound mind. (Sentence: 6 years’ penal servitude) With the exception of 14 cases of “pleaded guilty,” judgment upon which was reserved till the next morning, the criminal business of the Assizes was concluded about six o’clock p.m. ______NISI PRIUS COURT, FRIDAY, MARCH 20. The Court met this morning at half-past nine o'clock, and after a short consultation between the counsel engaged in the case of "Davey v. Woolcombe," the trial of which had been adjourned from the previous evening, Mr. M. Smith announced that it had been arranged on terms which he trusted would prove satisfactory to both sides. A juryman was then withdrawn, thus taking the cause out of court. THE PENRYN LIBEL CASE. BLAMEY V. GLOYN. Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Cole (instructed by Mr. Jenkins, solicitor, of Penryn) were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon (instructed by Mr. Genn, solicitor, of Falmouth,) appeared for the defendant. This was a special jury case, and had evidently excited a great deal of interest in Penryn, Falmouth, and the neighbourhood. From the consultations that took place immediately after the jury had been sworn it was evident that some arrangement was about to be come to, and that the numerous spectators who attended for the purpose of hearing the trial would be to some extent disappointed. After the learned gentlemen had concluded their negociations (sic), Mr. COLE said—Mr. Joel Blamey is the plaintiff, and Mr. Robert Gloyn the defendant. The declaration sets out that the plaintiff had been appointed Mayor of the borough of Penryn; that that borough returned two members to Parliament, and that, by virtue of his office, the plaintiff had been returning officer; that in 1859 there was an election of two members of Parliament; and that there were four candidates and that the plaintiff then presided as returning officer; that in pursuance of his office he had to receive certain proper and legal fees; and the declaration then goes on to state that the defendant afterwards wrote and published a certain libel in a certain newspaper called the Falmouth and Penryn Weekly Times, charging the plaintiff with corruption in his office, in the fees which he had taken. The defendant has put two pleas on the record—first, that he is not guilty; and, second, that the words of the libel are true in substance and in fact. On these pleas issue has been joined. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH—Gentlemen of the jury,—The plaintiff in this action, Mr. Joel Blamey, is a corn merchant and flour factor, living at Penryn, and a member of a family well known and respected, and largely engaged in mercantile pursuits in this county. In 1858, Mr. Blamey was elected mayor of the borough of Penryn, and his fellow citizens thought so highly of him that they re-elected him to fill the office in the following year, 1859. You, gentlemen, will probably recollect that there was a general election in the latter year and on that occasion Mr. Blamey as the mayor of Penryn, acted as returning officer on the election, which resulted in the return of Mr. Baring and Mr. Gurney as the members for the borough. The defendant, I believe, is an accountant and clerk to gentlemen who are well known—Messrs. Freeman, the granite merchants, of Penryn; and it is with regret that Mr. Blamey has found it necessary to bring this action against him for a libel which he published in the Falmouth and Penryn Weekly Times, on the 1st of November last year. It is a libel of an extremely grave character; for it imputes to Mr. Blamey as you will see, corrupt and improper conduct in the taking of extortionate allowance from the candidates as the returning officer, at the general election in 1859. The circumstances under which the libel complained of were published are these:—On the 1st day of November last year—which you know was three years or three years and a half after the general election in 1859—there was a municipal election for the borough of Penryn, and the Mayor, Mr. Read, was one of the outgoing councillors, and was a candidate for re-election. The defendant, Mr. Gloyn, was also a candidate for the office of councillor; and Mr. Read, being himself a candidate, could not act as returning officer, although mayor of the borough—because it would not be exactly right for a man to return himself. Therefore, it became necessary to substitute some other person as returning officer, Mr. Read, the mayor, as I have said, not being in a position to discharge the office in consequence of being himself a candidate; and Mr. Blamey was unanimously appointed by the council to act in the mayor's stead, as returning officer at the election. On the morning of the 1st of November, which was the day of the election, the article of which we complain appeared in the Falmouth and Penryn Weekly Times. I am sorry to say that it was not the first occasion on which Mr. Blamey had suffered from the writing of Mr. Gloyn. Mr. Gloyn has a ready use of his pen; and upon the occasion when Mr. Blamey was elected mayor, there appeared certain verses on that election and the proceedings connected with it, one of the objects of which was undoubtedly to throw ridicule on Mr. Blamey. Now, gentlemen, however pleasant these things may be to others to read, it is a very unpleasant thing for a man himself to be the subject of such verses; and Mr. Blamey was exceedingly annoyed. There was however, no attack upon his character in the verses, and although he had some reason, and indeed considerable reason, to complain of what had been done by Mr. Gloyn on that occasion the verses were allowed to pass unnoticed. On another occasion of a similar kind, Mr. Blamey considered that he had reason to complain of Mr. Gloyn's conduct towards him. These were previous matters, and, of course, they furnished an additional sting to the very severe pain which Mr. Blamey suffered on reading the article which appeared in the newspaper on the 1st of November last. The article was published in the form of a letter, which was signed "Argus," and entitled—"How things are managed in Penryn." The earlier part of the letter does not apply to Mr. Blamey, but in the latter part occurs the passage, which you will see contains a gross charge against him. “As regards the municipal election, (the election then coming on,) there has been some speculation as to who will preside as the returning officer on Saturday next; the Mayor being one of the candidates—some persons thinking motives of delicacy will prevent his occupying the post, and others suggesting that he will be as equally effective as returning officer if engaged elsewhere than at the polling room; it is, however said to be arranged that Mr. Blamey is to act as deputy, and I therefore address a few words of counsel to him. Mr B., of course, has not forgotten the nice little haul he had as returning officer at the last Parliamentary election, when, after having declared in the face of his fellow citizens that he neither had received, nor would receive fee or reward for the fulfilment of the duty of his office, immediately after the election sent in a demand of £120 7s. for SUNDRIES; and that he received this amount, although no man can tell where £30 was expended by him. Mr. Blamey, therefore, not being quite pure, and moreover, being one of the faithful ten, will pardon this reference to the £120, and will agree that the remembrance of such a draw on all four candidates at the Parliamentary election should be a powerful motive for him to do what is strictly right on Saturday next. I hope, therefore, he will take and keep the Poll in such a manner that no advantage will be given to his party over their opponents; that he will prevent the intrusion of persons—not voters—to the polling room; and that he will take care the policemen are not employed in carrying messages at the last hour, so as to induce the parties to come to the poll, and thus to prevent the election of any particular candidate. I would also remind the assessors that the Municipal Act specifies the duty they have to perform, and that they are not to sit looking blank at what is going on, but to check any improper proceedings; I hope, therefore, they will do THEIR duty." If the article had been confined to reminding Mr. Blamey that he was to do his duty on that occasion, there would have been no just cause of complaint, for the conduct of public men in this country may be canvassed, and is justly canvassed very freely, but when you find this reference to the election of 1859, and that language is used which directly charges Mr. Blamey with corrupt conduct in his office as returning officer—with having made charges for his own personal benefit, and taken money (for that is the insinuation,) for the fulfilment of a duty, and a public duty that was to be performed gratuitously—then there is serious cause of complaint. Of course it went throughout the length and breadth of the county, wherever the paper circulated, that Mr. Blamey was a man charged with corruption and malversation in the discharge of the public duties of his office— with having done a dishonourable, mean and shabby thing—used his office to put money improperly into his own pocket. Of course you will be of opinion that after such an accusation as that Mr. Blamey could not remain quiet, and accordingly in order to place his character in a right position, he felt it was necessary that he should challenge the writer of the letter, whoever he might be, to the proof of the charges which he had made. Upon a correspondence with the editor or publisher of the newspaper, it turned out that Mr. Gloyn was the writer of the libel, and the action was, therefore., brought against him. I ought to tell you the manner in which Mr. Blamey acted at the election in 1859, because Mr. Gloyn has put a plea upon the record that the charges contained in his letter are well-founded. I do not know, gentlemen, whether you have any experience of election matters, but if you have you will know that £120 is not a large sum to be paid to the returning officer for all the expenses of an election. In this case there was a double borough; Falmouth and Penryn being united as happy twins for the election of members of parliament—whether they agree or not I cannot say; but polling places and poll clerks had to be provided—hustings erected, and the duties of returning officers discharged, and the peace to be kept in both. In the instance in question there were four candidates, and a hot contest, and before the election each of the candidates had sent £30 to the Town Clerk of Penryn, making £120 in all. The Town Clerk and the Mayor disbursed the money in the way they thought proper and necessary, and I am perfectly prepared to show that the whole of it was properly expended. The candidates, their agents and the election auditor were perfectly satisfied. No complaint was made by any one of them on the subject, and one of the gentlemen who was so fortunate as to be returned at that election as one of the members for the borough, is now present in court, ready to express his satisfaction with Mr. Blamey's conduct, and with the account he presented, on that occasion. That being so, the defendant must feel that there is no foundation for the plea which he has placed upon the record and in which he attempts to justify the libel which he has written. On the part of Mr. Blamey, the action is brought for the vindication of his character. He feels that he cannot live among the gentlemen of the county, and the citizens of his own borough, and hold up his head among them as he has hitherto done, while this article remains unchallenged, and while Mr. Gloyn keeps upon the record the plea that the charges are well-founded. I believe from a communication which my learned friend on the other side has made to me, that Mr. Gloyn is prepared to say that he does not charge Mr. Blamey with any corruption at all, and that my learned friend will make a communication to that effect to you in his own words. But I feel that I could not have accepted even an apology from the defendant, without having first explained in this public court—what is the charge—it has been sent through the country, and is therefore well known— which has been made against my client; what are the circumstances under which it was made; and what has been the real conduct of Mr. Blamey on the occasion to which the charge refers. Gentlemen, I have now done my duty in stating the circumstances as simply and as briefly as I could; and after the communication which I have received from my learned friend, I will not say one word to embitter the feelings or position of the parties, I trust that my learned friend will now make a statement on behalf of Mr. Gloyn which will put an end to the case, and enable Mr. Blamey to stand as highly in the estimation of the county as he has hitherto done. Mr. KARSLAKE—l think my learned friend has put the construction on this libel which anybody reading it must necessarily consider it to bear. He has told you that Mr. Blamey feels and his friends feel that the libel charges him with corruption in his office, and therefore, with being a person who could not be considered pure; and that malversation and corruption are implied by the language of the libel. On behalf of Mr. Gloyn, the writer of the letter which appeared in this newspaper, I have now to state what he is anxious to state in public, and which I have pleasure in stating for him—that he had not the slightest intention of alleging in what he wrote, that Mr. Blamey acted corruptly or extortionately in charging the amount which he did charge And he further authorizes me to say that he regrets he should have employed language upon which such a construction could be put—a construction which he wishes to disavow, no doubt, as the writer of this letter, Mr. Gloyn is liable for what he has written; but having never intended to charge corruption or malversation in office to Mr. Blamey, he desires that I should, here in public, on his behalf, state in the most unequivocal manner, that in using the language in question, he had no intention whatever to charge corruption or malversation against Mr. Blamey. On his behalf I have to express my extreme regret that he should have employed, in writing to the newspaper, language of such a character that corrupt motives and maIversation of office are understood to be attributed to Mr. Blamey; and I again beg to state on his behalf that he disavows any intention of making such charges. My learned friend is satisfied with this apology, and the case will be settled upon terms which have been arranged between us. Mr. SMITH said it had been agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff, damages 40s. The Jury then returned a verdict accordingly. His Lordship certified for a special jury. The following are understood to be the terms of settlement:—All necessary certificates for special jury, &c., should be taken; that an apology should be made; and that £25 beyond taxed costs, should be paid by defendant to plaintiff. This concluded the Nisi Prius business, and the Court proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. ELIZABETH SAMBELLS, aged 19, pleaded guilty to having on the 10th January, at Stockeclimsland, stolen two yards of cloth, some bonnet strings, and other articles, the property of her master, Wm. Michell. The prisoner's name did not appear on the calender (sic), and it was stated that the warrant for her commitment had not been received at the County Gaol. Four months hard labour. FELONY AT CALLINGTON. JANE PEARN, 38, chairmaker, was charged with having stolen a basket containing various articles of linen the property of John Henry Prideaux. Mr. Carter prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor is a draper’s assistant at Plymouth, but his friends reside at in Cornwall, and he is in the habit of sending his linen by a carrier to be washed by them. On the 30th of October, he delivered to Wm. Cock, a carrier between Camelford and Plymouth, a quantity of dirty linen to be taken to Trevadlock, which was situated close to the road between the two towns, and on the 31st Cook arrived with his waggon at Callington on his return. He stopped according to usual custom at the Bull’s Head Inn, in Callington, for a short time in order to bait his horse and refresh himself. He was almost certain that the basket was then in the van, which he left standing in the street for an hour, when he reyoked the horse and continued his journey. On reaching Trevadlock, he discovered that the basket was gone. The prisoner lodged within about 50 yards of the Bull's Head Inn, Callington, and subsequently to the basket being lost, the prisoner sold three shirts and some collars, part of the linen that was in it, together with the basket itself, to three women in Callington, giving contradictory statements to each as to the manner in which she had become possessed of the property, and on her lodgings being searched two or three weeks after, the remainder of the linen that had been lost, was found in a chest belonging to her. The prisoner on being apprehended, stated that she had found the basket on the road, a short distance from the Bull's Head Inn, and this was her defence now. The jury found a verdict of GUILTY, but in consideration of the long time she had been in prison, she was only sentenced to six weeks' hard labour. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. MARY GILES, 27, a servant, was charged with endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at Lanteglos by Camelford. Mr. Gulson prosecuted. On the 4th of August, as William Hawke, the son of a farmer, was passing through a field near Camelford, he heard some groans proceeding from a linhay or cow house in the corner. He looked in, and saw a female inside like the prisoner, but he was not able to see her features sufficiently to enable him to swear to her. There were indications on the floor which led him to suspect that she had been delivered of a child, and he thought he heard the cries of an infant proceeding from inside the linhay. In a short time after the woman emerged?, carrying a bundle, and walked away. A few days before this the prisoner met an acquaintance in Camelford, to whom she complained that she was very poorly, and was going? to a doctor. The acquaintance suspected from her appearance that the prisoner was in the family-way, and charged her with being in that condition, but she denied this positively. Young Hawke mentioned what he believed? to a policeman at Camelford, and on the latter examining the linhay, he found marks that shewed that a woman had been recently delivered there, and traced marks from the linhay to the residence of Mr. John French, with whom the prisoner lived as servant. (Her bed?) clothes likewise shewed that she had been recently delivered. She was apprehended, and was examined by Mr. Pearse, surgeon, of Camelford, who found that she had been recently delivered of a child ……. [Editor’s Note: remainder of case report illegible, except verdict of GUILTY and sentence of imprisonment with hard labour for six weeks, as she had already been in prison since the previous August] RAPE AT ILLOGAN. THOMAS HENRY TREMBATH, 18, a miner, was charged with having, in the parish of Illogan, on the 21st November, 1862, committed an assault on the person of Elizabeth Jane Trembath, a girl under the age of ten years. [Editor’s Note: remainder of case report illegible, except for verdict of GUILTY, and sentence that prisoner be kept in penal servitude for eight years.] ELIZABETH COPP, 44, pleaded guilty to keeping a disorderly house at Stratton.—SIX MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR. This concluded the business of this court, and his lordship having intimated to the jury that there would be no more prisoners for the day, discharged them shortly after three o’clock. CROWN COURT, SATURDAY, MARCH 21. At the sitting of the court this morning, the learned Judge (Mr. Justice Byles) passed sentence on prisoners who had either pleaded guilty, or had been found guilty by the jury. James Avers, aged 18, for breaking into a dwelling-house on the 10th January last. Sentenced to 5 years’ penal servitude. [Editor’s Note: Case not reported, but details of the calendar published in the Royal Cornwall Gazette of 20 March as follows: “committing a burglary in the dwelling-house of Mr. William Manuel, on the 10th of January, at Feock, and stealing one pair of socks, value 1s. and a black silk vest, value 6d., the property of Elizabeth Hannah Manuel, the said prisoner was also indicted on two other charges of burglary.”] Joseph Pascoe, 22, miner, for stealing a pair of trowsers and a pair of drawers, at Kea, on the 25th ult. Sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. [Editor’s Note: Case not reported, but details of the calendar published in the Royal Cornwall Gazette of 20 March as follows: “not educated, stealing a pair of trousers and drawers, value 8s., belonging to John Clemow …] For remainder of sentences, see individual cases above The business of the court was brought to a conclusion about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, at which time the learned judge rose and proceeded by the next train to Plymouth for London.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 10 April 1863

3. Easter Sessions The Easter General Quarter Sessions of this County were held on Tuesday at the Shirehall, Bodmin, and occupied an unusually short time, the business of the court being finished about ten o'clock in the forenoon of the second day, Wednesday. The fiscal or county business was somewhat important, but did not elicit that amount of discussion which it was expected the subject of the New Highway Act would have evoked. In consequence of the Sessions taking place so soon after the Assizes, the number of prisoners for trial was very limited; there were only eight names in the list, and some of these pleaded guilty. None of the offences with which they were charged were of serious importance. Amongst the very full bench of magistrates present we noticed, SIR COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., (chairman.) JOHN JOPE ROGERS, Esq., M.P., (chairman.) The Right Hon. The Earl of J.T.H. Peter, Esq., Mount Edgecumbe. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Lord Vivian, Lord Lieut. of R.G. Bennett, Esq. the county. N. Norway, Esq. The Hon. And Rev. J. Towns- James Trevenen, Esq. send Boscawen. R.G. Lakes, Esq. T.J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. Edwin Ley, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq. E.W.B. Willyams, Esq. Richard Davey, Esq., M.P. W.R.C. Potter, Esq. W.H.P. Carew, Esq. C.B. Kingdon, Esq. C.G.P. Brune, Esq. W. Hichens, Esq. Francis Rodd, Esq. Edmund B. Tucker, Esq. Michael H. Williams, Esq. J.C.B. Lethbridge, Esq. F.M. Williams, Esq. Rev. Thomas Phillpotts. Richard Foster, Esq. Rev. Arthur Tatham. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. John James Wilkinson. Edward Collins, Esq. Rev. Lewis Morgan Peter Edward Coode, Junr., Esq. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Richard Best, St. Columb Major, foreman. Henry Andrew, St. Austell. John Bennett, Bodmin. William Beswetharick, Bodmin. Jabez Brown, Forrabury. R. Braddon, Treneglos. T. Clarke, Bodmin. Henry Ch----e?, Bodmin Christopher Coombe, St. Austell. Alfred , St. Just. John Currah, Budock. Warren Dingle, Fowey. Richard Dingle, Callington. Amos Davey, Callington. John Dennis, Madron. George James Dymond, Liskeard. George Henry Edgecumbe, Liskeard. Richard Joseph Hoskin, Madron. John Hoskin, . Francis Hender, Liskeard. Edward Lower Johns, . John Drake Martyn, Padstow. The proclamation against vice, immorality, and profaneness having been read, the learned Chairman then delivered his CHARGE. to the gentlemen of the Grand Jury. In his opening remarks he expressed his deep regret at the absence of his friend and colleague, Mr. Sawle, who was prevented by a severe indisposition from being with them on that occasion, and he had therefore been obliged to call on him (the chairman) to take his place this day. He was sure that the gentleman’s services in this county were so highly appreciated, that they and every member of the court and the county in general would join with him in an expression of deep sorrow at his illness, and that they would also most cordially join with him in wishing that he would be soon able to resume his place amongst them. (Hear, hear). With regard to the business of the day, he was happy to inform them that the calendar which would be presented to their consideration was very light, and would probably occupy but a very small portion of their time. The calendar did not contain the names of prisoners charged with any very serious offences, but he thought it was only right to tell them that these Easter sessions could not be taken as affording a fair criterion of the state of crime in the county, inasmuch as the assizes had preceded the sessions, at such a very short interval. He regretted to say that the number of prisoners upon that occasion, as shown by the calendar, was very nearly 50, and the offences with which they were charged were many of them of a serious description. But upon the whole he had the satisfaction of stating that so far as he could judge of the number of prisoners tried and committed during the last quarter there was a slight decrease compared with the corresponding period of the year before. The number charged with felony and in custody for this offence was seven, and on the present occasion six. The total number for trial at the Easter session in 1862 was 13, and at these sessions he believed it amounted to about ten. The total number of criminal prisoners, as shown by the returns, between lady-day of 1861 and 1862 was 188 and on the present occasion it was 183, thus showing a slight diminution in number. He then stated that he had received a communication from the home office which had been addressed to the judges, chairmen of quarter sessions and recorders and mayors of boroughs, the object of which was to make a slight alteration in the present system of penal servitude, or what was called by that name. According to that it was enacted that persons who have been sentenced to penal servitude, on being tried again and sentenced to a second period of penal servitude, will not have any portion of their sentence remitted. He considered that a step in the right direction, for when they were previously tried and sentenced, they obtained a remission of part of their sentence by the ticket-of-leave system, whereas they would now be compelled to serve out the whole of the period for which they were sentenced. This was a most desirable measure, and he hoped they might expect some good results from the labours of the commission which was now sitting and making inquiries into the present state of the law on this subject. It was to be hoped that this commission would be productive of much good. It seemed also that some measures would be desired for having a police supervision exercised over those who were furnished with a ticket-of-leave. The learned Chairman then went on to say that he was happy to state there was no case in the calendar which would require many observations from him. As to the finances of the County, they were no doubt aware that a committee of gentlemen had been appointed for the purpose of taking the finances of the county under their especial supervision, and he had no doubt that these gentlemen had discharged their duties most efficiently. He would therefore, confine himself to a few general remarks as to the amount of rates required on the present occasion at the Easter Quarter Sessions of 1863. At present for the County rate and general purposes expenditure, 24 rates were required as in 1862, and the same number would be required for the present sessions. The coroners' bills in 1862 amounted to £363 14s. 8d. and at the corresponding period this year they were £358 12s 5d; the gaol expenses in 1863, at these sessions, amounted to £905 15s 2½d, and at the corresponding period of last year to £1101 7s 1d, thus showing some decrease; the hall expenses amounted to £193 17s 2d, which was a rather unusual sum, but it had been required for the lighting, ventilating and warming of the hall. Besides the general rate for the County he found that a rate of ¼? of a farthing would be required by the surveyors in the eastern divisions. The learned Chairman then dismissed the Grand Jury to their duties. NEW MAGISTRATE. John Christopher Barron Lethbridge, Esq. of Tregare, Laneast, qualified and took the necessary oaths as a County Magistrate. REPORT OF FINANCE COMMITTEE. The CHAIRMAN said the first business they had to dispose of was to receive the report of the Finance Committee which showed a balance of £6,798 17ss. 11d. He suggested, on the recommendation of the Committee that the rates should be made payable at the half quarter. A rate of three farthings in the £, amounting to £2830 17s was granted. The report was as follows:— The CHAIRMAN read the following report of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee met on the 16th day of March and found that a rate of 24-32nds of a penny would be required for the ensuing quarter, and they would recommend that all rates should be made payable at the half-quarter day. The Committee have examined the treasurer's account and find that on the 25th of March there was standing to the credit of the county, £1674 18s. 5½d. The treasurer reported at that date the balance to the credit of the county— On the Police General account £3166 18 3½ Police Superannuation do. 171 15 2 Gaol Building do. 1875 5 9 6888 17 8 Less paid on Police Building account __89 19 9 Balance £6798 17 11 As the Gaol Building Committee have finished their labours, the Finance Committee recommend that that account be closed by the transfer of the said balance to the general account. The Finance Committee would recommend that the surveyor of bridges be required to give in a detailed estimate of the probable outlay for the ensuing quarter at the half-quarter day preceding the sessions, and also that they should furnish a list of the several bridges under their care, with the sums and particulars of the outlay of each bridge during the preceding quarter. The Finance Committee have examined and approved the several coroners' bills, subject to the exceptions taken in two cases.—R. FOSTER, chairman. THE GAOL ACCOUNT. The gaol account was ordered to be closed, and a sum of £1800, to be placed to the credit of the general account. THE SURVEYORS OF BRIDGES. A rate of one eight of a farthing in the pound, amounting to £117 19s 0½d was granted for the purposes of the surveyors of bridges in the Eastern division of the County. POLICE RATE. A police rate of 24-8ths in the pound was also agreed to. The report of the Finance Committee was received and adopted on the motion of Mr FOSTER, seconded by Mr ROGERS. It was also agreed upon, that the rates should be made payable at the half-quarter, instead of quarterly as at the sessions, which was the system previously adopted. Mr. COODE explained the reason why there appeared such a large balance in hand to the credit of the police rate, which was owing to the government allowance, granted since the last sessions. THE CORONER'S BILLS. The bills of the coroners for the county were then brought up. The CHAIRMAN in the course of some remarks respecting the manner in which certain inquests had been charged, took occasion to draw the attention of Mr Hamley to an inquest which had been held by his deputy, Mr Jagoe. It was on the body of a woman in the parish of Luxulyan, on the 15th of January last. He (the chairman) had been informed that the inquest was conducted in a very hurried and improper manner, although it was generally understood that the deceased had died from injuries. So hurried were the proceedings that the jury were picked up in the streets, and one of them was a blacksmith who was brought from his forge, and who appeared in his shirt sleeves. Mr JAGOE said he did not think that the blacksmith appeared as stated, and that there was certainly nothing like haste in the conduct of the the (sic) inquest. He was particularly anxious to get all the evidence he could, and kept the inquest open as long as there was any chance of getting any additional evidence. He contended that there was no hurry in the matter. P.C. 82 was then called, and said that he summoned the jury on the occasion in question. A blacksmith was one of them. He attended the inquest five minutes after he was summoned, and appeared in his shirt sleeves. It was rumoured that the woman had been ill-treated. The CHAIRMAN: Did Mr Jagoe inquire into these circumstances? P.C. 82: Two witnesses were examined. The CHAIRMAN: Did you ask what witnesses could be produced. P.C. 82: No. The Rev. C. E. HOSKEN said that he was present at the inquest, and protested against the jury which had been called. The first witness called was the very man whom it was supposed had illtreated the woman, on whose body the inquest was held. The blacksmith was there in his shirt sleeves. The inquest was a very hurried one. It either ought not to have been heard, or more time ought to have been given in which to get evidence. The CHAIRMAN said he thought it to be his duty as magistrate, resident in the district, to bring the matter before the attention of the court. It was his opinion that the inquest was hurriedly conducted, and that if it had been properly conducted a case of manslaughter would have been found against the husband, and also against the daughter. He thought the inquest should have been adjourned, for the purpose of getting further evidence. After a discussion respecting some other inquests, Mr JAGOE asked the Chairman if the magistrates had not power if any further evidence turned up to examine it, and convict if necessary? The CHAIRMAN: Certainly. Mr JAGOE : Why was it not done then in this case? The CHAIRMAN said that although he did not know that he was bound to answer the question, yet he would inform Mr Jagoe that the reason why the magistrates had not yet taken any steps in the matter was because the young woman had been recently confined. He did not mean to say that they would get a conviction of manslaughter, but he believed there was a strong prima facie case of ill treatment against them. It was very strongly suspected that the husband had ill-used his wife. Mr JAGOE: There was no evidence of it. The subject then dropped. The Coroners' bills were then passed as follows:— Mr. Wm. Hitchens £94 15 9 Mr. Gilbert Hamley 72 11 11 Mr. John Carlyon 109 3 4 Mr. Thomas Good 41 10 6 Mr. John Jagoe 61 18 5 THE GOVERNOR’S REPORT. The report of the governor of the gaol was read, and briefly stated that the conduct of the prisoners since the last sessions was on the whole satisfactory. It also expressed the great regret of the Governor at the death of Mr Wm. Peters, clerk to the gaol, and spoke very highly of the deceased gentleman's ability and great industry. The CHAIRMAN read the report of the governor of the county gaol, as follows:— Since the date of my last report, the conduct of the prisoners has been good and orderly. I have with extreme regret to report the loss sustained by the county in the death on Sunday last the 5th instant, of Mr William Peter (sic), clerk of the county gaol, who for 20 years so zealously and faithfully filled that very onerous and responsible situation. The extent of such a loss in the establishment under my charge, it is hardly possible to estimate. His long experience and retentive memory were invaluable, and the example set by him to all the subordinate officers and others, who had occasion to transact business with him, of marked respect to those in authority, was a matter of the greatest moment in an establishment where discipline is so requisite.—The usual certificates required from the Governor, that the rules and regulations for the government of the gaol had been, as far as practicable, complied with, and that the buildings of the gaol were in good order, were appended. VISITING JUSTICES' REPORT. The report of the visiting justices expressed satisfaction with the condition of the county gaol, and it likewise expressed regret at the loss of Mr. Peters, who had been a most valued public servant. The CHAIRMAN read the following report:—The committee of Visiting Magistrates have pleasure in reporting to the magistrates in Quarter Sessions assembled, the efficient state of the gaol establishment. The committee have to report with much regret the death of a most zealous and efficient officer, Mr Peter, the clerk, and ask instructions from the Court to supply his place. The committee beg to call the attention of the Court to the present appointment of the medical officer, Mr Ward. The separate system seems to require the daily attendance of the medical officer, which is most inconsistent with the terms of Mr Ward's appointment. The ventilation of the court has been completed, and the cost exceeds the sum voted by the sum of £11, in consequence of the defective state of the original ventilating shaft; the payment of which the Committee ask for sanction. The committee ask tor the sanction of the Court for the advance of £340 on account of the ensuing quarter; that the following be the list of the Visiting Magistrates for the ensuing quarter:—N. Kendall, Esq., Sir Colman Rashleigh, C. B. G. Sawle, Esq., Richard Foster, Esq., E. Coode, Junr., Esq., N. Norway, Esq., F. M. Williams, Esq., W. B.C. Potter, Esq., Colonel Cocks, Rev. V. F. Vyvyan.—(Signed) —NICHOLAS KENDELL, Chairman. A brief discussion then ensued respecting the appointment of a clerk in the room of Mr. Peters. It appeared that the duties were of a very arduous nature, and the clerk had sometimes to be at work in the gaol from four o'clock in the morning till nine o'clock at night. In reply to Mr. Kendall, the governor stated that the salary was £70 per annum, with house, coals, and lighting. Mr. KENDALL thought that they should appoint a really good and expeditious clerk to the situation. THE SURGEON OF THE GAOL. Mr KENDALL spoke of the additional duty which the gaol surgeon, Mr. Ward, had to perform, according to the new regulation of the Home office. His attendance was required at the gaol every day, and this involved considerable additional duty, though it often occurred that his services were not required at the gaol, as it was considered to be one of the healthiest prisons in England. Mr. COODE thought that the magistrates had the power to alter the new regulation of the home office, regarding the surgeon's attendance every day at the prison. The GOVERNOR, in reply to a magistrate, said that the rule was imperative in its nature, and could not possibly be altered. It was absolutely necessary that Mr. Ward should attend the gaol every day, as his neglecting this duty might often occasion considerable inconvenience. It was then moved by Lord VIVIAN, and seconded by Mr. KENDALL, that the surgeon should have £20 added to his yearly salary. The motion was carried. Mr. CAREW thought that notice of this motion should have been placed on the agenda paper, but after a few remarks from Mr. Kendall the motion was carried, it being understood that the increased salary would commence from Lady-day in the present year. THE CLERK TO THE GAOL. The subject of appointing a successor to the late Mr. Peters was then considered. Mr. KENDALL said it required a person of great experience and ability, and a knowledge of accounts, as the duties to be performed were occasionally of a very onerous nature indeed. After some remarks from the Chairman, it was agreed that the Committee should be requested to appoint a clerk pro tem, at the same salary. The reports of the Bridge surveyors were then read. COUNTY BRIDGES. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Hickes, the surveyor of bridges in this division of the county, reported:—The work ordered at the last sessions has been completed, and most of the roads are now in a good state of repair. —in consequence of the heavy rains of this winter, part of the high wall or "stilting" that supports the road at this bridge, sank with a portion of the road, making it unsafe in its present state. I would, therefore recommend the part should at once be taken down and rebuilt, which I estimate will cost from £12 to £15. The report was adopted. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr Jenkin, the surveyor of bridges in the eastern division of the county, reported as follows:—Dunmare Bridge—The post and rail fence on the northern side of this bridge requires to be renewed. The road is very narrow at this place, and I would suggest that a wall should be built in lieu of the present insecure fence, and the road somewhat widened. The cost of this would not exceed £11. St. Neot Bridge—l have to apply for a grant of a sum not exceeding £3 10s. for cramping the granite coping of this bridge and other repairs. Painter's Bridge—l have to apply for a sum not exceeding £5 for cramping the granite coping of this bridge—making a covered drain and doing other repairs. Both these reports were adopted. Lostwithiel Bridge.