1862 Cornwall Quarter Sessions and Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes ...... 24 3. Easter Sessions ...... 55 4. Midsummer Sessions ...... 70 5. Summer Assizes ...... 90 6. Michaelmas Sessions...... 130

Royal Cornwall Gazette 3 January 3 1862

1. Epiphany Sessions

These Sessions were opened on Tuesday, the 31st Dec., at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. (presiding), Chairmen. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., Lord Vivian. J. Borlase, Esq. Hon. G.M. Fortescue. Neville Norway, Esq. Sir John S. Trelawny., Bart. Edwin Ley, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. W.C. Braddon, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew., Esq. C.B. Kingdon, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Rev. Prebendary Tatham. F. Howell, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. Vyell F. Vyvyan. H.R.S. Trelawny, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. James Glencross. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. R.G. Lakes, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. The Rev. F.A.H. Scrivener, rector of Gerrans, and the Rev. George Sayle Prior, rector of St. Breock, took the oaths on presentation to these livings respectively. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. Robert Hart Pike, Camborne, foreman. “ Edward Cowlin, Gorran. “ John Daniell, Bodmin. “ Wm. Ford Geeke, St. Columb. “ Henry Major Harris, St. Ives. “ Thomas Harris, Bodmin. “ William Hawke, St. Columb. “ Richard Hidderley, Camborne. “ Samuel Key, St. Breock. “ Charles Lawry, St. Minver. “ George Lee, St. Blazey. “ Thomas Pearce Mabley, St. Minver. “ Hart Nicholl, St. Breock. “ James Northcott, St. Austell. “ Moses Parnell, St. Ewe. “ James Paynter, St. Breock “ Henry Pethick, St. Breward. “ John Phillips, Lanlivery. “ Wm. Polkinghorne, St. Columb. “ Wm. Powne, St. Columb. “ Wm. Randall, St. Minver. “ George Richards, St. Ives. “ Richard Veale, St. Columb major. The following gentlemen also answered when called:—Mr. Henry Williams, St. Columb; and Mr. Samuel Wills, St. Breock. ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY. Immediately after the grand jury had been sworn, and before the proclamation against vice and profaneness had been read. Lord VIVIAN said—Before we proceed with those public duties for the discharge of which we are now assembled, I think it right to submit to the magistrates a duty which we should perform—namely, that we should adopt an address to Her Majesty on the irreparable loss which she and the country have sustained in the death of his Royal Highness the Prince Consort. The evidence which we have had in this county as well as elsewhere of the sorrow and grief which has been entertained throughout the entire land by all classes of people is the best proof that could be afforded of the real worth of him who has been taken from us, and it renders altogether unnecessary any eulogy of mine. Nor need I attempt to express in the eloquent terms that have been already used the feeling that pervaded all classes of people in every part of the county. As we are all aware, the feeling of the people has been one of intense grief—of grief greatly felt, and well-deserved. But if our grief has been great, how much more intense must be the grief of our gracious Sovereign, to whom Prince Albert proved himself an admirable husband and an admirable councillor and friend? I consider that in discharging this melancholy duty, it will best become us to intrude as little as possible on Her Majesty's grief,—no further than to express to Her Majesty our deep sorrow for the loss we have sustained, and the sympathy of our hearts for Her Majesty in her heavy bereavement. We must all necessarily feel a greater love and veneration for the Sovereign, finding as we did, that even in the moment of her intensest (sic) suffering she felt the duty which she owed to her people, and expressed her anxiety to fulfil that duty. (Hear, hear.) I venture then to propose that a committee should be appointed by this court to draw up an address to the Sovereign expressive of our grief for the irreparable loss which Her Majesty has sustained; and I am certain that the hearty prayers of all will be offered up to Almighty God, that it will please Him to temper the wound He has been pleased to inflict upon her, and that he will be pleased for many years to preserve to us a Sovereign who has so well earned the love and respect of her people. His Lordship then proposed that Sir John Trelawny, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Carew, Mr. Sawle and himself should be the committee to prepare the address. The motion was seconded by Mr. KENDALL, and carried. Shortly after, the Committee returned and presented the following address which was read by the Chairman:— "The magistrates of Cornwall, deeply feeling the irreparable loss which has been sustained by the death of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, desire to offer to Her Majesty and the Royal Family the heartfelt sympathy of all classes within this county, and to express their anxious hope and fervent prayer that it may please Divine Providence to support their beloved Sovereign under this most severe trial." Mr. SAWLE moved that this address be adopted, signed by the Chairman, and forwarded to Sir George Grey for presentation to Her Majesty. Also, that it be entered on the minutes of the court. Mr. CAREW seconded the motion, and it was carried. CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. The proclamation against vice and profaneness was then read, after which the CHAIRMAN delivered his charge as follows:— Gentlemen of the Grand Jury.—The court is always highly gratified to see on such occasions as the present a good attendance of grand jurors, especially at this season of the year, when, no doubt, many of you would much prefer being in the circle of your own homes instead of coming here to your duties to your country. The calendar which you will have to investigate is, I regret to say, a somewhat heavy one, both as regards the number of prisoners committed, and the character of the offences with which some of those prisoners stand charged. The evidence, however, to bring home these offences is of the ordinary description, and, therefore, calls for no particular remarks from me. On the 1st of November, the Act for the Consolidation of the Criminal Statutes came into operation, and it is possible that some of the indictments which will be submitted to you may be prepared according to the new forms. If so, you had better not trouble yourselves with that matter, but leave the form of the indictment to the court here. If you think that the evidence is sufficient to justify you in placing a prisoner on his trial, you will find a true bill and send the case to this court here to be dealt with. The number of prisoners in the calendar is 39. At the last Epiphany Sessions the number for trial was 26. The total number of criminal prisoners received during the quarter just ended is 153. You will thus see that there is a considerable though not a very serious increase in the number of prisoners for trial. Now, it has often been remarked both by myself and my brother chairmen, when presiding in this court, that it is impossible to account satisfactorily for the periodical decrease and increase of crime; but at the same time, if you look at the calendar which will be placed before you on this occasion, and also at those which have been submitted to the Quarter Sessions for many years past, you will see that in one particular they are all alike—namely, the absence of education amongst the prisoners. Whatever may be the causes which operate in producing crime, there can be no doubt that ignorance and vice go hand-in-hand together, and that the criminal population of the country consists principally of the least educated portion of it; and therefore, it may be hoped, that as religious education is extended among the lower classes, there will be proportionate decrease in the per centage in the crime which takes place in this country. The subject of the education of the lower classes has recently occupied a large share of public attention, owing to the new regulations proposed to be introduced into the National Schools. It is not my province to refer to the course that shall be taken, and I shall content myself with remarking that no doubt considerable attention will be given to the matter in the next session of Parliament; and I trust that some scheme will be devised which will afford to the poorer classes the opportunity of acquiring a good education, and that that education will be based on the Holy Scriptures. Education without religion would no doubt sharpen and develope (sic) the intellect of the youth of the country; but I believe that nothing but true religious principles inculcated in the minds of youth will strengthen and fortify them, and enable them to resist those temptations to which they are subjected in life. The children of the poor are taken away from school at an early age, and especially is this the case among the mining population of this county, where children begin to work very early. It is, therefore, impossible to give them an advanced education; but I believe that such an education may be given them as will enable them to walk morally, religiously, and orderly through life. It therefore behoves all of us, in our respective stations, to afford our utmost support to the formation of such a sound religious education among the people, in order that we may thus assist in diminishing that amount of crime which unfortunately exists in this country. With regard to other county matters, you will be glad to find that the police force is considered to be in a very high state of efficiency. You are aware that the payment of a portion of the expenses of the police force depends on that force being kept in an efficient state, and I have a letter from the Home Office stating that Sir George Grey has received the report of the Government Inspector of Police informing him that the police force of this county had been kept in an efficient state during the past year. I think that those who have had any experience in regard to the business of the county and the working of the police, must feel satisfied as to the condition of that force, the establishment of which has cost the county a considerable sum. As to the finances, I find that at the previous Epiphany sessions, 30 rates were required for county purposes, and 24 for the police. At the present sessions only 24 rates for the county, and 20-32nds of a penny for the police, will be required, showing a diminution in both cases. That is satisfactory, and I trust that as some of the heaviest portion of the public works of the county are drawing towards completion, that we shall see a still further diminution in the county rate; but it is of course, impossible for me or any other person to make a distinct promise as to the amount of that reduction. Notwithstanding what has fallen from the noble lord on this occasion, and who has so ably and eloquently set before you the irreparable loss which the country has sustained in the death of the Prince Consort, it would ill become me to pass over in silence the heavy loss which this county more particularly has sustained by that great affliction with which it has pleased God to visit our beloved Queen and the nation at large. The late lamented Prince Consort was so closely and intimately connected with the county, that all classes of Cornishmen must feel—as indeed the sorrow which has been expressed by all classes universally throughout the county, shows that they do feel—deeper sorrow than has been felt by any other portion of the kingdom for this great calamity; and I am sure that all will join me in expressing to Her Majesty our deep sympathy in the great and sad bereavement with which it has pleased God to afflict her, and our earnest prayer that it would please Him to strengthen and support her in her affliction. The private virtues and the talents of the late Prince Consort are too well known, too deeply felt, and too much regretted and deplored to need any comment from me; but having had considerable intercourse with his Royal Highness, I may be permitted to express my high admiration of his prudence, abilities, and great and estimable virtues, and my grateful sense of the great kindness I have received from him on the occasions of my having to transact business with him. I shall ever feel that I have lost a great and virtuous Prince, and also a sincere and kind friend. He then dismissed the grand jury to their duties. THE SALMON FISHERY. Mr. SAWLE stated that, as chairman of the justices at the last sessions, he was directed to forward a memorial to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, praying for an alteration of the close days as laid down in the Act of Parliament, so far as they applied to the rivers Camel and Fowey. He had forwarded that memorial, and had received the following reply. Whitehall, October 24th. "I am directed by Sir George Grey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, forwarding an application of the justices of Cornwall for an extension of the close days of the salmon fishery in the rivers Camel and Fowey. And I am to inform you that Sir George Grey is not prepared to comply with this application at present." THE COUNTY GAOL. The Chairman read the following document:— VISITING JUSTICES REPORT. The visiting committee of the county gaol and bridewell have much pleasure in reporting that the new buildings are complete and that the classification and other government arrangements are now satisfactorily carried out. The chief warder, Mr. Peter Grant, has resigned, and out of 33 candidates for his office, the committee have selected Sergeant-Major Mayell, subject to the approval of the court. Sergeant- Major Mayell's testimonials are of the highest order. As sanctioned at the last sessions the committee have appointed John N. Martin as Warder, at £20 per annum. The committee beg to submit for the consideration of the court, the accompanying letter from the Secretary of the Girls' Reformatory for the western counties.—(Signed) Nicholas Kendall, C.B. Graves Sawle, Edward Coode, jun., Richard Foster, Neville Norway, C.M. Edward Collins. Girls' Reformatory for the Western Counties, Exeter, 16th November, 1861. Gentlemen,—the directors of this institution have requested me to address you, under the following circumstances. There are at present in this reformatory two girls sentenced by the judges of assize for Cornwall for two and three years detention. They were received with the payment of £4 each for clothes on entering and leaving the establishment. As, however, the maintenance and cost of custody of the children exceeds by two shillings per week per head the Government allowance, now reduced to 6s. per week, they trust you will be induced to apply, at your next quarter sessions, for powers to grant the said 2s. per week per head for all children that are already, or may be hereafter sent them. They ask this, having already obtained from the counties of Devon and Somerset this weekly payment of 2s. in addition to the £4 for clothes. They have also entered into similar contracts with the corporations of Exeter and Plymouth. I remain, your obedient servant, W. G. HEATHMAN, Hon. Sec. The magistrates of the county of Cornwall. The Visiting Justices report was adopted; and on the motion of Mr. Sawle, seconded by Mr. Carew, it was resolved nem con., that a payment of 2s. per week per head, in addition to the present Government allowance, be made for the maintenance of such prisoners as may be sent from the county of Cornwall to the girls' reformatory for the western counties. GOVERNOR'S REPORT. The governor reported that since the date of his last report the new wing for females had been finished and occupied; and that the conduct of the prisoners generally had been good and orderly. GOAL EXPENSES FOR THE PAST QUARTER. Subsistence £262 13 6 Clothing 27 4 5 Bedding 42 17 4 Fuel 92 16 6 Sundries 104 5 5½ Pensioned Governor 50 0 0 Pensioned Watchman 1 5 0 Paid Prisoners at discharge 9 2 6 Expenses at Michaelmas sessions 7 18 0 Removal of Convicts (three bills) 9 13 2 Female singers 1 0 0 Coffin and funeral expenses of William Henry Reynolds, the child of Elizabeth Reynolds, County Court debtor 0 18 0 Advertisements for chief warder (Times) 0 6 3 Cardew for weighing machine 3 5 0 Broad, for removing detector clock 0 3 6 Incidental expenses 0 9 6 £958 11 7½

CREDIT By cash for subsistence of military and other prisoners £8 2 0 Ditto for bran 7 6 10 15 8 10

Total current expenses £943 2 9½ Alteration and repairs 7 2 10 £950 5 7½ Hall Expenses 49 13 3 Expenses on account of the new gaol 198 8 5

THE PRISON DIETARY. Lord VIVIAN said, before passing from the subject of accounts, he should like to ask the chairman of the asylum committee, who was also chairman of the gaol committee, what were the comparative expenses of the inmates of the gaol and of the asylum for subsistence—whether one was better than the other, and if so in what did the difference consist? Mr. KENDALL wished the noble Lord had given notice of this question. He might however state from recollection that the gaol was somewhat more expensive than the asylum. His impression was that in the gaol the daily cost was 15d. a head, while in the asylum it was 13d. a head. He was not prepared to state exactly now why there was that difference; but full particulars should be given at the next sessions. Lord VIVIAN said his object in drawing attention to the subject was to ascertain whether in both establishments the cost could not be brought to the same amount per head; and he had no doubt that Mr. Kendall would give his special attention to the matter. The CHAIRMAN believed that one reason for the difference was that the magistrates had no power to alter the prison dietary. It was sent down by the Government, and the magistrates were bound to adopt it. Mr. KENDALL said he had no doubt, and the committee had no doubt, that the dietary at the gaol was much too good. He recollected that when, on his own responsibility he had some of the soup taken from the gaol for the magistrates to taste, they all considered it was too good. The government was memorialized on the subject; but the reply from the Home Office was that the dietary must not be altered. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF PRISONERS. The CHAIRMAN read the following comparative statement of the number of prisoners for trial, at the commencement of the Epiphany Sessions, January last, 1861, and Epiphany Sessions, December 31st, 1861; also of the number of persons committed under the Criminal Justice Act and Juvenile Offenders' Acts from Michaelmas Sessions, 1860, to the Epiphany Sessions, January 1st, 1861, and Michaelmas Sessions, 1861, to Epiphany Sessions, December 31, 1861, and also of the total number of criminal prisoners and debtors received during the quarter ending Christmas, 1860 and 1861:—Epiphany Sessions January 1st, for felony, in custody, 18; Epiphany Sessions, December 31st, 24; ditto on bail January 1st, 4; present sessions, 8; for misdemeanour, in custody, January 1st, 2; present sessions, 2; for assault, in custody, January 1st, 0; present sessions, 1, ditto on bail, January 1st, 1; present sessions 1; for forfeited recognizance, January 1st, 0; present sessions, 2;—total for trial January 1st, 1861, 26; present sessions, 39; Committed under the Criminal Justice Act, at Epiphany Sessions, January 1st, 19; ditto under the Juvenile Offenders' Acts, 1; grand total, 46. At present sessions, committed under the Criminal Justice Act, 16; ditto under the Juvenile Offenders' Acts, 4; grand total, 59. Total number of criminal prisoners received during the quarter ending Christmas, 1860, 175; ditto sheriff's debtors ditto, 3; ditto County Court ditto, 22. Total numbers of criminal prisoners received during the quarter ending Christmas, 1861, 153; ditto sheriff's debtors ditto, 7; ditto County Court ditto, 32. REGULATION OF THE GAOL. The Rev. C. M. EDWARD COLLINS gave notice of motion—That the rules recently issued by the Secretary of State for the regulations of Prisons be adopted, in lieu of those now in force in this county. CORONERS' BILLS. The following bills were allowed:— Mr. Hichens, 28 Inquests £86 7 9 Mr. Jago, 14 " 51 5 9 Mr. Hambly, 13 " 54 15 10 Mr. Good, 13 " 43 12 0 Mr. Carlyon, 22 " 91 12 4 87 £327 13 8

For the corresponding quarter last year the bills were:— Mr. Hichens £91 9 11 Mr. Jago 41 7 10 Mr. Hambly 73 14 2 Mr. Good 49 16 7 Mr. Carlyon 95 16 2 £352 4 8

Showing a decrease on the present occasion of £25. 11s. BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—The CHAIRMAN read the following report from Mr. Silvanus W. Jenkin, the surveyor for the Eastern Division:— Pentewan Bridge.—A considerable portion of the approach road to this bridge was overflowed during the late floods. I have to apply for the grant of a sum not exceeding £10, for the purpose of raising it, and building a low wall for its future protection. Nansladron and London Apprentice Bridges—I have to apply for the sum of £1, for repairing the parapets of these bridges. Helscott Bridge.—I have to apply for a grant of £5, for repairing the post and rail fence at this bridge. Special Report on the Causeway at Rodds' Bridges.—The total length of road belonging to the county at these bridges is 363 yards, and there are four bridges or culverts across open ditches, which drain large flat meadows or marshes adjoining the Bude canal. The road is generally about 12 feet wide, and has a ditch on either side; it is but little used. A great part of this length of road is under water during heavy floods, and has been so more than once during the present winter. The cost of raising the road above the flood line would be very great; all that can be done, therefore, is so to protect it as to prevent accidents to persons using it when under water, &c., so as at the same time not to obstruct the free flow of the water. About 100 yards in length of the road is fenced on both sides, and about 80 yards more either wholly or partially by wooden posts and rail. The remainder is either unfenced, or has only wood posts at intervals. Stone posts and iron rail will now be fixed for a length of about 120 yards leaving about 120 yards unprovided for, where it is proposed to plant witheys, and so form a live fence between the road and the ditch. Special Report on Lostwithiel Bridge,—Having on several previous occasions been instructed by you to examine and report on the condition of this bridge, I have little to add to my former reports. The eastern portion of the bridge is, and has long been in so dilapidated a state, that its failure would not surprise me at any time, whilst at the same time, it does not appear to have suffered any serious injury by the late very heavy floods, so that it becomes impossible to predict how long it may remain in its present state. The parapets of this portion of the bridge are very weak and thin, and are continually damaged by passing carriages and other means; and I apprehend that should any considerable portion of them be knocked away, it would be very difficult to replace them, since they already considerably overhang the face of the wall below. This report was received, but not until after much discussion on some of its details, which resulted in special resolutions. The sums of £10, £1, and £5, applied for in respect of Pentewan, Nansladron and Helscott bridges, were granted; but considerable discussion took place on the subject of alleged damage to county bridges from accumulations in the rivers of water from clay works. Mr. Lakes, Mr. E. Coode, junr. Lord Vivian, Mr. Kendall, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. Carew and Mr. Le Grice took part in the conversation; and eventually, on the motion of Lord Vivian, seconded by Mr. Le Grice, it was resolved that the Clerk of the Peace be instructed to take such proceedings as he may think necessary to recover compensation from any parties who may have caused damage to county bridges. The special report on Rodd's Bridge was adopted without observation; but with reference to the report on Lostwithiel bridge there was some animated discussion, in the course of which Mr. SAWLE asserted, on respectable authority which he did not name, that much of the injury recently done to the parapets had been done wilfully by persons of Lostwithiel who desired to get a new bridge erected there. Mr. KENDALL also said it had struck him that much of the damage done to the parapets had been done wilfully. The discussion of Mr. Jenkins's special report was carried on chiefly by Lord Vivian, Mr. Carew, Mr. Kendall, Mr. E. Coode, junr., and Mr. Sawle; Mr. Jenkins being frequently questioned on his statements with reference to the condition of the bridge. Ultimately, it was resolved, on the motion of Lord VIVIAN, seconded by Mr. E. COODE, jun., that Mr. Carveth be requested to survey and report on the state of Lostwithiel bridge. It is fair to add that, in the course of the discussion Mr. Jenkins said he had expressed himself anxious, as he was still, that some other person should be called in to give an opinion on the state of this bridge. WESTERN DIVISION.—The report from Mr. Hickes, surveyor, was as follows:—The whole of the work reported by me and ordered at the last sessions, has been nearly completed and will be finished as soon as the weather is favorable for laying on the materials. Bissoe Bridge.—I beg to call the attention of the magistrates to the state of the road over the leat on the north side of the bridge, which is covered by large moor-stones, one of which is shifted sufficiently wide to make it dangerous to horses passing over it. Mr. Borlase and Mr. Williams, two resident magistrates, have seen the dangerous state of the road to which I have called your attention. Perran Bridge.—The guard walls require repairs; I estimate the cost at two pounds and ten shillings. The report was adopted, and, on the motion of Lord Vivian, seconded by Mr. Le Grice, Mr. Hickes was directed to construct a new culvert on Bissoe Bridge at a cost not exceeding £6. Mr. LE GRICE requested the attention of Mr. Hickes to the state of Long Bridge, near Penzance, which he said was endangered by accumulation of silt and consequent elevation and pressure of water, which he attributed to the culverts of the West Cornwall Railway not allowing the water to pass freely. COUNTY ASYLUM. The following annual report, read by the Chairman, was received. REPORT OF THE VISITORS. In compliance with the Lunatic Asylum Act 1853, the Committee of Visitors report to the Justices in Quarter Sessions assembled, that the County Lunatic Asylum contains, at present, accommodation for 360 patients and that there are 334, viz., 160 males and 174 females now within its walls, and one female out on trial.—When the last annual report was presented, the Committee could only name accommodation for 330 patients, viz., 4 less than the present number, but by subsequent arrangements and an addittonal (sic) dormitory built over the men's dining room, there is still room for 26 patients. From their gradual and steady increase it must have long been obvious that further accommodation would soon be required, but from the Act of last Session, which at Lady-day next will place the maintenance of Pauper Lunatics on the Common Fund of the Unions, the Committee cannot but anticipate that, at no distant period, a larger outlay will be required, and they feel bound to state as much in their report.—The Committee are happy to say that the various wards are in good order, the patients were never more comfortable, the officers attentive, and the conduct of the servants satisfactory—one of the latter, viz. James Langdon has been superannuated after very faithful services of 21 years. The Committee on due consideration of his case pensioned him with £15 per annum. The Committee regret to say they have lost the valuable services of their late Chaplain, the Rev. Charles Grylls; unhappily, Mr. Grylls, in consequence of his other clerical duties, could only give one service on each Sunday, and that too at an unusual hour. The Committee felt not only that two services were required, but from the increased number of inmates that the exclusive attendance of a Chaplain was necessary. The Committee out of 17 candidates selected the Rev. Croft Worgan Dew at a salary of £150 per annum.—The new Chapel is finished, and the cost is as follows:—The Chapel £725, Boundary Wall and Railings, Architect's charges, Clerk of Works, Drawing of Contract, &c., £215. The whole amount has been met by a subscription of £230, and £710 from the profits of private patients. Service is now regularly performed twice on each Sunday, and the anticipated good effect on the patients from worshipping in a place exclusively dedicated to God's service has been more than realized.— Another large outlay has been made in the purchase of Land and in the extension of the Boundary Wall. The whole cost has been £1500 9s. 3d. The County grant for this very essential improvement was £1200. The deficiency, £300 9s. 3d., has again been met by profits from private patients.—The weekly charge to parishes has been 8s. per head, for the pauper patients. The actual cost to the Asylum as will be seen by the published account next quarter will be about 8s. 2d. Appended is the Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy. NICHOLAS KENDALL, Chairman; WILLIAM COULSON; NEVIL NORWAY. REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS IN LUNACY. Cornwall County Asylum, 21st June, 1861. We have to-day visited this Asylum and personally examined all the patients. Generally they were in good bodily health, orderly and quiet, suitably dressed, and in a comfortable state. The exceptions were among the female pauper patients, and here there was less excitement than has on former occasions been noticed.—The improvements described as in progress at the time of the last visit, have since been continued to be carried out. Very many more of the iron doors to the single bed-rooms have been removed; all that still remain will shortly be replaced by wooden ones; and wooden floors have been substituted throughout the building for those of lime-ash, the last of which was lately taken away. The preparations for a considerable addition to the female airing-grounds approach to completion, and when finished this part of the institution will be more worthy of the corresponding part on the male side, which has at present greatly the advantage in extent and beauty of arrangement.—Among other alterations which will give increased accommodation is that of the old Tailor's shop above the male pauper associated Dining-room, which will be elevated upwards of 10 feet, and changed into a dormitory for 12 pauper patients. A new Day-room below, adjoining the mess-room, will at the same time be added. If it should be found necessary to enlarge the accommodation still further in this direction we would urge upon the Visiting Magistrates the propriety of considering a suggestion made two years ago, for giving up altogether to the Pauper Class the existing private accommodation, and building for the Private Patients of each sex small separate houses.—We noticed great improvements in the corridors occupied by the better class of female private patients. The walls have been papered, and oil-cloth placed on the floors. It is also proposed shortly to paper the bed-rooms, and we should recommend that generally throughout the building there should be more papered or painted walls and that whitewash should not be so much resorted to. In the Female Day-room which has recently been papered, and in the Male Day-rooms, the lower portions of which have been painted, the change is greatly for the better—More ample means of washing have been put in the associated large Male Dormitories; but we still notice a deficiency in this respect, in the double galleries on the female side; and it would be well if, on both sides of the Asylum there were a better supply of furniture of a domestic kind, for the corridors as well as day-room, and if the patients were surrounded by many more objects calculated to interest and amuse them.—The beds throughout were clean, and with the exception that many seemed to us very hard and to require teasing or re-opening, they were generally in good condition. Straw beds continue to be used for several patients of uncleanly habits, and the returns of such for the night previous to our visit was 13 of both sexes. The night watch, which continues as formerly on both sides is efficient, and last night's return of patients, prevented by this means from wetting their beds, comprises 15 males and 14 females.—The hot-water supply to the baths appears to us to be deficient in several of the wards where patients of dirty habits are likely to require it more promptly and frequently than it is obtainable by the present arrangements. In the male infirmary and epileptic wards great benefits would be derived by the inmates from services of female nurses, and if opportunities should arise of employing men and their wives in such duties, we trust the subject may receive the favourable consideration of the Committee of Visitors. The stairs leading to these wards have no hand rails, and we recommend the latter be at once supplied.—The employment of the patients continues as usual; of the males a total of 103 being daily occupied in the garden, grounds, and farm, at their several trades, or in the domestic affairs; and of the females 99 being daily engaged in needle-work, housework and the laundry. Of both sexes 180 attend religious service; but the new chapel, though completed, is not yet licensed by the Bishop, and the new chaplain is not yet appointed. We are glad to find that it is the intention of the Committee to extend the religious services, and that the future Chaplain will be required to give his time exclusively to the Asylum, will order and direct the instruction which is to be provided for the Pauper Patients, and will receive a salary of £160 a-year.—It is further intended that in accordance with a suggestion made at the last visit, the person engaged for purposes of instruction, under direction of the new Chaplain, should also be employed as a companion to the male private patients—The new workshops have not yet been commenced, but the site has been pointed out to us and appears to be convenient. The Committee have it in contemplation to provide a wooden structure that might be available for purposes of work as well as for recreation of the patients, but it may be desirable to consider whether a permanent building, which could be used as a general dining-hall, would not greatly extend the advantages so proposed to be afforded.—We are glad to find no diminution in the ordinary supply of means for amusement in the summer months; that bands of music play weekly in the grounds where skittles, cricket, and bowls are likewise provided; that excursions to the sea-side will shortly be made; and that at present more than 120 patients take exercise weekly beyond the grounds. In this and other respects, we think the condition of the establishment creditable to the medical and other officers. During our progress through the various wards and offices we heard no complaint of ill-treatment or inattention; but from several of the patients expressions of satisfaction and of good feeling towards the attendants. We cannot but think, however, considering the gradual increase that has taken place in the number of patients in this Asylum, that the necessity of appointing an assistant medical officer will soon present itself. Since the last visit of our colleagues on the 27th September, 1860, the admissions have been 67, namely 6 male private and 61 pauper (37 of the latter being male and 24 female), the discharges have been 37, namely 4 private of each sex, and 10 male and 19 female of the pauper class; and the deaths, including three male private patients and 20 paupers, of whom 12 were men and 10 women, have been 25. The causes of death have been of the ordinary kind, calling for no special observation; but to the mortality in the Asylum ought to have been added the death of Joseph Higman, reported to our office, and entered on the books here as having escaped without re-capture. The body of this man (who was missed on the 26th of April) was found last Monday upon draining a stone quarry on the premises, into which he appears, by the evidence since given at the Coroner’s inquest, to have accidentally fallen.—There are at present in this Asylum 162 males and 161 females; in all, 323 patients; of whom 22 males and 12 females are private; and 140 male and 149 females are pauper patients. Since the last visit, five patients have been restrained for short periods; three being for surgical reasons. The cases of seclusion have not been frequent, and have been for short periods. JOHN FORSTER, Commissioners JAMES WILKES, in Lunacy. THE CLERK OF THE PEACE presented to the Court an Order which had been made on him by the Asylum Committee for payment to James Langdon of £15 out of County Rates applicable to the Asylum. Mr. E. COODE, junr., said it was not his intention to move any amendment in opposition to his grant; but he questioned the right of the Asylum Visitors to make any order on the County Treasurer for payment of any pension. He was not going to say a word about the amount of this pension, which he would assume was a fit and proper one. But he must take the same objection which he did at the Easter Sessions in a more important case, to the allowing such payments to be thrown on the County Rates. It appeared to him that the County could not be called on to pay more than seven-elevenths. He could not, however, expect that the Court would not take a different course from that which it took in the more important matter to which he had referred. He should therefore content himself with protesting that he considered the whole thing illegal and unfair. Mr. LAKES concurred in what had been stated by Mr. Edward Coode. When Mr. Hick’s pension was discussed, he considered it was to be the subject of reference, and therefore he did not think he was free to oppose it; but that was not the case in the present instance, and he considered this was a fair opportunity of expressing his objection to the course which had been adopted. He wished to state why he did not support Mr. Edward. Coode on the occasion referred to. The CHAIRMAN then put the motion for the grant of £15 per annum, payable quarterly; and it was agreed to. VISITORS OF THE ASYLUM.—The following gentlemen were appointed the Committee of Visitors for the ensuing year:— Appointed by the Magistrates:—The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart, Major Trelawny, Mr. Rogers, Major Carlyon, Mr. Coulson, Mr. Brydges Willyams, Colonel Cocks, Colonel Coryton, and Mr. Foster. Appointed by the Subscribers:—Mr. Kendall, M.P., Mr. Tremayne, Mr. Horsell, Mr. Norway, and Rev. G.H. Somerset.

COUNTY POLICE. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT: — Chief Constable’s Office, Bodmin, 31st Dec., 1861. My Lords and Gentlemen, I have the honour to lay before you the usual returns of crime committed in this county as far as is known to the county constabulary. Also a return shewing the number and distribution of the force.—Since the last sessions the station at Pool has been reported finished, and as soon as fit will be occupied by the police. I have the honor to be, My Lords and Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, Signed) W. R. GILBERT, Lieut.-Colonel of C.C. of Cornwall. REPORT OF THE POLICE COMMITTEE. The County Police Committee beg to report that a meeting was held at the Chief Constable's office yesterday, when the following members were present:—N. Kendall, Esq., C.B.G. Sawle, Esq., Sir Coleman Rashleigh, Bart., W.H.P. Carew, Esq., D.P. Le Grice, Esq., R. Foster, Esq., J.T.H. Peter, Esq., F.M. Williams, Esq., C.B. Kingdon, Esq., F.J. Hext, Esq., and Edward Coode, Junr., Esq., in the chair. The expenses incurred during the last quarter were examined and approved, and the quarter's expenses allowed at the last sessions were reported by the Chairman as having with the vouchers been examined by him, and found correct. ST. AUSTELL STATION.—This station was reported by Mr. Newport as progressing satisfactorily; the walls being up to the height of the beams of the first floor. ST. COLUMB.—Mr. Newport reported a site offered for a station in this town, suitable to the requirements of the County; and the Committee instructed Mr. Newport to negociate (sic) for the same. STRATTON.—The Committee recommend the purchase of a site for a station offered by Lord George Thynne, for £70, and that Messrs. Coode and Shilson be instructed to take the proper steps for completing the purchase. Mr. Porter presented his report declaring the progress made in the stations under his superintendence, which is attached hereto. He also presented an account for his professional charges on the stations erected by him, amounting to £108 4s., which the committee recommend to be paid, he undertaking to make arrangements with the late contractor, for the completion of those parts of the prisoners' cells at Camborne hereafter mentioned, which are alleged to have been imperfectly executed by them, if on a proper investigation, such shall be found to be the case. CAMBORNE STATION.—It appears from the report of the Chief Constable that it will be necessary to call on the late contractors to complete certain matters connected with the prisoners' cells, which were not executed according to contract; and also that the main drain should be carried in a different direction to join the town sewer. He also considers it essential that some sort of accommodation should be provided for the constables for keeping their coals, meat, and other provisions separately; also that a separate staircase be provided to enable the single men to ascend to their bedroom without passing through the quarters of the married constables. These alterations are estimated at the outside at £68, and the committee recommend they should be executed. The committee also recommend that dressers be provided in the quarters of the married constables generally, which will, of course, be fixtures the property of the county. It appears that the following sums should be charged to the county rate, and paid over to the police rate:— £ s. d. Conveyance of Prisoners 129 17 6 Coroners 38 15 6 Weights and Measures 16 7 4 185 0 4