—The next business was to consider the report on the state of Lostwithiel bridge, together with the plan and specification prepared by Mr Carveth, for its repair, and also to consider notice of motion given by Mr Kendall that he would ask the court to pass a sum not exceeding £25 to be laid out in ascertaining the state of the foundation of the bridge. The consideration of the report on the state of this bridge by Mr Carveth was again adjourned until the next Quarter Sessions. Mr ROGERS thought that it was advisable that the bridge should be put in a thorough state of repair and security so as to consult the public safety. Lord VIVIAN considered that if it was intended that any works of improvement in connection with the bridge should be commenced they ought to be carried on during the present summer. The surveyor, Mr. JENKIN, was of opinion that the foundations were at present in such a state, that there was no necessity for immediate action. After some further discussion the motion was agreed to, and Mr KENDALL gave another notice that he should at the next Quarter Sessions ask for £120 more to carry out the repairs, if they should be found necessary. THE ASYLUM. The report of the visitors of the lunatic asylum was read, and the accounts of the clerk and treasurer produced. From the financial statement it appeared that the total receipts were £8,585 3s. 4d., total disbursements, £8,385 15s 5d.; balance in hand in December, £199 7s. 11d. From the statement it appeared that the asylum was in a most satisfactory condition, and that its financial state was sound. The report was presented by Mr CAREW, who said that a copy of it had been sent to every member of the committee and magistrate. A AT THE ASYLUM. Mr CAREW remarked that a notice had been given by Mr Kendall for the present sessions, that a sum not exceeding £600 be granted for the erection of a steam engine at the lunatic asylum, for the purpose of pumping water, &c., but Mr Kendall was willing that his motion should stand over till the next sessions, which was accordingly done. THE COUNTY CONSTABULARY. Mr. COODE brought up the report of the committee of the County Constabulary, which was as follows:— The Police Committee met yesterday at the Chief Constable's office,—present, Mr Edward Coode, jun., chairman, Hon. and Rev. J . T. Boscawen, Mr J. T. H. Peter, Mr C. B. Kingdon, Mr C. A. Reynolds, Mr F. M. Williams, Mr J. Trevenen, and Mr D. P. Le Grice. The accounts for the last quarter were examined and approved, and the expenses allowed for the previous quarter, with vouchers for the same, were certified by the chairman as correct. Bodmin Station.—The committee approved of the arrangement entered into by Mr Shilson on behalf of the county with Mr Varcoe, the late occupier, for satisfaction of damage done to the freehold, viz., Mr Varcoe to pay £30, with the taxed costs, and to give immediate possession of the portion of the site he occupied as tenant under Miss Hamley. Mr Shilson was instructed to negotiate further with Miss Hamley as to the claim for dilapidations. Stratton Station.—A tender was received and approved, for the completion of this station according to Mr. Newport's plan and specifications, from Mr W. Cory, of Stratton, for £800, exclusive of foundations, and boundary wall and fittings. The foundations and boundary wall to be paid for by admeasurement at a fixed rate per inch of work. St. Columb Station.—A tender was received and approved for completing this station according to Mr Newport’s plan and specifications, from Messrs. Benny and Co., of St. Columb, for £899, with the same provisions as in the last case for foundations, boundary walls, and fittings. In both these cases Mr Shilson should prepare contracts in the usual terms, to be approved of by Mr Newport, with the least possible delay. The committee authorised Mr Newport to make arrangements for a clerk of the works for both these stations. Hayle.—The committee recommend the acceptance of a site, offered on lease for three lives with right of renewal if approved by the architect, Mr. Goodyear, who has been instructed to examine and report thereon. As it is desirable to lose no time, the committee recommend that an order be made authorising the Clerk of the Peace to execute the necessary conveyance on behalf of the county, provided the matter can be arranged and completed to the satisfaction of Mr Shilson, as solicitor for the county. Blue Anchor.—The committee recommend the acceptance of the liberal offer by Mr G Renfry, of a site for a station gratuitously, on condition that the same shall revert to Mr. Renfry should it ever cease to be occupied as a police station. A similar order should be made as in the last case for executing the conveyance. Mr. Goodyear has been instructed to inspect the site and prepare a plan. Magistrates' Returns of fees, allowances, and penalties.—Satisfactory returns have been received from all except the following divisions:—Stratton and Callington—No return; Camelford—No Return in a proper form, and net value taken of the penalties. Saltash.—The Chief Constable has called the attention of the committee to the fact that this borough is paying no county rate, some arrangement should be made as to the conveyance and maintenance of their prisoners. These duties being performed by the police hitherto, a claim has been made by the Chief Constable on the borough authorities, which, however, they do not so far seem inclined to admit. It is obvious that the present practice ought not to continue, as at present the borough prisoners are maintained and conveyed to prison at the expense of the county rate to which this borough does not contribute. A similar claim has been made on the Borough of East Looe, to which, owing to the illness of the town Clerk, no answer has been received. Tywardreath Station.—An alteration in this station, giving an additional bed-room, with two wash kitchens, and the substitution of wood for stone on the ground floor, which is strongly recommended by the Chief Constable, was approved by the committee. A tender for executing the whole has been given by Mr. Giles for £26 1s. Weights and Measures.—A list of days for stamping and adjusting in the various market towns for the next twelve months is appended to this report. The following sums should be charged to the County rate and credited to the Police rate:—Conveyance of prisoners, £191 9s. 7d; Coroners' inquests, £53 15s.; weights and measures, £16 15s. 3d.—total, £261 19s. 10d. A sum of £171 15s. 2d. has accrued to the superannuation fund, and should be invested as heretofore. The committee recommend a police rate of three farthings in the pound for the ensuing quarter.— Signed, EDWARD COODE, jun., chairman. Mr LE GRICE called attention to the subject of the adjustment of the weights and measures which was a matter of some importance to shopkeepers and others in trade, and he wished to know how many days in the year were appointed by the committee for this purpose. Mr. COODE said they were examined once a year. Mr LE GRICE was strongly of opinion that one day was not sufficient, and he therefore moved that two days in the year should be set apart for that purpose. Mr. ROGERS asked if, in any case of conviction for false weights and measures, it had been shown by the party convicted that they had not sufficient time to bring the measures before the inspector. Mr. LE GRICE: They had alleged it, but I can't say that it was owing to the fact of their not having sufficient time that they had the incorrect measures. Mr. KENDALL wished to hear the chief constable's opinion on the subject. Col. GILBERT replied that if two days were set apart for the purpose they would experience more difficulty in getting parties to bring their weights and measures and to have them weighed than now, when there was only one day appointed for that purpose. As it was, they had the very greatest difficulty in getting shopkeepers to attend on the proper day for the purpose of having their weights examined and verified. Mr. COODE said his opinion was that parties should have two opportunities in the course of the year; it had been discussed in committee, but they were not unanimous on the point. Mr. KENDALL asked if the Chief Constable ever had any complaints from parties that they had not sufficient opportunity for getting their weights adjusted. Colonel GILBERT: No. The CHAIRMAN thought that unless there was evidence against it two days ought to be appointed. The matter was referred to the committee. THE CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS TO THE COUNTY GAOL. Lord VIVIAN introduced the subject of those boroughs which had refused to, or did not, pay the cost for the conveyance of prisoners—a matter which had been referred to at the last sessions. The object of his motion would be to authorize the clerk of the Peace to proceed against these boroughs and enforce the payment of the conveyance of their prisoners for them. Mr COODE thought there would on this topic arise a question for the Clerk of the Peace to solicit legal opinion upon, as to the best way of proceeding in the matter. It would not do to be conveying the prisoners of these boroughs without some stipulation having been entered into for the payment of the money. Hitherto, the county had been at the expense of conveying these prisoners, and the best way would be to decline the task till they were paid for it. He should be happy to second Lord Vivian's motion on the subject. Earl MOUNT EDGCUMBE considered it to be better that it should stand over till the next quarter sessions, and in the interim some plan might be devised for arranging the difference. Lord VIVIAN thought that instructions should be given to the Clerk of the Peace to recover that which was rightly due to the county, and the responsibility of recovering the money rested entirely with the Clerk of the Peace. It appeared that the borough of Saltash was of opinion that as they paid a police rate that was enough, and that they were not liable for the expense of removal. A conversation took place as to whether, supposing a borough did not pay, that orders should be given to the police not to convey the prisoners. No motion was taken upon the latter proposition, but the resolution was unanimously agreed to. Mr COODE was of opinion that the question of the maintenance of the prisoners in the gaol was altogether distinct from that of their conveyance from the borough to the county prison. The report of the police committee was then adopted. LOAN FOR POLICE STATIONS. The Deputy-Clerk of the Peace was ordered at the last Sessions to obtain tenders for the loan of £6,000, the remaining sum of £10,000 granted at Easter Sessions, 1861, for the purpose of providing police- stations, &c. The tender of the Church of England Insurance Society for £6,000 at £4 10s. per cent. per annum was unanimously accepted. Mr. COODE said that it would be very desirable to get this £6,000 before the next sessions, and suggested the advisability of having an intermediate sessions. He also hoped that the Clerk of the Peace would limit the necessary law expenses for accepting the insurance tender, to the lowest possible charge, but while saying this he did not by any means complain of the expenses generally made and incurred by that gentleman. He merely threw out the hint for his guidance. Mr. SHILSON, (the Deputy Clerk of the Peace), said that as it was desirable to get money as early as possible, it would be well if Mr. Coode’s suggestion of having an intermediate sessions were acted upon. The 27th day of May was appointed for the holding of these sessions. DISMISSAL OF THE GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury here returned into Court, and informed the Chairman that they had completed their duties. The Chairman thanked them for their services, and dismissed them from further attendance. CHIEF CONSTABLE’S REPORT. The report of the Chief Constable was read, and the monthly returns were laid before the Court, both of which were passed. MAGISTRATES OF THE SECOND COURT. John Jope Rogers, Esq., M.P., and J. Trevenen, Esq., were appointed as presiding magistrates in the second court. THE CLERK’S FEES. Mr CAREW presented the report of the Committee as to the table of fees to be taken by clerks to the justices. Mr CAREW then proposed a resolution, which was adopted, "that the report be adopted, signed by the Chairman, and transmitted to the Secretary of State for his sanction and certificate. Mr CAREW also moved, "that the revised table of fees should form an appendix to the standing orders, that the table be printed, and a copy sent to each of the Magistrates." Mr ROGERS seconded both motions, which were unanimously adopted. THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS. Mr COLLINS rose, in pursuance of a notice he had given at the last sessions, to move that the appeal cases be taken immediately after the County business, and before the trials of prisoners. He moved this resolution believing as he did that on previous occasions a great deal of ill feeling had been created by the decision of one or two magistrates at Quarter Sessions reversing that given by the local bench when the case came before them. He instanced one occasion where in the granting of a license to a publican, the adjudication of the bench in the Petty Sessional Court was completely set aside and reversed by a smaller bench of Magistrates at the Court of Quarter Sessions, and to prevent the ill feeling that must necessarily arise in consequence he gave the present motion; he was sure that if the appeals were taken immediately after the County business was disposed of, there would be a larger attendance of magistrates, and more satisfaction would if possible be given by their decision. Mr LE GRICE seconded Mr. Collins's motion. The learned CHAIRMAN felt much delicacy in alluding to the topic, but he confessed he did not wish by any means to return to the old system followed with reference to this matter. He reminded Mr Collins that the decisions of the court below were often reversed not because there was a fuller bench of magistrates at the Quarter Sessions, but because the case when it came before that court frequently presented a different aspect to that which it had when first adjudicated upon. It often happened that fresh evidence was elicited in the interim between the two hearings and on the whole he considered that the hearing of the appeal cases at the time suggested by Mr Collins, would be attended with much inconvenience, to jurymen and others. For instance, let them take that day as an example; if they took the appeal cases that day (had there been any) after the county business, they would not have finished, and then those persons summoned on the petty jury would have to wait till the following day, and would thus lose a day unnecessarily. He doubted very much whether in practice Mr Collins's motion would have resulted in that benefit which it was intended to have. He thought that it was very likely the magistrates would leave the court when an appeal case was called on, just as they did now, for it was very seldom those dry and protracted cases presented any features of interest or importance. He thought that those gentlemen who were interested in the appeal should attend, and they would by their presence on the bench have an opportunity of taking part in the decision that might be arrived at. Mr ROGERS agreed with his brother chairman that it was not advisable to alter the practice now prevalent, as by the adoption of Mr Collins's motion they would incur considerable additional expense to the county. They knew from their own experience that very often the county business was protracted to a late hour, and they were in consequence not able to commence the trials that day, and if they altered the practice they would have to devote another whole day to the appeals, which would frequently extend to another day. He considered that it would be inconvenient to both magistrates and jurymen who were summoned to appear at the court. Mr COODE said he quite agreed with what had fallen from the two chairmen. There was one other way; they might perhaps summon the jury for the second day. Mr COLLINS: That is what I should propose. Mr COODE said that the result would then often be that the county business might be concluded at about three o'clock in the afternoon. There might then be no appeals, and the Chairman would be compelled to stop a day longer than he would otherwise have to do. The plan had already been tried in his father’s lifetime, and abandoned on account of its inconvenience. Mr. COLLINS then withdrew his motion. THE HIGHWAYS. At the last sessions a committee was formed consisting of two magistrates from each petty sessional division to take into consideration the provisions of the highway act, with a view to recommending into what divisions the county should be apportioned for the best and most effectual adoption of the Act. Mr W. H. P. Carew brought up the report, he having been the chairman at the meeting of the magistrates—divisional districts were recommended. The hon. magistrate read a very long statement respecting the proposal, which is given below. He did not put it in as the report of the committee, as he had no means of submitting it to them. The report itself was confined to this recommendation as to the divisional districts. The following is the report read by Mr Carew:— A committee was appointed at the Easter (sic) Sessions to take into consideration the provisions of the Highway Bill Act, with a view of recommending into what divisions the county should be apportioned for the best and effectual adoption of the Act. A meeting was held at St. Austell on Friday, the 6th of February, 1863, at which twenty-eight county magistrates, representing every petty sessional district, attended. The main object of the act seems to be to place the management of the highways and the control over the expenditure of the roads under boards analogous, in their constitution, to boards of guardians; and the first duty of such boards is to appoint a treasurer, a collector and district surveyor, and they may also, if they think fit, appoint an assistant overseer. Now, it must be manifest that the principal benefit which would result from the adoption of the act would depend upon and be measured by the efficiency of the persons appointed surveyors. The services of such surveyors cannot be received without giving pretty handsome salaries, and it will be necessary also to pay a moderate salary to a clerk and a treasurer. To meet these expenses, and to make their incidence as light as possible it is obvious that the highway district should be as large as can be properly managed by one surveyor and one assistant. The first practical question then for the committee was, what extent in mileage of highways can one surveyor or one surveyor and one assistant efficiently superintend. There is no doubt that this would vary in different districts according to the traffic on the road, the facility of getting material, its quality, &c. Still, over a large area mileage will be the closest guage (sic) of the amount of trouble and labour required for the superintendence of the roads. As the arrangements contemplated by this act have been for some time in operation in South Wales, it was thought that the best grounds for forming an opinion on the subject might be derived from the experience of that part of the country. Information was therefore sought from thence, and most obligingly supplied by the chairman of the county road board of Pembrokeshire, both by giving his own opinion of the working of the system and by furnishing statistical returns. He says:—"With regard to one of your questions, whether I think the larger or the smaller districts work best, I should say for the purpose of securing good roads, so far as the experience of this county is concerned, the smaller, but it must be borne in mind that in introducing a new system into a county we have to consider not only what is absolutely best, but also what the people will like, and in order to meet the strong feeling that generally exists against the multiplication of paid officers, the districts were made larger here than, looking to the good management of roads ought to have been adopted." Now, to understand, what is here meant by large and small districts, it may be well to state in this place that highway districts in Pembrokeshire average somewhat over 152 miles, in Radnorshire, 102, in Glamorganshire 106, in Carmarthenshire 122, and in the whole of south Wales 117 miles. Further information has been most kindly supplied by Mr. James Howard, who has been for upwards of twenty years the surveyor of the Exeter Turnpike Trust, and has about 200 miles under his superintendence, consisting of roads from 25 to 50 miles in length, radiating from Exeter, where the surveyor resides. He says, "You must bear in mind that the intricacy of parish roads is such that a distance of 200 miles is more than a surveyor could properly accomplish with one horse, but if an assistant was appointed without a horse to look after roads of light traffic, &c., to assist the surveyor in keeping the account, preparing notices and various other matters required to be done by the surveyor, they could together accomplish 250 miles with much more satisfaction than the surveyor alone could accomplish 200 miles or even 180 miles.'' He further states, "I find that one horse cannot do my work, and I have always been obliged to keep a second horse. I have been obliged to sign more than a thousand notices to parties to cut up their hedges, clear water-tables, and as well as to attend various magistrates' meetings, &c., and you will easily imagine the additional number of notices and additional work, which a highway surveyor would have to do for the same number of miles." Now, a general opinion prevailed in the committee that it would not be desirable to form a new divisional system in the county, and that it would be better to adopt either the poor law unions in the petty sessional districts, or the basis of the highway districts. It appeared from the items which had been furnished from all parts of the county, and from references to meetings, showing the poor law unions and the petty sessional divisions, that not only did the mileage of the latter come more within the limits which had been ascribed to the powers of surveyors in the evidence produced, but that also their confirmation was more compact, and that, therefore, the surveyors having charge of them would waste time in their superintendence. A further reason for preferring the petty sessional divisions will be obvious, when it is remembered that the law is not changed, as regards proceedings at petty session, and that the work which may be now transacted by waywardens at petty sessions, will have to be carried out by the surveyors under this act. But waste of time would therefore arise from the surveyor having to attend different magistrates' meetings for the different boards of his district. On these grounds the committee decided, with scarcely one dissentient voice, to recommend that the petty sessional divisions, or sections of them, shall form the highway districts. It was intended that these resolutions should leave it open to magistrates in their own localities to divide the larger petty sessional districts into two for highway purposes, as it was believed that one at least, namely, the Hundred of West, was far too large for one highway district, and would indeed form two of the total average extent; but it was not considered within the department of the committee to do more than recommend the general basis. An abstract is appended of their returns of mileage from the various petty sessional districts, together with the average cost per mile. The mileage is supposed not to be absolutely correct, but still to afford an approximate estimate of the districts, for comparison, although comparisons may not be of much avail, without a knowledge of concurrent circumstances; it may be stated that Carmarthenshire, the largest county in South Wales, contains 189,258 miles of highway. The average amount per mile last year, exclusive of salaries, was £4 13s. 6d.; inclusive of salaries, £5 7s. 3d. In this county, the average cost per mile is £6 18s. 3½d.—Signed by W. S. H. P. Carew. The committee met at St. Austell, on the 6th of February, the following magistrates being present, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr Kendall, the Hon. and Rev. Mr Boscawen, Mr. Peter, Mr Trevennen, Mr Hitchens, Mr B. Willyams, Mr Rodd, Mr Davey, Mr Kelly, Mr P. Carew, Mr Robartes, Mr Borlase, Mr Coode, jun., Mr Bolitho, Rev. G. Glanville, Rev. Mr Wilkins, and Rev. Mr Peter. Mr P. Carew was called to the chair, and the resolutions agreed to were, first, that the petty sessional divisions, or sections of them, should form a highway district, and that the committee recommend the court of Quarter Sessions that the county be divided into the following highway districts, enumerating the petty sessional districts by name. It was, however, distinctly understood that these resolutions do not express any opinion against the sub-divisions of very large petty sessional division and the amalgamation of two small ones for highway purposes. Lord VIVIAN moved, and Mr KENDALL seconded, that the report be received, which was agreed to. The statement was ordered to be appended to it. Lord VIVIAN thought it desirable that the county should be brought under the operations of the Act as soon as possible. He thought that it would in a short space of time effect a saving to the ratepayers. The Hon. and Rev. T. BOSCAWEN and Mr EDWARD COLLINS agreed with his lordship. A discusssion (sic) ensued upon the matter, in which the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe, Lord Vivian, Mr Robartes M.P., Mr Carew, Mr Coode and other magistrates joined. Lord VIVIAN moved that the court should adopt the recommendation of the committee. He wished to have it brought into action as soon as possible. The CHAIRMAN thought that it would be better to appoint five magistrates to consider the report. The Earl of MOUNT EDGCUMBE, in the course of some remarks, said that he approved of the plan of divisions. The Hon. and Rev. Mr BOSCAWEN seconded Lord Vivian's resolution. Mr COLLINS expressed a hope that the county would be brought under the operations of the act, for in most of the parishes the waywardens seemed determined to do nothing to the roads till they saw whether the bill was adopted or not. He was in favour of Lord Vivian's motion. Mr KENDALL asked if the notice given by the five magistrates would be considered binding on the whole county. Lord VIVIAN said that the Clerk of the Peace would be instructed to advertise that such and such districts were to be divided into highway districts. The subject would of course come under discussion at the next sessions, as the notice by the five magistrates would merely be the initiatory step. After some brief discussion it was agreed that the court should adopt the recommendation of the committee. This motion was proposed by Lord VIVIAN and seconded by the Hon. and Rev. J. T. BOSCAWEN, and, after some discussion, carried by a majority of 17 to 6. THE CALLINGTON HIGHWAY. Mr EDWARD COLLINS moved the confirmation of a provisional order made at the last Michaelmas Sessions, constituting certain parishes in the county of Cornwall a highway district by the name of the "Callington Highway District." Several magistrates having expressed their opinions that the subject had better be postponed for the present, it was allowed to drop. THE SALMON FISHERIES’ ACT. Mr KENDALL gave notice on the 16th of March that at these Sessions he would move that an application be made to the Home Office to alter the close season of the Rivers Fowey and Camel from the first day of September and the first day of February to the twentieth day of October and the twentieth day of March, under the provisions of the statute, 24th and 26th Vic., cap. 109, sec.18. Mr KENDALL called the evidence of Col. Gilbert (Chief constable of the county), two fishermen named William Smith and George Clymo, besides asking the opinion of the magistrates present. The hon. member then altered the twentieth of March to the first of April, when the proposition, which had occasioned a rather long debate, was put to the vote. For, 16; against, 3. The motion was accordingly carried. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF PRISONERS. The CHAIRMAN explain that although the following notice had been entered in his name, the only thing he had to do with it was that the petition had been put into his hand. It was stated that (Sir Colman Rashleigh) would lay before the court a copy of the petition of the Scottish Reformation Society against “A bill for the amendment of the law relating to the religious instruction of prisoners in county and borough prisons in England and Scotland” transmitted to him by the secretary of the society. Sir Colman laid the petition on the table. This concluded the regular business contained on the agenda paper. Mr. W.H.P. CAREW then drew the attention of the court to the Assessment Act. It was the general opinion that the present position of the Assessment Act was most unsatisfactory, and that the sooner some definite understanding was arrived at the better. The county business terminated at five o'clock, having lasted nearly six hours.

TRIALS OF PRISONERS. ROBBERY AT UNY LELANT. RICHARD LEVARTON EDWARDS, 19, miner, pleaded guilty to having stolen one pair of boots, the property of Christopher Edwards, at the parish of Uny Lelant, on the 15th of March last. He was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour, a previous conviction having been proved against him. BURGLARY AT MINSTER. WILLIAM REED, 20, labourer, pleaded guilty to having broken into the dwelling house of Nancy French, in the parish of Minster, on the 16th March last, and stealing therefrom a loaf of bread and some apples, the property of Nancy French. Sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, there having been a previous conviction proved. LARCENY AT FALMOUTH. JOHN MASTERSON, sailor, was indicted for stealing a watch and chain, and a purse containing £1 1s 3d, the property of Thomas Driver Reed, at Falmouth, on the 22nd March last. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was not defended. Mr Comming prosecuted. It appeared that the prosecutor is the master of the schooner Lady of the Lake, which was lying in Falmouth harbour, and on the night of the 22nd ult. prosecutor retired to his berth, leaving his watch and his purse on a table within a few yards of his bed, and next morning when he and the mate, James Finch, got up they found the articles missing. Early that morning the prisoner was seen by a waterman named Mutton, loitering about the docks, and in the course of the day day (sic) P.C. Prater found the prisoner with the stolen watch in his possession, and in the evening a sovereign and some other money of which he could not give a satisfactory account were found concealed in his clothes. The prisoner, who said that he had bought the watch, was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. FALSE PRETENCES. MARTHA BRAY, 14, who works at a mine, pleaded guilty to unlawfully obtaining by false pretences three pairs of boots, from Anne Opie, with intent to defraud. The prisoner who had been previously convicted was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. BREACH OF THE PEACE. MARY JANE TREMBATH, 23, charwoman, was brought up, she being unable to procure sureties for her good behaviour towards Richard Deeble Rogers, at Fowey. Mr. Sobey who appeared for Mr. Rogers, was willing to withdraw the charge, if the prisoner would undertake not to annoy his client for the future, and she promising to do so, she was discharged. The court was then adjourned to nine o'clock next morning. WEDNESDAY. Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, R. Foster, Esq., and R.G. Lakes, Esq. FELONY AT FALMOUTH. GEORGE STONE, 20, mariner, was indicted for having, at Falmouth, on the 6th April, stolen three pieces of butcher’s meat from the house of James Kingdon, who keeps the Dock Inn, at Falmouth. Mr. Comming prosecuted. On the day named the prisoner and another man, named Cock (sic), went into the prosecutor's house where they had some drink, and after they left the meat was missed from a cupboard near the bar, to which the prisoners could have access. The prisoner was found by the policeman in the evening, when a piece of meat was found in his pocket. The prisoner was found not guilty, and was acquitted.—WILLIAM COX, 30, labourer, pleaded guilty, to the same charge, and was sentenced to two months imprisonment with hard labour; a previous conviction having been proved against him. BURGLARY AT LANTEGLOS BY CAMELFORD. JAMRS (sic) CLARKE, 20, labourer, was charged with having broken and entered the dwelling-house of Joseph Colledge, with intent to commit a felony therein, at Lanteglos by Camelford, on the 1st April. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Shilson prosecuted. The prisoner was seen coming out of the prosecutor's house about noon on the day of the robbery, and when the door was opened a desk and several other things were found thrown in a disordered state on the ground, a window having been broken and through which the prisoner effected an entrance. A policeman, P.C. Benney, who was passing by at the time, gave the prisoner chase and apprehended him after a smart run of some few hundred yards, but there was no stolen property found in his possession. Benney, the policeman, was called, and stated that when passing by the prosecutor's house on the day of the robbery, his attention was attracted to it by hearing a noise made inside, as if some one were hammering, and he called the servant girl, who opened the door, and looking in, saw there was a man inside. Immediately after he saw the prisoner getting out of a window in the house, and he ran after him, and came up with nearly two hundred yards from the cottage, when he was taken into custody. The prisoner was found guilty, and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. THEFT AT LAUNCESTON. An elderly man, THOMAS KITTO, was indicted for having stolen twelve gallons of oats, the property of John Steer, on the 24th March, at Launceston. He pleaded not guilty, ad was defended by Mr. Marrack of the firm of Messrs. Hodge, Hockin, and Marrack, and the case for the prosecution was conducted by Mr. Shilson. The prosecutor is a maltster, and his premises are contiguous to a stable kept by the prisoner, and for some time the prosecutor had missed considerable quantities of corn taken from his store, and being determined to find out who was the rogue mixed some high-dried malt with the oats. Some time after he had suspicion that the prisoner was the person who committed the robbery, and on a search being made at his stable there was found a bag of oats, mixed with some malt which was immediately identified by the prosecutor as his property. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. This concluded the business.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 3 July 1863