Also that a sum of £107 14s. 3d. which has accrued to the superannuation fund, should be invested as heretofore. The committee recommend a police rate of 20-32nds. of a penny in the pound tor the ensuing quarter. ARCHITECT'S REPORT. Bodmin, Dec. 30, 1861. To the Police Committee of the County of Cornwall. Gentlemen, I have the honour to report to you that since the last Sessions, the Police Station at Padstow has been completed, and is now occupied. The work appears to have been well done by the contractor, and the station, considering that it was an old dwelling-house converted, is a convenient one, and well ruited (sic) to the locality, and the wants of the County. Pool station has also at length been completed, and may be taken over by the county. Though very long in hand, the work has been soundly executed, and will, I think prove satisfactory. A very short time with fires in the rooms will suffice to make it fit for occupation, as the walls are now drier than I have found them in similar buildings finished with greater speed. I have settled the contractors' accounts for both these buildings, and will certify for the balances in due course. I beg to present herewith the accounts of my own professional charges on the above and the other stations recently completed under my superintendence, and shall feel obliged by your directing the same to be settled. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, FREDERICK WM. PORTER, 10, Russell Square, London, Dec. 28, 1861. The Police Committee of the County of Cornwall to Fred. Wm. Porter, Architect, Dr. For professional services as Architect in visiting and inspecting sites, preparing designs, procuring tenders, and superintending the execution of the undermentioned police stations:— Wadebridge Station—5 per cent. on commission of contract—£1118 10s. 6d. £55 18 6 Proportion of travelling charges to same 3 3 0 59 1 6 Credit by cash on account 35 0 0 24 1 6 TYWARDREATH STATION.—The account showed that there was £24 due on this station. PADSTOW STATION.—The amount claimed in respect of this station was £17 16s. 6d. POOL STATION.—In respect of this station £42 6s. was claimed by Mr. Porter, making a total of £108 4s. It was resolved that an order be made authorizing the Clerk of the Peace to exact on behalf of the Quarter Sessions the necessary conveyances in respect of the pieces of ground lately purchased for a head quarters station at Bodmin. Mr. COODE, junr., stated that Mr. G.W.F. Gregor had sent in his resignation as a member of the Police Committee, and the Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend Boscawen was elected to fill the vacancy. —It was further resolved that the sum of £107 14s. 3d which has accrued to the Superannuation Fund be invested in the Three per cent. Consols. MILITIA STORES. The CHAIRMAN read the following Report from the MILITIA STORES COMMITTEE:— Your Committee have to report that the Stores have been sufficiently completed to admit of their occupation. The respective Contractors have thus far faithfully fulfilled their engagements, and we may add that at the late Training of the Militia, the large force then assembled found the arrangements and accommodation most convenient. Provision for the sufficient lodging and accommodation of six Staff Serjeants has been provided, and your Committee, through the Right Hon. the Lord Lieutenant, have been in communication with the War Office, who have consented to the payment of the sum of £25 annually, as rent for the same. Annexed is a copy of the letters referring thereto. We have further to recommend that the buildings be immediately insured in the sum of £2000. A satisfactory arrangement for the abandonment of the late Stores by the payment of the sum of £40 to representatives of the late Thurston Collins, Esq., has been made. We have now to request your sanction to these arrangements.—Some matters of detail remain to be finished, but we have little doubt that the whole will shortly be completed; and we confidently add that the cost will be more than covered by the sum originally granted by the Court.—(Signed), NEVILLE NORWAY; C.B. GRAVES SAWLE. Lieutenancy Office, Bodmin, 2nd August, 1861. Sir, I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to forward to you, for the information of your Committee and the Justices at Quarter Sessions, the annexed copy of a letter from the Secretary of State for War in reply to a communication from his Lordship, submitting your proposition on behalf of the Militia Stores Committee as to providing lodging accommodation for the permanent Staff of the Cornwall Rangers Militia. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, JOHN BASSET COLLINS. Neville Norway, Esq., Chairman of the Militia Stores Committee. War Office, 31st July, 1861. My Lord, I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 10th instant, with its enclosure from the Chairman of the Militia Stores Committee at Bodmin, and to acquaint you that I shall be prepared to pay the Treasurer of the County £25 per annum for the provision of sufficient lodging accomodation (sic) for the following members of the Permanent Staff of the Royal Cornwall Rangers Militia, viz.:—The Serjeant Major, the Quartermaster Serjeant, and four other Serjeants.—l make this small alteration in the proposal contained in the enclosure of your letter, because I do not think it right in any instance to agree to give a larger annual sum than is now paid by the public for lodging money, which in respect to the Serjeants above referred to, amounts to £25 6s. 11d. I have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's obedient servant, G. C. LEWIS. Her Majesty's Lieutenant for the County of Cornwall. Bodmin, 23rd Dec., 1861. Dear Sir, I will consent to the abandonment of the late Militia Stores by the County, on my being paid £40 and receiving immediate possession. Yours truly, JOHN BASSET COLLINS. Neville Norway, Esq., Chairman of Committee. —The Report was adopted—the arrangement with Mr. Collins was sanctioned, and the payment of £40 to him was authorised. Mr. SAWLE observed that the County had granted £5000 for the erection of these Stores; but they had been completed, including the cost of site and every other expense, for £4,500—a result for which, Mr. Sawle said, the County was greatly indebted to the watchful care of Mr. Norway (hear). COUNTY RATES.—Mr. LAKES, on behalf of the Guardians of the St. Austell Union, asked whether they could be furnished with particulars of the basis on which the present County Rating was framed; and he made some observations on alleged inequalities of rating, principally with reference to the non-rating of woods and plantations.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., as Chairman of the County Rating Committee, stated that the Committee used the utmost diligence to carry out the Act of Parliament fairly, and to adopt a proper basis. It was true that the Committee did not allow themselves to be guided implicity by the parish rating: for in some parishes the overseers confessed, property was rated at only 50 per cent. of its value; while in one or two other parishes it was rated at one or two per cent. above its value. It was also quite time that the Committee obtained returns from the Income Tax Commissioners, of property rateable to poor rate, and also of property not so rateable; and it was thus that the difficulty was met with regard to woods and plantations. On the whole he believed that a more fair and equitable valuation of the County could scarcely be arrived at.—Lord VIVIAN observed that all coppice woods were rateable; it was only ornamental woods and plantations that were not rateable.—Mr. LAKES remarked on the large amount of ornamental woods in St. Michael Penkivell.—Some further remarks on the subject were made by Mr. Sawle; but no motion was submitted.—Mr. Lakes stating that he had merely desired to comply with the request of the St. Austell Guardians. GLYNN BRIDGE.—On the motion of Mr. Sawle, seconded by Lord Vivian, a sum not exceeding £30(?) was granted for the repair of the parapets and approaches to Glynn Bridge. CALLINGTON PETTY SESSIONS.—Major REGINALD TRELAWNY then, in accordance with notice given by himself, Col. Coryton, Mr. C. Collins, the Rev. H.M. Rice, and Glanville Coryton, of their intention to apply for a sum not exceeding £10, be granted for the hire of a room for holding their petty sessional meetings at Callington, and that there was no room in Callington suited for the meeting of the magistrates, except the one for which he now applied for the grant, namely, the room in the public house in which the magistrates met. Some years ago, he believed, an application was made for the grant for the hire of a room in this very place, but it was refused, he understood, because the room happened to be in a public house. Now, the magistrates acting for this petty sessional division did not wish to meet in a public house, but in order to suit the convenience of the county they were bound to provide a proper and sufficient place for the petty sessional meetings to be held in, and he did not see that the court could refuse the grant, if it could be shown that no other place could be had. He could not see how the magistrates of the division could be asked to pay for the room out of their own pockets, and he considered that it would he just as fair to ask the magistrates of the county to provide the public buildings required, as to do that. He moved that a sum not exceeding £10, be granted for the hire of a room for the Petty Sessional Meetings at Callington. In reply to a question from Mr. LeGrice, Mr. Trelawny stated that the room was connected with the public house, but it could be entered without going through the house. Mr. J. BORLASE, in order that the question might be discussed, seconded the motion. Mr. SAWLE said that if the court sanctioned the proposed grant, they must be prepared to make similar grants to other parts of the county. He moved as an amendment that the application for the grant be taken into consideration that day six months. On a division the amendment was carried by a large majority. Mr. CAREW said that it might be interesting to the Court to know, that the committee on standing orders had met twice, and they hoped to be able to report fully on the subject of the new standing orders at the Easter Sessions. This concludes the County Business. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. AMELIA STANNAWAY, 24, was charged with stealing eight and a half pounds of beef, the property of Joel Manuell, at Gwennap, on the 2nd of November last. Mr. GENN prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor is a butcher, and is in the habit of attending St. Day market. On the 2nd of November he had a stall there, his nephew having the care of a second meat stall for him. About seven o'clock in the evening, he missed a small round of beef from his stall; and about the same time, he heard his nephew charge the prisoner with stealing a piece of beef from his stall, which he said he had seen her take up and put into her basket while he was attending to a customer. The prisoner said that she had no meat in her basket but what she had bought of a butcher named Harris; but on taking her to that person, three pieces of meat were found in her basket, while Mr. Harris said that he had only sold her two pieces, and the third was identified by the nephew as the one which had been taken from his stall. Prosecutor then sent for a police officer, and before his arrival the prisoner crouched down and beeped to be allowed to go away. After her removal in the custody of the officer, prosecutor found the round of beef which he had missed on the ground in the spot where she had crouched down. The meat was produced and identified by the prosecutor and his nephew, and the jury found the prisoner GUILTY. (Sentence: Four Months h.l.) RICHARD TREDREA, 23, a miner, was charged with stealing a pair of trousers, on the 14th of October, at St. Erth the property of William Semmens. Mr. CHILDS prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor and prisoner are both working miners, and at the time the offence charged in the indictment was alleged to have been committed, they were employed at Wheal Lewis mine, in the parish of St. Erth. On the 12th of October, the prosecutor, on leaving work, left the clothes in question in the changing house, and on going there on the following Monday morning, they were gone. The prosecutor then gave information to the police, and on the 16th October the prisoner was found at the house of his sister, concealed in a chest, with the stolen property in his possession, which he stated belonged to Semmens, and that he had taken it in mistake for his own. This was his defence now. The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY. There was a second charge of a similar character against the prisoner, but no evidence was offered in support of it. (Sentence: Three Months h.l.) MARY ANN KNIGHT, 19, out on bail, was charged with stealing the sum of £9 11s. four beer glasses, one wine glass, two rummers, two ozs. of tobacco, two night dresses, two chemises, one table cloth, a handkerchief, a pair of stockings and a towel, the property of her master, John Rosevear, at St. Austell, on or about the first of August last. This case was adjourned from the last sessions in consequence of the absence of Mrs. Rosevear, whom the prisoner said was a material witness on her behalf. Mr. Shilson prosecuted and Mr. Bishop defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is an innkeeper at St. Austell, and for ten months prior to last August the prisoner had been in his service as a domestic servant, and having missed money, glasses and other articles, his suspicions attached to the prisoner, and on the 1st of August, he and his daughter went to her in her bedroom, and asked her to allow them to look into her box. This she refused to do, saying that she had no money and nothing belonging to him in it. She then went down stairs, and wanted to go home, still persisting in her statement that she had nothing in her box belonging to prosecutor, but refusing to allow it to be searched. He then sent for Inspector Barnes of the county police, and before his arrival, she stated to a Mr. Guy that she had £3 10s. in her box, which had been given her by her sweetheart, William Cock. On the police inspector arriving, he detained the key of the prisoner's box, opened it, and inside found the money and articles mentioned in the indictment, and he took them and the prisoner into custody. Prosecutor's daughter identified the two chemises, the pair of stocking, and the toilet cover as her property, and both she and Mr. Rosevear said that they had missed articles similar to the others. The money could not be identified. For the defence, it was suggested that the stockings had been lent to the prisoner, that the money had come lawfully into her possession, and that as to the other articles, they might have been placed in her box by some other party from a feeling of malice, as the key was frequently left in her bed room. A young woman named Philippa Matthews, was called, and deposed that she had seen Miss Rosevear lend the prisoner a pair of stockings on a feast day; and that she had seen the prisoner frequently take the key of her box from a dress hung up in her room. Also, William Cock, who deposed though with considerable hesitation, that he was a sweetheart of the prisoner’s, and that he had frequently, prior to August, given her money, on one occasion as much as £5, to take care for him. He afterwards received back part of the £5 from her. Evidence was then given as to character. The jury after deliberating for some time returned a verdict of GUILTY, but recommended the prisoner to mercy, on account of her previous good character. (Sentence: Six Months h.l.) The following prisoners pleaded guilty:— ELIZABETH ANN MANUEL, 19, servant, to stealing a cloth jacket, the property of Elizabeth Tredinnick, at Redruth between the 12th and 18th November. She also pleaded guilty to a previous conviction for felony. (Sentence: Three Years’ Penal Servitude.) SECOND COURT, TUESDAY, Dec. 31. (Before C. B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq.) CHARLES RUSE, aged 19, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of sea-boots, a serge shirt, a pair of trowsers, and a pair of braces, the property of Samuel Cox, at Charlestown, on the 3rd of November. (Sentence: Three Months h.l.) NICHOLAS WILLIAMS pleaded GUILTY of stealing a piece of deal timber, the property of Joseph Lyle, William Thomas, and others, adventurers in West Wheal Basset mine, in Illogan, on the 1st of November. (Sentence: Two Months h.l.) JANE DOWNING, 40, and MARY HARVEY, 15, pleaded GUILTY of stealing 10 lbs. of butter, and 10 cloths, the property of Thomas Werrin, at Alternun, on the 3rd of December. (Sentences: Jane DOWNING—Three Months h.l.; Mary HARVEY—One Month h.l.) ELIZABETH JANE GRIBBLE, 15, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a watch and gold chain, the property of Richard Marsdon, at Camborne, in the month of September last. (Sentence: Six Months h.l.) RICHARD OLD, and JOHN NICHOLLS were charged with stealing a piece of timber, the property of William Webster, at Crowan, on the 21st of December.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—The prosecutor, a farmer living in Crowan, on the 18th of December, had a piece of deal across a gap in a hedge, and on the 21st he missed it. One portion of the deal, cut up, was found in Old's house, and the other part at Nicholls. The prisoners were apprehended by P.C. Hawton at their work in Wheal Unity mine; they then admitted having taken the wood and said they were willing to pay Webster for it, even if he charged 40s. for it. They afterwards said they wanted a Christmas stock, and after looking about in various places they took this wood of Websters. The prosecutor said he had known the prisoners from childhood, and never before heard any thing against them. Mr. Stokes rested his defence mainly on the alleged want of proof as to the identity of the property. The jury however found both prisoners GUILTY. (Sentences: each—14 days h.l.) GEORGE ALFORD was found guilty of stealing a piece of iron from Dolcoath Mine. The iron was a foot, described as used by miners for putting hobnails into their shoes, and was found by a policeman on the prisoner in an inside pocket. (Sentence: One Month h.l.) [Editor’s Note: At this point, words to the effect of “The following prisoners pleaded Guilty” would appear to have been omitted from the newspaper text.] WILLIAM RAWLING, 19, a miner, to stealing a pair of shoes and a pair of socks, the property of Henry Dabb, at North Wheal Busy Mine, Kenwyn, on 25th November. (Sentence: Three Months h.l.) THOMAS HERBERT, 25, to stealing a silver watch, the property of Benjamin Jose, at Budock, on the 10th of October. (Sentence: Four Months h.l.) THOMAS PORTER, 23, labourer, to stealing an ox, value £5, the property of John Rowe, at Mylor, on the 15th of November last. (Sentence: Nine Months h.l.) SUSAN MILL, 19, servant, to stealing a shawl, gown, chemise, petticoat, and handkerchief the property of Hannah Gale, at Uny Lelant, on the 29th of October last. (Sentence: Three Months h.l.) The grand jury ignored the bills against the following prisoners :— JOSEPH BURROW, for house breaking at Truro, on the 25th December. JOSEPH HOLMAN, charged with being concerned in stealing a bag and four gallons of oats, the property of James Rowe, at Camborne, on the 6th November. CHARLES WILLIAMS, for stealing at Redruth on the 6th or 7th November, a Holland duck bag, the property of James Lemin. The Court then adjourned. JANE BRABYN, 19, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of boots, the property of Elizabeth Ann Ruse, of St. Columb, in November. (Sentence: Four Months h.l.) WILLIAM MILLS, the younger, aged 29, was charged with stealing a variety of articles of clothing, the property of Ann Pearce at Falmouth.—Mr. GENN, for the prosecution declined to offer any evidence in support of the indictment.—The CHAIRMAN, directing a verdict of acquittal, said he had read the depositions, and he did not think they contained any such evidence as would warrant conviction.—This prisoner had been on bail for trial at the Michaelmas sesssions (sic), but did not appear; and he was now reprimanded by the Chairman for his non-appearance at that time.—The Prisoner:—l came on as far as Truro, on my way to Bodmin, but lost the train, and that's the real truth.—The CHAIRMAN.—It was very foolish of you, for if you had appeared at the last sessions you must have been acquitted, for there is no evidence against you. But now although you are acquitted, you are in the custody of the Sheriff for not having come there on your bail.—Prisoner: Well, thank God I am not guilty of the crime. WILLIAM MILLS, aged 17, a miner, was charged with stealing a bag and four gallons of oats, the property of James Rowe, at Camborne on the 6th November.—JAMES HOLMAN, another miner, had been indicted with Mills; but the grand jury ignored the Bill against him, and he was afterwards examined as a witness against Mills.—The trial resulted in a verdict of ACQUITTAL. WEDNESDAY, 1st January, 1862. Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart. CHARLES SCOWN, 11, pleaded GUILTY of breaking into the dwelling-house of Joseph Cazer, at South Petherwin, on the 15th November, and stealing £6 16s. 4½d. the property of the said Joseph Cazer. (Sentence: 14 days’ h.l. and three years confinement in the Devon or some other reformatory.) HENRY ANGER, 59, and MARY ANGER his wife, were charged with stealing eleven £5 Bank of England notes, the property of Philip Jose at Boscastle on the 23rd of November.—Mr. Shilson and Mr. Delman conducted the prosecution; Mr. Frost the defence.—Before the prisoners pleaded, Mr. Frost objected that the woman, who had been indicted jointly with her husband for larceny, ought not to be called on to plead; and in support of his application, he referred to a decision of the late Mr. J. King Lethbridge, as Chairman, by which the wife of a man called Martin—both being charged with stealing money from Mr. William Prockter—was discharged.—The COURT decided that the woman must plead, and it would be matter of evidence whether or not she acted under coercion of her husband.—Both prisoners were then arraigned and pleaded not guilty.—The case for the prosecution, as opened by Mr. SHILSON was—that the prisoners were charged with stealing money from the person of Philip Jose. About the middle of November Mr. Jose had received from Mr. Dingley's Bank in Launceston £70 in £5 Bank of England notes bearing the stamp of Dingley's Bank. On the 22nd of Nov. he attended Boscastle fair—a two days' fair, and he remained there all night until the 23rd at Prout's public-house. In the morning of that day, the prisoner Henry Anger came to him and offered to sell him a cow; they went to see the cow, and eventually Jose purchased the cow for £8 15s.; he took out of his pocket a bundle of notes to the value of £65, (he having previously dealt with one of the notes which he had received at the bank), and gave two of them to prisoner in payment for the cow, receiving £1 5s. in change. Jose, who it appeared had been drinking, sat by the kitchen fire in Prout's Inn asleep, the prisoner Henry Anger sitting by him. Anger afterwards asked him to leave the kitchen and go up into the parlour; they went there together, and after having been there about half an hour Anger came out of the room hastily and left the house. Shortly after that, Jose went to a shoemaker's to pay a bill, and then found he had lost his money. He went to a policeman and they went to Anger's house, and there saw Mrs. Anger, who produced five £5 notes, saying that two of them did not belong to Jose, but were the property of her husband having been paid him for the cow. She said she had understood that her husband had sold a cow to Jose and she had gone to the public-house to search his pockets for the money. Both the prosecutor and Anger, it appeared, had been drinking. When Jose paid for the cow his pockets were sound; but afterwards, when he found that his money was gone, he also discovered that his pocket was torn.—With regard to the wife, Mr. Shilson obtained that at the time when she gave the account of her receipt of the money, her husband was not present, and it would be for the jury to say, under direction of the Court, whether she was not equally liable with her husband, to the charge of larceny.—Evidence in support of the prosecution was given by the prosecutor, a farmer living at Boscastle, by Police Constable Coppin, Edward Buller, James Pickard, Thomas Webb Ward, and Henry Brice, superintendent of police.—Mr. FROST ably defended his clients; after which the learned CHAIRMAN summed up, directing the Jury that there was no evidence against the wife.—The Jury found Henry Anger GUILTY, and Mary Anger NOT GUILTY. (Sentence: Henry ANGER—Six Months h.l.) JAMES PAINE, an elderly man, was charged with stealing £10 7s. 3d., the property of James Simmons, at St. Austell, on the 19th October.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—The prosecutor, an engine man at Molennis Moor Mine went to his duty at 3 o'clock on Oct 19. He had his purse containing two sovereigns, and a threepenny piece with a hole in it, which had been in his possession twelve months and was a keepsake. He afterwards received three sovereigns for his month's wages, and put that also in his purse. He put his purse in the pocket of his coat, and hung it over a fire in the engine house about 4 o'clock. Prisoner was there at the time, and remained helping prosecutor till about 7. He then went to the Bugle Inn for his own money, and that of his comrades. He came back to the mine at 12 o'clock at night, and asked prosecutor to take care of his money for him as he was drunk. He handed to prosecutor £5 6s. 6d. which he put into his purse. Prisoner remained in the engine house till 6 o'clock next morning. When he left prosecutor asked him if he would take his money, but he refused, saying the next night would do, and left with another miner, Hancock. After he left, prosecutor went down to the boiler house to clear up his fires and remained a quarter of an hour. On going up, prosecutor saw prisoner going homewards, but nearer to the engine than he had been when last seen a quarter of an hour before. That morning John Tremaine came to take prosecutor's place, and to pay him 5s. more, and on prosecutor proceeding to put it into his purse, he found it was gone. He went to the prisoner's house, and told him of his loss. Prisoner began to pull off his jacket, and to say, here see, I have not got your money. Prisoner told him there were only they two there, and one of them must have got it. Prisoner went back with prosecutor to the engine-house, where a man named Hewett found a sovereign by the side of a box where prisoner had been sitting. Prosecutor then fetched a policeman, who searched prisoner, but found only eighteen pence. The parties then went to prisoner's house, and prisoner said on the way that the 1s. 6d. found on him was all the money he had, and that his wife had half a sovereign. Having searched the house, the policeman desired the wife to let him see her purse. She had previously said that she had half a sovereign. She appeared unwilling to show it, and on producing her purse, she took a paper from it which she was going to put away, but the policeman seized her hand, and took it from her. It contained 7 sovereigns, 2 half sovereigns, two shillings, and a threepenny piece with a hole in it, which prosecutor at once identified as his keepsake. There was also a half sovereign which she said was her own money. Prisoner said the money did not belong to him, and he knew nothing about it. Prisoner was a stamps watcher. He was apparently drunk when he came to the engine-house and kept drinking through the night. Hancock, watchman at Molennis Mine, Brooks the policeman, and Alban a workman at Molennis, corroborated prosecutor's statement. Mr. Stokes made an able address for the defence, and he called witnesses to character, one of whom Mr. Hore, deposed to having paid him on the previous Wednesday some money including threepenny pieces one of which had a hole in it. Mr. Shilson replied, and the jury acquitted the prisoner. FANNY WILLIAMS, 28, a servant, was found GUILTY, with a recommendation to mercy, of stealing a pearl bracelet with locket attached, another bracelet and locket, a diamond brooch, three other brooches, a pair of gold earings, two gold rings, a brooch of hair, a malachite brooch, a Cambrian brooch, a £10 Bank of England note, and a quantity of silver, the property of Miss Kitson, from the dwelling-house of her master, the Rev. John Francis Kitson on the 3rd of October. Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes and Mr. Commins the defence. We will give the evidence next week. The jury were then discharged. —On the application of Mr. Childs, the Appeal, in which St. Germans and other parishes were appellants, and the Cornwall Railway respondents, was again adjourned. ALTERATION OF ROADS.—RUAN MINOR.—Mr. F. V. HILL applied for an order for diverting and turning a highway situate at Long Alley, in the parish of Ruan Minor. The highway was viewed by two justices—Sir R. R. Tyvyan (sic), Bart, and Mr. Popham—who granted their certificate of approval.—The road will be nearer and more commodious to the public; and Mr. Hawkins, the owner of the land through which the highway passes has given his written consent, and the proposed diversion has the entire approval of all the parishioners of Ruan Minor. No appeal had been entered against the present application.—The CLERK of the PEACE read the certificate of parties; and the application was granted. MYLOR AND PERRANARWORTHAL.—The CLERK OF THE PEACE presented a certificate, signed by J. Borlase, Esq. and J. R. Kinsman, Esq., that the diversion of highway road in these parishes ordered at the last Sessions had been completed in a substantial manner. The Court then rose. SECOND COURT. — WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr. C.B. Graves Sawle. JONATHAN WARNE, 44, a mason, was charged with stealing a drake, the property of Richard Fradd, at Egloshayle on the 24th December. Mr. Stokes prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor resides at Tredannick, in the parish of Egloshayle, and on the Tuesday before Christmas day, he had six ducks and two drakes on his premises. On the evening of Christmas day, he missed one of the drakes. Police Inspector Middle was on duty between Egloshayle and Wadebridge, and about two o'clock on the morning of the 25th he met the prisoner, and took from him a fowl and a drake, both warm and recently killed. He produced the drake which was identified by the prosecutor as the one which had been stolen from him. The jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: Two Months h.l.) WILLIAM WHITFORD, who had been out on bail was indicted on three counts, first, with unlawfully wounding; second, with doing grievous bodily harm; and thirdly, with a common assault, on John Andrew, with a miner's pick, at St. Cleer, on the 5th December last. Mr. Commins prosecuted; and Mr. Bishop defended the prisoner. The prosecutor deposed—l am the captain of the mine called Wheal Norris, in the pariah of St. Cleer, and the prisoner was a working miner employed at the same mine. On Tuesday the 3rd of December, the prisoner came up from underground before his time, I asked him why he was up so soon, and I told him that I would not submit to it any longer—that I would "spale" him the same as I had done the rest. On the Thursday morning, the 5th, I went underground, and found the prisoner there working in the end of the level. The prisoner had a miners' pick in his hand, with which he had been in the course of working in the end. Just as I turned round in order to go back the prisoner said, "What you "spaled" me on Tuesday." I said—Yes I did. He then said—"When are we going to have down our timber." I replied, you may have it down when you like, but you must work your proper "cores," and then you will not be "spaled." He said he would not pay the "spale." I said, "You will." This was repeated two or three times. I said as sure as ever you paid a "spale" you will pay this one. With that he swore threateningly at me, took up his pick and struck me with the handle a violent blow on the head, knocked me down on the left side rendering me senseless, although I had on a cap and miner's hat over it. He admitted that the prisoner had always bore a good character prior to this offence. A miner, named Hitchens, who was working in the end at the time of the occurrence, who was called for the prosecution deposed that he did not hear the prisoner swear and threaten the prosecutor, nor did he see any blow struck. He would not swear that no blow had been struck, nor that one had been dealt by the prisoner. A blow might have been struck without his seeing it. Mr. Hingston, surgeon, Liskeard, deposed—l am surgeon to Wheal Norris Mine. On the 5th December, I was called to the mine to attend Mr. Andrews. Found him in the account house. I examined his head, and found a wound an inch long and a quarter of an inch deep, on the left side. It was what is called a scalp wound. Found blood on his coat and on the cap which he had on inside the hat, but no mark on the latter. I also found a contusion on the lower jaw, but the skin was not broken, and a slight wound at the back of the head. The wound on the side of the head, had, in my opinion, been produced by a blow from a blunt instrument. It must have been a blow of some considerable force to occasion the wound. The wound at the back of the head might have been occasioned by a graze against the wall or by a full (sic), but I do not think the other two wounds could have been so produced. In cross-examination, Mr. Hingston admitted that it was just possible for such injuries to have been produced by a fall, but it was most unlikely that this was the case in the narrow space where the occurrence took place. Mr. BISHOP submitted that the evidence did not support either of the more serious charges laid in the indictment; and that it was very questionable whether any blow had ever been struck by the prisoner. The witness Hitchens had not seen any blow struck, and the prosecutor had stated that he was struck on the left side of the head, and that he fell on that side. Had he been struck as described, he would have fallen on his right side and not on his left as stated. No blood or mark was found on the hat worn by the prosecutor, whereas if it had been struck a violent blow as alleged, it would have exhibited the mark of it. Again the prosecutor had made no complaint to the other men at work in the level of the prisoner's violence; and he submitted that, looking at all the facts of the case, the jury would, at the utmost, only be justified in finding the prisoner guilty of a common assault. The prisoner might have taken hold of the prosecutor when the latter stated that he would have to pay the "spale," and during the struggle that ensued, the prosecutor was thrown and received the injuries. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY of a common assault. (Sentence: Four Months Imprisonment.) JOHN MARKS, 39, was charged with stealing at Laveddon, Bodmin, on the 3rd of December, 10lbs. of flour, the property of Michael Higman. Mr. COLLINS prosecuted; and Mr. BISHOP defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is the occupier of a flour mill, at Laveddon, and the prisoner was in his employ as miller. The latter was in the habit of obtaining his flour at the mill, and on the 3rd of December he brought his flour-bag for half a peck of flour, which would weigh 17½lbs. He was directed to take it from the only sack in the mill, and which weighed 173 lbs. Prosecutor left the prisoner in the care of the mill. On the following morning, prosecutor again weighed the sack of flour, when he found that 28 lbs. had been taken away. The prisoner had entered on a slate in the mill, the flour which he had taken, and which he had set down as a half peck. Mr. Higman went to the prisoner's house and asked to see the flour-bag. The prisoner's wife produced it, and said that she had baked from the flour. On weighing the bag, he found it weighed 21 lbs. Mr. BISHOP submitted that the prosecutor had never examined the contents of the flour bag to ascertain of what it consisted, and it might be oatmeal for anything they had heard to the contrary. But admitting that it was flour, the few pounds above the half-peck might easily be accounted for by the fact that there was some flour in the bag, which had been left from a former supply; and the flour missing from the sack in the mill, might have been stolen during the absence of the prisoner at dinner, while the mill was under the care of Mr. Higman's carter, who admitted that he had left it for a short time. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. ROSAMOND RODDA, 29, pleaded GUILTY to an indictment charging her with keeping a disorderly house at Camborne. (Sentence: Two Months h.l.) ELLEN HOCKIN, 28, was charged with stealing a set of plated shirt studs, the property of John Dayman, at Launcells on or about the month of October, 1860. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. RICHARD TEAGUE, carrier, of Truro, pleaded GUILTY, to having on the 8th November, obtained 68 bushels of coals from John Trestrail, the agent of Messrs. Uglow and others, by falsely representing that they were for John Champion. Inspector Nash, of the Truro police, stated, in answer to the Chairman, that he had known the prisoner for ten years and during this period he had never known anything against him. (Sentence: One Week’s h.l.) JOSEPH MACDONALD, 20, a seaman, pleaded guilty to breaking into the state room of the smack "Victoria," of the port of Padstow, Richard Lobb, master, and stealing therefrom a hat, three pairs of flannel drawers, one Guernsey frock, a great coat, three pairs of stockings, three flannel shirts, two cotton ditto, one comforter, and a handkerchief, the property of the said Richard Lobb, on the 7th December. The prisoner further pleaded guilty to a previous conviction for felony. (Sentence: Twelve Months h.l.) WILLIAM SPENCER, 22, an African, described as a miner, was charged with having unlawfully obtained by false pretences, a suit of clothes from Francis Burrow, of Redruth on the 2nd November last, with intent to cheat and defraud him of the same. Mr. CORNISH prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. Mr. Francis Burrow deposed—l am a tailor and outfitter residing at Redruth. Close to that town is a mine called Pedn- an-drea, the agents of which are Captain James Thomas and Thomas Delbridge. On the 29th of October last, I knew that the prisoner was working at this mine, and on that day he came to my shop and said that he had been sent by Captain Jim Thomas and Captain Tom Delbridge to get measured for a suit of clothes. I asked him how long he had been working at the mine, and he told me that he had not so much wages coming to him, but Capt. Jim would take it up, and pay me for the suit of clothes at the rate of 10s. a month. On that representation I let him have the suit of clothes. He had a brown coat, trousers, a waistcoat, neckerchief, and cap—in fact, a full suit. Joseph Nicholl, Mr. Burrow's assistant, corroborated his master’s evidence. Captain James Thomas, and Captain Thomas Delbridge deposed that they never gave the alleged authority. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him to mercy. The CHAIRMAN—May I ask on what ground that you recommend him to mercy? A JUROR—On the ground that we disapprove of the loose manner in which the prosecutor let the prisoner have the clothes. It is usual in such cases to have a note from the person on whose responsibility credit is given. (Sentence: Two Months h.l.) RICHARD EALEY, 17, labourer, was charged with having on the 16th October, at St. Minver, committed an indecent assault on the person of Elizabeth Craddock, a girl between 12 and 13 years of age. Mr. BISHOP prosecuted. The jury found him GUILTY of a common assault. (Sentence: Three Months Imprisonment.) SAMUEL DAVIS, 38, was indicted for having on the 18th October last, stolen about 18 lbs. of beef and a piece of mutton, the property of Thomas Canniford. Mr. BISHOP prosecuted; and Mr. CHILDS, for Mr. Stokes, defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is a butcher, residing at Millbrook, and the prisoner is a navvy, employed on the fortifications in the course of construction at Tregantle. The defence was that the witnesses were mistaken as to the prisoner’s identity. The jury, however, found him GUILTY. (Sentence: Six Months h.l.) This concluded the trials of prisoners, and the jury were discharged. THURSDAY, JANUARY 2nd. Before Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart. [SENTENCES OF PRISONERS.—see individual cases above] BREACH OF THE PEACE. JOHN LAWSON, aged 39, a soldier of the 12th Foot, had been committed for want of sureties to keep the peace towards John Leigh, police constable. Maker.—There was no appearance against him, and he was admonished and discharged. WILLIAM MILLS, aged 64, a boatman of Falmouth, and his son WILLIAM MILLS were called up, for having forfeited their recognizance for the appearance of the latter at the Michaelmas sessions to take his trial for felony.—After inquiring into the circumstances of the case, they were admonished and discharged. APPEALS. FREDERICK DREW, appellant; THE BOROUGH MAGISTRATES OF TRURO, respondent. Mr. SHILSON and Mr. COCK for appellant; Mr. CHILDS and Mr. MARRACK for respondent. Mr. SHILSON moved an appeal by Frederick Drew, against an order by Samuel Pascoe, mayor, William Traer Chappel, Esq., and James Gatley, Esq., three of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the borough of Truro, in November last for the maintenance of the bastard child of Emily Geach.—The appellant in this case was one of the sub-bailiffs of the Truro County Court; and the respondent was also of respectable family, her father being an auctioneer at Truro. The families had been on intimate terms for years, and, according to the respondents’ statement, it appeared that the appellant had been her acknowledged suitor, and in the habit of visiting her at her parents' house. On the 12th of October last Miss Geach gave birth to a child, the maintenance of which was the object of the present inquiry.—Miss Geach underwent a long examination, during which she wept much and was greatly affected.—The Court allowed her to be seated, and also permitted her mother to sit beside her. Jane Geach, the respondent's mother, was also examined, in corroboration.—Elizabeth Mead, a cousin of Miss Geach, was also examined; and Ferdinando Behenna, dyer, Charles Sobey, a porter of the Cornwall Railway Company were also examined on the part of the respondents.—Mr. Marrack then summed up the evidence, contending that the corroborative evidence was sufficient to sustain the order.—Mr. Shilson replied and the magistrates after a short consultation, confirmed the order, with £5 costs. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 1. (Before SIR COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart.) ROBBERY OF JEWELLERY.—FANNY WILLIAMS, 28, a servant, was charged with stealing a pearl bracelet with locket attached, another bracelet and locket, a diamond brooch, three other brooches, a pair of gold earrings, two gold rings, a brooch of hair, a malachite brooch, a carnelian brooch, a £10 Bank of England note, and a quantity of silver, the property of Anne Kitson, from the dwelling-house of her master, the Rev. John Francis Kitson, on the 30th October.—The property was laid in the indictment as of the value of more than £5; but it was stated to be really worth more than £50.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes and Mr. Commins the defence.—Miss Kitson deposed:—l reside with my brother at Antony Vicarage. My brother's household, on the 30th of October, consisted of Fanny Williams the prisoner, who was cook, Mary Ann Cowling, housemaid, and an infirm old lady named Edith Barnes, and myself. Samuel Wills, the gardener, lived out, in the village. On the 30th October my brother was absent from home. Mary Ann Cowling was also absent; she left at eight in the morning, and had permission to sleep at her mother's in the village the following night. Fanny Williams, Edith Barnes, and myself were the only persons left in the house. Edith Barnes was very infirm and unable to leave her bed. I am in the habit of attending the village- school. I went to the school at 7 o'clock in the evening of Wednesday the 30th of October; the school is at a very short distance from the vicarage. In my bed-room I had a trinket-box and other property; I had been in my room shortly before I left to go to the school, and at that time the trinket-box was locked; I keep the key attached to my watch. There are three drawers in the looking-glass; I keep money in the centre drawer, and it is also usually locked; in the right hand drawer I keep some keys. When I left that evening, the drawers of the looking-glass were closed, and the trinket-box was locked. There were also two brooches and other articles of jewellery lying open on the table. All these things were safe when I left. There are shutters to the bed-room window; I am not certain whether they were locked before I left the house that evening. Before I left I went round the house, as l am in the habit of doing—our house standing alone. There are three doors—the front, the gothic door, and the kitchen door; the gothic door is a private way to the Church; l bolted the gothic door that evening; the front door was also bolted. After I had bolted the gothic door I told the prisoner to put the chain up, and also to fasten the dining and drawing-room shutters. I also gave her directions about the kitchen door—to be careful to keep it chained. The gardener accompanied me to the School, and I immediately sent him back for a light; he was absent from me only a very few minutes. The prisoner knew that I usually returned from the school about 9 o’clock. I had given her directions about my supper. That evening I was rather later than usual, and did not return till nearly quarter past 9. I entered the house at the kitchen door—the prisoner admitting me; the door was chained as usual. She said some person had been knocking at the door, but she had not unchained it; and I said you have done quite right. She then said you will find fire in the pantry but none in the study, and that supper was not ready but she would get it directly. From what she said I was induced to go into the pantry instead of the study; if I had gone to the study I should have passed the gothic door. I had my supper and then retired to my room, through the kitchen; in going to my bed-room I observed that the gothic door was open. The prisoner, of her own accord, accompanied me to my room. When I saw that the gothic door was open, I exclaimed how is this? She said she thought Sam (the gardener) must have gone out that way. I said no, Sam has not gone out that way; and my suspicions were aroused. I closed the door, and then I went up stairs to my bed-room—the prisoner going with me. As soon as I entered the room I saw that it was in great confusion, and that the drawer of the looking-glass was opened; and I exclaimed, Oh, I have been robbed. Fanny said, Never! my dear Miss Kitson! The drawer of the looking-glass in which keys were kept had been opened, and also the middle drawer, in which I had had a £10 note and some silver—a roll containing 20s. and some loose silver; I had had occasion shortly before, to change a £10 note, and I got £5 worth of silver wrapped up in £1 packets; I had disposed of four of those packets—two of them to my brother; all those packets were wrapped in the same kind of paper. The trinket box also was open, although I had the key in my pocket; I afterwards discovered, what I had not been previously aware of, that one of the keys I had left in the looking-glass drawer would unlock the trinket-box. I missed from the trinket-box a pearl bracelet with locket, another bracelet with locket, a diamond brooch, three other brooches, a pair of gold ear-rings, two gold rings, and a brooch of hair. Some of these articles (it was said about £10 worth) had not been found. I also missed a small box containing a garnet brooch, a gold locket, and a letter. I also found that there had been taken from the dressing-table, a malachite brooch and another brooch; these were afterwards found on the floor. In the next room, there was a small quantity of plate; I went and found it was all safe. I said to the prisoner I was very thankful the plate was safe and that I was the only sufferer. I said I would go for the police; Fanny said don't you go by yourself, I will go with you. I said no, you must remain in the house. I begged her to light the lanthorn, and I went to the police, leaving her in the kitchen. I was absent only about two minutes; when I returned, the prisoner again admitted me at the kitchen door. I asked her to go and see Mrs. Barnes, but on no account to tell her what had happened. She replied l am shaky all over. She also said she had been with the old woman the greater part of the time I had been absent in the evening. The policeman then came, and also Mrs. Cowling, the housemaid's mother. The prisoner, as cook, had charge of the kitchen, dairy, and pantry. She went to bed about 1 o'clock in the morning, and the housemaid came back about 3 o'clock. The following morning (Thursday), two pans of milk were put on the fire by the prisoner. She was removed in custody the same day, but the milk-pans were put back to cool, before she left. Altogether there were three pans of milk when the prisoner left; and on the Saturday morning there was found in one of these pans 20s. of silver in a packet and six shillings loose. The 20s. was in three papers; one was the original packet in which I had received it; the second was a piece of newspaper which had been torn from an old newspaper in the chimney corner; and the third was a piece of yellowish-brown paper corresponding with paper in another room to which the prisoner had access.—Afterwards some of the property which I had missed from my room was brought back to me by a policeman; but the money has not been recovered. The prisoner had been in my brother's service about 9 weeks. When I returned from school in the evening, the prisoner said I was looking tired and that I had better go to bed at once, and that I should find my brother's bed ready, but my own bed was not made. Two or three times she said "I have not been in your room at all."—Cross- examined. I had slept in my brother's room the night before. When I went out at the kitchen door, I did not hear her fasten the door after me; but when I came back, she undid the fastening and let me in. The pan of milk in which money was found was not one that the prisoner scalded; it was scalded on the Friday, but it was filled on Wednesday evening or Thursday morning. A policeman remained in the house on the Wednesday night. On the Wednesday morning the chimney had been swept by a man of Devonport who had been in the habit of sweeping it; I met him on his way back to Devonport, about 4 o'clock on the Wednesday afternoon, and more than a mile from our house. Miss Kitson also gave evidence as to the bodily infirmity of Edith Barnes, in order that the old lady's deposition might be received. She stated that at the time of the robbery Mrs. Barnes was unable to stand; and that she was still very infirm, and although by great effort she went to Church on Christmas day, it would have been impossible for her to attend these Sessions. Mrs. Edith Barnes's deposition, taken by Mr. Furneaux and Mr. Roberts, magistrates, was then read. In it she stated:—I am 87 years old, and am unable at this time to leave my bed. I live with Mr. Kitson here, and remember the night of the robbery. In the evening Miss Kitson was at the school, and during her absence I was in bed. Before she went to the school, she was in my room. During the time Miss Kitson was absent, Fanny was not with me more than half an hour altogether. She came in once and remained about half a minute; she came in a second time and said she was shaky. I asked her what made her shake; she said she did not know; and once she said she had heard knocking at the kitchen door.—I heard no knocking. If Fanny Williams has said she was with me most of the time Miss Kitson was absent, it is untrue.—Cross- examined by the Prisoner:—l don't recollect your saying you heard a knocking outside; I did not see you sit down in my room for the evening; I don't believe you did; I don't know how many times you came in, but when you did come in it was just to speak and go away again. I remember your showing me a box, and I said it was a very pretty one. I told the policeman of it the same evening. You said what business had I to tell the policeman about the box. I heard nothing of what the box contained. Samuel Wills, gardener, in the employ of the Rev. Mr. Kitson at Antony. When I came back from the school room to the house to get a small lamp for Miss Kitson, I entered at the kitchen door which was opened for me by Fanny Williams; it was chained at that time; I heard the chain; I went into the pantry near the kitchen, and got the lamp, and did not pass the gothic door. I was not in the house more than two or three minutes and left at the kitchen-door; it was not fastened when I came out; I saw the prisoner when I left; she shut the door after me; I did not notice whether the chain was put up. I took the lamp to the school-room and then went to my house, and did not go to the vicarage again that night till I was sent for. I had not been in or out at the gothic door for the day. William Currah, policeman:—About 10 o'clock in the evening of the 30th October, Miss Kitson called me, and I went to the vicarage; and was shown into Miss Kitson's bedroom; I saw that it was in disorder, and that two small drawers of the looking-glass and a small box were open. I also saw the prisoner and the man Wills in the kitchen. I left the house for about ten minutes and returned with Sergeant Foote and P.C. Hyde. Serjeant Foot instituted inquiries, and I assisted him. About one o'clock the prisoner was ordered to bed. I remained in the house all night; next morning, about 6 o'clock, I left the house by the gothic door which leads to the Church-yard; and, proceeding on the path, I discovered a quantity of jewellery, and a small box.—The witness produced several brooches, bracelets, gold rings, &c., and said he found them strewed on the path, about 90 feet from the gothic door, as if a person had thrown them forward, from a spot a little way outside the door. On the Saturday morning I received from Mr. Kitson 26s. in silver, and the paper which I now produce. Shortly after Serjeant Foot came to the house, Miss Kitson asked the prisoner if she had not seen the diamond brooch. Prisoner said no. Miss Kitson particularly called her attention to some short time previous when she had worn it to an evening party, and asked her whether she had not seen it that evening. Prisoner said no—she had never seen any thing of it and did not know where Miss Kitson kept her trinkets. Rev. John Francis Kitson; I returned to the vicarage on Thursday the 31st October. On the Saturday morning I was called by my sister, and she delivered to me this packet of silver in the same papers as at present.—Mr. Kitson minutely described the correspondence of the piece of newspaper with some old newspaper found near the stove. John Brown Foot, Serjeant of Police:—I got to Mr. Kitson's house about half-past 10 on the Wednesday night. I made an examination of the house, and could not see any trace of any person having entered it; I examined the bed-room and other windows and am certain that no person had broken into the house. I afterwards examined, separately, the persons in the house—Wills, and Mrs. Cowling, and the prisoner. I said to the prisoner, in the kitchen: You were left in charge of the house; have you gone out of it to see any one during Miss Kitson's absence? She said no. I then said has any one been in the house to see you during Miss Kitson's absence? She said no. I next asked her; in what part of the house have you been during Miss Kitson's absence? She said, I have been up stairs in Mrs. Barnes's room nearly the whole of the time. I said, could any one have entered the house without you knowing it? She said no. On this, Miss Kitson said, Oh, Fanny, there is that window in the passage. Fanny replied, no one could have entered by that window because the shutters were up, and fastened inside. I examined that window and found it was quite secure; no violence whatever had been used. Shortly after that, I was in the Study with Miss Kitson and Currah; I asked to see Fanny Williams again, and Miss Kitson went and fetched her. When she entered the Study she said l am an innocent woman—l wish to be searched. I said why do you propose to be searched? No one has said anything about you. She again said, search me, turn out my pocket, you can search my bosom. She was searched. I then placed Currah in charge of the premises. Alfred Stephens, superintendent of police:—I went to Mr. Kitson's house on the Thursday; I passed through the kitchen to the Study, and saw the prisoner. I did not speak to her, but she said to me l am innocent. I said my good woman, no person has charged you with anything. About one o'clock on Thursday I took her into custody. She said, what proof have you? all you have got is because I was the only person in the house. On the Saturday morning, I received two pieces of paper, which I produce. (These pieces were corresponding portions of voting lists). On the 11th of November, when the prisoner was committed, I received from Miss Kitson three keys and the trinket-box; one of these keys unlocks the box. I took part in examining the doors and windows of the house, I could not discover any trace of the house having been entered. Mary Ann Cowling, housemaid at Mr. Kitson's:—l was not in the house from half-past 8 in the morning of the Wednesday till 3 next morning; I had been at a wedding. When I came back the prisoner was in bed; we slept in the same room; she did not say any thing particular—only that it was a bad job, or just as that. I knew where the things which have been lost were kept in Miss Kitson's room; the prisoner did not know until I showed her about a fortnight before the Wednesday. That was in Miss Kitson's bed-room; I showed her the diamond brooch, and the things in the small box; but I did not show her the large trinket box. The diamond brooch was open on the table; prisoner said it was a very nice one. I also showed her the the (sic) gold ear-rings. I had no charge of any thing in the kitchen or dairy department, and did not put any money or paper into the milk-pan. William Currah, recalled, stated that when he went to the vicarage on the Wednesday evening he made examination of the doors and windows, and was quite certain that no person had entered the house by violence. Miss Kitson, recalled, identified the various articles produced, as her property; and in reply to a question from Mr. STOKES, she stated that the prisoner came into her brother’s service, from the Hon. Miss Wolfe, and with a good character. Mr. STOKES then ably and energetically addressed the jury for the defence, contending that the case was only one of suspicion, grounded on the fact that the prisoner was the only person known to be in the house, with the exception of Mrs. Barnes, who was bed-ridden. But, he suggested there were possibilities of other persons having entered the house feloniously. He also urged that the conduct of the prisoner after the alleged robbery was wholly inconsistent with the supposition that she was the thief; and he said it was unfortunate for the prisoner that he had had no opportunity of cross-examining Mrs. Barnes, although he could not complain that her deposition had been admitted. He commented on various portions of the evidence, and concluded by referring to the good character which the prisoner had received on entering Mr. Kitson's service. After a careful and impartial summing up the jury were in consultation nearly half an hour, and then returned a verdict of GUILTY, with a recommendation to mercy.—The prisoner was afterwards sentenced to Twelve Months' hard labour. THURSDAY, JANUARY 2. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Mr. Sawle, Mr. Peter, and Mr. Kingdon.) APPEAL. BUDE HARBOUR AND CANAL COMPANY, appellant. CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF STRATTON, respondent. Mr. Shilson and Mr. Delmar for appellants; Mr. Stokes and Mr. Rowe for respondents. Mr. SHILSON moved an appeal against a rate for the relief of the poor of the parish of Stratton, made on the 18th of October and allowed on the following day, by which the appellants were rated as occupiers of the Bude Canal, Harbour, Basin, &c., at a gross estimated rental of £250, and at a rateable value of £180. The appellants denied their liability to rating as to part of the premises, and as to the other part they asserted that they were over-rated. Mr. Shilson having read the formal grounds of appeal, Mr. STOKES, for the respondents, stated that the question in this case was to some extent one of law. The parish had no desire to burden the appellants unfairly; their only desire was to have the rate settled on a proper basis. The appellants were undoubtedly formerly rated at a much less sum than they were now rated at under a recent re-valuation of the parish; and they asserted that certain of their property ought not to be rated, and that the amount at which they were asssessed (sic) had been improperly increased by treating the tolls and dues of the harbour as rateable property. Mr. Stokes referred to the Act of the Bude Harbour and Canal Company, and particularly to one of its sections, regulating the rateability of lands, houses, and personal property—the last named including tolls and dues. He asserted that in this case the tolls and dues had not actually been rated, but had only been taken as the measure of rateability to which the appellants were liable in respect of personal property. He believed, however, that if the tolls and dues were excluded from all consideration, the parish had other means of testing the value of the appellants' personal property in accordance with the provisions of the Act; and therefore, he proposed to test its value by comparing it with other property of the same nature in the parish, belonging to Sir Thomas Acland, and which was in immediate contiguity to the property of the appellants; that property being the only property in the parish of a similar character to that of the appellants. On this point—the comparison of value of the two similar properties—he would examine Mr. Burton, a rate-payer of Stratton; and he believed the result of Mr. Burton's calculations would be—not perhaps to bring the rating of the appellants up to the present assessment, but at all events to raise it considerably above what it used to be before the recent re-valuation. He would also put into the witness-box Mr. Badcock, the experienced surveyor who was employed to make the re-valuation. There was no doubt that Mr. Badcock had wrongly taken into his calculation the tolls and dues as well as other property of the appellants. But, excluding the tolls and dues altogether, he believed Mr. Badcock would say that, on the principle of adopting as a criterion of value, the value of adjacent property of a like nature, the assessment of the appellants would be raised to between £120 and £130. Mr. SHILSON thought that after the admission that tolls and dues had been included in the rating, there was an end of the case for the respondents; one of the grounds of appeal on the part of the appellants being that property had been rated which ought not to be rated in respect of improvements. Mr. STOKES repeated that the tolls and dues had not been rated, but had merely been used as a means of estimating the value of appellants' personal property. The rate was put in; and as it affected the appellants, the general result of it was that they were rated as above stated—at £250 gross estimated rental, and £180 rateable value. Mr. STOKES admitted that the rateable value ought to be reduced to 120l. Mr. SHILSON said the appellants were willing to go back to the original rating, which was 65l. It was quite clear that the tolls and dues were not rateable, and that the land ought not to be rated in respect of improvements. Mr. STOKES replied that the respondents were entitled by law to take as the criterion of value, the value of property of similar character in the parish; and lately by re-valuation, the assessment of the whole parish had been increased 10 per cent.—(Mr. ROWE. From £4,400 to 4,800). Mr. SHILSON contended that the comparison with land and other property of like character referred to the conditions of the land, &c., at the date of the Act. The appellants ought not to be rated in respect of improved value subsequently given to their land; and it had been ruled that canals and so on were to be considered as an improvement of land for the public benefit. The object of the legislature was to prevent parties being taxed in respect of improvements for the benefit of the public. Mr. STOKES said the respondents would be content if the appellants would consent to an increase of 10 per cent. (£6 10s.) on £65, the rateable value of their property under the old rating, this being the rate of increase on all the property in the parish, under the recent re-valuation. Or, the respondents would be satisfied to refer the matter back to Mr. Badcock, who had been nominated by the guardians to value the parish generally, and who was a most able and respectable surveyor. Mr. SHILSON said the appellants did not want to shrink from a fair share of liability to rating; but it was clear that in the present rate, the harbour was included, and this was an improvement of land for which they ought not to be rated; they were liable to be rated only on the actual value at the time of the Act. Mr. STOKES replied that the words "shall" and "may be" in the Act showed that it contemplated the rating of future improvements. A consultation with a view to compromise then took place between the advocates; but it was not successful, and the case proceeded. Mr. Burton, a ratepayer of Stratton, was examined. He stated that he rents land and houses adjoining the canal, and knows the property of Sir Thomas Acland, also contiguous to the canal and consisting of wharves, basin, store-house, &c. The witness stated, in detail, the extent and rental of several portions of Sir Thomas Acland's property; and then, testing the value of the appellants' property by comparison with it, he estimated the rateable value of the Appellants' property at £126.—Mr. Badcock, surveyor, was then examined. He stated that he was recently employed to re-value the parish by direction of the Board of Guardians, and in estimating the canal property, he added considerably to its former gross and rateable value. In his estimate, he took tolls and dues into consideration. Sir Thomas Acland's property was the only property in the parish similar to that of the appellants. The CHAIRMAN said the rate was unquestionably bad, in respect of rating tolls and dues, and therefore he did not see why the Bench should be required to go into questions of value. The Advocates again consulted with a view to amicable arrangement; and ultimately it was agreed that the appellants' property should be rated as follows:—Gross estimated rental, £89 15s.; rateable value, £68 5s. The Court then ordered that the Rate be amended by striking out the word "harbour" in the description, and by reducing the gross estimated rental from £250 to £89 15s. and the rateable value from £180 to £68 15.., on which the assessment, at 5d. in the £ would amount to £1 8s. 7¾d.—Costs £5. [This concluded the business of the Sessions.]

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 21 March 1862

2. Lent Assizes These Assizes commenced at Bodmin on Saturday last, Mr. Justice Blackburn arrived at the Bodmin Road Station, from Exeter, by the Express train at about 6 o'clock. His lordship was met at the station by the High Sheriff, T. T. Spry Carlyon, Esq., of Tregrehan, accompanied by the Under Sheriff, Edmund Carlyon, Esq., the County Clerk, John Richards Paull, Esq., and the Chaplain, the Rev. J. Bartlett, vicar of St. Blazey. His lordship, having robed, entered the Sheriff's state carriage, with the Sheriff, and his Chaplain; the Under Sheriff, and County Clerk, following in the Sheriff's private carriage; and on arriving near the entrance to Bodmin, they were escorted by a large body of County Constabulary, now for the first time substituted in the performance of this duty, for the Sheriff's Constables, or Javelin-men; and, without disparagement of these time-honoured functionaries, we may be allowed to repeat the remark made by many spectators, that the police, consisting of young men of good height, figure, and bearing, presented a very respectable and gratifying appearance, and displayed a military regularity in all their movements. Without waiting to proceed to the Mayoralty, the learned Judge was driven at once to the Crown Court, where the various commissions for holding the Assize were opened with becoming form and ceremony. On Sunday morning, Mr. Justice Blackburn, accompanied by the High Sheriff, the Chaplain, the Under Sheriff, and the County Clerk; and also by the Mayor of Bodmin (Henry Mudge, Esq.), and the ex-Mayor (Thomas Cummins, Esq.); attended Divine Service at Bodmin church. The congregation was unusually large; a fine hearty morning having, apparently, induced the attendance of a large number of persons from the country. The Prayers and Lessons were read by the curate of Bodmin—the Rev. J. Webster Hawkesley; and the sermon was, of course, preached by the Sheriff's Chaplain. His text was from Mark 12 ch. 17 v.: "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." The sermon was in most parts, and especially towards its conclusion, admirably suited to the occasion, and it was throughout delivered with much persuasive earnestness. Mr. Justice Byles, having been detained in the Nisi Prius Court at the Devon Assizes until a late hour on Saturday, was unable to reach Bodmin until Sunday afternoon. His lordship arrived at the Bodmin road station before 4 o'clock; and proceeded thence to the mayoralty house. Both their lordships afterwards dined at Boconnoc with the Hon. G. M. Fortescue. CROWN COURT. MONDAY, MARCH 17. Justice Byles took his seat upon the bench in this Court, at eleven o'clock this morning. The Court having been opened in the usual form, the names of the magistrates were called over, when the following answered, in addition to those impannelled as the Grand Jury, whose names we have given below:—John Hyne, Esq., M. H. Williams, Esq., Rev. S. Symons, and Rev. J. J. Wilkinson. The following also answered:—The Mayors of Bodmin, Falmouth, Liskeard, and Lostwithiel. Coroners.—Mr. J. Carlyon, and Mr. E. G. Hamley. The following were then sworn as THE GRAND JURY. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., foreman. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. D. W. H. J. Horndon Esq. R. Davey, Esq., M.P. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. F. J. Hext, Esq. C. L. Cocks, Esq. H. R. S. Trelawny, Esq. F. M. Williams, Esq. E. Ley, Esq. E. W. B. Willyams, Esq. J. Batten, Esq. C. A. Reynolds, Esq. N. Norway, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. W. Michell, Esq. T. Hext, Esq. J. Trevenen, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. E. C. Roberts, Esq. J. P. Magor, Esq. Richard Foster, Esq. Her Majesty's proclamation against vice, profaneness, and immorality, having been read, The JUDGE charged the Grand Jury as follows:— Gentlemen of the Grand Jury of the County of Cornwall—l hardly know that I can congratulate you on the state of the calendar at these assizes. It is true, there are but two or three offences of extraordinary malignity; but the calendar is, I fear for this county, one containing too many offences. I shall not think it necessary to detain you from your duties of making any observations except upon two of the cases, which are of a character somewhat peculiar; and you will pardon me for drawing your attention in the first instance, to the case of Henry Spettigue, a young man who had been committed by the magistrates of this county, upon a very serious charge indeed—that of feloniously shooting Ellen Rum, with a revolver pistol, with intent to kill and murder her, at St. Mary Magdalene, on the 22nd October, 1861. Now, the facts of the case, so far as I have been able to gather them from the depositions, are these. It seems that the young person on whom this felonious assault is alleged to have been committed is the daughter of a person in respectable circumstances, and the young man who is unfortunately charged with the commission of this serious crime, was desirous of paying his addresses to her. I collected from the depositions that he had been assiduous in his endeavours for a long time—perhaps for a year or two, and that he had made to her, or attempted to make to her, those little presents which to persons in their comparatively humble circumstances might be customary, but that she continually refused them. The prisoner made no secret of his intentions or his attachment to the young lady, and he asked her father if he had any objection to his paying his addresses to her, to which the father said that he had a decided objection. Witnesses will be called to whom he communicated his state of mind, and who told him that his pursuit was hopeless; other witnesses will also be called who will speak to his state of mind, and I believe one witness will be called who will speak to some threats or words which he made use of on one occasion, but which I will not venture to repeat, lest they should not be correctly stated in the depositions, or my memory should not carry them correctly. You will hear them from the witness, and you will consider how far their weight or importance is diminished by the distance of time which had elapsed since they were alleged to be uttered. Certain it is that while she and her sister were out walking, a witness saw the prisoner pass closely by them, and if he had intended to assassinate or shoot either of them, every opportunity of doing so was afforded him as he was passing them. He did not then fire at them, however, but when he had passed, he turned round, held a pistol in a direction towards them, and discharged it, the loud report which it made indicating that the pistol was heavily charged; and the bullet or something from the pistol went through the young lady's clothes. Undoubtedly if he had discharged that pistol at her from a short distance, and had caused her death, it would have been a case of inexcusable wilful murder. Now, he is not charged with shooting at her for the purpose and with the intent to kill and murder her; and doubtless the indictment will be varied so as to charge him, first, with the intent to kill and murder her, secondly, with the intent to disable her, and probably, thirdly, with the intent of doing her some grievous bodily harm. That he discharged the pistol, and that part of the charge passed through the young lady's dress will be shown beyond all doubt. Now, several statements will be adduced in evidence, and as far as they make for the prisoner, they should be taken into account as well as against him. He says that the discharge of the pistol was accidental, and certainly if he had intended to shoot her, he had, as I have stated, ample opportunity of doing so as he passed her. On the other hand, you will have the evidence of the person who saw him fire the pistol, and he will tell you that he distinctly saw the prisoner point it at her. You will judge from the evidence whether this was a wilful intentional act, or if it was the result of accident. But there is another kind of accident which will require your consideration. It may be that the prisoner intended to discharge the pistol, but had not any intention to shoot her, and again the fact that he had just passed her is to be taken into consideration in his favour. But on the other hand, there is the evidence of the witness who states that he saw him point the pistol at her, and there is the fact that the bullet penetrated her dress, and consequently passed very near her person. You will judge whether it was accidental in either of these senses, and say, what, in your opinion, was his intention—did he or did he not aim that pistol at her with the intention of shooting her. I will make no observation on a matter so serious beyond this, that you will take into your consideration what is unfavourable and tells against the prisoner, you will at the same time look to those circumstances which are in his favour. If you are not satisfied on the evidence which will be adduced that he shot at her with any of intents charged in the indictment, you will find it your duty to ignore the bill; but if you believe he did really fire the pistol with the intent to shoot this young woman, and you think there are probable grounds to justify you in sending the case down here, you will find a true bill. If you should not however, be clearly satisfied that the evidence sustains the offence charged in the indictment, your better course, perhaps, will be to ignore the bill; but in that case, as the offence of shooting through a person's clothes is a very serious and aggravated one, probably an indictment of a different description will be presented to you by the prosecution. Now, there is another observation, not so much to be addressed to you as to those before whom the question may arise, but which I mention because it will have some bearing on the case. According to the depositions, this young man was in a state of great excitement at the time of the offence, but excitement of mind is no excuse in this court for an offence of this kind. If the mental aberration is such that the unhappy individual is unable to distinguish right from wrong—if those marks which have been written in the human heart by the finger of the Almighty are obliterated, and the man did not know what he did, and was no longer a rational and moral agent, that would constitute a ground of defence. But no excitement or moral abberration (sic)—even temporary lunacy, would be any defence, so long as the power of distinguishing between right and wrong remains. That, however, is not a question for you, and I doubt whether any such question will arise in the case; but if it should, it will be dealt with by the petty jury in the manner prescribed by law. The other case to which I think it necessary to refer is that of James Thomas Mitchell, who is described as being of the age of 28, a miner by trade, and a person of imperfect education. He is charged with maliciously placing upon and across the rails of the West Cornwall Railway, twelve stones, with intent to obstruct, injure, or destroy a certain engine, carriages, trucks, and a tender, the property of the West Cornwall Railway Company, at Gwinear, on the 13th February last; now the evidence in support of the charge will show that on this line at the point in question there is a level crossing, and it is the duty of the man who superintends that crossing, after seeing the last train pass at night to get up at six o'clock the next morning to see that the line is clear, and the gates of the road closed before the first train passes. On the morning of the 13th of February, he got up at the usual time, and took a lantern with him, and on looking on the rails, he saw five great stones on them, quite sufficient to overturn a train and probably to cause the death of every person in it. What kind of train the early train was I do not gather; but probably it was a passenger train. That, however, is immaterial as there would be persons in charge of it if it was a goods train, and their lives would be endangered. The man on raising his lantern and looking up the line, saw the train approaching rapidly, and that there was neither time to stop the train or to remove the whole of the stones. By exerting himself to the utmost, he succeeded in removing four of the stones, leaving only one where it had been placed, and this being unsupported by the others, the engine grazed it and fortunately threw it aside, thus passing without accident. After the train had passed, it was found that a little higher up the line another obstruction had been attempted—that one of the iron rails used on the line, had been removed from the place where it had been deposited at the side of the line, and an attempt made to place it across the rails, but being very heavy, weighing several cwts., the attempt had not succeeded. Now, I need not tell you that this is a very grave and serious offence and subjects the party found guilty of it to the heaviest punishment inflicted by the law, except capital punishment; and, therefore, you will require the charge to be brought home to the prisoner by the clearest evidence. You will remember the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence—that a man is not to be thought, or suspected, or believed to be guilty—he must be proved to be guilty by satisfactory evidence. I will now describe to you this sort of evidence, by which it is sought to connect the prisoner with the commission of this offence. Of course no one was seen to commit the offence, and the evidence against the prisoner will consist principally of foot-marks. The prisoner's boots were taken off him, and compared with the foot-prints found at the spot where the offence was committed, and they are alleged to correspond exactly; but I need scarcely tell you that that is a very unsatisfactory kind of evidence. Many pairs of boots may be made by the same shoemaker, and, therefore, judges are in the habit of cautioning juries against placing too much reliance on the evidence of boot- marks. But, in addition to this, there is evidence showing that the prisoner works in the neighborhood (sic), that he was late in coming to his work on that morning, and that he was remonstrated with for being late. Then comes the question as to his motive for the commission of the offence; and the only motive that can be found is this—The person who keeps the gates at the crossing is a shoe-maker by trade, and some time ago the prisoner had a pair of shoes or boots of him. Half-a-crown of the price remained unpaid, and the prisoner was pressed for payment, and threatened with legal proceedings for the recovery of the amount; and it is stated that in consequence of this threat, he had some bad feeling against the gatekeeper. These are the facts of this case. No doubt if the train had been overthrown, and any person had been killed, the person causing the catastrophe would be as much guilty of murdering them as if he had taken an Enfield rifle and wilfully shot them by firing at them in a crowd. No person fortunately was killed in the train, but the moral offence of the person who placed the stones on the rails was as great as if life had been sacrificed. If you think the evidence is sufficient to justify you in finding a true bill, you will do so; but you will remember that if the prisoner should be placed upon his trial on weak and insufficient evidence, an acquittal here would be final acquittal; whereas, supposing he is not placed upon his trial now, and further evidence against him should afterwards be discovered, he could be again indicted with a greater probability of conviction. I ought to apologise to you for detaining you so long, but these are two cases of a peculiar character, in which the ends of justice are likely to be greatly promoted by the inquiry before the grand jury. I consider that the country is greatly indebted to to (sic) the administration of grand juries, and I trust the time will never arrive when I shall not have to meet the gentlemen of the county in their own neighbour- hood, at the assizes, or when the investigation of cases of this kind will be conducted without the intervention of those two popular bodies—grand and petty juries—without whom it is impossible the administration of justice can ever give satisfaction to the public at large. The grand jury then retired, and having in a few minutes returned two or three bills, the Court proceeded with THE TRIAL OF PRISONERS. ELIZA LAMERTON, aged 25, was charged with stealing two blankets, of the value of 14s., the property of Elizabeth Cundy, at Mylor, on the 13th of February. Mr. Cox prosecuted and Mr. Holdsworth defended the prisoner. The facts of this case were extremely simple and uninteresting. The parties lived in the same house at Mylor, the prosecutrix occupying a room on the bottom story (sic) in which she carries on a shop, and a bed-room in the upper story. The prisoner occupied a room over the shop. On the 13th of February, the prosecutrix missed two blankets, and suspecting the prisoner of having taken them she went into her bed-room and accused her of the theft. This she denied, when prosecutrix sent for a police officer, and on his arrival the prisoner took from under her bed three blankets, which she said were her own property. The prosecutor said that two of them were her's, and she now endeavoured to identify them by certain marks or stains, but these were so faint, that the jury could not see them, and they found the prisoner NOT GUILTY. STEALING FROM A MINE. HENRY BENNETTS, aged 23, was charged with stealing on the 13th of January, a pair of boots and a pair of stockings, the property of James Tyack, at Redruth. Mr. Tosswell prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended, but being very deaf, Mr. Holdsworth, at the request of the Judge, watched the case for him. The prosecutor is a miner, working at Wheal Briggan mine. On before going underground on the 13th of January, he took off his boots and stockings in the changing house. On coming up again at the end of his "core" they were gone. The prisoner was seen in the engine-house between three and four o'clock in the afternoon of the 13th with a parcel under his arm, and something evidently concealed under his coat, and the next day the boots were found by Inspector James at the prisoner's uncles, in Redruth, where he had left them the night before, and the stockings in his possession. The boots were identified by prosecutor he having made them himself. The prisoner, in defence, stated that he had bought them from a tramp on the 13th while walking from the mine to Redruth. The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY, and the prisoner was sentenced to only one months' hard labour, the Judge taking into consideration the two months' confinement he had already endured. JOHN BURRELL, 16, a miner, was indicted for having, on the 24th January, at Liskeard, stolen a cotton sheet, the property of John Kneebone. Mr. ROUPE prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. Mrs. Louisa Kneebone, the wife of the prosecutor, deposed that, on the 24th January, she spread the sheet and some other clothes which she had washed out to dry, and on going to take them in in the evening, she found that the sheet and one or two other articles were gone. She gave information to the police, and they were found at a marine store dealer's, in Liskeard, Joseph James Phillipps, where the prisoner had sold them on the day of the robbery. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY. He then pleaded guilty to a previous conviction of felony. Sentence—SIX MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR. There were two other charges of stealing linen, at Liskeard, the property of other persons, but they were not pressed. STEALING FROM MR. R. DAVEY, M.P. RICHARD DRAYDON, 40, described as a baker, was indicted for having, on or about the month of November last, at Cury, stolen a horse cloth, horse roller, and four brushes, the property of his master, Richard Davey, Esq., M.P. Mr. Cole and Mr. Buller prosecuted, and Mr. Prideaux defended the prisoner. Mr. COLE said that the prosecutor was one of the representatives of the Western Division of Cornwall, and in the month of October the prisoner entered his service as coachman, and remained with him till November, about a month. After he had gone, several brushes were missed from the stables at Bochym, where Mr. Davey resided, and on inquiry, it was ascertained that in October the prisoner had sold a "dandy" brush, an oil brush, and two other brushes, to the ostler of the Angel Hotel, at Helston, for 3s., to whom he stated that they were his own property, but he had no further use for them; and a few days after, the horse cloth and roller for 4s. He called Samuel Hendy, who deposed that he resided at Cury churchtown, and was in the employ of Mr. Richard Davey. Remembered the prisoner going there about the end of October as coachman. He identified the horse-cloth, roller, and brushes produced as his master's property.—Crego and Mr. Thomas Shepherd Harris also identified the horse-cloth and roller as Mr. Davey 's property. Mr. John Sidney Davey, nephew of the prosecutor, said that Bochym belonged to his father, but it was in the occupation of his uncle, Mr. Richard Davey. The roller produced was the property of his uncle, and had been sent with a horse from Ireland. William Hender deposed that he was head ostler at the Angel Hotel, at Helston, where he had lived for 48 years, and had held his present situation during 36 years of that time. The prisoner went to live at Bochym, as coachman some time in October, 1861, and left in the following month of November. Some time after he had gone there, prisoner came to him at the Angel Hotel, and said that he had got a few things of his own which would be very useful to witness, and which he wanted to sell, as he had no further use for them. He produced a dandy brush, oil brush, and two other brushes. Witness asked what price he put upon them, when the prisoner said—give me what you please. Witness paid him 3s. for them. Two or three days after that the prisoner brought a horse-roller, and asked witness to buy them; but he told him that he had better take them to somebody who would be more likely to give him the value for them. Prisoner, however, said—give me what you please for them, and witness paid him 4s. for them. Afterwards he delivered them all up to the police. The articles produced are those which he bought from the prisoner. Mr. Richard Davey, M.P., deposed—l reside at Bochym, in the parish of Cury. I remember the prisoner applying to me for a situation as coachman. He was recommended by the attorney who now defends him. I knew nothing of him before this. I never gave him authority to take the horse-cloth, roller, or brushes produced. The defence urged by Mr. PRIDEAUX, on behalf of the prisoner, was, that the latter believed the articles which he was charged with stealing were the perquisites of the coachman, and that he took them and sold them considering that he was entitled to do so. The jury, however, after a few minutes' consideration, found the prisoner GUILTY. Sergeant Smith, of the London police, then proved that the prisoner had been convicted at the quarter sessions for the county of Surrey, held at St. Mary Newington, of stealing four silver spoons and two silver forks, the property of his master, Mr. Smith, for which he was imprisoned 18 months. In answer to the JUDGE, Sergeant Smith added that he had known the prisoner for about two years. He was a native of Cornwall, coming from Helston or the neighbourhood. He was one of a class of persons who infested London, going about and obtaining situations of various kinds in gentlemen’s families and shortly after they had entered the families, they proceeded to rob and plunder their employers in every way they possibly could. The JUDGE, in passing sentence, said that it was evident no ordinary term of imprisonment would have any effect on the prisoner, and he should therefore sentence him to THREE YEARS’ PENAL SERVITUDE. FELONIES BY A SERVANT. PHILLIPA MARTYN, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing two night dresses and some embroidery, the property of the Rev. John Kingdon, at Michaelstow, on the 19th January. Mr. Machonichi prosecuted, and Mr. Prideaux defended the prisoner. From the evidence of Miss Lydia Kingdon, daughter of the prosecutor, it appeared that the prisoner had entered her father’s service about five months previous to 19th of January, and suspicions attaching to her, Miss Kingdon, on that day requested permission to search her box. The prisoner made not the slightest objection to this, and they went upstairs into her bedroom, and the box was searched accordingly. Inside were found two night dresses belonging to two younger daughters of Mr. Kingdon, and some embroidery belonging to Miss Kingdon. The latter then took the prisoner down stairs to her father, but as Miss Kingdon admitted that her father said to the prisoner if she did not confess, it was in his power to send for Benney the policeman, the judge held that the confession which the prisoner had then made after this threat could not be given in evidence. Miss Kingdon then identified the articles found in the prisoner's box as belonging to her and her sisters. The prisoner when before the magistrates said in answer to the charge. "I am very sorry that I should have done it, and I hope you will be as favourable as you can with regard to my punishment," and this now constituted the principal evidence against her. Mr. Prideaux having addressed the jury in defence called several witnesses who gave the prisoner an excellent character. The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY with a recommendation to mercy on account of the prisoner's previous good character. There was another charge of a similar character against the prisoner, of stealing on the 19th January, a chemise and baby's robe the property of Morrish Wilton, of Wadebridge, but on the recommendation of the judge it was not pressed. The JUDGE in passing sentence, spoke very highly of the manner in which Miss Kingdon had given her evidence. He was very sorry that he could not pay much attention to the recommendation of the jury, because there was another charge hanging over the prisoner which they knew nothing about, but which if they had known, it would probably have prevented them from making the recommendation in her behalf. Sentence—TWO MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR. ELIZABETH BROWNING, 24, was charged with having on the 17th of January, at Perranarworthal, obtained by a false pretence a pair of boots, from Eliza Bond. Mr. Cox prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The parties reside at Perranwell, both prosecutrix and the prisoner being married, and living with their husbands at the time of the transaction which formed the subject of the indictment. On the forenoon of the 17th of January, Mrs. Bond's child being very ill, she asked the prisoner to go to the doctor's for some medicine for it. The prisoner said that she would willingly do so, but she could not as her shoes were completely worn out. Mrs. Bond offered to lend her her's, and the prisoner stooped down, took them off prosecutrix's feet, and then put them on her own. She then left to go to the doctor's, and in about twenty minutes she returned, stating that the doctor had said he could do no more for the child than he had done, but that if she would come again he would give her some medicine for it. Prisoner then left the boots with Mrs. Bond, but about six o'clock in the afternoon of the same day she returned, and asked the prosecutrix to let her have the boots again, and she would go to the doctor's again for the medicine. Mrs. Bond did so, but as the prisoner did not return that night either to Mrs. Bond, her own house, or Perranwell, information was given to the police, and P.C. Dawe pursued her to the Blue Anchor, 12 miles from Truro, and 18 from Perranwell, where he found her tramping along the road with a navvy named Drummer, with Mrs. Bond's boots on. The Judge left it to the jury to say whether they considered the prisoner had unlawfully and by false pretences obtained the boots, or whether they had not been freely lent by Mrs. Bond for the purpose of enabling her to go to the doctor's, which the evidence showed she had done. The Jury ACQUITTED the prisoner. STEALING AT LAUNCESTON. JOHN OKE, a little boy, 9 years of age, was charged with stealing, on the 12th February, at St. Mary Magdalene, a quantity of lead, the property of William Burt. Mr. GURNEY prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor, Mr. Burt, is a builder at St. Stephens by Launceston, and on the 13th of February he was employed in repairing the Wesleyan chapel and vestry in Launceston. At the back part of the roof of this chapel there was a chimney, and at the bottom of this chimney a gutter of lead. The roof was so little elevated above the ground at this part, that it appeared persons could easily get upon it from the latter. On the 11th of February, Mr. Burt saw that the lead of this gutter was safe and right, but on visiting the chapel on the 13th, he found that some of the slates of the roof had been broken, and that the leaden gutter had been nearly all removed. Information was given to the police, who in their turn gave notice to the various marine store dealers in the town of the robbery. On the morning of the 14th the prisoner brought two or three pieces of sheet lead for sale at the shop of Mr. Hayman, marine store dealer, and three or four other pieces more to the shop of Mr. Huggins, another marine store dealer, to whom he gave two different accounts of the manner in which he had obtained it. Another piece of lead was found at the back of the house in which the prisoner resided, and on placing all these together, they were found to fit exactly, and to make up the whole of the lead of the gutter that had been stolen. One of the witnesses stated in answer to the judge, that the prisoner's mother was a widow, that she was left with three children, and was more culpable in reality than the little boy now standing at the bar. The judge left it to the jury to say whether they considered the prisoner had stolen the lead, and if so, then did they consider that he knew what he was doing so as to render him liable to punishment for the offence. The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. PLEADED GUILTY. The following prisoners pleaded guilty to-day to the charges for which they were respectively indicted, but his lordship deferred sentence until he had looked through the depositions:— EMILY BAWDEN, 18, servant, stealing a silver dessert spoon, a pair of kid gloves, and a silver vinegrette, the property of Mr. John Gilbert the younger, at Uny Lelant, on the 2nd February.—Two Months' hard labour. WILLIAM EDMONDS, 29, labourer, stealing on the 14th of January, at St. Just in Roseland, a shirt, of the value of 2s. 6d., the property of John Beedham George. There was a second charge against the prisoner of stealing on the 13th January, a pair of trousers, the property of John Coad, at Perranarworthal, to which the prisoner pleaded not guilty. WILLIAM HILL, 26, miner, obtaining on the 14th Jan. by a false pretence, certain grocery goods from Alice Penberthy, at Illogan, with intent to cheat and defraud her of the same; and secondly, with having by a similar pretence, unlawfully obtained on the 25th January, certain grocery goods from William Luke, at Illogan, with intent to cheat and defraud him of the same. JOHN LILLY, 21, labourer, stealing on the 17th Jany., at Broadoak, one shirt, the property of Joseph Symons. Secondly, to stealing, on the 17th January, at St. Pinnock, a cotton shirt, a cotton handkerchief, a pair of worsted stockings, and a flannel petticoat, the property of John Greenaway. And, thirdly, with stealing at Liskeard, on the 17th February, a shirt and a pair of cotton stockings, the property of Thomas Benny. JOSE MARINO, 31, a seaman, stealing at Falmouth, on the 8th of January, a knife and a coat, of the value of £1 10s. the property of Adolphus Jewell. CHRISTIANA MOYLE, 21, servant, stealing one black feather, one white ditto, a silk watch guard, a collar, and six silk tassels, at Camborne, on the 2nd of January, the property of her master, James Rowe. JOHN POWELL, 48, labourer, stealing three brass pans, value £1, on the 23rd Dec., at Kenwyn, the property of John Trembath. DIGORY SARGENT, 40, a miner, having on the 27th November, at Lezant, stolen a pair of boots, the property of Wm. Cornish. SUSAN YATES, 17, servant, stealing at St. Austell, on the 29th January a wool shawl, the property of Hannah Deeble, after a previous conviction for felony at Launceston, under the name of Mary Salnia Stephens. The Grand Jury ignored the bill against GEORGE SUTTON, 22, labourer, charged with stealing at Calstock, on the 22nd February, a pocket or account book from the person of James Metters. The Court, after disposing of the above cases, adjourned. NISI PRIUS COURT. MONDAY, MARCH 17. The business of this Court was opened at half-past 10 o’clock, before Mr. Justice Blackburn. The following was the Cause List presented:— CAUSE LIST. Plaintiff’s, Atty. Plaintiff. Defendant. Defendant’s Atty. 1. Roscorla and Magor, ………… [S.J.] v. Steer, …… Trythal. Davies, Q.B. 2. Trythall…Ex. Steer, …………… [S.J.] v. Magor…. Roscorla & Davies. 3. Hodge, Hockin Harvey & & Marrack. Ex. others…….. [S.J.] v. Tredinnick Greville & Tucker. 4. Boyns…..Q.B. Flynn,……………………. v Perkins Rodd & Cornish. 5. Paul & Linton, Ex… Condy,………………….. v. Webb… J. G. Chilcott. 6. Whitefield,…. Ex. Burt………………………. v. Burt… Bishop.

FLYNN v. PERKINS.—Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C. and Mr. Kingdon for plaintiff; Mr. Karslake, Q.C. and Mr. Buller for defendant. Attorneys, Mr. Boyns for plaintiff; Messrs. Rodd and Cornish for defendant.— Witnesses on both sides were ordered out of court to await their being called for examination.—The plaintiff was Daniel Flynn, a lad of about 18 years of age, and the defendant was Joseph Perkins, a builder of Penzance, with whom plaintiff was an apprentice; and the action was brought to recover damages for serious injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of alleged neglect by defendant to provide proper materials in the erection of some buildings on which the plaintiff was employed under him. Mr. KINGDON having opened the pleadings, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH stated the case to the jury:—He said the plaintiff Daniel Flynn was a lad, who at the time he received the injuries in respect of which the action was brought, was about 15 or 16 years of age; and the defendant was a carpenter and builder at Penzance. Plaintiff was a son of a working man employed in a large establishment at Penzance, as a provision curer; and on the 6th of April, 1858, the plaintiff was put an apprentice to defendant and his brother to learn the business of a carpenter. The partnership between defendant and his brother was afterwards dissolved, and at the time of the accident the defendant was the only master of the plaintiff. The boy was apprenticed for six years, and he was to receive 1s. 6d. a week wages. This action was brought in consequence of very severe injuries sustained by plaintiff in the service of his master; and the complaint was that the injuries were the consequence of the master having employed improper and insufficient means for the performance of the work in which the boy was engaged under the master's orders. The accident happened on the 28th February, 1860. Perkins, it appeared, was engaged in building at Regent Terrace eight cottages in a row; the cottages were small—to contain two rooms below and two above. At the time in question, the stair-cases were not fixed; the houses had been built and the rafters put in. There was a foreman named Colwell, and there were other men and a boy employed at the premises by the defendant. On the day before the accident the plaintiff and Colwell had been at work in the house No. 1; and on the day of the accident they were at work in No. 2, adjoining. The boy Flynn was sent by Colwell to fetch some short pieces of ceiling rafter from the house No 1; and on the day of the accident they were at work in No.2 adjoining. These pieces being in an upper room of that house. The staircases not being fixed, the only way of getting from the ground of the lower room to the floor above was by means of a plank—the lower end on the ground floor, and the upper part resting on the wall of the house, at the upper floor; the plank forming an inclined plane, at a very acute angle. The plank was about 12 feet long and 6 inches wide; and it had been used in the way described for some months before the accident in question. The boy Flynn went up the plank on his hands and knees, and having collected some short pieces of ceiling rafter in the upper room, he threw them down through the rafters, and then prepared to descend the plank. He had just seated himself on the top of the plank to slide down, and as soon as his entire weight was on it, it fell away beneath him and the poor boy fell to the ground, his leg under the plank. He sustained a compound fracture of the leg, and also such internal injuries as, it was feared, left him but small chance of recovery. When he fell, the boy screeched out, and called to a man named Carpenter in the adjoining house; Carpenter and another man went to his assistance and conveyed him to Mr. Couch, surgeon, by whom his broken leg was set. A workman named Bailey was sent to Mr. Perkins, to inform him of the accident; his first observation was that the boy must have done it on purpose; and afterwards, on being asked to lend a cart for the boy's conveyance to his home, he would not lend his spring cart, but sent a common cart without springs. The boy was taken home, and received the attentions of his parents and the surgeon; his leg was set properly; but the boy had sustained severe internal injury and vomited blood; he was obliged to be sent away for change of air, and never since had he been able to work, notwithstanding all that was possible by persons in the condition of plaintiff's parents was done to promote his recovery.—Mr. M. Smith made some statements in regard to alleged indifference by the defendant subsequent to the accident; but the learned JUDGE afterwards ruled that, although the evidence tended on the point was not strictly inadmissible, it ought to have very little if any weight with the jury on the substantial issue in the case.— These statements were to the effect that after the accident, the defendant never called to inquire for the boy; never sent any aid; and when applied to for the boy's wages at 1s. 6d. a week, he declined to pay beyond the day when the accident occurred; and all that he ever gave the boy afterwards was fourpence on one occasion, and a shilling at another time. The first witness examined was the unfortunate plaintiff, Daniel Flynn, who was brought into Court on a Chair, and wrapped in blankets. His pale, emaciated appearance excited general sympathy and commiseration.—ln addition to other evidence, he stated that after being under Mr. Couche's (sic) care some months, he was under the care of Dr. Montgomery, and of Mr. Harvey, surgeon. He was sent for change of air, first to Camborne and then to Falmouth; it was on the occasion of his going to Falmouth that the defendant gave him a shilling; and the four-pence was given by defendant on the first occasion after the accident, that the plaintiff—then walking on crutches—met his master in the street.—The other witnesses examined for the plaintiff were:—William Carpenter, a journeyman with Mr. Perkins at the time of the accident; William Henry Bailey, a former apprentice of Mr. Perkins; William Rowe, a master mason, working on the cottagers (sic); Thomas Gendall, a mason's labourer, also on the same work; John Flynn, the plaintiff’s father; Richard Quiller Couch, surgeon, of Penzance, and William Harvey, also a surgeon, of Penzance. John Flynn stated that before the accident, his son's health was as good as that of any boy in the town. After the accident, he was seven weeks in his bed-room before he could be brought down stairs; it was some time after that before he could go out of doors, and then he went on crutches. At the time his leg was broken, he did not appear to suffer in any other way: but after he came down stairs, he lost the use of his side and arm, and in about a month afterwards, brought up large quantities of blood; he had never brought up blood before. Witness has six children living. After the accident, Mr. Perkins never came or sent to inquire for the boy. Witness added:—I applied to Mr. Perkins for the boy's wages which used to be paid quarterly; and when the quarter was up, he sent me 12s. for 8 weeks' wages; and never paid a farthing more. During 15 months I went to him 5 times to try to bring him to a settlement; but from time to time he put me off and at last said he would not give me anything.—Cross-examined:—Mr. Couch has attended my family. I have lost two daughters by consumption; the first died May 1860, she was 21 years old; the other died about 9 months ago; she was about 5½ years of age, and was attended by Mr. Harvey. Mr. Couch had attended this boy once before the accident; there was heavy snow in 1854 and the boy got out in the snow and got a swollen finger; Mr. Couch cut it, and there had been nothing the matter with the boy afterwards until the accident. When I went to Mr. Perkins, I asked him if he was going to give me any thing towards keeping the boy. I thought he ought to pay something, in consequence of the accident.—Re-examined. This boy had never, before the accident, shown any signs of consumption, or any symptoms like my daughter. Mr. Couch deposed:—I remember this boy being brought to me on the day that he broke his leg; and I set it. It was a double fracture, but not a compound one. I attended him altogether about 8 weeks; it was 7 weeks before he left his bedroom, and then he could walk only on crutches. After that his general health got worse; it was very much shattered, and I recommended change of air, and he was absent—I believe nearly two months. After his return, his health was not improved, and he brought up blood. I have seen the boy this morning; my opinion is that the boy will not recover. I attended him during his illness at the request of his father altogether about 5 months; I have charged for the attendance but have not sent in my bill.—Cross-examined: The spitting of blood did not come on until he had been away for change of air. He is in consumption. The other children did not die of consumption, but of scrofulous complaints. The boy himself is scrofulous, and I have attended him for ailments of that kind. I believe that the fracture and the other injuries sustained, acting on a previously weak constitution, were the cause of his pulmonary disease. He has never recovered from the effects of the accident. From the fracture itself he recovered tolerably well, though the fracture did not heal so quickly as if he had a better constitution; but from the other results of the accident he has never recovered.—Re-examination: During the time of the boy's apprenticeship until the accident, his health very much improved; and I know of no reason why, but for the accident, it might not have continued to improve. Persons with weakly constitutions may live to tolerably old age. I think it was the fall rather more than the fracture that injured him; I believe he injured the right side and chest ; in the early part of my attendance, he complained a good deal of pain about those parts; and these injuries may have been the cause of the boy’s present state, more than the fracture. The confinement necessary after such an accident would affect him, particularly as the rooms of his house were small, and his comforts not so great as I could wish. He had had a scrofulous inflammation about the fingers about two years ago; but has quite recovered from that. Mr. William Harvey, after some further medical evidence, said he considered the boy was now dying. Mr. KARSLAKE, addressing the Jury for the defence, after some animadversions on alleged topics of prejudice which he contended were unnecessarily introduced by his learned friend, said no person who saw the poor boy brought into Court required to have his sympathies for him awakened by any other means. But whatever might be their sympathies, the sole question for trial was as to the defendant's alleged liability, and that must be determined by evidence and not by sympathy. Without wishing to impute blame to the poor boy, it was obvious that either from illness impairing his memory, or from strong feeling as a plaintiff, he had stated what was not strictly correct. The boy had stated that the plank had been placed intentionally, more than a month, as the only means of passage from the lower story to the upper; but that was contradicted by the witness Gendall, who had proved that on more than one occasion the boy himself had applied for and used a ladder to go up into the upper room; and the evidence of Carpenter was that if at at (sic) any times the plank was used, it was an exceptional means, and that the ordinary means was a ladder. Another point on which the boy’s memory had failed him was that the upper room in question was used as a workshop for the preparation of ceiling board and other materials for the other houses; for, from the evidence of Carpenter, it was clear that the room was so used; and Carpenter, so far from saying that the plank was used as an ordinary gangway to the upper room, distinctly stated it was not so kept, and that a ladder was the means which he himself ordinarily used, and Carpenter being in delicate health, the probability was in favour of his using a ladder, and not a plank.—The way in which it was sought to fix the defendant with liability in this case was that he was in the habitual practice of using this plank, and that he sanctioned its use by others; and as part proof of that statement, the boy had said that a month before the accident, he saw Mr. Perkins go up to the upper rooms by means of that plank, and that it was the constant practice of the foreman Colwell and other workmen to use the plank and no other means, for going up and down to and from the room. But Carpenter had proved that the plank was not used as a regular means of access, though it might have been so used occasionally, either when a ladder could not be obtained, or to save the trouble of procuring one; and the defendant Perkins would prove distinctly that he himself never so used the plank, and that he never knew of or sanctioned its use by others; and that no complaint was ever made either by the foreman Colwell or by other workmen, of any insufficiency of ladders or other plant for the building. Perkins’s ladders were kept in his shop, not more than a mile off, and might have been easily supplied for the building it required.—It was also clear now, that at the time of the accident, only two persons were engaged on the particular house in question—a mason outside, and the lad Bailey who was putting down flooring inside.—The learned advocate next observed that at the time these buildings were commenced, it was the defendant’s brother who superintended the work; but on the dissolution of partnership, the defendant having other engagements, Colwell was put in charge of the work. It was said that Colwell was in the frequent habit of using the plank; but on this point too, the boy's evidence would be shown to be inaccurate, and Colwell would distinctly prove that he was not in the habit of using the plank himself, and that he did not give instructions to the boy to use it. On the day in question, he merely told the boy to get some short pieces of ceiling rafter for him, without telling him to go into any particular room, though undoubtedly the room in which Carpenter had been at work was one in which he would naturally make search.—On the medical testimony, Mr. Karslake remarked that it was clear that the melancholy state of the boy’s present health was not attributable in any great degree to the accident, but rather to a previously unhealthy habit; though his present condition might have been somewhat accelerated by the accident.—With reference to the supply of ladders, Mr. Perkins would prove that there was an ample supply of ladders suitable for the place in question, and he never received any complaint of an insufficiency of ladders or any other plant on the premises for the purposes of the buildings; it was the habit to shift about the ladders as wanted, and no person need have used any other means of access to the upper rooms.—As to the charge of cruelty against Mr. Perkins, it was not to be supposed that he would send an ordinary cart, instead of a spring cart for the purpose of giving unnecessary pain to the poor boy; and then, as to his alleged refusal of aid, the explanation that when applied to by Mr. Flynn with a notion that he (Perkins) was legally liable, it was necessary that he should repudiate that liability, and hold that he was not legally responsible for the results of the accident, Mr. Perkins believing that the boy, with the ordinary precaution of obtaining a ladder, might have avoided an accident altogether. In support of the defence, Mr. Joseph Perkins, the defendant, was examined; and his testimony was followed by that of James Colwell; Richard Martin, a mason; and George Kingston, an apprentice with Mr. Perkins, shortly before the commencement of the boy Flynn's apprenticeship. Mr. KARSLAKE, summing up the evidence, remarked that, as the jury must be well aware, there were many trades in which a workman or an apprentice must necessarily be exposed to some risk of danger; but the master could not guarantee the apprentice’s safety, nor could he be made answerable for the results of a boy's imprudence. In the present case there was no proof that the master put the plank as a means of access to the upper room, nor that he knew of its being so used; and Mr. Perkins distinctly swore (in opposition to the boy’s evidence), that he had never gone up by means of a plank and that he did not know of its being so used by others; and it was not because the boy chose to use a plank instead of getting a ladder that the master was to be held liable for the accident and its results, unless the master had obliged him to use the plank. It was proved beyond all doubt, that at the time of the accident there were at least two ladders on the premises suitable for the ascent the boy made; and Colwell not only did not give the boy instructions to go into the particular room in question, but he had also proved that he did not know that at that time a plank was the only means of a access to the room; so far from it, he (Colwell) was at the time using a ladder, which the boy might have had by asking for it. Mr MONTAGUE SMITH then made a general reply. He said the question had now become, to a great extent, one of credit as to the witnesses on either side; and at this point, he urged that notwithstanding his learned friend's imputations on the boy's memory, it was impossible that any witness could have given evidence more clearly and intelligently than this poor dying boy. The circumstances of the day in question were such as to impress all its events most strongly on his mind, and since that time he had had few events to erase them from his memory. And the boy had told them that he had seen the plank so used hundreds of times, and that the room above was a workshop to which the workmen were frequently going, and that he himself had often gone up by means of the plank, and not by means of a ladder. And it was no contradiction of this evidence, as his learned friend had asserted, that on one occasion he borrowed a ladder from Gendall and that Gendall afterwards took it away again, because he wanted it himself.—The boy also stated that Colwell sent him for the battens to this particular room; and Colwell's evidence on that point was not in fact contradictory, for the utmost he stated was that he could not recollect whether he sent him to that room or not.—His learned friend had said the boy ought to have procured a ladder, although it was proved that the masons were using one, and Colwell the other, of the only two short ladders on the premises. His learned friend had also suggested that the boy, when told by Colwell to go round and pick up some battens, ought to have gone to Mr. Perkins's workshop, some half a mile off, where there was a stock of ladders; but he (Mr. Smith) should like to know what Mr. Perkins would have thought of an apprentice who had so acted. But the fact was that Mr. Perkins ought to have kept a ladder for ascent to this room, which it had been proved was a regular workshop. There was however no ladder available, and the boy had no choice but to use the plank,—the plank which he had himself used before, and which he had seen both Colwell and Perkins use.—The evidence was, he contended, conclusive that both Perkins and CoIwell knew of the plank being so used; and, on a legal difficulty suggested by the learned Judge, Mr. M. SMITH said that knowledge by the foreman was, in law, equivalent to knowledge by the master. Mr. Perkins himself, however, must have known of the use of the plank, and that there was an insufficient supply of ladders. One of the two short ladders was in a state worse than useless; while the other was brought to the premises by a mason. The long ladders were out of the question, because they were only fitted for the exterior of the buildings.—The learned gentleman reviewed and commented on other parts of the evidence, on the question of credit; and then, on the observation by his learned friend that no complaint had been made to Mr. Perkins, he observed that it was the duty of the master to have provided all possible means of preventing accident; and that the present was not the case of an adult workman, on equal terms with his master, and free to stay or go; but it was that of a boy—an apprentice bound to obey all the commands of his master. An apprentice however was not to be subjected by his master to unnecessary risk. In this case, it was clear that there was an insufficiency of ladders, and that the ordinary mode of ascent was by a plank; and he contended that these facts were within the knowledge of both master and foreman; though on the legal difficulty suggested, he submitted that knowledge by either the master or the foreman would be sufficient.—The learned gentleman concluded with some observations on the question of damages, adverting to the medical evidence of the injuries sustained by the poor boy, and to the evidence concerning the defendant's conduct subsequent to the accident. The learned JUDGE then summed up, directing the Jury that if they should find it necessary to estimate damages, they must do so with reference to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, and not with a view of punishing the defendant for any supposed want of sympathy. As to the main question—whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover any damages, it was clear that the trade was one in which there was necessarily some risk of danger; and the master would not be liable unless the accident was the result of want of proper care on his part. The case substantially, on the part of the plaintiff, was that in such a trade as he was apprenticed to, the master ought to have supplied a sufficient stock of ladders, and that from the supply being insufficient, the persons employed were exposed to unreasonable dangers by being obliged to use a plank. The first question, therefore, which the Jury would have to consider, was whether or not there was an insufficient supply of ladders, which caused the plaintiff and other persons to use the plank; thereby exposing them to unreasonable risk persons using ordinary caution. With reference to this question, it must be borne in mind that the plaintiff was not an adult workman, making an independent bargain with the master, and who might be assumed to consent to the provision made by the master if he continued in the service; the present plaintiff was an apprentice, and had no such option.—Then, before they could make the defendant liable, his lordship held that the jury must be satisfied that the defendant himself, personally, knew that the stock of ladders was deficient, and that a plank was in use in a way which exposed the plaintiff to unreasonable risk. It might be that, although the defendant himself was not cognizant of these alleged facts, his foreman Colwell was so cognizant. If the Jury should so find, his lordship would request them to state so specially, and he would then direct a verdict for defendant, with leave to plaintiff to move, but on condition that there should be no appeal to the Court of Exchequer unless with consent of the Queen’s Bench. But, whatever might be the Jury's finding on that point— whether J. Perkins and Colwell—either or both—were cognizant of the plaintiff being exposed to unreasonable risk, the Jury would in either case have to assess damages The summing-up was concluded at 10 minutes past 4, the case having been opened at half-past 10. The Jury, after nearly 10 minutes consultation in their box, accepted the Judge’s suggestion that they should retire for further consideration of the case. They were accordingly locked up in charge of one of the Sheriff’s Constables, until after 10 o'clock. The Judge then sent for them, and they proceeded to the Mayoralty House, and reported that they could not agree to a verdict.—They were thereupon discharged. CONDY v. WEBB.—Mr. Prideaux and Mr. Little, counse (sic) for plaintiff; Mr Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Roope for defendant.—Attorneys, Messrs. Paul and Linton for plaintiff; Mr. Chilcott for defendant.— The plaintiff in this case was an ironmonger, carrying on business at Devonport; and the action was brought to recover a sum of £63 10s. 10d., the amount of principal and interest due on a bill of exchange drawn by William Gundry Powning on, and accepted by, the defendant, and endorsed to the Plaintiff. It appeared that a Mr. Tonkin, also a mine-broker, in the early part of 1861 held two bills of exchange drawn by Powning; one of them being for £48 15s., accepted by the defendant Webb, and the other for £50 accepted jointly by Webb and Capt. John Dale. It was believed that the consideration for these acceptances was some shares in mines. These bills were dishonoured. On the 16th March 1861, there was a private meeting at the Bull Inn, in Bishopsgate Street, of some persons connected with the affairs of Tregullow mine, at which were present the defendant Webb, Capt. Dale, Mr. Condy, Mr W. Gundry Powning, Mr. Richard Powning, and Mr. Edwin Powning.—After dinner, Mr. Condy was called into another room by Gundry Powning, and there found Capt. Dale, the three Pownings, and the defendant; Tonkin remaining outside. Some conversation took place about the two dishonoured bills; Webb said he was in a fix, or something of that sort, and he wished to know whether Condy could let him have the money. Condy replied that if Dale, Webb, and the Pownings, who were interested in the two bills, would give him their joint acceptance, he would discount it and forward the cash to Tonkin. Dale said he would not put his name to a £98 bill, but he would pay his portion of it—which was £25. Webb gave Condy an order on a Mr. Spargo for £12 10s. 0d. Gundry Powning drew out an acceptance payable to himself for £61, which Webb accepted, and Condy, after seeing it endorsed, took it, and handed to Gundry Powning a cheque for £98 10s. 0d.; and Webb said he was very thankful for it, for it saved him from ruin and Powning gave the cheque to Tonkin.—Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Mr. Tonkin, Mr Condy, the plaintiff, Mr. Richard Powning of St. Day, and his brother Wm. Gundry Powning; and the witnesses were rather closely cross- examined; but at the close of their evidence, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH said, after the evidence which had been adduced, it would be useless to offer further opposition to the plaintiff's claim. The learned JUDGE hereupon directed a verdict for plaintiff, for £63 10s. 10d., which was accordingly given; and on the application of Mr. Prideaux for immediate execution, his lordship ordered payment in four days. GEORGE BURT v. BENJAMIN BURT.—An action of ejectment.—Mr. Roope was counsel, and Mr. Whitefield of St. Columb, attorney, for the plaintiff; the defendant was unsupported either by counsel or attorney.—The parties were brokers, resident in Newquay. It appeared that they had had certain money transactions between them, followed by disputes, and the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, the result of which was that by a Rule of Court, a writ of fi. fa. was issued to the late Sheriff of Cornwall, J. F. Basset, Esq., under which certain leasehold premises belonging to the defendant were seized, sold by auction, and bought by the plaintiff.—Mr. Roope having stated the case, put in the Rule of Court, and called Mr Edmund Carlyon, the present Under Sheriff, who produced the writ of fieri facias addressed (sic) the late Sheriff of Cornwall; and Mr. Roope then put in the indenture of assignment between the late High Sheriff and the plaintiff; and which indenture was proved by Mr. John Brewer of Truro.—Mr. Whitefield, the plaintiff’s attorney, deposed that he was present in June last when the Sheriff's officer, acting in execution, of a writ of fi. fa. seized the defendant's interest in the house mentioned in the writ of ejectment. Witness was concerned in the original action which had been referred to. He made the award in that case a Rule of Court and served a copy of it on the defendant, at the same time making a demand on him for the money sought.—The assignment by the Sheriff was then read. It was dated the 24th July, 1861, and stated that the levy was for a debt of £120 4s. 8d. together with costs and interest, and had been made on property of Benjamin Burt, in satisfaction of a sum which the Rule of Court had ordered to be paid to George Burt. The said George Burt became the purchaser at £45 by auction; and, in consideration of payment of that sum to the Sheriff, the dwelling-house and appurtenances in question were assigned by the Sheriff to the said George Burt.—The defendant made some unintelligible statements to the Court; but the learned JUDGE said this Court could not enter into the original dispute between the parties, but must assume that the Rule of Court was rightly granted; and that being so, the present case was, in effect, undefended.—The Jury therefore, by his lordship's direction gave a verdict for the plaintiff. CROWN COURT. TUESDAY, March 18. Before Mr. Justice BYLES. SABINA THOMAS, aged 34, a charwoman, pleaded guilty of unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child, at St. Teath, on the 6th January, 1862.—Sentence deferred. STEALING A MARE.—GEORGE RYDER, a horse-dealer, aged 55, and WILLIAM LAMBERT, labourer, aged 73, were charged with stealing a mare, the property of Mr. Thomas Kittow, at Lewannick, on the 20th December, 1861.—Lambert pleaded guilty; and the trial of Ryder proceeded on two counts—for stealing, and for feloniously receiving.—Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—The main question in the case was as to the identification of Ryder as the person who was with Lambert at the time the mare was stolen.—William Hawke deposed: l am a hind of Mr. Thomas Kittow, of Browda in Linkinhorne. Mr. Kittow has a farm called Bowden in Lewannick, about 8 miles from Browda. I live at Bowden. On the 20th December Mr. Kittow had a mare at Bowden—a dark bay, with three white legs, a white star on the forehead, and a long tail; she was 14 hands high and about 9 years old. At 9 o'clock in the evening of the 20th of December, I turned her out from the stable, and she went towards her watering- place in the yard; and from the yard she could get into a field. About 7 o'clock next morning I went to look for her and found she was gone. I next saw her at Stoke-in-ham, in Devon, on the 27th of January. She was easy to catch.—Samuel Pepperhill, a farmer living at Stoke-in-ham, near Kingsbridge. I bought the mare of Lambert on the 23rd December; she was brought to me on the 21st; I tried her on the 22nd, and I bought her on the 23rd. I gave for her £7 in money and a horse seven years old. I afterwards delivered up the mare to the policeman Draydon.—Samuel Chambers, a general dealer living in Launceston:—On Thursday the 19th of December I was going from Launceston to Plymouth, and was on the Callington road, about 17 miles from Plymouth. Persons going from Plymouth to Bowden would be on that road. I saw Ryder and Lambert there; I had known Ryder before; he lives at Plymouth; l am quite certain it was he; I had known him several years. It was between 2 and 3 o'clock in the afternoon when I met them. Bowden is about 6 or 7 miles from the place where I saw them. Lambert had a rope with him, and a little straw. I gave them the time of day, and passed on.—Cross-examined: The road they were on was also the high road to Launceston. To go to Bowden they would have to turn off, about three or four miles farther on, into a parish road.—Peter Wadge, a labourer working on Bowden farm:—About 12 o'clock on Friday the 20th of December, I was going home to dinner, and saw two men in Bowden town-place; there is a path through the town-place. I believe they were the two prisoners. In about a quarter of an hour afterwards, I saw the same two men "aiming" towards Bowden. There is a field belonging to Bowden called Bow Cliff; I had seen the mare sometimes in that field, but not on the night or day in question.—Cross-examined:—I did not see the men again till they were before the magistrates; I did not swear to them then, and I do not swear to them now.—Francis Spry, a servant of Mr. Dingle, of Le-mallow:—Between 11 and 12 o'clock on the night of the 20th December, I was on the road about a quarter of a mile from Bowden; it was clear moonlight; I saw two men and spoke to them; I can be sworn to Ryder being one of them; he spoke to me first, and I spoke to him. He asked me what o'clock it was, and said he believed it was between 12 and 1; but I told him I believed it was between 11 and 12. That was all that passed; they then went on towards Bowden, and I went the other way.—Cross-examined: I had never seen the man before in my life; but I have not the least doubt in the world it was the prisoner Ryder.—Thomas Westlake, a lad living at Trewen Mill, about a mile from Bowden. About half-past 11 on the morning of the 20th December, I was going onto Bowden gate, about a quarter of a mile off, and saw two men looking into Mr. Wadge's gate. They then came up against me. The younger one spoke to me; he pointed to Bowden gate and asked me whose farm that was; and I told him. I had a donkey with me, and he said it was a pretty little donkey; and he asked me where I lived, but I did not tell him. I cannot swear the prisoners are the two men, but I think they are.—Maria Hawke, wife of William Hawke:—I was near Bowden about half-past 12 o'clock on the 20th December. I was coming home from Polyphant to Bowden, and saw two men in the narrow lane one field off from Bowden farm. The two prisoners are the men. I spoke to them, and said good morning.—Richard Wadge:— I live with Mr. John Brown, at Tredinner, in Alternun. I was near Bowden farm, going from there to Tredinner about half a mile off, about 6 o'clock in the evening of the 20th December. I saw two men on the road, going towards Bowden, and about a quarter of a mile from it. I know that Lambert was one of them, but I cannot swear to Ryder. About 10 o'clock the same evening, I saw the same two men in the field called Bow Cliff.—William Friend, living at Ugborough. I saw Lambert on the 23rd of December at Ermington about half-past one o'clock in the afternoon. —It was proposed to examine Mr. Friend with reference to a horse deal at this time; but the learned Judge declined to admit evidence as to a sale or exchange of a third horse, by way of raising an inference that the man stole the first in a series of transactions.—Mr. BERE said his only object was to show connection between the two prisoners, and that one was acting as the other's agent. The evidence, however, was not admitted.—John Ackford, Serjeant of Devon Constabulary:—On the 28th of January the prisoners were in my custody in the charge room; and I heard a conversation between them. Lambert said, "I don't know what they can do to us; I bought the mare of the hind, and you saw me pay for it; they can't hurt us." Ryder replied, "aye, aye, that's right enough, but I wish I had never seen the mare at all." Lambert said "they can't hurt us; for you left Cornwall one way and I another." Mr. COLE submitted to the Court that the only question in the case being as to the identity of Ryder, the evidence was not such as to require him to go to the jury.—Mr. BERE admitted the infirmity of his evidence; and the learned JUDGE, concurring, directed a verdict of Acquittal.—His Lordship, however, addressing Ryder, said:—The verdict which the Jury have returned is a proper verdict on this evidence; but no person can have heard it without having a strong suspicion that you were concerned in the robbery of the mare. The prisoner Lambert was sentenced to Three Years' Penal Servitude. MANSLAUGHTER AT ANTONY.—JOHN SANDS, a labourer, aged 29, was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying Allan Julian, at Antony; and he was also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; Mr. Lopes the defence.—Thomas Taylor, a labourer employed at Tregantle Fort, deposed:—I was working at the Fort in December last, and lodged with the prisoner at the bar, who keeps a lodging-house there. Others lodged there with me. Among them was the deceased Allan Julian, who was about 28 years of age, and was working at the Fort as a labourer. In the evening of the 24th December, I was at my lodgings between 6 and 7 o'clock; there were ten of us there altogether, and among them the prisoner and Julian; we were all sitting in the kitchen, and, as it was Christmas Eve, Sands said he would give a treat to his lodgers, and he went to fetch some beer. One of the party drank only one glass, and then went to bed. The remaining nine of us drank four fetchings of beer altogether; between 8 and 9 quarts each fetching. Between 12 and one o'clock we could not get any more beer, and Sands, the prisoner, ordered us to bed, Julian made answer that he would not go bed. Sands said he should, and let the people in the next hut go to sleep. Julian again refused to go to bed, and Sands repeated that he should; on which Julian got up and knocked Sands's cap off; and they went out on the floor to fight. I stood up to prevent their fighting, and Julian knocked me down. Just as I was getting up again, I saw Julian fall to the ground. I did not see the cause of his falling. I helped Julian to bed, with Sands's cousin, and put some sticking-plaster on a wound on his temple, over the left eye; the wound was bleeding. Soon afterwards, we all went to bed—all sleeping in the same room. I got up between 6 and 7 o'clock on Christmas morning, and saw Julian still alive. During the day I and a cousin of his washed him and put on fresh sticking-plaster. I saw him alive for the last time about 10 o'clock in the night of Christmas-day. We all went to bed except John O'Connor, who stayed up, as Sands and his wife had gone to Plymouth early in the Christmas-day. About 7 o'clock in the morning of Thursday, the 26th December I went again to see Julian, and found that he was dead. On the Christmas Eve, when the row took place, I saw a poker by the fire-side.—Cross- examined. The prisoner and deceased had always been on friendly terms. The place was a small temporary hut, put up for the accommodation of the working men. I did not see any poker in the prisoner's hand; and I did not see him strike any blow. The deceased was in appearance a strong powerful man. The prisoner is a quiet man until he gets in drink, and then he gets very cross. The first fetchings of beer were given us by the prisoner, and after that we subscribed for more. The prisoner's hut is one of a row, and is separated from the next only by a slight partition.—John Sands, a first-cousin of the prisoner, gave evidence corroborative of the preceding.—William Currah, a police constable stationed at Antony. On Thursday the 26th December, I received information that induced me to go to Tregantle Fort. I went to the prisoner's house and saw the dead body of Julian, I made search for the prisoner in various places, but about 2 o'clock, I found him at his house, and in the room where was the dead body of Julian. I said to the prisoner, "Tis a bad job, Sands, and I must take you into custody on a charge of striking Allan Julian on the head with a poker, from which blow he died." Prisoner said "I did strike him with a poker." I then took away the prisoner into custody, and led him before a magistrate. I also took charge of the poker, which I now produce.—John Connor:—I live in the parish of Antony, and lodge with Sands the prisoner. I was one of the party drinking there on the Christmas eve, and remained there all the evening. I saw Julian fall to the ground; at that time the prisoner was sitting by the fire, and Taylor was picking up Julian. I was sitting by the fire, and some "tommy" (bread) on a shelf near me was knocked down; as I rose to pick up the bread, I found a poker lying near the door; it was like the one now produced by the policeman, and I put it down by the fire. At that time they were putting Julian to bed. I heard the noise when Julian fell, and I said it was a shame to strike the man with a poker. I was speaking to the party, and not to the prisoner in particular; but he turned round and gave me a clout on the cheek and told me to go to bed. I was the first person to find Julian dead; it was about 6 o'clock on the Thursday morning.—Cross Examined: I saw no blow struck, and did not see anything in the prisoner's hand.—John Anstis another labourer working at Tregantle Fort:—On the morning of Christmas-day, I crossed from Torpoint in the Ferry Bridge, about 7 or half-past 7 o'clock. Prisoner and his wife, and one or two of the lodgers were in the Ferry bridge; there was one lodger of Sands's, and one of mine; I keep lodgings in the same row of huts as Sands. While we were in the bridge I said to the prisoner that I had heard some words spoke about a row at his house the night before; and after we had got out of the Bridge, I asked him what it was; and he said he hit Julian a stroke with the poker on his head, and put him a kicking.—Charles William Chubb:—I am a surgeon living at Torpoint. On Friday the 27th December, I received an order to make a post mortem examination of Allan Julian; I received the order in the evening, and on the morning of the 28th I saw the body at Tregantle Fort. I found on the left side of the head, near the top, a lacerated wound about 3½ inches in extent, going to the bone and severing everything. I opened the head and found under the skull immediately corresponding to the injury on the outside, an unusually large clot of blood, producing great pressure on the brain, so that the brain itself was quite indented, the clot being so very large; which was no doubt the cause of the man's death. From the appearance of the wound, it might have been caused by a blow with a poker such as that now produced; and most probably, it might have been so caused.—Cross-examined. The wound might have been made with any kind of blunt instrument; I cannot fancy that it could be made by a broken plate or anything of that kind. A penny weight falling from a height might have produced the blow; but I do not think it could have been occasioned by the man's falling, unless from a very great height.—Mr. LOPES addressed the Jury in defence; after which the learned JUDGE summed up, and the Jury found a verdict of Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of the provocation he received:—Sentence, Six Months' hard labour. JAMES THOMAS MICHELL, a miner, aged 28, was indicted for maliciously placing upon and across the rails of the West Cornwall Railway, seventeen stones, with intent to obstruct, injure, or destroy a certain engine, carriages, trucks, and a tender, the property of the West Cornwall Railway Company, at Gwinear, on the 13th of February last; and in another count he was charged with intent to endanger the safety of persons travelling by the railway.—Mr. Cole, instructed by Mr. Cornish, conducted the prosecution; and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Prideaux, instructed by Mr. Commins.—The evidence in the case was, to a very large extent, that of footmarks of the prisoner and other persons found in the vicinity of the alleged malicious act: and the only supposed motive for the act alleged against the prisoner was a desire of revenge on a man named Masters, in charge of a crossing near the Gwinear Road Station.—James Masters deposed:—I am a gate-keeper in employ on the West Cornwall Railway, and am stationed at the part of the line, near the Gwinear Road Station, where there is a level crossing called the "Irishman's Crossing." Gwinear Road Station is on the south side of the line; and there is a small house there, containing one room only, in which I stay by day. The prisoner lives about a mile from the crossing, north of the line. The crossing is made with paved stones for the passing of carts; with some small space between the rail and the pitching. On each side of the lane opening on the crossing there was a gate. The prisoner works at East Alfred Mine, about 1½ mile south west of the crossing; and in going to his work from his home he would cross the crossing. There is a shorter way for him by passing on an occupation road that runs under the line at a short distance from the crossing, and then getting on to the line and walking on it to the Irishman's Crossing. I have known the prisoner go that way, but have always denied him. Prior to the 12th February last, some persons had been at work repairing a stone hedge near my crossing. I was there till half-past 8 in the evening of the 12th February, and at that time the crossing was safe; there were no stones on the line at the crossing nor near it; there was a wheel-barrow about three or four yards from the crossing, on the north side of the line, and close up to the hedge in the drain. The 1st train in the morning is the up-train, due at Gwinear Road about 10 minutes to 7; it is a passenger train, and it is my duty to be there before it passes. On the morning of the 13th of February, I got there about a quarter to 7; daylight was just peeping, and I had my lamp with me. Turning my light on the crossing, I saw a pile of stones on the south rail. They were large stones.—(The stones were here produced by Police Constable Armitage; and the witness, by request of the court, built them up in the same formal and artificial manner in which he found them built on and beside the rail. Each of the stones was about half the size of a man's head). Just as I observed the stones, I saw that the train was just in sight; I took off the stones as quickly as I could; I took off four, but had not time to take away the fifth before the train was close upon me. After the train had passed I saw that the fifth, or upright stone, had been knocked down by the train. The train went on safely, but just after she had passed, I heard a crash, and, going up the line, about 6 or 7 yards, I found other five (sic) large stones on the south rail, and two on the north rail. I found 10 stones on the south rail, and two on the north rail. I found marks on some of the stones where they had been struck and chipped by the wheels, and some of the stones were pressed into the ground. I removed them out of the way. It appeared to me that the stones had been taken from the hedging. I found the wheelbarrow in the same place where I had seen it the night before. I remember a man called Hill crossing the line at about ten minutes to 8. Previous to that I had seen that a spare rail which had been lying on the north side of the line, west of the station, had been moved nearer to the metal; it was a heavy rail and one man could not carry it, though he might lift one end of it. Hill came from the north side of the crossing, from the lane; I allowed him to pass over the crossing, but he did not pass up or down the line. About 8 o'clock, Armitage the superintendent of police, came, and we found footmarks on the line, coming down from the east towards the crossing, from the north to the south gate, and at the places where the stones had been placed; and Armitage examined them; and about 2 o'clock in the same day, Armitage compared the marks with some boots which he brought with him.—I had known the prisoner before this. I am a shoemaker, and I made him some shoes some time since, and had also mended shoes for him. He owed me 2s. 6d., and there was a dispute between us when I asked him for it; I told him I would put him in the Court, and he said if I did, he would do for me and have me turned out of my place before long.—Henry Armitage, superintendent of police on the West Cornwall Railway.—ln consequence of some information I received on the morning of the 13th February, I went to "Fishermen's Crossing," and Masters pointed out to me the stones which he had found on the rails, and described the position in which he found them.—The witness gave lengthy and minute evidence as to footmarks which he found at and near the places where the piles of stones were found, and on the line and beyond it to the prisoner's house; and stated that he observed footsteps of similar length, but less distinct, near the spare rail which had been partly lifted.—Witness then added:—l waited at the Gwinear Station till the afternoon, and between 2 and 3 o'clock I saw the prisoner come there. I told him I wanted him, and took him into the Station, and told him to sit down and that I wanted to see his shoes. He immediately said, "I know what you want me for; it is for taking the wheelbarrow off the rail." I asked him if he had taken any thing else off the line, and he said no. I and P.C. Williams then took off his shoes, and I took them to the Crossing, and found that the right shoe corresponded exactly with a mark on the south side of the line.—(The witness also gave evidence of comparison of the shoes with marks at various other parts of the line and neighbourhood; and also of his comparison of the shoes of a man named Hill who was on the line shortly before 8 o'clock, stating that Hill's shoes did not at all correspond with the impressions near the piles of stones or at other places where, he said, the impressions corresponded with prisoner's shoes. The examination as to footmarks occupied a considerable time; and Armitage afterwards stated that having completed his comparison of shoes and marks, he took prisoner into custody, and charged him with putting stones on the rails. Prisoner said if he had known it, he would have gone the other way—he would not have come on the rail; and he said he left his home between 5 and 6 o'clock; he had previously said he left it 5.—William Quintrell, a wedger, in the employ of the West Cornwall Company, stated that on the 12th of February, he was employed close to the Irishman's Crossing, and had a barrow with him. He left it on the north side of the rail, and next morning found it in precisely the same place, and with no footmarks near it. This witness also corroborated Armitage's testimony as to the footmarks.—By the Judge:—When he left the barrow in the evening of the 12th, the handles were turned towards the Irishman's Crossing; and next morning he found them in the same direction.—Charles Williams, one of the County Constabulary, gave evidence confirmatory of Armitage.—Isaac Hill: I am in charge of Trevast yard, the property of Mr. Treloar. I don't generally go on the rail and by the Irishman's Crossing, but, as it happened, I did so that morning; I went on by the rails, and then crossed the line by Masters' permission. I did not put any stones on the line; and I afterwards gave my shoes to the policeman.—Jude May, a sawyer working at Dolcoath mine; I go to my work early in the morning, leaving my house about 6 and getting to Dolcoath about 7; I go on through Lanyon, and am in the habit of meeting the prisoner. On the morning when the stones were said to have been put on the line, he was later than usual by about 10 minutes; I met him about 90 yards from Irishman's Crossing; I usually met him about Lanyon.—Richard White: I live next door to Masters, and about two months ago I heard a conversation between him and the prisoner at the watch- house near the Crossing. Masters threatened to put Michell into the Court for a debt; Michell said if he did, he (Michell) would be more than 40s. out of his way, and Masters said he would do the same by Michell— Cross-examined: They were both angry; one was as bad as the other.—William Williams, police constable:—l had charge of the prisoner on the 17th of February, after he had been remanded. When I took him his dinner, he began to speak to me about the bridge; he said it was not the timber bridge he came over, but that he came over the stone bridge on to the railway, and that as he went on the line he found a barrow on the rail, and he put it off on one side. I then said, "you heard two witnesses swear it had not been moved." He replied, "I did move it, and if I had known it I would have put it on the other side of the line." He then asked me what I thought would be done to him. I told him if he was found guilty, I had no doubt it would go hard with him. He said, "I don't know what they can do by me, for no one saw me put the stones there."—Henry Skewes:—I am a mine agent at East Alfred; the prisoner works there; he was a little late to his work on the morning in question.—Cross-examined:—He ought to have been there at 6, and he came at half-past. I asked him the reason of his being late, and he said he had been bad in his bowels during the night, and also twice during his walk to the mine. He has worked with us since September 1859, and I don't think that for peacefulness and quietness there is a better disposed man in the County. Mr. PRIDEAUX then addressed the Jury in defence; and the learned Judge summed up, stating that there was no doubt that a crime of great enormity had been committed by some one; but suggesting many points in favour of the prisoner's acquittal, particularly as to the evidence of footmarks; and the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The JUDGE, addressing the prisoner, said:—Michell, let this be a warning to you. I hope the verdict of the Jury is right. I have no reason to suppose otherwise. But you have had a very narrow escape. If you had been convicted, it is possible you would have suffered penal servitude for the term of your natural life. This ought to be generally known, in order that no person may again attempt such a crime. CHARLES LINCOLN, a hawker, aged 40, pleaded guilty of stealing printed books, and a piece of paper, the property of Edmund Carlyon and others.—He was also indicted for feloniously embezzling a sum of £48 received by him on account of Edmund Carlyon and others, on the 8th of July. The prisoner pleaded guilty to this indictment also, but added that he believed many books had been lost in consequence of having stalls at markets and fairs. MARY BASSET, a young woman of respectable appearance, pleaded guilty of unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her male child at St. Stephens in Branwell, on the 31st day of August, 1861. CHARLES WARN was indicted, as a servant of the Cornwall Railway Company, for stealing two bottles of brandy, the property of the said Company, at Liskeard, on the 8th of March, 1862.—Mr. Stock conducted the prosecution; and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Cole.—Thomas George Elliott deposed:—I am a porter at the good's station at Liskeard, on the Cornwall Railway. About 9 o'clock on Saturday morning the 8th of March, a goods train arrived at Liskeard; there was a truck attached to it, in which there was a deal case(produced) directed to the Rev. W. T. Podmore, St. Columb Major, Liskeard; from W. L. James and Son, wine-merchants, Exeter. I took this case of spirits from the truck about half-past 10 o'clock, and put it in the store room of the goods station; I locked the door and put the key into the booking office of the goods station, and saw the case there still—apparently in the same state as I left it, but I did not lift it. I again locked the goods store, and put the key in the same place as before. About 5 o'clock I took out the case, and put it on the platform to await the next Goods Train; and I again put the key in the booking office. I remained in the Goods Station till about ¼ past 5, and was not there afterwards.—Gibbon Rammell clerk in the Goods Department at the Liskeard Station:—On the Saturday afternoon in question I took the key from the Goods Office to the Passenger Office, and then went away. About 11 o'clock at night I was called up, and I went to the Passenger Station to see Mr. Rogers the Station Master. When I came to the Passenger Office I found that the key of the Goods Station was gone. Afterwards I went with Mr. Rogers to the Goods Station, and we found that the case of wine or spirits was not on the platform. We burst open the store room door, and saw the case lying on the floor, and on lifting it, I found that it had been opened, and two bottles taken away. There are two other entrances to the Goods Shed besides the door of which I had taken the key. There are double doors fastened on the inside with a bar; these doors were right on the Saturday morning, and as far as I knew, no person had afterwards opened them; but when Mr. Rogers and I went there between 1 and 2 on the Sunday morning, I saw that these doors had been opened, that the catch had been lifted, and that some barrels of gunpowder near the door had been moved. Soon after 11 o'clock on the Saturday night , when I went to the Station, I observed that his overalls, from his knees downwards, were dirted in a way that I should think could not have been owing to his ordinary employment.—Sampson Rogers, station master at Liskeard:—Warne, the prisoner, is a policeman in the service of the Company. He came on duty on Saturday evening the 8th of March, about ¼ past 9, and his time for going off duty would be 8 next morning. During that interval his duty would be to remain in charge of the Station, and to receive and dispatch four goods trains—two from the east and two from the west; and he would have access to the Goods Station for these purposes, and would be the only person in charge of the Goods Station for the night. In the Goods Station there is a store, the key of which is kept in the Passenger Office, and I saw the key there on the Saturday night, about ¼ past 9. If the prisoner had occasion to go to the Goods Store, it was in his power to take the key from the Passenger Office for the purpose, and he would be in charge of the Passenger Station as well as the rest of the Station for the night. I left him there at ¼ past 9, and came back to the Passenger Office between quarter and half-past 10; when I came there, I found I could not get in; the door was locked; I knocked at the window close by the door, thinking Warn was inside. I then went round the Station, jumped over the gate, and tried the inside door— the door by which passengers after being booked, are let out on the platform; and I found that door locked and the key gone; while the key of the outer door was on the inside. I called out to the prisoner, but could get no answer. I went down to the platform and walked to the eastern and western ends, calling for Warn, but could get no answer. Thinking he might have gone to the Stag Hotel close by, to look after a drunken passenger who had been placed there, I went there, but could not find him. I again went all over the Station but could neither see nor hear of the prisoner. At length I got into the goods shed by walking in over the line. I heard a knocking that appeared to come from the goods shed, but when I got there, I could see no one. I went towards the store, within the goods shed, and saw a light shining under the door. I tried to see who was inside, but the key being in the inside of the keyhole I could not look in. I knocked and said "open the door;" but there was no answer, and the light disappeared. I waited about 10 minutes, and then went to Mr. Littleton of the Stag Hotel to come down and watch with me till I could send for a policeman; Mr. Littleton came down with me, and I placed him at the door of the goods store. I returned up the road towards the Stag, and I met the ostler, who gave me some information, in consequence of which I went on the Bridge and looked eastward over the line, and I saw a lamp at the eastern end of the Station; I jumped over the gate, went on the platform, and met Warn near the eastern end of the passengers platform; he was coming from eastward and had a lamp. I asked him where he had been; he said he had been about his work; I told him that was impossible for I had been searching for him every where and could not find him. On our way to the station, passing up the stairs, I said some person has been into the goods shed and into the lock-up; and he said he knew nothing about it. I said you certainly must know, because no person but you could have had the key. He said he knew nothing about the key. He then took the key of the Passenger Station out of his pocket and let me in, and also the key of the inside door in the same way. When I got in I found that the key of the outer door was in the lock, inside. I then went to look for the key of the Goods Store, and found it was gone. The station was quite safe, and there was no appearance of its having been entered violently. I sent immediately for another of our policemen—Uren, and he came; and I also sent into Liskeard, and police-constable Humphreys came. After consulting some time, we broke open the door of the Goods Store, and when we got in we found the case as described by Rammill. I then gave the prisoner in charge. It would not be any part of his duty to go into the goods shed until after the arrival of a goods train.—ln Cross examination the witness stated that Warn had been in the service of the company about 2½ or 3 years; and since Christmas last, he had received from the Company a premium for good conduct. At the close of Mr. Warn's examination, the Court rose, and the remainder of this trial was postponed till next morning. TUESDAY, MARCH 18. (Before Justice Blackburn) HARVEY AND OTHERS v. TREDINNICK. CASE OF LIBEL. The following were sworn as the special jury in this case:—Messrs. Joseph Cowhay, John Freeman, jun., John Grey, merchant, Geo. Coath, Wm. Pearse, Richard Hocking, merchant, Edward Stocker, ditto, Wm. Henry Lanyon, ditto, James Hooper, R. Rooke Michell, ditto, Wm. Allen, and John Edwards. Counsel.—Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Buller, for the plaintiffs; attorneys, Messrs. Hodge, Hockin, and Marrack; Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Cole for the defendant; attorneys, Messrs. Greville and Tucker. Mr. BULLER opened the pleadings. The plaintiffs were the Messrs. Harvey and Co., of Hayle, and the defendant was Richard Tredinnick, of London. The declaration charged that the defendants published of and concerning the plaintiffs, two libels, one in a newspaper called the Mining Review, and the other the Times newspaper, imputing to the plaintiffs that they carried on their business in a fraudulent manner. To this the plaintiffs pleaded that they were not guilty, and also that they did not carry on their business in the way alleged. Mr. M. SMITH then stated the ease. The plaintiffs are the Messrs. Harvey and Co., who are well known in this county as manufacturers of steam engines and machinery in a large way. They are not only known in this county, where they supply steam engines and machinery required in working the mines, but throughout the world, their engines and machinery being employed in every country and every part where mining operations are carried on. Their business is an old one, having been established at Hayle for the last 70 years. The defendant, Mr. Tredinnick, is a mine broker and dealer in shares in London, and he is the publisher and proprietor, or part proprietor of a review or newspaper, called the Mining Review. It was originally and up to a late period a trade circular, but I believe it is now established as a regular periodical review. There is another firm at Hayle, that of Messrs. Sandys, Vivian, and Co., which also carries on business on an extensive scale as manufacturers of steam engines and machinery, and this firm, and that of Messrs. Harvey and Co., are the only parties at that place who carry on the manufacture of machinery, all the other persons in business being ordinary tradesmen. This action has been brought by the plaintiffs in consequence of a libellous article which Mr. Tredinnick published in his Mining Review, and in order to give greater circulation to the libel, he caused it to be published in the great organ, the Times, which has a circulation beyond all other newspapers. Of course, as you gentlemen know, the Times would circulate the libel through all the countries and in every place where Messrs. Harvey and Co. had relations, as well as in every place where they were not known. The article was calculated to do them serious damage—not so much perhaps in the eyes of those with whom they were acquainted, and to whom they were known, but in all parts of the world where they were not so well known. It is an article which you will see is calculated to do them great injury, for it attacks their honour and integrity as gentlemen and manufacturers and merchants in extensive business; and you will also see that it is impossible they could allow it to pass without notice. It was published in the Mining Review of the 31st July, last year, and the libellous matter occurs in an article giving an account of the mines of Cornwall. It commences in this way:—"The mines of Cornwall and Devon look well; there is no apparent falling off in the yield of copper or tin, although the profitable mines for the latter mineral are confined to Cornwall alone; in fact, that country yields nigh upon all the produce of Great Britain, and with the Dutch Banca, supplies the consumption of the whole world. The richest mine we possess is Dolcoath;" and then the article goes on to give a description of a number of mines, which I may pass over until we come down to a mine called "Great Vor," and here occurs the libel of which Messrs. Harvey and Co. complain. Great Vor sold tin for £3937 7s. 9d.; "this mine has mulcted the shareholders of £236,320. Great Busy, £78,000; returns, £3199 13s. 1d. of tin, in addition to copper. Great Alfred, over £70,000 subscribed, and no good results. Grenville, over £42,500. Unity Consols, £63,750; thus we have seen a sum absorbed of over £490,500 in five mines of market notoriety, all of which having been formerly abandoned should never have been again reworked, and all of which should, upon the earliest possible opportunity, again be abandoned as worthless, for neither will probably ever pay a dividend from actual profits, and were concocted and foisted upon the public solely by the merchants of Hayle, with reckless speculators in town, who alone have or ever will be advantaged through their existence as public companies. It is such conduct as has been practised in the creation of these companies that brings odium upon Cornish mining, which not only exhausts the resources, but disgusts capitalists, to the prejudice of the honest enterprise, and entails bankruptcy and ruin to all who unhappily embark." It then goes on to say—"In contradistinction to such we venture to select from the bona fide and intrinsically valuable properties that now sell at reduced prices, consequent on the stagnation in trade, reduced prices for metals, and high value of money in the market, the subjoined, all of which either pay at the present moment substantial dividends, or possess within themselves the true elements of success, being practically worked, and situate in recognised mineral districts.” You there see that there is a charge against the merchants of Hayle of having joined and leagued with reckless speculators in the metropolis to bring out and foist upon the public, for their own advantage and benefit, mines which they knew would prove ruinous to all who embarked in them. A stronger charge could not be made against any one. Whether the expressions were stronger than Mr. Tredinnick intended, I cannot say; but there is the charge. The plaintiffs knew that the imputation was not only untrue, but that there was not the slightest foundation for it. They knew that they had never attempted to bring out mines of this kind. They had, in common with other gentlemen in Cornwall, taken shares in mines; but they had never brought out any undertakings of that kind, or attempted to foist them upon the public. There were, as I have said, only two companies at Hayle to whom the statement could apply—Messrs. Sandys, Vivian, and Co., and Messrs. Harvey and Co., and the former took the same course that had been adopted by Messrs. Harvey and Co.—they challenged the defendant to the proof, by bringing an action against him; and in that action and in this action, he has not ventured to put upon the record any plea asserting that the charges are true. Mr. Tredinnick finding that the charge against Messrs. Sandys, Vivian, and Co., was unfounded, made, a short time ago, a retractation; and apologised to them for having published this libel; and he further intimated to them that the statement was not intended to apply to them. That being so, there can be no doubt—there being only these two firms in Hayle to whom it could refer—that if the libellous statement did not apply to Messrs. Sandys, Vivian, and Co., it must apply to Messrs. Harvey and Co. Mr. COLERIDGE—I think that this is the time for me to rise and state that the defendant having found that the charge contained in the article is incorrect, he is willing now to retract it, and to express his regret for having made it. The JUDGE—That being so, I think the course you propose is the most desirable mode of settling the case. It is not a case, in which as I understand, the plaintiffs seek to recover heavy damages. Mr. M. SMITH—Whatever my friend does, will, I am sure, be done in an open manner in court. If he wishes to interpose and to retract on behalf of his client, at this stage of the case, l am quite willing. The object of Messrs. Harvey and Co. in bringing this case into court, is to deny and disprove the imputation on their character, and to set themselves right before the world. To those who know them, the libel is of no importance, but as it has been circulated in places where they are not known, it is right that the defendant should be challenged to prove the imputation, and that if he cannot do so, that the contradiction, and the result of this trial, should obtain equal publicity. Mr. COLERIDGE—What I desire to say on the part of Mr. Tredinnick is this—he is, as my learned friend has opened, the chief proprietor of a paper called the Mining Review, and in that paper appeared this libel which has been read to you, and which it was intended to apply to Messrs. Harvey and Co., there being no other persons to whom it could apply. What I have to say on his part is, that he believed, and thought he had reason to believe, that there was a system practiced in Cornwall of opening out mines for the benefit of merchants; and he believed, and thought he had reason to believe, that this was part of a system carried on by Messrs. Harvey and Co.; and he believed, and thought he had reason to believe, that he had authority and was fully justified in publishing the statement in question. When, however, he came to examine what grounds there were for justifying the statement, he found that there was nothing which would bear him out in the charge against Messrs. Harvey and Co.; and finding that he had no evidence to support the charge, he is ready to act on my advice, which I should always give in such a case, to withdraw the statement, and to express his regret that he should ever have made the charge. If that will satisfy my learned friend, I am here to make this retraction and apology. Mr. M. SMITH—l understand from what my friend says, that Mr. Tredinnick has found out that there is no foundation for the charge he has made—that he expresses this in open court, and that he further expresses his regret that the charge should ever have been made. I also understand my friend to say that we shall take such a verdict at your hands as will carry the usual costs in the case. Now, the object of Messrs. Harvey and Co. in bringing this action was not to obtain damages from Mr. Tredinnick, but to place their character in a clear and proper light before the public. That being the case, I am not desirous of pressing you to award them, by your verdict, heavy damages; and although the retraction has come rather late, yet it shows that Mr. Tredinnick has been afforded the opportunity of sifting the charges and finding that they have no foundation. Of course, after this retraction, the public will be satisfied that there is no ground or justification for the charge, and the character of Messrs. Harvey and Co. will stand cleared before the world. Mr. COLERIDGE—l cannot object to the terms stated by my friend. Mr. Tredinnick made a statement which he cannot justify. The JUDGE—Gentlemen,—the defendant finds that he has made a statement which, on inquiry, he cannot justify. Now, it is perfectly clear that every one, before making and publishing a statement of this kind, should make every inquiry in order to ascertain if there is a good and sufficient foundation for it. Not having done so, the next best thing he could do, on finding that he cannot prove the charges, is to retract them and make an ample apology. The plaintiffs do not ask for any damages, having obtained the acknowledgment that the libel is not capable of proof, they are satisfied with the retractation and the apology which has been given. Therefore you will find a verdict for the plaintiffs, with costs. The jury then found a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages 40s. This being the last of the causes in the cause list, the court proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. RICHARD MINERS, on bail, was charged with stealing, on the 8th February, at Tregony, three iron tires, a tormentor, and a wheel-carrier, of the value of 10s., the property of James Lark. Mr. COX prosecuted; and Mr. STOCK defended the prisoner. The prosecutor, Mr. James Lark, is a farmer, living at Killiow, in the parish of Cornelly, and in the month of July last year, he had several tires and other portions of a tormentor, which he sent to Mr. Roberts, a blacksmith, in the neighbourhood to be repaired. Mr. Roberts on receiving the iron from Mr. Lark, deposited it in his yard; and a considerable time elapsed before any inquiry was made for it. On the 19th of December, the prisoner purchased from Mr. Roberts 5¾ cwt. of scrap iron. This iron was taken up and placed in a bag by the prisoner. A workman named John Griffin saw the heap which he had purchased, and he deposed that it did not contain any portion of the tormentor in question. The property was seen in the yard by Mr. Roberts about a fortnight previous to the prisoner's visit, and Griffin stated that he saw the iron in the yard a short time after Christmas. The property was missed in the early part of February, and on the 10th of that month, the prisoner took a portion of it and offered it for sale to Mr. William Miners, blacksmith, at Probus. The iron was not paid for at that time as it had not been weighed, and it was arranged that the prisoner should call and receive payment for it when he passed that way with some potatoes. On the same day, the prisoner took another portion of the tormentor, to Mr. Williams, a blacksmith, also living at Probus, and sold it to him. When the prisoner was apprehended, he said he had bought the property of a man named Trethowan. All the witnesses for the prosecution gave the prisoner a good character. The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY. Mr. Lark, the prosecutor, then voluntarily came forward and said that he had known the prisoner for many years, and had always found him strictly honest. Prior to this charge he had always borne an excellent character. Prisoner's father at the time of his death was in prosecutor's debt, and the prisoner voluntarily took upon himself the debt, and worked it off. He wished earnestly to recommend him to mercy. The JUDGE said that in consideration of the very excellent character the prisoner had received, he should only pass on him a very mild sentence—that of Three Weeks Hard Labour. JAMES RUNDLE, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing two linen shirts, at Stockeclimsland, the property of John Brown. Mr. Carter prosecuted, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Cox. Mrs. Charity Brown deposed that on the 17th of February, she washed two shirts belonging to her son and another man both of whom lived with her, and hung them out in the garden adjoining the house to dry. She saw them there safe with other linen in the evening, but next morning the two shirts were gone. The shirts were sought for at the prisoner's house which was near to the prosecutor's, and elsewhere, but had never been found; but at the bottom of the garden there were found two or three foot prints which had been made in some new earth, and on afterwards comparing the prisoner's shoes with these, they were found to correspond exactly both in size and the number and description of nails in them. Mr. Cox submitted that shoe marks was the least reliable evidence that could be given, and that the evidence against the prisoner was utterly insufficient to justify the jury in finding him guilty.—The jury Acquitted the prisoner. BURGLARY AT ST. ERNEY. HENRY COUCH, 44, a seaman, was charged with burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Thomasine O'Dogherty, at St. Erney, on the 8th or 9th of July, 1860, with intent to steal the goods and chattels of the said Thomasine O'Dogherty. Mr. Roope prosecuted, and the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor deposed that she lives at Treluggan, in the parish of St. Erney, and between the hours of eight and ten o'clock on the evening of the 8th of July, 1860, she closed her house as usual before going to bed. Her son, and brother, Mr. Henry Blake, slept at the house that night. Francis O'Dogherty, son of the prosecutrix, deposed that on getting up on the morning of the 9th of July, 1860, about eight o'clock, he found that two panes of glass had been broken in the staircase window, evidently from the outside. The window was too high from the ground to be reached, and a grindstone had been removed from another part of the yard, and placed under it, so as to enable the person who had made the attempt to break in, to reach the sash. The window was fastened with a common fastening, and in addition a nail had been driven into the sash, and the depredator had only been able to force up the sash about an inch, but had not suc- (sic) in effecting an entrance. P. C. Sleeman deposed to examining the premises the next morning. He found between the skirting and the sash part of the blade of a knife which had no doubt been broken in the attempt to prize up the window. P. C. Trenerry deposed to apprehending the prisoner on the 10th of July, on another charge. On searching him, he found upon him two keys and a clasp knife, the blade of which had been broken. On comparing the portion of the knife blade found by Sleeman in the window sash with the broken blade of this knife, they fitted exactly. Charles Blew, a labourer, at Landrake, deposed that between three and four o'clock in the afternoon of the 8th July 1860, he saw the prisoner about a mile from Treluggan, walking in the direction of the house of the prosecutrix; and Thomas Olver stated that about four o'clock on the morning of the 9th July, he saw the prisoner in Landrake, walking in the direction of Treluggan. Mr. HENRY BLAKE, being unable to attend from indisposition, his deposition before the magistrate was put in and read. In this he stated that he slept at his sister’s (prosecutrix) house on the night of the 8th July, and very early the next morning, he heard a noise as of some person walking about the house, and this was followed by the noise of glass breaking. The JUDGE said that the whole case against the prisoner depended on whether the piece of knife blade found in the window sash fitted to the broken blade of the knife found on the prisoner when apprehended. The Jury on comparing the broken portions of the blade immediately returned a verdict of GUILTY. The prisoner then pleaded guilty to three previous convictions for felony. The JUDGE said that it appeared the prisoner was tried and convicted at the summer assizes in 1860, when the facts of the present case must have been known to the police, and he wished to know how it was that this offence was then kept back. If it was known to the Judge then probably his lordship considered it in his sentence, and if so, then he should not again further punish the prisoner for the offence. P.C. Sleeman said that the prisoner was convicted at the assizes and suffered his sentence of imprisonment before he was charged with the present offence before the magistrates. The Prisoner said that the police knew of this charge when the previous one was brought against him; and when he was re-apprehended after his term of imprisonment, instead of being sent down to the assizes for trial, they kept him in the lock up at St. Germans for five days until the assizes were over, and the consequence was that he had been kept in prison eight months waiting for his present trial. The JUDGE said that considering the very long imprisonment the prisoner had endured—first, 12 months, and then eight months, he felt some difficulty in determining the sentence he ought to impose. Eighteen or twenty months' imprisonment was as long a term as any man should endure and after having been for so long a period in confinement, he felt that to sentence the prisoner to another long term of imprisonment would be a more severe punishment than a short term of penal servitude. A short term of imprisonment would not meet the justice of the case. He then sentenced the prisoner to Three Years' Penal Servitude,— the shortest term that could be given. STEALING A "VISGIE." JOHN BIRD, 40, was charged with stealing, in the parish of St. Ive, between the 21st and 24th December, a "visgie," the property of Edward Matthews. Mr. Holdsworth prosecuted. The prosecutor is a farmer living in the parish of St. Ive, and on the 21st December last, he was using the "visgie" along with other implements, in building up a hedge on his farm. This "visgie" proved a complete puzzler to the learned Judge, who, notwithstanding all his erudition, could make nothing of it; and neither the learned gentlemen for the prosecution nor any of his brethren, could afford his lordship any information on the subject. Their difficulty was very little removed by the prosecutor's explanation that it was something between a "mottock " and a "biddick." On leaving work on the evening of the 21st December, the prosecutor left the "visgie" in the hedge- bottom, and on returning to the spot on Tuesday, the 24th, it was gone. He searched about the neighbourhood for it, and about two miles from where he had left it, he found the prisoner at work with the missing article in his hand. On coming to the prisoner, he said—"Well, farmer, are you seeking your visgie?" To which prosecutor replied—"You're a pretty fellow, to take my “visgie” (Roars of laughter.) Prisoner said that the "visgie" had been "hand-delivered" to him; and he then handed it to prosecutor, who delivered it to P. C. King; and that officer obtained a warrant, and apprehended the prisoner at Delabole on the 13th January. The prisoner, in defence, said—that having broken his own "visgie," he had sent his children to try and borrow him one from his neighbours;—that they went out for that purpose, and afterwards returned with the prosecutor's "visgie," which he believed they had borrowed. He denied positively that he taken the "visgie" from the place where Mr. Matthews left it, and said that it was his intention to have returned it as soon as he had finished the work for which he had required it. The Jury returned a verdict, of NOT GUILTY. HOUSEBREAKING AT ST. BLAZEY. ELIZABETH RUNDLE, 28, who had been out on bail, was charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Jane Lucas, on the night of the 23rd November last, at St. Blazey, and stealing a silver watch, a pair of silver sugar tongs, a gold brooch, two gold nuggets, an American gold dollar, and a small mahogany box. Mr. LYNE prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutrix deposed that she was a widow, living at St. Blazey, and that she was in the habit of leaving her house every Saturday evening, and going to her married daughter's in the same town. She recollected Saturday evening, the 23rd of November, and that she left her house that evening between five and six o'clock. On returning home the next morning she found that a pane of glass had been broken in the kitchen window, and an unsuccessful attempt made to open it. She then examined the parlour window, and found that a pane had been broken in that also, and an entrance effected through it into the house. On proceeding upwards, she found that a chest of drawers in her bedroom had been prized open, and a small mahogany box, in which she kept a silver watch, a pair of silver sugar tongs, two small nuggets of gold, an American dollar in gold, and an old-fashioned gold brooch, had been stolen out of one of them. P. C. Bone deposed to having been sent for to examine the house of the prosecutrix, after the robbery. There were some small footmarks underneath the windows, apparently those of a woman. The prisoner was apprehended on the 27th of January, and she asked him who had given information of the robbery. He told her that it was Mr. Trewin, when she said, "he might have held his tongue—l did not think of hearing any more about it." John Trewin—l am a silversmith, and also keep a general shop at St. Blazey, and I recollect the prisoner coming to my shop on Friday, the 17th of January, for the purpose of exchanging a pair of boots she had bought there before. I agreed to exchange the boots, and after that, she asked me if I bought old silver or took it in exchange. I said that I did, when she she (sic) stated that she had some and that she would show it to me. She did show it to me, and I found it to consist of an old silver watch-case, and part of a pair of silver sugar tongs. I looked at the old silver, and it struck me that I had seen the sugar tongs before; but as there were several customers in the shop at the time, I served them, and after they had left, I told the prisoner that I thought the silver was part of what had been stolen from Mrs. Lucas, when her house was broken into. I think she remarked on this—"You do not say so—l found the silver." I retained the silver, and told her I would make inquiries, and if it was not Mrs. Lucas's, she should have it again. I afterwards found sufficient on the silver to satisfy me that it was Mrs. Lucas's having made out the initials of her name on one of the pieces. I saw the prisoner afterwards in the market place, and she asked me if I had seen Mrs. Lucas. I replied—that I had not, but I had seen sufficient to induce me to place the matter in the hands of the police, and about ten o'clock that evening, I met Inspector Fleet, of the county constabulary, and told him the circumstance. About a fortnight before this, the prisoner asked me if I ever bought gold, and on my telling her that I did, she offered me a gold American dollar, and two small nuggets of gold, and I exchanged some goods for them. I have the dollar among others at home, but I have disposed of the nuggets. Inspector Fleet deposed that on the 24th November, he received information of the robbery, and received the silver which he now produced, on the 18th January, from the last witness. On the following morning he went to the prisoner's house, and told her that he had received some silver from Mr. Trewin, and he asked her how she accounted for the possession of it? She said she had found it in the street opposite Waters's beer-house. He asked her if she had anything else in her possession, as he was going to search her house. She said she had nothing else, and that if he searched he would find nothing but what belonged to her. He then searched her house, and behind one of the flower-pots, in the kitchen window, he found the swivel of a silver watch. The prisoner said that she knew nothing about it, and did not know how it came there, unless her children had found it in the street. This swivel fitted the cases which Mr. Trewin received from the prisoner exactly. The prosecutrix identified one of the pieces of the silver tongs as her property by the pattern, and also by her initial upon it. The prisoner repeated the defence she made when before the magistrates, and on her apprehension, namely, that she had found the broken silver in the street wrapped up in paper, several weeks before her apprehension, and that as to the two gold nuggets and the gold American dollar, they were given her by her husband, who was now in Australia. The jury after consulting for a few minutes, found the prisoner NOT GUILTY. BURGLARY AT LISKEARD. JOHN PHILLIPS, 26, a carpenter, was indicted for having at Liskeard, on the 8th of April, 1861, burglariously broken into the dwelling-house of Richard Hosken, and stolen a bag containing a quantity of cards, and also a quantity of spirits. Mr. Rouse prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor is an innkeeper at Liskeard, and on the night of the 7th of April, Mrs. Hosken and her son fastened up the house before retiring to bed. Between three and four o'clock the next morning, they were disturbed by the police constable knocking, and on going down stairs they found the double doors next to the street, and the doors leading from the street to the bar, and from the street to the passage of the house, had all been opened. Some paper which had been placed round the bottom of the bar window was down, showing that the burglars had been there, and on further examination she discovered that a bag containing 60 dinner tickets and a number of grog tickets (being the tickets that had been used at a dinner at the house), and a bottle of gingerette from the bar window were gone, that the gin keg, in which Mr. Hoskin (sic) a few days before had placed six gallons of gin, and the brandy cask in which he had placed three gallons of brandy at the same time, were neatly empty, and that there was froth about the beer taps, as if beer had been drawn from them. On the 27th of July, police sergeant Ockford apprehended the prisoner on another charge at Stonehouse, and on searching him he found the key of his tool chest on him. He then went to St. Cleer, where the prisoner's chest was, opened it with the key, and inside he found a lot of the dinner and grog tickets that had been stolen from the prosecutor's house on the night in question. He charged the prisoner with the burglary, when he stated that he had found the tickets at Liskeard in the early part of the year. He gave the cards to P. C. Spry. P. C. Spry gave corroborative evidence, and added that on afterwards searching the prisoner's chest again, he found three door keys, one of which fitted the lock of the door leading from the beer cellar into the passage; another fitted the lock of the door at the head of the steps leading into the cellar. He apprehended the prisoner on the 20th Feb., and he then found in his possession a key that would unlock two of the drawers in the counter of Mr. Hosken's bar. The Prisoner, in defence, stated that he picked up the bag of tickets one evening while playing at skittles in Mr. Hosken's skittle alley, and it being dusk at the time, he put the bag in his pocket, and arriving at home he opened it, and ascertained that it only contained some dinner and grog tickets. As these were of no value, he tossed them into his tool chest and never looked at them after. He had been employed some time before to fit the locks of the doors in Mr. Hosken’s house with keys, and the key found by P.C. Spry in his possession might be one which Mr. Hosken's servant then let him have. As to the other keys found in the chest, they were some which he was collecting, persons in his trade being frequently called upon to fit locks with keys in the place of those which had been lost. He called the attention of his lordship, while he was summing up and stating to the jury that the keys found in the prisoner's possession would open the doors of Mr. Hosken's house, to the fact that not one of these keys would open the outer doors or let him into the house, and that the only mode in which it was possible for him to have got in was through the window, and there was no evidence to show that an entrance had been effected that way. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. PLEADED GUILTY. JAMES WESTLAKE, 18, a miner, of stealing at Calstock a watch and watch guard, the property of Edmund Howard.—Sentence deferred. JEREMIAH HASTINGS, 42, of unlawfully obtaining by false pretences the sum of 7d. from Cornelius Juliff, at Philleigh, on the 11th of January; and secondly, with obtaining by false pretences the sum of 4s. from Grace Lobb, at the same place, on the 15th of January, with intent to cheat and defraud them of the same. The false pretence of which the prisoner was charged was that of taking round the country a worthless composition, which he represented to be shipwrecked soap, and upon such representation inducing poor people to purchase it.—Sentence deferred. The Court, at the conclusion of the above cases, adjourned. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19. Before Mr. Justice BLACKBURN. WILLIAM SLEEP, a young man of respectable appearance, was indicted for stealing two fowls, the property of Thomas Moor, at Calstock, on the 15th February. In a second count he was indicted for feloniously receiving.—Mr. Carter conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Lopes the defence.—The prosecutor, it appeared, is a wheelwright living near St. Anne's Chapel, in the parish of Calstock. The prisoner went into his service on the 6th November last, and continued there at work until the 15th February. On his leaving, the prosecutor offered him a contract job if he would come for it on the following Monday, but the prisoner did not do so. The prosecutor had been in the habit of keeping a number of fowls; but at the time in question he had only three fancy fowls—a silver Poland cock, a Minorea, and the third was part Dorking and part Poland. They roosted in prosecutor's stables, and he was in the daily habit of meating them. He saw them safe in the stable in the evening of the 15th of February; and at half-past 10 the next morning when he went to meat them, he found they had been stolen. (Two of the fowls were produced in court and identified by the prosecutor). On the 17th of February the prisoner took the Dorking-Poland to Mrs. Hurrell, a farmer's wife at Durniford, in St. Ive, and let her have it for having kept a "stag," or young cock, for him; and on the same day this fowl was handed to police-constable Endicombe, by whom it was produced in court. Endicombe on the 19th of February, apprehended prisoner and charged him with stealing three fowls from the prosecutor; on which the prisoner replied "all right; no one has seen me with the fowls." The following morning, Endicombe went to Mrs. Warn's, at Woodcock Cottage, in the parish of South Hill, and she pointed out to him a black fowl (one of those which the prosecutor identified as his) which the prisoner had let her have.—Mrs. Emma Warn, being called as a witness, did not appear; and she was afterwards called on her recognizances. It was intimated, in her behalf, and to account for her non-appearance, that she lodged during the Assizes some four miles from Bodmin, and had not yet arrived in town.—The defence was in part an alleged alibi, and partly that the prisoner had bought the fowls of a man called Tucker. The evidence of alibi was given by a miner called James Sampson Lucas, of Callington, and by a brother of the prisoner, named Thomas Sleep; and it was directed to show that from 6 o'clock in the evening of the 15th February till nearly 12, the prisoner was in Lucas's company, first at the Forester's Arms in Callington, and then on a walk to St. Ive and Callington Newbridge, returning to the Forester's Arms; and that after that time, and before 12 o'clock, the prisoner was at his father's house and there went to bed.—The other witnesses for the defence were, Mrs. Harriett Keast, the landlady of an inn at Callington New Bridge, at which the prisoner was alleged to have been in the evening of the 15th February; and, to account for the prisoner's honest possession of the fowls by purchase, John Butler, a smith, residing at Callington, James Tucker, a wheelwright, and Silas Bone, a mason.—This unimportant case, in consequence of the defence set up and the energy with which it was contested, occupied the Court more than two hours, and resulted in a verdict of Guilty. WILLIAM SLEEP was again indicted for stealing a hen, the property of William Mitchell, also living at St. Anne's Chapel, at Calstock, on the 5th of February. The fowl in this case was a Golden Poland, one of four fowls belonging to the prosecutor. In this case there was no count for felonious receiving; and the proof being that the fowl was lost on the 5th of February and not disposed of by the prisoner until the 17th, his lordship suggested that that length of time might be considered sufficient to induce a presumption that he might have come by the fowl honestly, without his being called on to account for his possession of it.—On this charge, the Jury found a verdict of Acquittal. The prisoner was then sentenced. His Lordship said he could have no doubt that the prisoner was cognizant of the defence which had been set up for him, and which was of a nature greatly to aggravate the original offence. The defence, in fact, involving perjury, was much worse than the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted. But it was a rule which his lordship had laid down for himself, that the conduct of a defence ought not to be weighed against a prisoner in sentencing him. The prisoner would therefore be sentenced only for stealing fowls; without any regard to the greater offence of which his lordship could not but believe the prisoner had been guilty—that of inducing persons to come here and give false evidence. His lordship then passed sentence of Two Months' hard labour. This prisoner was a fowl-fancier, and kept fowls, chiefly, if not wholly, for competition; and he was proved to have won one, if not more prizes. While the case was in progress, Mrs. Emma Warn, who had been called on her recognizances, made her appearance; and when the case was concluded, she appealed to his lordship; who, after listening to her explanations and apologies, said that under the circumstances and that as the case was the first called, he would promise her that no fine should be imposed or other steps taken; but witnesses should be careful to be in attendance when their cases were called on. JOHN HALLS, a lad, was charged with stealing three fowls the property of Robert Allen, a farmer living in the parish of Linkinhorne, on the 7th January.—Mr. Carter conducted the prosecution; Mr. Roope the defence.—It appeared that on the 7th of January, the prosecutor had 11 fowls, and that on the following day he missed three of them. On the same day, according to the case for the prosecution, the prisoner sold three fowls, which he was carrying in a bag, to a Mrs. Cory, a regrater in Callington market. Mrs. Cory remembered having bought a lot of five fowls of a man, but she could not swear he was the prisoner, she having bought on the same day a great many fowls from various persons. Her impression was that the man who sold her the five fowls had on blue clothes and a cap; but whoever the man was, he went with her to Mr. Johns, the taker of tolls, and paid the tolls on the sale.—Mrs. Amelia Timewell was talking with Mrs. Cory at the time of the sale, and she was positive that the seller was the prisoner; but she had not known him before and had no particular reason for noticing him then, except that seeing the fowls were in a bag, she smiled and said she never saw fowls brought to market in a bag before; on which he replied that he did not like to be seen carrying them in a basket. Then, Jane Cory, who was also in the market stated that she saw the prisoner walk up through the market behind Mrs. Cory, said she saw him put something into the hand of Mr. Johns, the toll-taker; but Jane Cory stated that the person whom she saw do this had on a black coat and light trowsers, which was inconsistent with Mrs. Cory's evidence.—Police Constable Marshall produced three fowls, which he obtained from Mrs. Cory, and they were identified by the prosecutor and his brother.—Verdict, Not Guilty. WILLIAM JEFFERY, a labourer, aged 28, was indicted for stealing a bag, the property of Elizabeth Martin, at Marhamchurch, in the month of June last.—Mr. Gurney conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Not Guilty. MARY JANE CLEMO was indicted for unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her male child, at Liskeard, on the 11th of August, 1861.—Mr. Arundel Rogers conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Prideaux the defence.—The prisoner was of respectable family, and the case presented the peculiarity that since the birth of the child, its father had honourably married her, and now appeared with her in court, bestowing on her throughout the long trial, the most kindly and affectionate attentions. She was also attended and comforted by her father—a member of the Society of Friends;—and both in her deep distress of mind and apparent weakness of body, she evidently needed all the solace and support that was administered to her. Her sister, Elizabeth Ann Clemo, who gave important evidence in the case, was scarcely less agonized than was the unfortunate prisoner herself; and much sympathy and commiseration was shown for the distressed family by all who were concerned in the trial and by most of the spectators. Many of the more important details of evidence are wholly unfit for publication; and therefore our report must necessarily be to a great extent incomplete.—The first witness called was John Spry, a constable of Liskeard. He deposed that, in consequence of some information he had received, he went to the house of prisoner's father in Pound Lane on Friday the 23rd of August, and asked her if she had heard the report that was in circulation about her, out of doors. She said she heard it the previous night, and that it was not true. He said he supposed she would have no objection to let a medical man examine her, and she said she had not. Witness remained there about an hour, and before he left, Dr. Prideaux and police constable Humphreys came to the house. Witness had known the prisoner six or seven years; she told him she was about 26 years old; and she resided with her father and sister only. After Mr. Prideaux had left the house, witness charged her with having been confined of a child and concealing its birth. She said she had been delivered of something, but she did not think it was a child—that there was no one with her at the time but her sister—and that whatever it was her aunt had come from Plymouth and carried it away, on the Tuesday week before. She told him where her aunt lived in Plymouth, and witness went to Plymouth and saw the aunt, who readily gave him all information, and came back with him next morning to Liskeard. Had known the prisoner and her family for the last 7 years; they were very respectable, and so was the young man who had married her.—Elizabeth Ann Clemo, a younger sister of the prisoner, gave evidence of the birth of the child in the night of the 10th of August; the witness and the prisoner having slept together. Witness wrote to her aunt in Plymouth who came down on the following Tuesday, and in the evening went back to Plymouth, taking with her a paper parcel in her carpet bag. Witness stated that she did not see what was in the parcel; but she admitted that when she afterwards went upstairs, that which her sister had given birth to was not where it had been.—Cross examined. Had not been aware, previous to the birth, that her sister was in the family way. Witness wrote to her aunt, because she did not like to tell her father. While her aunt was at the house, her sister was very ill; and witness said “tis no use to conceal it further; I may as well tell you, aunt, that sister has had child."—Jane Duckham—a widow residing at Plymouth, and aunt of the prisoner:—I went to Liskeard on the 13th of August, having on Monday received a letter from my niece requesting me to come down. I found Mary Jane in bed; I asked her how she was and whether she had taken the medicine and put on the blister; she said she had not, and I reproached her for not doing as the doctor ordered. Elizabeth Ann afterwards said to her “my dear, aunt must know it, and she may as well know it first as last,” and she then told me that Mary Jane had had child. I asked whether it was living or dead, and Elizabeth said it was dead born; she also said that their father knew nothing about it; and that she did nothing for the child, for she did not know what to do; afterwards, we all three had some tea down stairs; and I asked what was to be done with the child: and Elizabeth replied, that's what we want you for. The subject then dropped, and nothing more was said about the disposal of the child. After tea I went upstairs again; Elizabeth Ann went up with me; she told me where the child was, and I went and took it up and wrapped it in a flannel petticoat and paper. At that time Mary Jane was down stairs. I put the parcel in my carpet-bag and took it away with me to Plymouth, and there threw the parcel over the wall at the back part of my house. Mary Jane was engaged for some time to the young man who has married her. She never told me she was in the family way; but baby clothes were found afterwards.—Cross-examined: What I did was what I considered best, in my judgment.—John Valley, a police constable, of Plymouth, on the 14th of August, went to Yeo's manufactory close to the back of Mrs. Duckham's house, and there found a child, which he took to the Guildhall; there was a post-mortem examination, and an inquest.—John Nicholl Stevens, surgeon, of Plymouth:—On the 14th of August last, at the request of the Coroner, I examined the body of a male child which I received from last witness. It was a very fine, full grown child, and I considered it had been recently born; it had no mark of violence or injury of any kind; the umbilical cord had been divided apparently with some sharp instrument, but not tied; on my opening the chest, I found that the lungs filled the entire cavity; and, from the experiments I tried on them, I am of opinion that perfect respiration had been established, but I cannot swear that the child was born alive.—Cross-examined. The appearances I observed were consistent with the child's not having been born alive. I have no doubt that it frequently happens that women are suddenly delivered under circumstances such as have been referred to in this case; and I think it is possible—a bare possibility—that a birth may so take place without the mother knowing it.—Alfred Prideaux, surgeon, of Liskeard:—On Friday the 23rd of August, I examined Mary Jane Clemo, and came to the conclusion that she had either had child, or had been the subject of abortion; but I rather judged that she had had child, and at that time I was of opinion that it was only a 5 or six months' child. When I went to the prisoner, I asked her if she was willing that I should examine her; at first she said she would rather have her own medical man, Mr. Hingston, but afterwards she quite consented to my examining her. After having done so, I accused her of having given birth and said she might as well tell me the truth at once; she then said she had something come from her, but she did not know what it was and had never seen it.—Cross-examined. It was possible that, whatever it was, it might have passed from her without her knowing it. It frequently happens that an inexperienced woman may be mistaken in her time to the extent of two or three months.—Re-examined. I should think it would not be possible to give birth to a full-grown child without knowing it.—Mr. PRIDEAUX, who spoke with considerable emotion, made an able and energetic address to the jury. He suggested that it was by no means clear that, at the time of the interviews with her aunt, the prisoner's mind was capable of taking in what was said or done by the aunt and sister; but, even assuming she did understand it all, the circumstances proved would not show an intention to conceal the birth of the child, either on the part of the prisoner or her sister. They were only desirous not to publish the birth to the whole world, and delicacy prevented their communicating it to their father; the sister therefore properly communicated with the aunt—not inviting her down for the purpose of concealing the birth, for it appeared the aunt did not know of the birth until after she had seen her nieces at Liskeard; and it was also proved that whatever Mrs. Duckham did, for disposal of the child, was done on her own independent judgment, and not on any suggestion from either the prisoner or her sister. If entire concealment of the birth had been the object of the prisoner and her sister, the latter might easily have effected it, seeing that there was no other female but themselves resident in the house, and as the father knew nothing of the birth. To him it appeared as if the sister had, as it were instinctively, done that which would ensure knowledge of the birth by the members of her family, without publishing it to the world,—which was not required by the statute; it was not even legally necessary that the girl's father should have been informed of the birth.—The learned counsel adverted to one or two points in the case which he said proved the prisoner's delicacy of feeling; and added that if she had not been a girl of general propriety of conduct, she would not have become the wife of him who had acted so honourably by her, and was now treating her so affectionately. It was clear that, in the unhappy condition in which she found herself, she had—assuming that she knew all that was said by her aunt and sister—placed herself unreservedly in their hands, and that she would have sanctioned any mode of making known the birth, to her father or to any other proper person, which the aunt might have suggested. The learned JUDGE summed up, directing the attention of the Jury, mainly to the two questions, whether the prisoner was a party to what was done; if so, whether that was done with the endeavour to conceal the birth. He did not think that the way in which the child had been disposed of in the first instance by the sister would have amounted to an endeavour at concealment, even if that had been done by the prisoner. But undoubtedly the taking the child to Plymouth and throwing it over the wall was an endeavour at concealment; and it would be for the Jury to consider whether that was done with the cognizance of the prisoner. Then, the writing to the aunt would not be an attempt at concealment, if it was merely intended to inform a relative of the birth, without publishing it, to the world—which the statute did not require; but if the aunt was written to that she might come down and assist in the secret disposal of the body, that would amount to an endeavour at concealment such as would satisfy the indictment, supposing the prisoner had cognizance of such a letter. The expression, however, made use of after the aunt had come down—"my dear aunt, you may as well know it first as last—sister has had child"—did not look as if the aunt had been sent for in order to take part in a concerted scheme for the disposal of the body. His lordship thought the conduct of the aunt had been very injudicious; it would have been far better that the child had been properly buried, and it was much to be lamented that that course was not adopted. But erroneous conduct on the part of the aunt would not make the prisoner guilty, unless it was with her cognizance and consent. The jury, after about five minutes consultation, returned a verdict of acquittal. The prisoner left the dock, supported by her husband; and her sister and aunt ceased not from their weeping. JANE HEADLEY, a charwoman, aged 40, was charged with unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child, at Falmouth, on the 13th December, 1861. Mr. Cox conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—The prisoner lived with a Mrs. Elizabeth Anderson, by whom evidence was given on the charge; and other evidence was given by a woman named Eliza Goodman, and by Mr. Guppy, surgeon.—As in the previous case, the trial resulted in a verdict of acquittal. The jury were then discharged.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY. Before Mr. Justice BYLES. The trial of Charles Warne was resumed. James May, ostler at the Stag Hotel, deposed to seeing on the night in question a person dressed in black come out of the goods shed at the other side, and cross the line near to witness. He thought he looked shorter than the prisoner. Henry Uren, police officer at the Liskeard Station, deposed that prisoner relieved him at nine o'clock that evening. Richard Humphreys, police constable for Liskeard, deposed to being called to the station that night, at twelve o'clock, and finding the door of the goods station locked. They broke it open, and found the case of spirits inside broken open; observed footmarks, which were traced next morning from the western end. Mr. Tenant, assistant engineer, produced a plan of the line, and Humphreys pointed out the direction of the footmarks. They made a search, and in a drain found a can which prisoner said was his, and a jar containing sherry wine. Prisoner's boots corresponded with the marks. Searched the store in the morning and found two bottles of brandy like those in the case concealed in the roof. Mr. COLE for the defence contended that the prosecution had been unfairly conducted, in that everything was stated that told against the prisoner, and everything in his favour suppressed. He suggested how the robbery might have been committed, by the man whom May saw. Prisoner's footmarks were found where he went every day in the discharge of his duty. The Judge summed up the case as one of indirect evidence depending on a great number of minute particulars. He went through them pointing out where they bore on the prisoner. On the other hand, prisoner bore a good character, and only a fortnight before, had received a premium from the Company for diligence alone. The Jury, after an absence of half an hour, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. FRANCIS SODDY, 58, indicted for a rape, was acquitted under the direction of the Judge, without going into the evidence. CHARLES PASCOE, who had been out on bail, was convicted of an indecent assault on a child six years old, and sentenced to four months hard labour. WALTER JAMES, indicted for administering to Mary Bassett drugs with intent to cause miscarriage, escaped, the only evidence being that of the girl, who could not be examined because of implicating herself. The child was born alive, and Mary Bassett had pleaded guilty to a charge of concealment of birth. The Judge impressed on James the duty of making reparation to her, and sentenced her to a fortnight's hard labour. CHARGE OF SHOOTING WITH INTENT TO MURDER. HENRY SPETTIGUE, 28, was arraigned upon the charge of having on the 22nd October, at St. Mary Magdalene, Launceston, feloniously shot at Ellen Burt with a revolver pistol, with intent to kill and murder her. A second count in the indictment charged him with feloniously shooting with intent to do her grievous bodily harm. The case, on account of its serious and extraordinary character, and the respectable position of the parties, excited considerable interest, and the court was crowded during the trial. Miss Ellen Burt, at whom the prisoner was alleged to have fired the pistol, is a young lady of considerable personal attractions, and she gave her evidence with great propriety, and in a very lady-like manner. She appeared to feel most keenly the painful position in which the prisoner had placed her and himself, and during the trial she wept very bitterly. The prisoner, who did not appear to be a person of very strong intellect, has evidently moved in a very respectable position. On being arraigned, instead of pleading in the usual form, he said—l believe I fired the pistol, but I really could not help it;" and once or twice he contradicted the witnesses. Mr. Gurney conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Cole defended the prisoner. Mr. GURNEY in stating the case, said it was of great importance, not merely to the family to which Miss Ellen Burt belonged, but the public at large, and, therefore, he considered that he ought not to occupy the time of the jury at any great length before he submitted the evidence in support of the charge. He then stated the facts of the case for the prosecution as they are deposed to by the following witnesses:— Miss Ellen Burt—l am the daughter of Mr. Charles Nation Burt, and live in the parish of St. Stephens by Launceston. My father is a saddler and keeps the White Horse Inn there. I have known the prisoner from a boy. He used to live near us. He has lived in St. Thomas’. He used to come frequently to my father's house; and he has endeavoured to pay his addresses to me, I refused him. He offered me a letter on one occasion, and other presents, but I refused them. I recollect the 22nd of October going to Launceston in company with my sister. We passed through South Gate-street, to Mr. Smith's the confectioner's. We then returned through South Gate-street, towards the town. I saw the prisoner come out of Mr. Maddox's shop. He came towards my sister and myself, and when he had passed us, I heard a tremendous report. I turned round, and saw a pistol in his hand. I said something to my sister. I went home immediately, and on afterwards examining my dress, I found several holes in it. (The dress was produced, and the witness pointed out 14 holes in it.) There are also seven holes in my mantle. The dress was looped up, and the mantle came down to about a quarter of a yard of my petticoats. After I had been at home a quarter of an hour, the prisoner came to the house, and said he wanted to see my mother. My brother was in the parlour with me, and he took the prisoner and put him out. I heard the prisoner say "I do not know what I have done—I might have killed any one." I was at a lecture in Launceston on the evening of the 21st of October, with a gentleman to whom l am engaged. The prisoner was there, and he was near enough to see both me and him. He did see me. Cross-examined—He did not shake hands with the gentleman. He has met me with him many times, and has sometimes said "Good morning" to the gentleman on passing. The gentleman has always spoken first, and sometimes the prisoner did not answer occasionally. I have not met the prisoner for a week or more, as some weeks I do not go out. He has never spoken to me unkindly. These holes were not in the dress when I put it on on the 22nd. The prisoner was very much excited when he came to the house after he had fired the pistol, and said it was all an accident—that he might have killed somebody else, and he had fired the other bullets down the lane, but he did not say he had done this to prevent accident. Miss Lucy Burt was the next witness called. She deposed to accompanying her sister, the last witness, to Launceston on the 22nd Oct., and generally corroborated her evidence. William Kent, a boy about 15, deposed to seeing prisoner fire the pistol. He held it pointing at her. He was between two and three yards from the young ladies. Mrs. Elizabeth Burt—wife of Mr. H. J. Burt, saw the prisoner after the Misses Burt returned from Launceston. He came to my house. He appeared very excited, and said—"Good God! what have I done— people will now say that I have shot Ellen Burt." I said, "I hope you have not been shooting at Ellen," and he said—"that in taking a pistol out of his pocket it went off. He remained a long time in an excited state. I asked him what he had done with the pistol, and he said it was in his pocket. I said he might as well give it to me to prevent accident; and he gave me it. I did not know what had then happened, and I went across to the White Horse to see. The police afterwards came to my house, and I gave them the pistol. The prisoner said he might as well give himself up to the police. Cross-examined—He did not say he had not shot her, but that it was an accident. He did say he was taking the pistol out of his pocket to see whether there was a cap on it, and it went off. He said it was Maurice Pearse's (sic) pistol—he wished he had given it to him the night before, when he asked him for it, and that he had fired the remaining shots down Redgrove-lane. He had been turned out of the house of Miss Burt's father, and they were keeping him out. Maurice Pearce, clerk in the Cornwall Bank, knows the prisoner very well, and lent him the pistol. Saw him on the evening before Oct. 22, and asked him for it, when he said he would clean it and bring it to witness. On cross-examination, he said the prisoner was a harmless quiet person, and that these pistols are very easy and go off at the slightest touch. Mr. Charles Nation Burt.—I am the father of Miss Ellen Burt. I had some conversation with the prisoner about my daughter some years ago. He asked me if I had any objection to let him have Ellen, and I said I had a very decided objection. This was all that passed. Mary Ann Stacey, formerly servant with prisoner's father, Miss Margaret Martyn, of St. Stephens, and Henry Hortop, dairyman, formerly in the service of prisoner's father, deposed to having heard the prisoner use threats against Miss Burt and her family. They were however some time ago, and Hortop, who had been prosecuted by prisoner's father, shewed a strong adverse feeling in his evidence. Mary Grigg deposed to a conversation she had with prisoner after he was in custody. He said that he went into Mr. Maddox's shop, and as he passed the door on coming out, he thought within himself that he would shoot her. P. C. Thomas Richard—l was stationed at St. Stephens, on the 23rd October. I recollect the last witness coming to see the prisoner. I cautioned him as to what he said. He said—“Oh, God! it is a matter of course; if I had shot her I should be hung, and now I suppose that I shall be transported for life.” He said that as he came out of Maddox’s shop, he passed her, and he then took a pistol out of his breast pocket, and made a level at the girls. Which of them he struck he could not tell. He said when he passed her, something struck him—"shoot the bitch for the devil”; that after he had done so, something struck him as if people were laughing at him, that he then went down the bill, and fired off the pistol opposite the Trist’s linhay. P. C. Edward Barret produced the cape which he received from Miss Burt the same evening, after she was fired at. Inspector Fleet deposed to taking the prisoner into custody on the 22nd October. He said—before I could caution him,—"Good God! That this should have happened! After what has previously taken place every one will think and say that I did it purposely, but it was quite accidental. I was taking the pistol out of my breast pocket to see if there was any caps on, and it went off.” I then charged him with shooting at Miss Burt with intent to murder, and he again said it was quite accidental. Cross-examined—He also said: “I had no intention to shoot Miss Burt—I might as well have shot anyone else as her. I was going out to Lawhitton Downs to practise. I borrowed the pistol of Maurice Pearce, and intended to return it that night.” George Burt deposed to the prisoner coming to his father’s on the 22nd, after his sister had been shot at. He said that he was taking it out of his breast pocket, and it went off accidentally. Mr. COLE then addressed the jury at great length in defence of the prisoner. He characterised the course that had been adopted by the prosecution as most unfair towards the prisoner, in having kept back the evidence of Miss Grigg and police constable Rickard from the prisoner, his attorney, and the counsel who defended him, till that moment, and he submitted that it was not entitled to credit, because had the expressions to which they deposed been really uttered by the prisoner, they would not have withheld their evidence when the case was heard before the magistrates. He then reviewed the evidence, and submitted that the whole probabilities of the case showed that the prisoner had no intention to shoot or injure Miss Burt—that his first and last statement that the pistol had gone off accidentally, was the correct one. Had he made up his mind to commit the diabolical crime of murdering her, he had for years had opportunities of doing so almost daily. The prisoner was the victim of circumstances, first, in this pistol accidentally going off, and next in evidence being brought against him at this trial which he had no opportunity of meeting. The Judge, in summing up, reminded the Jury of the responsibility that rested on them, for if the prisoner was found guilty the sentence must be very severe. He then recapitulated the evidence—on the one hand that of Mrs. Burt, of young Burt, Kent, Inspector Fleet, Miss Grigg, Miss Martyn and Rickard, that the act was intentional; and on the other hand, the fact that had he intended to kill her he might have made sure work with the other barrels. The Jury after twenty minutes or half an hour’s deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of firing the pistol with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but recommended him to mercy on the ground that he was in a very excited state when he fired, and the Judge, after some severe comments, sentenced him to penal servitude for twenty years. The announcement of the sentence excited a very general shudder among the spectators in court. The prisoner, on hearing the sentence, said—"Better be hung at once than this.” He then added—"I hope no one will go away with the idea that I have any feeling of revenge against them.” As he was leaving the dock, he said—"l could not have helped it to save my life. This concluded the business of the Assizes. ______MAGOR v. STEER; and STEER v. MAGOR.—These were cross-actions, entered on the Cause List, but which did not come for hearing. Early on Monday morning, the parties by their counsel and attorneys, appeared before Mr. Justice Blackburn in Chambers. We are informed that the learned JUDGE said it was impossible that justice could be done in the matter by trial by jury, as the case was clearly one of account, for reference; and he suggested whether, in order to avoid further delay and expense, the parties might not come to an agreement.—This suggestion was adopted; and we understand the following terms were agreed to:—Col. Steer to abandon his claim against Mr. Magor, and to pay him £80, and to take a lease of the premises for a term of years at an increased rental, £45; each party to pay his own costs.—Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Cole, were counsel for Col. Steer; attorney, Mr. Trythall.—Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon, counsel for Mr. Magor; attorneys, Messrs. Roscorla and Davies.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 11 April 1862