4. Midsummer Sessions The Midsummer General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County of Cornwall, were commenced in the County Hall, on Tuesday last. Mr J. J. Rogers, M.P., presided in the place of Mr. C. B. Graves Sawle, whose recent indisposition prevented him from undertaking that duty. The following magistrates were present:— Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Chairmen. Mr. Sawle. Lord Vivian, N. Norway, Esq., Hon. J. T. Boscawen C.A. Reynolds, Esq. R.G. Bennet, Esq., F. Rodd, Esq. T.S. Bennet, Esq., F. R. Rodd, Esq., W. H. P. Carew, Esq., J. Trevenen, Esq., Col. Cocks, J. Tremayne, Esq., Col. Coryton, Capt. Trist, Edward Coode, jun., Esq., S.U.N. Usticke, Esq., E. Collins, Esq., F.M. Williams, Esq., R. Foster, Esq., M.H. Williams, Esq., D.P. Le Grice, Esq., W. Williams, Esq., W.D. Horndon, Esq., Rev. J. Glanville, J. Hichens, Esq., Rev. T. Pascoe, J. Haye, Esq., Rev. S. Symonds, N. Kendall, Esq., M.P., Rev. U. Tonkin, C. Kingdon, Esq., Rev. J.J. Wilkinson, R.G. Lakes, Esq., Rev. V.F. Vyvyan, E. Ley, Esq., Rev. A. Tatham. The following were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. W.H. Jenkins, spirit dealer, Truro, foreman. Mr. John Allen, Kenwyn. Mr. John Allen, Alternun. Mr. Martin Body, Callington. Mr. Joseph Boyd, Calstock. Mr. Frederick Barwis, Falmouth. Mr. G.S. Brendon, St. Mary Magdalene. Mr. Richard Carnell, Fowey. Mr. Ely Cuttance, Falmouth. Mr. George Chapman, Treneglos. Mr. J.E. Downing, Falmouth. Mr. R.E. Daniel, Mylor. Mr. Philip Dawe, Penryn. Mr. Thomas Glasson, Kenwyn. Mr. John Gatley, Bodmin. Mr. Richard Grose, Bodmin. Mr. Joseph Hockin, Paul. Mr. John , Madron. Mr. John Thomas, jun., Gulval. Mr. James Trembath, Gulval. Mr. James Trezise, St. Just in Penwith. Mr. Henry Wright, Paul. Mr. Thomas Martin, Wadebridge. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:—Mr. Thomas Langman, St. Mary Magdalene; Mr. W. Wade, Redruth; Mr. John Webber, St. Austell; and Mr. T. Williams, St. Blazey. Her Majesty’s proclamation against vice, profanity, and immorality having been read, The CHAIRMAN said—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—It becomes my duty, in place of my honourable friend and colleague Mr. Sawle, to address you today, before we proceed to business. My brother magistrates, I know, will agree with me that we ought to congratulate ourselves on seeing him amongst us again, after the serious illness he has had, and I hope we shall very soon have the pleasure and advantage of seeing him again occupying the chair, and performing his magisterial duties. In noticing the calendar which has been presented for your consideration, I shall have but few observations to make. In the first place, although the calendar contains, numerically, rather a large number of charges—that is to say, 44, including felonies and misdemeanors, this time, against 41 at the corresponding sessions of last year; yet you will be glad to hear that, taking all classes of the crimes into consideration, it is not what one would call a heavy calendar, the majority of the cases being of an ordinary character. It is gratifying to see that, although the number of prisoners exceeds that of the corresponding period of last year, yet, within the last quarter, there is every reason to draw the conclusion that there is not only not an increase, but a considerable diminution in the number of offenders admitted to the gaol. The grand total of the prisoners received during the past quarter is 159, against 197 in the corresponding quarter of last year; showing a diminution of not less than 41, which you will, I think, agree with me in looking upon as a very favourable state of the county. With regard to the nature of the cases, although, as I have said before, the crimes charged are not generally of a heavy character, yet there are many which, for the number of witnesses to be examined, will occupy much of your time. The first case that occurs to me, to which I will draw your attention, is numbered 14 in the calendar. A man named Michael Harris, is charged with wilfully and maliciously maiming a horse belonging to a neighbour—a brother-in-law of his own. Now, I should tell you, that in point of law there is no necessity that it should be proved to you that there was any malice in the mind of the man who committed the offence, in order to enable you to find a true bill. The prisoner lived very near the prosecutor, and you will learn from the depositions and from the evidence which will be produced before you, that a conversation took place between the prisoner and the prosecutor shortly before the transaction, and you will have to consider whether that evidence, combined with other, is sufficient to connect him with the offence. You will hear that on Saturday night, the prosecutor put his horse into a field, where he left him, and on Sunday morning, on going to look at the animal, he found that the tongue of the poor creature had been cut out by the roots. The tongue was afterwards found, and there can be no doubt that it was wilfully cut out of the poor dumb creature by some person. There were footmarks near the place which were afterwards compared with the prisoner's shoes and found to correspond. I need scarcely tell you that proof of guilt by means of such tracing as this alone is not very satisfactory. But combined with this there is the conversation alluded to, and other additional evidence tending to connect the prisoner with the offence. You will, therefore, have to judge from the whole whether it is sufficient to justify you in finding a bill. The next case to which I will draw your attention is numbered 30 in the calendar. A man named Mark Hawken is charged with demanding money by means of threats, with intent to steal it. Now the law is that if a person uses threats towards another for the purpose of inducing him to part with money, he commits the offence charged in this indictment. Previously attempting to obtain money by means of threats, formed a different offence to where the money was actually paid, but a case had been recently decided which altered the law upon this point, and now although the money has been actually given, the men receiving it may be charged with the offence named in the indictment. However, what you have to turn your attention to is this—was the prosecutor induced to part with his money in consequence of threats used towards him by the prisoner? If you are satisfied that such was the case, you will find a true bill. The next case is that of a girl named Ann Maria Magor, named 32 in the calendar, who is charged with stealing four pairs of boots. It is a somewhat peculiar case, and I will tell you what the law is in the matter. The evidence is not that she stole the boots herself, but what she did was to employ a little boy who was induced by her to go to a shop and represent that he was sent there by a to ask for some boots. The shopkeeper, who knew the person named, though she did not know the boy, was induced to believe that the customer sent for the boots, and accordingly gave them to the boy. The prisoner, who was outside, received the boots from the hands of the boy, and went and used them as her own property. Now, the law is that although the prisoner did not take the boots with her own hands, yet if it is proved that she induced this little boy to take them, and received them from him afterwards, she is as much guilty as if she had gone to the shop and taken the boots away herself. The next case to which I will draw your attention is a charge of sheep stealing, against Richard Hole. It is numbered 37 in the calendar, but the depositions have not yet been placed in the hands of the court. It is very reprehensible in the magistrates' clerk to have omitted to return the depositions in so important a case, and I think it is a case in which the expenses should not be allowed. However, gentlemen, you are no doubt familiar with such cases, and will be able to deal properly with it. These are the only cases of felony to which I shall call your attention; but there are three cases of assault, which vary much in character. Two of them happened in this town. One of these is a charge against John Oats Chaffers, numbered 43 in the Calendar. The case is a peculiar one, and will require your careful attention. It seems that Chaffers and the prosecutor, Robert Spry Reed, were men belonging to the Cornwall Rangers Militia. They were both up on duty at Bodmin, and had been firing together upon the training ground. On returning home, it appears that Chaffers was walking along the road by himself towards his billet, when Reed overtook him, and went on before him some distance till he came to his billet, and when about to enter he turned round and found Chaffers presenting his rifle at him. Chaffers immediately fired and struck him in the face with a blank cartridge, with which he was nearly stunned, and very much injured. Now, in this case it was either a pure accident or it was a foolish wanton act. If you are satisfied that it was merely an accident, that Chaffers was discharging his rifle in the air, and that Reed, in turning round put himself in the way of the charge, there would be no bill; but if on the other hand you are satisfied that Chaffers was heard to say before this occurrence (as will be asserted in evidence) that he had two blank cartridges, and that he was going to have a lark with Reed, and that he purposely loaded his piece with one of them, and discharged it at Reed, the case is made out. The next case was a charge against John Williams, also a member of the Cornwall Rangers. It is numbered 41 in the Calendar. He is charged with assaulting a woman named Anne Cock. I hardly know at present in what form the case will be presented to you, but it is a case in which the evidence may probably support a conviction for a very serious charge—no less than of rape; or it may amount simply to an assault. Much will depend upon the character of the evidence given by the prosecutrix herself, and you will have to give it your most careful consideration. She states that she was a stranger in the town, and that the occurrence took place at night. If her statement be correct, she was certainly very badly used by the prisoner and two others. The last case upon which I will comment is of a very unusual character. It is a charge of assault against Richard Puckey, and the case is numbered 42 in the calendar. From the evidence it appears that the prisoner was an old man employed as a sick nurse in the hospital ward of the union house, at St. Austell. He seems to be a man of very rough character in respect to his dealings with the patients. The evidence is confined exclusively to the inmates in the union house, no medical man having been, as I understand, called in; therefore you must exercise your discretion as to the way in which the evidence will be given; because, if it turns out that the evidence is reliable, and that he really used such brutal conduct towards the two poor men, he is charged with assaulting, both of whom I am sorry to say, died shortly after the occurrence which forms the indictment; if you believe that the witnesses gave an accurate account of the way in which the prisoner treated these unfortunate men, you can hardly shrink from the conclusion that the charge is made out against him. But it is not merely careless conduct towards the poor men, however much we may regret it, and especially when used towards pauper patients, that would render a man liable to a criminal charge such as that preferred against the prisoner. I understand from the medical officer that the prisoner himself is now so unwell that he will be unable to attend at these sessions to take his trial. Nevertheless, it will be your duty to inquire into the case, and the man can afterwards be put upon his trial. These are all the cases upon which I will trouble you with any observations. It has been customary, however, to make some remarks to the Grand Jury on these occasions with respect to other matters of county interest. With regard to the alterations of the dietary scale in the county gaol, I understand from the governor that it is working very satisfactorily. At the end of the coming quarter we shall be able to say that it is working, and as far as I know, I think we shall find that it is not only working economically, but that it is materially improving the health of the prisoners. In fact, the health of the gaol was never in a better condition than it is now. The finance committee has presented a short report in which they recommend that a general county rate be levied of one farthing, or eight thirty-seconds of a penny. This will cover all expenses, including county bridges. The police committee will require twice that amount, namely a half-penny, or sixteen thirty-seconds of a penny. This is found necessary in consequence of the resolution passed at the last sessions. By the next sessions the new system will be in full operation, and we shall be able to go on more regularly. By some misadventure one of the coroner's bills has not reached our hands, and I shall not therefore trouble you with the bills, because I am unable to give the full amount. I trust, however, that the bill will arrive before the closing of the court, and if so, I shall announce it, so that the total amount may be published in the county newspapers. Mr Francis Rashleigh Rodd, of , qualified as a magistrate for the county of Cornwall. COUNTY FINANCES. The CHAIRMAN read the following report from the Finance Committee:— The Finance Committee have examined the Treasurer’s Accounts, and find the balances in the Treasurer's hands, at the 24th of June, to be— General Account £ 6,733 17 6½ Police ditto 2,818 12 11½ Ditto Building Account 5,871 0 9 Superannuation 172 6 10 £15,625 18 1 The Finance Committee require a rate of 8-32nds for general purposes. The several coroners' bills have been received and examined, and are recommended for adoption with the exception of Mr Hichens's, which has not been presented. The Bridge Surveyor's Bills have been examined and allowed. The committee do not recommend a separate levy for bridges, but propose paying the bridge surveyors by an order on the county treasurer for the future. The Finance Committee beg to call the attention of the Deputy Clerk of the Peace to the disallowance of the expense of the removal of a convict to the Catholic reformatory, because the order "did not emanate from the Secretary of State."—RICHARD FOSTER Sir COLMAN RASHEIGH wished to ask whether the attention of the Clerk of the Peace had been called to this disallowance by the Secretary of State of the expense of the removal of the boy to the Catholic Reformatory; and also whether he was aware of any clause in the Act of Parliament which justified the Home Office in refusing the charge. The Clerk of the Peace replied that he understood the boy was removed by an order of magistrates to the Catholic Reformatory at Hammersmith, last July, and that the expense was disallowed because an application had not been made first to the Secretary of State for permission. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said the order of removal did not emanate from the quarter sessions, but from the petty sessions at Penryn. After a short discussion, the Clerk of the Peace was directed to ascertain whether there was any clause in the act which justified the refusal to allow the expenses of removal, and if not, then to write to the Secretary of State explaining the circumstances of the case, and ask that the expenses be allowed. NEGLECTING TO RETURN DEPOSITIONS. The depositions in the case of Richard Hole, charged with stealing a ewe sheep and lamb, at Lanteglos-by- Camelford, were then handed in by a police officer, who said that he had received them on the previous night from Mr King, of Camelford, the magistrates' clerk, who requested him to hand them in to the court. The CHAIRMAN remarked that the depositions ought to have been returned before, the man having been committed so long ago as the 3rd May, and he thought that this was a case of such gross neglect that the expenses ought not to be allowed to Mr King. The Court, on being appealed to, took a similar view of the matter to the chairman, and disallowed the expenses. CORONERS' BILLS. The following accounts were presented by the County Coroners:— Mr Carlyon, 27 inquests £99 15 10 Mr Hamley, 14 ditto 63 16 10 Mr Jago, 9 ditto 45 0 9 Mr Good, 15 ditto 48 4 6 The CHAIRMAN said that he could not state the amount of the Coroners bills, as the account of Mr Hichens had not been received, but he trusted that it would be handed in before the adjournment of the Court, and if so he would make it public. COUNTY GAOL. The Chairman read the report of the Governor of the County Gaol as follows:— Since the date of my last report nothing worthy of any special remark has occurred. The conduct of the prisoners, generally, has been good and orderly. The usual certificate required of me I have the honour to annex:—I hereby certify that the rules and regulations for the government of this gaol have been, as far as practicable, complied with. I further certify that the buildings of the gaol are in good order.—H. G. COLVILL, Governor. The report was adopted without discussion. The CHAIRMAN next read the report of the Visiting Committee of the gaol:—The Committee of Visitors of the gaol have pleasure in reporting the efficient state of the whole prison and staff. The Committee having selected out of a list of 41 candidates, Mr Howard, late of Fareham, to be clerk, in the room of the late Mr Peters, recommend his being appointed. The Committee apply for the sum of £30 in order to adapt the present temporary washhouse into a shed for picking oakum, which will thus give them 15 additional cells, and also £340 for the current quarter. The Committee submit the following list of magistrates for the new committee. Signed, Richard Foster, Edward Collins, Nevill Norway, Nicholas Kendall. List referred to:—N. Kendall, Esq., Sir C. Rashleigh, Bart., C. G. B. Sawle, Esq., R. Foster, Esq., E. Coode, Esq., N. Norway, Esq., Fred. M. Williams, Esq., W. R. C. Potter, Esq., E. Collins, Esq., Colonel Cocks, Rev. V. F. Vyvyan. Mr N. KENDALL said that he wished to explain that Mr Ward, the surgeon of the gaol, had applied for an increase of salary, under these circumstances. When he was appointed to the office, it was stipulated that he should attend at the prison twice in the week, for which his salary was to be £80 per annum. But by the Act of Parliament, since passed, he was required to visit the gaol every day in the week, on the whole seven days, and he asked for an increase of salary to compensate him for the additional labour which had thus been thrown upon him. The Visiting Committee had enquired as to the increase he would expect, and they had ascertained that a salary of £100 per annum, or an increase of £20 per year to his present salary, would satisfy him. At the request of the committee he had given notice of his intention to move that the salary be increased £20 per annum, to commence from Lady-day, and he now proposed a motion to that effect. Mr. C.B.G. SAWLE seconded the motion, which was carried nem. dis. The CHAIRMAN stated that the gross amount of the expenses of the gaol for the past quarter had been £716 19s 11d,, which was rather less than for the previous quarter. They were beginning to get the prison into thorough working order, and the probability was that the expenses would decrease, and that there would be no extra expenses in future. The hall expenses amounted to £6 7s. 8d. The report of the Visiting Committee was adopted, and the expenses of the gaol and hall were allowed. Mr. KENDALL said that another matter had been brought under notice of the Visiting Committee with respect to which they wished to have the opinion of the magistrates present. Mr. Porter, the architect of the gaol, had sent the following letter to Mr. Norway:— 16, Russell-square, June 24, 1863. Dear Sir,—As you have conferred with me more than once on the subject of the Bodmin Gaol accounts, and were, I believe, appointed by the committee to make some investigations therein, and draw up some report thereon, you will perhaps allow me to consider you as the proper person to whom I should make my present application, instead of to the chairman, as I am not certain of his being in Bodmin for the present sessions. I write with reference to Mr. Vickary, whose certificate I sent to the committee last October, and for whom I received the enclosed order on the County Treasurer for £14 15s. 11d. The amount of the balance claimed by Mr. Vickary was £73 18s. 2d., and he is very much dissatisfied at the large deduction I found it necessary to make from his account; the more so as the work was not remuneraaive (sic) to him. He has since supplied the nozzle for the fountain, and consequently I am constrained to make him the allowance for it, of the sum I had deducted, viz., £3. He at the same time urges me very anxiously to make him an allowance for the bill he paid to Messrs. Goodyear for the brick piers which had to be built under the supply cisterns, above the cells throughout the building. He has satisfied me that he did not, in making his calculations for the water-supply, allow anything for this work, and his estimate, had he done so, would have been increased proportionately thereby. Taking all things into account, I feel disposed to recommend the committee to obtain a final settlement with Mr. Vickary, and I think it may be done on the terms stated in the enclosed bill as altered by me, making the amount £33 9s. 5d., instead of £14 15s. 11d., as formerly certified by me. It is a question of £15 13s. 6d. for the committee to consider, and rather than have a dispute with him for such an amount, it would be best, in my opinion, to pay him. Whatever else may be urged on the subject, it ought not, I think, to be forgotten that Mr. Vickary’s tender for the works was several hundreds below the others who competed against him, which is my reason for now recommending the committee to settle with him on the terms stated.—I remain, dear sir, yours faithfully, FREDERICK WM. PORTER. Neville Norway, Esq. Mr. KENDALL remarked that as far as his own opinion went, he should say Mr. Vickary had no claim upon them beyond the amount that had been certified by Mr. Porter. That gentleman was employed by them to check the accounts, and having done so, and certified as to the amount due, he now wrote to say that in consequence of having been very much pressed and urged by Mr. Vickary, he was disposed to make an additional allowance. He did not see that Mr. Vickary was entitled to the £3 for the nozzle. No motion was made upon the subject, and the matter then fell to the ground. COUNTY BRIDGES. The CHAIRMAN read the reports of the County Bridge Surveyors. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Hickes, the surveyor of this division, reported as follows.—In this report I beg to state that you have the estimate of the cost of surface metalling for the ensuing winter.—Grampound— This road will require stoning, which, I estimate, will cost £3 10s. There are also some repairs wanting to the guard walls, which will cost about 18s.—.—Repairs wanting to the coping and to the guard wall. I estimate the cost at £2 5s.—Higher Carnon—The road will require metalling, which I estimate will cost £4 10s.—Sticker—I estimate the metalling of this road at £6 10s. There are also repairs wanting to the walls under the bridge, which, I estimate, will cost £6 10s.—Ponsanooth—Repairs are wanted to the fence against the road; estimated cost £1(?) 5s.—Tregony—This road will requires (sic) metalling, at a cost of £2 15.—Cornelly—This road requires metalling, at a cost of £1 10s.?— road requires metalling, at an estimated cost of £2 10s.—There are also some repairs wanting to the guard wall, which I estimate at 10s.——This road will require metalling, at a cost of £1 10s.; and some repairs to guard wall, 5s.— Mylor—This road requires cleaning as ?--- ?---, estimated cost, 6s.—Bissoe—This road will require metalling; estimated cost, £3. Also some repairs wanted to the coping: cost 15s.——This road will require metalling; estimated cost £2 10s.; also some repairs to the guard wall, £1 15s.—St. Erth—This road will require metalling: estimated cost £3 10s.—Godolphin—This road requires metalling; estimated cost £1; repairs required to coping £--?—Longbridge—Repairs required to the walls of this bridge and ?--- ?--- will cost £3 ?-s.; metalling the road £2 10?s.—?---—road requires metalling; estimated cost £4? 10s.—B----?— road requires metalling; estimated cost £3. EASTERN DIVISION—Mr. S. W. Jenkin, the surveyor of the eastern division, reported as follows:— [Section not transcribed as mostly illegible.] COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM. Mr POLE CAREW rose to move pursuant to notice, that a sum not exceeding £600 be granted to the committee of visitors for the purpose of erecting a steam engine for the Lunatic Asylum. The county no doubt would like to know what steps had been taken by the committee to ascertain the necessity for this work(?). He need not say that an additional supply of water was required, for I think it has been known to the county for years past. But the committee incurred a grave responsibility if they did not provide an extra supply of water in case of the calamity of fire as well as for the ordinary supply. In consequence, therefore, of there not being enough water even for ordinary supply, and of the frequent remarks by the commissioners in Lunacy upon the insufficient supply of water to the asylum, the visitors have directed their attention to this matter, and they thought fit to lay the result of their enquiries before the Court, not so much for the purpose of asking advice as of satisfying the natural anxiety of the ratepayers upon a subject so materially affecting them. The asylum at present contained 367 patients and about 40 attendants. The daily quantity of water required by the commissioners for each inmate was 26 gallons. The visitors had therefore directed their most careful attention to the determination of the question of how the asylum could be supplied with such a quantity of water as would meet the requirements of the establishment, and afford proper protection against the calamity of fire at the least cost to the county. It is necessary to say that no doubt existed in the minds of the visitors that a sufficient supply of water could be obtained from wells within the asylum. The committee consulted three professional gentlemen, whose reports had since been submitted to them. The first was from Mr. West, of , who recommended the erection of a 12-horse power engine to pump and force the water from a new well in the asylum, which was at present sunk 10 fathoms, and to drive a flour mill. He offered to contract for such an engine and mill with fittings complete, together with fixing, for £530, and estimated the cost of the building which would be required at £200, making a total of £730. The annual working cost might be calculated as follows:—Engineer and maintenance, at 18s. per week, £46 16s.; coals, 20s. per week, £52: oil, tallow, repairs, &c., £6 10s.; interest on £730 at 4 per cent., £29 4s.; total, 134 10s. In addition to this, Mr West recommended the erection of an iron tank to contain 5,000 gallons, the cost of which he had not estimated. The labour of one horse at present engaged in pumping would be saved by such an engine, as well as the annual bill for grinding flour. Mr Whitley, of Truro, advised that the spring north of Berry Tower should be collected in a reservoir and conveyed through iron pipes, by its own pressure, to the asylum, where its level would admit of a service to the top of the building. The cost of this scheme was estimated at £1,500, the annual interest on which at 4 per cent., would be £60 per annum. Another alternative suggested by Mr Whitley was, the erection of a steam engine to pump and force the water from the new well and to grind corn, the cost of which with deepening the well, he estimated at £1000, and the annual working charge, after the savings were deducted at £110. Mr Whitley concluded his report by strongly advocating the adoption of his first suggestion. The visitors next consulted Mr Coom, a gentleman of great local experience in such matters. He recommended the purchase of a field (marked 1801 in the parish map) between the beacon and the asylum, and the construction there of a reservoir capable of holding 100,000 gallons. He advised the county also to lease Dunmere Mills, which are at present vacant, and to erect there a pump which would force 20,000 gallons per diem, through iron pipes from the to the reservoir, the mill to be worked by the same water wheel, and used by the asylum. His estimate of the cost of this amounted to £1,400; viz., for the wheel, pumps, and iron pipes, £1000; for constructing the reservoir, £200; purchase of land and repairs of the leat, £200. The committee had also made enquiries concerning the possibility of making the stream which flows from Bodmin town, or the stream from Halgavor Mills as motive power for machinery, but the first stream was proved to be insufficient in quantity, and the supply from the second was doubtful, and in both cases there were so many difficulties arising from the number and complication of private interests that they were judged insuperable. Some of the visitors having recently seen the arrangements for supplying the Devon Lunatic Asylum with water, it was thought right to obtain an opinion from Mr West whether it would be practical to adopt a plan somewhat similar to the one in operation at Exminster, namely, to construct a reservoir in the field alluded to in Mr. Coom’s report, and to force the water to it from the new well in the asylum by means of a steam engine. The visitors saw objections to all the reports presented to them. In No. 1, Mr West’s report it was thought that a flour mill would be an expensive addition to the establishment, and that it would, in the end, be cheaper to purchase flour by contract. The cost of the undertaking was altogether larger than the visitors felt justified in incurring. The first proposition in Mr Whitley's report appeared to possess great merit, as supplying the asylum with a high level service without the assistance of mechanical power, but upon making investigations it was found that the Berry Tower Springs, even if it could all have been taken, would, in dry summer weather, have proved insufficient. In addition to this the gaol was already partly supplied by it, and an enormous cost, not provided for in the estimate, would have to be incurred in purchasing the right to the water, the land for the reservoir, and in passing the line of pipes through the lands of many different private individuals. Mr Whitley's second suggestion should also be rejected on the same ground as Mr West’s proposal, namely, its great cost. Neither did the visitors feel justified in recommending the adoption of Mr Coom's plan. Any arrangement for a water supply to the asylum should be of a permanent nature, and they could not therefore recommend the county to enter into an arrangement for the lease of Dunmere mills, especially as some acres of land were let with them, and they did not believe that the undertaking would be profitable. There would be the same difficulty and expense in dealing with private individuals for the purpose of connecting the pipes with the asylum as appeared so objectionable in Mr Whitley's plan, in addition to which the outlay would be very great. The river Camel, moreover, might at some future day be rendered undrinkable by the admixture of the mine or china clay water and an add--? ?--- ?--- ?--- be incurred in providing means for filtering and purifying the water. They had received a second report from Mr West, but it had come to hand so recently that the visitors had not had time to consider it, and were ?-- ?--- ?--- ?--- recommend its adoption. They however asked the county to entrust them with the £600, and they would promise to lay it out to the best advantage. [Editor’s Note: The account of further discussion between the magistrates is largely illegible.] Mr. J. TREMAYNE said that unless the money was to be used, it would be unwise to vote(?) it at present, especially as there would be danger of requiring more by next sessions. The fact was there would be a larger sum required at next sessions for enlargement of the building, for the visitors were afraid to ?--- ?--- by asking for it all at once. (Laughter). There was an evident leaning(?) amongst the magistrates for a natural pressure, but he did not agree with Mr. Bolitho as to the cost of working a steam engine. Lord VIVIAN suggested that as the present was the best time of the year for laying down pipes if the ?---- supply should be decided upon, a sum of not less than £1500 should be supplied to the committee, so that they might proceed with the work without loss of time. Mr. CAREW said if they ?--- the £600 to-day it would be quite time enough at the next sessions to give notice of any further sum required, as they would not be likely to spend the whole of the £600 before the end of the year. The question was then put from the Chairman, and the motion was carried by 14 votes to 9, being a majority of 5 in its favour. Mr. CAREW said the must call the attention of the court to the urgent necessity of increased accommodation at the asylum. There were now only two vacancies on the men’s side and 12 on the women’s, and increased accommodation was necessary as quickly as possible. The visitors had had two schemes before them; one for erecting a new building, and the other for raising the present building a story, by which means they could gain accommodation for 65 new patients. They had not had time to go into the matter sufficiently to enable them to give notice at the court, but he thought it well to let the county know what was required, and that they were directing their attention to the subject. The question was then dropped. COUNTY CONSTABULARY. Mr E. COODE, junr., Chairman of the Police Committee, presented the following report:— June 29th, 1563. The committee held a meeting this day at the Chief Constable's Office; present, the Chairman, Hon. and Rev. T. Boscawen, Hon. C. Rashleigh, J. J. Rogers, Esq., M.P., D. P. Le Grice, F. M. Williams, C. B. Kingdon, J. Trevenen, C. A. Reynolds, Esqrs. The accounts for the last quarter were examined and approved, and the vouchers for the expenses of the previous quarter were certified as correct. HAYLE STATION.—Plans for this station, with accommodation for two married constables, with barrack and guard room, and three prisoner's cells, were submitted by Mr Goodyear, and approved, and Mr Goodyear instructed to prepare working plans and specifications without delay, and the Chief Constable to procure tenders for the execution of the work to be laid before the committee, at a meeting to be called specially for that purpose. STRATTON.—Very little appears to have been done yet, although the contract is signed. The Chief Constable was requested to urge on Mr Newport the necessity of the works being proceeded with without delay. ST. COLUMB.—The contract is signed and works commenced. BLUE ANCHOR.—The purchase of this site has not been finally completed, and the committee have postponed the final consideration of the plans for the present. SALTASH AND LOOE.—The charge on Saltash for conveyance of prisoners appears to have been paid. Mr Shilson is still in communication with the Town Clerk of Looe on the same subject. .—The station at this place is reported as requiring whitewashing and painting inside, which the committee have directed the Chief Constable to get done. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—At the last sessions it was referred to the Police Committee to report whether it would be desirable to appoint days for adjusting and stamping twice in the year instead of once only as heretofore. The committee having considered the information laid before them, obtained in answer to queries addressed to the different inspectors, are of opinion that there is no sufficient reason for altering the present arrangement. The committee recommend a Police rate of one half-penny in the £ for the ensuing quarter. Edwd. Coode, jun., Chairman. Mr E. COLLINS asked whether the committee in the new station at St. Columb had taken any steps to provide accommodation for a magistrates' meeting in petty sessions? Mr E. COODE: Certainly not, because the committee did not understand that they were authorized to take any such steps or do anything of the kind. If the committee had been requested to report whether any such accommodation could be provided they would have done so. They had reported fully on this subject already, and they considered that they were not authorized to take any further steps, having received no instructions. A memorial was presented from the Rev. J. Glanville, Mr C. N. Bray, Rev. R. R. Wright, and Mr C. B. Kingdon, four justices, meeting at the petty sessions at Stratton, in which they stated that the room in which they assembled was much too small for the transaction of the business, that there was no retiring room, that the access to it was bad, and that the room was ill contrived and inconvenient, and they suggested that as a police station was now being erected at that town, a more convenient room for them to transact the business of the petty sessions in should be provided for them. Mr Coode, jun., said that the ground at Stratton would admit of a room being erected for the magistrates, in addition to the police station. The additional cost of such a room had been roughly estimated at £200, and that would have to be charged to the county rate and not to the police rate. Mr. E. COLLINS hoped that the court would proceed upon the broad principle, of providing rooms for the magistrates to meet in in every petty sessional division in the county. He thought that it was very hard for magistrates to be called upon to devote their time to the administration of justice, and at the same time to pay for rooms in which to administer that justice. He thought that such rooms should be built or provided at the expense of the county. The report of the committee was then adopted. Mr E. COODE, jun., referred to a deduction which had been made in the cost of the county police before they allowed the fourth part of the expense of the force under the Act of Parliament. This was first done during the last winter. Previously he had been in the habit of sending to the Secretary of State a statement of the total cost of the police force, including the amount paid for clothing, &c., and they were allowed one-fourth part of the whole amount; but last winter the Home Office required a full account of all stoppages for account of the superannuation fund, clothing, &c., and the whole of these were deducted from the entire cost, and one- fourth of the remainder only was allowed. This made a difference of £120 a year to the county, and it really amounted to almost a breach of faith on the part of the government. The government made it compulsory on the county to establish the police force, and to induce the country to do so, it was thought by the legislature that the government should have power to allow one fourth of the expense. The government acted upon that provision at first, but now they were beginning to draw in a little. He considered that one fourth part of the expense was only a very small sum to be paid out of the consolidated fund, and that the counties should join in a memorial to the government on the subject. The CHAIRMAN said that perhaps it would be better for the chairman of the police committee to place on the agenda paper a notice which would convey to the court the expressions of his opinion on the subject. He then stated that the sum in the treasurer's hands in favour of the police building account was £5,701 0s. 9d. The sum of £172 6s. 10d. was directed to be invested in three per cent. consols on the superannuation account. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT. Bodmin, 30th June, 1863. My LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,—I have the honour to lay before you the quarterly returns of crime committed in this county, so far as is known to the county constabulary; also, a return shewing the number and distribution of the force. Returns of fees, &c., have been received from the whole of [Editor’s Note: line of print obscured] the magistrates made at Christmas last, with the exception of the north divisions of east and the middle division of east. I have the honour to be. W. R. GILBERT Chief Constable of Cornwall. The chairman of the Justices in Quarter Sessions assembled, Bodmin. [Remainder of section illegible] [TABLE OF FEES.—Section illegible] [THE SALMON FISHERY.—Section illegible] THE HIGHWAY ACT. [First paragraph illegible] Mr. Kendall put a question to the Clerk of the Peace relative to the restrictive powers of the Highway Act, but he was very imperfectly heard in the reporters’ ?---. He was understood to ask whether disfranchised boroughs in this county, such for instance as Lostwithiel, would be compelled to come in and be included within the limits of the respective districts, without the consent of the boroughs having first to be obtained. The DEPUTY CLERK of the PEACE referred to the Act, and was understood to say that disfranchised boroughs did not come under it. The CHAIRMAN read resolutions and memorials from the parishes of Warbstow, , Week St. Mary, Alternun, , a vestry meeting of the parish of , the churchwardens and overseers of Lanteglos by Fowey, and a vestry meeting of the parish of , all objecting to their being constituted parts of highway districts under the Act. The DEPUTY CLERK OF THE PEACE in reply to a question from the Chairman, said that all the formalities of the Act had been complied with, as regarded the advertising of the required notices in the county papers. Mr. CAREW: In case the provisioned order should be adopted, what will be the next step to be taken? The DEPUTY CLERK of the PEACE said that the provisional order would have to be made at the court, and then they would have to advertise that order, and state the parishes included in the respective districts, with the number of waywardens to be appointed in each. The CHAIRMAN said that perhaps the simplest plan would be to adopt the general principle of the scheme, then advertise it in the newspapers, and then if any persons wished to suggest any alteration as to the limits of these petty sessional divisions he could do so. Lord VIVIAN differed from the chairman. What he understood the object now to be was simply to put before the court this scheme, and they could order the discussion of the districts to be adjourned from any period not exceeding six months. In the meantime the county would have an ample opportunity of considering the provisional order, and those petty sessional divisions that approved of the districts could come and say so, and the final order could then be made, while those who had any suggestions to make would be prepared to propose such alterations as they thought desirable. Thus by the adoption of this course, no unnecessary delay in the issuing of the final order would occur in the case of those districts where no alteration was required, while full opportunity would be afforded to the other divisions in which any alteration might be considered desirable to make any suggestion they thought proper at the next sessions, or at an adjournment of the present sessions;—in fact, the present was only an initiatory step, and it would give the whole county a full opportunity of considering the provisional order. Mr. CAREW, in reply to a question from the Rev. U. Tonkin, as to what ought to be the extent of the districts, said that the nearer the districts approached to 100 miles of roads, and the less they exceeded 200 miles the better. Lord VIVIAN said that he believed this county was behind almost all the other counties of England as regards the addition of this act, as he believed there was scarcely another county in the kingdom that had not adopted it, and he thought it was time to get to the end of the matter. Many of the counties, particularly those in Wales, were experiencing the benefit of it, as he believed Cornwall would do after it was in operation. He moved that the provisional order be adopted, and that the committee, appointed at the former sessions for the purpose of dividing the county of Cornwall into highway districts for the purposes of the act, be reappointed; that they be requested to consider the districts with a view to make such alterations as may seem desirable, and to nominate such a number of waywardens as may seem to them necessary. The motion was unanimously adopted, and after some discussion it was agreed to adjourn the sessions to Tuesday, the 18th August, at St. Austell, in order that the committee might carry out the above resolution. This concluded the county business. PLEADED GUILTY. JOHN ANDREWS, 65, shoemaker, to stealing three bed sheets, and a pillow, the property of Richard Burke, at Callington, on the 21st April, and also to a second charge of stealing a candlestick and salt cellar, the property of Wm. Olver, on the same day.—Two months' hard labour. JAMES BURNS, 30, hawker, to stealing a pair of boots, the property of James Hawkey, of St. Enoder, on the 23rd April.—Four months’ hard labour. WILLIAM ROWLAND HILL, 18, to stealing a gold brooch the property of Mary Ann Pine, of St. Dominick, and two gold chains, the property of Francis Buller Morris.—Nine months' hard labour. JAMES MARTIN, 35, mason, to stealing on the 9th May, two boots, the property of Josiah Trenerry, at Camborne. Three months' hard labour. RICHARD MOYLE, 19, miner, to stealing at Gwennap, on the 27th May, a copper-bottomed sieve, the property of Henry Grylls and others.—Four months' hard labour. JOHN RIDDLER, 37, stoker, to stealing a quantity of coke, the property of John Charles Lenyon, and John Reed, at Redruth, about the 4th of June. Three months' hard labour. MARY ELIZABETH SAUNDRY, 18, servant, to stealing a pair of boots, the property of Joseph Courts, of Mawgan, on the 15th June.