3. Easter Sessions These sessions were opened at the County Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday, the 8th instant, before the following Magistrates:—

Chairmen:—J. J. ROGERS, ESQ., M.P., presiding C.B. GRAVES, SAWLE, Esq. The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe. R.G. Lakes, Esq. Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend W.R.C. Potter, Esq. Boscawen. F.M. Williams, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. R.B. Kingdon, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. J.K. Kinsman, Esq. C.L. Cocks, Esq. J. Haye, Esq. E. Collins, Esq. E.C. Roberts, Esq. C.G.P. Brune, Esq. Rev. Prebendary Tatham. F.J. Hext, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. Thomas Hext, Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. J. Glencross. F. Howell, Esq Rev. C.M.E. Collins. R.G. Bennett, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. W. Michell, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. Neville Norway, Esq. At the opening of the Court, Mr. COODE, the much esteemed Clerk of the Peace and County Treasurer, addressed to the Bench some observations which were inaudible to the Reporters in the disadvantageous position which has recently been assigned them. The purport of these observations may, however, be inferred from the remarks which were afterwards made by the Chairman and other magistrates. The CHAIRMAN: I think I may without presumption state on the part of the Bench, that they receive with regret your announcement of retirement from the office of Treasurer of the County, which you have filled for so many years with great credit to yourself and with much benefit to the public generally. I am sure that the Court will readily take the necessary steps, as soon as possible, to meet your wish for retirement by the appointment of a successor. That will, however, require notice in formal manner, for consideration at the ensuing Sessions; we could not take any steps at the present sessions; but we will take care that proper notice be given with regard to the announcement you have made, that you have found it necessary from the advice of your medical man, and in compliance with the request of your family, to appoint a Deputy to act for you as Clerk of the Peace, that, I believe the Court will feel is an appointment which you have a right to make by the Act of Parliament under which you hold office; and I have no doubt the Court has every reason to rely on the talents and ability with which your Deputy will perform the duties of your office. To say that he will do better than you have yourself done, would be saying too much. But, having known Mr. Shilson many years, I have no doubt that his full acquaintance with all subjects that can come under his notice will render him fully competent to act for you, and the Court will place every confidence and reliance in him. Mr. SAWLE:—As our excellent treasurer has thought proper to tender his resignation to this Court, I may say that having myself been in this Court 20 years, I have received this announcement with deep regret. Every person, indeed, must regret Mr. Coode's retirement from the office of Treasurer, and also, provisionally, as Clerk of the Peace. I have had the benefit of his advice many years; and I repeat that I deeply regret his retirement; although I feel quite certain that the Court will be safe in the hands of the gentleman whom he has appointed his Deputy. I will move that Mr. Coode's resignation of the Treasurership of the County be accepted, and that it be placed on the Agenda Paper for next sessions. Mr. KENDALL, M.P.:—I have much pleasure in seconding that motion. I can fully bear out every thing that has been said by Mr. Sawle. Of one thing we are quite sure—that we cannot have a more able officer than the one we have had for so many years. I am afraid that in his desire to serve the County, he has worked harder and longer than he ought to have done. We cannot have a more valuable man; for I do not believe there is a man in the County of Cornwall able to discharge the onerous and responsible duties of his office in the way in which he has discharged them. The motion was unanimously agreed to. Mr. SHILSON then assumed the place and duties of Clerk of the Peace. —Rev. John Came, vicar of Merther, qualified as a magistrate; and the Rev. David John Harrison took the oaths on the appointment to the rectory of Ludgvan. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. Samuel Anstey, Menabilly, foreman. — Thomas Bate, Helland. — John Badge, St. Austell. — Frank Bennetts, St. Austell. — J. M. H. Cardell, Bodmin. — John Dingle, Callington. — John Elliot, Liskeard. — James Pell, Bodmin. — Walter Hicks, St. Austell. — William Robert Hicks, Bodmin. — John Julyan, St. Austell. — John Martin, Callington. — John George Mason, Callington. — William Michell, St. Austell. — Joseph Oke, Bodmin. — Edmund Parnall, St. Austell. — John Parkin, St. Ewe. — William Polkinghorne, Tywardreath. — Philip Riddle, Cardinham. — John Roberts. — Diggory Pendray Roberts, St. Ewe. — William West, St. Blazey. — Joel Drew Williams, Bodmin. —Mr. James Wright, of Callington, also answered to his name —The Queen’s Proclamation was then read. THE CHARGE. The CHAIRMAN then addressed the Grand Jury as follows:—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, it is always gratifying to this court to see a full attendance of your body at these sessions, because it testifies that you are willing in your several stations in life, to devote some portion of your time towards the carrying on of the criminal justice of the country. It is gratifying to me to say that the calendar which will be laid before you, both numerically and as regards the class of ofences, (sic) contains lighter indications of crime than that which came before us at the corresponding period of last year. Then the number of felonies charged in the calendar was 16; whereas now they are only seven. There was then one person on bail, against three now; one misdemeanour then, against three now; making a total number of 18 prisoners for trial then, against 13 now—l understand that there will be a 14th, but I have not the depositions before me. The report of the Governor of the County Gaol, I see, gives a statement of the comparative number of prisoners for trial and in the gaol at the Easter Sessions last year and this, and from this statement I find that the total number of prisoners for trial this time last year was 24, whereas the total now is 19. On each occasion six were committed under the Criminal Justice Act. Total number of prisoners received during the quarter ending Lady-day, last year, was 200, whereas this quarter they are 188. The County Court commitments having been rather more numerous this quarter, being 32, than during the corresponding quarter of 1861, when they were 27. During the former period, the Sheriff's debtors were four; and this quarter they are three, showing a diminution of one. My object in referring to this return is to show what is the criminal state of the county, and I am sure that the statement will prove gratifying to the court. The observation of the learned Judge who presided in this court at the late Assizes would lead to the impression that there had been an increase of crime in the county, but although at the time of his lordship's presiding here, the calendar might have indicated an unfavourable state of crime, yet on the whole there is nothing to make us uneasy in that respect. Although at the Assizes there might have been a greater number of cases than usual, yet on the whole, the criminal returns for the quarter are satisfactory. This result is greatly owing, no doubt, to the detering (sic) effect on crime which might reasonably have been expected from our newly established police force; and, therefore, the county will feel that the whole of the money expended by us on this force is not thrown away, and we may hope that it will prove of permanant (sic) benefit to the county. With regard to the cases in the calendar, there is only one respecting which I need now trouble you, that of James Found and Philippa Keat who are charged with stealing oats from Mr. Wm. Grose. As far as I can gather from the depositions, I believe it will be proved before you that these two persons were in the employ of Mr. Grose, who is a farmer, and one or both of them, which it is for you to decide—is charged with having taken the oats from the granary without their master's permission for the purpose of giving them to their master's horses. Now, it may appear strange that this act should form the subject of a criminal charge, but it is my duty to tell you that in the present state of the law it constitutes the offence of larceny. If a person takes not for his own use but to give to his master's horses, without that master's permission, a quantity of oats, it has been held by the judges, after a full consideration, to constitute, in the eye of the law, the offence of larceny. (The Chairman referred to the most recent case on the subject in order to bear out his remark, and observed that the jury would not throw out the bill against the prisoners because it might appear that they did not take the oats for their own use). All the other cases are of a similar character, and require no observations from me. It has been usual, gentlemen, at these sessions, to mention to the grand jury the rates that will be required both for county and police purposes; and I have now to state that the rate for the county will be ¾d. in the pound, or in the whole, £2846 12s. The rate for police purposes will also be ¾d. in the pound; the rate being the same in both cases, I believe, as in the corresponding quarter last year. These appear to be the only observations which it is necessary for me to trouble you with. You will have some bills brought before you in a short time, and I have reason to believe that you will have no trouble with them, and that I shall have the pleasure of discharging you in a reasonable time. CORONERS’ BILLS.—The CHAIRMAN read the Coroners’ Bills for the past quarter:— £ s. d. Mr. Carlyon, for 22 inquests 91 15 4 Mr. Hamley, 20 65 3 4 Mr. Hichens, 35 96 14 3 Mr. Good, 11 40 1 0 Mr. Jagoe, 24 64 18 6 112 358 12 5

For the corresponding quarter last year, there were 107 inquests, costing £361 15s. 1d. Thus, although there were more inquests during the past quarter than during the corresponding quarter last year, the total charge was less; and therefore the cost per inquest was rather less this year than last. BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. SILVANUS JENKIN presented the following report:— Ruthern Bridge.—l have to apply for a sum not exceeding 5l. for making a culvert at this bridge. Looe Bridge.—The string course and capping of the piers of this bridge require repair. I estimate the cost at £2. I shall require two levies at this time. —The two small sums applied for by Mr. Jenkin were granted. Rodd's Bridge.—On the motion of Mr. KINGDON (who made a statement on the subject), seconded by Mr. KENDALL, it was resolved that the Surveyor be requested to make a Special Report at the next Sessions, as to an embankment at or near this bridge. WESTERN DIVISION.—The report from Mr. HICKES was as follows:— The whole of the work ordered at the last sessions has been done. Bolingey.—l would beg to call your attention to the unprotected state of the road on the eastern side of this bridge; for about 312 feet the road is from 5 to 6 feet above the level of the adjacent land, entirely without protection. I would recommend a guard-wall being built on the road, four feet high, which I estimate would cost about £24. Cornelly. Within the last few days, in consequence of the continuous wet, a portion of the side of the road has given way, which to repair I estimate will cost about 40 or 50 shillings. —On the motion of the Rev. T. PHILLPOTTS, seconded by Mr. KENDALL, it was resolved that the Rev. J. Perry, Mr. Peter, and Mr. Michell, be requested to examine Bolingey-bridge, and to report thereon at the next Sessions. The 50s. required for repair of Cornelly-bridge was granted.

COUNTY GAOL. The CHAIRMAN read the following:—The Visiting Committee of the County Gaol and Bridewell, beg to report to the magistrates in Quarter Sessions assembled the satisfactory condition of the prison. The Committee have also to report the dimissal (sic) of Warder Thomas White for insubordination, and the nomination of John Symons, to fill the vacancy, subject to the approval of the Quarter Sessions, at the usual salary and allowances, from Lady-day, 1862. The committee have further to report that the heating apparatus of the halls is entirely worn out, and apply for authority to obtain plans and estimates for the re- construction of the same on the best principle. To meet the current expenses of the quarter, the committee find that a sum not exceeding £350 is required. Mr. SAWLE spoke strongly of the necessity for providing efficient means of warming the Courts— especially the second Court—at Epiphany Sessions; and the Rev. T. PHILLPOTTS reminded the Court that, although it was very desirable to provide warm air for the Epiphany Sessions, there were three other Sessions and two Assizes in the year, when it was equally desirable to provide means for effectual ventilation of the Courts; and he hoped the Committee would turn their attention to this subject also. Mr. KENDALL informed the Court that Messrs. Goodyear (the contractors for the now gaol) had written to Mr. Porter (the architect), requesting his sanction for payment to them of £250 out of £500 remaining due to them on their contract. The Committee saw no objection to such payment being made, although the money would not strictly be due until the gaol had been wholly occupied by the County for a period of six months. The County had, however, been in occupation of a considerable portion of the new gaol—more than two-thirds—for a longer period than six months, and the building was satisfactorily completed. Under these circumstances the Committee recommended the payment of £250.—In accordance with this recommendation, a resolution was passed for payment of £250, on the Architect's certificate. Mr. KENDALL next stated that the Committee were desirous of asking the opinion of the magistrates on another point. When the alterations were made for commencing the building of the new Gaol, it was necessary to remove an old Cross. He had learned from Mr. Porter that there was an understanding that the Cross should be replaced. It was now suggested that a drinking fountain should be erected, with the cross on it, at a spot a little below the entrance to the Gaol. The cost would be about £15, and the fountain would be supplied with waste water from the gaol. The Committee, however, had not felt warranted in expending that sum without sanction of the Court; and he did not wish to press the matter. Both Mr. SAWLE and Mr. E. COODE, jun., doubted whether such an application of public money would be legal. After some further conversation on the subject, it was agreed that the Committee should have authority to replace the Cross at an expense not exceeding £10; and if other parties, to whom it might be convenient, should think proper to have a drinking fountain, they might erect it by private subscription, the Committee throwing no obstacle in the way. DIETARY IN THE GAOL. Mr. LAKES said that at the last sessions Lord Vivian made a comparison between the dietary of the Gaol and that of the Asylum, and he thought that an erroneous opinion had gone abroad with respect to the cost of the inmates in the former. Since then, he had written to the three western counties of Dorset, Somerset, and Devon, and obtained returns of the cost of prisoners in the County Gaols as well as the inmates in the Unions. He had done this, because he thought that a comparison could not be made between the cost of the prisoners in a gaol and the inmates of an asylum; but such a comparison could be made between the cost of the prisoners in the former and the inmates in the union-houses. It was high time in his opinion that steps should be adopted with the view of obtaining an alteration of the dietary in gaols, because he found that in all of them the dietary was higher than was either necessary or desirable. He was aware that he might be told they could not interfere with the duty of a gaol, as it had been fixed by the Secretary of State, but it was a long lane in which they could not find a turn; and believing that poverty was no disgrace, he did not see why an honest but poor and destitute person should not have as good food and clothing as a criminal suffering imprisonment for his offence. Committing persons to the County gaol for terms of imprisonment was in a great number of cases no punishment whatever, as a proof of which he might state that recently on his committing a man for a term, he begged him to sentence him for a longer period as he got such a "blow-out" in the prison. To begin with the returns for the neighbouring county of Devon, he found that the highest cost per head in any union there, was 3s. 2d.; and the lowest 2s. 4d; and in the County gaol 2s. 7d. per head. He was speaking of the cost of food and clothing only. In Somerset, the union in which the highest cost occurred was that of Redminster (sic), and there it was 3s. 2½d. per head per week; and the lowest was the Yeovil union, where the cost was 2s. 2¼d. per head; while in the County gaol, the cost per head was 3s. 8¼d. In Dorset, the highest cost of food and clothing of the paupers in any union was 3s. 5¼d. per head, and the lowest 2s. 2¼d.; while the cost of prisoners in the County gaol was 3s. 2¾ d. per head per week. He now came to their own County of Cornwall, and here he found that the highest union was Bodmin, where the cost of the dietary and clothing of the inmates averaged 3s. 2d. per head per week; the lowest was in the Redruth union where the cost was only Is. 10½d. per head; while in the County gaol the cost per head was 3s. 9½d. now, he certainly thought that in the Redruth union where the cost of the food and clothing of the inmates was only 1s. 10½d. a week each, it could not be said that the guardians had been actuated by epicurian (sic) motives in adopting this scale of dietary; but why a poor person in that union should be fed and clothed at 1s. 10½d. and a prisoner in the gaol should cost 3s. 9½d., he was at a loss to explain. Both tables of dietary was officially sanctioned; and in the one case they had one class of persons fed and clothed for 1s. 10½d. a head per week; while on the other hand they had an official table for prisoners, sanctioned by the highest authority, the cost of which was 3s. 9½d. per head. He was at a loss to know how it happened, seeing that the dietary in all gaols was in accordance with the government scale, the charge in the Cornwall County prison should be higher than in any other. He had gone still further in his enquiries than the three counties he had referred to, and had written to the governor of York Castle. That gentleman had sent him a statement of the average cost of the clothing and dietary of the prisoners for the last three years, which showed that it had been 3s. 8½d. per head per week. He thought it was high time that some change should be made in the dietary of gaols, but unless they moved in the matter, he did not believe they would ever obtain that change. He moved that the gaol committee be requested to inquire into and report upon the subject at the next quarter sessions. Mr. CAREW, for the purpose of promoting the inquiry, begged to second the motion; though he feared that it would be followed by no results. Mr. KENDALL said that he had not the slightest objection in the world to the motion. He really could not understand why there should be the difference between 3s. 9½d. per head in Cornwall, and 2s. 7d. per head in Devon, and he thought that some mistake must have been made by the Clerk; and that the cost of clothing was not included in the latter amount. Mr. LAKES—Yes, the items are given separate—2s. 3d. for diet, and 4d. for clothing per head. Mr. KENDALL could only say that the dietary in the Cornwall County Gaol was in accordance with the order of the Secretary of State, and the magistrates had not the slightest power over it; and he was astonished how such a difference could have arisen. The cost of maintenance of the inmates of the Asylumn (sic) was lower than in any similar institution, he believed, in the kingdom, a circumstance that was owing in a great measure to provisions being very cheap in this county. That being so, he could not conceive why the cost of the prisoners in the gaol should be higher than elsewhere. There was one thing that ought to be mentioned, and that was that the clothing of the prisoners was very good and very warm. It was true, as Mr. Lakes had stated, that there were persons who found the gaol very comfortable quarters, and who caused themselves to be sent there year after year; but the Committee had been unable to render it less so; and Mr. Lakes would find that some years ago they felt ashamed that the dietary should be so good, and they sent a memorial to Lord Palmerston on the subject; but the answer which they received was that the table of the dietary was in accordance with the rule that had been adopted by the Secretary of State, it being considered that prisoners kept in confinement for long periods without out of door exercise, required better diet than if not so confined. The very startling facts, however, which Mr. Lakes had brought to their notice, demanded inquiry, and he should be most happy to support the motion. The Rev. C. M. EDWARD COLLINS suggested that the dietary should be revised, and that the new table should be sent to the Secretary of State, along with the new rules of court which had been prepared, for his sanction and approval. If this should be approved of, then he would further suggest that Mr. Lakes should postpone his motion until the notices in the agenda paper were considered, when it might be brought forward when he submitted the motion on the subject of the rules rating to the gaol, of which he had given notice. Mr. Lakes said that he should be happy to adopt any suggestion which would be more likely to accomplish the object he desired. THE GOVERNOR’S REPORT. The CHAIRMAN read the report of Captain Colville, the Governor of the gaol, which stated:—Since the date of my last report, the conduct of the prisoners has been good and orderly. The new buildings have been found to answer well in every department not only as regards the individual separation of the prisons and their classification, but also with respect to the general discipline of the establishment. Attached to the report was the usual certificate relative to the rules and regulations of the government of the gaol having been complied with. GAOL EXPENSES during the past quarter:— Subsistence £247 3 1 Clothing 53 6 9 Bedding 2 4 10 Fuel 120 15 9 Sundries 168 2 2¼ Salaries 350 14 0 Total 1082 4 9½ Alterations and Repairs 46 16 9 Total 1192 1 6½ after allowing credits for repayments on account of subsistence of military prisoners Hall Expenses £11 3 4

POLICE COMMITTEE. Mr. E. COODE, jun., read the report of the County Police Committee, as follows:— A meeting was held yesterday at the Chief Constable's office, at which the following members were present:—Hon. and Rev. J.T. Boscawen, N. Kendall, C. B. G. Sawle, W. H. P Carew, J. T. H. Peter, F. Howell, R. Foster, and F. M. Williams; Edward Coode, jun., in the chair. The expenses allowed at the last sessions were reported by the chairman as having been examined with the vouchers and found correct. The accounts for the past quarter were also examined, and are recommended to be allowed by the court. St. Austell Station. In consequence of an application from the waywardens of the parish, the committee recommend that a space of three feet in width from the face of the old front wall will be given up for a foot causeway on the understanding that the parish of St. Austell bears every additional expense consequent thereon. St. Columb.—Mr. Newport reports that he has arranged for the purchase of the site mentioned in the last report for £120. The committee recommend that it be referred to Mr. Shilson to complete the purchase for the county. The committee also approved a plan submitted by Mr. Newport for this station, subject to a slight alteration, so as to give an additional bedroom for the married constables' quarters. Stratton Station.—Some further negotiation appears to be necessary before the purchase of this site can be completed, and the committed have given instructions for Mr. Shilson's guidance therein. Falmouth Station.—Mr. Newport reports that the time has arrived for the final payment to the contractor of the balance due to him of £316 on the contract, which the committee recommend should be paid, as also a bill of £11 14s. 10d. for matters not included in the contract paid for by Mr. Newport. The committee also recommend the payment of Mr. Newport's account attached hereto for his professional charges in connection with Falmouth Station, and for various journeys and other services connected with sites for other stations, amounting to £57 14s. 1d. The Chief Constable reports that on the application of the High Sheriff, he took on himself the responsibility of entering into an arrangement for employing the county police in place of the javelin men at the assizes, which has been found to answer most satisfactorily. The act of Parliament requires that previous to such an arrangement there should have been an order of sessions to that effect, but that being in the present instance impossible, the committee trust the court will give its sanction to what has been done; and they also recommend that a general order should be made authorizing the Chief Constable to make a similar arrangement, whenever he is requested to do so by the High Sheriff for the time being. The committee are of opinion that the raising of the £6000 by loan for police stations, postponed until this sessions, may be further postponed until the Midsummer sessions. It appears that the following sums should be charged to the county rate, and carried to the credit of the police rate:—Conveyance of prisoners, 151l. 11s.; coroners' allowances, £47 14s.; weights and measures, £16s. (sic) 4s. 6d.; total, £215 9s. 6d. It appears that a sum of £171 13s. 3d. has accrued to the superannuation fund during the past quarter, which should be invested as heretofore. The report was unanimously adopted, and it was resolved that the schedule of appointments, which had been prepared, for the attendance of Inspectors of Weights and Measures at different parts of the county, be adopted by this court. Mr. E. COODE, jun., gave notice that at the Midsummer Sessions he will move the payment of a salary of 125l. a year to Mr. Vincent, the Deputy Chief Constable and Chief Superintendent. The CHAIRMAN said he had before him the police superannuatory account, shewing that a sum of 171l. 13s. 3d. had accrued available to be carried to the credit of this fund. It was decided that this sum be invested in 3 per cent. Consols; and the Chairman stated that the Superannuation Fund would then amount to about £2400. The CHAIRMAN next stated that he had before him the general account of the County Constabulary, examined by the Police Committee and found correct. It showed a credit balance of £410 16s. 3½d. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT. My Lords and Gentlemen,—I have the honour to lay before you the usual quarterly returns of crime committed in this county as far as is known to the county constabulary; also, a return shewing the numbers and distribution of the force. Since the last sessions, I received an application from the High Sheriff, asking for the services of 20 constables to take the duty of javelin men at the assizes, as the employment of the constabulary for this duty is authorised by the 18th section of the 22nd and 23rd Vic., chap. 32, should the justices in quarter sessions think fit. I now ask for the order of this court to furnish the High Sheriff with a sufficient number of men for this duty whenever a similar request may be made. I have the honour to be, my lords and gentlemen, your obedient servant, W. R. GILBERT, chief constable of Cornwall. In reply to questions from Mr. CAREW, the CHIEF CONSTABLE stated that the arrangement which he made at the last assizes with the High Sheriff, was the same as was adopted in other counties; the Sheriff paying 5s. for 24 hours' service of each policeman; and by this arrangement he had been able to carry to the credit of the police-rate, between £14 and £15, at the last assizes. On the motion of Mr. CAREW, duly seconded, it was resolved that the court do authorise the Chief Constable to make a similar arrangement at any future assize, and with any future sheriff. The CHAIRMAN then informed the court that the Chief Constable had reported the following sums as transferable so the credit of the county from the constabulary.—For Conveyance of Prisoners, £151 11s.; giving notice to Coroners, and attending inquests, £47 14s.; inspection of weights and measures, £16 4s. 6d.; total, £215 9s. 6d. The CHAIRMAN next stated that under the head of Constabulary Contingencies, for the last quarter, was a sum of £1146 19s. 11½d., as examined and found correct by the committee; but this sum included £718 15s. 9d. for police clothing; this was only an annually recurring charge, although it went to swell the amount of contingencies for the past quarter. THE ASYLUM. The CHAIRMAN next presented the following accounts of the Asylum for the year 1861:— The statement of receipts and payments on account of the Cornwall County Lunatic Asylum from January 1st to Dec. 31st, 1861, showed on the side of receipts:—Balance in hand 1st Jan., 1861, £1,169 6s. 7d.; sales and produce of labour, £73 5s. 4d.; received for private patients, £1,255 18s pauper ditto, £6,173 5s. 7d.; voluntary contributions, £101 0s. 6d.; from county and borough treasurers, for buildings and repairs, furniture and fittings, £278 7s. 1d.; total receipts, £9,054 3s. 1d. The payments, including salaries and wages, provisions, necessaries, clothing, building, and repairs, and other charges, amounted to £8,599 5s. 10d., leaving balance in hand on the 31st December, £454 17s. 3d. The total average weekly cost per head was 8s. 1¾d. (We shall publish the accounts in full next week.) The daily average number of patients resident was 328. AGENDA.—LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE. The first notice in the agenda paper was:—To receive and consider the report of Mr. Richard Carveth, on the state of Lostwithiel Bridge. Mr. Carveth presented a full and detailed report, which was read by the CHAIRMAN, and of which the following is a summary:— "It will be seen from the foregoing statement that the bridge is long and very narrow, extremely so at one point near the western end; that the western portion is in tolerable condition, and may be preserved and kept in repair at little cost; that of the middle part a considerable length of the side walls and parapets are forced out and overhang the foundations, whilst the large pier in the centre of the bridge (the stability of which is so essential to its safety,) is in a most ruinous if not dangerous condition, rendering it necessary that its state should be taken into consideration, and that the best course to be pursued respecting it should be early determined on; that the eastern portion might stand, although requiring considerable repairs; and that for the restoration of the present bridge it will be requisite to repair the soundest parts, and to take down all weak and dilapidated portions of the parapets, piers, and side walls nearly to the bottom and rebuild them with larger and stronger stone. I have only to add that this survey and report is confined to the state of the superstructure, or those parts of the bridge which are above the water of the river. The water has been so high at this season, that I have not been able to examine the foundations minutely, but there is no appearance of any settlement or failure in the arches, the probability is their state is satisfactory. Signed, Richard Carveth. In reply to a question from Mr. Kendall, Mr. CARVETH said he thought the cost of such repairs as he had suggested would be about £90 or £100, supposing the foundations were good. On the motion of Mr. KENDALL, seconded by Mr. Carew it was resolved that the report be referred back to Mr. Carveth, with a request that he will make a supplementary report on the foundations of the bridge as early as possible,—if the state of water will allow, by the next Midsummer sessions—so far as he can do so without the necessity of damming; and at all events, Mr. Carveth do report at the Midsummer sessions, whether or not he has been able to make the examination of the foundations. Mr CAREW hoped that Mr. Carveth would consider whether or not the river might not be re-diverted to its ancient course, under the western arches, which were still strong, and, it would appear, had originally earned the whole stream. PRISON REGULATIONS. The Rev. C.M.E. COLLINS then brought forward the motion of which he had given notice:—That the regulations for prisons last issued by Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home Department be adopted by this Court for the use in the county prison, in lien of those now in force. A rather lengthy discussion ensued, in the course of which Mr. COLLINS pointed out some differences in the rules which had been sanctioned for the government of the county gaol and those last issued by the Secretary of State, whilst as regarded the dietary of the prison it appeared that the table issued by the Government had been adopted. The discussion was terminated by Mr. Collins moving that the regulations for the management of the gaol he referred to the Gaol Committee, which was seconded and adopted. Mr. LAKES then moved that the subject of the cost of the dietary and clothing of the prisoners in the gaol be also referred to the same committee, which was likewise agreed to. TREASURER’S ACCOUNTS, STANDING ORDERS, &C. The third notice on the agenda paper was:—To receive and consider the report of Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., C.B.G. Sawle, Esq., J.J. Rogers, and W.H.P. Carew, Esq., on the form of the Treasurer's Accounts, the Standing Orders, and other matters referred to them at the last Michaelmas sessions. Mr. CAREW read the following report:—The committee appointed at the quarter sessions held at Bodmin on the 15th of Oct., 1861, have considered the matters referred to them and agreed to the following resolutions for the approval and sanction of the court:—1st. That the standing orders as now submitted be adopted. 2nd. That the form of agenda paper now in use in the county of Devon be followed, as far as it is in accordance with the proposed standing orders. 3rd. That the table of fees now in use in this county be revised, and that the amended table be printed in an appendix to the standing orders. 4th. That the form for coroners' accounts now submitted be likewise printed in such an appendix. The committee would further suggest certain alterations in the form and details of the annual printed abstract of the county receipts and expenditure. 1st. That the rates paid by each union be inserted in columns showing the amounts of each quarterly payment. 2nd. That in the expenditure on county bridges, the amount expended on the fabric of each bridge be specified, and the expenditure on county bridge roads be inserted in one gross sum by each surveyor. 3rd. That the retiring pensions of officers should be placed under the heading of their respective institutions. 4th. That in the gaol accounts the governor be requested to have the items "fuel, sundries, repairs, bedding and incidentals," calculated as per head, as is now done with the "Subsistence and clothing" and that the treasurer do insert such per head calculation as his printed abstract. 5th. That the capital sum on which dividends are received in the superannuation fund, be inserted. 6th. That details be given showing how the bill under the Voters' Registration Act is incurred. 7th. That an appendix be added to the annual abstract, showing the amount of borrowed capital still remaining payable by the county. 8th. That a summary be also added, and that the whole be published for circulation in a book, instead of in a single sheet, as at present. The committee had learnt from the Clerk of the Peace that there would be some difficulty in lending the superannuation funds for the erection of police stations, and that at any rate, the whole amount is as yet too small to make it worth while. In concluding this report, the committee desire to express an opinion that the greatly increased number of public buildings belonging to the county must shortly force upon the attention of the court, the expedience of appointing a county surveyor who shall not only undertake the duties of the present bridge surveyors, when vacancies occur, but also the yearly, or ?-- necessary, more frequent inspection of all county buildings, and prepare plans and estimates, &c., for all new works.— Signed, W.H. POLE CAREW, Chairman of the Committee. Mr. CAREW said the first resolution he meant to propose had reference to the standing orders. He had sent a printed copy of them to every magistrate in the county; and if it were the pleasure of the court to approve them, he would suggest that they should be satisfied for the present with this little printed copy, because there must be some slight verbal alterations made before they were printed finally; and this delay would give opportunity to have an amended table of fees compiled, to be appended to the standing orders. Then the Clerk of the Peace had drawn his attention to a discrepancy between the standing orders, as to coroners' accounts and the printed form for these accounts. In the standing orders the committee stated that the coroners' accounts should be certified by "statutory declaration," but in the form they used the word "sworn." He thought it was well to do away with oaths as much as possible; and if the Court concurred in that opinion, it would be necessary to make verbal alterations in the form. He would now move that the standing orders now submitted be adopted; with the understanding that they be not printed immediately. Mr. E. COODE, jun., believed it was the opinion of the Clerk of the Peace that the Court could not dispense with oaths in the certification of coroners' accounts. Mr. CAREW said if that was the opinion of their legal advisor, the standing orders must be modified accordingly. The CHAIRMAN believed the term "statutory declaration" had been used, in order to include persons who might object to taking an oath. The motion for adoption of the standing orders was then agreed to. Mr. CAREW moved that the form of the Agenda paper for the county of Devon be followed as far as possible in future in this county, and that it be adopted at the next quarter sessions. —The motion was seconded and carried. Mr. CAREW said he would follow that up by requesting the court to appoint a committee to consider what amendment could be suggested in the table of fees authorised to be taken by Magistrates' Clerks at Petty Sessions. On the motion of Mr. KENDALL, the consideration of the table of fees in question was referred to the Standing Orders Committee to report upon the subject at the first Quarter Sessions they could make it convenient to do so. Mr. CAREW said that one of the coroners, he understood, had made his return that day in the altered form recommended, and the court had seen the great advantage of it. He thought that the whole of the county coroners should be requested to do so in future; and he moved that printed copies of the new form for coroners’ accounts be provided, and that they be requested to present their accounts in accordance with them. This motion was seconded and agreed to without discussion. Mr. SAWLE said as the revised rules had now been adopted, the attention of the Clerks at Petty Sessions ought to be called to them. Mr. E. COLLINS said that there would be great difficulty in calling the attention of the Clerk of the Callington Petty Sessions to them, as he believed there was in that division [about ten?] clerks. The motions were agreed to. ACCOMMODATION FOR HOLDING PETTY SESSIONS. Mr. E. COLLINS said that he wished to call the attention of the Court to the very unsatisfactory nature of the accommodation which was provided for the magistrates sitting in petty sessions. At Callington they had to provide a room for the accommodation of the public, for which they had to pay £5 a-year out of their own pockets. At St. Columb, the magistrates had to pay £5 a-year for the room in which they held the petty sessions; and as he considered that this was a charge which they ought not to be called upon to bear, he begged to give notice that he would move at the next quarter sessions for a committee, consisting of the Chairman, Mr. C. P. Brune, the Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, Mr. Thomas Hext, Mr. F. Williams, and Mr. E. Collins, to inquire into the present state of accommodation provided for the magistrates sitting in petty sessions, and to report thereon at the ensuing quarter sessions. BILLETING. The CHAIRMAN read a letter which he had received from the Home Office, enclosing a form of billet paper which the Secretary of State for War was desirous should be issued by the civil authorities in order that innkeepers and others on whom soldiers are billeted, may clearly understand their liabilities.

EXPENSES OF PROSECUTIONS. The CHAIRMAN directed attention to legislation on this subject which was suspended until after the Easter Recess in order that county justices and others interested, might have opportunity for considering the bill now before Parliament. The scheme of this bill was that if any county, or any borough having quarter sessions, should consider that the scale of fees was too small, such county or borough might increase the fees, by taking payment of the difference from local rates levied on such county or borough; but not by making any claim on the Consolidated Fund. Mr. E. COODE, jun., thought the scale of fees in his neighbourhood was not satisfactory; but he did not think that any additional allowance ought to be thrown on the rate-payers.—Mr. LAKES concurred.—Mr. SAWLE said the number of small cases at petty sessions showed that the present scale of fees by [print missing] prevented the prosecution of offences. ROYAL CORNWALL RANGERS' MILITIA. The Chairman read another communication which he had received from Lord de Grey, in which he stated that he was directed to inform the Clerk of the Peace that the Adjutant of the Royal Cornwall Rangers’ Militia would be authorised to pay to the county £25 a year as rent for quarters for six non-commissioned officers of that regiment. ST. MICHAEL's MOUNT. The CHAIRMAN next read a letter from Mr. Villiers, the President of the Poor Law Board, stating that St. Michael’s Mount had been established as a parish in itself, instead of being extra-parochial as heretofore, and would henceforth form part of the Penzance Union. This concluded the county business. APPEALS. OVERSEERS of ILLOGAN against the COUNTY RATE. Mr. CORNISH moved to enter and respite this appeal.—Mr. MARRACK consented. In the following appeals also, Mr. CORNISH moved to enter and respite and Mr. MARRACK consented:— PENZANCE LOCAL BOARD of HEALTH, appellant; and SURVEYORS of HIGHWAYS in MADRON, respondent. An appeal against a local rate. PENZANCE LOCAL BOARD of HEALTH, appellant; and CHURCH WARDENS and OVERSEERS of MADRON, respondent. LOOE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS., appellant; CHURCH-WARDENS and OVERSEERS of EAST LOOE, respondent.—Mr. CHILDS moved (Mr. COMMINS consenting) [print missing] and adjourn this appeal till next Sessions; the intention of the parties being in the mean time to take the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench on a Case stated under the Statute. MAYOR and CORPORATION of EAST LOOE, appellant; COUNTY MAGISTRATES, respondent.—This was an appeal against the County Rate, in which a Case had gone up for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. On motion by Mr. CHILDS, assented to by Mr. SHILSON, the appeal was entered and adjourned. In submitting this motion, Mr. CHILDS. on behalf of the Bar, expressed deep regret that they had no longer in that Court the presence of the esteemed Clerk of the Peace—Mr. COODE. But at the same time he begged to offer his congratulations to his friend Mr. Shilson, whose conduct during the whole period in which he had practised in this Court as an advocate had been such as to win the confidence of every member of its Bar. He sincerely offered his congratulations on his present position; and for his (Mr. Shilson's) sake as well as that of the Clerk of the Peace, he hoped he would fill that position of Deputy Clerk of the Peace, for many years. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. WILLIAM HARRIS pleaded guilty of stealing on the 3rd instant, at Grampound, a pair of drawers and a gold American dollar of the value of eight shillings, the property of Thos. Cavill, of Grampound, innkeeper. (Sentence: three months hard labour) HENRY ERRIDGE, aged 34 a currier, pleaded guilty of stealing twelve horse-butts, the property of his employers, Cornelius Couch and George Henry Michell, at Phillack, on the 8th of March. (Sentence: six months hard labour) CHARLES WARNE, aged 22, who was tried and acquitted at the late Assizes, on a charge of stealing spirits from the Cornwall Railway Station at Liskeard, was now indicted for stealing on the 4th of February last, three yards of linen, the goods and chattels of the Hon. and Rev. William Henry Spencer, of Stoke Climsland.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution, Mr. Stokes the defence.—Isabella Spencer deposed:—I reside with my father at Stoke Climsland. Some time prior to my going to Heligan on a visit, in February last, my father let me have some linen which I took with me to Heligan. I left Heligan on Monday the 24th February, having previously packed my trunk—partly on Saturday evening and partly on Monday morning. I placed in the box, among other articles, a gold cross, two lockets, and the linen.—Mr. Boscawen kindly undertook to see the trunk taken to the St. Austell Railway Station; and I next saw it at Stoke Climsland, on the following Saturday night. I opened it that night, and on the following morning, I found that some postage-stamps and the linen were missing. I did not that day take notice of the state of the box.—John Townshend Boscawen.—In February last, I was on a visit at Heligan, and on the morning of the 24th, I booked Miss Spencer's box at the St. Austell Railway Station. This card (produced by Policeman Barnes) was on it. The address "Rev. W. H., Spencer, Stoke Climsland" is in Mr. Spencer's hand writing. The box now produced appears to be the same that I booked.—John Bawden, one of the Railway porters at the Liskeard Station. This box came to the Liskeard Station, in the evening of the 24th February, by the last up-train, that arrives there about ¼ past 8; there was a van attached to the train. The guard gave the box to me, and I took it into the Parcels Office inside the Booking Office. I left the station about half past eight. The prisoner Warne was at that time a policeman in the employ of the Cornwall Railway Company, and was on duty there that night. I locked the door, and took the key with me; but there is a double or pass key to that lock, which is kept in the office to let passengers out at the gate.—Cross-examined. I am not positive whether the pass key was left in the booking office or the parcels office. The booking office was left open, and several persons were there. I did not see the prisoner at the office when I left, nor during the night; I only know that in the course of his duty he would be there. The Station Master, Mr. Rogers, was there when I left, and also the day-policeman. I am clear that I saw the box arrive at the Station on the Monday evening, and that the next day I saw the same box in the parcels office. In due course it would leave about the middle of the day, but I did not see it leave. The prisoner was the only person who had charge of the office that Monday night; he came on duty at 9 o'clock, and left at 8 next morning.—Re-examined. The prisoner had access to every part of the station.—Sampson Rogers, Station Master at Liskeard:—I was at the Station in the evening of the 24th February, and left after the passenger train had arrived and gone on. I cannot say whom I left there, but the prisoner, in the course of his duty, would come there at 9 o'clock.— Jane Pearse, wife of Thomas Pearce, miner, living at Liskeard. I know the prisoner and his wife Eliza; some time ago they lodged at my house; they left there the day after he had been to the Assizes and taken his trial. I remember his being taken in custody on the charge preferred against him at the Assizes. In the evening of that day, the 8th of March, his wife gave me some linen, in her bed-room, and I kept it until Mr. Barnes applied to me for it.—George Barnes, superintendent of County Constabulary stationed at Bodmin. On the 24th of March I went to the prisoner's house at Boduel; I did not find him there, but saw his wife and had some conversation with her, and in consequence of that conversation, I went to the house of Mrs. Pearce, and she gave me the pieces of linen which I produce. I afterwards went to the Railway Station at Liskeard having the pieces of linen with me, and waited for the last down train from Plymouth; on its arrival, I saw the prisoner get out; I spoke to him and charged him with breaking open a box on the 24th of February at the Liskeard Station, and stealing two lockets, a gold cross, a piece of linen, and other articles, and said I have a portion of the property. I had a piece of linen in my hand. Prisoner said, have you found the other? I took him in custody and placed him in charge of a constable. I again went to Boduel, and took the wife into custody; I had a conversation with her, and on the following Friday I detailed that conversation to her husband, in the presence of both. I told him that she had said that when she got up in the morning, she found the linen in a drawer of the table and she never asked Charley how it got there. The prisoner said yes, I put it there. The man and wife were then taken into custody and brought before the Borough Magistrates of Liskeard, on Friday the 28th March; on that day, on his being remanded, the prisoner said Eliza does not know any thing about it; I put it there.—On Tuesday the 25th of March, I went to the prisoner's house; and the wife, who was then in custody, produced these pieces of linen from a drawer, and gave them to me. On the 26th I went to the house of Mr. Spencer at Stoke Climsland, and received from Miss Spencer the box which I have produced here. The card which has been produced was at that time nailed on the box, and I removed it. A ticket "Cornwall Railway—van up" was also on the box. I examined the box at that time; the lock had not been disturbed, but the clenches of the nails of the hasp had been broken off, and the hasp had been moved and replaced. I found the box locked; and, to all appearance externally, it was secure.—Cross-examined. The box was secure when I found it, and I could not open it without unlocking it. It was my conclusion that the box had been opened by wrenching away the hasp.—Miss Isabella Spencer was then recalled:—She identified the box, but said the hasp was not in its present condition, when last she saw it at Heligan; she did not observe the change until the policeman called her attention to it.—Looking at a large piece of linen, she said it corresponded exactly, in appearance and in length, with that which her father had given her; she had used a portion of it to make a shirt front for her father. Looking at numerous small pieces, and placing them together, she had no doubt whatever that they formed part of the piece which she had at Heligan.—Cross-examined. There is none of my sewing on the linen, nor any private mark; but the size of the pieces when put together, and the quality, enable me to identify them. Before I went to Heligan, I had cut out a portion of the linen; and when I left Heligan the remainder was all in one piece, when I placed it in the box. I have no doubt that the large piece and the small pieces now produced made up the one piece which I put in the box.—Re-examined. The small pieces now produced have been cut away from the piece since I placed it in the box. Maria Skinner:—I live with Mr. Spencer, at Stoke Climsland, and remember Miss Spencer going to Heligan. Before she left, I washed and rough-dried some linen for her. The linen now produced is or the same quality and texture as that which I washed and rough-dried. I have no doubt that the pieces now produced formed part of the piece I washed for Miss Spencer—Cross-examined. I can, with a clear conscience, swear it is the same piece; the linen is of a very fine quality.—Mr. STOKES then addressed the jury for the defence, contending that on the sole question as to the identity of the linen, the case for the prosecution must fail. Linen might be of the same quality and texture; but, on the evidence given, he contended that the jury could not possibly feel satisfied that the linen traced to the prisoner and his wife was the same linen that Miss Spencer had placed in her box at Heligan.—The jury found a verdict of not guilty. ELIZABETH COURTMAN, a woman of colour, was charged with stealing two flannel shirts, one petticoat, one baby's shirt, four plates, cup and saucer, milk cup, brush, slate, and a cloak, the property of John Shields, at Millbrook, in the parish of Maker, on the 31st of March. Evidence was given by Elizabeth Shields, the prosecutor's wife, with whom the prisoner had lodged, and by police constable Lee; and the jury found a verdict of Guilty. (Sentence: one month hard labour) SECOND COURT. TUESDAY, APRIL 8. (Before Mr. C. B. C. Sawle), CHARLES EDWARDS, 38, shoemaker, pleaded GUILTY to the charge of keeping and maintaining a disorderly and improper house, in the parish of St. Mary's, Truro. SIX MONTHS' HARD LABOUR. MARY BILKEY, 24, was charged with keeping a similar house, in Castle-place, Truro. Mr. Marrack prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. Evidence was given by Geo. Snell, living in Edward-street; Henry Davies, tailor, living in the same neighbourhood; Mrs. Jane Williams, of Edward-street; Mrs. Elizabeth Rouse, of the same locality, and Sergeant Woolcock, of the Truro police, showing that the house had been conducted in a most disgraceful manner for more than six months, that girls of improper character, navvies, and young men and boys had been in the habit of meeting there at night, particularly on Saturday night, and that drunkenness, fighting, and disgusting language and conduct were of frequent occurrence; and that the house had become a perfect nuisance to the respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The jury at once found the prisoner GUILTY. SIX MONTHS' HARD LABOUR. JOSIAH WILLIAMS, 25, labourer, was indicted for obtaining by false pretences, at Truro, on the 4th of Feb., the sum of 9d., from Josiah Mewton, with intent to cheat and defraud him of the same. Mr. Marrack (for Mr. Stokes) prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor is a farmer, in the parish of Kenwyn, and he deposed that on the 4th of February he sold 350 turnips to Mr. Wyatt, in the Truro market, at the rate of 1s. 6d. per hundred. The prisoner assisted in removing the turnips to Mr. Wyatt’s premises, being employed by that gentleman for the purpose. A few days after prosecutor happened to be in Truro again, and while there, the prisoner came up to him in the street, and said, “Yes; you made a grand mistake, Mr. Mewton, about the turnips you sold to Mr. Wyatt." Prosecutor replied that he did not know that he had; and the prisoner said, "Yes, you made a mistake of half a hundred in the counting.'' Prosecutor said that he had not intended there should be any mistake, and there would not have been any if Mr. Wyatt had counted them right. However, as he wanted nothing but what was right, he should send Mr. Wyatt half a hundred more turnips. The prisoner then went away, but within an hour after, he came to him again, and said that Mr. Wyatt did not want any more turnips, and that he (Mr. Wyatt) had said prosecutor must pay him the 9d. due to him instead of sending the half hundred of turnips. On this representation, the prosecutor gave prisoner the 9d. Mr. George Wyatt, of Truro, deposed that he received the full quantity of turnips he had agreed to purchase from the prosecutor; that the statement as to the quantity being 50 short, was altogether false, and that he never told the prisoner to ask Mr. Mewton for 9d. or authorized him to receive it; and that the whole statement was a fabrication. P. C. Gay deposed that when he apprehended, the prisoner, and charged him with the offence, he said that Mr. Mewton had only asked him for the money once; that if he had asked him for it again he would have paid him the 9d. He then said that he would pay the prosecutor then—that he did not want to retain the money, and that it was a mistake on both sides. The prisoner now said in defence that he had borrowed the money from the prosecutor. The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY. It was also proved that the prisoner had been convicted no less than five times previously, and had been sentenced to a term of penal servitude, being now a ticket of leave man. He was for the present offence sentenced to THREE YEARS' PENAL SERVITUDE. SAMUEL FIELDING, described as a seaman, and who although of very diminutive stature, and having the appearance of a very young boy, was stated to be about 17 years of age, pleaded guilty to stealing four iron bars from a lime kiln, at Padstow, on the 10th of March, the property of John Tradwen.—Two months' hard labour. HARRIET TRESIDDER, 16, was charged with having, on the 30th of March last, at Padstow, entered the dwelling house of Maria Helbren, and stolen the sum of 4s., her property. Mr. Marrack prosecuted. The prosecutrix is a single woman, residing near to Padstow, where she keeps a huckster's shop. On the morning of Sunday, the 30th of March, she locked her house door, leaving the key in the lock, and went into a neighbour's, where she remained from a quarter of an hour to 20 minutes. On her return she went to a table drawer in which she kept her spectacles and some silver in a cup, and on opening it she missed from the cup a half-crown, which she had seen amongst the money that morning. On counting the silver she also found that 1s. 6d. or 2s. 6d., she was not certain which, had been taken, besides the half-crown. It appeared that a female named Mary England, who had been seen near Miss Helbren's house, on the morning in question, was suspected of the robbery, and in consequence she felt some anxiety in the matter. Happening to see the prisoner, and knowing that her character for honesty was not very good, she called her on one side, and asked what she had been doing in Miss Helbren's house that morning. The prisoner at first said she had done nothing; but on Mary England telling her that the neighbours had accused her of the robbery, and that if she would give her the money, she would take it back, the prisoner handed her a half-crown, 1s. and 6d. which she said was all she had taken. Police Sergeant Huxham deposed that on apprehending the prisoner and charging her with the robbery, she said that 4s. was all she took, and that she would tell the whole truth about the matter; that she went to Miss Helbren's to procure some potatoes for her mother, they not having sufficient for their dinner; that she found the door locked and the key in it; that she unlocked it and went in; then opened a table drawer and took out half-a-crown, a shilling, and 6d. from a cup, in which there was more silver; that she then left the house, locking the door after her; that this was the first time she had ever stolen anything since she had come home, and that the devil must have been in her, to cause her to do it. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended her to mercy, on account of the key having been left by prosecutrix in the door. The Chairman requested the jury first to hear the further charges which were to be brought against the prisoner, as he thought when they heard what was her character, they would hesitate to make such a recommendation. Three previous convictions for felony were then proved against her, the offence of which she was first sentenced having been committed when she was only ten years of age. P.S. (sic) Huxham stated that the parents of the prisoner were persons of very indifferent character, and had grossly neglected her. Mr. Rogers, in sentencing the prisoner on Wednesday morning, said that her case was a very distressing one to the Court. By the sentence which he should pass, she would now be removed from the evil example of her parents, and sent to a place where she would be taken care of, and where she would be instructed and trained, and afforded the opportunity of earning a respectable livelihood. He then sentenced the prisoner to be committed to the house of correction and kept at hard labour for one calendar month, and at the expiration of that time, to be sent to the house of detention or reformatory for girls, in the county of Devon, for the term of three years. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9. (Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq.) JOHN BATH, 41, a gardener, pleaded guilty of stealing a spade and a fork, the property of the Rev. John Francis Kitson, at Antony, on the 17th March.—He also pleaded guilty of stealing a great coat, a pair of Wellington boots, a pair of breeches, a pair of leggins (sic), a strapping jacket, a razor, a handkerchief, and two pairs of gloves, the property of George Starke, at Sheviock, on the 14th March.—Two previous convictions of felony were proved against him by his own admission—one at the Cornwall Assizes in 1853, and the other in 1861.—He was sentenced, on the indictment for stealing a spade and fork, to one week's hard labour; and, at the expiration of that term of imprisonment, to Six Years Penal Servitude. JOHN HOLMAN, 19, pleaded guilty, on three several indictments, of stealing a pair of boots and a pair of socks, the property of John Gilbert, at Great Wheal Busy Mine, Kenwyn, on the 2nd of April; of stealing a jacket and a scarf, the property of Joseph Carrey, at Great Wheal Busy Mine, on the 1st of April; and of stealing a jacket, a pair of trowsers, a pair of drawers, and a handkerchief, the property of James Blight, at North Wheal Jane Mine, Kenwyn, on the 31st of March.—A previous conviction, in 1861, was proved against him, by his own admission.—He was sentenced as follows:—For stealing the boots and socks, one week's hard labour; for stealing the jacket and scarf, to one week's hard labour; and, at the expiration of these two weeks, to 4 years' Penal Servitude —The Court then passed sentence on the other convicted prisoners, as follows:— [See individual cases above, with exception of:] William Cooper, two months hard labour [Editor’s Note: No case report published by the newspaper; Cornwall Criminal Registers, held at the National Archives, confirm this sentence was imposed for larceny] DIVERSION OF ROADS.—Applications were made for orders of court for the diversion of roads in the parishes of Stratton, St. Austell, St. Ewe, St. Kew, and Gorran; and Mr. Shilson having read the Magistrates’ certificates, the orders were granted. APPEALS. BIDEFORD, Appellants; Advocate, Mr. STOKES; CUBERT, Respondent, Advocates, Mr. HOCKIN and Mr. MARRACK. This was an appeal against the order of Mr. J.T.H. Peter and Mr. Gully Bennet, dated the 2nd of November last, for the removal of a pauper named William Pidler, his wife and five children, from the parish of Cubert to the parish of Bideford, in Devon. Mr. STOKES admitted that, although one of the grounds of appeal was that the order was bad on the face of it, the only issue that would be raised under the notice was whether there had been a continuous residence of the pauper for five years before the date of the order of removal. He had only one witness to call before them in support of the appellant's case, namely, the wife of the pauper, the husband being unable to attend from illness, and she would tell them that they came originally from Bideford; that they had resided for a period of nearly nine years in Cubert; that the pauper was a miner, and had frequently been very ill, and had been at times during this period in the hospitals at Truro, at Barnstaple, in St. Thomas's, London, and on a visit at his sister's, yet that deducting the whole of this time, it would be shown that there had been a clear residence of 5½ years in Cubert. In support of his case, he referred to the Queen v. Glossop, 17, Law Journal Reports, p. 171, and then called Caroline Pidler, who deposed that she was married 16 years ago to William Pidler, and had seven children, five of whom were living. Nine years ago come next July her husband and she left Bideford and went to live at Cubert, where they had resided ever since in the same house. Her husband was a miner, and was now very ill at home, at Cubert. He had been ill from time to time, and had been obliged to go into hospital. He was seven weeks in the hospital at Truro, and about two years ago, he was in St. Thomas's Hospital, London, for eleven weeks. He had also been some time with his sister at Bideford, while ill on another occasion; and last year he was several months in the hospital at Barnstaple. Cross-examined—He went to the hospital at Barnstaple in February and was absent till October. Re-examined—l cannot say whether it was in September or October that he returned. I never left the house in Cubert while he was away in the hospital, and he always returned to it when he was discharged, at his home. After coming from St. Thomas's, he was again admitted in the hospital at Truro. Mr. STOKES contended that this was animus revertendi: that the legislature had expressly provided in the Act of Parliament, that the period during which a person might be in an hospital for the cure of disease under which he suffered, though it might be deducted from his period of residence, should not be considered a breach of that residence; and that if the evidence of the wife of the pauper was to be relied upon, the settlement had been clearly established in Cubert. Mr. HOCKIN said that the overseers of the respondent parish had submitted the case to the Poor Law Commissioners, who stated that they were of opinion there had been a break in the residence, and that the case was one for removal. The overseers, however, were willing that the pauper should be relieved out of the common fund of the Union; but to this the guardians objected, and the parish, therefore, were bound to appeal or maintain the pauper and his family. He referred to the frequent periods that the pauper had been absent from Cubert, and said that although formerly it might have been held that these did not break the residence, yet that the tendency of recent legislation and the decisions of judges had been to treat such breaks as destroying the settlement. In support of his argument, he referred to the case of the "Queen v. St. Mary-le-bone," in which it was held that a sailor who had gone to sea in the ordinary discharge of his business, had destroyed his settlement, notwithstanding that he corresponded with his wife and sent her money, and she continued to inhabit the house in which he had resided. He also referred to a case decided by the Poor Law Board in 1859, in which it was held that a miner who had resided for a number of years at Marazion where he had a settlement, but who had been compelled to go to the North of England in search of work, where he had remained only six months, owing to the stoppage of a mine in his own neighborhood, had destroyed his settlement, although he had regularly written to his wife, and sent her money for her own children's support, and she continued in the same house, to which he also returned. He submitted that upon these cases, the fact of the pauper having gone into the hospital at Barnstaple for eight months last year was a break of the residence in point of law, and that had the wife then become chargeable on Cubert, she would have been removable, on the ground that her husband had gone away leaving her destitute, which in law amounted to desertion. Mr. STOKES, in reply, contended that the present case differed materially from that of the Queen v. St. Marylebone. In the one case the man had gone away to a different part of the world, and left his wife to become chargeable; in the other, the pauper had been compelled to go into the hospital through illness, and in such cases the law expressly provided that such absence from home did not amount to a break of residence. The COURT almost immediately decided that there was evidence of a continuous residence in Cubert. Mr. HOCKIN thought that after the opinion which had been expressed by the Poor Law Commissioners, the Court ought to grant a case upon the point. He then read the case that had been sent to the board, but it was found to differ in some respects from the facts deposed to by the wife of the pauper; and the Court declined to grant a case. The Court then quashed the order, and granted the common costs of £5. Mr. HOCKIN then moved that the Court should express an opinion that the pauper and family should be placed on the common fund of the Union. Mr. SAWLE said that if the guardians should refuse to do so, he should recommend the overseers of Cubert to apply at once to the auditor to place the pauper and family on that fund. BEERFERRIS v. ST. AUSTELL.—Mr. Stokes moved for leave to enter an adjournment of the appeal against the order of Mr. J. Tremayne and Mr. Thomas Hext, for the removal of a lunatic pauper, named Phillips, from St. Austell to Beerferris. Motion granted. JOHN MUNDAY, appellant; advocate, Mr. STOKES.—ELIZABETH MERSER, respondent; advocate, Mr. HENRY ROGERS.—This was an appeal in bastardy, made by John Munday against an order made by Sir Richard Vyvyan, Mr. C. W. Popham, and the Rev. Wm. Thomas on the 26th of March last, for the maintenance of an illegitimate child, of which the respondent, Elizabeth Merser, had been delivered, and of which she alleged the appellant was the father. According to the evidence of the respondent and her witnesses, it appeared that the parties resided in the village of Mullion, and that they had known each other from childhood. For about two or three years, Munday had paid his addresses to the respondent, and had been very warm and devoted in his attentions, frequently visiting her two and three times a day. In the latter part of 1860 the young woman found herself in the family way, and on the 16th of March, 1861, she was delivered of a child. Three weeks after, the father left Mullion and went to America, and he did not return till the early part of March last, when she affiliated the child. Evidence was given of the appellant having visited the mother, walked out with her, and acted in other respects as a lover. Mr. Stokes contended that the corroborative evidence was defective; but the court confirmed the order, and allowed £5 costs. MR. COODE'S RETIREMENT. Mr. STOKES then said—l have been desired by the gentlemen who practise at these sessions, to express, before the court separates, our deep regret at the retirement of Mr. Coode from the office of Clerk of the Peace of this County. Mr. SAWLE—He has not resigned the office of Clerk of the Peace—only the County Treasurership. Mr. STOKES—l mean his retirement from the active duties of the office of Clerk of the Peace, although we have every confidence that those duties will be most ably and efficiently discharged by the gentleman who will act for him. One thing has led to another in this instance, and we feel that by the appointment of Mr. Shilson as Deputy Clerk of the Peace, we have lost the services of a most able and eloquent coadjutor and advocate in this court; and in the retirement from the active duties of the office of Clerk of the Peace, we have lost the services of one whose long experience, great legal knowledge, and sound judgment have been of great value both to the practitioners in this court, and the magistrates of this county. I think that Mr. Coode has been in practice for nearly 50 years, and for 22 years of that period he has held the honourable position of Clerk of the Peace of this large county—one of the highest offices that the members of my profession could fill in this or any other county: and on his retirement, I am desired to express to him our warm esteem and respect for him, and our high appreciation of his great abilities and distinguished qualities. We consider that he is an ornament to his profession. His abilities are undoubted, and have been universally admitted; his integrity, honour, and uprightness are unimpeachable; and in addition to this, we wish now to express our grateful sense of his general urbanity, and that kind attention and assistance which we have always received from him while in the discharge of the duties of his office at quarter sessions. His extensive knowledge of the law, and his great experience, enabled him frequently to render assistance which was most valuable to us, as well as to your worships also; and, although I am aware that what I now offer is only a very humble tribute, still the profession feel that it is due to him to say that they will cherish his name as that of one who has been a most distinguished ornament to the legal profession, as was also his father, who preceded him in the office. With regard to my friend, Mr. Shilson, who will now discharge the duties of the office, we shall all feel that we have lost an advocate whose eloquence and ability were well known throughout the county; but at the same time, we also know that we shall have the advantage of his great experience, whenever we may have occasion to apply to him. This concluded the business of the sessions, and the Court then rose.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 4 July 1862