—One month's hard labour. THOMAS FRANCIS HOCKING SOLOMON, 37, labourer, to stealing on the 1st of June, a quantity of timber and iron, the property of Walter Giles, of St. Ewe. Six months' hard labour. HENRY TREGENZA, 22, and JOHN TREGENZA, 24, labourers, to stealing seven eggs, the property of Joseph Stephens of Gwinear, on the 27th April. Henry, being a servant to the prosecutor, was sentenced to one month's hard labour, and John to 14 days. JAMES MOORE, 37, labourer, to stealing, on the 16th March, at Redruth, a fowl, the property of Wm. Verran. The prisoner said he had been induced to steal the fowl by a woman named Haynes, who keeps a "kiddlywink" at Redruth. He had been drinking in her house all day, and she asked him if he could get her a fowl. She knew he had been previously transported, and he told her he could not get a fowl honestly. He afterwards stole a fowl and brought it to the woman, who gave him 1s 6d. for it, which he spent in drink in her house. Mrs (sic) was called and denied the accusation made by the prisoner. The chairman said the prisoner had run a long course of crime. In 1846 he was convicted for fowl stealing, and in 1848 he was acquitted on a similar charge. In 1850 he was sentenced to ten years' transportation for stealing ducks. It appeared, however, that he had been liberated on a ticket-of-leave, for in 1858 he was a prisoner for debt; in 1859 he was summarily convicted of deserting his wife and family. Since he was transported the law had been altered, and the sentence of the court would now be three years penal servitude; but by a recent regulation of the government the whole of the punishment would have to be undergone; no portion of it could be remitted under any circumstances, the prisoner having been previously convicted. TRIALS OF PRISONERS.— TUESDAY. Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq., Chairman. STEALING A COAT AT ST. BURYAN. A young woman named MARY BECKERLEG, was charged with stealing a cloth coat, the property of Gabriel Hosken, from a field at , near Penzance, on the 5th of May. Mr Cornish, of Penzance, prosecuted. The prisoner was undefended. It appeared that Hosken, who is a tin streamer, went to work on the morning of the fifth and took his coat off, leaving it in the field near his work. At dinner time he missed the coat and gave information to the police. The coat was traced to the shop of Mr Joseph, pawnbroker, Penzance, where the prisoner pledged it for 4s. on the 7th of May. She was afterwards apprehended on the same day, when she stated that she found the coat. [Editor’s Note: No verdict or sentence recorded by the newspaper; Cornwall Criminal Registers, held at the National Archives, record a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment.] ROBBING A MISTRESS AT BUDOCK. MARY JANE EDWARDS, 20, domestic servant, was charged with stealing a quantity of wearing apparel from her mistress, Mary Trenery, at the parish of Budock, on the 1st April. Mr Commins prosecuted. The prisoner entered the service of the prosecutrix about six months ago, and remained there till the 1st of June, when the prosecutrix, on paying a visit to prisoner's mother, observed several articles which looked like her property. This made her suspicious, and she afterwards missed several things. After the prisoner left, Superintendent Coomb followed her to Stonehouse, where she was in lodgings. In her room he found a (night cap?)which prosecutrix identified. The Superintendent and P.C. Carlyon afterwards searched the mother’s house at Perranarworthal, and found there a collar, flannel petticoat, a skirt, two towels, two wine glasses, seven plates, a hair brush , two knives, forks, cups, saucers, and other articles, all of which the prosecutrix identified. On taking the prisoner into custody, a skirt was found upon her, which was also identified. They found the prisoner guilty of stealing the night cap and skirt which were found in her possession. She was sentenced to four months’ hard labour. MALICIOUS BRUTALITY. MICHAEL HARRIS, miner, aged about 40, was charged with wilfully and maliciously maiming a mare, the property of Thomas Shovel, produce dealer, at Upton, in the parish of Linkinhorne, on the ?-- April. Mr. Jenkin, of Falmouth, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. E. Nicholls, of Callington, for the defence. [Editor’s Note: the remainder of this paragraph is illegible.] Mr. Nicolls addressed the jury very ably on behalf of the prisoner. He commented upon the fact that the case not only rested entirely upon circumstantial evidence, but unlike other circumstantial evidence which is a chain of circumstances so connected together that each link bears upon the other, this case rested only on two points, or really upon but one point, for he submitted, that the conversation imputed to the prisoner might be used by an innocent man as well as by a guilty one. With regard, then, to the only point against the prisoner—the footmarks, he submitted that great numbers of shoes were made in the same way for miners, and therefore the boots which made the marks might have belonged to any other person. It had also been adverted that there was not a single footmark present, but the evidence was made up from various marks, from which the witnesses professed to say that they had formed a complete footprint. He must, however, further remind the jury that Mr. Justice Blackburn, had in that very court, laid it down in a case in which he (Mr. Nicolls) was engaged, and in which it was sought to prove the case by a footmark, that there should be evidence to show that the footmarks were not on the place before the crime was committed. Now, in this case there was no evidence produced to show that the footprints were not in the field before the Saturday night in question. Another point which was strongly in favour of the prisoner was the fact that notwithstanding that his house had been minutely searched and his clothes examined, there was not a spot of blood nor a hair found upon either clothes or shoes, though all the witnesses concurred in saying that there was a great quantity of blood scattered about. In conclusion, he appealed to the jury not to commit a man for so serious a crime upon such trivial evidence, and not to forget that the only person whom he had a chance of calling to prove an alibi—his wife—was by law precluded from giving evidence in her husband’s favour. The CHAIRMAN summed up minutely and impartially. He characterized the crime as one revolting to humanity, but said, at the same time, the evidence against the prisoner was very slight, and depended entirely upon the footmarks. The straight forward manner in which he acted when the policeman visited his house and the readiness with which he produced his boots and his clothes, as well as the fact that no blood was found upon them, were no doubt circumstances in his favour. With regard to the footmarks there had been no evidence produced to show that the marks were not made before the night upon which the crime was committed, except that the witnesses said they appeared fresh; and the jury would recollect that it was not sufficient that it should be proved that the footprints were those of the prisoner, but it must also be made out to their satisfaction that the marks were in such a position in respect to the horse as to render it probable that the prisoner had committed the act, because he may have passed through the field for any other purpose. There was no evidence to show that the prisoner had no access to the field, and therefore the position of the marks was of importance. He (the chairman) did not place any importance upon the conversation of the prisoner. The jury being unable to come to a decision in the box, retired, and after an absence of three-quarters of an hour returned a verdict of guilty. The prisoner appeared to be very much affected, and cried bitterly. Mr NICHOLLS asked for a case for the Court of Queen's Bench upon the point whether footmarks alone were sufficient to convict upon. The Chairman said he had not ruled that it was; he put the case to the jury altogether. If he had instructed the jury that footmarks alone were sufficient, then it would be a point of law, and he might have had a case; hut the Court of Queen's Bench would not interfere with facts which were matters for consideration of the jury. The CHAIRMAN, in passing sentence, said the prisoner had been found guilty of a most inhuman offence by an intelligent jury, and whatever might be the difference of opinion upon legal points, no one who had heard the case could doubt that it was the prisoner's hand which committed that most brutal act of vengeance; next to taking away life, this was one of the most serious offences that could be committed, and was liable to a punishment of not more than 14 years' penal servitude, and of not more than 2 years' imprisonment. It was the duty of the court to mark their horror of the act, but as there was no reason for believing that the prisoner's character had not hitherto been good, the sentence of the court would be limited to 18 months' imprisonment to hard labour. STEALING FLOUR. ALEXANDER ROWE, 28, miller, and RICHARD WYATT, 41, carrier, were charged, the former with stealing and the latter with receiving, knowing them to have been stolen, two sacks of flour, belonging to Messrs Hosken and Son, Hayle. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Jenkyn defended Wyatt. It appeared that Rowe was a miller in Messrs Hosken's employ, and that Wyatt was in the habit of carrying flour for the prosecutors. The offences were committed, one on the night of the 11th, and the other on the night of the 18th of May. Rowe pleaded guilty to stealing one sack, but denied the charge with respect to the other. Mr Cornish said that Rowe had borne an excellent character for years, and the prosecutor believed that he was now but the victim of designing men who were receiving the profits. Messrs Hosken had been losing flour for some time past. Rowe was seen to carry the flour away, and deposit it in Wyatt's cart at midnight, and Wyatt, when asked to account for it, said it was his own; he had brought it from Helston. With regard to the count for stealing on the 11th, the Court ruled that there was no evidence to prove the theft against Rowe, and Mr Jenkins contended therefore that the charge for receiving against Wyatt also fell to the ground, but the court ruled against this as there was evidence to prove that somebody had stolen the flour. Mr Jenkins then agreed that the fact of Wyatt's having gone to the waggon, where the flour was on the night of the 18th, did not prove his guilt as he had previously seen a policeman hanging about, and was therefore naturally anxious to see if there was anything wrong. The waggon being in an open shed near the road, it was competent for anybody to put the sack there without Wyatt's knowledge. He pointed out some contradictions in the evidence of the policeman, and contended that Mr Hosken's account of Wyatt's statement namely, "The flour might have been brought from Helston" was the correct one. Mr Jenkins having concluded a very effective address, the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. [Editor’s Note: No sentence for Alexander ROWE recorded by the newspaper; Cornwall Criminal Registers, held at the National Archives, record a sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment.] WEDNESDAY, JULY 1. (Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq., Chairman.) Shortly after the opening of the Court this morning, the grand jury returned a number of bills. The foreman stated that with respect to Samuel Gilbert, a sailor charged with stealing a pair of boots and a blue frock, the property of Henry Cutlet, at , on the 22nd April, no evidence had been produced before them in support of the indictment, beyond that of the policeman in the case, and the stolen property could not, under these circumstances, be identified. The chairman said that he was afraid the only course for them to adopt would be to ignore the bill against the prisoner. WILLIAM CHUDLEIGH, 18, labourer, pleaded guilty to having, on the 6th of June, in the parish of Llanlivery (sic), stolen a shirt and a towel, the property of Samuel White.—Three months’ hard labour. STEALING MONEY AT TRURO. JANE MILLS, 26, servant, was charged with stealing, on the 19th April, four shillings and sixpence, the property of Thomas Barrett, at Truro. Mr Marrack prosecuted; and Mr Meredith defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is a grocer, carrying on business at Truro, and the prisoner had been in his service as a domestic servant about 18 or 20 months. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and she was sentenced to six months' hard labour. CHARGE OF STEALING AT PENRYN. MARK ALBERT, 26, shoemaker, and FRANK WILMOT, 32, sailor, were charged with stealing, at Penryn, on the 13th May, a pair of trousers, waistcoat, flannel shirt, scarf, a shirt, and cravat, the property of Edwin Matthews. Wilmot pleaded guilty, and Albert not guilty. Mr Jenkins prosecuted; the prisoners were undefended. The prosecutor is a seaman belonging to the schooner "Paul," which on Wednesday the 13th of May, was lying in the Penryn river.—Wilmot was sentenced to six months' hard labour." COUNTY BUSINESS. LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE. The Court then proceeded to further consider the state of Lostwithiel Bridge, which had been adjourned from the previous day, in order that the attendance of Mr Carveth might be obtained. Mr CARVETH now presented the following report:— Having been present when Mr Jenkin made an examination of the foundations of the centre pier of this bridge, and agreeing with him generally as to their state, the examination has led me to think that the work proposed and estimated by me cannot safely be carried out on the present foundations; and that the expense necessary for making those foundations good, filling up and paving the waterway under one arch, and clearing the obstructions under another would add very considerably to the cost of the repairs. It will be a question for consideration whether, looking to the uncertain state of the foundations, it will be desirable ?--- ?--- temporarily repair the remainder of the bridge at a cost of, say, £20. Roughly, I think it will cost about £?--- to renew the pier, and it will be for you to consider whether it is desirable to expend the principal part of this amount upon a portion of a bridge which forms so great an obstruction to the proper course of the stream. Mr. CARVETH, in answer to questions from Lord Vivian and other gentlemen, said ….. [Editor’s Note: Some 9 lines illegible due to faint print.] …. He did not think that it would be wise economy for the county to go on patching up this bridge. The centre pier must be repaired or restored for £190?, and the other repairs for about £20, as he had stated; but he could not say what repairs might be necessary to the other parts of the bridge, because he and Mr. Jenkin had only examined the centre pier, and it might turn out that the eastern pier(?) was in a very bad state. The piers of the western part ?--- ?--- appeared to be sound and strong, and to put it in proper repair would, in his opinion, cost about £?00, but that was without widening the bridge. He should think that a sum of £--- or £--0 would cover the expense of an iron girder centre for the bridge, wide enough to take off ?--- ?--- ?--- the river. He should think that the foundations were sufficiently good to carry an iron girder bridge. Mr. JENKIN said that he had made an estimate of the expense of an iron girder bridge. He did not propose in this estimate to widen the bridge, but to renew a girder bridge over the centre, and thus to relieve the pier from the pressure of the stream, and to erect a ?--- ?--- ?---. The expense of this he estimated to be £---?. Then in addition to this sum, he had put down £50(?) as the cost of a temporary bridge for the carrying on of the traffic while the other bridge was being constructed; ….. [Editor’s Note: 6 or 7 lines illegible.]….. He did not think that they could build a new bridge above or below the present one for less than £1000(?). If it should be decided to throw an iron girder bridge over the stream below the present bridge, the best position would be opposite the railway station, and he estimated the cost of such a bridge at about £600. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH—I wish to ask Mr. Jenkin whether he considers it would be ?--- most economical for the county to expend £600(?) in repairing the bridge in the manner suggested by Mr. Carveth, or to lay out £700 on a girder bridge? Mr. JENKIN said that in his opinion the best way of permanently restoring the bridge, would be to construct a higher bridge over the centre arch, which would allow the water to flow through freely, and would take the pressure from the other parts. Mr. CARVETH, on being appealed to, stated he was of opinion that in any case, whether they repaired the old bridge or created a new one, they would have to provide a temporary bridge for the traffic. Lord VIVIAN moved that—“In appearing from the reports of Mr. Jenkin, the surveyor of bridges for the eastern division, and Mr. Carveth, that Lostwithiel bridge is in a dangerous state, the following committee be appointed to consider how best to put the present bridge in permanent repair, or to construct a new one in lieu of it:— Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. C.B.G. Sawle, Mr. R.G. Lakes, Mr. E. Coode, jun., and the Hon. and Rev J.T. Boscawen. Mr. SAWLE seconded the motion, which was adopted, after a short discussion. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH then moved that it appearing from the above reports, that the bridge was in such a dangerous state as to call for immediate attention, the court authorize its surveyor to expend a sum not exceeding 100l, under the direction of the committee.—Carried. THE GOVERNMENT ALLOWANCE TO THE POLICE. Mr. E. COODE, jun., then presented a memorial to the Lords of the Treasury, which he had prepared in compliance with the direction of the Court, on the previous day, on the subject of the reduction which had been recently made in the allowance by the Government, towards the expenses of the County Constabulary. The memorial urged that this reduction almost amounted to a breach of faith with the counties, and set forth the grounds on which the writer considered that a return ought to be made to the former scale of allowance. The memorial was adopted, ordered to be signed by the chairman on behalf of the Court, and to be then sent to the Lords of the Treasury. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. The trials of prisoners were resumed. JOHN CRAMAN, 23, was charged with stealing at Truro, on the 28th of May, a watch, of the value of £3, the property of William Clemas.—Mr Marrack prosecuted, and Mr Chillcott defended the prisoner. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to three months' hard labour. EXTORTING MONEY BY THREATS. MARK HAWKEN was charged under the 48th section of the late Criminal Act, with having on the 7th February last, at Camelford, demanded with menaces, from John Pearse, the sum of £8, with intent to steal the same. Mr H. Shilson prosecuted; and Mr Frost, of Launceston, defended the prisoner. The particulars of the case have already been fully reported in our paper. The jury were of opinion that the case for the prosecution had broken down, and Mr Hawken was honourably, acquitted. JOHN HENRY BENALLACK, who had been out on bail, was charged with having on the 28th of March, at St. Austell, embezzled certain monies, the property of the Cornwall Railway Company. Mr C. Childs prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy, and he was sentenced to six months' hard labour. The Court then adjourned.

SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY. (Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart.) STEALING A GOLD WATCH AT BODMIN. RACHEL LANE, 21, mine worker, was charged with stealing a gold watch, the property of Mrs Pascoe, of Park Hill, Bodmin, on the 1st of May. Mr Collins prosecuted. The prisoner was undefended. Mrs Pascoe gave the watch to a servant named Mary Ellen Johns, on the 1st of May. The servant took the watch to the shop of Mr Broad, Bodmin, to have it regulated. Elizabeth Ham, a servant of Mr Broad's, stated that she received the watch from Johns; and Sarah Gummel, also in Mr Broad's employ, saw the watch safe in the shop about 12 o'clock on the same day; and in the afternoon the prisoner came to the shop and looked at some brooches which she said she wished to purchase. She left, however, without purchasing one, and said she would call again. After she left the watch was missed. Information was given to P.C. Bray, who apprehended the prisoner on the 5th, and found the watch in her possession. The prisoner was found guilty, and having been previously convicted, was sentenced to six months' hard labour. CHARGE OF ROBBING A MISTRESS. ELIZABETH ANN GRIBBLE, a domestic servant, who appeared in dock decked in silks and a bonnet of the most fashionable style, was charged with stealing a pair of gloves and a pair of stockings, the property of her mistress, Mrs Sarah, wife of John Sarah, innkeeper, Illogan. Mr Cornish appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner, who had been out on bail, was undefended. From the prosecutrix's evidence it appeared that the prisoner came into her service about the middle of December, and remained till May. She lost the gloves in January, and in the month of April she asked the prisoner to lend her a pair of gloves, when she brought out a pair which the prosecutor claimed as her own. Afterwards the prisoner's room was searched, and four pairs of stockings were found under the bed, one of which the prosecutrix claimed as hers. A girl named Ellen Oakey identified the gloves as the property of the prosecutor, from the fact that she had mended them. The prisoner denied having stolen the articles, and asked was it likely that she should lend the gloves to her mistress if she had stolen them from her. The Chairman, in summing up, admitted that the case was by no means a clear one, and the jury acquitted the prisoner. STEALING A SHEET. WM. HILL, 29, miner, was charged with stealing a sheet on the 10th June, the property of Henry Rablin, of Illogan. Mr Cornish prosecuted. It appeared that Mrs Rablin hung out two sheets to dry upon the garden hedge, and saw them safe at 10 o'clock at night. About three o'clock the following morning, P.C. Harris found the prisoner asleep in a burning house at North Pool mine, Shuffletokeep. He had a sheet wrapped round him, and the constable took him into custody on suspicion. The sheet was afterwards identified by Mrs Rablin. The prisoner was found guilty and a previous conviction for uttering a forged order having been proved against the prisoner he was sentenced to 12 months hard labour. STEALING A PAWNTICKET. SARAH ANN MURPHY, 26, charwoman, was charged with stealing on the 19th June a pawn ticket, the property of William Newman, of Flushing. Mrs Newman pawned a dress piece on the 15th May at the shop of Mr Owen, pawnbroker, for 4s. and placed the ticket in a box in her bedroom in the presence of the prisoner. On the 19th June she missed the ticket, and upon going to the pawnbroker(?) she found that the dress had been redeemed and pawned again by a woman named Bridget Gonawich. It appeared that Gonawich purchased the ticket from the prisoner who told her that the dress piece was her own. In defence the prisoner said she found the ticket. She was found guilty and sentenced to one month’s hard labour. Mr Commins prosecuted. NO BILLS. The grand jury ignored the bills against Samuel Gilbert, charged with stealing a pair of boots and a blue frock at Mevagissey; Richard Hale, charged with stealing a ewe and a lamb at Lanteglos; William Western, charged with stealing a shirt and a towel at Lanlivery; and against John Williams, charged with assaulting, beating, and ill-treating Hannah Cock, at Bodmin. PLEADED GUILTY. JAMES HOOPER, 16, to having, on the 25th June, in the parish of St. Agnes, stolen four sovereigns, the property of his father. The prisoner had been four times previously convicted under the Juvenile Offenders' Act, three of them also(?) for stealing money from his father. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, with hard labour.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 7 August 1863

5. Summer Assizes The summer assizes for the county of Cornwall were opened at Bodmin on Saturday last. The Hon. Sir J.S. Willes arrived at the Bodmin Road station from Exeter, at 5.59 p.m. by the express train. Here his lordship got into the private carriage of the High Sheriff and was driven to Bodmin, unattended by the usual cortege, it being, we understand, his lordship's wish that his arrival should be unaccompanied by any display. He arrived at the Mayoralty House at 6.50, where he was received by the High Sheriff, William Coulson, Esq., Mr H. Mudge, the Mayor of Bodmin; Mr W. Serjeant, alderman; and the Rev. J. Wallis, vicar. His lordship, who was in plain dress, then robed, and in about 20 minutes he was driven to the County Hall, accompanied by the High Sheriff, where her Majesty's Commissions of Assize were opened in the usual manner, and the Court was adjourned till eleven o'clock on Monday morning. On Sunday morning, Justice Willes proceeded in the High Sheriff's carriage to Bodmin Church for the purpose of attending divine service. He was accompanied by the High Sheriff and his chaplain, the Rev. W. W. Wingfield, attended by the Under Sheriff, Mr J. Roscorla, and the County Clerk, Mr R. A. G. Davies. The morning service was read by the Rev. J. W. Hawksley, the curate, and the communion service by the Rev. J. Wallis, the vicar. The sermon was preached by the Rev. W. W. Wingfield, from the following text—"He that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen." Chief Justice Erle arrived at the Bodmin Road station by the afternoon train on Sunday, where he mounted a horse that had been been (sic) sent to meet him, and rode into Bodmin, his only attendants being two horsemen. In the afternoon both Judges proceeded to Boconnoc, and dined with the Hon. G. M Fortescue. CROWN COURT. Monday, August 3. (Before Chief Justice Erle.) The Court was opened this morning at eleven o'clock, when the following magistrates answered to their names in addition to those who were sworn on the grand jury:—F. G. Enys, John Haye, J. W. Peard, A. Smith, J. Trevenen, E.B. Tucker, H. M. Williams, J. Trevillyan, Esquires; Rev. S. Symonds, Rev. J. J. Wilkinson, and Rev. J. Perry. The Mayors of Bodmin, Camelford, St. Ives, Lostwithiel, Marazion, and Penzance; and the County Coroners, Messrs. E. G. Hamley and W. Hichens, also answered. The following were sworn as THE GRAND JURY. Hon. Hussey Crespigney Vivian, foreman. Sir C. Rashleigh, Bart. E. Collins, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. J. Tremayne, Esq. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. C. L. Cocks, Esq. Francis Rodd, Esq. F. M. Williams, Esq. C. D. Bevan, Esq. E. W. B. Willyams, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. J. Hichens, Esq. C. A. Reynolds, Esq. W. D. Horndon, Esq. R. H. S. Vyvyan, Esq. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. D. W. H. J. Horndon, Esq. Edwin Ley, Esq. T. S. Bolitho, Esq. N. Norway, Esq. John Batten, Esq. W. S. Rosevear, Esq. Her Majesty's proclamation against vice, immorality, and profaneness was then read, after which the learned judge delivered the following CHARGE. Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—l believe that you will discharge your duties on the present occasion with more than usual satisfaction to yourselves. The calendar contains a list of crimes not heavy in point of number, amounting only to 26, and I think that more than half of them are charges of simple larceny. The crimes are also free to a great extent from circumstances of aggravation—free to a great extent from the worst class of crimes, namely, crimes arising from malicious feeling; and I believe that you will be satisfied before the end of your labours, that the calendar is very satisfactory for this county, in being free from any malignant or aggravated offences. There has, as you are aware, been great alarm in the public mind on account of the increase of crimes with violence, which has lately taken place; and the attention of Parliament has been drawn to the subject, and to the necessity of instituting an increase in the severity of punishment for such offences. But I have much satisfaction in thinking that the inhabitants of this county may well be free from such alarm, judging by the character of offences now presented to us in the calendar; and I think you may well be satisfied with the exertions of the police of the county in preventing crime, and in bringing the perpetrators to justice when crime is committed. There are very few of the cases which require any remarks from me to gentlemen of your experience. There is one case of loss of life, and it is doubtful from the depositions as they stand, whether the offence amounts to manslaughter. I say the depositions as they stand, because the case may be presented to you in a rather different form from what it appears there. The charge is that of manslaughter, and you are well aware that to constitute that crime, death must have been caused by the unlawful act of the party accused. If the act committed was a lawful or justifiable one, then although death ensue, it is not manslaughter. You are aware for instance that when a man is assaulted, he may return the blow, and provided he does this in self defence, yet if death ensue, it would not be manslaughter. Now, the facts as they are presented in the depositions appear to be these: The person accused, a woman, had got into a quarrel with another woman, a neighbour, the deceased, when some harsh things were said on both sides, and the deceased spat in the face of the woman who is charged with manslaughter, and the spitting in the face, I need not tell you, is in point of law, an assault. The accused was carrying a gallon measure at the time, and she went away a short distance to empty that, and then returned by the house of the deceased. The latter again came out, and there is no doubt that she intended to repeat the offence. The prisoner used the gallon measure, and during the scuffle the head or rather the temple of the deceased came in contact with it. The wound inflicted was a small one, but a blood vessel was ruptured, and this led to pressure on the brain and death. The medical gentleman who will be called will tell you that the woman was at the time suffering from pulmonary disease, and that a very slight blow, might, under such circumstances, cause death. It will be for you on this evidence, to say whether you believe the blow was struck by the prisoner unlawfully, or it was only done accidentally or in self-defence. If it should appear to you that the accused had emptied the gallon measure and come back and unlawfully inflicted the blow, you must find a true bill; but the depositions state that the prisoner held up the measure to avoid an assault, and that the deceased's temple came against it, which was the cause of death. There are two cases which from circumstances that you will understand, I will call cases of concealment; and the charge in one of them depends on admissions or statements made by the prisoner. Now, you are aware that no person by law is compelled to accuse him or herself, and it appears to me that in this instance the police officer, no doubt with the best intention, has gone a little beyond what was his duty. In this case, there was nothing which would call for the interference of the police beyond a report which arose in the neighbourhood, and on that report the prisoner was appprended (sic), and while in custody she was questioned by the police, and in reply to these questions, she at length stated where the body of the child was concealed. Now in my opinion, that would not be evidence obtained according to the principle of law. It was a confession not made voluntarily, but by the questions of the police while the individual was in durance. In the other case two parties are committed—a man and a woman—and it appears that the history of the transaction was obtained by the apprehension and confession of the woman; and should you be satisfied that the woman and man had combined together, to complete the offence of concealment, you will find a true bill against both, but if the intention of the woman was, as stated, to avoid breaking the law, and to call upon the man to avoid that penalty himself, she would not be guilty of the offence, neither could the man be an accessory to the principal, because there is no principal in this case, and of course where there is no principal there can be no accessory. Probably in the latter case you may think that the parties combined together to commit an act which the law holds to be a very serious offence, and if so, you will find a true bill against both the accused. There is a charge which has been sent here from the Quarter-sessions for a felonious assault, and it is brought against a man who discharged the duty of a nurse in a Union-house in this county. It appears that in the course of his duty he had to deal with two inmates of the Union. They were old men, and nearly bedridden, and the charge against the prisoner is that he treated them with great harshness while in bed. I do not think that harshness alone would amount in law to an assault, but it appears that on one occasion the accused kicked them, and that no doubt would constitute the offence. The old men were in a state of great weakness, and they soon after died. I do not think, however, that the case against the prisoner constitutes a felonious assault, and I have directed a bill to be sent to you charging an assault without intent to do grievous bodily harm. There is a case in which the prisoner is charged with maliciously injuring a building, but it it does not seem to be a case where a person destroys or injures a building through malice. Some fixtures had been sold in a building, and the prisoner was afterwards seen pulling at a lead pipe on the premises, and trying to cut it off. There is not the least doubt that his intention was to get the lead pipe if he could have cut it off; and if this should be so, it would clearly constitute the offence of larceny. His defence is that he thought the pipe was sold among the other fixtures, but the persons accusing say that he could not have made that mistake, and that he must have known it had not been sold; and if so, the offence, as I have said, will amount to larceny. There is one case which, in my mind, comes nearly within the boundary of larceny, though it may be also close to the boundary of false pretence. The prisoner and another man, it appears, went into a public house, but not in company with each other, and each of them ordered a pint of beer, giving a coin in payment. The prisoner gave sixpence and the other man a sovereign, and the landlady of the house thinking that she had not sufficient silver to give the man his change, sent 19s. 6d. by another girl for the man to whom it belonged, and on the girl asking whose change it was, prisoner told her he had given the sovereign, and received the 19s. 6d., with which he directly after left the house. Now, although there was a deliverance of the custody of the change to the prisoner, yet it appears to me that the money was entrusted to the girl by her mistress, in order that she might give it to the man who had given her the sovereign, and that the act of getting the money falls within a case where a person has been found guilty of larceny, by obtaining possession by a trick, and in this point the case, in my mind, falls within one of larceny. Gentlemen, I will not detain you with any further observations. OBTAINING MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCES. RICHARD SLEEP, 27, labourer, was charged with obtaining by false pretences, at the parish of Northhill, in May last, 3s. 6d., from Thomas Down and Samuel Jago, with intent to cheat and defraud them. Mr Bere prosecuted. In April last, the prosecutors wanted to by some poles belonging to a person named Luskey; and they asked him, in the presence of the prisoner, what he would sell them for. Mr Luskey replied that he could not sell them until he had selected some from them that he wanted, but that he would let Sleep know the price of them afterwards. On the 9th of May Sleep met the prosecutors, and he then asked them why they did not come to take the poles away, stating that he had paid Mr. Luskey for them on their behalf. They replied that if he had paid for them they must repay him, and Down then handed him a shilling, on account. On the 23rd of May they met him, and he again asked why they had not taken the poles away, and saying that he had paid 3s. 6d. for them on their account. Down then gave him 2s., and Jago 6d., which with the shilling previously paid him, made the full amount he said that he had advanced to Mr Luskey. The prosecutors afterwards found that there was no truth whatever in the prisoner's statement, and on the 24th the prisoner, on meeting Mr Luskey, begged him not to complain to the police of what he had been guilty, and said that he would remit the money as soon as possible. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to three months' hard labour. STEALING FROM A DWELLING-HOUSE. MARY ANN WILLIAMS, 24, pleaded guilty to having on the 2nd of June, 1862, at the parish of Paul, stolen from the dwelling-house of Richard Bond, a gold watch and chain, the property of Richard Bond. Mr Tosswell, who conducted the prosecution, said that the offence had been committed more than 12 months ago, and that the prisoner had since married, and was going out with her husband to New Zealand. It was believed that she had been led by other parties into the commission of the offence, and the prosecutor did not wish for a heavy punishment to be inflicted. His lordship said that the prisoner might stand down until the next day, and he should in the interim consider what sentence he should pass. STEALING AT MADRON. WILLIAM THOMAS, 25, a sailor, pleaded guilty to having, on the 7th July, stolen a winnowing machine, the property of Stephen Barnes. Five months' hard labour. MALICIOUS ASSAULT AT ST. GERMANS. BERNARD CARPENTER, the younger, who had been out on bail, was charged with unlawfully and maliciously assaulting and beating Joseph Lower, on the 2nd of June, at the parish of St. Germans, with the intent to do, and thereby doing him grievous bodily harm. In a second count the prisoner was charged with a common assault. Mr Bere prosecuted, and Mr Cole defended the prisoner. The prisoner and the prosecutor are both respectable farmers living in the parish of St. Germans, and on the 2nd of June last they attended the audit dinner of Sir Joseph Copley, Bart. It appeared that after dinner a dispute arose between the prisoner's father and the prosecutor respecting the rating of a field, and according to the evidence of the latter, he left about one o'clock, and was followed by the prisoner and his father. The prisoner asked the prosecutor to have "a wrassle" with his father, which at first he declined, but after some time he consented, and he took off his coat, and they prepared for the tussle. Some friends, however, coming up and saying that it was a shame for two old men like them to be wrestling, he put on his coat again and was about to walk on with them, when the elder Carpenter went up to him and kicked him. He returned the kick, and defended himself, on which the prisoner came up, struck him a violent blow on the head which brought him down on his knees, and he and the elder Carpenter fell down—he under. While on the ground the prisoner struck him three or four times and kicked him in the side shamefully. The prisoner afterwards came to him and asked him what he was lying there for, lifted him up and struck him two severe blows on the face, after which he became insensible. Mr Hancock, another farmer, Mr Benjamin Bevan, and John Glanville gave corroborative evidence, all stating that the prisoner struck and kicked the prosecutor violently while he was down on the ground; and Mr R. Kerswell, surgeon, deposed that on visiting the prosecutor the same afternoon at his own house, he found him partly insensible. He was very much bruised about the face, body, and thighs, which had evidently been caused by blows and kicks. For the defence, Mr COLE said that the prosecutor and the elder Carpenter had agreed to wrestle, and while they were so engaged, the former pulled a stone from a hedge and struck his opponent a violent blow on the head, causing the blood to flow very freely. This so enraged the son, the prisoner, that he struck him with his open hand. He called the elder Carpenter, who described the blow with the stove as being very violent, and said that it was six or seven weeks before the wound got better. He also showed the mark which it had left on his forehead. One or two other witnesses, who had seen the scuffle, stated that the blows given by the prisoner were not very violent. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault, and he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment without hard labour. THROWING STONES AT A RAILWAY TRAIN. CHARLES ALLEN, a boy aged 12 years, was charged with unlawfully and maliciously throwing stones across the West Cornwall Railway, at the parish of Gulval, on the 19th of July last, with intent to injure the carriages of the railway train passing over the line, and thereby endangering the safety of the passengers. Mr COLE prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. John Escott, a guard on the Cornwall Railway, deposed that he was one of the guards of the down train on Sunday evening, the 19th of July. There is a viaduct about a quarter of a mile from the Penzance station, and on the train arriving there the steam had been shut off as usual by the driver. Witness then got out for the purpose of applying the break, and he saw the prisoner and some other boys playing on the beach, about from 20 to 30 yards off, and on the approach of the train, the prisoner took up a stone from the beach and threw it at the train. Witness got into a carriage, and then saw him throw another. Richard Butler, another guard, gave corroborative evidence, stating, however, that he saw the prisoner throw three stones. The JUDGE said that seeing the tender age of the prisoner, he thought he could not be said to be aware at the time of the consequences of what he was doing when he threw the stones, and therefore he did not think the indictment for maliciously intending to injure the train and passengers could be sustained. The jury then on the direction of his Lordship, found the prisoner not guilty on this count. The prisoner was then charged with having at the time and place named, thrown three stones, thereby endangering the safety of the train and passengers. Richard Butler deposed to the commission of the offence, when the jury found the prisoner guilty of throwing the stones, but not with the intention to injure the train. This was a verdict of acquittal, and the prisoner was discharged, after being admonished by his Lordship. OBTAINING BOOKS BY FALSE PRETENCES AT TRURO. FRANCIS GUNDRY, aged 20, was charged with having unlawfully and knowingly, by false pretences, obtained from Eliza Player, twelve books of the value of £3 12s., the property of Thomas Duncan, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Thomas Duncan of the same, at the borough of Truro on the 25th of April last. Mr Cox prosecuted, and Mr Stock defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is the agent of Mr P. Virtue, of London, publisher, and resides at Plymouth. The prisoner had been in his employ some time ago, his duty being to obtain orders for books which were sent to Mr Wilson, Mr Duncan's agent for West Cornwall, by whom they were delivered to the customers. In April, the prisoner wrote to Mr Duncan requesting him to send a copy of Hume's History of England and a copy of the history of Scotland for a customer, who he had no doubt would take one of them. After the receipt of a second letter to the same effect, Mr Duncan sent the works to his agent Mr Wilson, with positive instructions to the latter that he was not to let the prisoner have them, but to deliver them himself to the customer, and receive the money for them. The parcel arrived at Mrs Player's in the High Cross, Truro, and on the 25th of April, while Mr Wilson was out, the prisoner called and asked for him. Miss Player told him that Mr Wilson was out, when he went away. He came again the same day and asked for Mr Wilson, and was told that he had not yet arrived. The prisoner then said—You received a parcel from Plymouth this morning for Mr Wilson, and she replied that she had. He then said that it was for him, and that to satisfy her of this he could show her a letter from Mr Duncan, stating that the books were for him. He also said that to show her he was not deceiving her he would tell her what the parcel contained. He did so, and she pointed out the parcel to him, when he tore away one side of the paper wrapper, to show that the books were the same as he had stated. He did not, however, show the letter which he had received. He then went away, but returned again between six and seven o'clock, and said he should like to have the books, as it would be a great loss to the firm if he did not get them. He also assured her that he would either bring the money for them, or return the books before nine o'clock that evening. On the assurance that he had received a letter from Mr Duncan to the effect that he was to have the books, she allowed him to take them away. Mr Duncan deposed that this representation of the prisoner was entirely false—that so far from his intending the prisoner should be entrusted with the books, he wrote positive instructions to Mr Wilson not to allow them into his possession, and that he had since neither received the books nor the money for them. Mr STOCK, for the prisoner, contended that the latter had a limited authority from Mr Duncan to supply customers with books, and that he had only acted on that authority in this instance. He would have paid for them long ago but for a severe illness which he had been suffering from during nearly the whole of the time since the transaction, and therefore the prosecution was a harsh proceeding, and ought never to have been instituted. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AT JANE LAWRENCE, who had been out on bail, was arraigned on the coroner's inquisition, on the charge of unlawfully killing and slaying Elizabeth Gilbert, at the parish of Ludgvan, on the 10th of June last. Mr STOCK, who appeared for the prosecution, said that the grand jury having thrown out the bill against the prisoner for the charge of manslaughter, for which she had been committed by the magistrates, he did not propose to offer any evidence against her in support of the charge on the coroner's inquisition. The jury then, by the direction of the judge, found the prisoner not guilty, and she was discharged. STEALING LINEN AT REDRUTH WILLIAM CROWLE, 39, and SIMON PERRY, 43, were charged with stealing in the parish of Redruth, on the 8th of July, a dress, table-cloth, and a handkerchief, the property of John Lanksbury. Mr Tosswell prosecuted; the prisoners were undefended. On the 8th of July the wife of the prosecutor hung out some clothes to dry, among which were the articles included in the indictment. She saw that they were safe between ten and eleven o'clock at night, but the next morning at seven o'clock they were gone. The prisoner, on the morning of the 9th, called at Knight's beerhouse, in Truro, and asked the servant, Mary Ann Duff, if her mistress had come down stairs. Being informed that she had not, one of them offered to sell her a dress, which she declined. Mr and Mrs Knight shorly (sic) after came down, and Crowle then sold the latter the stolen articles, which he said belonged to his wife, and he was compelled to sell them, as he was in great distress. Mr Knight suspecting that the things might have been stolen, gave information to the police, and the prisoners were subsequently apprehended by P.S. Stephens, of the county constabulary. The property was identified by Mrs Lanksbury, and the prisoners were found guilty. Perry, who had been twice convicted before, was sentenced to twelve months, and Crowle, against whom nothing previously was known, was sentenced to five months' hard labour. WOOL STEALING AT ST. AGNES. JOSEPH MEDLING, 24, was indicted for stealing at St. Agnes, on the 14th July, a quantity of wool, of the value of £1 16s., the property of William Michell. Mr Holdsworth prosecuted; and the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor is a farmer living at , and on the 14th July his son was engaged in shearing some sheep and lambs for his father. He put about 40 lbs. of lambs' wool into a bag which he left in the shearing-house about half-past eight o'clock in the evening, and at six o'clock the next morning it was gone. On the 14th of July the prisoner brought the wool to the warehouse of Mr Charles Hawke, at Truro, and offered it to Mr Hawke's manager for sale. He stated that his name was Thomas Phillips. There were 36 lbs. of it, and Mr Thomas agreed to pay him a shilling a pound for it. The bag in which the wool was sold was identified by Mr Michell, jun., as the one that had been stolen. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and a previous conviction having been proved against him, he was sentenced to twelve months' hard labour. PLEADED GUILTY. The following pleaded guilty:— THOMAS GROWGEY, 16, a miner, charged with stealing at the parish of Illogan, on the 13th July, a pair of boots and a pair of stockings, the property of Francis Giles; and also with taking a pair of boots the property of John Giles, but not with the intention of stealing them. Three months' hard labour. JAMES GUNN, 27, carrier, charged with stealing at Truro, on the 18th July, 19s. 6d., the monies of Robert Vercoe. One month's hard labour. SAMUEL ROWE, 20, labourer, to maliciously damaging a leaden pipe at South Down, in the parish of Maker, on the 6th July, with intent to commit a felony, after a previous conviction. Five months' hard labour. No BILL.—The grand jury ignored the bill against Jane Lawrence, charged with feloniously slaying and killing Elizabeth Gilbert on 10th of June, at Ludgvan. The grand jury concluded their duties shortly after four o'clock, and his lordship, after thanking them for their services to the country, discharged them. The Court adjourned about six o'clock. TUESDAY, AUGUST 4. (Before Chief Justice Erle). His lordship took his seat in Court this morning at nine o'clock. JANE NICHOLLS, 28, pleaded guilty to having at Bodmin, on the 25th July, stolen a straw hat and a feather of the goods and chattels of Emma Langdon, and was sentenced to three weeks' hard labour. MARY ANN WILLIAMS, who had pleaded guilty of stealing on the 2nd of June, 1862, at the parish of Paul, a gold watch and gold chain, the property of Richard Bond, was called up this morning to receive sentence. His lordship said that considering the time that had elapsed since the commission of the offence, that the prisoner had since married and was about to emigrate with her husband to New Zealand, and that she had been recommended to mercy by the prosecutor, he had come to the conclusion not to pass any sentence of imprisonment, but to order that she be discharged on her husband or any other person entering into sureties of £10 for her appearance at any future time should she be required. This might be done before any magistrate, when an order would be given for her discharge, and she could then proceed with her husband on their voyage. UNNATURAL OFFENCES. GILBERT CUNDY, a young man who had been out on bail, was charged with the commission of a revolting and disgusting offence at Gunnislake, on the 6th of May last. Mr. Carter prosecuted, and Mr Cole defended the prisoner. Not Guilty. BENJAMIN OXMAN, aged 77, a miner, was charged with a similar offence, at St. Hilary, on the 16th July last. Mr Cole prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. Not Guilty. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. MARY JAMES, aged 26, was charged with endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child at St. Blazey, on the 18th of March last; and JOHN CARNE BALL, 36, was charged with aiding and assisting her in committing the offence. Mr Prideaux, prosecuted; and Mr Stock, defended the prisoner. Elizabeth Opie, wife of Thomas Opie, mine smith, at St. Blazey, deposed that she knew the prisoner Mary James, who in the month of March last lived in the same court with them. On the 25th of that month, witness went into Mr Rundell's garden for the purpose of hanging out some clothes to dry. There is a gutter which runs through this garden, and in this gutter she observed the afterbirth of a child. The gutter communicates with certain privies, and among them the privy for the houses in which the prisoner and witness lived. Thomas Opie deposed that in consequence of what his wife, the last witness told him, he went into Rundell's garden, and found the female prisoner there. She had a brush in her hands with which she was endeavouring to push something in the gutter that appeared to have come from the privy. He said that if he was her he would let it alone as she might depend it would get abroad. She said—"Do you think it will, Mr Opie," and then went in to her parents' house. She then lived with her father and mother, but they have both since died. P.C. John Bone deposed that on Sunday the 2nd of April, in consequence of information which he had received he went to the house of Mary James, and asked her whether she had heard the reports that were afloat in the town. She replied that she had, and that she would be examined by Dr Taylor. He then told her that she must consider herself in custody, and that he must search her bed-room; and on examining it he found on the floor marks of blood, and in an adjoining room he found stains of blood on the floor, and some bloody linen. He then took her into custody, and brought her to the police station. Inspector Fleet deposed—On the 2nd of April the prisoner was given into my custody by the last witness. I told her that I should have her examined by Dr. Taylor, and she said he was quite agreeable, and that she never had a child in her life. I did have her examined by Dr. Taylor. On the 4th the father of Mary James came to the police-station and had an interview with her in my presence. Her father in very impressive and proper terms urged her to tell all she knew about the matter; and after he had done so, she said she would tell her father and Mr Fleet all about it. I then told her that whatever she stated I should take down in writing, and it would be used in evidence against her. She then said—"I was delivered of a female child on the 18th of last month in the night time. John Carne Ball is the father of that child and no one else. I do not think the child breathed at all. I wrapped it in a cloth, and put it in a bag in my back room. John Ball came in a night or two after and took the bag away. I told Ball on the Sunday that I had been confined, and it was then he engaged to come and take the child away. I was not very ill—it was an easy confinement, and I have not been ill since. I have not been ill at all. When Ball took the child away it was wrapped in a white cloth. Neither my father nor mother knew anything about it. It was on a Monday night that Ball took the child away. There was no one with me when the child was born. I never told anyone but Ball that I was in the family way, and I have not told anyone until now, except Ball, that I have had a child." I asked her if she wished to sign this statement, but she said it did not matter. I then went to the foundry at St. Blazey, where Ball works. I found him there with other workmen. I charged him with being concerned with Mary James in concealing the birth of a child. I told him that she had made a statement implicating him, and that I would read it to him. I did so. Ball said—"If my advice had been taken it would never have come to this. I wished the matter to come before the world. I would have supported the child, and I offered to do so." I then told him that he was also charged with destroying or making away with the body of the child; when he said that he had not made away with it, and that if I would order the other workmen out of the shop, he would produce it. I requested the other workmen to leave, which they did at once. Ball then went up some steps into a loft, and I followed him. He removed some boards and patterns at the far side of the loft, close under the roof, and took up a small box, which he handed to me, and said here it is. The box appeared to have been recently put together, and was nailed down very firmly. I took possession of the box and left the prisoner in the custody of P.C. Bone. I took the box to the police-station and opened it and found that it contained the dead body of a female child, wrapped in a cloth. The body was given to Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor deposed that on the 2nd of April he examined Mary James at the request of the police, and he was satisfied that she had given birth to a child within about a fortnight or three weeks from that time. On the 4th April, the police brought him a box containing the body of a female child. He examined the body. There was no marks of violence on the body. It was impossible to say, from the state of the cavity of the chest, whether the child had been born alive or not. Mr STOCK, for the defence, referred to the excellent character which the prisoners had born up to this offence; and to the very distressing position in which they now stood. The position of the female was particularly unfortunate, for not only had she suffered this disgrace, but she had since lost both her parents, whose death had been hastened if not caused by the disgrace which had been brought upon them. The evidence showed that no violence had been used towards the child, and but for the officiousness of the police the matter would never have been brought before the public, which, under the circumstances, might well have been allowed to slumber. He called Mr William Hosken, merchant, of Hayle, who was present in consequence of having been summoned on the special jury in a cause tried in the other court, said that he had known the prisoner Ball for many years, and never heard anything against his character before the present charge. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against both the prisoners. The Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the prisoners had been in confinement three months, sentenced Mary James to a fortnight, and Ball to a month's hard labour. INDECENT ASSAULT AT FEOCK. JOHN DINGLE, aged 28, a sailor, was charged with unlawfully assaulting Mary Webber, formerly Mary Chegwidden, at the parish of Feock, on the 28th of April, 1860, with intent. Also for a similar assault on Elizabeth Roberts, at the same place and time. Mr Rogers prosecuted. The assaults were of a most indecent character, and were committed on Mrs Webber and Mrs Roberts on the evening of Saturday, the 28th April, 1860, by the prisoner, as they were passing through South Croft, on their return to Feock from Truro market. The prisoner then absconded, and nothing was heard of him until the 14th of July last, when he returned home to attend his father's funeral, and was then taken into custody. He was found Guilty, and was sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. MARY ANN FRIGGENS, 25, pleaded guilty to concealing the birth of her child, at the parish of , on or about the 13th of March. She was sentenced to a fortnight's hard labour, his lordship observing that he took into consideration the fact of her having already been in confinement three months. KITTING AT CALSTOCK. JOHN COLLINS and JOHN RICHARDS, miners, who had been out on bail, were charged with stealing copper ore, the property of the adventurers in Wheal Edward Mine, in the parish of Calstock, and also with concealing a quantity of ore, with intent to defraud the adventurers in the said mine. Mr Clarke prosecuted, and Mr Cole defended the prisoners. Henry Kellaway:—l live at Sandhill gate, in the parish of Calstock. I am an adventurer in Wheal Edward mine, and the ores raised in that mine belong to me and other adventurers. William Henry Rowe:—l produce a map of the mine. I am the son of George Rowe, the agent of Wheal Edward, and I assist my father. The prisoners worked there up to the 30th of June. Their workings were confined to the back of the 50 fathom west. They were working as tributors. At the 61 fm. level Gourd and others were working as tut men. After one corps had left the mine at two o'clock, the next corps came to work at three o'clock, on the 30th of June. I went down to the 61 fathom level, in consequence of the instructions I received from my father. When I got to Gourd's stop, I heard the chain rattle and a noise as of a man descending the ladder. I went into Gourd's stop, and when I had gone some distance, Collins shouted out "hillo" to him. When I had gone towards the winze leading to the 60 fathom level I came upon Richards, who was holding up a bag of ore against the side of the winze. I said—"That is the game you are carrying on, is it," and he said "It is the first time—l hope you will forgive me." I then poured the ore out of the bag, and went into a winze and saw marks on the floor as if the ore had been scraped up by hand. I then went to surface and saw my father, after which I went to the 61 fathom level, and to the place where I met Richards. I found the ore where I had left it, but the bag in which it had been placed was gone. I went up to my father again, and he came down with me. We found Richards and Collins in the 50 fathom level, and he asked them where the bag was. Collins said they had no bag. My father said—"How dare you tell me such a lie?" when Collins said it was no use doing so, and he had thrown it into the sink at the bottom of the 70. Collins was then told to go and find it. He went away, and on returning said he could not find it as it had been buried. The class of ores in Collins’ pitch is very different from that in Gourd's stope. Cross-examined:—The prisoners had had a good "start" in the 50 fathom level, and there would have been about £40 coming to them had they continued until the next pay-day. Captain George Rowe, managing agent of Wheal Edward mine, deposed, that he was in the habit of examining regularly the operations on the mine both above and below. On the 30th of June he went down the mine to examine below, and he found a quantity of the company's ore concealed in Collins's pitch, which the prisoners were in the act of burying in some rubbish. Witness took a stone of ore out of the rubbish, which he produced. The witness then corroborated the evidence of his son as to directing him to go down the shaft. There was great difference between the qualities of the ore in Collins's pitch, and that which I found in the rubbish. The former was next to good for nothing, and the latter was worth from 4l. to 5l. a ton. The stone of ore which he took from the rubbish was similar in quality to that in Gourd's stope. The one in prisoner's pitch was of very low quality, and there was none in the pitch like the one in Gourd's stope. Peter Thomas, miner, employed on the mine, deposed to having taken the samples of the ore from the miners now produced. Capt. W. B. Collom, agent of Wheal Tor mine, in the same parish, deposed that on the 3rd of July he inspected Wheal Edward mine. The ore in Collins's pitch was very poor, and his opinion was that two men could not break a ton of ore there in a month. In the bottom in Gourd's stope, the ore was very rich. He did not believe that the stones of ore produced by Captain Rowe, could have been broken in Collins's pitch. Mr COLE, for the prisoners, said that the two Rowes had come there with the determination to convict the prisoner at any cost, and the jury would judge of the manner in which they had given their evidence, and the reluctance with which they had admitted anything in favour of the prisoners. The prisoner Richards admitted that he had gone down to Gourd's stope for a pick which Gourd had borrowed and had neglected to return. Gourd was in the town, and could have been called at a minute's notice, and the prosecution having neglected to do so, was a proof that this statement of Richards was correct. That was really the whole case against Richards; and with respect to Collins, he submitted there was no case whatever against him. He commented upon the evidence, and particularly upon the admissions which he had elicited. They found that several days were allowed to elapse after the prisoners had been discharged, and no proceedings were taken against them. Then they found that on the 3rd July, the prisoners and the father of Collins were sent for by Mr Rowe, who stated that he wanted to see what he could do for them, and how they would have the matter settled, but he submitted that his real object was to see if he could induce them to abandon the £40 or £50 due to them from the mine. On the pay-day, on the 13th July, prisoners went for their money, and were told that there was none for them, and it was only after this demand had been made that this prosecution was commenced. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners, and they were each sentenced to six weeks' hard labour. JOHN HOLVILL, aged 32, a sawyer, who was in custody on the charge of neglecting to appear at the last assizes to prosecute Nicholas Plint for felony was ordered by his lordship to be discharged, having been in custody since the 7th of April last. THOMAS VINCENT, aged 45, quarryman who had been committed in consequence of not finding sureties to keep the peace towards Elizabeth Vincent, his wife, who he had threatened to kill, was also ordered to be discharged after having been in prison since the 24th of June. The Court then rose. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before the Hon. Sir J. Shaw Willes). This court opened at 11 o'clock. There were only four causes entered for hearing, two of which were undefended common jury cases. TREHANE AND OTHERS v. PETER. In this case Mr Cole appeared for the plaintiffs, instructed by Mr Nicolls. The plaintiffs, who are general merchants at Alston Quay, on the banks of the Tamar, claimed 46l. 16s. 7d., from the defendant, for goods sold and delivered. Of this sum 16l. 10s. 6d. had been paid on account, and the plaintiffs sought to recover the balance. The defendant pleaded never indebted, but as he did not put in an appearance, upon the debt being proved by Mr John Larke, one of the plaintiffs, the judge directed the jury to find a verdict for 30l. 6s. 1d. RABEY v. HUNT. Mr Paul Rabey, the elder, was the plaintiff, and Francis Hunt, the defendant. Plaintiff sought to recover £100 with interest for costs upon a bill of exchange, dated the 22nd of April, 1861. The bill was drawn by Paul Rabey, the younger, and accepted by the defendant. The judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff for £110 16s. 8d. PEARCE v. NORWAY. This was an action for diverting the water from the site of an ancient mill belonging to the plaintiff in the parish of Lanivet, near the borough of Bodmin, and for breaking down a weir or dam erected by the plaintiff in a stream called Reperry, for the purpose of conducting the water to the mill. Mr Karslake, Q.C., and Mr Pindar, instructed by Mr Whitfield, were for the plaintiff; Mr Montague Smith. Q.C., M.P., and Mr Kingdon, instructed by Messrs. Shilson and Co., for the defendant. The defendant put in various pleas which in substance raised the questions whether the defendant was guilty of the alleged trespasses, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the use of the water and to the dam or weir he had erected. Mr Karslake opened the pleadings for the plaintiff, Mr Thomas Pearce, who, he said, was a clergyman, and had for many years held the rectory of Roche in this county. He was now more than 80 years of age and was obliged to give up duty. The defendant, Mr Neville Norway, was a gentleman and a magistrate, living near Lanivet. The action was brought to test the right of the defendant to destroy a dam erected on the river Reperry, about four miles from Bodmin, and to erect a weir dam for the purpose of diverting the stream from the plaintiff's stamping mill, at Reperry, near Lanivet. The defendant claimed to be owner of land in the parish of Luxulyan, adjoining plaintiff's. As far as the plaintiff's property was concerned, he should be able to trace it from the year 1761, when it belonged to the Arundels of Wardour. In that year, a lease was granted by the then Lady Arundel to William Thomas. In 1794 a further lease was granted in reversion by Lord Arundel, to Mary Thomas, and he called attention to a clause in the will showing that at the time there was a stamp mill there, which he would prove remained in existence till very lately. Mary Thomas, who married and became Mrs Andrews, remained in possession of the property till 1844. In the year 1801 the trustees of Lord Arundel sold the property to Mr Glynn, of Glynn, upon whose bankruptcy the assignees conveyed it to Mr Pearce. It appeared that Mrs Andrews at times let the stamp mill, there being a great quantity of tin found in the neighbourhood which was brought to the mill to be stamped. About 1838 she let the mill to Captain Rich, who altered the stamps and took in the water at a point a little higher up the stream than where it originally ran, but used a part of the old leat. In 1840, the supply of tin having been exhausted in the neighbourhood, Captain Richards left the mill, took down his stamps, and stamping was then discontinued, though the old stamps still remained. In 1844, Mrs Andrews died, and there being no streaming going on in the neighbourhood, Mr Pearce allowed the stamping mill to go into decay, and a tenant named Stick took upon himself to destroy the leat for the purpose of tillage. In 1856, Mr Pearce contemplated rebuilding the mill, and had plans prepared for the purpose, but altered his intention in consequence of the scarcity of tin. Within the last three years, however, the whole of the country in the neighbourhood had turned out to be extremely rich in tin ore. In 1861, Mr Pearce therefore determined to have the leat repaired, in order to replace the stamping mill. Mr Norway, as the owner of the land on the other side of the stream, gave Mr Pearce notice not to proceed, and afterwards, when the dam was completed, had it pulled down. It remained down for some time, and in 1862 Mr Norway, not being content with disputing Mr Pearce's right to use the stream, put a dam across the stream himself into the plaintiff's land, and took off all the water to a new stamping mill erected on his own ground. Mr Pearce then found it was necessary to assert his right, and hence the present action. The JUDGE:—The questions for the jury will be—First, did the right ever exist? secondly, if it did exist, whether it had been abandoned; and thirdly, whether the present dam was erected on its old site? The wills referred to were then produced. William Bray, a tinner, living at Lanivet, said he knew Mr Norway's estate all his life. He also knew Reperry, where he remembered a stamping mill 63 or 64 years ago. It was then in work. About 60 years ago there was a good deal of them about Roche to stamp. He rented the mill himself before Capt. Rich had it, and attended to it afterwards for Capt. Rich. He left it about 22 years ago. The mill was worked by a stream of water brought in from the river. He remembered the leat before the alteration made by Capt. Rich. When he first recollected the mill the water was taken in on Mr Norway's land, on Woon estate. There was a dam in the river for the purpose of raising the water. He pointed the place out to the surveyor, where he remembered the dam for more than 60 years. Capt. Rich built the dam about fifteen fathoms higher up the river. It came across on Mr Oke’s land. The old dam was used to carry the water to the old stamping mill. The river is now worked down several feet deeper by the streamers. Capt. Rich built the new dam 26 or 27 years ago. He put in a new wheel in the mill five or six fathoms from the old stamp wheel. He worked it three or four years. He then gave it up, one of his mines having stopped. He saw the place where Mr Pearce’s new dam was pulled down; it was in the same place as the old dam as near as witness could remember. Capt. Rich took the water through part of the old leat. Part of the old leat is open now. Witness rented the stamps from Mrs Andrew for one year before Capt. Rich, and worked the old stamps. Cross-examined by Mr M. Smith:—Rented the stamp mill about 27 years ago. There is nothing now on the ground to show where the old dam was. There was an ancient mine adit near the place. The old dam was near the old adit, but not the present adit. The old stamp mill had three heads and the new one made by Captain Rich twelve, and the wheel was twice the diameter of the old one. Walter Hooper, a tinner, 64 years of age, stated that he lived at Reperry during the early part of his life, and remembered the old stamping mill, the old dam, and the place where the water was taken in at Reperry; was very familiar to the place. He generally corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. In cross-examination by Mr Montagu Smith, witness admitted that there was no trace of the old leat now left, but there was an oak tree standing near the spot by which he identified it. Robert Gillard, a working engineer, stated that his father rented Lower Woon and part of Reperry till last Michaelmas; he went there 40 years ago; remembered the old stamping mill on Reperry; knew it 30 years ago; the old stamping mill stood about five or six feet from the hedge which divides Higher and Lower Woon; it was in Lower Woon; he recollected it because there was a watergate there; the new dam made by Captain Rich was between Higher Woon and Mena. Samson Borlase, of Luxullion, said he was 65 years of age and knew Reperry Stamping Mill since he was 10 years old. He lived at the mill a long time, and knew it up to the death of Mrs Andrews. Witness agreed with the previous witnesses as to the situation of the old leat and dam. All the water in the river was generally required for the leat. The dam was at the boundry (sic) between Higher and Lower Woon. The water in the river was all in Mr Norway’s right; Mr Pearce’s land ran on one side the water and Mr Norway’s on the other. Henry Thomas, of Bodmin, said he was aged 77, and knew the Reperry Mills since he was about 10 years of age. He knew the dam which took the water to the mill. It stood between the two Woons. Johanna Lean, widow of John Lean, who was tenant of Reperry for 14 years under Mrs Andrew, commencing in 1831, said the old stamping mill was then at work. She agreed with previous witnesses as to the situation of the dam. Thomas Vague, a tinner, aged 75, said he worked at Reperry for more than 20 years. The old dam stood between the two Woons and turned the water into the land now held by Mr Stick at Reperry. Witness took care of the dam and repaired it. Mr Roberts stated that tin stream works had been worked out nearly 20 years ago, but within the last few years tin had been discovered to a large extent in the surrounding hills, and the stamping works were again erected upon the stream. James Stick said he was now tenant of Reperry and rented under Mr Pearce. He had lived at the Reperry farm nine years and a half. The old stamping mill was standing when he took to the farm, but there was no stamping then being done in the neighbourhood. Remembered Mr Pearce coming over with Mr Roberts, the miner, and knew what business they were about. The land between the old leat and the stream was waste and witness brought it into cultivation. In so doing he destroyed the traces of the leat. He cultivated the land down to the river. About the end of 1860 he received instructions from Mr Pearce to erect a dam, and he did so. The dam cost £6 10s. He afterwards opened the leat. Two men afterwards pulled the dam to pieces. The remaining part of the old leat was about two feet wide and one foot deep. Cross-examined by Mr M. Smith:—The dam which had been pulled down was built of stone. The river was now eight to ten feet deep. Robert Symonds, of Truro, said he made the plans produced. As a surveyor, he could trace the vestige of the old leat over the ground as marked in the plan. A short distance from the place pointed out to him by previous witnesses as the site of the old dam, there were traces of the old leat. He found a connection between Rich’s leat and the river. A strong stone dam was erected by Mr Marshall at the point marked in the plan. Cross-examined:—Except a small portion at the end where the dams were, I can trace the old leats the whole way. Edward Morgan, clerk to the plaintiff’s attorney, deposed to serving a notice on Mr Norway not to erect the dam. Mr Montague Smith then opened the case for the defendants. He contended that the bed of the river belonged to Mr Norway and that therefore he had the right to the water. A question arose some time ago as to the right to the bed of the river, when the maps of the parish were examined by Mr Pearce and Mr Norway, and Mr Pearce then acknowledged that the bed of the river was Mr Norway’s property, and that the boundary was the high land on plaintiff’s side. The question was, had Mr Pearce any right to place the dam where he did; and there were two grounds upon which he (Mr M. Smith) should ask them for a verdict for the plaintiff, namely, that the right did not exist at the time, and if it ever had existed it was gone, and that the dam was not put down in the same place as the old dam. He should show that there had been a discontinuance of the stamping mills for 25 years, and that the dams and leats had been gone from 20 to 25 years, and the river had flowed on in its old course without any obstruction. That being so it was not competent for the plaintiff to place fresh obstructions in the river and divert it from its natural course to the injury of the persons who held lands upon its banks, as had previously been the case. The learned counsel then cited a judgment of Mr Justice Holroyd, in which it was held that rights of this sort having been allowed to lapse for a number of years could not again be claimed. The learned Judge said that was a question for the Court of Exchequer, and not for the jury. Neither was it a question he should decide; it must go to the Court of Exchequer. Mr M. Smith continued that he should show that the site of the old dam was not at the junction of Higher and Lower Woon, but higher up the river opposite Mena Farm. The first witness for the defendant was Mr Richard Rich. He said: I am a mine agent living in Bodmin, and have been a mine agent all my life. I remember my father taking the Reperry mill in 1835. I was then about 21 years of age. I assisted my father in the erection of the new mill, in 1846. I was well acquainted with the old mill and the leat leading to it. The old dam was then in existence. The new dam was erected in the river opposite Mena farm. I superintended the cutting of the new leat. It did not run into the old leat, but was 8 or 10 feet above it throughout. The new leat was cut on a higher level to gain more power to work the new mill. I have a perfect recollection of the situations of the old and new dam. The old dam was opposite a field in higher Woon. I have heard the evidence that it was at the junction of Higher and Lower Woon. It is quite a mistake. About a fortnight since, I traced the old and new leats from the river and could trace them for some distance. I should think the old leat was 200 or 300 feet above the boundary. I have never seen any stamps working since my father left the mills. I will not swear that there was not a dam lower down than the place I have mentioned. I have not been on the land in question since 1839. I don't think I told Mr Whitefield that I knew little or nothing about it. Wm. Honey said he was a farmer, and had lived hear Reperry for the last ten years. Some years ago his father rented a farm called Pearce's Reperry. John Lean rented the adjoining farm. Knew the old stamp mill in Little Bee Park, and knew the leat to the river and the dam. The dam was between Woon and Mena. His father afterwards took Lean's farm. He remembered Capt. Rich building the new stamp mill. He did not know that anyone worked the old stamps after Rich left. He pulled the old stamps down about 16 years ago. Could not say when Mr Rich left. He took the old stamps away by Mr Pearce's consent. The leats at that time were full of brambles and thorns. He filled the leats in and made an improvement in the bottom of the field. The stamps ceased to work 25 years ago. Cross-examined by Mr Karslake:—I had notice to leave, and I then planted all the farm with corn and carried it away. That was after my landlord withdrew his notice to quit, and gave me time to pay my rent. I did not point out to Mr Norway the bridge at the junction of Higher and Lower Woon as the site of the old dam. I pointed out a place a field lower down in mistake. I never knew the old dam or leat. I did not myself receive Mr Pearce's consent to pull down the old stamps. John Harris, a tinner, said he was 85 years of age; he had lived about a mile from Reperry all his life, and he could recollect 75 years ago; he knew the leat very well; there was a dam between Higher Woon and Mena where the leat ran out; the trace is there now; never knew of a dam below that; there was a contrivance at the junction of Higher and Lower Woon to carry the water across the river from the adit; it then ran to the old stamps. Cross-examined by Mr Karslake:—I don't recollect Mr Stick coming to me to ask me where the old dam was; I don't recollect saying to him "It's no use coming to me; I don't know nothing at all about it;" I never worked at the stamps myself. Robert Marshall, a farmer of Lanivet, stated that he worked upon the stamps when a boy, about twelve months. He knew the old leat. The dam which turned the water into the leat was between Higher Woon and Mena. Portions of the leat were now to be seen. Cross-examined:—I am one of the gentlemen who built up the dam for the new stamp works, upon Mr Norway's land. That dam will stop up the whole of the water. It was begun about twelve months ago. We give £10 a year for it. We have twelve stamps, but at present only work four on account of the scarcity of water. The wheel, pit, machinery, and all cost about £120, and about £6 to make the adit. Thomas Keam, a tin streamer, deposed to streaming the river in question, and paying dues to Mr Norway. Cross-examined:—He asked Mr Pearce for liberty to stream, but he would not grant it. Henry Coom, a surveyor, deposed to surveying the ground in question. He could not trace the old leat except in a few places. Wm Pease, steward to the Hon. G.M. Fortescue, stated that he had been a surveyor for 30 years. He had surveyed the ground in question and found adjoining the river on the Mena farm traces of leats. All that could be seen of the old leat was a slight depression of the ground, and the indications showed that the leat entered the river at Mena. There were no indications of a leat at the junction of Higher and Lower Woon. This concluded the evidence for the defendant, and it being six o'clock the learned judge intimated that it was too late to finish the case that night, and he would therefore adjourn it till half-past nine o'clock next morning. TUESDAY, AUGUST 4. Before the Hon. Sir James Shaw Willes. PEARCE v. NORWAY. This case was resumed this morning on the opening of the Court at half-past nine o'clock, when Mr Karslake said his Lordship had kindly suggested that an arrangement should be made between the parties whereby both should be entitled to the use of the water. This arrangement had been made and no doubt it would prove to be a very satisfactory one. He had only to say, on behalf of Mr Pearce, that the action was brought solely to maintain his right and with the bona fide belief that he was entitled to the water in question, which by the operation of the plaintiff he would have been deprived of altogether. However, as the case turned out, both parties would be able to enjoy the use of the water.