4. Midsummer Sessions These sessions were opened at the County Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday, the 1st of July, before the following magistrates:— Chairmen—C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq., presiding. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. John Jope Rogers, Esq., M.P. Lord Vivian. Neville Norway, Esq. Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend James Trevenen, Esq. Boscawen. W. R. C. Potter, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. John Haye, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. C. B. Kingdon, Esq. C. G. P. Brune, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. H. R. S. Trelawny, Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. Edward Collins, Esq. Rev. Uriah Tonkin. Samuel Borlase, Esq. Rev. Vyell P. Vyvyan. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. W. Michell, Esq. Rev. John Tonkin. C. A. Reynolds, Esq. Rev. James Glencross. R. G. Bennet, Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. Edwin Ley, Esq. Rev. R. B. Kinsman. R. G. Lakes, Esq. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. William Herbert Mansell, Falmouth, chairman. Mr. William Bawden, Liskeard. Mr. Frederick Hobart Earle, Falmouth. Mr. William Eade, Blisland. Mr. Richard Greenwood, Truro. Mr. Jonathan Samuel Guy, Endellion. Mr. Edmund Hancock, Falmouth. Mr. Richard Osborne Job, Truro. Mr. Stephen Johns, Bodmin. Mr. Thomas Lean, Blisland. Mr. George Lower, Liskeard. Mr. James Lander, Bodmin. Mr. James Medland, Falmouth. Mr. William George Nettell, Liskeard. Mr. Charles Emmanuel Pearse, Bodmin. Mr. William Sargent, Bodmin. Mr. William Truscott, Bodmin. Mr. Joseph Truscott, St. Austell. Mr. Oliver Vincent, Truro. Mr. Nicholas Joseph Vivian, Camborne. Mr. Joseph Vivian, jun., Camborne. The Queen's proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and the prevention and punishment of vice, profaneness, and immorality was read; after which the Chairman delivered the following Charge:— Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—It is always a great pleasure to the gentleman who presides in this chair, to see a full attendance of grand jurors; and as I know at this particular season of the year some of you have great calls at home, the more credit is due to those who attend here to discharge the important duties that are intrusted to you on this occasion. I may say, it is owing to gentlemen in your position being so ready to perform your duties, that the laws of the country are so well administered and so much respected. As to the calendar, I regret to say that the number of prisoners it contains is very large. This time twelvemonth there were 31 prisoners on the calendar; the present number is 42. I have gone carefully through the depositions, and I am sorry to say that I cannot discover that this increase of crime has arisen from any sudden temptation; but the larger amount of the offences in the calendar seems to have been committed by persons who went out with the systematic intention to take any property which they might find unprotected. A great number of prisoners are charged with stealing property from mines; and it is well known that this is a description of property which is of a very unprotected character, and, therefore, it is desirable to protect it as far as possible, through the instrumentality of the law, from the depredations of persons of dishonest habits. As regards the education of the prisoners that have been committed for trial, I would say that the calendar is for the most part satisfactory, for there is only one prisoner out of the whole number of 42, except those on bail, of whom I have no account or means of judging how far they have had any instruction; and I will here mention that it is very desirable that magistrates' clerks should send up, as far as possible, with the depositions, the amount of education which the parties charged have received, for it is of great importance that we should be able to ascertain on looking at the calendar the state of education in the case of all parties who have to take their trial at these sessions for the various offences of which they stand charged— l say that the calendar is so far satisfactory in as much as there is only one prisoner charged in it who is able to read and write well, and that is a person who does not belong to this country. All the others are either persons of no education at all, or whose education has been of a highly imperfect character, thereby showing that ignorance and crime go hand-in-hand. As there are now great efforts made throughout the country to give the labouring classes a good education based upon religion, we may hope, that when that education is extended, we shall have a still further diminution of crime. There is another fact which appears on the calendar, and that is that there is only one person of tender years charged—only one person under the age of 16 years; and I trust this fact may be taken as some proof that reformatories and industrial schools are instrumental in preventing juvenile crime. There was a remarkable case which came to my knowledge during the time I happened to be out of the county a short time ago, which shows in a striking manner that these institutions are really very useful. A boy who had been committed to one of these institutions was afterwards apprenticed out, and he then unfortunately fell back again into evil courses, the training and instruction which he received in the institution having failed to reclaim him from his evil habits. It appears that he was acquainted with another boy who had also fallen into evil courses, and on one occasion he said to the latter, I would advise you by all means to go into that institution from which I have come, because if you go there you will receive such instruction as will make you a better boy. I think that this circumstance tells strongly in favour of these institutions, for although one of them had failed to do great moral good to the first of these boys, yet it had left a good impression on him; and there is no doubt that had he followed the instruction which he had received, he would have been a different character. Although, however, he did not follow the instruction which he had received, yet he was able to give sound advice to another youth who was disposed to adopt an evil course of life. With these general observations, I will now call your attention to one or two of the cases in the calendar. The first is No. 26, that of Eliza Bailey, who is charged with stealing a dress and a jacket. It appears from the depositions that the prisoner went to the house of the prosecutrix, a person in an humble position in life, and offered some trifling articles for sale, and then offered to tell this poor woman her fortune. The prisoner appears to be a person who has been in the habit of going about fortune-telling, and while following her vocation, to obtain by threats and unlawful means, the property of her dupes. The prosecutrix appears to have refused to have anything to do with her as regards fortune-telling; and then the prisoner said that she must have some of her property. The prosecutrix refusing to let her have any, the prisoner made use of this threat—"If you do not give me some of your property something will happen to you." It then appears that the prosecutrix, although in the first instance unwilling to give the prisoner anything or to have anything to do with her, after this threat sha was induced to give her the articles mentioned in the indictments; on which the prisoner threw at her a paper containing a powder which she said would do away with the evil wish that had been uttered. Now, if the prosecutrix parted with the property on condition that the prisoner should tell her her fortune, that would not amount to a felony; but if she parted with the articles under a threat that if she did not do so, something would be done to her, that would be a larceny, and it would be your duty to find a true bill. Then there is another case numbered 36 and 37, in the calendar, in which two persons named Mary Ann Trenmuth and George White are charged with uttering counterfeit money. It appears that the female tendered a counterfeit sovereign in payment of some articles, but the person to whom she offered it discovered it to be a bad one, and returned it to her. The fact of the person not taking the sovereign does not matter in point of law, because it is the knowingly uttering a spurious coin, which constitutes the offence; and if you find that she was guilty of knowingly uttering a counterfeit sovereign, you will find a true bill, notwithstanding that the person to whom it was offered returned it back almost immediately. With regard to the male prisoner, he seems to have been leagued with the woman in passing off the counterfeit coin. The statute provides that if any person is found in possession of three pieces of counterfeit coin, with the intention of uttering them, he is guilty of an indictable offence in law. It appears from the depositions that in the case where the woman tendered the counterfeit sovereign, they were both together; and as they were leaving the shop where they had purchased something, the man said my wife will pay you, and left. The woman then offered the bad sovereign in payment, which was refused. Suspicion was aroused, and the man was taken into custody, and on being searched three base sovereigns were found upon him. You will have to consider whether he had those three spurious sovereigns in his possession with the intention of uttering them. I believe it will be proved they were of the same description as the counterfeit sovereign tendered by the woman—that they were all new, and alike; and if you should think that he had them in his possession with the intention of uttering them, although he had not actually done so, it will be your duty to rind a true bill against him. There is another case, No. 40 in the calendar, to which I would draw your serious attention. In this case a party is charged with an assault with intent, upon Eliza Williams Wallis, and according to the depositions it is one that will require your most serious attention. The party whom the prisoner assaulted is a child about 7 years old; and I almost wish that the case, instead of being sent to Sessions for trial, had been sent before Her Majesty's judges at the approaching Assizes, because according to the depositions, it strikes me that a much greater offence was committed than we can try here. I much question whether the offence was not one of rape instead of an assault with intent. These are the only cases which appear to me to require remarks. With respect to the rates, we shall require a county rate for general purposes of ¾d. in the £. This time twelve-months we required 22-32nds of a penny in the pound; but I need scarcely say that if crime increases, the rates will increase also. We shall likewise require a rate of ¾d.(?) in the £ for the police. The Chairman then dismissed the grand jury to their duties. The proposed rate of ¾d. in the £ for general purposes of the county was then granted; as was also a similar rate, amounting to £2620 7s., for the Police. CORONERS' BILLS. The following bills for the past quarter were passed:— £. s. d. Mr. Carlyon, for 13 inquests … … 77 16 4 Mr. Hamley, 14 “ … … … 63 5 10 Mr. Hichens, 30 “ … … … 94 0 3 Mr. Good, 10 “ … … … 40 16 0 Mr. Jagoe, 14 “ … … … 48 13 0 324 11 8 For the corresponding quarter last year, the bills were:—

£. s. d. Mr. Carlyon, for 21 inquests … … … … … 90 17 10 Mr. Hamley, 24 “ … … … … … … 78 13 4 Mr. Hichens, 21 “ … … … … … … 81 18 9 Mr. Good, 12 “ … … … … … … 47 11 2 Mr. Jagoe, 15 “ … … … … … … 48 9 9 93 317 10 10 COUNTY GAOL. The CHAIRMAN read the following report of the Visiting Justices:—Bodmin, July 1st, 1862.—The Visiting Justices of the County Gaol and Bridewell beg to report to the magistrates in Quarter Sessions assembled that both are in excellent order; that Mrs. White, assistant female warder, having resigned, Mary Dungey has been selected from two applicants for recommendation at a salary of £20 per annum. The Committee beg to submit Mr. Haden's estimates for warming apparatus, ventilation, &c., as per order of last sessions, for the consideration of the court. The committee having instituted a comparison between the dietaries of the Devon and Cornwall county gaols, and having found that the former is 10½d. per head per week cheaper than the latter, the committee recommend that application be made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for permission to adopt the Devon dietary, which appears to work very satisfactorily. A sum not exceeding £400 will be required to meet the current expenses of the quarter. Signed, Nicholas Kendall, Neville Norway. Mary Dungey was elected assistant warder, as recommended by the Visiting Justices. Mr. KENDALL then offered some remarks explanatory of the dietary charge in the Cornwall prison; but we regret that the honourable gentleman's observations, as well as those of other gentlemen who took part in the county business, were very imperfectly audible in the place assigned to the reporters. Mr. Kendall was understood to say—We are actually paying 10½d. per head per week for dietary more than is paid in the Devon gaol. On the face of it that is a very serious charge. I would, in the first place, remind the court that within the last twelve months, I stated here on the part of the committee that some years ago we became aware that the dietary at our gaol was excessively good; and the Committee suggested to me that we should treat the magistrates to a taste of the gaol diet. We did so; we had it brought here; and it was so very good that it was unanimously resolved that Mr. Lethbridge, the chairman, should make application to the Home Office for permission to alter the dietary. The application was made, but we were unfortunate, and it failed. Till very recently, I was not aware that there was any variance in the gaol dietaries throughout England. But the moment it was suggested to us that there was a difference, we made inquiries and to our surprise we found that in Devon there was an amended dietary. Mr. Kendall mentioned same articles which are supplied to prisoners in the Cornwall gaol—including chocolate and sugar—which are not included in the Devon dietary; and he went on to say:—The next thing we did was to inquire if, in the Devon gaol, with the dietary there in use, the health of the prisoners was good; and the answer was that the dietary had proved most satisfactory, and that there was no reason to find fault. We now suggest in our report that this Court should make application to the Home Office for permission to adopt the Devon dietary. The county of Cornwall can provide a dietary as cheap as Devon surely. I hope the magistrates will follow up our suggestion; and I have no reason to suppose they will not succeed. I am only sorry we did not go upon the plan of constantly touching up the Treasury; but I hope that by another quarter we shall be able to show that we can maintain our prisoners as cheaply as Devon—so far as dietary goes. Lord VIVIAN—Mr. Kendall looks to me as if I was the proper person to make some observations on the subject of the gaol expenditure. Some time ago I took exceptions to some items of that expenditure; and there can be no doubt that in our gaol the expenditure is considerably in excess of that in other gaols. The expenditure per head in our gaol is £49 per annum. I hold in my hands returns from the Berkshire Gaol, and I find there that the gross charge of each prisoner is 1s. 4½d. a-day—under 10s. a-week, against our £49 a-year. I do not attach any blame to our committee. As the chairman has said, it was quite impossible they could foresee the alterations that have been allowed in the dietaries of other gaols. At the time our dietary was prepared Sir James Graham was at the Home Office, and he was very exacting; but I believe that since that, the Home Office has relaxed, and has allowed a simpler and more ordinary diet, and it has been found sufficient. But as to other matters than dietary, I have taken the trouble to compare the costs of inmates of our workhouse, our asylum, and our gaol. I find that in 1860 the cost of clothing in the workhouse was 2½d. per head; in the asylum, 7½d.; in the gaol, 10¾d. In 1861, the cost of clothing in the workhouse was 2½d.; in the asylum, 7d.; in the gaol 7½d. In 1860, the dietary in the workhouse was 2s. 4d.; in the asylum, 3s. 2¼d.; in the gaol, 3s. 0½d. In 1861, the workhouse, 2s. 4d.; the asylum, 3s. 9½d.; the gaol, 3s. 2½d. And then comes the extraordinary charge for "necessaries." In 1860 (I have not the returns for 1861) the necessaries at the workhouse were 2d.; in the asylum, 7d.; in the gaol 2s. 0½d. per week. This is a startling difference; though I dare say the Chairman of the committee will be able to explain it. I am quite certain that by careful supervision, a check may be put on the expenditure of the gaol, and that it may be brought down to the level of other county gaols. In Berkshire the total cost is not 10s. a week; while in Cornwall it is nearly £1 a week per head. This is a matter that requires serious consideration; and I feel quite sure the committee will give it their attention. Mr. KENDALL—l have explained as to the dietary. It only shows the necessity of questions being put; if Mr. Lakes had not put his questions we should have gone on in our old way. As regards clothing, the comparison between Devon and Cornwall is very startling. But the county must bear in mind that there is nearly the same committee for the gaol as for the asylum; and some time since ours was proved to be the most economical asylum in England. I believe we shall attain the same result quoad the gaol. It should be recollected, however, that we had to build a large—a stupendous gaol; but it was not owing to any want of urgent endeavours on the part of the committee that we were not allowed to build a smaller gaol. Having to build a large gaol, the prisoners were constantly employed day after day, on the works; and by the consequent wear and tear of their clothing, the cost of clothing was increased considerably. That was done in order to save the county the cost of labour; and for their work we made no charge on the county.—With regard to necessaries, let us, by all means have our returns made more simple than they now are, by copying either the Devon or the Berkshire accounts, as may be deemed advisable; but don't let us talk about “necessaries" now, when we don't know what they are. The new gaol being built, we set ourselves to put matters in form, and we are doing so gradually. lam very glad we have had our attention called to this matter of expenditure. I think the committee have worked very successfully; and we may hope to reduce the expenditure down to the level of Devonshire in the next six months. The CHAIRMAN suggested that a copy of the Devon dietary should be sent to the Home Office, with a request that its adoption might be sanctioned for this county. Mr. LE GRICE— But what will you do with the "necessaries?" Lord VIVIAN—I have made all the inquiries possible, with the gaol accounts so complicated as they are at present. As my honourable friend is chairman of the committees of both the asylum and the gaol, I would suggest that if the accounts of the two establishments were put on the same footing, we should have more satisfactory arrangements. The average expenditure at the asylum for necessaries is 7d. per week; while, at the gaol, for the same articles, so far as I can make out, the average expenditure is 2s. 0½d. I dare say the committee may be able to show that there are other articles included under the head of necessaries at the gaol than at the asylum. But I do not see why, as between the asylum and the gaol, there should be such a monstrous difference. Mr. KENDALL—l say you have not arrived at a correct definition of what the "necessaries" are; but I believe we shall be able so to simplify our accounts that you will be able to ascertain them in future. HEATING AND VENTILATION OF THE COURT. The CHAIRMAN read the following communication from Messrs. Haden and Son:— Gentlemen,—In accordance with your order received through Capt. Colville, we have thoroughly examined the County Assize Courts with reference to the means of warming and ventilating them, and respectfully submit the following remarks thereon, and tender for the works suggested:— 1st. As to the WARMING APPARATUS—We examined that now in use, and we are of opinion that to do anything to make it efficient would be lost labour, as it is an old kind of apparatus, and will be always liable to get out of order, if done the best with. We should recommend a proper apparatus put in its stead, which can be erected in the same place, and made quite efficient for warming the courts to 60 deg. of heat at all times. We should use the existing channels to some extent, and enlarge the supply to the courts, that now provided being totally inadequate. CELLS.—There is at present no means of warming these lock-up boxes in the basement; they are very cold in the winter, and can be warmed by hot-water pipes in connection with the same fire. We have annexed the costs of these works separately so that you can adopt what you think desirable. 2nd.—With respect to the ventilation—we recommend some additional means of supply of fresh air under command from the exterior, and the two angles of the court suggest themselves as suitable spots for these openings. Also that the openings in the ceiling where the flowers are, now very contracted in their apertures, be made to open entirely, for crowded court days. And it would materially improve the ventilation if these were connected to a turret in each case, and supplied by a gas cone to rarify the air. One such a turret only now exists to the Crown Court. The ventilation of the basement cells is a highly important point, as 30 men and 12 women are there for a long time frequently, and the small openings that exist , are of little if any service. The consequence is, that the effluvia from the basement finds its way to the courts above every time the dock steps door is opened. We recommend that a connection be made to the exterior under the windows for fresh air, and that provision to carry off the foetid air be contrived from headway of the two rooms to a vertical pipe that can be erected in the angles found at back of building, some ten inches diameter. We particularly noticed the arrangement of the main entrance and waiting hall—that it only has open gates, and no means of closing from the weather, be it what it may. This renders all the doors to the respective courts and rooms the same as though they were open to the exterior direct, and is a fertile source of draught whenever the doors are opened; and between the sessions and assizes, the damp weather so prevalent there, will be driven into the buildings to their injury. Doors could readily be put there, and fan lights over them at no great expense, and be a material improvement. We beg to state that we took sufficient dimensions of the buildings to get the apparatus prepared, and respectfully wait your commands."— G. HADEN and SON. The estimate of the cost of the work was:—For an improved warm air apparatus, for warming both courts £78 10s.; boiler in connection with same, fire and hot water pipes to heat the cells tor males and females in basement, £38 18s.; fresh air supply to the courts, £40; extra turret and connections to the openings, and means for gas jets, &c., £45 to £55; builders' work, pipes, &c., £25; entrance doors and lights, about £35; total, £261. Mr. NEVILLE NORWAY said he went over the courts with Mr. Haden, and he concurred in his recommendations; but he thought they might be carried out for, probably, £40 or £50 less than Mr. Haden had suggested. He told Mr. Haden to be sure and put the outside figure; and certainly Mr. Haden had left a very wide margin. The CHAIRMAN complained of the defective character of the heating apparatus in the second court. At the last Epiphany Sessions the cold was insupportable in that court. All three chairmen, and every other person engaged in the court, complained of it. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH concurred. Mr. NORWAY said the present apparatus was utterly worthless. He also drew attention to the cells below the court, stating that they were miserable both to the prisoners confined in them and to persons above, from the foul air emitted from them. Mr. KENDALL thought it was unjustifiable to subject prisoners to confinement in such unwholesome cells. Mr. COLLINS urged that the present means of ventilation of the courts was utterly inefficient, as was apparent at that very time to any one who entered the court. Mr. REGINALD TRELAWNY believed that the ventilation might be improved at a much less cost than had been named, by merely knocking out some panes of glass at the top of the windows, and putting in a sort of Venetian blinds. Mr. NORWAY.—It is the heating apparatus that involves the principal expense. Rev. T. PHILPOTTS believed the estimate for ventilation alone was only £40. Mr. NORWAY concurred. Mr. KENDALL thought the ventilation might be cheaply managed; the heating apparatus was the principal expense; and they must have heat as well as cold. At present the cells below were unwholesome, and were stated by medical men to be injurious to the prisoners, and therefore he did not see how the magistrates could avoid providing a remedy. Mr. LE GRICE—There has never been any objection to the heating of this court. Why not adopt the same plan for the second court? Mr. ROGERS suggested that the Committee should be requested to make further inquiry, and recommend a scheme at the next Sessions. Mr. KENDALL thought it desirable to add some members to the Committee; and named Mr. Trelawny, Mr. Phillpotts, and Mr. Collins. Ultimately, it was resolved, on the motion of Mr. ROGERS, that Mr. Haden's report be referred to the Gaol Committee to report on at next Sessions; and that the Rev. T. Phillpotts, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Trelawny be added to the committee. —The sum of £1400 required for the current expenses of the gaol was then granted; and the report of the Visiting Justices was adopted. —Subsequently, Sir Colman Rashleigh gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move that a sum not exceeding £250 be granted for heating and ventilating the halls.

GAOL EXPENSES. Subsistence …………………………………………………………. £242 8 6½ Clothing ………………………………………………………………. 63 19 2 Fuel ……………………………………………………………………… 61 7 6 Sundries ………………………………………………………………. 73 9 11½ Salaries ………………………………………………………………… 344 2 0 Pensioned Governor ……………………………………………. 50 0 0 Pensioned Watchman ………………………………………….. 1 5 0 Paid Prisoners at discharge ………………………………….. 12 1 3 Expenses at Easter Sessions …………………………………. 4 17 2 Removal of Convicts (5 bills) ………………………………… 32 1 1½ Female Singers …………………………………………………….. 1 0 0 Advertisements for Tenders, &c. (3 bills) ……………… 3 8 6 Town Council of Bodmin, one year's subscription towards Fire Engines …………………………………………. 2 2 0 Wippell for Surplice ……………………………………………… 2 0 0 Martin Guard to prisoners ……………………………………. 9 0 0 Thomas Grant, for assisting the Clerk ……………………. 5 10 0 Incidental Expenses ………………………………………………. 3 8 7 912 0 9½ Cr. By Cash for subsistence of naval and other prisoners ……………………………………………………………. 10 3 0 Do. for. bran, old iron, &c ……………………………………… 5 15 8

Total Current Expenses …………………………………………. 896 2 1½ Alterations and Repairs …………………………………………. 51 10 7 947 12 8½ Hall Expenses 23 19 4

GOVERNOR'S REPORT.— The CHAIRMAN read the following:— "Since the date of my last report nothing has occurred which requires any special remark. The new gaol buildings have now been sufficiently tested, and the result is most satisfactory, both as regards health and discipline. The conduct of the prisoners generally has been good and orderly. The usual certificate required, I have the honour to annex. The certificate referred to stated 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. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT.—The Chairman read a comparative statement of the number of prisoners for trial, at the Midsummer Session, 1861 and 1862; the number of prisoners committed under the Criminal Justice Act and Juvenile Offenders' Acts, and the total number of prisoners and debtors received during the above quarters, 1861.—For felony in custody, 17; ditto on bail, 7; misdemeanor, in custody, 1; ditto on bail, 3; for breach of the peace, 1; committed under the Criminal Justice Act, 20; ditto under the Juvenile Offenders' Acts, 2—total, 51. 1862—for felony in custody, 28; ditto on bail, 6; for misdemeanor, in custody, 5; assault on bail, 1; vagrants, 1; committed under the Criminal Justice Act, 25; ditto under the Juvenile Offenders' Acts, 4— total, 70. Total number of prisoners received during the quarter, ending Midsummer, 1861,196; Sheriffs' debtors ditto, 7; ditto, County Court, 35.—Total number of prisoners received during corresponding quarter, 1862, 197; Sheriff's debtors, 3, and County Court ditto, 55. VISITING JUSTICES.—The following were appointed the Visiting Justices for the ensuing year:—Mr. Kendall (chairman). Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., Mr. C. B. Graves Sawle, Mr. Foster, Mr. E. Coode, junr., Mr. Neville Norway, Mr. Coulson, Mr. F. M. Williams, Rev. V. F. Vyvyan, Col. Cocks, and Mr. Potter. COUNTY BRIDGES. Mr. HICKES, surveyor of bridges for the Western Division, presented the following report:—ln laying before you this report, I would beg to suggest the propriety of preparing materials for the bridge roads at this season of the year, as it would be a saving to the County, and the materials would then be ready for use when the roads are in a proper state for laying them on. The probable cost of such materials would be as follows:—For Godolphin bridge, 5l. 10s.; St. Erth, 2l. 10s.; Long Bridge, 4l.; Chyandour, 6l. 5s.; Newlyn, 6l.— total, 24l. 5s. I shall require one levy. The report was adopted without discussion. Mr. JENKINS, the surveyor of County bridges in the Eastern Division, reported as follows:— SPECIAL REPORT ON RODD'S BRIDGES. As instructed by you at the last Sessions, I have made a special survey of the road at these bridges.—I append a plan and section of the same, to which I have referred in this report.—There are 4 bridges kept by the County, and about 363 yards of road.—The main stream crosses the road at O on plan, and the level of the bottom of the stream at this point is marked on the section.—The Valley being generally flat, is liable to be much flooded after rain, and when the quantity of water becomes too great to pass through the proper channel at O, it should pass along the ditches on the South side of the road, and escape through the other openings C. K. and P. By the erection of the Bank at L, the top of which is higher than the road, the openings C and K have been rendered unserviceable, and all the surplus water that cannot escape through the small opening at P, flows over the road, doing it great injury. I have, therefore, no hesitation in stating my belief, that the existence of the bank at L, is prejudicial to the county road. An attempt to remove it has been resisted by the agent of an adjacent landowner .—Boyton Bridge.—The timber work of one arch of this bridge is very much decayed and requires to be renewed. The estimated cost is £25.—Poulson Bridge.—The iron work of this bridge requires painting. The cost will be about £8. A portion of the parapet and quay walls of the bridge have given away. The cost of rebuilding them will not exceed £7.—Helscott Bridge.—A considerable failure has taken place in the quay work of this raised road. I have to apply for a sum of £10 for repairing the same.—St. Thomas' Bridge, Launceston.—A portion of the parapet of this bridge was injured and required immediate repair; this has been done at a cost of 8s. 7d.—Rilla Mill Bridge.—A piece of timber forming part of one of the arches of this bridge is broken. I propose to substitute granite; the cost will be about £2.—I shall not require any levy at this time. After some discussion, £25 was voted for the repair of Boyton Bridge, which Mr. Jenkins represented to be in a very dangerous condition, as likewise were the sums applied for for repairs of the other bridges mentioned in the report. POLICE. The CHAIRMAN read the following report, from the Chief Constable:— Chief Constable's Office, Bodmin, 1st July, 1862. My Lords and Gentlemen: In compliance with the 2nd and 3rd Vict. cap. 93, I have the honour to lay before you the Quarterly Returns of Crime committed in this county, as far as is known to the county constabulary; also a return showing the number and distribution of the force.—Since the last sessions, Captain Willis, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for the South Police Districts of England and Wales, has made his annual inspection, and has expressed himself to me as satisfied with the County Police of this county.— l have also to report that the Station at Pool is occupied by the police. I have the honour to be, My Lords and Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, W. R. GILBERT, Lieut.-Colonel and Chief Constable of Cornwall. —Mr. E. Coode, junr., read the following REPORT OF THE COUNTY POLICE COMMITTEE. A meeting was held yesterday at the Chief Constable's Office at which the following members were present:—Lord Vivian, The Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., N. Kendall, Esq., M.P., J. J. Rogers, Esq., M.P., C. B., G. Sawle, Esq., C. B. Kingdon, Esq., Rev. R. B. Kinsman; Edward Coode, junr., in the chair.—The expenses incurred during the past quarter were examined and approved, and the expenses allowed at the last sessions were reported by the Chairman, as having been compared by him with the vouchers and found correct. Fees and Allowances to Constables.—The Committee recommend that the Deputy Clerk of the Peace be instructed to call the attention of the several Chairmen of Petty Sessions to the provisions of 3 and 4 Vic. c88, s 18, which requires that an account of the above fees and allowances shall be delivered to the County Treasurer once in every quarter. The Committee regret to observe, that notwithstanding the frequent mention of this subject, it is in many cases not attended to. Torpoint Station.—The Committee have considered the application from the Contractors for a remission of some part of the penalty of £190 incurred for overtime. The balance unpaid of the amount of their tender is £154 10s. 4d., so that the Contractors have no legal claim whatever. The Committee, however, taking into consideration the very serious loss to the Contractors, who appear to be men of small means, see no objection to the remission of £50 of the penalty; on condition, however, of both the contractors joining to discharge the County from any further claim or application from either of them. It is recommended that the raising of the £600 by loan for budding Police Stations be postponed until the next Sessions. The following sums should be charged to the County Rate and carried to the credit of the Police rate: £. s. d. Conveyance of Prisoners ………………………. 170 11 4 Coroners' Allowances ……………………………. 39 11 0 Weights and Measures ………………………….. 37 7 5 247 9 9 A sum of £122 9s. 0d. has accrued to the Superannuation Fund during the past Quarter, which should be invested as before. The Committee recommend a Police Rate of three-farthings in the £ for the present Quarter. EDWARD COODE, jun. Chairman. July 12, 1862. The CHAIRMAN said he had been requested to call especial attention to that part of the Police Committee's Report concerning the Fees and Allowances to Constables. It was highly desirable that the accounts of such Fees and Allowances should be regularly sent from the Petty Sessions; because it was by means of those Returns the Chief Constable was enabled to check the Fees and Allowances paid to Constables. From a Statement read by Lord VIVIAN, it appeared that six Petty Sessions had made no returns, viz., Launceston, Stratton, Camelford, Callington, Truro, and Ruan Highlanes.—Washaway had made no return since December, 1861; Porcupine none since March, 1860; and from St. Columb the last return was made in June 1861. Returns had been made regularly from St. Austell, Penryn, Helston, Torpoint, and Trecan Gate. The Police Committee's Report was then adopted; £325 3s. was granted for Police Contingencies; and £247 9s. 9d. was transferred from the general County Fund to the Police Fund. —Mr. E. COLLINS wished to know whether in a case in which a person was charged with an offence and committed to prison for non-payment of the fine and expenses, the person prosecuting ought to be held liable for the costs. The CHAIRMAN enquired what was the offence with which the person was charged? Mr. COLLINS said that it was a case of poaching. The CHAIRMAN replied that the prosecutor was decidedly liable for the expenses, supposing the person charged refused to pay them. Mr. COLLINS thought it very hard that a person prosecuting a man for poaching should, after the prisoner had been convicted of the offence, have to pay 15s. expenses. The CHAIRMAN mentioned several cases in which the expenses were borne by the public; and others, such as summary convictions, cases of assault, poaching, fruit stealing, which were not specially provided for by Act of Parliament, where the expenses fell on the prosecutors, when not paid by the parties charged. —On the motion of Mr. E. COODE, junr., seconded by Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., it was resolved that an order be made authorizing the Clerk of the Peace to execute the conveyance of the site for a police station at St. Columb—the purchase of which was directed at the last sessions. SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES. The CHAIRMAN said that two orders had been received from the committee of visitors of the County Asylum, granting retiring pensions to Wm. Seccombe and Richard Dreadon, two keepers. Seccombe had been employed there 41 years, and he was now above 70 years of age; and Dreadon had been there 34 years, and he was above 60 years of age. The pensions granted had been in each case two-thirds of the salary, namely £18 6s. 8d. in the case of Seccombe, and the same amount in the case of Dreadon. The Chairman explained that the granting of the superannuation allowances rested wholly with the Asylum Committee, and the only thing the court had to do was to authorize the payment quarterly instead of yearly. Mr. KENDALL explained that Dreadon was a very strong man, but he had been seriously injured some years ago by a patient thrusting a rusty nail into his lung, which was the reason the Committee had granted him the same amount of pension as Seccombe, although he was of younger age, and had served a shorter time. An order was then made for the payment of the pensions quarterly. The Case of a Deceased Lunatic. The Rev. T. PASCOE called attention to the case of a lunatic pauper who died in March last; but his remarks were generally inaudible to the reporters. We understood him to state that the man was found by the St. Just police, who brought him to the asylum, where he died. It was found that he had been mangled and bruised in a shocking manner, that four of his ribs had been fractured on one side, and three on the other, and that his breast bone had been beaten in. It appeared that the police took him in charge as a vagrant, but finding him to be insane, they took him to the overseers of St. Just, who refused to have anything to do with him. They then brought him to the asylum, where he died shortly after. An inquest was held on him, at which the police were entirely exonerated from all blame. Mr. Pascoe said it was stated at the inquest that a heavy maniac had fallen on him, and that thus he had received the injuries. An open verdict was returned by the jury. He was requested to draw the attention of the Board of Guardians to the case, and on the 5th of April he accordingly wrote to them directing their attention to the necessity of adopting a better mode of sending lunatics to the Asylum. Until he wrote them on the subject, the guardians had no knowledge of the man's death, and he regretted that no account of the inquest had been sent to the County papers. No doubt the overseers of St. Just acted very improperly, and were liable to be fined £10. The Board of Guardians called all the parties concerned before them, and they came to the unanimous opinion that, while the man was under the care of the police, he received no damage whatever, and that any damage he received must have occurred in the asylum. Mr. KENDALL explained that the Asylum Committee had offered to the various unions of the County to undertake for a very low charge the safe conveyance of lunatics to and from the asylum, and Penzance was almost the only union that had not accepted that arrangement. Mr. ROGERS then on a point of order stopped the discussion. THE COUNTY TREASURERSHIP. Lord VIVIAN said: I have already in this Court more than once taken occasion to express my high sense of the gentleman whose services we now lose. I need only repeat my personal regret, and also express the regret of the Court generally, at the loss of a most valuable servant (hear, hear). Having said thus much, I would venture to suggest that it is essential we should well consider what should be the duties of a future Treasurer and how those duties should be remunerated. It will be in the recollection of the Court that some time since I called attention to the subject of finance; and I then proposed we should consider these very matters. But it was suggested at the time we met at St. Austell that it would be invidious during the time Mr. Coode held office, to consider how we should deal with the matter. Mr. Coode having now retired, that objection no longer exists. I would move that we request Mr. Coode, as a matter of kindness to the County, to continue to act as Treasurer until such time as we consider the duties to devolve on any future Treasurer and the remuneration to be paid him; and I would also propose that a Committee be appointed to consider those subject.—One reason for this is that by the rules of this Court it is provided the Finance Committee shall meet the day before Sessions to examine the accounts; but it is impossible that the Committee can, by meeting the day before the Sessions, go into the accounts brought before them. I think you want the assistance of such a Treasurer as shall be able to prompt you where inquiries may be made with a view to checking expenditure. But all this is matter more for consideration of a committee than of this court; and I would therefore move the appointment of a committee to consider the duties to be performed by the future Treasurer and the remuneration to be paid him; and that Mr. Coode be requested meanwhile, as a matter of kindness to the county, to continue his services. A reason the more for this course is that our financial year ends at Michaelmas, and that it would be well for the new appointment to take place at the commencement of a new financial year. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH supposed his lordship would wish the Committee to take steps to obtain candidates. Mr. Kendall said if Mr. Coode were to be asked to continue in office, the magistrates were bound to take steps to release him at the end of the financial year.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., urged the same consideration on behalf of his father. Mr. LE GRICE said it was possible the Court at the Michaelmas Sessions might not approve the report of the Committee, and in that case, how could the Court then proceed to the appointment of a Treasurer? Mr. KENDALL, to meet this objection, suggested that a Committee might be appointed to meet and to report this day. The CHAIRMAN read from the statute concerning the appointment of Treasurer, to the effect that this Court may in the first place grant a salary of £20, but that that salary may be afterwards augmented after due notice in the county newspapers. Lord VIVIAN then moved that a Committee be appointed, to define the duties to be performed by the Treasurer, to advise as to the salary to be paid him, and to take such steps as they may deem desirable to obtain candidates:—the Committee to consist of the three Chairmen, Lord Vivian, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Le Grice, and Major Trelawny.— On the suggestion of Mr. LE GRICE, the Rev. Uriah Tonkin was added; and Mr. Lakes, Mr. Norway, and Mr. Michell were also added. The resolution was adopted; and the Committee met at once and in the course of the afternoon, presented, through Lord VIVIAN, the following Report, which was adopted:— Your Committee advise that in the Standing Orders page 12, clause 3, line 8, after "subsequently," the Court should add “taking note of any excess of expenditure, under any head, over that of the preceding Quarter, with a view of calling the notice of the Finance Committee thereto."—That the salary of the Treasurer henceforth shall be £20 per annum.—That the Treasurer be elected at the ensuing Session.— That candidates for the office be requested to send their names, with the names of their sureties for an amount not exceeding £5000, to the Clerk of the Peace, on or before the 1st of September. The CHAIRMAN, referring to the Standing Orders, remarked that no Standing Order could be altered without notice; and hereupon Lord VIVIAN gave notice, in the name of the committee, that at the Michaelmas Sessions he would move the alteration now recommended. PETTY SESSIONAL ACCOMMODATION. Mr. E. COLLINS, in accordance with notice, called attention to the want of accommodation for magistrates meeting in petty sessions. He stated that at St. Columb no room was provided for the magistrates to assemble in for the transaction of business, and they had to pay £5 a year out of their own pockets for one. At Callington, the magistrates had to pay £3 a year for a room; and there were other places where they had to pay money out of their pockets for the accommodation of the public; and he considered it was unfair that they should be left to pay for the benefit of the public. Rooms were provided for the magistrates to meet in and perform their duties, in other counties, and he moved the appointment of the following Committee to inquire into the matter, and report to the next Sessions whether they considered that rooms should be provided for them, in this county, in which to transact the petty sessional business:—the three chairmen, Mr. Collins, Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, Mr. Lakes, Mr. R. S. Trelawny, and Mr. R. G. Bennet. The motion was adopted. DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE'S SALARY. Mr. E. COODE, jun., pursuant to notice, moved that the salary of the Superintendent and Deputy Chief Constable Vincent be increased from £100 to £125 per annum. He stated that he believed the police committee unanimously considered that the salary of the man on whom would devolve the responsibility of the whole police force in case of the illness or absence of the chief constable, should be increased. When Mr. Vincent was appointed, they gave him a salary slightly above that of the other superintendents; but since then the latter had been appointed inspectors of weights and measures, which had given them a slight advantage in point of salary over Mr. Vincent. This the committee thought ought not to be allowed, and hence they had recommended that the proposed increase should be made. It should also be mentioned that the chief constable stated that the salary paid to Mr. Vincent was much less than was allowed to persons holding similar appointments in other parts of the kingdom. Mr. LE GRICE asked why, if Mr. Vincent's duties had not increased, it was now proposed that his salary should be increased? Mr. E. COODE, jun. stated that Mr. Vincent's duties had increased, as for instance, owing to the appointment of the superintendents as inspectors of weights and measures, he had a great deal more writing to do. The motion was then adopted unanimously. LOSTWITHIEL BBIDGE. Mr. CARVETH then read the following special report respecting the foundations and piers of Lostwithiel Bridge:— My Lords and Gentlemen—ln obedience to your order made at the last Sessions, that I should make an examination and report to you the state of the foundations of the piers of Lostwithiel Bridge, so far as I should be able to do so without having recourse to damming or other means for previously freeing them from water, I beg to state that I have taken several opportunities of doing so, and am warranted in reporting favourably of them. I believe from what I could see they will be found sufficiently strong and good, and that should the repairs which I suggested for the restoration of the present bridge be undertaken, such repairs may be carried out without incurring the additional expense of any new foundations. I have had an opportunity during these examinations of seeing the water in the river much lower than it was at the time of my former survey, and I think it probable that it will not subside so much more during the summer as to enable me to judge better of the state of the foundations.— l have the I honour to be, my Lords and Gentlemen, your most obedient servant, Richard Carveth. St. Austell, June 30th, 1862. Mr. KENDALL gave notice that he should move at the next Sessions, that a sum not exceeding £100 be granted for the purpose of repairing Lostwithiel Bridge according to the plans of Mr. Carveth; and that the Surveyor be requested to furnish the Court at the next sessions with plans and specifications for carrying out the repairs recommended in Mr. Carveth's report. COUNTY RATE COMMITTEE. On the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., the following were appointed a committee for the purpose of amending the basis of the County rate:— East Kirrier, Mr. F. M. Williams; West Kirrier, Mr. John Jope Rogers; East Penwith, Mr. C. A. Reynolds; West Penwith, Mr. D. P. Le Grice; South Division of East, Mr. W. H. P. Carew; Middle ditto, Mr. A. Coryton; North ditto, Mr. F. Rodd; Lesnewth, Mr. E. Ley; Stratton, Rev. J. Glanville; Trigg, Mr. W. R. C. Potter; West, Mr. F. Howell; East Powder, Mr. E. Coode, Jun.; Tywardreath Powder, Mr. Richard Foster; South Powder, Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen; West Powder, Rev. Thos. Phillpotts; East Pydar, Mr. Wm. Michell. LISTS OF COUNTY VOTERS. The following Tenders were then read for printing lists of County Voters for the next three years:— Mr. Rickard, Falmouth and ……………………………………….) 39 18 0 Mr. Gill, Penryn ………………………………………………………..) 39 18 0 Mr. Lake, Truro ………………………………………………………… 38 18 0 Messrs. Heard and Sons, Truro ………………………………… 38 19 0 Mr. Liddell, Bodmin …………………………………………………. 43 0 0 A few Magistrates, at the request of the Chairman, retired I to examine the tenders. They returned in a few minutes after, and reported that as Mr. Lake's tender was the lowest, they recommended its accceptance (sic). This was adopted. The previous tender in 1859, was £43 10s. per year. APPEALS. PENZANCE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH, appellant; SURVEYORS OF HIGHWAYS IN MADRON, respondent.— Mr. CORNISH moved to enter and adjourn this appeal; and Mr. HOCKIN, for respondents, consented. PENZANCE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH, appellant; OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF MADRON, respondent.— Mr. CORNISH moved to enter and adjourn; and Mr. HOCKIN consented. OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF THE PARISH OF ILLOGAN, appellant; COUNTY JUSTICES, respondent.—This was an appeal in respect of the County Rate.— On motion by Mr. CORNISH, the appeal was entered and adjourned. CORNWALL RAILWAY COMPANY, appellant; PARISHES OF ST. GERMANS, MENHENIOT, AND LISKEARD, several respondents.—Mr. CHILDS, for Mr. P. P. Smith, moved that these appeals be further adjourned. LOOE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS, appellant; CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF THE BOROUGH OF EAST LOOE, respondent.— On the motion of Mr. CHILDS , assented to by Mr. COMMINS, this appeal was further adjourned. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. GEORGE BURNE, a shoemaker, aged 17, pleaded guilty of stealing the sum of £1 16s., the property of Alfred Truscott, at the parish of Falmouth, on the 2nd of May. (Sentence: 2 months’ hard labour) MICHAEL COSGRAVE, a sailor, aged 16, pleaded guilty of stealing a pair of boots, value 15s., the property of James Stephens, at Feock, on the 6th of May. (Sentence: 3 months’ hard labour) NICHOLAS WESTCOTT, a clerk, aged 36, pleaded guilty, on three several counts of indictment, of embezzling moneys the property of his master, Edmund Carlyon, at St. Austell, on the 2nd, 19th, and 23rd of May. (Sentence: 12 months’ hard labour)

HENRY BENNETTS, a carpenter, aged 23, charged with stealing, a pair of boots, the property of William Dennis at Truro, on the 29th of November.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor was a horse-keeper at the Queen's Head Inn, Truro; and the prisoner was in the habit of frequenting the house to see a female servant there, and frequently passed through the back- kitchen, above which was a room occupied by the prosecutor, and from which he missed the pair of boots. Afterwards, the prisoner, when questioned by prosecutor whether he had seen the boots, replied "you'll never find them." The prisoner left Truro shortly after Christmas, and the next time the prosecutor saw his boots was at the prisoner's late lodgings, at Mrs. Veach's, Richmond-hill.—Mrs. Veach deposed that she saw the prisoner take these boots from off his feet and place them under a chair. He left them in the house when he went away, saying he was going to work in a tunnel on the railway, and should be back again in the evening, but she saw nothing of him until the 19th April.—On the 17th of January, Mr. Nash, superintendent of Police, went with the prosecutor to Mrs. Veach's, and she delivered him the boots, which the prosecutor identified; as he did also now in Court.—The prisoner when before the committing magistrate said he was guilty; but he now made a long statement in defence.—The Jury, however, found him guilty; and a previous conviction was proved against him. At the Lent Assizes 1862, he was convicted of stealing a pair of stockings on the 13th January last, and suffered three months' imprisonment with hard labour. (Sentence: 4 months’ hard labour) ELIZABETH PENPRAZE, a mine-girl, aged 20, was charged with stealing on the 2nd of June, an iron boiler, the property of John Thomas, a farmer living in the parish of Illogan, near the highway between Redruth and Camborne.—Mr. Hingston Harvey conducted the prosecution.—From the evidence of the prosecutor and his wife, it appeared they saw the boiler at the back door of their house, on the 2nd of June, and did not miss it till the 10th; and on their communicating with the police at Pool, P.C. Harris showed them the boiler. He had taken it from the prisoner, between 2 and 3 o'clock on the morning of the 3rd of June; seeing her on the road concealing something under her arm, he stopped her and found she was carrying a boiler, of which he took possession, believing it to be stolen, and she being unable to give a satisfactory account of her possession of it;—though she afterwards said she picked it up by the road side.— Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: 2 months’ hard labour) LAVINIA SYMONS, a mine girl, aged 20, pleaded guilty of obtaining by a false pretence, from Elizabeth Rogers, the sum of 5s. 6d. and a basket, the property of James Rogers, with intent to cheat and defraud him of the same, at Illogan, on the 5th May. (Sentence: 2 months’ hard labour) JOSEPH GEORGE, 37, an engineer, pleaded guilty to the charge of breaking into a certain account-house and material-house at Camborne, on the 21st April, with intent to commit a felony. (Sentence: 8 months’ hard labour) HENRY ALLEN, 31, labourer, pleaded guilty of stealing two shirts, the property of Joseph Williams, at Egloshayle, on the 19th May:—He also pleaded guilty to a former conviction of felony. (Sentence: 4 years’ penal servitude) WILLIAM KITTO, aged 15, a carrier, was charged with breaking into a certain building and stealing the sum of three-pence, the property of William Bridgman, at South Petherwyn, on the 21st of May.—Mr. Stoke, conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.— The prosecutor has a stable in Launceston; and on the 21st of May he placed in a window thereof a cup containing two marked penny-pieces and two marked half-pennies. He left the money and cup in the window at half-past 12 o'clock in the day, and locking the stable went away. On his return in the evening, he discovered that the window had been opened, and that the money had been taken from the cup. He gave information to P.C. Barrett, who, in the course of the same day, brought the prisoner to him in custody and also produced the marked pence and half pence found on the prisoner.—Evidence was given by the prosecutor and by P.C. Barrett; and the coppers were identified by prosecutor.—The prisoner, in defence, said it was another boy who took the money from the stable and gave him twopence, stating that they must not tell of each other.— The Jury, after long consultation, agreed to a verdict of Guilty, with recommendation to mercy.—A previous conviction however, was proved against the youthful prisoner; in July, 1860 he was convicted on three counts, of obtaining figs, muscatells, and raisins, from John Powell. (Sentence: 3 months’ hard labour)

SECOND COURT. (Before J. JOPE ROGERS, Esq., M.P.) FRANZ BARTOLDI, 27, a painter, was charged with stealing, on the 1st of February, at Falmouth, an overcoat of the value of about £2, the property of Messrs. Fox & Co. Mr. COMMINS prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The coat was one of several used by the clerks of Messrs. Fox & Co., when boarding vessels in the harbour, and on Saturday evening, the 1st of February, it was hung up in their office in Falmouth. The prisoner was seen loitering about the office that day by Mr. James Trerice, one of the clerks, and on the following Monday the coat was missed. On the Saturday evening, the prisoner pledged the coat to Mr. Henry Owen, pawnbroker, for 3s., and afterwards he gave the ticket to Mrs. Benson, the wife of a beershop keeper, as security for the payment of 2s. debt which he had contracted for lodging and drink, and she sent her sister with the ticket to Mr. Owen and released the coat. On the 6th of February she delivered it to police constable Currah. The coat was identified by Mr Trerice, who said that it had cost £3, and had not been much worn, and the prisoner was at once found Guilty. (Sentence: 4 months’ hard labour) HEINRICH SALTOW, 17, seaman, was charged with having on or about the 10th of April, at St. Ives, stolen a pair of stockings and a Guernsey frock, the property of Harry Pearce Veal. Mr. CORNISH prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor belonged to the vessel "Ivy," of St. Ives, which was lying in that port on the 10th of April, alongside of another vessel called the "Pendarves," on board of which the prisoner was employed. The prosecutor had on board the "Ivy," a bag containing the Guersey (sic) frock, the stockings, and other articles of clothing, which he saw were all safe before going on shore to sleep on the evening of the 9th, but on returning on board the next morning, the bag and clothing were gone. On Monday the 14th, the "Ivy" sailed to Portreath, where she was followed by the “Pendarves." On Thursday evening, the 17th of April, the prosecutor went home to St. Ives to spend Good Friday, and on returning to the vessel the following Saturday, he found the prisoner engaged on board as cook. On the evening of the 21st, in consequence of something that was told to prosecutor, he went to where the prisoner was sleeping, and charged him with having stolen his bag and clothing, upon which he flew into a violent passion. He then took off the stockings, and the Guernsey frock, the latter from underneath his shirt. These were now identified by the prosecutor, and the prisoner was found Guilty. (Sentence: 3 months’ hard labour) STEPHEN HILL, 20, was charged with stealing, on the 26th or 27th of May, a duck, the property of Thomas Uren, of Illogan. Mr. Cornish prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor saw the duck on his premises on the 24th of May, and the next day he missed it. On the 27th the prisoner sold two ducks to Mrs. Elizabeth Blunt, of Portreath, for 2s. 6d., and on asking him who he was, he gave two different names. She afterwards sold one of the ducks, and the other she gave to the police. This was now produced, and identified by the prosecutor as his property. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, the prosecutor said that he had known the prisoner for many years, and they had attended the same Sunday school when boys. He had never heard anything against him before the present charge, and should he be found guilty, he should wish the court to deal as mercifully with him as possible. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended him to mercy on account of the good character the prosecutor had given him.—The prisoner was then further indicted for stealing on the 2nd of June, at Illogan, three ducks, the property of Joseph Webster, miner. Mr. Cornish also prosecuted in this case. On Monday, the 4th June, the prosecutor had four ducks, which he saw in the court in which he resides, on the morning of that day, and in the evening, he found that three of them were gone. On the same day the prisoner sold three ducks to William Harris, the hind to Capt. Evans, of Nance Farm, in Illogan, for 4s. 6d., which was their fair value. The ducks were now produced, and identified by prosecutor, and the prisoner was found GUILTY. (Sentence: 3 months’ hard labour) JAMES TREGLOWN, 18, a miner, was charged with stealing on the 18th March, at Camborne, a hammer, the property of Mr. John Petherick. Mr. Cornish prosecuted. On the 18th of March, John Kneebone, a labourer, in Mr. Petherick's service, used the hammer at some work in the yard of his master's premises, and when he had done, he placed it against the wall of the stable, where he left it. On the morning of the 19th, a boy observed the prisoner attempting to get into the stable window from the road, and shortly after the hammer was missed. Suspicion fell upon the prisoner, and on the house where he lived being searched by the police, the hammer was found. Guilty. A previous conviction for felony was proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: 6 months’ hard labour) THOMAS TREWIN, 54, was found guilty of having, at Gwinear, on the 16th of May, obtained by false pretence from Mrs. Celia Stephens, the sum of 2s. with intent to cheat and defraud her husband, Mr. Joseph Stephens, of the same. Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution. (Sentence: 3 months’ hard labour) WEDNESDAY, JULY 2. Before C. B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq. —William Pascoe, Esq., of Bodmin, qualified this day, as a magistrate for the County. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JOHN COAD, 31, labourer, was charged with having, in March last, stolen a boat's paddle or oar, the property of John George, from a boat-house at Crantock.—Mr. Collins prosecuted.—He was found guilty, and a previous conviction for felony was proved against him. (Sentence: one month’s hard labour) SUSAN LOUISA EDE, a tailoress aged 21, was charged with having, on the 26th of April, at the Ring of Bells Inn, Callington, stolen 18s. from the person of Thomas Hatch, a miner living in St. Cleer and working at West Caradon Mine.—Mr. COMMNS prosecuted. The prisoner was found guilty, and a previous conviction with 12 months' imprisonment was proved against her. (Sentence: 4 years’ penal servitude) THOMAS VIANT the younger, a labourer, aged 30, was charged with stealing, on the 19th of April, at Redruth, a trunk containing a money box, 15s. 6d. in money, eight buttons, one silver and one metal ring, a duplicate pawn-ticket, a quantity of clothing, and other articles, the property of James Ivey. Mr. CORNISH prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor is a labourer, living in a two-roomed cottage close to the turnpike road, outside the town of Redruth; and the prisoner had lodged with him for about seven months, sleeping in the same bed-room with the prosecutor and his wife.—The evidence against the prisoner was extremely slight, none of the property having been traced into his possession, and the jury returned a verdict of Acquittal. JAMES GRIBBLE, 11, was charged with stealing a "sportsman's" knife, the property of Wm. Fazard, at Camborne, and ELIZABETH GRIBBLE, 38, his mother, was indicted for feloniously receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Cornish prosecuted; the prisoners were not defended.—The prosecutor was a hawker, in the habit of attending fairs and markets, and the robbery was effected at his stall in Camborne Market, on the 26th of April.—The jury found both prisoners guilty, but recommended them to mercy. (Sentences: James GRIBBLE—21 days’ hard labour; Elizabeth GRIBBLE—3 months’ hard labour) THOMAS ROGERS, out on bail, on a charge of stealing ore from South Caradon Mine, on the 29th May last, was called upon to surrender.—Mr. BRIAN, solicitor, Plymouth, who was prepared to defend the prisoner, stated that the circumstances connected with this case were somewhat peculiar inasmuch as the prisoner Rogers was prevented from surrendering to take his trial from the fact that he was already in custody, under an excise warrant which had been put in force on the previous day, and he submitted that it would be very hard if the sureties were to have their recognizances estreated, as they could not possibly produce Rogers.—The CHAIRMAN said that all the facts were well known to him and his brother magistrates, that they had considered the matter, and were of opinion that the Governor of the county prison would not be justified in producing the prisoner; under the circumstances the recognizances would certainly not be estreated for the present; very probably the prosecutors might apply for a writ of habeas corpus to bring up and try the prisoner at the ensuing assizes.—Subsequently, on the application of Mr. CHILDS, who appeared for the prosecution, the recognizances of the sureties for the prosecution were extended to the approaching assizes. CHARLOTTE ROBERTS, 18, and MARY THOMAS, 16, were charged with having on the 20th April, at St. Blazey, stolen six parasols, the property of Robert Parkyn, a draper at St. Blazey. Mr. Commins prosecuted; Mr. Meredith defended. Evidence was given by Mr. Parkyn, by William Hosken, his apprentice, and by P. C. Bone; and the jury found both prisoners Guilty. (Sentence: each 6 months’ hard labour) WILLIAM RICHARDS, 42, a miner, was charged with having been found on the 21st of March, in the blacksmith's shop and in the changing-house of Camborne Consols Mine, in the occupation of Mr. Joseph Lyle and others, with intent to commit felony. Mr. Cornish prosecuted. Evidence was given by James Vincent, James Barker, and James Rule, miners working at Camborne Consols; by Joseph Harris, sergeant of police; and by James Gundry, agent at the mine, who proved that Mr. Joseph Lyle, Mr. William Thomas, and others were shareholders in the mine, and that the prisoner had no business in either the blacksmith's shop or changing-house.—The jury found the prisoner Guilty. (Sentence: 4 months’ hard labour) ISAAC HOPKINS, 35, labourer, was charged with stealing a coat, the property of George Draydon, near Bodmin, on the 22nd May last. Mr. Chilcott prosecuted. Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: 3 months’ hard labour) SAMUEL NORTHCOTT, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing at St. Ive, in the month of January, a piece of carpet or horse cloth, the property of Mr. Henry Steel. Verdict, Not Guilty. The prisoner was further charged with stealing in the same parish on the 1st of March, a patch hook, the property of James Stone. Mr. Commins prosecuted. Verdict, Not Guilty. WILLIAM MORRIS, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing a horse collar, the property of Thomas Cocking, at Calstock, in the month of June.—Not Guilty. WILLIAM HENRY POMEROY, 16, labourer, pleaded guilty of having, in or about the month of January, at St. Ive, stolen a gin, the property of James Stone. Also to a second charge of stealing, in May last, a chain, the property of Henry Steele, of the same parish. (Sentence: one calendar month’s hard labour) —The Grand Jury were discharged about half-past one o'clock on Wednesday. They had ignored the following bills: Elizabeth Jane Brown and Mary Goodnew, stealing a half sovereign, the property of John Arscott Tickell, at Egloshayle, on the 18th of June.—Thomas Terrill, stealing an iron wheel, the property of the adventurers in Wheal Uny Mine.—James George, 52, labourer, stealing a lamb, value 235., the property of Matthew Hodge, at Kea, on the 11th of June; and Rich. Lawry, assaulting Eliza Williams Wallis, at St. Ives. APPEAL AGAINST POOR-RATES. Mr. CHILDS, for Messrs. Smith and Roberts, of Truro, moved that the appeals of the Cornwall Railway Company against the assessment of the parish officers of Liskeard, Menheniot. St. Germans, and Landrake with St. Erney on the company to the poor-rates, be further adjourned till the next sessions; and there being no opposition, the appeals were adjourned accordingly. SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, JULY 2. Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq., M.P. (Chairman). ELIZA BAILEY, a wretched looking woman with an infant in her arms, was charged with stealing two jackets and a dress, the property of Elizabeth and Martha Kessell, at Kenwyn, on the 14th June last. Mr. Stokes prosecuted, and Mr. Chilcott defended.—The case or stealing a jacket from Elizabeth Kessell was first tried. From the evidence of prosecutrix and her sister-in-law, Martha Kessell, it would appear that they were both together at the house of prosecutrix's mother, on the morning in question, when the prisoner entered, and after selling a pennyworth of laces to Martha Kessell, asked them to have their fortunes told; on their refusing, she took up the articles in question, and with threats said she would put an evil eye on them before three days' time; and that she also wished to have the rings which were on the fingers of Martha Kessell. Alarmed at the threatening language of the prisoner, they allowed her to go away with the clothing but would not give her the rings. P.C. Tregoning proved the arrest of prisoner at Chacewater, with the property in her possession; she told him they were given her for telling a few words.—Mr. CHILCOTT, for the defence, urged that the story of the prisoner was the true one, viz. that the prosecutrix and her sister-in-law had asked the prisoner to tell their fortunes and had given her the garments for so doing. He particularly called attention to the fact that they had stated they allowed her to take the clothing through fear of her and her threats, but did not give her the rings. The jury however, after considerable debating amongst themselves, found the prisoner guilty. (Sentence: 6 months’ hard labour) MARY ANN TRENMUTH, needle-woman, 37, was charged with uttering a false or counterfeit gold sovereign, knowing the same to be false, at St. Mary Magdalene, on the 3rd May last, and GEORGE WHITE, 34, labourer, was charged with being an accessory. Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Childs appeared on behalf of the male prisoner.—Elizabeth Pethick is the wife of a butcher, and has a stall in the Launceston market. On the 3rd May last witness saw the prisoner Trenmuth in the market about 10 or 11 o'clock in the forenoon. Prisoner wished to buy some beef, and had a piece weighed, the cost of which would be 1s. 6d. or 2s. Prisoner tendered witness what appeared like a sovereign, but not liking its look she called Mr. Uglow, a neighbouring butcher, who looked at it and said it was not worth a penny. Prisoner told Uglow that her husband had it from a mine, and that it was good enough. Prisoner then went away.—Mary Grace Melhuish, sworn—I was in the market at Launceston on Saturday, 3rd May, and had butter there for sale. About 3or 4 o'clock prisoner came to me and bought 1 lb. of butter, for which I charged her 10d. She paid me with a coin like a sovereign, and on my saying I could not change it she remarked that she could not take the butter. My husband however changed it for her, and having wrapped the butter in a cloth and placed it in a basket she left. My husband kept the sovereign, and we afterwards went to the Launceston Arms about 6 o'clock, and saw the female prisoner there, when she denied having been in the butter market.—Charles Melhuish, husband of the last witness, corroborated the fact of his giving change to the female prisoner, particularly naming a six penny piece which had a hole bored through it. Witness put the sovereign into his waistcoat pocket by itself, and when he found it was a base coin he took it to P.C. Barrett who accompanied witness and his wife to the Launceston Arms, where they found the female prisoner. Witness accused her of having given him a bad sovereign, but she denied having been in the market at all or having any butter.—Arabella Dunn, the landlady of the Launceston Arms, proved that both prisoners had dinner at her house about 4 or 5 o'clock on that day, that they had a basket between them on the window seat where they were sitting, that the woman paid for both dinners, that the man left before P.C. Barrett arrived.—Cross-examined by the female prisoner. I took the monies for the dinners from your hand and not from the table.—Edward Barrett, P.C. of Launceston, apprehended the female prisoner at the instance of Melhuish. Witness went to the Launceston Arms and found Trenmuth with a basket on the table before her. On asking if it was hers, she replied no; but, on his wishing to examine it, she removed it into the window seat where she was sitting. He took it, and found in it a pound of butter wrapped in a cloth among other things. Mrs. Melhuish and Mrs. Pethick identified the prisoner, and the man came partly into the kitchen; but, finding the woman Trenmuth in charge, he went out again. Witness followed about 6 or 7 feet from him, and called him to stop, when prisoner threw a parcel from him into the gutter; witness picked it up and found it to contain 3 coins of a similar description to that which the woman passed in the market. Prisoner said he did not know anything about it; he had not thrown anything away or tried to pass any bad money whilst he had been in the town; he had come there expecting to get employment, hearing that the railway was to have commenced. Witness found two good half-sovereigns and some silver and pence on the prisoner.—Eliza Barrett, daughter of the last witness, proved that she searched the female prisoner after she was in the lock-up at Launceston, and found on her some silver; among other pieces a crown piece, and the sixpence with a hole in it, as described by the witness Melhuish—which she handed to her father, who waited outside, while she searched the prisoner.—Petherick Barber was called to prove the statement of the policeman as to the male prisoner's dropping the parcel containing the spurious coin.—Robert Witherell saw the prisoners together at Tavistock, on the 2nd of May, and on the road between Launceston and that town. He also confirmed the statement of the Police.—Edward Pearse, a silversmith, of Launceston, proved that the coins were spurious, and at the instance of the Court, clipped them in two places, when they appeared to be composed of some whitish metal. They were very light.— Mr. CHILDS on behalf of White, called the attention of the Court to several cases in which it was laid down, that to be an accessory to the uttering of base coin, it was necessary that a person should be near enough to give actual assistance in passing it and that his client therefore was not liable to be indicted.—The CHAIRMAN however decided that the case should go to the Jury— and after Mr. CHILDS had spoken in defence of White, both prisoners were found guilty of uttering only. (Sentences: Mary Ann TRENMUTH—6 months’ hard labour; George WHITE—8 months’ hard labour) RAILWAY ROBBERIES AT LISKEARD. CHARLES WARN, 22, labourer, and JAMES MAY, 24, groom, were indicted for stealing one gold cross, 2 lockets, 3 rings, and a silver coin, the property of the Cornwall Railway Company. A second count charged Warn with stealing, and May with receiving, knowing the same to have been stolen. A 3rd count charged Warn, as a servant of the Company, with stealing; and a 4th charged May, as a servant, with feloniously receiving. Mr. Childs prosecuted; and Mr. Stokes defended the prisoner Warn. The prisoner May was undefended.— Mr. CHILDS explained to the jury how the goods were stated in the indictment to be the property of the Railway Company under the Carriers' Act, and called Miss Spencer, who resides at Stokeclimsland, and paid a visit to J. Tremayne, Esq., at Heligan, in February last. Left there on the 24th day of that month to return, and packed the jewellery myself. The lock was then safe. It was sent to the railway station at St. Austell. My box I saw at my father's on Friday, 1st March. Some time after, I missed a gold cross, 2 lockets, 3 rings, and a silver coin. The Rev. J. T. Boscawen proved conveying Miss Spencer's box in Mr. Tremayne's carriage and booking it at the St. Austell station. It was directed to the Hon. and Rev. W. H. Spencer, Stokeclimsland.—The box appeared safe when witness booked it at St. Austell. John Bawden, a porter in the employ of the Cornwall Railway Company, was on duty at Liskeard on the 24th February last, and recollected a box arriving there which he has since seen and could swear to; it came by the last up-train; and witness, in the performance of his duty, took it into the parcel office, which is inside the booking office. Witness received it from the guard, but did not know what his name was.—The box was then in a safe and sound condition. Witness left the station at about 9 o'clock. Warn was a policeman at the station, and in his course of duty would have charge of the station that night, and would have access to the parcel office. There are 2 keys to the lock of the door; one witness took with him, and the other was lying on the counter The box was removed in the course of the day. Witness saw it several times before it went from Liskeard.—Cross-examined: The goods are first taken out on the platform nearest the station. I take all the parcels from the guard; the other porters look after the luggage. The box was taken from the break van; it did not remain more than two or three minutes on the platform. There was a light in the parcel office when I went away. I looked at the box before I went away; I always look to see if things are safe. The box was there on the next day after its arrival when I left for dinner at noon.— Re-examined: There are two policemen, Warn and Uren. Uren was on duty by day and Warn by night at that time (February 24th). The policemen have charge of the station. Henry Uren was on day duty on 24th February last and was relieved by Warn about 9 o'clock in the evening.—Cross-examined.—l came again about 8 next morning. I cannot say that I saw any key on the counter when I left. The night policeman only has the keys of the parcel office. George Barnes, Superintendent of the County Constabulary went to Stokeclimsland, on the 26th March. He described to the jury the means by which the box had been opened. Miss Spencer was here recalled, and stated that she first missed the trinkets about a fortnight after the arrival of the box at her father’s residence. She did not miss them when first opened, or notice the state of the lock until shewn her by last witness. The box was kept in an ante-room, to which all the household had access. Richard Humphries, Police Constable of Liskeard, went to Devonport on June 11th, and apprehended May on the present charge, who said he had the things from Warn’s wife on the Sunday morning that Warn was apprehended for stealing brandy. (Our readers may recollect this case, which was about the 8th of March, and was heard at the Spring Quarter Sessions, when Warn was acquitted. Witness apprehended Warn at Liskeard the next day, who said he knew nothing about it. John Spry, another Police Constable at Liskeard, accompanied the last witness to Plymouth, and proceeded to the house of Hannah Perry, situate in Millbay Road, where he found a large box belonging to the prisoner May, who had been lodging there. In this box, on searching it, witness found a small box which contained several articles of jewellery, amongst which were the cross and trinkets which the prisoners are charged with having stolen. Witness shewed May the box on the next day (12th June), when he told him Warn’s wife had given him the things. Hannah Perry proved that the parties, May and Mary Pooley, had stayed at her house from 30th May until 4th June, and corroborated the fact of Spry’s bringing the prisoner May, but not his shewing the small box to the prisoner. Stephen Sloggett, P.C, St. Cleer, remembered the prisoner Warn being brought to the lock-up there; saw him on Friday, June 13, and had some conversation with him.—Witness unlocked the door and asked him "how he was getting on;" prisoner replied "middling, it is no use troubling about it—this is the third time; I suppose I shall now get a year or two. I know why I am here;—you wish to keep me from May; he has been and 'split' on me, but before I did that on any man I would have my arm cut off. If I were to 'split' I could get more than one down there into a mess."—Cross-Examined by Mr. Stokes.—I remember all the conversation. P. C. Vercoe heard a part of it as well as I. I have not compared notes with him since. I never asked Warn to make any statement. James Vercoe, another P.C, stationed at St. Cleer, corroborated the last witness in respect to the conversation had with the prisoner Warn. Mary Pooley, who objected to taking an oath, made the following statement on affirmation. I was a fellow servant of May in the service of Mr. Littleton, who keeps the Stag Hotel in the vicinity of the Liskeard Railway Station. We lived together about six months; May came to live there 3 days after I did, and left about a month before. I left on the 30th of May and went by the last up-train to Plymouth; I went to the house of Hannah Perry, where I was joined next day (31st) by the prisoner May.—This was on the Saturday; and on the Monday after, he went to Liskeard for his clothes, which he brought with him on his return, in a large box; (this was shewn in Court). On the next Wednesday, the box was uncorded, and after breakfast May unlocked it and took out a small box, (which was also produced), which contained the trinkets now here. He said that I could have them and I might either put the small box into mine or he would keep it; it would be all one.—Cross-examined: Warn was not a servant with me at Mr. Littleton's; he used to come there as the other Railway employés did. The Deputy Clerk of the Peace here read a statement by the prisoner May, in which he repeated that the jewels were given him by Warn's wife, and after relating conversations had with her which were not allowed as evidence, wished to call Roger Bassett, who resides in the Tavistock road, Plymouth, and was a porter at the Liskeard Station in February and March last; lodged in the same house as Warn and his wife did; recollected May telling him about a watch and other things, but could not say that he saw or heard Warn's wife talking with May on the Sunday (March 8), when Warn was apprehended on the charge of stealing brandy. Mr. STOKES, on behalf of the prisoner Warn, pointed out to the Jury the absence of evidence to show the state in which the box was brought to Liskeard, or that in which it was sent away. He also pointed out that statements made by one prisoner against another, in the absence of the implicated party, could not be taken as evidence; that his client was therefore not to be tried by all these conversations they had heard. He pointed out also the defect in the prosecution not producing the guard in whose care the box had come from St. Austell. Lastly, the trinkets were found in possession of May and not of the prisoner Warn, whom therefore be begged them to judge freely and clearly from any imputations arising from May's statements. The prisoner May, in addressing the Jury, wished to introduce a conversation which had, he said, taken place between them (the two prisoners) after their committal,, but which conversation Warn denied altogether. It was to the effect that on his (May) reproaching Warn with getting him into a 'scrape,' the latter replied that it was all his (May's) fault, as when he (Warn) took the holland he took the other things (meaning the trinkets), and that when Warn was apprehended for stealing the linen—a short time since, May should have destroyed the whole. The CHAIRMAN summed up the evidence, pointing out the distinctions between the two prisoners, and the Jury, through the foreman, requested to be locked up. After an absence of an hour, they returned a verdict against both prisoners, finding Warn guilty of stealing, as a servant, and May, guilty of receiving and concealing, knowing the articles to be stolen. There were two other charges against each of the prisoners, one of stealing and receiving a gold watch; and the other stealing and receiving a gold locket. No evidence was offered on these cases. (Sentences: Charles WARN—18 months’ hard labour; James MAY—9 months’ hard labour) WILLIAM WARD (on bail), surrendered to take his trial on a charge of stealing a leathern bag, containing money to the value of £13 11s. 2d., the property of the Cornwall Railway Company, at Liskeard, on May 25th last.—Mr. CHILDS conducted the case for the prosecution.—Sampson Rogers, station master, at Liskeard, on Saturday, the 24th May, made up the balance of his daily account, according to his usual custom, and found it to amount to £13. 11s. 2d., which he placed in a leathern bag, and locked it with a padlock. This bag he handed over to the policeman Uren, when he (Uren) went on duty—about 9 o'clock at night.—Witness then left the station, and the next day, in consequence of a report, he went to the station, where he saw prisoner in the booking-office, inside the counter, in the place where he usually issued tickets. He would go on duty at 7 o'clock in the morning. Witness had one key belonging to the lock of the drawer, and Ward alone had the other. Witness made the remark that he did not think the cash bag was gone; they had better look again; and, further, that if it was gone one of them in or about the station must have taken it, as it was impossible for a stranger to do so in the middle of the day. Ward said he had put it inside his drawer, but it was gone.—Uren would have had to give the bag to Ward, when the latter came in the morning. On examining the drawer, he perceived slight marks such as might have been mode by a screw driver, or a piece of iron. Witness did not try to lock or unlock the drawer; it was Ward who told him something was the matter with the lock.—Henry Uren, a witness in the last case, swore that he received the bag locked from Rogers, the Station-master, and handed it safely to the prisoner; that witness left before prisoner in the morning; that in the afternoon he went again to the station, and saw Jeffery and Ward there; the latter said something's amiss here; 'tis no use for anyone to try this drawer, there's no money in it. He had given change to a girl just before. Soon after he went again to the drawer, and said dear me the cash-bag's gone. He said he put it inside the partition behind the bowls.—Cross Examined:— You (Prisoner) might have sent me to call the Station master, but I think I went of my own accord. We were all flurried; you may have sent me for Jeffery—the window was open, and you (prisoner) told me of it first. John Bawden went on duty about 6.30 on Sunday morning Ward came to the station about 7. Witness stayed until nine o'clock. Ward would go to have his breakfast and return to book the afternoon trains. Witness went again about 1.30 and stayed until ¼ to 4. Ward left before me in the morning and came at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.—Cross-examined by prisoner: I was in the booking office in the morning after Uren left; did not hear or see anything unusual; saw no tampering with the drawer.—Re-examined: We went out of the station to the platform to adjust a carriage between the morning trains. Ward was then in the station.—Cross-examined: When I came up again there were passengers there; when I went out you (Ward) were writing.—Re-examined: A passenger must either go round or jump over the counter to get at the cash drawer. Richard Jeffery is porter at the Liskeard station; went on duty 6.30 and left about 10 minutes to 8 in the morning; Ward was there. Witness went to the station again at 9.30. Ward was there in the afternoon when witness came at 3.15. He was then booking passengers. Ward was in the booking office and he went inside the counter. Witness noticed to prisoner that a large case under the counter appeared to have been moved, and Ward said yes it does and this drawer has been tampered with.—Cross-examined: The station master and two girls came into the station about 1 o'clock before I left. Thomas Beazeley is clerk at the Telegraph Office at Liskeard, which is about 100 yards inside the Company's inclosure. Witness went to station about 3 in the afternoon and saw Bawden inside the counter making out waybills, and two females waiting for the down train. Uren came next; then Ward; and as soon as Ward went to his drawer, he remarked to witness that some one had been doing something to the lock of his drawer, and witness said " Yes, it looks like chisel marks." He said they must have been there when the piece of iron was put on the top of the drawer (a short time since). Witness saw Ward turn the key and open the drawer, and witness saw it after it was open. Witness left and returned about 5.10 having heard nothing further—and then Ward told me the bag of money was gone. Witness went to his office to see if his own money was safe.—Cross-examined.—l cannot swear whether you said "It may or must have been done when the iron was put on." Warn returned on the Saturday. I may have mentioned him as likely to do it. Warn had for some time been dismissed. Edward Sweeney, an engineman, went to the station, driving the short train, at 4 o'clock. At 6 o'clock, witness went again and saw Ward, Rogers, and others there. Witness went inside and looked at the lock of the drawer; observed a slight scratch on the brass top of the lock. Ward took a piece of iron and put it on the top of the drawer to show it could be opened without the lock being turned. The iron made an impression on the wood. Witness tried the lock and thought the lock had never been forced but opened by the proper key. Witness said so in the presence of Ward, at the time, and thinks so now.—Cross-examined by Prisoner: They were all trying to see how it could have been done. There was no mark before. Humphreys, the P.C, produced the drawer, having had the drawer in his possession since; he also described the marks on the locks, and produced a piece of iron which he took off the counter at the station. Witness both locked and unlocked the drawer freely, with a slight catch in turning the key. Ward had the iron in his hand between the drawer and rail and witness told him to desist.—Cross-examined.— Uren told me you would break the drawer to pieces. I did not see you do anything. John Hichmond, in the employ of Mr. Marshall of Plymouth, an agent for Chubb's lock, stated that the lock in question had not been prized.—By the Chairman—If the key had injured the lock it would not have been easy to unlock it again even with the proper key.—By Prisoner—There would have been more marks if it had been prized down. There is not play enough to prize the drawer down when the bolt is up, otherwise than by bending the bolt. This ended the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner proceeded to address the jury. He laid stress on the fact that the witnesses had great discrepancy in their statements—that this case had been trumped up against him, that it unfortunately fell to his lot to find out the robbery—that it was an unusual thing for him to place the cash bag in the inside part of the drawer—that he had noticed the matter of the injury of the lock, but not of the scratches on it and the drawer—and that all the evidence against him would be equally applicable to be brought forward against any of those who were on duty there that day by themselves.— He said he had been accused out of bad feeling, caused by a misunderstanding, arising from a former quarrel with the station master; and added that no money was found to any extra amount either on his person, or in his house; and he concluded by saying, “I am innocent, and no one can find me guilty on such evidence as this before you.”—He then called John Chinnoweth, who said he was called on by Humphreys before prisoner's counsel to examine the lock. He took off the lock in the presence of Mr. Northcott, the inspector of the line. He found that it was deranged inside, and he showed it to Mr Northcott and Mr. Bone. Witness went before the magistrates and there testified that he found the lock had been tampered with, and that he had also examined the lock before supplying it to the contractors. Witness could say positively that the lock had been opened by a wrong key or forced; it could not have been opened by another Chubbs' key.—Cross-examined. I supplied the lock in question; but cannot swear that I particularly examined that lock more than others. I saw the tumblers bright, which indicates recent injury, but I cannot say how long ago it was done. The CHAIRMAN briefly summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty. THURSDAY, JULY 3. Before J. J. ROGERS, Esq., M.P. ELIZABETH PENPRAZE, 40. Dressmaker, was indicted for keeping an ill-governed and disorderly house at Redruth. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Cornish prosecuted. The details of the case are quite unfit for publication, but the jury found her Guilty, and she was sentenced to four months’ hard labour. This ended the business of the court. (Before C. B. G. SAWLE, Esq.) JOHN RICHARDS, 18, was charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Joseph Rowell, at Linkinhorne, on the 24th of June, and stealing the sum of £10, the property of William Bennett. Mr. Commins prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended.—The jury found the prisoner Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. Two previous convictions for felony, one in 1859 and the other in 1861, were then proved against the prisoner. He was sentenced to six months’ hard labour. This case concluded the trials of the whole of prisoners in the calendar. CONSERVATION OF THE TAMAR FISHERIES.—A letter from Edward Archer, Esq., of Trelaske, to the Clerk of the Peace was read, requesting one of the magistrates present at the sessions, to nominate A. B. Collier, Esq., of Carthamartha, as conservator of fisheries on the Cornish side of the Tamar, that gentleman being already appointed conservator on the Devon bank. This was done by G. B. G. Sawle, Esq., the chairman, and Mr. A. B. Collier was declared appointed. [SENTENCES OF THE PRISONERS.—see individual cases above] THOMAS TALLING, 50, shoemaker, was charged as an incorrigible rogue and vagrant, and for deserting his wife and children. No one, however, appeared against him, and he was discharged, with a caution from the Chairman. APPEAL. CHARLES SAVAGE, appellant; advocate, Mr. T. E. Harvey. ELIZA PEARCE, respondent; advocate, Mr. Chilcott. This was an appeal against an order in bastardy made by Mr. S. Pascoe, mayor of Truro, and Mr. Chappel, on the 12th of May, on the appellant, Charles Savage, for the maintenance of an illegitimate child, of which the respondent had been delivered on the 1st of March last, and of which she alleged he was the father. Order quashed. An order was made for the diversion of a road in the parish of Egloskerry, which concluded the business of the sessions, and the court then rose.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 8 and 15 August 1862

5. Summer Assizes The Judges on the Western Circuit—Justices Williams and Keating—arrived at Bodmin from the Devon Assizes on Saturday afternoon last. Their lordships arrived at the Bodmin Road Station by the Mail Train, at 3.50 p.m., and were there received by the High Sheriff, Tristrem Spry Carlyon, Esq., of Tregrehane, who was accompanied by his chaplain, the Rev. J. Bartlett, vicar of St. Blazey; his Under Sheriff, Edmund Carlyon, Esq.; and County Clerk, J. R. Paull, Esq. Their lordships entered the State Carriage with the High Sheriff and his Chaplain; the Sheriff's private carriage being occupied, on the return journey, by the Under Sheriff and the County Clerk. Near the entrance to the town a body of County Police was in attendance, and thence escorted the procession to the Assize Hall, where their lordships opened commission and ordered adjournment of the Courts till Monday morning. The team of four horses in the State Carriage were much and deservedly admired; and the escort of Police had a very orderly and respectable appearance; but many Bodmin people, who are accustomed to regard the Assizes as among their chief holidays, were greatly dissatisfied that, for the first time within their remembrance, there was no ringing of bells; the Church tower was as silent as if no inauguration of a grand festivity were proceeding, and no representatives of majesty entering the ancient borough. In the opinion of many, such dull quietude was "not at all like an assize;" and various conjectures were afloat as to the cause of this innovation,—the notion which seemingly obtained most credit being that it was owing to some supposed slight or grievance to which the ringers had been subjected. For the same reason we may presume, there was not the usual chiming for Church on Sunday. It is stated that the Sheriff was willing to pay the ringers the accustomed charges; but that they have thought proper to demand an augmentation of their pay, and that this demand the Sheriff has felt it his duty to resist. On Sunday morning, the Judges attended divine service at Bodmin Church, accompanied by the High Sheriff, Chaplain, Under Sheriff, and County Clerk; and by the Mayor (Henry Mudge, Esq.,) and ex-Mayor (T. Commins, Esq.), of the borough. Prayers were read by the Rev. J. W. Hawkesley, rector of Redruth; who also assisted the vicar of Bodmin, the Rev. J. Wallis, in the communion service. The sermon was preached by the Sheriff's Chaplain, from the 1st chapter of St. John's Gospel, 17th verse:—"The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." CROWN COURT. MONDAY, AUGUST 4. (Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS) Mr. Justice Williams took his seat in the Crown Court at 10 o’clock, and business at once proceeded by the calling of Grand Jurors, and the following gentlemen were sworn:— Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart, foreman Nicholas Kendall, Esq., M.P. Richard Davey, Esq., M.P. John St. Aubyn, Esq., M.P. Charles Brune Graves Sawle, Esq. Francis Rodd, Esq. Richard Foster, Esq. Frederick Martyn Williams, Esq. Charles Andrew Reynolds, Esq. Richard Henry Stackhouse Vivian, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. William Michell, Esq. William Pascoe, Esq. David William Hext (sic) John Horndon, Esq. Edwin Ley, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. William Roberts Crawford Potter, Esq. William Pryce Michell, Esq. James Trevenen, Esq. William Anthony Glynn, Esq. Francis Gilbert Enys, Esq. Erasmus Coryton Roberts, Esq. The following magistrates also answered to their names:— Hon. and Rev. John Townshend Boscawen. Humphry Willyams, Esq. Rev. Samuel Symonds. The Mayors of Boroughs and the County Coroners were then called; after which the Queen’s Proclamation against vice, profaneness, and immorality was read, and the learned JUDGE delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY:— Gentlemen of the Grand Jury:—My pleasure at re-visiting your County is, I confess, not a little alloyed by the painful character of the Calendar of Prisoners for trial at these Assizes. There are 27 cases on the printed list, besides some others whose committals were too late for insertion here. Of these I am glad to say a large proportion consists of cases of ordinary larceny which would have been satisfactorily disposed of at Quarter Sessions, if any had intervened since the time when the prisoners were committed for trial. But there still remain several charges of a grievous and heinous nature. There is one of murder, one of attempt to commit murder, one of unnatural crime, and a most distressing charge of rape against four men, and some other cases of a serious kind. With respect to the charge of murder, it is a case dependent on circumstantial evidence only, and therefore it will necessarily require careful and prolonged investigation. But as far as you are concerned, I think I may properly say it is plainly a case where you ought to find a true bill. In the case of attempt to commit murder the party accused is charged with stabbing his wife with intent to take away her life. It appears he was very drunk at the time; although drunkenness is, as you well know, no excuse for crime, yet it may be an important fact in considering the question of intention, in cases where intention is the essence of the crime charged. But in this case I think there is such evidence in the conduct and language of the party accused, that probably you will find it your duty to find a true bill and leave the matter to be further inquired into by the Petty Jury. With respect to the charge of rape, I will merely say that if you believe the prosecutrix you ought to find a true bill, not only against the principal actor, but against any others who were present and by their language or conduct encouraging and abetting him in the commission of the crime.—There is a charge of perjury to be brought before you, as to which I will only observe that I have been unable from my perusal of the depositions, to ascertain how the evidence given by the accused party which constitutes the alleged perjury was material to the inquiry then in hand. But I dare say that will be apparent when the facts of the case are more fully disclosed.—I have read through all the depositions connected with the Calendar, and I believe there are no other cases that call for remark from me. I will therefore at once dismiss you, with the hope that you will soon be able to return some bills in petty cases, in order that we may proceed with business here; for I cannot but feel apprehensive that the time allotted for this Assize will hardly suffice for the completion of its business. The Grand Jury then withdrew; and at half-past 4 they had finished their duties, and were discharged. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JAMES HOOPER, the younger, a miner, aged 15 years, described as able to read, pleaded guilty of stealing a piece of diaper cloth, the property of Elizabeth Jane Trevena, at St. Agnes, on the 9th July.—In answer to inquiry by the JUDGE as to his previous conduct and character, Capt. COLVILL, the governor of the gaol, stated that the youthful prisoner had been in his custody for three months, having been committed under the Juvenile Offenders Act for stealing 16s. 6d. in money.—He was now sentenced to THREE MONTHS HARD LABOUR. JANE MAY, aged 24, was indicted for stealing, blanket, a sheet, a handkerchief, a brooch, a cap-border, a piece of muslin, a piece of silk, a piece of calico, and a reel of cotton, the property of her master, Robert Davey, landlord of the Rising Sun Inn, at Truro, on the 12th of June.— Mr. Cox conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Mrs. Davey deposed that the prisoner came into her service on the 13th May, and continued till Sunday, the 27th July. On that Sunday morning she went to her box and found that about half a yard of muslin had been torn off from a piece; she then went to the prisoner's room, and in a box which she had lent her she found a piece of muslin, which had been torn from the piece. She afterwards saw the prisoner, and told her of the theft; she denied, and said her mother had sent her the muslin. Witness then sent for a policeman, and she was taken into custody; witness went with the policeman and the prisoner to her room; in the box the policeman found a brooch twisted up between some stockings, and some pieces of calico; and under the mattrass (sic)of the bed in which the prisoner had slept, the policeman found a piece of silk and some more bits of calico. In the pocket of her dress witness found a reel of cotton that belonged to witness. Before that day witness had missed a blanket, a sheet, a bolster-cloth, and a handkerchief. On the 21st of July witness asked her about these missing things. Prisoner said the blanket was in the bed in the back room; witness did not find the blanket there, but found a pawn-ticket in her box.—Charles Frederick James, pawn broker, at Truro; deposed that on the 12th of June, the prisoner brought a blanket and sheet to pledge, on which he advanced 1s. 6d., and gave her the ticket; afterwards gave the blanket and sheet to Police Constable Gay.—John Gay, P.C. of Truro, deposed to finding the several articles as stated by Mrs. Davey. While witness was searching her box, the prisoner said she supposed we were going to send her out of the country, and that she would never come back again; she also said she would destroy herself in the cell. Next day witness received the blanket and sheet from Mr. James.—The various articles produced were identified by Mrs. Davey.—Verdict GULTY.— Sentence, SIX MONTHS HARD LABOUR. JANE HENDY, aged 23, a servant, was charged with stealing a pair of spectacles, value 15s., the property of Mary Trenhaile, at Truro on the 19th July.—Mr. Cox conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Mrs. Mary Trenhaile deposed:—l live at Truro and keep a lodging-house; the prisoner slept there on the night of the 18th of July; on the afternoon of the 19th, in the prisoner's presence, I used a pair of spectacles; between three and four o'clock I went to market, leaving the spectacles on a newspaper on the table; I returned from market about 5 o'clock, but had no occasion to look for my spectacles till about 8 o'clock, and then I found them missing. The prisoner had left the house when I returned from market at 5 o'clock.—Richard Cornish a police constable of the borough of Truro:—On Sunday, the 20th of July, the prisoner was in custody on another charge, at the County Police Station, Truro; I went there and charged her with stealing a pair of spectacles from Mrs. Trenhaile; she denied that she had seen them; the female searcher then took her away into another room to search her; and during her absence I searched around the cell, and under the guard bed which the prisoner had occupied—she being the only prisoner in custody there—l found a pair of spectacles, which I now produce.—The spectacles were identified by Mrs. Trenhaile and the Jury found a verdict of GUILTY.—On her own confession, it was found that the prisoner had been previously convicted (after a previous conviction) at the Bodmin quarter Sessions, in October, 1861.—She was now sentenced to NINE MONTHS HARD LABOUR; and was warned by the JUDGE that if she should be convicted a fourth time, she would be sentenced to Penal Servitude.—There was another charge against the prisoner, of obtaining, by a false pretence, a pair of boots, from William Vercoe, at St. Austell, on the 12th July; but on this indictment no evidence was offered. THE BURGLARY AT GERMOE. FREDERICK KITCHEN, a miner, aged 35, was indicted for burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of Martha Paull, at Germoe, on the 16th July, and stealing certain monies of the said Martha Paull.—He pleaded guilty; and he also confessed that he was convicted of felony at the Cornwall Assizes on the 21st March 1854; and again, at the Helston Borough Sessions, on the 9th of January, 1860.—In passing sentence, the learned JUDGE said:—You have been convicted, on your own confession, of the crime of burglary. That crime is one which varies much in its degrees of enormity. In your case, you went into a bed- room where a woman was sleeping, alone in the house, and you compelled her by your threats, to come down with you and assist in the plunder of her own house. The case is a very bad one, though you do not appear to have offered her any actual violence. But on the other hand, there is the great aggravation that this is the third time you have been convicted; you were convicted in 1854 of stealing a watch and were sentenced to two months' imprisonment; and in 1860 you were again convicted and were sentenced to three years' penal servitude. How you are out from that I am at a loss to conjecture; but, for some reason or other, you were set free,—out of mercy, I suppose.—The sentence now passed on you is that you be kept in PENAL SERVITUDE FOR TEN YEARS. JOSEPH KNIGHT, a goldsmith, aged 24, was indicted for burglariously breaking into a Roman Catholic Chapel, at Budock, on the 10th June, and stealing a pair of slippers and a piece of silver, the property of William Laffan.—He was also charged with burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of the Rev. William Michael Laffan, at Budock, on the 5th of June, and stealing a coat and umbrella, the property of the said William Michael Laffan.—In each case, he was also charged with feloniously receiving.—He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to ONE YEAR HARD LABOUR.—This prisoner being a German, his arraignment and all subsequent proceedings were effected through the medium of a sworn interpreter, Mr. Edgar Trelawny, a gentleman lately resident at Falmouth who consented to undertake the duty at the request of Mr. J. K. Kinsman, the committing magistrate. Mr. Edgar Trelawny proved himself a most ready and fluent interpreter to and from German and English, both in the formal proceedings and in the Judge's remarks on passing sentence. JAMES HENRY TOMS, a mason, aged 24, pleaded guilty of obtaining, by a false pretence, ½ lb. of butter, ½ lb. tea, ½ lb. of currants, 1 lb. of pork, 12½ lbs. of flour, ½ lb. of lard and ½ oz. of tobacco, from Edward Cock, grocer, of Truro the 5th of July.—Sentence, THREE MONTHS HARD LABOUR. JAMES PAINE, a labourer, aged 45, was charged with stealing four geese, the property of Frederick Wedlock, a miner living in the parish of St. Austell. In a second count he was charged with feloniously receiving; Mr. Gully conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended, but the trial resulted in a verdict of acquittal, by direction of the Judge, there being a deficiency of important evidence in consequence of the recent death of Mr. Haines, hind to the late Mr. Magor and who had himself occupied a farm in the parish of St. Tudy on which it was alleged the prisoner had placed some geese which the prosecutor afterwards identified as his own. In consequence of the death of Mr. Haines, there was no means of proving that the geese selected by the prosecutor as his property, were the same as had been in the possession of the prisoner. SHEEP STEALING.—JOHN MANUEL, a sawyer, aged 44, pleaded guilty of stealing 20 sheep, the property of Jacob Stephens at St. Winnow, on the 22nd of July—Sentence, THREE YEARS PENAL SERVITUDE. WILLIAM BROAD RICKARD, a labourer, aged 16, was indicted for breaking into the dwelling-house of his master, Nicholas Harris, at Lesnewth, on the 13th of July, and stealing a watch and chain and a purse containing £8 10s. in gold and £5 in silver. He was also charged with stealing two waistcoats, a cap, a shirt, a pair of stockings, two collars, a handkerchief, a jacket, and a pair of trowsers, the property of William Hodge, at Lesnewth, on the 13th of July. He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to ONE YEAR’S HARD LABOUR. JOHN HAWKE, on bail, was charged with stealing a pit saw, the property of Thomas Sangwin, at St. Columb Minor, on the 24th July.—Mr. Roope, instructed by Mr. G.B. Collins, conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Prideaux, instructed by Mr. Commins. Thomas Sawyer deposed:—I am a sawyer, and the prisoner was my comrade and we had been working together for some time at Wadebridge about four months ago. We went to Mr. Norway, a merchant and got two saws; I took out one, and the prisoner took out the other, and they were to be worked by turns. After that we went to Newquay and worked there together, first at a shipwright's and then at a new house called Mount Wise; we were working there on the 24th July, and left off at dinner time, leaving the saws there. Next morning when I went there, I found that my saw was gone; the prisoner did not come there again, but in the afternoon of the following Monday, I saw him at his father's at Perranzabuloe; at that time there was a policeman in my company.—Cross-examined. We took out the saws together and have not yet paid for them. I was to pay for one saw, and the prisoner for the other; they were delivered to us by Horatio Cleave, a clerk at Mr. Norway’s; Mr. Norway himself was not there at the time. Afterwards, when I saw the prisoner at his fathers, the prisoner said to me he would be answerable to Mr. Norway for both saws. I had not dealt with Mr. Norway before that.—James Penberthy, police constable:—I apprehended the prisoner on the 28th of July at Perranzabuloe, and charged him stealing a saw, the property of Thomas Sangwin; he said the saws are at Blight's Hotel, Redruth; I accompanied him there and the prisoner produced them tied together, in the stable. He untied them and said of one of them "this is the saw that Tom took out," but he took from it a tiller, and said this tiller is mine. He also said that he intended to pay for both the saws.— Sangwin recalled, identified one of the saws as the one which he said he took out at Mr. Norway's, and stated that when he missed it, the prisoner’s tiller was on it; the saws were bought without tillers.—Cross- examined.—I asked him to take out a tiller for me as well as for himself; and it was accordingly taken out on trust, he being answerable for it as well as for his own tiller. On my oath, I do not believe he was to be answerable for the saw exactly as he was to be for the tiller; he was not answerable for the saws. I have not paid for the saws, or either of them.—Policeman Penberthy, recalled by Mr. Prideaux, stated that the stables in which the saws were found at Redruth, according to the prisoner's information at Perranzabuloe, were open stables and the ostler was there at the time, and when the saws were produced, the prisoner said he was answerable for both, and intended to pay for them.—Mr. PRIDEAUX then addressed jury for the defence. He asserted that, even on the evidence adduced, the prisoner might fairly have believed that he was dealing with partnership property belonging to himself and his comrade; and therefore on that ground, he was entitled to acquittal; but for further vindication of his character, he would adduce the most satisfactory evidence that the two saws were bought by the prisoner at Mr. Norway’s, and debited to him alone, and by him alone had been paid for; and the openness of the prisoner’s conduct in giving correct information as to the deposit of the saws in an open stable at Redruth, was consistent with his innocence.—He then called Arthur Norway merchant, of Wadebridge, who deposed as follows:—I know the prisoner at the bar; I have known him about 7 or 8 months, but had no dealings with him before last April. I ascertained that my clerk, Horatio Cleave, had allowed two saws to be taken out by the prisoner and prosecutor; but before they had the saws, I saw the prisoner; he asked me if I would let him have two saws; and I said he could have two, and I would charge them to him, and that I would give him credit for about a couple of months. Next morning I found in my book (which I have here) that Horatio Cleave had debited Sangwin with one saw and Hawke with the other; I immediately altered the entry, and debited the prisoner with both. In due course, shortly after midsummer, I sent the bill to Hawke; I sent him the bill before I heard he was apprehended, which I was not aware of till last Friday; and on the 30th of July he paid me £1 18s. 6d. for the two saws—£1 1s. 0d. for one and 17s 6d for the other; they were different sizes. I did not give any credit to Sangwin, and should never have done so; I never spoke to him. I believe the prisoner to be a respectable man; I had satisfied myself that his character was good before I gave him credit.—Mr. Norway’s bill and receipt for £1 18s. 6d. was then put in, and was read by the Officer of the Court.—At this point of the case, Mr. Roope stating that he could not rebut the evidence for the defence, the learned JUDGE thought it was useless to proceed further, and the Jury, by direction of his lordship, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. VIOLENT ASSAULT BY A DRUNKEN HUSBAND. JOHN WATTS, a labourer, aged 33 years, was indicted for feloniously stabbing and wounding Grace Watts, his wife, with intent to murder her, at Phillack, on the 22nd February. In a second count, the prisoner was charged with feloniously wounding, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm.—Mr. Arundel Rogers, (instructed by Mr. Read, for Messrs. Rodd and Cornish) conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Mr. ROGERS very briefly opened the case, and adverted to the possible difficulty he should encounter in obtaining evidence from the wife, who, naturally, was unwilling to give evidence against her husband on so serious a charge; but he believed that the other testimony would be sufficient to induce a verdict of guilty. (It may be mentioned that Grace Watts, the prisoner's wife, passing behind the dock, stopped and kissed her husband, the prisoner, who leant over the rail for the purpose of receiving this token of her good will).—Grace Watts deposed:—I am the wife of the prisoner John Watts. On the 22nd February, I went to bed between 10 and 11 at night; my husband was not at home at that time, after I had been in bed some time I heard him coming up the stairs. (The Prisoner: Now, speak the truth). He came up and went into his father’s bedroom; he would have to pass through that room to come to mine; but he did not come into my room, while I was there; when I heard him coming up the stairs I went out to meet him. At that time I believe he had liquor in him; I caught hold of him and he caught hold of me; I was afraid he would hurt somebody by falling on the bed; the children were in bed there at that time: I held him down on his father's bed, and he tried to get up; after a time he gave me a kick or what I then thought was a kick, on my side just under my ribs; I had on nothing but my night-clothes; after receiving the blow I screeched and made my way to the top of the stairs and there saw Elizabeth Northey, and she took me into her father's house. I had no power—no time, to say anything to my husband; I did not hear my husband say anything at that time. While I was holding my husband down he made use of violent language to me and was swearing a great deal. After the blow, I was kept in bed six weeks, and Mr. Lye attended me—By the Prisoner:—You were in liquor at the time.—(The Prisoner:—If I was going to lose my life for the thing, I cannot give an account how it happened nor what I said).—Eliza Northey:—On the 22nd of February last, I saw Grace Watts; I did not see John Watts until he afterwards came to my father’s house. Just before 12 o’clock I heard Grace Watts screaming murder; and when I saw her she said, “Good God, Eliza, I am dying”: blood was coming through her night clothes; she had nothing but her night-clothes on; I helped her down over her stairs and put her into my father’s house; my father came down stairs and Grace Watts was then put into bed.—By the Judge:—When I heard Grace Watts in her house screaming murder I also heard scuffling and disturbance in the house.—By Mr. Rogers:—Just after I had taken Grace into father’s house, the prisoner came in there, but I did not hear him say anything. (The Prisoner:—I cannot ask her any questions; I cannot contradict any one; I cannot give any account how it happened if I was going to die for it.)—Mark Watts, father of the prisoner;—The prisoner was living with me on the 22nd of February; I heard him come home that night, but did not see him; there was no light in my house; he was very much the worse for drink:—Thomas Northey—I live opposite the prisoner’s house in Phillack; I was called out of bed in the night, and when I came down into the kitchen, I saw Grace Watts in a gore of blood, and two or three women holding her up. I told them to put her into my bed, and they did so; but before they had power to do so, I saw Watts at his front door; he rushed to my front door and said, “Damn her, I’ll kill her.” I turned round, bundled him out of the house, and shut the door. I then partly dressed, and went out, and saw him close to his own door; I said to him “Jack, whatever is the matter? He said he did not know; he was just like a madman, I could compare him to nothing else; I put him into his own house and kept him there a few minutes; I sat down with him to appease him a little, and then I took him upstairs, and put him into his own bed and I lay down beside him till a policeman came; while I was with him in the bed I said to him “Jack, I fear this is a serious job for you; I believe your wife is dying”; he said “let the b—r die.” I remained with him till the policeman came.—Mary Ann Wearne: I live next to Thomas Northey’s; in the night of the 22nd February I was called out of bed to go to Grace Watt’s; I went to her in Northey’s house and remained there with her. The next day I went into the prisoner’s garden, and just by a gooseberry bush I found a knife, on which there were two spots of blood; I gave the knife to Mr. Miller.— Superintendent Miller produced the knife, and it was identified by the previous witness. (Prisoner: That’s the knife I ground two or three days before).—Mr. Lye, surgeon, of Phillack:—On the 22nd February I went to the house of Thomas Northey and there saw Grace Watts; she had a wound, about 3 or 3½ inches long on her left side, near the pit of her stomach, and her bowels were protruding through the wound; I replaced the bowels and sewed up the wound. The wound was dangerous, certainly; but in a day or two I found it was not so dangerous as I had at first thought; and in 8 or 10 days she was out of danger. There was no wound of any vital part, and the intestines were not pricked; no internal organ was wounded. (The prisoner here wept considerably). She was under my care altogether about 10 or 12 weeks. There was no bruise around the wound; it was quite a clear cut wound—not jagged or ragged at all. Such a knife as this now produced would, if sharp enough, make such a wound. The chemise and gown were cut through corresponding to the wound. I gave them to Mr. Miller.—By the Judge. It did not occur to me that much force was used, because the intestines were not pricked at all; it appeared to me that if great force had been used, the intestines would have been wounded.—The prisoner:—I cannot ask Mr. Lye any questions; I am very glad he has got through my wife as he has and I thank God for it).—Henry Miller, superintendent of police, produced the knife, chemise, and night-dress; but it was not considered necessary to exhibit the garments. Mr. Miller deposed:—After I had received the knife, I showed it to the prisoner; he said it was his son’s—one that had been given him by his grand-father, and that he (prisoner) had had it from his son two or three days before and ground it. The following day, while I had him in custody, he said if he did any injury to his wife, he did it through drink—and that when he drank he was very excited—so much so that Dr. Miller had told him he ought not to drink at all.—This being the whole of the evidence for the prosecution, the prisoner addressed the jury; his allegations in defence being substantially the same as the observations he had previously made—that he could not give any account whatever of what happened on the night in question—that leaving his house with a leary stomach, he fell into company, it being a pay-day, and got very heavy in liquor; and that having had a bad complaint in his head for many years, as was known to Dr. Millett, he was very wrong in taking any intoxicating drink; and he hoped with the help of God, he would never again take any.—The learned JUDGE then summed up, directing the jury, that although drunkenness was no excuse for crime, yet it was a very important fact for consideration in a question where intention formed the essence of the offence charged.—The learned Judge then, after submitting to the jury the alternatives mentioned in the Counts as to “wilful murder” or “grievous bodily harm,” suggested that if they believed there was not satisfactory proof of the prisoner’s intention to do any such injury, they should find the prisoner guilty of unlawfully wounding, of which there could be no doubt.—The jury found a verdict “GUILTY OF UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING.”—The learned JUDGE, in proceeding to pass sentence, said: I do not mean to censure the verdict of the Jury; but they have taken a very merciful view of the case. Still you have been convicted of a very serious offence. No state of circumstances can be imagined that can make it short of a very grave and shocking offence to make use of a knife on the belly of your wife, and she in nothing but her night clothes. Your drunkenness has had every allowance made for it by the jury. It is impossible for the Court to take it into consideration in passing sentence; but that you have been in gaol since the 13th of April may be considered by the Court. The sentence of the Court is that you be further imprisoned and kept to HARD LABOUR FOR EIGHT CALENDAR MONTHS. THOMAS THOMAS, aged 21, a gunner in the Royal Artillery, at Devonport, was charged with assaulting Ellen Ball Westcott, at Maker, on the 25th July, with intent.—The assault was committed on the high road as prosecutrix was returning home, about 10 at night, after sitting in a public-house with an artilleryman to whom she is engaged, and some other soldiers, but she had shown some uncertainty in fixing upon the offender, and the prisoner establishing a tolerably satisfactory alibi, was acquitted. NISI PRIUS COURT. MONDAY, AUGUST 4. (Before Mr. Justice Keating) The learned Judge took his seat upon the bench at 10 o’clock this morning, and the court proceeded to dispose of the following cases in THE CAUSE LIST.