—Mr M. Smith said he must observe on behalf of Mr Norway, that he defended the action in the belief that he had a right to the whole of the water in this stream. Questions, however had arisen in the course of the enquiry which altered the case somewhat, and it was a matter which must have led to a great deal of litigation, for most probably their verdict, whatever it might be, would not have ended the case. The learned Judge said there could be no doubt that the question would have given rise to considerable litigation between the parties. Mr Norway appeared to have the water by territorial right so far as one could guess, but it was clear that Mr Pearce also enjoyed a right out of the territorial right, which had been formed in some way or other by some territorial arrangement. This right had fallen into disuse since 1839; but there was always great difficulty in getting rid of a right by abandonment after it had once been established. He would illustrate it in a familiar way. If a man laid down his umbrella for a time when the weather was dry, and took it up again when it was wet there was no doubt a special right still existing, but still if the question came for trial there would be a difficulty to prove it, and it might go to the to settle the point. He thought an arrangement had been come to on fair, just, and beneficial terms. The jury were then discharged. There was another cause in the list in which the same plaintiff brought an action against Marshall and others, the constructors of the leat and dam and the occupiers of the new stamping mill on Mr Norway's grounds referred to in the last case. The arrangement in the previous case also applied to this. This concluded the civil business, and the court then proceeded with the TRIAL OF PRISONERS. STEALING A ROPE AT PERRANARWORTHAL.—Daniel Sullivan, 46, labourer, was charged with stealing 25lbs. of rope the property of Messrs. Sharp and Co., railway contractors. The prisoner was in the employ of the prosecutors on the Falmouth Railway, and left on the 11th July. On the day previous to his leaving the rope was missed; three days afterwards the prisoner was met on the turnpike road with a bag in his possession by a policeman, who asked him to account for it. Prisoner gave contradictory accounts, saying at first that he had tools in the bag with which he was going to work. He was then taken into custody, and afterwards stated that he found the rope in a field. He was found guilty, and a previous conviction having been proved against him, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Mr Cox appeared for the prosecution. STEALING A PAIR OF TROWSERS. John Lewis, 56, collier, was charged with stealing a pair of trowsers, the property of John Tamblyn, at the parish of St. Enoder, on the 29th June. Mr Bayfort appeared for the prosecution. It appeared that Mrs Tamblyn, the prosecutor's wife, placed the trowsers on the hedge to dry. They were stolen during the night, and on the following day a policeman found them in the prisoner's possession in a house at St. Columb. The prosecutor identified the trowsers. The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. CHARGE OF ILL-TREATING A PAUPER. RICHARD PUCKEY, 67, labourer, was charged with committing a violent assault upon a pauper patient in the St. Austell workhouse hospital, on the 2nd May. The prisoner, who was himself a pauper, was employed as a sick nurse in the hospital and had been so employed for three or four years. Mr Slade Gully appeared for the prosecution, and called Arthur Prinkham, who said:—I was an inmate of the workhouse at St. Austell in May last. I remember Chappel. He died on the 4th of May. I was in the hospital the day before Chappel's death. The prisoner was there. John Chappell was on the night stool. Prisoner dragged him from the night stool very barbarously. He took him by the side of the bed and caught him with both hands and threw him on the bed with his head to the foot. There is an iron cross bar at the foot of the bed, and his head made a great rattle upon the iron. He then caught him by the sides "creaming on him," (squeezing him) as hard as he could, and tossed him about. I was standing in the door way all the time, it was about half past seven on Sunday evening. I found Chappel dead about half past five o'clock next morning. The prisoner was employed as a nurse. It would be his business to help a patient into bed. I had been in hospital four weeks at the time. Chappel was very ill all the time. Cross-examined by prisoner:—Why did you not complain at once. Witness:—I was afraid of you like the others. John Chappel was 85 years of age and was speechless. John Penberthy Berryman, surgeon of the St. Austell Union said: I attended the deceased, John Chappel. He was very infirm and aged 87. I know John Miners and William Stoneman, inmates of the same hospital. They are both extremely old men, confined to their beds and unable to attend. My attention was not called to the deceased after his death. I examined the body after it had been exhumed for the coroner's inquest, but I could then find no marks of injuries. The evidence of Miners and Stoneman was taken before the coroner. The depositions of these witnesses were now put in and read. They both deposed to seeing the prisoner treat Chappel with great violence, throwing him on the bed and pressing upon his stomach and chest. In defence the prisoner said he never used the patient cruelly in his life. The old men were very feeble, and he was obliged to lift them. The witness, Prinkham, had a spite against him, because he (prisoner) would not let him take the other patient's bread. Prinkham on one occasion "took away old Stoneman’s big piece of bread, and put his little bit in his place," and ever after he had a spite against him (prisoner). A juryman asked if the Governor of the Union was not to be examined. His Lordship said he was about to ask the same question himself. This was a case in which the witnesses speak to considerable violence being used by the prisoner towards the deceased man, which could not but have had the effect of shortening his life. There was no complaint made by the Governor and nothing said to the surgeon, whose attention was called to the matter by the coroner's inquiry. On a post mortem examination, however, there were no marks of violence found upon the body. The deceased had either been so badly used as to cause his death, or it was nothing more than the roughness of the nurse in lifting the patient. Some persons were not suited to be nurses; they are rough in spite of themselves; but if they were not intentionally rough it amounted to nothing. The jury immediately acquitted the prisoner, the foreman remarking that a more fitting man ought to be placed in the hospital as a nurse. The learned Judge said he was very glad they had returned that verdict; but he did not at all find fault with those who sent the case for trial, because the sharpest watch ought to be kept upon persons who had the care of the sick poor. But so soon as the evidence absolved the prisoner from manslaughter there was an end to the case. The remark of the jury as to the prisoner's unfitness to be a nurse was a very just one, and no doubt it would have its effect in the proper place. There was another charge of a similar nature, in which the prisoner was charged with ill-treating a pauper patient named John Richards, who also died; but this case was not gone into, the Judge remarking that there was no use enquiring further into the prisoner's character. He was, undoubtedly, a rough man and entirely unfit to be a nurse. STEALING MONEY AT TRURO. NICHOLAS PEARCE, 32, butcher, who keeps a marine stores in Kenwyn-street, Truro, was charged with stealing a sovereign and three pounds in silver, the property of Solomon Madron, on the 16th July. Mr Cox appeared for the prosecution and Mr Carter for the defence. It appeared that the prosecutor, who is a fish hawker from , went into the New Inn, Kenwyn-street, on the evening of the 16th July, between 8 and 9 o'clock, having the money in his possession. He had had some drink, and he treated the company assembled in the kitchen of the public-house to ale and cider. He pulled out his purse containing the money, and laid it on the table, from which it was picked up by the prisoner, who returned it to the prosecutor. The landlady, Mrs Rowe, seeing the prisoner in possession of so much money, asked him to place it in her possession. This, however, he refused to do, but he went into another room with her and counted the money. He then returned to the kitchen, and after again treating the company and remaining about ten minutes, he went into the passage where the prisoner passed him, and the prosecutor said he felt a hand in his pocket, and immediately discovered the loss of the purse. The prisoner ran out into the street and the prosecutor called out "Nick, Nick, you have my money." A boy named William Henry Calf, saw the prisoner go down a passage next door to his own house on the opposite side of the street and as he passed down the passage Calf heard something drop which he said sounded like a chain. The prisoner went into a closet in the passage and remained some time. On coming out, and being charged by the prosecutor with stealing his money, he denied it, and wanted to "fight it out." The evidence for the prosecution was very unsatisfactory, and the judge said the case depended entirely upon the accuracy of the prosecutor who was admitted to be careless with his money, and was not very clear in his statement. The jury acquitted the prisoner. STEALING A COTTAGE. JOHN RAMSAY, 51, labourer, JOHN HAM, 39, mason, and THOMAS WILLIAMS, 45, mason, were charged with stealing, as the prosecutor expressed it, "a cottage," from Tregantle. Mr Arundel Rogers appeared for the prosecution. Ramsay was the first tried, the other two men being out on bail. There was a second count charging them with receiving the wood knowing it to have been stolen. Mr Rice Mennie, the prosecutor, stated that he lived in Windham-street, Plymouth. In 1859 he built a row of cottages at Tregantle and he saw them all right about four months ago. On the 28th of July he again visited the cottages and found one of them had entirely disappeared, with the exception of the bricks and stones. Francis Granger, who was employed as Mr Mennie's agent, stated that he saw the cottage complete on the 18th of July. The Judge: Then how came you to say before the magistrates that the doors were gone? Witness: I said a door; there was one door gone. By the Prisoner: Did you not give a man named Brassey leave to take up the floor and nail it to the end of the next cottage which was tumbling down? Witness: Yes, but I did so because a part of the floor was already gone, and I was afraid the rest might go if left where it was. The Judge: When was that? Witness: Three months ago. The Judge: And yet you swore before the magistrates and also here to-day that the house was complete on the 18th July. The prosecutor was again called, and stated that the witness Granger had not informed him that any of the flooring was gone. The first he heard of it was to-day. P.C. Draydon said he found some pieces of wood under the floor of Ramsey's house. The wood was produced in court, but the prosecutor could not identify it any further than that he believed it to be the wood from his cottage. The prisoner said the house had been blown down by the wind, and had been a wreck for some time. He called Mr Benjamin Cook, agent to the contractors for the building of Tregantle Fort, who spoke to his honesty and industry during the 12 months that he had been employed at the fort. The judge, in summing up, commented strongly upon the manner in which the witness Granger had given his evidence, and upon the contradictions which had been wrung out of him. It was evident that the cottage had been in a very dilapidated state for some time, and probably the materials had been stolen, but it was not clearly proved that the wood belonged to the prosecutor. The jury acquitted the prisoner, and the prosecution then declined to call any evidence against the two other men, who were accordingly discharged. This concluded the business of the assizes, and the court rose at half-past four o'clock. The Judges and the High Sheriff, W. Coulson, Esq., afterwards dined with Lady Molesworth, at Pencarrow.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 23 and 30 October 1863

6. Michaelmas Sessions The Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the County of Cornwall commenced in the County Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday last. The attendance of magistrates was very large, the following being present:— Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., presiding. ) J. Jope Rogers, Esq., M.P., ) Chairmen. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq., ) Lord Vivian. Brydges Willyams, Esq. Sir J. Trelawny, Bart., M.P. Baron Lethbridge, Esq. T. J. A. Robartes, Esq., M.P. Edward Collins, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. R. C. Roberts, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. R. G. Bennet, Esq. Hon. J. T. Boscawen. Major Trelawney. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. P. Rodd, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. T. R. Bolitho, Esq. C. G. P. Brune, Esq. Edward Kelly, Esq. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. R. M. N. Usticke, Esq. T. S. Bolitho, Esq. T. H. Ley, Esq. W. Williams, Esq. John Borlase, Esq. F. M. Williams, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. M. H. Williams, Esq. C. Kingdon, Esq. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. W. R. C. Potter, Esq. J. Hichens, Esq. Revd. S. Symonds. C. A. Reynolds, Esq. “ R. Buller. R. G. Lakes, Esq. “ J. Pascoe. J. W. Peard, Esq. “ V. F. Vyvyan. N. Norway, Esq. “ R. B. Kinsman. R. Foster, Esq. “ J.J. Wilkinson. Coryton Roberts, Esq. “ H. J. Morshead. J. Trevenen, Esq. “ A. Tatham. The following were then impannelled as

THE GRAND JURY. Mr Joseph Morcom, St. Austell, Foreman. Mr Henry Andrews, Truro. Mr R. Burrow, jun., Bodmin, Mr Thomas Baker, Liskeard. Mr E. H. Eykyn, Budock. Mr J. Gill, Penryn. Mr T. Henwood, St. Issey. Mr J. Laity, . Mr J. Marshall, St. Veep. Mr Wm. Michell, St. Austell. Mr Wm. Manser, Penryn. Mr W. H. May, . Mr A. S. Norway, Wadebridge. Mr R. S. Oliver, Newquay. Mr Wm. N. Procter, Calstock. Mr Ralph Parkyn, St. Veep. Mr W. Robinson, Liskeard. Mr E. Smith, St. Clement. Mr W. J. W. Veale, St. Issey. Mr J. Wilcocks, West Looe. The CLERK OF THE PEACE having read Her Majesty's proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and the prevention and punishment of vice, profaneness and immorality, The CHAIRMAN delivered the following charge to the grand jury:— Gentlemen of the Grand Inquest—l am happy to say that almost invariably it has fallen to the lot of the gentlemen presiding over this court to congratulate the county on the full attendance of the grand jurors; but I regret that on the present occasion there is not a sufficient attendance to compose a full grand jury, there being only 20 gentlemen present. It is most desirable that gentlemen in your position should faithfully, cheerfully, and of their own accord discharge those duties imposed upon them by the constitution. You are aware that the court has the power to enforce the attendance of grand jurors, and if we should find that the attendance should fall off, we shall be obliged to inflict a slight penalty upon those gentlemen who absent themselves on occasions of this sort. I regret to say that the calendar which you will have to consider will occupy a considerable portion of your time, as it contains the names of no less than 46 prisoners; but at the same time the offences with which they are charged are of a very ordinary character and many of them are of a very ordinary description. In many respects the calendar presents a very favourable contrast with many previous ones. There are only two cases of burglary, in one of which it appears very doubtful whether the prisoner committed the offence with the intention of committing a felony. There are no cases of horse or sheep stealing, and only one person who was charged with poultry stealing, which used to be of very frequent occurrence in this County. Lord Chief Justice Erie, at the late assizes, congratulated the county on the remarkable absence of all crime accompanied by violence, and it certainly does appear to me that we are very fortunate in having escaped from those disgraceful robberies with extreme violence, that have taken place in other parts of the country; and it appears that this favourable state of things continues up to the present moment. As you are aware, crime increases from time to time without any apparent reason, and at other times it decreases without our being able to assign any real cause for such a decrease. As far as I can ascertain from the returns made by the Government it would appear that for five years, from 1852 to 1856 inclusive, the number of prisoners confined in the gaol and let out on bail for trial in this county was 1,133, and for the five years, from 1857 to 1861, there were 912 prisoners, showing a diminution of 221. There does not, however, appear to be any very essential diminution in the state of crime in Cornwall, as will be seen from returns which I have received for each separate year. The number of persons committed in 1857 was 200; 1858, 167; 1859, 172; 1960, 173; 1861, which is the last year for which I have received any return, the number was 200. The returns which have been furnished to me to-day, by the Governor of the Gaol, show that crime is, if anything, on the increase. At the Michaelmas Sessions of 1862, there were 33 prisoners for trial, but at the present sessions there are in the calender (sic) 44 names which have since been increased to 46. There has been committed under the Criminal Justices Act in 1862,14; and in 1863,13. There were no committals under the Juvenile Offenders Act in 1862, but there have been 4 in 1863, making a grand total of 47 in 1862, as compared with 61 at the present sessions, showing a comparatively considerable increase. The total number of prisoners received at the gaol in 1862 was 190; and up to the present time there have been 208 prisoners in the gaol. I think we may conclude from these returns and statistics, that crime in Cornwall has neither much diminished or much increased; but is pretty nearly stationary, fluctuating from time to time, as I have before said. There are one or two cases in the calendar to which I will call your attention. The first is that of John Trahar, who is indicted for having, as a bailee, fraudulently appropriated property, and this is an offence which the law regards as a larceny. If the case is as clear as it has been represented in the depositions, it will be your duty to return a true bill. The next case was that of Absalom Daton for feloniously breaking and entering a dwelling-house in the parish of Kea. From the depositions it appeared to him very doubtful whether the man was there for the purpose of committing a felony, but he had assaulted the prosecutrix, and I believe that it is the intention of the prosecution to indict him for an assault. There is a case of a very peculiar character, in which John Michell is charged with obtaining money under false pretences; and the false pretence is that the prisoner sold some metal to the prosecutor representing it to be Californian or Australian gold, and it afterwards was found that it was not gold as had been represented. Two men named John Warwick and Wm. Bennett are charged with violently assaulting a police constable, and I believe that you will have no difficulty in finding a true bill. Out of this case a very unusual charge had arisen. It appeared that the man was called upon in the Queen's name to assist the policemen, but instead of doing so he walked away, and by law this constitutes a misdemeanour. There is another case in which a woman is charged with taking laudanum, with the intention of committing suicide; and this offence is a misdemeanour under the law. As regards the finances of the country, you are aware that the Finance Committee has now been appointed, to whom is entrusted the supervision of the county finances, and therefore it will not be my place as heretofore, to bring before you the usual statement; and I will content myself with stating that the county rate for general purposes would be one halfpenny in the pound, and a police rate of three farthings in the pound would also be asked for. It has been usual at the Michaelmas sessions for the chairman to notice certain acts of Parliament which have been passed during the preceding session of Parliament, and in accordance with that custom I will now proceed to do so as briefly as possible. The 26th and 27th Victoria, chapter 10, is entitled "The Salmon Fisheries Amendment Act, 1863," which enacts that no salmon caught during the time at which the sale of salmon is prohibited, that is during what is called the "close season," shall be exported, and any person found guilty of disobeying the law in this respect, is liable to forfeit a penalty of £5. The act further provides that the burden of proof shall lie on the person exporting. Chapter 41 is an act to amend the law relating to the liability of innkeepers, and to prevent certain frauds upon them. The 1st section provides that an innkeeper is not liable for the loss, injury, or damage of any property above £30, unless such loss occurs through the wilful neglect of the innkeeper or his servant, or when it has been deposited with him for safe custody. The 2nd section states that any innkeeper refusing to take the custody of goods shall not be entitled to the protection of this act; and the 3rd section provides that every innkeeper shall be required to keep a copy of the 1st section exhibited in a conspicuous part of the hall or entrance to his hotel or inn, or he shall not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the act. Chapter 44 is an act to provide for the further security of persons from personal violence. It amends the 24th and 25th Victoria, c. 96, and 24th and 25th Vic., c. 100. You have all heard of the garotte robberies that have taken place in London, and this act gives power to add the punishment of whipping to the other punishment which may be inflicted. 25 lashes can now be inflicted on boys under 16, and 50 lashes on prisoners above that age. The 61st chaper (sic) is an act to prevent waywardens from contracting for the repair of roads or public works within their immediate districts. By section 1, no waywarden is to contract for any public works in his own parish or in any other parish in his district under a penalty of £10. Chap. 77 is an act to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of justices residing or living out of the county for which they are magistrates. It amends the Acts of 11th and 12th Vic., and makes clear the jurisdiction of justices which before was doubtful. Chapter 79, is an Act for the amendment of the law relating to the religious instruction of prisoners in county and borough prisons in England and Scotland, and is entitled "Prison Ministers Act, 1863." Section 2 gives power to the visiting justices to appoint additional ministers to prisons where the number of prisoners confined belonging to any church or religious persuasion differing from the Church of England is so great, as in the opinion of such justices to require it. The 3rd section lays down certain regulations as to the admission of such ministers; and section 4 requires the governors of prisons to register the religion of the prisoners. Section 5 provides that chaplains of a gaol are not to visit prisoners after they have declared themselves to be of a different religious denomination. Chapter 103 is an act to amend the law in certain cases of misappropriation by servants of the property of their masters. Prior to the passing of this Act, the law was, that the taking of corn or other food by a servant from his master, contrary to his orders, for the purpose of giving it to the horses or other animals of his master, was a felony. By the Act of last session, this is no longer a felony but a misdemeanour, and if a servant is convicted of of (sic) the offence before two justices, he may either be imprisoned with hard labour for a period not exceeding three months, or ordered to pay a penalty not exceeding £5; or the justices may dismiss the case should it appear to them to be of too trifling a character. Chapter 113 is an Act to prohibit the sale or use of poisoned grain or seed, and it inflicts a penalty of £10 on any offender, but this does not apply to seed prepared or steeped in any solution for bona fide use in agriculture. Cap. 117 is entitled "The Nuisances Removal and Amendment Act, 1863," and it gives power to any medical officer of health or inspector of nuisances to examine any animal, fish, flesh, &c., exposed for sale or deposited in any slaughter house or other place, and to seize it if in a diseased, bad, or unhealthy state; and any person convicted of having such meat, &c., in his possession is liable to a penalty of £20, or three months' imprisonment without fine. Chapter 125 is an Act to amend the statute laws of England. It repeals a great many old statutes, which have been obsolete for many years, and among them the 21st, James I., cap. 7, under which the person guilty of being drunk was liable to be fined 5s. or to be put in the stocks. That is no longer the case, but he may be punished under Mr Gladstone's Act for being drunk and disorderly, and sent to prison for seven days without fine, but a man can no longer be punished for the mere fact of being drunk. These, gentlemen, are all the observations I have to offer to you, and if you will now be good enough to retire to your duties and let us have the bills you may find, as quickly as possible, we shall be obliged to you. The Grand Jury then retired, and the Court proceeded with the following C O U N T Y B U S I N E S S COUNTY FINANCES. The CHAIRMAN read the report of the Finance Committee as follows:—The Finance Committee have examined the treasurer's accounts, and find the balances due to the county:— General account £5,413 12 6½ Police account 2,217 15 11 Police superannuation account 221 19 5 Building account 5,771 0 0 £13,624 7 10½ There is required for general purposes a rate of 16-32nds of a penny. The Coroners' hills have been examined, and are recommended for payment; and the committee advise that these bill should be made up to each quarter day. The bills of the Clerk of the Peace have been examined and allowed, and the committee would suggest that the attention of the new committee be called to the payment of the Clerk of the Peace by salary, instead of fees. That the order of last session to the treasurer to pay to the bridge surveyors a sum not exceeding £100 for the current expenses of the quarter, be made permanent. That the present committee be re-appointed. The CHAIRMAN said he would venture to suggest to the committee that they should present a comparative statement of expenses for the year ending Michaelmas with the year ending the previous Michaelmas, so as to show whether there had been an increase or a reduction in the expenditure. The report was received and adopted. On the motion of Mr SAWLE, seconded by Mr FOSTER, the members of the Finance Committee were re- appointed. The CHAIRMAN said that the Registration bill amounted to £45 5s. 5d.; the Clerk of Peace's expenses from Sept. 1862, to Sept. 1863, £402 9s. 3d.; being an increase on the previous year of about £100, which had been incurred in connection with the Highway Act. The Coroners' bills were then presented, and after verification, were allowed by the Court, which, on this occasion, departed from the usual custom of reading the amounts allowed to each coroner. COUNTY GAOL. The CHAIRMAN read the annual report, furnished by Capt. Colville, governor of the county gaol, as follows:— My Lords and Gentlemen—At this period of the year it is required of me to furnish a statement showing the increase or decrease in the number of prisoners committed to the county gaol and house of correction during the past year, as compared with the preceding twelvemonths; and although the following table shows an increase of 31 in the number of male criminals, yet the total number committed is less than last year, especially so in the female department. The debtors also, both male and female, have been less, although very recently the prison for male debtors has been quite full, owing to the number of County Court committals. STATEMENT SHOWING INCREASE OR DECREASE.—Number of prisoners committed during the year ending Michaelmas, 1863:—Criminals, males, 548; females, 168—total, 716. Debtors, males, 119; females, 51; total, 170. Corresponding period of 1862:—Criminals, males, 517; females, 211; total 728. Debtors; males, 127; females, 55; total, 182. This shows on the whole a decrease of 24 committals of all classes for the past year, as compared with the year ending Michaelmas, 1862. The proportion of prisoners re-committed during the past year is greater than in the year ending 29th of September, 1862, being in 1863, one in every 2.98 of males; and 2.30 of females. In 1862, one in every 3.45 of males; and one in every 5.48 of females. This would show that the old offenders are not deterred from crime by prison discipline. The scale of diet ordered to be adopted in this prison at the Midsummer sessions, 1862, has now been in use for 12 months, and has proved amply sufficient for the several classes of prisoners, without any bad effects arising as regards injury to health. Since the 1st of June last, oakum picking has been introduced into the prison, providing beneficial employment for prisoners both male and female, returning a slight profit to the county. Capt. Colville, the governor, annexed to this report the usual certificates as to the satisfactory state of the gaol. The return of gaol expenses was as follows:—Subsistence, £182 15s. 2d.; clothing, £25 17s. 1d.; bedding, £18 18s.; fuel, £50 17s. 8d.; sundries, £87 4s. 7d.; salaries, £357 11s.; alterations and repairs, £10 10s. 5d.; making a total of £803 14s. 8d. From this there was to be deducted credits to the amount of £34 15s. 3d., including £26 earned by the prisoners in picking oakum, leaving a balance of £768 19s. 5d. It was stated that the expenditure for the year had been £100 less than for the previous year. Mr ROGERS, M.P., observed that there was an item of £2 allowed for the services of the town engine. He wanted to know if there was not now a sufficient supply of water without paying for the services of the town engine. Mr KENDALL, M.P., said the question had been fully discussed, and though there was a fair supply of water it was thought advisable still to retain the services of the town engine in case of an emergency, as the expenditure was so very small. The CHAIRMAN read the account of the hall expenses, which amounted to £7 8s. 11d. VISITING JUSTICES REPORT. The CHAIRMAN read the following report from the visiting justices:—The visiting committee of the county gaol have much pleasure in reporting on the state of the gaol and of its general good management and discipline. The reduced dietary, as sanctioned by the Home Office, has now been in operation for twelve months, and has answered its object in every respect. The medical officer states it to be ample— that in no year has he been able to make so favourable a report of the health of the prisoners; and the committee are happy to add that the cost per head per week has been reduced from 3s. 1¾d. to 2s. 3d. The conversion of some of the temporary washing cells into solitary cells for oakum picking has been of great service. Employment is now given to many of the prisoners who would otherwise have been idle. A small profit also comes from the work. The estimate of cash payments for the year ending September, 1864, is £340. The report was adopted, and on the motion of Mr KENDALL, M.P., seconded by Mr LAKES, the visiting justices were re-appointed. SURGEON'S REPORT. Mr John Ward, surgeon to the County Gaol, states:—At no period since my appointment as surgeon has the sanitary condition of that establishment been in a more healthy state than during the last twelve months. The number of prisoners under treatment during that period amounted to 144; of whom it was only found necessary to send one to the infirmary, and I have much pleasure in adding that we are entering upon the new year in the same satisfactory manner. CHAPLAIN'S REPORT. The annual report of the Rev. W. F. Everest, chaplain of the gaol, was read by the chairman. On the subject of education, and moral and religious condition of the prisoners on their admission to the gaol, he says I have but few remarks to made (sic). The want of instruction, especially in secular knowledge, has not been such as to suggest any necessary connection between ignorance and crime. I sincerely wish it had been, for then the remedy would be obvious, if not very easy of attainment in a gaol. But acquaintance with prisoners leads me to believe that what produces crime is a deep-seated moral disease—in some cases almost constitutional—which no mere education can reach, nor do I believe any mere system of good discipline. It is the religious element, aided both by secular instruction and a well contrived system of gaol discipline, that we must look to, I am persuaded, if the object to be attained is not simply the punishment of the offence but the reformation of the offender. For this reason—as it is subsidiary to religion—l set a great value upon the schools, and I wish with all my heart that the boon which the men enjoy in this respect could be extended to the women. For a like reason I think that the present gaol system, as it is a system of moral means working in aid of religion, is very valuable. It is much to be wished, however, that there could be a more distinct classification of prisoners. There is a class of determined offenders, upon whom it seems almost impossible to make any impression. The only way of dealing with such characters under the present system is by extended periods of imprisonment; but this is found not to answer, as the same individuals come back to gaol again and again. What, therefore, seems wanting is some means of bringing these offenders under a sharp discipline (as distinct from the general discipline of the gaol,) which should at least give them a wholesome dread of the place. The reduction of the prison diet has a good effect; and if something more could be done in the same direction, and reserved for cases of recommitment, such cases would probably be considerably diminished. Among the better disposed prisoners, who, I am thankful to say, form the majority, your gaol system, taken as a whole, works beneficially, with proper vigilance on the part of the officers to prevent communication; and that corrupting medium effectually cut off, the prisoners, both men and women, become more docile, and there is a manifest improvement in the tone of their minds and behaviour; nor does this improvement cease, in every case, as there is reason to believe, when the prisoner quits the gaol. Several children, some of very tender age, have been sent to gaol during the past year. Two such children will appear for trial, and I would venture again to urge upon the court the desirableness of removing these cases to reformatories when it can be ascertained that there is a propensity to criminal practices. Where this exists, there is always a connection with other vicious children; and one of the many great advantages of sending young offenders of this class to a reformatory is, that it helps to break up these youthful gangs. Imprisonment rarely, if ever, does any good. It was only at your last sessions that a lad was sent to Parkhurst after three former imprisonments—his first being at the age of 13. This poor boy had scarcely a chance of permanently reforming, for each time he was discharged he went back with a more damaged character, and, in consequence, fell an easy prey to his old associates. The county gaol has now seven children at reformatories; and you will be glad to learn that five out of the seven are doing well—some remarkably well. A boy sent to the Exeter Reformatory in 1860 is now at sea, and doing very well. He still keeps up a correspondence with the master, who heard from him within the last six weeks. I mention this, as it seems to speak well for both. I have only to add that the schoolmaster continues to discharge his duties to my satisfaction, and that I am afforded every facility for the performance of my own. The CHAIRMAN said the chaplain's report was a most valuable one, and the visiting committee would no doubt be ready to carry it out if they could—(hear, hear). It should be laid before the Secretary of State, who would no doubt give it proper consideration. LABOUR SHED. Mr KENDALL, M.P., moved on the part of the visiting justices for a grant of £30, for the purpose of converting the temporary wash-house into a shed for hard labour. It was intended to convert it into solitary cells, where the prisoners would be obliged to perform some work. There were many prisoners who had been in the habit of coming to the gaol in the winter months, as they had formerly very little to do, and the dietary was very comfortable; now happily the dietary had been reduced, and they are obliged to work picking oakum which they do not at all like. He moved that the sum be granted, as he thought for about £30 they can provide work for al! the prisoners, and probably we shall not then have so many of them. Mr E. COLLINS seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously:— REMOVAL OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS TO REFORMATORIES. The CHAIRMAN read the reply of G. Arbuthnot, Esq., to a letter from the Clerk of the Peace, in reference to the disallowance of the expenses of removal of juvenile offenders to a reformatory. The reply stated that the expenses in the first instance devolved entirely upon the local fund, and it was only when the secretary directed the removal of juveniles from one reformatory to another that the Government paid the expenses.

COUNTY BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr Jenkin, the bridge surveyor lot this division, reported as follows:—Lostwithiel Bridge—The , since your committee instructed me to erect buttresses at this bridge, has prevented much progress being made with the work. The piles have, however, all been driven on the north side of the bridge, and those on the south side will be commenced on Monday. A considerable quantity of stone has also been prepared for building those buttresses. Tavistock Bridge—l have to apply for a grant of £1 for altering a drain at this bridge. Bridge—l have to apply for a grant of £1 2s. for repairing the coping of this bridge. St. Neot Bridge—The coping of this bridge requires to be cramped with iron, and I estimate the cost at £3 5s. Painter's Bridge—The coping of this bridge also requires to be cramped with iron, at an estimated cost of £4 6s. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr Thomas Hickes, surveyor, presented the following report:—Higher Carnon Bridge—l beg to call your attention to the state of the bridge-road at Higher Carnon, which will, I fear, if we get heavy falls of rain this winter, be seriously damaged, in consequence of parties having made dams below and above the bridge for the purpose of making copper by precipitation. These dams have caused the silt coming from the mines to accumulate at the bridge, and have therefore seriously lessened the waterway. Mr FOSTER presented a memorial from the inhabitants of Lostwithiel praying for the removal of the Western guard wall at Lostwithiel bridge, which caused serious inconvenience as it prevented the passage of waggons with timber and other materials over the bridge by the nearest route, and they had to go nearly three quarters of a mile out of their way in order to be able to get over the bridge. Mr Foster said the sum of £15 had been voted for the purpose and he suggested that the matter be referred to the committee. In answer to a question, Mr JENKIN said the sum granted for alterations was £15, but it would take from £20 to £25 to make the alterations required by the memorialists. Mr FOSTER proposed that the memorial be referred to the committee to carry it out at the expense of £15 provided they can get a further sum of not less than £10 from the locality. This was seconded by Mr ROGERS, M P., and agreed to. Mr KENDALL moved "That the Magistrates of the Petty Sessional Divisions of East Kirrier and West Powder view the Carnon bridge and report to the next sessions; and in case of any immediate danger they shall put themselves in communication with the Clerk of the Peace with the view of taking legal proceedings against the offending parties." This was seconded by Mr T. S. BOLITHO, and agreed to. Lord VIVIAN moved "that in future bridge surveyors should send in to the Clerk of the Peace an estimate of the probable outlay, in time for insertion in the Agenda paper." This was seconded by Mr PASCOE and agreed to. LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE REPORT. The Committee appointed at the last quarter sessions for taking immediate steps to repair Lostwithiel bridge, and if necessary to expend a sum not exceeding £100 for that purpose, reported that the Committee met on Lostwithiel bridge on the 4th day of August, when from the very low state of the water they were able thoroughly to examine the foundation of the centre pier. It then appeared to the Committee that it would be necessary to erect a temporary bridge before doing anything to the present one. The Committee therefore directed Mr Jenkin to prepare plans and procure tenders for erecting the same. The Committee however held another meeting on the bridge, when the water was still lower, and after again examining the foundations, the Committee resolved to abandon the erection of the temporary bridge, and to build a buttress on piles on each side of the present pier. Mr Jenkin was ordered to take the necessary steps for carrying out this plan. Mr JENKIN explained that in accordance with the desire of the committee he had solicited tenders. The first tender received was for £175. This he thought too much, and it was then reduced to £165. He still thought the amount too high; so he prepared a detailed list of quantities and prices which shewed that the work might be done for £148, or £150, and the contractors had expressed their willingness to perform it for that sum, and to enter into a contract to do so if thought desirable. Mr SAWLE, on behalf of Sir Colman Rashleigh, moved that the Lostwithiel bridge committee be re- appointed, and that in addition to the £100 already granted, a further sum of £100 be granted to complete the repairs. In answer to Mr KENDALL and Lord VIVIAN, the CHAIRMAN said he apprehended that they should, after the expenditure of the money, be able to report to the county that the bridge was in a perfect state of repair, and that it was likely to last for 1000 years. Of course it did not include a new roadway, which he apprehended the county was not bound to supply. The motion was agreed to unanimously. THE INFIRMARY. Mr POLE CAREW said he had hoped to have been able to report that they saw their way clearly to a proper water supply to the Infirmary, but he was sorry to say that it was not the case. They had had different schemes before them, one of which recommended itself to them, but he was sorry to say that the conditions attempted to be affixed to the water supply were such as they could not recommend the county to accept. They had another scheme to bring the Carrick water to the Infirmary. The principal landowner here was Mr Robartes. and he would give the land for nothing—(hear, hear). If the landowners in Penquite, &c., did not offer something like reasonable terms, the committee would be obliged to turn their attention to Carrick. The length of pipe required would be about five miles, and that was the principal difficulty, as it would cause expense in keeping the piping in proper repair. The supply of water would be good, and there were no engineering difficulties in the way. Mr WILKINSON asked if it would not be cheaper to join with the town in obtaining a supply. He understood that a scheme was on foot for supplying the town. Mr POLE CAREW said there was no company formed, so that at present it was a project in air, and there was no one with whom to treat. The committee, however, were willing to entertain any proposition if there was something tangible to negociate upon. After some further remarks, the discussion terminated by Mr Pole Carew renewing his notice to move for £600 at the next sessions. COUNTY CONSTABULARY. Mr PETERS read the report of the Police Committee as follows:—A meeting held October 19, 1863, at the Chief Constable's Office, of the Police Committee, present the Chairman's deputy, J. T. H. Peter, Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, Sir C. Rashleigh, Bart., J. St. Aubyn, Esq., M.P.. John Trevenen, Esq., W. Robartes, Esq., D. P. Le Grice, Esq., W. Potter, Esq., and F. Williams, Esq. The accounts of the last quarter were examined and approved of, and the vouchers for the expenses of the previous quarter certified by the Chairman as correct. The committee resolved that no more letters containing cheques be registered by the county treasurer, such precaution being, in their opinion, needless. Hayle Station.—The lessor having refused to show title, Mr Shilson's advice is requested whether the county can safely enter into the proposed lease. Blue Anchor Station.—Mr Renfry having refused to lease more than 20 perches of land for 2s. 6d. per annum, resolved that he be offered an additional 2s. 6d. per annum for the remaining five perches required. Callington.—Fees of Petty Sessions.—Resolved that if returns are not made of these fees by the clerks of the petty sessions at the times appointed last quarter sessions for such returns, the deputy clerk of the peace to take proceedings against him for the common law misdemeanour of disobedience to an Act of Parliament. Launceston and Stratton Petty Sessions Fees.—The same resolution as to the clerks and fees of these petty sessions. Camborne Station.—Resolved that a sum not exceeding £12 10s. be allowed for alterations,—that the iron work and wood work be painted, and the walls be coloured. St. Germans Station.—That the outside iron and wood-work of the station be painted. Camborne Rent Charge.—£1 19s. 6d. being demanded by Messrs Smith and Roberts as agents for the rector, as due for two years' rent charge, that the whole matter be referred to the court's legal adviser, and if he so counsels, that the same be paid. St. Austell Station.—That the Chief Constable take steps to put in habitable order the day inspector's and constables' rooms by removing the stone floor and substituting one of wood, the Chief Constable in so doing using all reasonable economy. Resolved that a rate of ¾d. in the £ be raised. Resolved that the deputy county clerk's account of £53 13s. 2d. be paid. Signed, J. T. H. Peter, chairman of the day. The report was adopted, and the sum of £221 19s. was directed to be invested in the three per cent, consols on account of the police superannuation fund. The CHAIRMAN next read the report of the chief constable, which stated that during the past 12 mouths 3,142 person, had been proceeded against summarily, and 208 committed for trial. The CHAIRMAN stated that the contingent expenses of the police amounted to £249 10s. 11d.; and the chief constable reported that a saving of nearly £500 to the county had been this year effected in regard to the inspection of weights and measures alone by the police. The CHAIRMAN said it would be recollected that at the last sessions it was ordered that a representation be made by the court to the Lords of the Treasury on the subject of the allowance granted out of the consolidated fund towards the expenses of pay and clothing of the county police, and that the same be entrusted to the presiding chairman (Mr Rogers) for presentation. The reply of Mr Frederick Peel had sines been received which is as follows:— Treasury Chambers, 17th July, 1868. SIR,—I have laid before the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury the communication addressed to this board by the magistrates of the county of Cornwall on the 1st instant, and I am desired by the magistrates of the county of Cornwall on the 1st instant, and I am desired by their lordships to state to you in reply that the amended form of return, showing only the net amount of pay received by the police force, was adopted by this board in consequence of their lordships having reason to suppose that the sums certified as having been disbursed for pay in the several jurisdictions, included stoppages from the pay for various purposes, and also extra allowances which they did not consider come within the class of disbursements, of which one fourth is directed to be paid by the Act. The stoppages referred to consisted, in most cases, of deductions from the pay for the superannuation fund, and for rents of houses occupied by stables. As regards the first, I am to observe that stoppages for the superannuation fund are compulsory under the authority of acts which were passed prior to the Act of 19th and 20th Vic., cap. 69, under which the contribution of one fourth is made; that they are carried to a distant pension fund, for the maintenance of which the county rate is liable, and that they form no portion of the real pay of the force, though they may be issued nominally as pay in the first instance, from the police rate. It is not stated in the memorial under what conditions the deductions for rent are made. If, however, it can be shown that the county has provided buildings which are let to the police at rents not exceeding the average rents paid by the same classes of the police in the county who find their own lodgings, and that there has been no increase of pay to cover this charge for rents, or any portion of it, my lords will not be disposed to insist upon stoppages made on this account. They desire, however, that it may be understood that they would not feel justified in contributing to any allowance in lieu of lodgings, or to any addition to pay in any form resulting from arrangements for the occupation by the police of county buildings. Reference is made in the memorial to a deduction for medical attendance. There may be reasons which might induce their lordships to admit this deduction specially, as forming a portion of the pay on which the calculation of one fourth is based, but I am to request that they may be informed of the nature of the stoppage in the county of Cornwall on this account, and of the manner in which it is applied. I am, sir, your obedient servant, F. PEEL. Mr ROGERS said that in compliance with the request of the sessions, he had personally presented the application of the Court, and a very favourable opinion was expressed regarding it by several gentlemen of influence, and he hoped that the Secretary of the Treasury might be induced to allow the proportion of most, if not all, the payments they had made on account of the police. The matter would not be lost sight of, and he trusted they might yet get the full redress which they required. THE HIGHWAY ACT. The next subject was the consideration of the adoption of the provisional order for dividing the county into 18 highway districts. The CHAIRMAN said that before they received the reports of the committee respecting the alterations which they had made in the districts since the last sessions, he would refer to memorials, resolutions, and letters that had been received from several Poor Law Unions, parishes, and places in the county objecting to the proposed Petty Sessional districts, or requesting that they might not be included in such districts. He then read memorials from the St. Columb, Liskeard, Falmouth, St. Austell, and Bodmin Boards of Guardians, and a resolution from the Truro Guardians objecting to the proposed petty sessional highway districts, and advocating the adoption of union districts instead, on the ground that the latter would be more convenient and less expensive, as the boards of guardians already possessed officers who were preferable to any that might be appointed, and also because they considered that the multiplicity of divisions in the county had already become an inconvenience. The Chairman also read communications from the boards of highways of St. Agnes, the parish of Breage, Camborne, from the town of Penzance, St. Michael's Mount, Illogan, Penryn, Paul Churchtown, St. Just, Saltash Corporation, St. Ives, East Looe. Of these the parish of Breage, Penzance, St. Michael's Mount, Penryn, Illogan, Paul Churchtown, St. Just, St. Ives, and East Looe either had been struck out of the districts by the committee or were now expunged by the court. Mr LE GRICE asked why the Mount was struck out? Mr SAWLE—Because they have no roads there. Mr REYNOLDS explained that as regarded Camborne, there was a board of highways there, but in 1862 the ratepayers had neglected to appoint waywardens for the parish, and in consequence the magistrates had appointed waywardens for them. The question was whether the appointment would be sufficient to exempt the parish from the operation of the Act, the law requiring that they should be appointed by the parish vestry. The CHAIRMAN said that the Clerk of the Peace had suggested that whenever it was doubtful whether a parish claimed exemption, it should not be struck out, because there was a clause in the Act of Parliament (which he read), which met the case, showing that where they were improperly included in any of the districts, they would be exempt, in spite of the order of the sessions. Mr LE GRICE said that that was the reason why they had taken no further steps in the matter in the west, as they concluded that they were exempt under the clause of the Act which had been referred to. Mr REYNOLDS explained that the waywardens of Camborne held a meeting to consider the application of the high way act, when there were four against joining the district, and three in favour of joining, so that among the waywardens even the majority against the application of the act was very slight. At the meeting of the Redruth Board of Guardians, the subject of the highway district was brought forward, and there were three in favour of union districts to one against. After the explanation of the Chairman it was resolved that Camborne, Saltash, and East Looe should be retained in their respective districts until they could show that they were entitled to exemption. Mr E. COLLINS moved that the parish of St. Michael Penkivel be transferred from the Truro highway district to that of Tregony; if it was allowed to remain as at present the surveyor would have to cross the Fal when he visited, or to go several miles round, which would occasion a great loss of time. Mr CAREW—l had hoped that we should have had to day merely to receive the report of the committee, and then to pass the provisional order; but I think that it would not now be respectful in me to move the adoption of that report after the strong memorials which we have had from some of the unions of the county against the adoption of petty sessional districts. Under these circumstances, perhaps it will not be out of order or wrong for me to explain how I came to be placed in the position which I occupy in regard to this question. I think the court will recollect that soon after the Highway Act became law two or three schemes were proposed for its consideration. One of these had reference to my own immediate neighbourhood, and another to the Launceston district. It occurred to me at the time that if these schemes were proposed by magistrates, and they selected particular localities for districts without considering the position of neighbouring districts, we should get into inextricable difficulty and confusion; and I therefore proposed that a committee of magistrates should be appointed to consider the most advisable plan for the whole county. My proposal was opposed and defeated at that sessions, but at the next sessions, I was met by several of the gentlemen who had opposed me, and told that they considered the course which I had proposed was the right one, and on my then proposing the appointment of a committee the motion was adopted. Now, it is the fate of everyone who moves for a committee to be appointed its chairman, in case his motion is carried, and on my being chosen, I endeavoured to obtain the very best information I could on the subject of the working of the Act. In obtaining this I had to make application to that part of the kingdom where the Act had been in operation some time—South Wales. The result of that information was that it was found in South Wales that the small districts worked decidedly better than the large ones—that the average mileage of the roads of the districts there was 147—that this extent was as much as a surveyor could properly and efficiently attend to, but that even smaller districts were considered to be preferable, and that districts exceeding 147 miles were thought to be large ones. I had also the advantage of seeing a letter from Mr James Howard, the surveyor of the Exeter turnpike trust, and his evidence shows that his opinion is that 200 miles is more than one man can accomplish with one horse; that with an assistant, he could more easily accomplish 250 miles than 200, or even 180 without an assistant; that he is obliged to keep two horses for his 200 miles; that he is obliged to sign more than a thousand notices to persons to cut up their hedges, clear water tables, &c., as well as to attend various magistrates' meetings; and he says “and you will easily imagine the additional number of notices and additional work which a highway surveyor would have to do for the same number of miles." The conclusion which we came to upon these two sources of information was that from 100 to 150 miles was about the utmost we could expect a surveyor to accomplish; that a surveyor with an assistant might accomplish 300 miles or even more than 300 miles but we considered that we could not recommend the county highway districts to be larger than that. Then there was another question—we had not only to consider the number of miles of a district, but whether these districts were compactly situated; and in order to determine that matter I had maps prepared, copies of which I now produce. One of these shows the petty sessional districts, and the other the union districts, and these will show that the petty sessional districts are more compact than the union districts. But besides this question of compactness there was this fact to be considered—that the surveyor will have very heavy duties imposed upon him in addition to attending to the roads; these duties comprising the doing of everything under the Act, and the carrying out of all the works required to be done by the board. Now, if among these duties, he has to give notice to all the owners and occupiers of land on the roads, I will leave to those acquainted with the number of owners and occupiers that there are in this county, to judge whether that will be a light matter or not. And if he has to attend various petty sessional divisions to back these notices, the time that will thus be thrown away will be enormous, and time in this case is money. I say that if he is called upon to do this he will not be able to do his duty properly to the roads. I should attach more importance to the memorials that have been presented to-day, had I not read the letters which have appeared in the local newspapers, on the subject, which have shown me that the objections to the petty sessional districts are altogether wrong. After showing the fallacy of some of the objections urged to the recommendation of the committee in the letters in question, he proceeded to compare the extent of the union districts with the petty sessional districts, observing that they had made the latter as large as they believed they could be efficiently worked—the smaller ones by one surveyor, and the larger ones by a surveyor and an assistant. The mileage of the union districts would be—Stratton union, 231; Camelford 223; Launceston, 269; Liskeard, 552; St. Germans 229; Bodmin, 425; St. Columb, 356; St. Austell, 232; Truro 401; Camborne, 153; Falmouth, 113; Helston, 342; and Penzance 253. The mileage of the petty sessional districts was—Stratton, 211; Camelford, 203; Launceston, 181; Liskeard, 467 (this has been divided into two districts—the Liskeard district of 232 miles, and the Trecan Gate district of 234 miles;) Callington, 302; St. Germans, 187; Bodmin, 259; St. Austell, 180; Tywardreath, 105; Truro, 267; Tregony, 144; Camborne, 168; Falmouth, 179; Helston, 309; (this district had also been divided into two— the north Helston district of 160 miles, and the south Helston district of 149¼ miles;) St. Columb, 348; and Penzance, 161. Mr Carew then continued. The St. Columb union, it will be seen from these returns, is almost conterminous with the petty sessional district, there being only one pariah more in the former; and therefore the memorial of the guardians does not apply to the superiority of one district over the other. It might have been desirable to divide the district into two, but the magistrates, from that division, were bold enough to think that they could work, and so we thought we would let them try to do so. The result would be, if our recommendation is adopted, that a large proportion of these petty sessional districts would be attended by one surveyor; and he would not have his time broken into and occupied by having to attend various petty sessional divisions. I wish to call attention shortly to something regarding myself. I went into this matter as far as my pre-conceived opinion is concerned, in favour of union districts, and so strong was my feeling on this point, that I joined in a vote in my own district in favour of sending a memorial; but after collecting all evidence and information I could, and carefully and maturely considering the matter, I came to the conclusion that petty sessional districts will be the best. The committee have made all the alterations that they considered to be necessary in these districts, and I believe that they were unanimous in favor of accepting the proposal which has been submitted to the county; and therefore I consider that I should sanction it. So far as I am concerned, I certainly should have wished—only I am afraid that time will not allow of it—that every attention should be paid to any argument that can be brought forward in favour of union districts. I did not join in giving the first notice for this order, because l think the working of a law of this kind depends very much upon its being taken up in a friendly spirit by all, and that every one should think it for the best. It is the fault of the sleepy legislature of the present day that they throw the responsibility upon us. All the odium, if there is odium, is thrown upon the magistrates, and I think we ought not to be expected to take this odium upon ourselves. I should certainly prefer, if possible, to give the ratepayers a hearing on the matter, and if they can show us any good grounds for reversing our decision I should be glad to see it reversed, for I am sure that the 28 magistrates attending this committee had only in view the very best interest of the ratepayers—(hear, hear). Therefore if the ratepayers can give any really sound argument in favour of their view—not in letters calling us dabblers, &c.,—we shall be glad to listen to it. I have spared no time myself, nor shall I spare any if I should be called upon to act again. Mr LE GRICE said he held in his hand a return from Pembrokeshire, where the Act was in successful operation, and the largest district there was 220 miles, and the nature of the county was very like Cornwall. Mr CAREW wished to ask the Clerk of the Peace, if the committee sat again, could they still hear reasons and make alterations. The CLERK: No; if any alterations were made it would still have to be made a provisional order in January, and must again be advertised as such, and the Act could not then come into operation till March, 1865, instead of March, 1864, so that twelvemonths would be lost. Mr CAREW said there was a provision in the Act for making alterations after the divisions were constituted. The CHAIRMAN said he thought it desirable that the proposed districts should be read over, so that if any alteration were necessary it might be effected before the provisional order was made. He then proceeded to read the names of the parishes in the highway districts, as already advertised. As the names were read, sundry suggestions were made, and it was agreed to alter the name of the Bodmin district to the Trigg district; to alter the name of the Truro district to the West Powder district, and to transfer the parish of St. Michael Penkivel to the Tregony district, on the understanding that the magistrates take steps to have the parish also transferred to the Tregony petty sessional division, to which its topographical position allied it. Some discussion took place with reference to St. Michael's Mount; Mr Le Grice moving that it should be included in the highway district. Mr ROGERS, M.P., seconded the motion. Mr ST. AUBYN, M.P., said that St. Michael's Mount was a parish, and if they included it in a highway district, they would have to appoint a waywarden, although there were no ways in the parish; there was only a footpath, and that was kept in repair by a private individual. The motion was negatived by 18 votes to 11. The CHAIRMAN said the court was now in this position, that it was now called upon to make a provisional order, so that the final order might be made at the next sessions. He had better put the question at once. Mr ROBARTES, M.P., said it was his impression that it would be better to postpone it even at the risk of the act being thrown over for another year. He thought if it were carried out now, without giving time for taking into consideration all the arguments opposed to it, and giving their full weight without further discussion it would produce considerable discontent in various parts of this county. He was, therefore, in favour of postponement. Mr LAKES said he had never before had the opportunity of hearing any of the arguments brought forward by Mr Carew to-day, and taking a hint from those arguments, he should be glad to have the question postponed, that other persons might have the opportunity of hearing the same arguments; at the same time he thought the pulse of the county had been pretty well felt; fish, tin, copper, and clay had come from the east, west, north, and south of the county, and said that they preferred union districts to petty sessional divisions. He had no doubt there was a strong feeling amongst the magistrates against putting the mutter off for twelve mouths, and if it was not feasible to adjourn the question so as to make alterations, he would say no more about it. Mr KENDALL suggested that in order to meet the wishes of the unions they should be invited to send a deputation from each union to meet the committee. The provision order might be passed, and then if the deputation succeeded in altering the convictions of the committee they could begin de novo at the next sessions; but if, on the contrary, the committee still found that their plan was the best, the financial order might be made. He thought that plan might give the unions an opportunity of being heard, while it would not be asking the committee to postpone their plan without good reasons, which he though would not be fair. Mr TREMAYNE said it would be competent for anybody to move at the next sessions that the final order be rejected, and then those who were interested in the matter could get some person to bring forward their ideas—(hear, hear.) Lord VIVIAN said he felt very unwilling to say much upon the matter, because having placed it in the hands of the committee they were bound to adopt their decision unless some very strong arguments were brought forward against it. He could not see the force of Mr Kendall's argument, which amounted to this, that you call together a large committee from every part of the county for the purpose of giving the boards of guardians and ratepayers the opportunity of advancing arguments upon a question which has been before them for a considerable time and thoroughly ventilated. It had been known for weeks and weeks that the court was about to propose petty sessional districts, and it was open to any ratepayer to go to the magistrates of this division and make known his objections to the arrangement about to be adopted. But instead of that, at the last moment an opposition—emanating, I am bound to say, not from the ratepayers but from persons individually interested—(loud cries of hear, hear)—in fact by boards of guardians, and backed by no arguments or reasons; the only ground offered for the adoption of union districts being that there were public officers already in existence. Now what public officers were there? There was no public officer but the clerk to the union, who could be possibly made use of—(hear, hear). They suggest that you should adopt union districts or subdivisions of them. Well, these sub-divisions would put the county to as much, if not more expense, than the divisions proposed by the magistrates. The magistrates had given every possible consideration to the question, and they had weighed every point that could possibly be presented to them. If the committee had proposed to renew their labours he should have acceded to the proposal, though he should have thought it foolish, as there was nothing to be gained by postponement. He was certain that if the ratepayers would consider the matter for themselves, and not allow themselves to be acted upon by those who have interested motives—(hear, hear), they would come to the same conclusions as the magistrates. Mr LAKES repudiated the idea of having any personal interest in advocating the union districts, and stated that there were many union clerks who were also clerks of petty sessional divisions. Mr St. AUBYN said they were met to carry into effect the provisional order, and he hoped they would confine themselves to the question. The question was then put to the vote and carried. Mr CAREW reported on behalf of the Committee on Standing Orders that they had been in communication with the Secretary of State respecting the table of fees to be taken by clerks to the justices, constables, and witnesses. Amendments had been made by the committee in the scale sent to them, and most of those amendments had been agreed to. He proposed to day to get the Chairman's signature to the scale and it might be printed by the next sessions. The CHAIRMAN accordingly signed the scale which was produced. The CHAIRMAN said he had to lay before the Court a communication from Sir George Grey in reply to the application to the Home Office, ordered to be made at the last Easter Sessions to alter the close season of the rivers Fowey and Camel and their tributaries from the 1st September to the 1st February to the 20th October and the 1st April. The reply was to the effect that the Home Office could not consent to alter the close season from the 1st September to the 20th October, but they would extend from the 1st of February to the 1st of April. It was ordered that the letter should be answered but without any remarks being made upon it. This terminated the County business. The Court then proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. (Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart.) ILLEGALLY DISPOSING OF GOODS AT TRURO. JOHN TRAHER, 44, tailor, was indicted that he, being a bailee of two yards of cloth, 6 yards of twill, and two yards of corduroy, of the value of 40s., the property of James Hocking, did fraudulently take and convert the same to his own use; a second count charged him with unlawfully stealing the aforesaid goods at Truro, on the 13th September.—Mr Childs, of Liskeard, appeared for the prosecution.—It appeared that prisoner (sic) was a blind musician living at Truro, and the prisoner is a tailor whom the prosecutor had known for many years, and who had previously made clothes for him. On the 12th Sept. the prisoner called upon prosecutor, and received some cloth to make into a suit of clothes for the prosecutor. He did not, however, return the clothes according to promise, and the prosecutor having his suspicions aroused, went after the prisoner, but could not obtain either the cloth or the clothes. On the 22nd of September, however, prosecutor and a man named Cragoe, who was in a similar position, followed the prisoner and threatened to take him to the station house if he did not disgorge the goods. Prisoner upon this took them to the Red Lion Tap, where a portion of the cloth was in pawn for 7s. which the prisoner had borrowed. The prisoner not giving up the remainder of the cloth was ultimately given into custody. A labourer named John Rowe, of Kea, stated that he bought the corduroy trowsers piece from the prisoner at a public-house for 5s. The prosecutor identified the cloth by the touch, and his wife also identified it as cloth that she had bought for her husband. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to three months' hard labour. The Court rose about 7 o'clock.

SECOND COURT—TUESDAY (Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq., M.P., Chairman, N. Kendall, Esq., M.P., and J. Trevena, Esq.) GEORGE BROWN, aged 19, pleaded guilty to having, on the 20th September, stolen a silk pocket- handkerchief and a waistcoat, the property of Samuel Symons, at the borough of Liskeard, and he was sentenced to two months' hard labour. JAMES BROADWAY, aged 25, a gipsy, was charged with feloniously stealing, on the 1st October, in the parish of St. Martins by Looe, a leathern belly girth, the property of William Rosewarne. The prosecutor is a farmer in the parish of St. Martins, and he placed the belt inside the field adjoining the parish road not far from his residence, on the morning of the 1st instant. In the evening be found it had been removed. Information was given to the police, and an officer pursued the prisoner to Barnstaple, where he found him harnessing his horse with the belt belonging to the prosecutor, which the latter at once identified. The prisoner, on hearing what the officer had come in quest of, jumped on his horse and rode away, but he was followed and taken into custody. Guilty—one calendar month's hard labour. Mr Commins prosecuted and Mr Marrack defended the prisoner. THOMAS BRENTON, a respectable and intelligent looking boy, 11 years of age, was charged with stealing a silver watch, in the parish of Gwennap, on the 3rd of August, the property of Joseph Bullock. Mr Cornish prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor is an engineman working at Wheal Crofty mine, in the parish of Gwennap, and on the morning of Monday, the 3rd of August, he placed his watch inside a small cupboard which had a glass door, in the engine-house, so that he might be able to see the time during the day. He locked the cupboard after placing it there. He saw the watch there safe about five minutes after twelve o'clock, at which time he left the engine house for about half an hour. When he returned the watch was gone, the door of the cupboard having been forced open. The prisoner came to the engine house, at ten o'clock that morning, and asked if he might he allowed to enter. Seeing that he was a respectable boy, he consented, and the prisoner remained for some time, and he was left there when the prosecutor left after 12 o'clock. On Bullock's return the prisoner was gone. At about two o'clock on the afternoon of the same day, the prisoner asked to speak to a miner named Curnow, at a skittle alley in the neighbourhood, and they retired a short distance from the skittle alley, when the prisoner said that he had got for sale a watch which he had won at a raffle. Curnow said he should not buy it, when the prisoner said he would let him have it and the guard for 8d., Curnow on hearing this, consented to purchase it, and paid him 8d., received the watch and guard at the same time. In a short time after a police officer came and made enquiries about the prisoner and the watch, and Curnow gave it up to the officer. The jury found the prisoner guilty, with a recommendation to mercy and at the same time expressed their disapprobation of the conduct of Curnow in purchasing from so young a boy a silver watch which the prosecutor had said he bought for 30s. a short time before, for 8d. The Chairman expressed his entire concurrence in the censure of the jury. Supposing the watch had been won in a raffle, as stated by the boy, it would have been a gross fraud upon him, to take advantage of his youth, and purchase it for 8d.; and under the circumstances, it was a highly improper and unlawful transaction, and he might consider himself very fortunate that he was not standing at the bar with the prisoner. To further mark his sense of Curnow's conduct, he should disallow his expenses. On Wednesday morning the prisoner was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour, and at the end of that term to be sent for four years to a reformatory. The Court then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) EMMA BICKLE, aged 12, pleaded guilty to stealing on the 3rd of September, at Launceston, a gold ring, watch guard, a brooch, piece of cotton print, two sleeves, a nightcap, and a shawl, the property of John Brooming; and SARAH BICKLE, her sister, aged 21, also pleaded guilty to stealing a nightcap, two pocket- handkerchiefs, and some edging, the property of the said John Brooming. The younger prisoner was sentenced to one week's and the elder to one month's hard labour. Subsequently ELIZABETH RUNDLE, the mother of the two prisoners, she having been married a second time, was charged with having received the property knowing it to have been stolen. The prisoner admitted that her daughters had brought the property to her house, but she denied that she had any knowledge they had stolen it. Mr Frost prosecuted. It appeared that both the Bickles had lived at different times, for short periods, as servants with the prosecutor, who keeps an eating house, in Market-street, Launceston. The articles were missed in the early part of October, and information having been given to the police, P.C. Barrett went to the house of Elizabeth Rundle on the evening of Saturday, the 5th, telling her that a gold guard chain, a gold ring, brooch and other articles belonging to Miss Brooming (who lived with her father) had been stolen. The prisoner at first denied all knowledge of any of the articles, but at the same time he saw her trying to remove something that was concealed in her breast, and he directed her to be searched by a young woman that was with him. While they were up stairs the officer heard the searcher call out that the prisoner was endeavouring to conceal the chain in her mouth. He went up stairs, and after a struggle he succeeded in opening the prisoner's hand, with the assistance of another officer, in which he found the gold chain. The ring, brooch, and other articles were afterwards found in the prisoner's possession, and these were identified by Miss Brooming and the prosecutor, after which the jury found her guilty of feloniously receiving. The Chairman said their (sic) could be little doubt that the prisoner was by far the greatest offender of the whole three, as she had evidently induced her daughters to steal the property. Sentenced to eight months' hard labour. JOHN MURRAY, 16, a seaman, pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing, on the 19th of August, at the parish of Budock, a watch and waiscoat (sic), of the value of £5, the property of Henry Bone. Six months' hard labour. JANE NICHOLLS, 29, also pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing at St. Austell, on the 28th August, a pair of kid boots, the property of Richard Aaron Parsons, after a previous conviction for felony. Six months' hard labour. JOHN SMITH, aged 33, was charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of John Burt, at Bridge-end, in the parish of St. Winnow, on the 11th of September, and stealing therefrom 17s. and two metal brooches, the property of the said John Burt. Mr Commins prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor occupies a cottage at Lawhitton, near Launceston, his daughter living with him, and on the morning of Friday, the 7th of September, he and his daughter left the cottage to attend their work, locking the door after them, and leaving the key in a place where whichever of them returned first would be able to find it. On the prosecutor's return, at seven o'clock in the evening, he found that a pane of glass had been removed from below the fastenings of the window, the fastening undone, the sash propped up by a stick, about eighteen inches long, and on going inside, he discovered that several articles had been brought down stairs and placed on the kitchen table; and that her (sic) daughter's box up-stairs had been ransacked, and a half-sovereign and about 7s. in silver and two brooches taken away. To connect the prisoner with the offence a great deal of circumstantial evidence was adduced, showing that he was seen in St. Austell on the morning of the robbery with a stick similar to the one found propping up the window, in his hand; that he was afterwards seen walking in the direction of the cottage; while a little girl saw a man getting in at the window, and an old woman saw a man whom she believed to be the prisoner, get out of the window, jump over the prosecutor's hedge, and walk swiftly away. It was also shown that on his returning to Lostwithiel about half-past four o'clock in the afternoon he had no stick with him. Another fact proved by the prosecution was, that in the morning of the day of the robbery, the prisoner had no money, and on the night of that day he called at a public-house, and asked for lodgings, and while there he produced 16s. or 17s. to show that he was able to pay for the accommodation. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour. STEALING FROM A MINE. EDWARD DEACON HARVEY, who had been out on bail, was charged with having on the 9th Oct., at the parish of Stokeclimsland, stolen four pieces of plank timber, the property of Francis Pryor and others, adventurers in Holmbush Mine. Mr Commins prosecuted; and Mr Stokes defended the prisoner. P.C. Marshall deposed that he was stationed at Callington, and about ten o'clock on the night of Friday the 9th of October, while on duty in the neighbourhood of Holmbush Mine, he met the prisoner, who was carrying something in a bag under his arm. He enquired what he was carrying, and the prisoner said five bits of board which he was going to make into a box. Although cautioned not to say anything, the prisoner proceeded to make a statement as to how and for what purpose he had obtained the boards, and offered to give the officer a sovereign if he would say nothing about the matter. He took possession of the boards, and conveyed them to Holmbush Mine. Mr T. Woolcock, an agent of Holmbush Mine, stated that the prisoner had been employed on the mine as a carpenter for a great number of years, and had charge of the workshop and sawing house. Had compared the boards produced by Marshall with some boards at the mine, but he could not say that they corresponded. He had stated when before the magistrates, and he now repeated the statement, that though there was some resemblance between the pieces of board referred to, yet he could not undertake to swear that they were the same wood. In cross-examination the witness stated that previous to this transaction the prisoner's character had been without stain. He did not know Mr Francis Pryor, or whether he was an adventurer in Holmbush Mine or not. Mr STOKES submitted that inasmuch as the prisoner was indicted for stealing certain pieces of plank, the property of Francis Pryor and other adventurers of Holmbush mine, the prosecution was bound to show that Mr Pryor was an adventurer. Mr COMMINS applied to the court to amend the indictment, contending that it had power to alter it so as to charge the planks as the property of some person or persons unknown. Mr STOKES urged that the prisoner having been indicted as a servant of Francis Prior and other adventurers, it must be shown that he was such servant, and this could only be done by proving that Mr Francis Pryor was an adventurer. After a rather lengthy argument, and a reference to one or two cases, the court held that the indictment could not be amended as urged by Mr Commins, and under his direction, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. POULTRY STEALING AT LISKEARD. ISAAC SYMONS, who had been out on bail, was charged with feloniously stealing on the 24th September, seven fowls and two ducks, the property of John Westlake, at the parish of Liskeard. Mr Commins prosecuted; and Mr Childs defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is a farmer at Landazard, in the parish of Liskeard, and on the 24th of September, Mrs Westlake missed two ducks, and on the police proceeding to , and visiting the prisoner's house, they found the family dining on the remains of a fowl, and on a dung-hill outside a few feathers, which Mrs Westlake thought were similar to the feathers of the fowls that had been stolen. A pair of boots belonging to the prisoner were also compared the next morning with some footprints in the field in which the feathers were discovered, and these were found to correspond; but it was shown that the prisoner, had been in the field four or five days' before. Mr Childs submitted that there was no case against the prisoner, and the court being of the same opinion, directed the jury to acquit the prisoner, who was then discharged. CHARGE OF STEALING AT TRURO. WALTER JOHN LAMPSHIRE, was charged with having on the 18th of October, at the borough of Truro, feloniously stolen from the person of John Mayne, a watch, a handkerchief, and 13s. in money, the property of the said John Mayne. Mr Marrack prosecuted; and the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor deposed that he is a miner, living in the parish of St. Agnes, and on Sunday evening last, he came to Truro, and went to a beer shop where he saw the prisoner. He had some beer to drink here, and then went to the Turk's Head, being accompanied by the prisoner; here he ordered half-a-pint of gin. They then went to the Hope Inn. Prosecutor according to his own confession, had got "over carried" by this time, and he forgot what happened; soon after he left the Hope Inn, he fell asleep in a roadway, and was awoke by a man named Bennett, who told him he had been robbed. He then discovered that his watch, 13s. or 14s. and his pocket-handkerchief were gone. John Holman Bennett gave the following account of this disgraceful transaction. He said—l am a butcher living at Truro, and I was at the Turk's Head on Sunday night last, about a quarter to 11 o'clock drinking a glass of grog, when the prosecutor and the prisoner came in, and one of them called for half-a-pint of gin, which they had. They stopped there until it was time to clear the house, and went to the Hope Inn. They then came into the street again, and went rambling about. We then agreed to go to Falmouth together, and went to see where we could get a fly. The prisoner knocked up Mr George, who refused however, to come down stairs, and we went rambling towards the Newham Station. The prisoner then proposed that we should go to the Daniell Arms to see if we could get anything to drink there. We went up Barrack-lane, and halfway up the prosecutor fell down. I helped him up, but on going a little further he fell down again. I tried to raise him, but could not, as the prisoner got him against the hedge, and was endeavouring to keep him down. The prisoner at last got up and ran down the hill, saying Bennett come here—I want you. I asked what he wanted, and he said come down to the light of the lamp. I went down with him; and he pulled out 4s. 6d. in silver and the prosecutor's watch. I also heard him jingle some more silver in his pocket; he said, 'I have taken this money and watch from Mayne,' and he asked me to have some of the money. I refused to have anything to do with it, and he called me a d—d fool. I told him that he had better carry back to the man his money and watch; and he said that he had been used to these things in America, and he should go and plant the watch. He then ran away from me towards Newham, and I went up to the prosecutor and tried to arouse him, telling him that he had been robbed, and he had better go for a policeman. He was unable to get up, and I went for one. Police Sergeant Riggs deposed that he apprehended the prisoner as he was leaving his mother's house at the bottom of Michell Hill, on Monday morning, and on searching him he found on him 12s. 4d. He took him to the police station, and then returned to his mother's, asking her for the coat the prisoner had worn on the Sunday. She handed him this, and in the pocket he found the handkerchief that had been stolen from the prosecutor. Since the prisoner's committal witness had searched for the watch, and he found it concealed beneath some turf behind a gatepost at the bottom of Barrack Lane. The jury acquitted the prisoner. The CHAIRMAN directed that the expenses of Mayne should be disallowed. He considered that the state the prosecutor had admitted he was in on the Sunday night, was most disgraceful, and it had led to the prisoner being placed there upon his trial for a very serious offence. CHARGE OF STEALING COAL. JOHN BURNARD, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing upwards of a ton of coal, the property of Abraham Shepherd, at , on the 29th July. Mr D. H. Shilson prosecuted; and Mr Frost defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is a merchant at Launceston, and he had large coal stores at Launceston and Trebursey. The prisoner is a small farmer at Alternun, and he was employed by the prosecutor to convey coals from Boscastle, where they were unshipped to Launceston and Trebursey at such times as he could be spared, the practice being to give tickets with every load showing the weight, and on the coals being delivered at Launceston or Trebursey, they were again weighed, and thus it was ascertained whether the quantity that had been received was delivered. It appeared that on the 29th of July, the prisoner went with his horse and cart to Mr Shepherd's stores at Boscastle, in the absence of the man employed by Mr Shepherd to load the coals, and got some men on the quay to assist him in loading his cart. He took away about a ton, which had not been weighed, and neglecting to apply for a ticket showing the weight. He took them to Mr P. Metherell's, a wheelwright residing at Holsworthy, who deposed that he had been employed by the prisoner to make the body of a waggon, and on the 29th July the latter brought him a load of coals in part payment of the waggon. On the Friday following the prisoner went to the regular office at Boscastle for a ticket of another load of coal that he was about to take to Launceston, and he was asked how it had happened that he had taken away a load of coal on the Wednesday without their being weighed and having obtained a ticket. He replied that he had delivered the coals at Launceston and he asked the clerk to let him have a ticket for them, which after some demur the clerk granted. The jury acquitted the prisoner. STEALING A WATCH. THOMAS SUTTON, aged 16, was charged with stealing a silver watch, the property of Nicholas Stacey, at the parish of Tremaine, on the 1st of August. Mr Marrack prosecuted. The prosecutor is a labourer living at , and on the 1st of August last he was employed in making a drain in a field in the parish of Tremaine, for Mr Dawe. Before getting into the drain he placed his watch in his waistcoat pocket, and laid the latter on the bank. The prisoner was in the employ of Mr Dawe, and was engaged in harrowing in an adjoining field, on the day in question; and on the watch being missed, shortly before twelve o'clock, another man named Parsons went and accused him of taking the watch. The prisoner denied that he had been in the field where the men were making the drain, and information was then given to the police- constable Brook, who searched the prisoner, but did not find the watch. On searching the loft over the stable, to which the prisoner had access, the officer found the watch wrapped up in a scarf which was shown to belong to him. The jury found the prisoner guilty. The certificate of the previous conviction of the prisoner for felony was then read over by the clerk of the peace; and the prisoner, who had conducted himself in a flippant and impudent manner during the trial, replied "I don't know." He was then sentenced to two years' hard labour, with the view of the necessary application being made to the Secretary of State for his admission into Parkhurst prison, in order that he might undergo a long term of training there. The Court then adjourned. SECOND COURT—WEDNESDAY. (Before JOHN JOPE ROGERS, Esq., M.P. Chairman; C. H. Reynolds, Esq., and the Rev. S. Simmonds. The Court opened at 9 o'clock. ROBBING A FELLOW WORKMAN AT ILLOGAN. JOHN WELLINGTON, 40, engine driver, was charged with feloniously stealing one flannel shirt, the property of James Toy, at the parish of Illogan, on the 14th or 15th of September. Mr Cornish for the prosecution. The prosecutor was a miner working at South Wheal Crofty mice, where the prisoner was engine driver. On the afternoon of the 14th September, the prosecutor went under ground, leaving his clothes "in the dry," adjoining the engine house in which the prisoner was working. Prosecutor came to the surface at one o'clock on the following morning, and then found that his clothes had been disturbed, and that his flannel shirt was gone. Afterwards the prisoner was taken into custody at Pool upon another charge, and the shirt was found upon him. In defence the prisoner said he been (sic) about some work which had made his clothes wet, and seeing the shirt in the "dry," he put it on intending to return it, but he was apprehended before he had an opportunity. The prisoner was found guilty, and as there was a previous conviction he was sentenced to three years' penal servitude. There was another charge against the prisoner for stealing carpenters' tools, but it was not gone into. CHARGE OF STEALING WEARING APPAREL AT CAMBORNE GEORGE WOOD, 18, labourer, was charged with stealing a waistcoat and a pair of trowsers, the property of Mr T. G. Hulbert, at Camborne, on the 5th September. Mr Cornish for the prosecution, and Mr Jenkins for the defence. The prosecutor is a shopkeeper at Camborne, and the prisoner came into the shop where he was found by the prosecutor with the waistcoat under his feet on the floor, and the trousers rolled round his arm. The prisoner was helplessly drunk, and the prosecutor supposed that the prisoner thought he was putting the trousers under his arm when he rolled round it by mistake. The prosecutor took his goods, and allowed the prisoner to go, but he was afterwards apprehended from some unexplained cause. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to three months' hard labour. PLEADED GUILTY. JOHN GREEN, 16, seaman, to stealing a shirt, the property of John Tregoning, in the parish of Gulval, on the 7th of October. Fourteen months' imprisonment in the house of correction WILLIAM HARRIS, 42 labourer, to stealing several articles of wearing apparel, the property of Henry Andrew, at the parish of , on the 10th June. Sentenced to three months' hard labour. WILLIAM JAMES, 48, miner, to stealing a pair of boots, the property of Samuel Carter, at the parish of St. Just, on the 24th June, and to stealing one boot the property of Samuel Harvey at the same place, on the 30th September. Sentenced to nine months' hard labour. STEALING CANDLES. JOSEPH BAWDEN, 33, miner, and WILLIAM LUKE, 50, farmer, were charged with stealing 50lbs. of candles, the property of the adventurers of North Wheal Seton mine, in the parish of Camborne, on the 23rd Sept. Mr Cornish for the prosecution, and Mr Jenkins for the defence. Mr. Cornish stated that the prisoner Bawden was a miner, employed by the North Wheal Seton Copper Mining Company (Limited), and the other prisoner was a farmer, but had formerly been employed in the mine. It had been customary to keep the candles for the use of the mine in a cottage on the sett, but on the 23rd Sept., they were removed in compliance with the orders of the agent to the account-house, by the prisoner Bawden, and a man named James. The account-house was locked at night, but a breakage occurred on the mine which required the services of all the men to remedy it, and Bawden and his son were left alone in the blacksmith's shop, which is close to the account-house. Bawden's son, a boy about 12 years of age, said he did not live with his father, but drove Mr Ivey's horses on the sett; he saw Luke come to his father (Bawden), and then they both went to the account-house, and Luke unlocked the account-house door; both prisoners went in and shortly afterwards returned with a basket and a bag; the basket was full of candles. Luke had the basket with the candles and Bawden had the bag; they did not lock the door when they came out; they did not speak to him; it was between 9 and 10 o'clock, and it was moonlight; the prisoners went into Luke's field of corn, which was close by; they afterwards came back and threatened to kill witness if he said anything. He told Capt. Miners about it the next day. In cross-examination by Mr Jenkins, the witness said he told Mr Ivey, in the presence of Capt. Miners, that he knew nothing about it; that was because prosecutor threatened to kill him if he told; he afterwards told Capt. Miners, because he and Mr Ivey threatened to put the handcuffs on and send him to prison unless he told the truth. Captain Miners promised to give him a shilling and Ivey sixpence, but they had not done so; he had been kept close ever since, and not allowed to see his friends; he was brought to Bodmin by the witnesses for the prosecution; he saw the prisoners take the candles to a corn rick about 60 yards from the count-house. By the Chairman I was close to Luke when I saw the candles; he must have seen me. Superintendent Miller said he searched the corn stack, and took down a portion of it, but could not find any candles; the search was made two days after the robbery; he discovered a spot where candles had been placed under some grass in the hedge three or four fields from the corn stack, further from the mine. Two witnesses proved that the candles were safe on the night in question, and that Bawden and his son were the only persons left on the mine at 9 o'clock in the evening. The key of the count-house appeared to be kept at a cottage close by, and left on the chimney-piece, where any person working on the mine might have had access to it. Captain Miners stated that the following morning the lock was found to have been injured, so that it would not open by the ordinary key. Mr Jenkins, in addressing the jury for the defence, commented strongly upon the conduct of Capt. Miners and Ivey in "torturing" the poor boy to give evidence against his own father; and their meanness afterwards in promising the boy money and never giving it to him. If the boy were capable of telling a lie in the first instance, he was capable of telling a lie in the second, and he submitted that his evidence was not worth anything. After a lengthy consideration, the foreman of the jury said, "Nine to three, sir;" another juryman, "nine of us says the prisoner is guilty, and three says he isn't." The Chairman: It is necessary that you should all agree. The Foreman: "I cain't find un guilty." The Chairman: Then I think you had better retire for a short time, and we shall try to find another jury. The foreman then turned round to his eleven brethren, and immediately faced about with the announcement—"They're not guilty." The prisoners were then discharged, the Chairman stating that the jury had taken a merciful view of the case, and cautioned the prisoners, saying that it was doubtless owing to the fact of Bawden's son giving evidence that they were acquitted. STEALING A DRESS AT TRURO. EMILY CHEGWIDDEN, 15, servant, was charged with stealing a dress, worth 5s., the property of William Jorey, of Truro. Mr Marrack appeared for the prosecution. The prosecutor is an extensive dealer in Truro. On the 16th Sept., about seven o'clock in the evening, he saw the dress, which belonged to his daughter, hanging on the clothes line in the garden. A girl named Eliza Ann Bennett, a servant with the prosecutor, saw the prisoner taking the dress off the line, and said to her that she must not take it. She replied, "I am going to take it to Missis." Prisoner then walked off with the dress, and it was afterwards found in her pocket. The jury found the prisoner guilty. She had been previously four times summarily convicted. She was now sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. VIOLENT ASSAULT ON A CHILD AT MILLBROOK. JOHN WILLCOCKS, 34, labourer, was charged with violently assaulting a child, named Bessie Lillicrap, two years and a half old, with a leather strap and buckle, at Millbrook, in the parish of Maker, on the 21st Sept. Mr Nepean, of , was for the prosecution, and Mr Jenkins for the defence. It appeared that the child's mother, Sarah Lillicrap, was a widow, who lived with the prisoner, but was not married to him. Mary Knott said she was a widow and lived at Millbrook in the same house with the prisoner. There was only a partition between her room and the prisoner's. I heard Sarah Lillicrap say, "my God, don't you kill it." That was about 12 o'clock at night. She next heard the woman cry, "my God, she is dead, you have killed her." "Never mind the young b——." The child was two-years and six months old. Next morning, between seven and eight o'clock the child ran into her room. She saw black marks on the calves of the child's legs, as if they had been done with a strap. There were a great many wales on her skin all over her back, neck, and arms, and on her face. Sarah Lillicrap said she was a widow and lived at Millbrook with the prisoner; Bessie Lillicrap was her child. The prisoner beat her on the night in question with a leathern strap, which had a buckle on it. He beat her violently. Witness tried to prevent the prisoner from beating the child. There was some skin kicked off the child's face by the prisoner throwing it into the cradle. In cross-examination the witness said the prisoner has a wife, but she does not live with him. Witness took care of the prisoner's house and family, and had always previously found him kind to the child. The child had been very cross and was crying, and woke the prisoner, who got into a passion and beat the child. The strap was hanging beside the bed; it was because the child was wakeful and crying that he beat it; the prisoner had the buckle end in his hand as far as witness could see. Mr. Worth, surgeon, saw the child on the evening of the 24th of Sept.; he stripped the child and examined it carefully; there was an abrasion of the skin on the right side of the face. The back, and back of the thighs and arms were covered with deep bruises. It was possible that they might be caused by a fall on rough ground. Mr Jenkins, in defence, submitted, that the law permitted a father to correct his own child, and though the prisoner was not the child's father, still he was in a similar position towards her. The Chairman, in summing up explained to the jury that there were two counts in the indictment, one for maliciously assaulting and the other for a common assault. If the jury did not consider the offence amounted to a malicious assault, they would find him guilty of the common assault, if they thought the evidence established it. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault, and he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. INDECENT ASSAULT AT LISKEARD. NICHOLAS CAURSE, a young farmer, aged about 20, was indicted for indecently assaulting a servant girl, of about the same age, named Mary Tamblyn. A second count charged him with a common assault. Mr Commins appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Beer for the defence. Mr Commins said that the prosecutrix was a single woman, and had lived as servant for the last five years, with Mr Russell of Penant farm, in the parish of Liskeard. On Sunday the 2nd of August she went to Duloe, a distance of 5 miles from Penant. On her return home she met a young man with whom she was acquainted and with whom she stopped about half an hour talking. Upon leaving him she walked towards home and was in a few minutes overtaken by a young man who persisted in walking with her, and pulled her arm within his. He afterwards took liberties with her, threw her down, and committed an indecent assault upon her. She resisted, and after a struggle of five or ten minutes effected her escape. Upon getting home to her master's house, which is half a mile from the scene of the assault it was about eleven o'clock, according to the evidence of herself and her mistress. She had never seen the prisoner before, but she was certain that he was the man. The prisoner had been seen in the neighbourhood about an hour previously. The defence was that it was a case of mistaken identity, and the prisoner's mother was called to prove that the prisoner arrived at his own house a distance of 4½ miles from the scene of assault, at a quarter to 11 o'clock. Witnesses were also called who gave the prisoner an excellent character. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up said the case was either an indecent assault, or it was nothing. The jury, after a consultation of half-an-hour, acquitted the prisoner, and he was discharged. The Court adjourned at a quarter to 7 o'clock. PLEADED GUILTY.—ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. ELLEN FYNE, 18, servant, a respectable looking girl, pleaded guilty to taking a quantity of laudanum, at Millbrook, on the 2nd October, with intent to kill herself. Mr Nepean, who appeared for the prosecution, stated that the girl was pregnant by a man in the neighbourhood, to whom she was about to be married. He, however, left her, and the girl was thereby driven to desperation. The prisoner's mother stated that she appeared to have suffered great depression from the disappointment. She (the mother) was willing to take the girl home and take care of her. The prisoner was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. HEARTLESS FRAUD AT ILLOGAN. JAMES ROWE, a middle aged man, pleaded guilty to defrauding a sawyer, of Illogan, named James Berdinnier of the sum of 6s. 4½d. Mr Cornish, who appeared for the prosecution, stated that the prisoner, who was formerly a mine agent, but had been superseded, represented himself as the agent of “The Integrity Life Assurance and Sick Benefit Society, whose offices are in London, and produced several papers purporting to be the society's documents, by which means he induced the prosecutor to become a member of the society, receiving from him entrance fees to the amount of 6s. 4½d., and afterwards collecting the weekly payments, altogether receiving £1 19s. 9d. The fraud was only discovered when the poor man, the prosecutor, was taken ill, and applied for his week's allowance to the London office. Sentenced to four months' imprisonment. FIRST COURT—THURSDAY. (Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart. The Court opened at nine o'clock this morning. INDECENT ASSAULT. ABSOLEM DATSON, 21, miner, was charged with feloniously entering the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Williams at the parish of Kea, on the 6th Sept., about 12 o'clock at night and with violently and indecently assaulting her; a second count charged the prisoner with a common assault. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Marrack who appeared for the defence, requested the court to allow the prisoner to withdraw the plea of not guilty on the second count for common assault. After some consideration the court agreed to the application, and the prosecution offering no evidence on the charge of indecent assault, the prisoner was sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour. EMBEZZLEMENT AT TRURO GEORGE SCHOLER MUNN, 20, was charged with embezzling 12s. 6d., the property of his master, John Auld McKenzie, draper, of Truro. Mr Chilcott appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Shilson for the defence. Mr CHILCOTT stated that the prosecutor sent young men into the country to sell goods and receive money on his account. Their duty was to leave Truro on Monday morning, and go their "rounds," returning on the following Saturday and render an account of the week's business, paying over all moneys. The prisoner left Truro on Monday, the 20th July last, on his ordinary round, but he never returned. A letter, however, was received from him, dated Carnarvon, 28th July in which the prisoner stated he had received £10 18s. 6d. on his round. That he got drunk on Wednesday, spent part of the money, and then was afraid to return, and ran away. He offered to pay £5 of the money by instalments, provided his clothes were forwarded to him, and the remainder allowed to go against his wages. The letter also stated where the goods which he had in his possession on his round were to be found The prosecutor, however, thought it his duty not to make terms with the prisoner, and, therefore, gave information to the police, and the prisoner was apprehended. Hannah Cole, Christian Richards, and Mary White, all of Hayle, deposed to paying the prisoner the sums respectively of 2s., 4s., and 4s. 6d.. The prosecutor gave evidence similar to the statement given above. In cross-examination, he admitted that the statement of account in the prisoner's letter was correct; that the prisoner had entered in the cash book the sums received from the witnesses; and that he owed the prisoner more money on account of wages than the sum due upon the account. He was to pay the prisoner £20 per year, to be paid at the end of four years, after balancing up the accounts between them. Mr Shilson submitted that there was no embezzlement the money having been accounted for. Mr Chilcott contended that the mere entering in the book was not a sufficient rendering of account without paying over the money. The Chairman retired to consult, and upon returning said he was of opinion that a charge of embezzlement could not be sustained, and the prisoner was therefore discharged. SECOND COURT—THURSDAY. (Before Mr J. J. ROGERS, M.P) JOHN HAWKIN, an old man, who had been bail, was charged with an indecent assault on Emma Hobbs, at the parish of St. Stephens-by-Launceston, on the 12th of August. Mr Stokes prosecuted, and Mr Peters defended the prisoner. The parties reside at the village of Langore, near Launceston, and the prisoner was the principal witness against Roger Drew, who was found guilty at the Cornwall Assizes two or three years ago of the murder of an old man in this village, and afterwards executed. It appears that on the 12th of August, the prosecutrix, who is a modest, respectable looking young woman, 22 years of age, went to Launceston for some medicine and wine for a sister with whom she lived, who was ill. As she was returning between nine and ten o'clock evening, she met the prisoner, a married man, and as she had known him for several years, they entered into conversation. After they had walked together a short distance, he made improper overtures to her, which she rejected, but he followed her, and at a lonely part of the road, seized her, threw her down, and attempted to violate her. She resisted, and succeeded in getting away from him. He afterwards offered the prosecutrix money not to say anything about the offence, but she refused to accept it. [Editor’s note: No further details of this case were published. The entry in the Cornwall Criminal Registers – under the name of John HUNKIN - indicates that he was found Not Guilty] FIRST COURT.—Thursday. (Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart.) The following cases were heard too late for our last week's publication. FRAUD AT TRURO. JOHN MICHELL 24, miner, was indicted for having, on the 4th September, falsely pretended to Theophilus Lutey Dorrington, of Truro, that he had gold to sell, and produced to him a quantity of broken metal, which he called Australian and Californian gold, by means of which he obtained the sum £9 13s. and one gold pin of the value of 15s., the monies of the said Theophilus Lutey Dorrington, with intent to defraud. Mr Marrack for the prosecution and Mr Shilson for the defence. Mr Dorrington, the prosecutor, who lives in Church Lane, Truro, said he was a silver smith and jeweller. The prisoner came to his shop on the 22nd August, and produced a piece of paper containing some gold, and asked if the prosecutor sold gold; witness said "Yes." Prisoner asked if he would buy the contents of the paper. Witness replied that he would, and weighed it and bought it. Prisoner produced another paper containing what he represented to be Australian and Californian gold, for which he paid him £5 16s. 6d. He sent the metal to Birmingham in payment of an account, but it was returned to him as valueless. Prisoner again came to him on the 3rd or 4th September with a leather bag containing a quantity of what appeared to be gold dust. Witness weighed out a portion of it, which he valued at £10 8s., but remarked that there was a great deal of quartz in it, and that it was very dirty. Prisoner said his brother had brought home a large quantity of gold. He explained that the reason of the gold being dirty was that there was more Californian than Australian gold in it. On the 19th September, prosecutor saw the prisoner go by his window and at once sent for a policeman and put him in an inner room. The prisoner came into the shop shortly afterwards and said good morning, and again produced a chamois leather bag containing dust. He said his brother had sold £90 worth since he had been there last. Prosecutor weighed the bag and then turned the metal out on a piece of paper. Prisoner said it was Australian and Californian gold. Prosecutor had previously found that the metal he had bought on the 3rd and 4th of September was base metal. He called the policeman out. The policeman asked the prisoner what he sold the metal for. He said "gold." Prosecutor said it was not gold, and tested it before him. He then said he did not know what it was, and pulled out £2, and offered to give it to the prosecutor. He also offered to pay the remainder of the money he had received by instalments. P.C. Cornish deposed to taking the prisoner to the station-house, where the prisoner said he had found the metal in a dung-heap in his master's yard in Redruth. He said Miss Letore, his master's daughter, gave him some chamois leather, with which he had made the bag. The prisoner repeated the same story to Superintendent Woolcock, and added that he only took a portion of the dust from the dung-heap. Woolcock wanted to know where the heap was, and he would look for the remainder of the dust, but the prisoner said it was no use as the dung-heap had been removed. Mr Richard Pearce, assayer, of Truro, stated that he had examined the metal offered for sale by the prisoner, and on first sight thought it looked like gold dust; there appeared to be a quantity of quartz in it. On examining it, however, by the lens, he found that it was not gold dust, and the material which looked like quartz was borax. He then examined it chemically and found that it was an alloy of copper and zinc, the alloy containing a small quantity of silver. He tested for gold and found a very minute quantity—about 5- 10,000ths of a grain in 40 grains of alloy. Commercially speaking there was no gold in it. Witness produced the result of his assay of the 40 grains. It was a minute particle of gold about the size of a pins point. It was gummed on a piece of paper and required a lens to enable a person to see it distinctly. He said the alloy was a very clever imitation of gold, and very difficult to detect without testing. Mr Shilson contended that as the metal contained gold there was no case against prisoner. This being overruled by the Court, Mr Shilson submitted to the jury that there was no evidence to show that the prisoner knew the metal was spurious. If the prosecutor, who had been in busines as a jeweller for 15 years, did not know that it was not gold, it was not likely that the prisoner should, and unless he knew that it was merely an imitation he was not guilty of the charge which was for wilfully and knowingly committing a fraud. His conduct in coming to the prosecutor's shop three times extending over nearly a month, was not like that of a man who knew that he was committing a fraud. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the chairman in passing sentence said it was the most impudent fraud that had ever come before him. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour. ALLEGED FRIENDLY SOCIETY IMPOSITION. PREGNANCY NOT ILLNESS. WILLIAM KITTO, 49, was indicted for obtaining money by false pretences from Sarah Ann Lee and Eliza Wilton, in the years 1860, 1861, 1862, and 1863, by pretending that he was a collector for the Royal Liver Friendly Society, he not being such a collector.—Mr Nepean, of Kingsand, prosecuted and Mr Frost, of Launceston, defended.—Mr Nepean stated that Mary Ann Lee, one of the witnesses, was pregnant, and unable to attend. He applied that her deposition might be read. He called a surgeon who proved that that the woman was pregnant and on Monday had symptoms of approaching labour, so that it would not have been safe for her to travel. The CHAIRMAN said it had been ruled that pregnancy was not illness within the meaning of the Act, and therefore the depositions could not be put in. This charge accordingly failed. Eliza Wilton was then called and proved that prisoner had caused her to enter her children as members of the society and had received money from her from time to time, that he supplied her with cards having the society's name on them; and that he had altered the date on the cards as he said for the purpose of saving witness a penny for new cards. George Prest, agent for the Launceston district, declined to be sworn, because he was a "Plymouth Brother," and did not agree with oaths. It was found that there was a clause in one of the recent acts to meet such cases, and the witness was allowed to affirm. He said he had never appointed the prisoner as collector for the society. The collectors were appointed by the management in Liverpool. He had, however, had a conversation with the prisoner about the collectorship, and advised him to obtain as many subscribers as he could. Collectorships were given to men upon obtaining a certain number of members. If the prisoner had brought him money which he had collected in the Launceston district, he should have received it from him. The Chairman, after hearing this evidence, directed the jury to acquit the prisoner, and he was accordingly discharged. This concluded the business of the Court, which rose shortly after five o'clock. SECOND COURT—THURSDAY. (Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq , M.P) IMPORTANT CASE OF EJECTMENT. WILLIAM HARVEY, JOHN HOOPER, and CHARLES WILLIAMS, were indicted for that, on the 8th May, James Dawe being possessed of a certain messuage and appurtenances in the parish of Linkinhorne for a certain term, whilst so possessed, the defendants did unlawfully enter the same, and forcibly expel the said James Dawe from the possession thereof, and kept, and still did keep him from the same. Mr Peter, of Launceston, prosecuted; Mr Stokes, of Truro, defended the prisoners Harvey and Hooper; and Mr Shilson, of St. Austell, defended the prisoner Williams.—Mr SHILSON took an objection to the indictment, on the ground that it was incorrect. He contended that he should state the nature of the holding which the person had in the property from which he was forcibly dispossessed, whereas the present indictment only stated that the prosecutor had possession of a certain house and appurtenances for a certain term but did not define what term. It was stated in Woolridge, where the case of King v. Holmes was cited, that it was required in describing an estate that the term should be inserted. Mr STOCKES said the objection was a valid one, and quoted other authorities in support of it. During the thirty years he had practised at these sessions, he did not recollect that this peculiar law was ever attempted to be enforced in that way.—Mr PETER contended that the allegation of possession was enough. The form of indictment had been drawn up by Mr Archbold himself. The word "term" clearly defined the quantity of estate which was quite sufficient for the purposes of the present indictment.—The CHAIRMAN, after consulting with Sir Colman Rashleigh, the chairman of the First Court said that he felt very much reluctance to close the case at the outset on a technical objection, but he had consulted with his brother chairmen, who agreed with him that the case quoted in support of the objection appeared to bear expressly on the very point mooted in this case, and, consequently, the indictment must fall to the ground.—Mr PETER then contended that by the 14th and 10th Vict., chap. 100, the court had power to amend the indictment.—The CHAIRMAN, however, decided that he had no such power.—Mr PETER next submitted that he might proceed under common law.—The CHAIRMAN decided that Mr Peter could not do so, and the indictment was then quashed, and the jury, by the direction of the Chairman, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. WILLIAM HARVEY, MARY ANN HARVEY, JOHN HOOPER, CHARLES WILLIAMS, and OLIVER GLANVILLE, were indicted for unlawfully detaining a certain house, situate in Hemwood, the property of Thomas Saunders, then in the occupation of James Dawe.—Mr Peter appeared for the prosecution; Mr Stokes defended Hooper and the two Harveys; Mr Shilson represented Williams; and Mr Nicholls appeared for Glanville.—Mr STOCKES said that a case on the present point was now pending at the Liskeard County Court, and he suggested that it would not be advisable that the case should now be gone into.—Mr PETER pressed the case, and hoped it would be gone into.—Mr NICHOLLS was then proceeding to state an objection, but the court decided that it was irregular; and Mr PETER opened the case. After stating the nature of the charge, he said that Mr Saunders had two cottages situate in the village of Hemwood, the rents of which had been received by himself and his father for the last 25 or 26 years. In 1839, the present possessor, Thomas Saunders, let one of the cottages to a person named Hawke, who occupied it until Michaelmas, 1862, having received notice to quit on that date. Three days before the quarter-day, however, Hawke came to Saunders, and stated that he intended to go into a beerhouse, but he could not occupy until the 14th of October, and Saunders then consented to allow him to remain in the house until that date, on the condition that he paid a weekly sum, which Dawe was to receive. Mr Saunders had an interview with Dawe, who occupied the adjoining bouse, on the 30th of September, and he agreed to the arrangement that had been made between the former and Hawke. Mr Saunders heard before the 14th of October that by some means the defendant was in possession of the house, and he thought it his duty to go over and assist Dawe in taking possession. When he went, he found, as he had heard, that the defendants were in occupation, and he attempted to get in, but was at once most violently resisted, the defendants stating that the property was theirs. He should describe the relationship of the prisoners— William Harvey married a widow named Hooper, Charles Williams married her daughter, and Glanville married another daughter of Mrs Hooper, so that they were a family of Hoopers, so to speak. While Mr Saunders visited the bouse on the 14th October Williams flourished a stick about, and used violent threats, and both Dawe and Saunders were obliged to to (sic) leave. They went to the house again on the 4th November, accompanied by a parish constable, who gained admission into the house by some pretext, and attempted to turn the defendants out, but the attempt failed. There were a great many subsequent attempts made to obtain possession of the property by Dawe and Saunders, but these attempts failed, and the most violent threats were used by the defendants; hence the present charge.—Mr STOKES then objected to the form of indictment. According to Mr Archbold's own form, it must first charge the defendants with forcible entry before there could be a forcible detainer. This was left out in the indictment and he submitted that his friend's second indictment was worse than his first.—Mr PETER said that in law, it followed that, if there was a forcible detainer, there must be a forcibly entry.—The CHAIRMAN also took that view of the case and overruled the objection of Mr Stokes.—Mr SHILSON then objected to the examination of Mr Saunders, on the ground that he was a party interested in the verdict. He cited a very old case in support of this objection, but the CHAIRMAN was of opinion that Lord Denman's Act overruled this, and consequently he did not allow the objection—Messrs Saunders and Daw were then called in support of Mr Peter's statement, and it came out that by a County Court judgment the prosecutor had since July last become possessed of the property. The gentlemen for the defence then addressed the jury, and the Chairman summed up, saying that the evidence against Glanville and Williams was very slight, but that against the other prisoners was much stronger, and they had not only taken possession but had used violence. The jury acquitted all the prisoners.

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