Plaintiff's Atty. Plaintiff. Defendant. Deft's Atty. Hodge & Co. Ex. T. Grose v. W. Grose Meredith Meredith, Ex. W. Grose v. T. Grose Hodge & Co. The North Cornwall Farmers' Sobey v. Sexton and another Coode & Co. Manure Company, (limited) Edmonds & Son Ex. Vosper, [S.J.] v. Raddall, Fox. Stokes Ex. Willyams, v. Crago, Chilicott. Sobey Ex. Martin v. Varcoe Hodge & Co. H. G. Hill, Ex. Vivian & others [S.J.] v. Grylls, Nelson. Q.B. Routly and London and Eyre and Kingdon anotr., Administrators, [S.J.] v. Provincial Lawson Provident Society

GROSE v. GROSE. Mr. M. Smith, Q.C and Mr. Buller were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Roope, were for the defendant. Mr. BULLER opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Mr. Thomas Grose, draper, of St. Austell, and the defendant, was Mr. William Grose, his brother. The first count of the declaration was for money lent, money paid for the defendant, for goods sold by the defendant for the plaintiff, and on an account stated. The second count was in trover, for the conversion of goods belonging to the plaintiff, and the third count was for the breach of a special agreement, the defendant having been employed to manage the plaintiff’s farm. There were six pleas by the defendant—first, never indebted; second, payment; third, a set-off; fourth, as to the count in trover, a payment of £5 into court in satisfaction of that part of the claim; fifth, denial of the breach of the special agreement. The defendant had also paid £5 into court in satisfaction of the claim under the second count, and upon these pleas issue was joined. Mr. M. SMITH stated the case. The plaintiff, Mr. T. Grose, was a draper, carrying on business at St. Austell, and the defendant was a farmer living at Kelleynough farm, near Bodmin. The plaintiff and defendant were brothers, and the action was brought to recover a balance of money lent, and the amount and damages sustained by the plaintiff arising out of certain transactions between them. As long ago as 1851, the defendant occupied a farm under Mr. Gully, and he having been distrained upon, the plaintiff came forward and advanced him some money, in order to satisfy the distress, and there was a balance due to him on that account of about £10. The main cause of action, however, arose out of the following circustances (sic): Mr. Thomas Grose, the plaintiff, is the owner of a farm called "Clann," in Lanivet, and his brother, the defendant, being without a farm, he was desirous of assisting him, and he accordingly put him in Clann farm, employing him to look after the estate, and to sell the produce, which he was to account for. It appeared that William Grose continued to live at Clann farm from 1851 to 1860, but in the autumn of the latter year, the plaintiff was desirous of putting an end to the agreement, and in the month of September he gave notice to William Grose of his intention to let the estate, and to have a sale of the stock and implements on the farm. The sale was announced for the 26th September, but prior to that day, the plaintiff and Mr. Parsons, a valuer, went over the farm, and valued the stock, implements, &c., their valuation amounting to £550. On the 11th of September a meeting took place between the brothers for the purpose of coming to an agreement or settlement of the accounts. There was then due from the defendant, the money which he had received for the produce of the farm sold during 1860, but he claimed as a set off, money which he had laid out in improving the farm. The plaintiff said he was willing to allow for any money that might have been so advanced, but the defendant must account for the money he had received. An agreement was drawn up between them, which to him (Mr. Smith) appeared almost unintelligible; but in which it was stipulated as a part of the terms of settlement that the produce of the farm for the last year the defendant was in occupation should be accounted for. Shortly after this, namely, on the 19th of September, the sale being appointed to take place on the 26th, on the plaintiff going to the farm he found that the defendant had driven off all the cattle, and removed the implements. The plaintiff received information where the sheep and beasts had been driven to, and he went after them and succeeded in recovering them; but none of the horses or implements were recovered. The plaintiff now sought to obtain compensation for the horses and implements that had been thus removed, together with the amount of the produce sold by the defendant during 1860, the balance of the money which plaintiff advanced in the year 1851 to get the plaintiff out of his difficulties; and there was also a sum due for drapery goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, the whole claim amounting to considerably more than £600. The defendant, on the other hand, said that were he to go into the account on this matter he should be able to show that there was nothing in reality due, and it appeared that he claimed a set-off of £620. Attempts had been made to settle this matter out of court, by referring it, but he regretted that these had proved abortive, because the parties being brothers, and the accounts of a somewhat involved character, it was felt that it would be much better to settle the case without bringing it before the court, and so put an end to these proceedings. How this hint might be received by his learned friend on the other side he did not know, but he had, in opening the case, carefully avoided saying anything that might prove offensive to the defendant; and he would further state that although he was fully prepared to go into the case, he was quite willing to meet his friend in any other way likely to lead to a settlement of the matters in dispute. The Judge said that he had listened to Mr. Smith and he had looked very carefully through the accounts, and it appeared to him they were of a character that it would be impossible to go into court. That being so, he put it to the counsel on each side whether it would not be better to refer the matter to some gentleman who would be able to go carefully through the accounts. Probably the attempts already made to refer the case had failed because the parties were unable to agree as to the terms of the reference, but if the court settled the terms, perhaps that would remove the difficulty. After a consultation between the counsel and attorneys on each side, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. W. GROSE v. T. GROSE. This was a cross action brought by the defendant in the last case. The counsel were the same, and it was disposed of in the same manner as the other action—namely, by taking a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. WILLYAMS v. CRAGO. The defendant did not appear in this case, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff. NORTH CORNWALL FARMERS’ MANURE COMPANY (LIMITED,) v. SEATON AND ANOTHER. Mr. COLLIER, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Cole, was counsel for the plaintiffs; Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon were for the defendants. The declaration stated that the defendants had received certain goods and had sold them for certain plaintiffs, and they claimed to be entitled to certain moneys on account of such sale. There was another count for goods sold and delivered, and money had and received. One of the defendants Mr. John Bryant, had allowed judgment to go by default. The other defendant Mr. Seaton, pleaded that he had not received the goods and did not sell them; next, he pleaded a set-off; then, that he was never indebted, and lastly, he pleaded payment. On these pleas issues had been joined. Mr. COLLIER stated the case. The plaintiffs are a company of merchants formed under the Limited Liability Act, called the North Cornwall Farmers' Manure-Company, which was established in 1846 for the purpose of obtaining or manufacturing and selling genuine manures to the agriculturists of the county. The defendants were the Messrs. T. Seaton and John Bryant, a firm that had carried on business up to 1860 at Padstow, Mr. Bryant being the acting partner or manager. In 1857, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Mr. Bryant, according to which it was settled that Mr. Bryant should be engaged as the broker of the company, and that as such he should take charge of the manufacture, shipment and sale of the manure, pay all expenses attending the same, receive the proceeds of all sales, for which he was to account to the plaintiffs; and in consideration of his being the manager of the plaintiffs' works, he was to be allowed a per centage of £3 10s. on all Peruvian guano he might sell, and a similar per centage on other manures, he undertaking to guarantee the company against all loss from bad debts. On the completion of this agreement, Mr. Bryant entered on his duties and acted for the plaintiffs, and in fact, the firm of Seaton and Co., of which Mr. Bryant was a partner, acted in every respect as the brokers of the Plaintiffs. A vast number of transactions took place under these circumstances, Messrs. Seaton and Bryant acting in some respects as commission agents of the plaintiffs. In the latter part of 1860, the firm of Seaton and Co. was dissolved, notice of the dissolution being sent to the plaintiffs on the 13th November; and since that time their books had been examined, and he was informed that on their inspection, it was manifest that a sum of £700 was due to the plaintiffs from Messrs. Seaton and Co. The amount was made up in various ways, and the accounts were of a somewhat formidable character, extending over six or seven sheets of his brief. The plaintiff's claim altogether amounted to a balance of £1055, but it would certainly be shown by the books of both firms that there was due to them between £700 and £800. The defendants had delivered the particulars of a set-off almost as voluminous as the accounts of the plaintiffs, and which overtopped the latter; but the way in which they made up this amount was by debiting the plaintiffs with every charge they could bring against them, without giving credit for any money or goods they had received. On the part of the plaintiffs, he wished to state that they were quite prepared to refer the matters in dispute to some gentlemen who might be selected. He was told that in the statement presented by the defendants it was admitted that a sum of £500 was due to the plaintiffs, but the latter claimed much more than that. It was understood at one time that the case would be referred; but subsequently the defendant Mr. Seaton, said he was advised not to consent to a reference, and in consequence the case was now brought into court. Mr. M. SMITH said that his case was that although the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Mr. Bryant, Mr. Seaton had nothing to do with it, and notwithstanding that he was a partner with Mr. Bryant in some other things, he utterly denied his liability in the transactions with the plaintiffs. Mr. COLLIER said it would be impossible to separate the examination of the particulars of the accounts from the question of the defendant's liability—in fact, he intended to show by their business transactions, the liability of Mr. Seaton. After some discussion, it was agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiffs, subject to a reference. MARTIN v. VARCOE. Mr. Cole was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Karslake for the defendant. The plaintiff was Mr. Richard Peter Martin, and the defendant Mrs. Frances Varcoe, the administratix of Mr. Richard Peter, deceased. The action was brought to recover from the defendant a sum of money which the plaintiff claimed to be owing to him by the deceased, to whose estate and effects the defendant had administered. According to the opening of the learned counsel, and the evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared that some years ago Mr. Richard Peter was occupier of Berry farm, of about 120 acres in extent, near St. Germans. The plaintiff's father occupied a tenement called "Govett," of only about 16 acres in extent, but the father then entered into partnership with Mr. Peter and became joint occupier of Berry farm. The plaintiff admitted that his father's name did not appear on any of the carts, waggons, &c., and that the furniture in the house belonged to Mr. Peter. Plaintiff continued to live in the house and to work on the farm as a labourer up to 1849, but in that year on his going to get married, Mr. Peter, who was his uncle, agreed to give up the farm, crops, and stock to him, the two latter being valued at £250. Mr. Peter took some of the stock and some furniture with him, and went to live at Govett farm, and plaintiff was to pay him a certain sum for what was left. In 1850 or 1851, Mr. Peter went to live with the plaintiff, and did not pay anything for his board, lodging, or for the keep of a horse during two years; but in the end of 1853 it was agreed that he should in future pay 4s. 6d. a week for himself, and 1s. 6d. a week for the keep of a horse. He lived three or four years on these terms, but he never paid anything on account of his board, or his horse, nor did he pay for two bullocks which the plaintiff sold him at the price of £20. He was several times asked to settle, but he always put this off, and he sometimes intimated that it was not of so much consequence his doing so, as he intended to leave the plaintiff his heir. He died in 1860, leaving between £300 and £400, but no legally attested will, and his sister, the defendant, took out letters of administration, under which she obtained possession of the old gentleman's money. The plaintiff claimed about £105 as owing to him by the late Mr. Peter, but as the defendant had pleaded the statute of limitations, a portion of this claim which had been incurred more than six years ago, would be barred by that plea. The plaintiff proved, however, that nearly £70 of what was due to him, including the £20 the price of the two cows, did not come within the operation of the act. The statement of the plaintiff constituted the only evidence in support of his case, there being no account, letters, or documentary evidence whatever in corroboration. Mr. KARSLAKE for the defendant, commented on this entire absence of corroborative proof, and the improbable character of the claim now made. He produced an unattested will which had been made by Mr. Peter before his death, and this having been read by the plaintiff before the funeral, was admitted as evidence. By this Mr. Peter disposed of the money he possessed, in small sums among his relatives, and in it there occurred the following passage: "my nephew, Richard Martin (plaintiff), having had a much larger sum than any of the others, I hope he will account of the same, with due acknowledgement." He confidently put it to the jury whether they thought it was probable, this old and respectable man would have written such a will as that just before his death, if at the time he had known that he owed the plaintiff for several years' board and lodging, and several year's keep of his horse, as well as the price of two bullocks? Was the conduct of the plaintiff when he read this will, that of a man who felt that something untrue had been written respecting him, and that by a relative who was in reality indebted to him? Did he indignantly deny the statement, and say that instead of being indebted to his uncle, the latter owed him a considerable sum? Nothing of the kind; all he said was—"Oh, this will is not attested, and it is of no good." He submitted that, considering the plaintiff never said a word to any one about anything being due to him from Mr. Peter, during the lifetime of the latter, the natural inference was that it had been agreed that the plaintiff should maintain Mr. Peter for the remainder of his life, on condition that the old gentleman gave up the debt due to him from the plaintiff, for the stock and crops of the Berry farm. He also urged that there were strong grounds for believing the statement made by Mr. Peter in his will, that the plaintiff had had more than any of them, was true, because after the latter had brought this claim, a Mr. Ayres, a relative, said to him, "It is a pity that this matter cannot be settled without going to law, because if you go into court, there may be unpleasant questions asked; for instance, there is that promissory note for £50, which was destroyed;" to which the plaintiff replied—"There is no proof of that." He called Mr. Ayres who deposed to the conversation above referred to. Mr. Cole then addressed the jury for the plaintiff, and the Judge having summed up, the jury retired, and after an absence of an hour, they returned a verdict for the plaintiff damages £20, the price of the two cows. The two special jury causes having been fixed for the next morning, the court was occupied during the remainder of the day with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. CHARGE OF ORE STEALING. THOMAS ROGERS, 35, a miner, was indicted for having stolen at St. Cleer, on the 29th of May, a quantity of copper ore, the property of the adventurers in South Caradon Mine. Mr. Cole prosecuted, and Mr. Lopes defended the prisoner. The prisoner is a miner, and for some time he has been employed under ground at West Caradon mine. Closely adjoining this mine was South Caradon mine, and in this there were the usual ore floors on which the ore from the mine was laid in heaps prior to being sold. It happened that before the 30th of May the agents of South Caradon had reason to suspect that ore had been stolen from these floors, and they directed two men named Carviss and Stephens to watch. These men concealed themselves behind some bushes near to the ore floors and in the middle of the night of the 29th, three men were observed to approach the spot where they were concealed. They passed the ore heaps, immediately after which Carviss and Stephens rushed out, when the three men ran away. They succeeded in capturing the prisoner, who was in his underground dress, but the others escaped. They took the prisoner to the count house and awoke Capt. Rule, one of the agents, who was sleeping there, who asked the prisoner why he was there in his underground dress at that time of night, and the prisoner attempted to excuse himself by saying that he was going to the Cheesewring to pick up a rabbit. He was asked how that could be, when he had neither a gun, dogs, or nets, and he replied that he supposed he should have got it in his usual way. He was detained in custody, and next morning close to the spot where he was seized, a bag was found with particles of yellow ore attached to it; and near the spot where the two men bolted and made their escape, two more bags of a similar description were found—all of them having evidently been dropped by the prisoner and his associates. Inquiries were then instituted as to what had been done at West Caradon, and it was ascertained that the prisoner was a tributer at that mine. His pile of ore was examined, and it was found that he had somewhere like a ton and a half of ore, a portion of which was fit for sale. The latter was a rich yellow ore, and of the same quality and description as the ore raised from South Caradon, and did not correspond with the ore in his pitch or in West Caradon mine. James Carviss, —Stephens, and —Band, miners at South Caradon mine, deposed to the capture of the prisoner under the above circumstances, and Mr. Wm. May, Capt. Rule, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. Holman, agents of the mine, and Mr. Wm. Johns, and Mr. Richard Pascoe, agents in other mines, were called to depose to a sample of the ore from the pile of the prisoner being of a different quality to other samples from West Caradon mine. None of the former however, could state positively that they had missed any ore from South Caradon, or that the prisoner had been seen to take any. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr. LOPES submitted that as it had not been shown that the prisoner had stolen any ore, or that any ore had been missed from South Caradon mine, there was no case against him. Mr. COLE urged that the evidence clearly showed that the ore found in the prisoner's pile belonged to South Caradon, and Capt. Rule had stated he had reason to suspect that ore had been stolen, which was the cause of his setting the two men to watch. This, he submitted, was sufficient to justify the jury in convicting the prisoner. The JUDGE was of opinion that the evidence was defective, and after some further argument upon the point, his lordship left the court to consult Mr. Justice Williams. On his return, he said, that he had carefully read over the whole of his notes of the evidence to his learned brother, who entirely agreed with him that a material link was wanting in the chain necessary to connect the prisoner with the offence. He did not wish it to be understood that in a case of this description where property was necessarily left exposed, it was essential, in order to justify a conviction, to prove that the prisoner was actually seen to commit the theft; because circumstances might exist which would dispense with such strict proof. If, for instance, it was shown that the ore had been taken from the bulk, and it was directly afterwards found in the possession of a prisoner, that would raise a presumption that he stole it, just as strong as if he had been seen to commit the offence. But, in the present case, there was no evidence to show that any ore had been taken, but merely a suspicion. Mr. COLE said that the prosecutors had felt themselves called upon to charge the prisoner with the offence, and having laid all the evidence he could produce before the Court, he must, of course, bow to his lordship's ruling. The JUDGE then, addressing the jury said—In this case, which has very properly undergone investigation here, and which is a case of very strong suspicion, a difficulty has arisen, which is that no ore has been missed by the prosecutors; and according to our criminal law, before a prisoner can be convicted, the proof must be clear and distinct that the property has been taken, we cannot assume a suspicion of guilt. That is a maxim of our criminal law. Now, in this case, whatever may be our suspicions against the prisoner, still there is no evidence to lay before you showing that the prosecutors when they looked at the ore on their mine, missed any of it from the heaps. The witnesses would (sic) undertake to say that they actually missed any, and inasmuch as two months elapsed between the periods when the prisoner accounted for the ore he raised as a tributer, it is just possible, though scarcely probable, that the ore might have been purchased from South Caradon Mine, and placed on his pile. However, I consider that the only conclusion to which you can come on this evidence is that there is a material link wanting in the chain necessary to bring the offence home to the prisoner, and under these circumstances, you are bound to acquit him. The Jury then returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The Jury addressed the prisoner cautioning him not to allow his present escape from justice to lead him to repeat this offence, as on the next occasion he might not be so fortunate. A CONSCIENTIOUS OFFENDER. THOMAS DAVIES, a youth, about 16 or 17 years of age, pleaded GUILTY to the charge of having, on the 30th of July, in the parish of Antony, set fire to a hay stack, the property of Mr. W. H. Pole Carew. Mr. Cole, who prosecuted, stated that he was instructed by the prosecutor to recommend the prisoner to mercy. He said that it appeared another person was taken into custody for setting fire to the stack, and the prisoner, on hearing this came to the police, and said that he could not bear that another person should suffer for an offence which he had committed, and that he came to give himself into custody. The JUDGE said that the conduct of the prisoner in this respect was highly creditable, and he could not but regret that a person who could act in such a praiseworthy manner, should have been guilty of such a wanton and malicious act as that of setting fire to a stack. This was, no doubt, the feeling also of the prosecutor, for he had authorised the learned counsel who prosecuted to recommend the prisoner to mercy. The offence was a very serious one, and under all the circumstances, the sentence he should pass was that the prisoner be imprisoned in the County Gaol for the period of EIGHT MONTHS, to be kept at HARD LABOUR. ROBBERY FROM FALMOUTH UNION. JOSEPH MEDLIN, 23, was charged with having, on the 6th July, stolen a pair of trousers, two pair of stockings, a shirt, and a pair of shoes, the property of the Guardians of the Falmouth Union. Mr. Turner prosecuted, the prisoner was not defended. It appears from the evidence, that the defendant had been an inmate of the workhouse at Falmouth from the 9th to the 18th of June last, when he left. During the time he was there he slept in the same room with two aged men, named Richard Jewell and John Matthews. On the evening of the 6th July, Jewell and Matthews placed their clothing in the usual place, and another inmate named Dupin, put his shoes outside his room door, on retiring to bed, and the next morning it was found that they were gone. On the 7th of July, the day after, the prisoner was admitted in the Truro Union House, and he had then the above articles on him, the marks from the trousers and stockings having been cut out. There was no evidence to show thrt (sic) the prisoner had actually stolen the articles from the Falmouth Workhouse, and the jury, in accordance with the suggestion of the Judge, found the prisoner guilty of receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen. He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment to be kept at such hard labour as would be suitable to him in his present delicate state of health. FELONY AT ST. BLAZEY. RICHARD HENDER, 28, was charged with stealing at St Blazey, on the 17th May last £5, the property of John Tredinnick. Mr. CLARKE prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. The evidence showed that the prosecutor is an innkeeper at St. Blazey, and on the 17th of May, Mrs. Tredinnick had occasion to change a £5 note. She sent the prisoner, who had been occasionally employed by the ostler of the inn to assist him, to get the note changed, and he went to Mr. Joseph Polkinghorne spirit merchant, and asked him to change the note, telling who had sent him. He received five sovereigns in change, and with this he decamped, and although search was made for him by the police, nothing was heard of him till the 14th of July when he was apprehended by Inspector Fleet, who is stationed at Tywardreath, but on being searched no money was found upon him. To Police-Sergeant Reefer, stationed at Lostwithiel, the prisoner stated that he had been to Jersey and Guernsey—that he had received the note from Mrs. Tredinnick and that “Mr. Tredinnick or any other man that is a man, ought to a give me credit for what I have done." Neither the judge or the jury could see anything creditable in the conduct of the prisoner. He was found GUILTY and sentenced to FOUR MONTHS' HARD LABOUR. The Court then adjourned. C R 0 W N C O URT. TUESDAY, AUGUST 5. Mr. Justice Williams took his seat on the bench punctually at nine o clock this morning. HENRY LUXTON, 18, labourer, was charged with the commission of a disgusting offence, at Maker, Devon, on the 28th of March. Mr. ROUPE prosecuted, and Mr. GURNEY defended the prisoner. A question arose, in the course of the trial, as to whether the case could be taken at the Cornwall Assizes. The offence was alleged to have been committed in a field called Great Hill which constitutes a portion of Maker farm. One part of the parish of Maker is in Cornwall, and the other part in Devon, Great Hill being on the Devonshire side of the boundary and Judge said that he had no jurisdiction at these assizes to try a man for an offence committed in another county. Mr. ROUPE said that an act of parliament was in existence by which the whole of Maker parish was in Cornwall for assize purposes; and it was further stated that the entire parish was rated to the county rate of Cornwall. His LORDSHIP was afraid that the fact of the parish being rated to the Cornwall county rate was not sufficient to give him jurisdiction in the matter. There might be such an act as Mr. Roope (sic) had referred to, but which, of course, he could not carry in his mind, and if it could be shown to him, it might satisfy him that he had jurisdiction. Diligent search was then made for this act, but it turned out that there was no special act applicable to the parish of Maker, but only the general act affecting all similar districts situated in other counties than those to which they belonged, throughout the kingdom. Mr. Brian, solicitor of Plymouth, was called, and proved that the portion of Maker, in Devon was a detached part of that county, surrounded on all sides by Cornwall, and that for criminal purpose it was to be held in the latter county. His (sic) His LORDSHIP held this to be sufficient, under the general act, to give him jurisdiction. Mr. GURNEY having addressed the Jury for the prisoner, and the JUDGE summed up, a verdict of NOT GUILTY was returned, and the prisoner was discharged. THE CRIMINAL ASSAULT AT TRURO. THOMAS SEARLE, 25, labourer, was charged with a criminal assault on Mary Ann Hill, at St. Clement's, on the 12th June, and WILLIAM HENRY SNELL, 20, HENRY BENNALLACK, 18, and FRANCIS RICHARDS, 16, were indicted for aiding and abetting him in the commission of the offence. Mr. Stock prosecuted, and Mr. Prideaux defended Snell and Bennallack, Searle and Richards were undefended. Mr. STOCK stated the circumstances of the case, as they are detailed by the witnesses in the subjoined evidence. While alluding to the fact of the father of prosecutrix having left her in the Truro Whitsun Fair, late at night, without money and without friends, he said his (father's) conduct was severely to be reprobated. Whether he got out of temper or not while waiting for her, and drove away in a passion he did not know but the severe misfortune and injury which befell his daughter in consequence must always cause him deeply to regret and deplore his conduct, if he had any conscience at all. He felt satisfied that when the jury heard the evidence, the only question would be was it true, because if they believed the testimony of the prosecutrix, it would bring home the guilt of the prisoners in the most conclusive manner. The case, however, would not rest on her evidence, but it would be corroborated in several most important particulars. Knowing that charge would be proved clearly and distinctly, he was at loss to know what defence would be set up. It might be alleged that the Prosecutrix had years ago deviated from the paths of virtue, but so admitting that to be the case—even were she a common prostitute, she was as much entitled to protection from violence as the chastest woman in the land. He then called— Mary Ann Hill, the prosecutrix, a respectable looking young woman. She deposed—l am a single woman, 29 years of age. I live with my father and mother at Gwennap, which is about seven miles from Truro. I work at the mines. On Wednesday, the 11th of June, I went with my father to Truro in a cart. We got there about two o'clock, Truro Whitsun fair was going on, and I went to the fair and remained there all day. I met a young man named John James, with whom I went to the play. We remained there about an hour, and then went to the Cross to see for my father and his cart. I found that he had gone home. I had not a farthing of money at this time. I went on to the Quay and found a shed where I sat down. There were some full bags in a shed. James went with me there and then left me, and did not come back again. He did not stop with me long, and after he left I sat down there and fell asleep a little. I remained there till four o'clock in the morning, when a man named John Scoble came. I did not know him, and feeling very weak, tired, and cold at this time, I had some talk with him. Searl (sic) came soon after, and said, we will go and have a drop of something to drink; and Scoble said we will ask the young woman to have a little refreshment. Searle said, we will go to the cook's shop handy. We then went to the cook's shop, but it was not open. Searle said, we will go a little below, and I will get some refreshment for the young woman and myself too. We all three went to the Union Hotel. We went inside to a room, and Searle called for a pint of beer, but I did not take any. I saw the other three prisoners there. Bennallack offered me two pennyworth of gin, and being still very cold I took it and drank it. I had not had anything to drink before this since Wednesday afternoon at three o'clock. The last thing I took was a cup of coffee and a little meat at three o'clock that day. There were other men and boys at the Union Hotel, some lying down and sleeping. I remained there about half an hour, and then went up the road leading to Bodmin and St. Austell. Searle came up after me. I went as far as a gateway which opened into the road, into which Searle forced me. At that time I did not see the other prisoners—only Searle. When he got me inside the gate he threw me down. This was about half-past five in the morning. When he threw me down, he tried to overcome me, and I would not give consent. I made an alarm by screeching murder. He took me up the lane. The others had then come in sight, when I got up, he tried to get hold of me again. The other three prisoners were looking over the gate at this time, and Searle said to them, are you going to assist me? They then came up to me, Searle having hold of me, and they forced me up to a farm place—an old wain (waggon) house. Searle put me into the wain-house, and threw me down again and tried to effect his purpose. I made all the resistance I could and screamed again. He then said to the other three men again—Are you going to assist me; and then all three came into the wain house. Bennallack and Snell said with an oath, "Yes, I am going to assist you." They then got me on the waggon that was there, and Searle and Snell got on it, and held me while Searle effected his purpose. Snell held my head against the back part of the wain, and Bennallack held me by the arm. I again screamed murder. Snell then seized me and made an attempt, but I struggled so much that Searle swore at me, and he struck me a blow on the left eye. He kept me down by the head while Snell was making the attempt. Then Bennallack put his hand over my mouth, and said, "D— her, kill her." I was screaming when he put his hand over my mouth. Snell did not complete the offence. Richards, the boy, stood inside the door of the wain-house all this time. I made such an alarm, that they all ran out of the wain-house, and then I made my escape. My drawers were so down about me that I could not get along, and I stooped and pulled them off, and then ran as quick as I could towards Truro. When I got into the road, and was running Searle made a blow at me and tried to knock me down, but he missed me. My bonnet, hair-net, and umbrella were left in the waggon. While I was running down the road I saw an old man looking out of a window, and he said, "What is the matter, young woman?" And I said, "See what those man have done to me up in this lane." He advised me to go the police-station and give them in charge. I said, "Look here, they have given me a dreadful black eye"—pointing to it. I also showed him my dress, which was covered with mud. After that I met Scoble at the corner of the Union Hotel, and I told him that Searle had given me this awful black eye, and had tore my drawers off; I also showed him my dress—what a state they had put me in. Scoble told me he would go with me to the police-station and give me their names. I told Scoble what Searle, Snell, and all of them had done to me, the same as I have told to-day. I went to the police-station at once, where I found P.C. Cornish, and I told him what had occurred, and what Searle had done to me. Scoble gave the names of the prisoners. When they left the wain-house, Searle had my umbrella, which he threw up in a tree and broke the stick of it, and I think Bennallack took my bonnet. The prisoners were apprehended, and on Friday they were all shown to me. I was certain that they were the men. Cross-examined.—The fair is attended by persons from all parts of Cornwall, but I was never there before, but once when a little girl. I went into the fair with my father, but he had a horse to sell and he left me. I cannot say how long I stopped with him—whether an hour or two minutes. I stood in the Cross looking at the shows, and saw my father there occasionally. Between my arrival and going to the theatre at nine o'clock, I walked about the fair like other people, sometimes speaking to persons from my own neighbourhood. The man James is a neighbour. He took me into the play and paid for me. James lives at Gwennap, and after I found my father was gone, I asked him to take me home, but he said that he was not going home that night. When James left me on the quay, I did not expect that he would not return. Almost immediately opposite the gate at the end of the lane, on the other side of the road, is Mrs. Tweedy's lodge. I am quite sure I left the Union Hotel before Searle, but he followed and overtook me, and we walked together for a short distance. I told him to go back, as I would rather walk alone—that I did not want any company. When we got to the gate, Searle said—"Go in here—don't be afraid of me—I'll protect you." Searle and I went into the shed before the other men. I will swear that I was not in the wain before the other men came in. I should think the wain-house is a quarter of a mile from the road. I was so frightened and excited that I said to Searle while on the waggon—"If you will let me go, I will speak to you down in the town, if you will do me no harm." I said this for the purpose of getting away from them. They treated me most awfully. I have had two children and not by the same father. Nothing improper ever took place between me and any other men. In reply to Richards, witness said you were there when Searle struck me. Wm. Narramore—l am a gardener to Mrs. Tweedy, of Alverton, and live in the lodge, which is exactly opposite this Tregolls-lane. On Thursday morning, the 12th of June, I heard the cry of a female in distress. It commenced a little before six. There was a crying and screaming very loud. I was going up the lawn to look after the men, and at first the cry appeared to come from near the lodge, and then it appeared to travel up the lane. I was in the garden, about 40 yards from the lodge. It continued, I should think, more than a quarter of an hour. Cross-examined—l thought when I came down towards the lodge that it was some quarreling, as this lane used to be a great place for tramps. After the screaming, I heard the laughter of a man, coming, apparently, from the waggon-house. I was engaged in telling the labourers in the garden what to do, when I heard the screaming. After I had done so and come down to the lodge, I was going up the lane to see what was the matter. When I had got up about ten yards, I heard the laughter, and, thinking it was all right, I came back again. The waggon-house is about 40 land yards from the road. William Nicholls—l am a millwright, living in the last house in the road going towards Mrs. Tweedy's lodge, and about 100 yards from it. On the morning of the 12th of June, while I was in bed, I heard screaming and noise, about six o'clock. I got up and looked out of the window. My father-in-law lives in the same house. He is a very old man, 82 years of age, and is too feeble to attend these assizes. I opened the window and saw this young woman pass. She said to my father-in-law—l have been illused up in the lane. Whilst she was speaking, Searle came down the road, and she said he had struck her on the eye. I saw her eye which was very much inflamed. She also said to Searle—"You are the man that illused me in the lane; I will have you taken up." She passed down the turnpike road into the town. Cross-examined—This conversation was addressed to my father-in-law, and she appeared to be very much irritated at the blow and the state of her dress. Searle came down about two minutes after her, and he complained to her that she had torn his coat, or something to that effect. They spoke to each other very vehemently for a minute or two, and then they went away, taking different directions. She asked my father-in-law to come down, but neither of us did so. By Mr. STOCK—She complained that she was very wet, and she wanted to come into our house to dry herself. John Scoble—I am a lighterman living in Charles-street, Truro. I had to go to Malpas at four o'clock on the morning of the 12th June, for a cargo of coals. There were eight of us engaged, Searle being one. I got on the quay about 20 minutes before four o'clock. I found a young woman in a shed on the quay. Searle came directly after. I then said I was going to look for the other men, and if she had a mind to go, I would give her a cup of coffee. We then went from the quay and found the coffee-shop shut, and Searle said never mind, come to the Union Hotel. Searle and the young woman went to the Union Hotel, and I went to look after the other men. When I got to the Union Hotel, Searle had a pint of beer, and asked her to drink, but she declined. I had two-penny-worth of brandy, and I asked her to drink, but she refused. I went down the river towards Malpas, but finding the weather too bad, I come back, and near the White Hart, I met the young woman. Her dress was dirty and disordered, and she had received a black eye. She also had been crying. She said "see what that blackguard Searle has done—what a mess I am in." I don't recollect her saying anything more. She then went to the Station-house, and I went with her. She asked what the men were called, and I told her. Cross-examined—What she said to me was—See they have used me like this. In the police-station she said—l can swear a rape against Searle. I cannot say that she told me this before—l don't recollect. P.C. Cornish was then present. In reply to Richards, witness said, I cannot say that you were in the Union Hotel among the others early in the morning in question. Richard Cornish—l am a police constable of the borough of Truro. I was on duty at the police-station on the morning of Thursday, the 12th of June. The prosecutrix came in about seven o'clock, and said that three young men had insulted and ill-used her. She said she did not know their names, but a man outside did. I looked out and saw John Scoble. I called him in and asked him a question. The young woman then told me she had been ill-used by three young men—that she could "take" a rape against one of them. I asked her—Do you mean you could swear a rape against one of them, and she said she could against the one who was dressed like a sailor. She told me that they had thrown her down in the lane. Her dress was in a very disordered state, and she had her under-garment under her arm. On the Friday morning I went to the wain house, and found a hair padding and hair net. The hair pad was between the two poles, and the net in the hind part of the waggon. Wm. Joseph Nash—I am superintendent of the police at Truro. A warrant was placed in my hands on the 12th of June, for the apprehension of Searle, Snell, and Benallack (sic). I apprehended Snell about one o'clock in the morning of Friday, the 13th, in bed. I told him the charge, and he said he knew nothing about the matter—that he never saw the young woman in his life. I took him to the station-house, and he was shown to the prosecutrix. She said that he was one of the men that assaulted her. I apprehended Searle about two o'clock the same morning while in bed at his father's. He put on his clothes and came down stairs, and said, I suppose it is all right, you have a warrant; and I replied I had. I then took him to the station-house, and on the prosecutrix seeing him, she said he was the principal man who assaulted her. I apprehended Bennallack shortly after, and he said he was not the man who assaulted her—it was Searle and Snell—that Searle was the man who gave her the black eye. Richards was apprehended on the Saturday, and she said he was one of the four who had assaulted her. I took a coat and a pair of trousers from Snell's house when I apprehended him, and his mother said they belonged to him. John Gay, of the Truro Police, deposed to assisting Superintendant Nash in the apprehension of the prisoners. Searle, Snell, and Benallack were placed in separate cells, Searle's and Snell's adjoining. In the course of the morning of Friday, I heard Snell call on Searle, and ask—"You are apprehended are you ?" Searle said—"Yes." Snell said—"you must swear you gave the woman something." Searle said—"l am d—d if you arn't (sic) into it." Searle further said "They cannot do any harm to me, only for the assault. If I had connexion with her, I paid her for it. We shall have six months." Benallack said—"If one gets it, we shall all get it. I would sooner have six months than one, because we shall get better food." Searle hollowed to Snell and said—"We must not know anything at all about it." That was all that was said. On the prosecutrix seeing Snell, after he had been brought to the station house, she said he was one of the men who assaulted her, and he replied—"I do not know you, I never saw you before." The prosecutrix was recalled and identified the grey clothes found at Snell's house, as those which he wore at the time the offence was committed. Mr. PRIDEAUX then addressed the jury on behalf of Snell and Bennallack. He said that although he was not engaged for Richards, he would suggest that there did not appear to be really any case against him. According to the prosecutrix, he merely stood at the gate—that he was not a party to the alleged crime, and was not at the Union Hotel on the morning of Thursday, and in fact, he did not appear to be guilty of the offence. He agreed fully and entirely in two of the observations of his learned friend in stating the case—namely, that the real question for the jury was—did they believe the prosecutrix? and secondly, that were she even a common prostitute, she was entitled to protection as much as the purest and chastest woman in the land. But while he agreed with both these observations, if it should appear that she was a woman who was likely to consent to an improper intimacy, it became the more incumbent on the jury to scrutinize the evidence narrowly, and not to be satisfied unless it clearly and unmistakeably proved and established the prisoners' guilt. The statement of the prosecutrix was almost entirely uncorroborated, and he prayed them to pause before they came to the conclusion that these young men at the bar were guilty. Let them look at the locality, the circumstances, and the period of the alleged offence. What was the locality?—the neighbourhood of the populous town of Truro, What the circumstances?—Truro Whitsun Fair, after they had all been enjoying themselves. What the time?—in the morning, in a frequented neighbourhood, within a hundred yards or two of the Union Hotel, which, as they had heard, was full of men and boys lying about. Then look at the spot where this offence was alleged to have been committed? A lane close to a much frequented public road, within a hundred yards of a number of dwelling houses, and opposite Mr. Tweedy's lodge, and where the prisoners must have known that any quarrelling or screaming would be heard. And screaming and quarrelling was certainly heard by three or four individuals, but that was a fact, which he thought was rather favourable to the prisoner than otherwise. He submitted that the whole of the circumstances connected with this case called upon them to be very careful in coming to a conclusion adverse to the prisoners. Who was the prosecutrix? He did not wish to press hardly upon her; but this he must say, that she was, on her own confession, an unchaste person. She admitted to having had two children by different men. She came into Truro fair, where she remained all day, wandering about, and so little did her father regard her character or what became of her, although he must have known that she was without money—that he drove home in the evening, leaving her in Truro fair, thus showing that he considered she was a person whom it was immaterial whether she was left behind in the town or not. He admitted that the conduct of the father in acting in this way was deserving of great blame and censure, but if they could believe that in this county of Cornwall any parent could act so towards any child for whom he had any feeling of respect, they would do violence to the affection which parents entertained towards their children. The fact appeared to be that the father looked on her as a person whose character was entirely gone—that she was not a virtuous woman—and it mattered little whether she was left in Truro or not. Of one thing, also, they were certain, that the case which they had had laid before them, presented a most melancholy picture of the profligacy and degraded morality of a portion of the lower orders of this county; because there could be no doubt, and he did not deny it for a moment, that the prisoners had been guilty of gross and profligate conduct. They had the prosecutrix deserted by her father, and then spending the whole of the night between eleven o'clock and four o'clock the next morning in an out-house on the quay. Her story about James deserting her was all very well, but why had not James been produced to explain the reason? why, although he had taken such interest in her during the evening, he recklessly and cruelly deserted her, leaving her on the quay side without lodgings and without a friend. Then let them consider the position of the prosecutrix. She had all her life evidently been employed at the mines, and consequently had been accustomed to severe labour. Had she been a virtuous young woman, would she have hesitated the next morning as soon as day broke, to set off and walk the few miles to her father's house. Instead of that, however, she accompanied Searle and Scoble, two perfect strangers to her, to a public house, sat there for some time among a number of strange men, drank some gin, and then set off up the Bodmin road, which was in directly the contrary direction of her father's residence. There was no necessity for her to do so, because she might have spoken to the landlady or a female servant at the hotel. He submitted that the entire facts of the case showed that the prosecutrix was a consenting party—that she and the prisoners afterwards had a quarrel or disagreement, which led to squabbling, blows, and screaming, and that she had then brought this charge out of revenge. The JUDGE summed up at considerable length, going minutely through the evidence. In conclusion, he said that if the jury believed the evidence of the prosecutrix, they would find the three elder prisoners guilty, but if not they would acquit them, as their guilt or acquittal must altogether depend upon the credence they gave to her statement. As to Richards, they would probably be of opinion that the case against him was not very strong. After the jury had consulted for a short time, the foreman said:—We find the prisoners guilty of an indecent assault. Mr. PRIDEAUX.—They are not charged with an indecent assault. That is a verdict of not guilty. To the foreman—You acquit them of the charge of rape? The FOREMAN.—(who appeared rather confused) Yes. Mr. PRIDEAUX—Then the prisoners may be discharged. The JUDGE—No; there is another indictment against them in which they are charged in the first count with an assault with intent, and in the second with a common assault. As, however, the jury have acquitted the prisoners of the rape it would perhaps be useless to arraign them for the assault with intent, because if they were guilty of the latter, they must be guilty of the former offence, as there is no question but Searle had improper intimacy with the woman. The prisoners were then indicted for a common assault, when Searle, Snell, and Bennallack, on the advice of Mr. Prideaux, pleaded GUILTY, Richards NOT GUILTY. No evidence was offered in support of the charge against Richards, and he was ACQUITTED, and discharged. The JUDGE—The prisoners have pleaded guilty of a common assault, and I must say, that in the whole course of my experience, I never met with a more aggravated case of common assault. I must consider the punishment I shall inflict on the prisoners, but certainly it will be as severe a one as the law will allow. The prisoners were then ordered to stand down. CONCEALMENT of BIRTH. JOANNA RICE, a young woman, who had been out on bail, was arraigned upon the charge of concealing the birth of her child, at Calstock. Mr. Carter prosecuted, and Mr. Cole defended the prisoner. The prisoner had lived as a servant for about three years, in the house of Mr. John Pollard, farmer, at Trevidoe, in the parish of Meheniot. Miss Pollard, Mr. Pollard's sister, kept house for him, and for two months or so before April, an alteration was observed in the prisoner's appearance, as if she was in the family-way. Miss Pollard taxed her with being in that condition, but this she positively denied. On the night of the 27th of April, the prisoner complained of being unwell, and on the morning of the 28th, Miss Pollard heard her cleaning the door of her room, and on asking her what she had been doing, the prisoner said that she had been sick, and her nose had bled. Miss Pollard then observed a very perceptible difference in the prisoner's appearance. She questioned her, and not receiving a satisfactory answer, she went up-stairs, and searched her room, and in her trunk she found the body of a newly born child, wrapped in a bed-sheet. She returned down stairs again, and said to the prisoner—"Here is a position you have got me into;" on which the prisoner said—"Yes; I wished it had lived." Miss Pollard immediately locked the door of the prisoner's room, and sent for the police. Mr. Lawrence, surgeon, of Liskeard, deposed to having examined the prisoner on the 28th April, and found that she had been delivered recently of a child. Mr. COLE submitted that there was no evidence to prove that the prisoner had attempted to conceal the birth within the the (sic) meaning of the act. She had evidently been delivered of a dead child during the night, and there being no person with her, and having no place in which to lay the body, she had wrapped it in a sheet and put it in her box. When it was found by Miss Pollard, the only thing the prisoner did was to express regret that it had not lived, thus showing that she had no desire to conceal its birth. Had she chosen to do so, she had ample opportunity of removing it from the house before Miss Pollard came down stairs. He urged that this lady had not shown much consideration for the poor unfortunate girl in her misfortune and distress, and the latter might have desired to conceal the birth from her, but that would not constitute the offence. The jury found the prisoner NOT GUILTY. The Court then adjourned. NISI PRIUS COURT. TUESDAY, AUGUST 5. (Before Mr. Justice KEATING). VOSPER v. RADDALL.—(A Special Jury Case).—Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Lopes for plaintiff; Mr. Collier, Q.C. and Mr. Pender for defendant.—Attorneys:—Messrs. Edmonds and Son, of Plymouth, for plaintiff; Mr. Peter, of Launceston. for defendant.—The witnesses having been ordered out of Court, Mr. LOPES stated the pleadings, which stated that Thomas Vosper was plaintiff, and Digory Warne Raddall, the defendant, and that the defendant falsely and maliciously appeared before Justices, and charged the plaintiff with having committed forgery, and that in consequence the plaintiff was apprehended and imprisoned for some time, after which the Justices dismissed the complaint. It was for the alleged false imprisonment that the plaintiff now brought his action.—Mr. COLERIDGE, addressing the Jury, said:—This is an action for malicious prosecution brought by the plaintiff Thomas Vosper, to recover damages against the defendant Raddall, for injuries which he sustained in his character and reputation, and for the distress of mind and annoyance which he was put to in consequence of Mr. Raddall having made a charge against him before the magistrates, totally without foundation, and which charge was dismissed by the magistrates, and I think you will say it ought never to have been preferred. Mr. Vosper, the plaintiff, is a merchant, and was for some time the Manager of the Tamar Coal Manure and General Mercantile Company limited. Mr. Raddall, a farmer, was managing director of the same company. In 1858 the plaintiff attempted to form a company on a somewhat large scale; a Mr. Brimacombe was a good deal interested in that Company, and in consequence of Mr. Brimacombe’s death, the project fell to the ground. In the early part of 1858 this Tamar Company was formed—the proposed capital being £6000; and both Vosper and Raddall took shares; it was formed on the principle of limited liability; the plaintiff was appointed manager and the defendant managing director. The Company was carried on during 1859 and '60, and at the end of 1860 the accounts were audited; there appeared to be a surplus of £450, and a dividend was declared, such dividend to be taken up in shares. It afterwards turned out that the auditors and directors had been mistaken and that instead of there being a surplus, there was a considerable deficiency. The plaintiff, however, stood by the company and increased his interest to £540. The defendant, as managing director, was constantly at the offices of the Company, and was perfectly familiar with all its proceedings. The plaintiff, who had been anxious to form a company on a large scale, finding that this Tamar Company was not so flourishing as he and other of its friends desired, was constantly telling the directors, and particularly at a meeting in September, 1861, that the trade was being carried on on too small a scale and that they ought to extend its operations. The defendant as managing director, I suppose took this to be an attack on himself; he called a general meeting of shareholders and there made an attack on Vosper and tried to get him dismissed from his position of Managing Agent; he brought various charges against Vosper, but the directors ware in favor of Vosper and against Raddall, and they determined to continue Vosper in his office. Thereupon Raddall resigned his post as Managing Director; and at the same time he used very strong expressions against Vosper, and among other things said that when once he quarrelled with a man he never forgave him. (Mr. Raddall, afterwards when giving evidence, most positively denied that he had ever in his life made use of such an expression.) The plaintiff in the discharge of his duty, had to travel about to various parts of the country, and constantly had to come home late at night, and work up the books of the Company; he having no assistance but that of a clerk for some time. From Christmas-day 1861, till the 6th February, 1862, the books were out of Vosper's possession. (It appeared afterwards in evidence that the books had been sent to auditors at Plymouth). Of course, for any mistakes that occurred in that interval the plaintiff was not responsible. On the 17th February, 1862, a general meeting of the shareholders was held, and at that that meeting, after a good deal of discussion, Vosper was discharged from his office and the books and various documents of the company were removed from his custody. The plaintiff told the company that as he had had to conduct the affairs of the company under considerable disadvantages, there might be some errors here and there in the accounts; and if there were he should be happy to give every explanation and afford every information in his power in order to have the accounts put straight, although he had ceased to be manager. You will find that he has done this—that he has attended meetings with Raddall from time to time, and has used all his endeavours to set the affairs of the Company straight, by affording all explanations in his power. Here then was Vosper, the manager of the Company, and Raddall the managing director quarrelling with him and extremely indignant at having been outvoted, and having a strong dislike towards Vosper, in consequence. About April, 1861, there was a Capt. Richards known to Vosper, who had bought a cargo of coal for the company and came to Vosper to be paid for it—the whole amount due for the cargo, being £77 12s. 6d. The Company, it should be observed, were not always in very good cash at their bankers, and frequently Vosper was in advance to the Company; and on this very occasion he paid Capt. Richards this sum of £77 12s. 6d—in two sums; and I believe it was from these circumstances the mistake occurred, out of which Raddall was induced to make his charge. The whole amount due for the cargoe being £77 12s. 6d. Capt. Richards asked Vosper to pay him £33, and to pay the balance to his (Richards's) brother-in-law, Hosking. Vosper accordingly paid to Capt. Richards the £33, and afterwards paid the remainder, £44 12s. 6d. to Hosking, Hosking then giving a receipt for the whole amount of the cargo. The balance was paid to Hosking by Vosper by his private cheque on his private bankers, and Hosking gave a receipt for the full £77 12s. 6d. The cheque for £44 12s. 6d. was drawn on the 2nd of May, and was passed through Vosper's private bank on the 4th of May, so that on that day the whole sum of £77 12s. 6d. was paid. The receipt given by Hosking was handed by Vosper to the clerk of the company and was entered in the books of the company. Some time after that Captain Richards called again, and some conversation took place with Vosper about this £77 12s. 6d. One cargoe only had been entered in the company's books, but in consequence of a second receipt having been taken, there was an entry from which it appeared there was a second payment to Richards of this £77 12s. 6d. Shortly after this, the managing Director, Raddall, met Vosper and paid him the £77 12s. 6d., which he had advanced for the Company; and that one sum of £77 12s. 6d. was the only sum that Vosper had ever claimed from the Company.—On the 28th of April, 1862, after the plaintiff had been dismissed, and after the accounts of the Company had been gone into and Vosper had afforded every explanation, Raddall and a gentleman named Down, also a member of the company, attended to go through the accounts and had discussion on many disputed items; and this matter of the £77 12s. 6d. was inquired into. It appeared there were two entries of payment of £77 12s. 6d, for only one cargo of coal at that amount. Vosper immediately said no doubt that is a mistake—l have been paid that; he at once debited himself with the receipt of £77 12s. 6d., and gave an explanation to Down, with which the latter expressed himself perfectly satisfied, and Raddall did not express dissatisfaction. Two other matters were discussed at that meeting, which still remain in dispute; but with regard to this £77 12s 6d, Vosper gave satisfactory explanations.—On the 15th May, Vosper, to his utter surprise, was arrested at his house in Calstock, on a charge of forgery; he, a respectable man, was marched away at night, between two policemen, six miles across country to Callington, where he was kept two days and nights, in a dark, horrible cell, he was then, on the 17th May, taken before a magistrate, who dismissed the charge and stated that he (Vosper) left the court without the slightest imputation on his character.—Before Raddall prepared the charge of forgery, he went to Hosking and said the letter H in Richards had been altered to K and it appeared to be Raddall’s belief that that had been done by Vosper for the purpose of making it appear that two cargoes of coal had been received and paid for—namely, one from a person called Richards and another from a person called Rickards, and thus to defraud the company of £77 12s. 6d. Hosking told Raddall what he afterwards stated before the magistrates that the receipt had not been altered, and that the signature was that of Capt. Richards. In spite of that statement and of the explanations which had been given, Raddall obtained a warrant against Vosper on a charge of forgery, and this was the charge brought before the magistrates; Hosking attended the inquiry, gave the magistrates the same information he had given to Raddall, and the magistrates dismissed the charge.—Subsequently to the meeting referred to, Raddall told the plaintiff he was sorry for what had happened, and he hoped nothing further would be done in the matter; but the plaintiff replied that he could not submit to such treatment, and he must bring his action. The examination of witnesses then proceeded; the witnesses examined for the plaintiff being Mr. John Peter, solicitor and magistrates' clerk at Callington; Alfred Stephens, of the Cornwall County Constabulary; Edward Marshall, an Inspector of the same Force; Thomas Vosper, the plaintiff; and Samuel Hosking, shipowner and merchant at Calstock. Mr. COLLIER then addressed the jury for the defence. He concurred with his learned friend in his observations on the malicious institution of legal proceedings; but, on the other hand, it would be monstrous to contend that because a man, in good faith, preferred a criminal charge which afterwards turned out to be groundless, that man should be punished in damages. The object of inquiry before magistrates was to elicit the truth; and it frequently happened, as in the present instance, that a person charged before magistrates was able to prove his innocence, and then the prosecution dropped, and every person interested in the accused was glad that he had been able to vindicate his character. The question for you, gentlemen, in this case is whether Mr. Raddall, at the time he made the charge, had reasonable ground for so doing. I do not state, nor does Mr. Raddall instruct me, that the plaintiff was guilty of forgery; but the question is whether, at the time the defendant preferred the charge, he had reasonable and probable cause for suspecting that he was so guilty.—Mr. Collier then commented on the fact that his learned friend, though complaining that his client was accused of forging a receipt, declined to have the two receipts which had been produced, submitted to the jury; and added that he (Mr. Collier) on behalf of defendant, should put them in, and the jury would be able to judge for themselves as to the grounds of suspicion they offered.—On the part of Raddall, said the learned counsel, I will give you his version of this matter. It is true that Vosper was manager, and Raddall was managing director. Raddall resigned his directorship mainly because he found that Vosper had entered into certain partnerships, and Raddall thought this was inconsistent with Vosper's duty to the Company, which Raddall considered had a right to Vosper's whole time. Things went on in that way until February last, when Vosper was dismissed—not by Raddall, who had then resigned, and it could not be pretended that Vosper was dismissed because of any malicious feeling on the part of Raddall. When Vosper was dismissed, the books were entrusted to Mr. Holmden, an able accountant of Plymouth, who reported to the Company unfavourably as to the mode in which the books had been kept; and as to the pecuniary position of the Company.—When Vosper was dismissed in February, the matter of account as between him and the company was referred to Mr. Holmden, who had a copy of entries made from the original books by Mr. Chubb on behalf of Vosper; and that copy contained those two entries in question; but that copy was not in all respects quite correct, inasmuch as, in the original books (now in Court) in one of these two entries there was the name of Richards, and in the other the name was Rickards. Vosper had to-day stated in his evidence that, until the 23rd of April when Holmden made his report, he was not aware that there were those two entries of the same sum in his books. Mr. Holmden, however, will tell you that he had previously expressly called Vosper's attention to the two entries of the same sum; and I believe Mr. Holmden will also tell you that Vosper brought to him the two receipts in question and persisted that those two entries of £77 12s. 6d. each, represented two different cargoes which he had paid for separately—and that they were cargoes coming from the same pit, in the same vessel. That, of course, was unsatisfactory to the shareholders; and thereupon they requested that he would meet Raddall and Down in order to clear up this and some other matters; he said he had no objection to meet them; he did meet Raddall and Down on the 28th of April, and then it was that for the first time, he stated there was only one cargo of £77 12s. 6d. value, and that it was in error he had made an entry twice of that sum being paid by him. Then also, he made the important statement that Mr. Chubb, clerk to Mr. Cleverton who had had charge of the books for some time before he (Vosper) was dismissed, had called his attention to this matter, and that he had had one or two conferences with Mr. Cleverton on the subject; but Mr. Cleverton and Mr. Chubb will both state that not one syllable was said to them on the subject. Vosper's explanations not being satisfactory on the 28th April, Raddalll requested him to meet him on the 6th of May; and Vosper agreed to do so. Raddall attended at Kelly on the 6th of May for the purpose of meeting him, and sent for Vosper, who sent answer that he was too ill to attend to business and could not come. Raddall did not think Vosper's statements satisfactory; and in fact he could not tell which of his stories to believe—whether there was only one cargo, or two separate cargoes. Raddall, believing that his plea of illness was real, begged him to make another appointment; but the answer he then got from Vosper was that he would not meet him and would act with him only through an attorney. Under these circumstances Raddall was puzzled; he looked at the two receipts, and the circumstances in them struck him as exceedingly suspicious—circumstances which also struck the magistrate and his clerk as very suspicious. According to the plaintiff’s case the receipt was given on the 2nd of May; but it was clear that a figure 1 had, by some person, been interpolated before the 2, making the date appear as the 12th. That was in the receipt which purported to be signed by Hosking, and which was, I believe, in Hosking's own hand-writing. There was another receipt, written by Vosper, and signed by Capt. Richards. It was clear that the date 12th was wrong, because the 12th was a Sunday; Mr. Hosking could give no explanation of the circumstance, but he stated in his evidence that the receipt was given by him on the 2nd, and that he never gave receipts on Sundays. Mr. Raddall therefore was puzzled in this way; he saw this name Rickards purporting to have been written by Capt. Richards's, brother-in-law, Hosking; and he naturally asked himself whether Hosking could have made such a mistake; or, had it not been altered by some person subsequently. I do not say he was right in this suspicion; but the question is whether, at the time, it was not a fair and reasonable suspicion for Raddall to form. It was the same conclusion that the magistrate and his clerk arrived at, until they heard Mr. Hosking state on his oath that he wrote the date, as the 2nd, and the name Rickards as signifying Richards; and I think you will agree with me, gentlemen, that Mr. Raddall was justified in taking steps to have Mr. Hosking examined on oath. Vosper himself had persisted until the 23rd of April; that the two entries to his credit in the books were in respect of two separate payments to the same person for different cargoes; and it occurred to Raddall that Vosper in order to get the two payments from the Company had altered the receipt. On this suspicion, Mr. Raddall went to a magistrate and a warrant was issued against Vosper on a charge of forgery. The charge was investigated, and upon Hosking's statement on oath the magistrate was satisfied and Raddall was satisfied; and Mr. Raddall expressed himself to that effect.—Mr. Vosper himself has acknowledged here that he had received several sums for the Company, which he had not yet accounted for. I do not accuse him of embezzlement; but the state of his accounts might further justify the bona fide suspicion on which Mr. Raddall acted. Mr. Raddall was actuated by no malicious motive towards the plaintiff; and, though he had taken an erroneous view of Vosper's conduct, the evidence in the case would show that he had reasonable ground for preferring the charge against him. The following witnesses were examined for the defence—Digory Wearne Raddall, the defendant; Henry Reynolds the present manager of the company; Mr. Holmden, the accountant; Frederick Cleverton, solicitor to the company; Mr. Chubb; Mr. Edward Bowhay; and Mr. Francis RaddalI. Mr. COLLIER summed up the evidence, contending that it showed that the defendant had acted perfectly bona fide and without malice; after which Mr. COLERIDGE made a very able general reply; and the learned JUDGE summed up—generally in favour of the case for the plaintiff, submitting to the jury the question whether, or not, the defendant had acted bona fide, and on good and sufficient grounds for believing that the plaintiff had been guilty of forgery; and his lordship directed the jury that, in the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the preferring a criminal charge, they might infer malicious motive. The reason for the defendant's conduct, which had been assigned by his counsel was that he wished to hear Hosking state on oath before a magistrate what he had previously stated to him (the defendant) in conversation; it was for the jury to say whether they considered that to be a reasonable ground for preferring a charge of perjury against the plaintiff and having him apprehended and lodged in prison. Any question of damages, his lordship said was entirely for the jury; the only limitation imposed by the law being that damages must not be excessive. The Jury, after about ten minutes' consultation in their box, returned a verdict for plaintiff, damages £50. The case occupied the Court during the whole day—from 9 o'clock till 7. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6. ROUTLEY and ANOTHER (Administrators) v. LONDON PROVINCIAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY.—This was a special jury cause, and it was announced this morning that it had been withdrawn on the previous evening. VIVIAN AND OTHERS v. GRYLLS.—(Special Jury).—Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon for plaintiffs; attorney, Mr. H. G. Hill, assisted by Messrs. Grylls, Hill, and Hill; and for defendant, Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Arundel Rogers; attornies, Messrs. Nelson, assisted by Messrs. Rogers and Son. This was an action brought by the Union Bank of Helston against Mrs. Humphry Millett Grylls, for the recovery of £3326 9s. 4d., for monies advanced to defendant. After a lengthy conversation between the respective counsel and attornies, the record was withdrawn on terms. This concluded the whole of the cases in the Cause List, and the Court proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. CHARGE OF STEALING AND PERJURY. JOHN JACKA and THOMAS MOORSHEAD, two well-dressed and respectable looking young men, were charged with stealing one drake and two ducks, the property of Edward Harris, at Gwennap, on the 20th of March. Mr. Rogers prosecuted, and Mr. Cole defended the prisoners. The case rested on the unsupported evidence of a witness named Austen, who admitted that he did not speak of the matter for nearly three months, and who had himself been accused of the theft. The accused were acquitted and discharged, and the witness Austen apprehended and held to bail to answer at the next assizes on a charge of perjury. CHARGE OF PERJURY. THOMAS PAWLING, who had been out on bail, was charged with wilful and corrupt perjury, at Camelford, on the 9th of July. Mr. COLE prosecuted, and TASSWILL defended the prisoner. At the petty sessions held at Camelford, on the 9th of July, before the Rev. R. B. Kinsman, Mr. Rowe, and Mr. E. Ley, P.C. Coppin and Wm. Rawle were charged by the surveyors of the highway of the parish of Minster, with having embezzled money which they had received as poundage on cattle which had been impounded. In support of the charge, the surveyors called Pawling, the prisoner, who swore to circumstantial details. The magistrates dismissed the case, and committed Pawling to be tried for perjury. The minutes of evidence were put in, including prisoner's statement detailing various interviews and communications with P. C. Coppin. P. C. Coppin distinctly swore that the whole story was false. At the conclusion of his evidence, the Judge examined the indictment, and said that it contained no assignment of perjury bearing upon the case. If what the policeman had stated had been assigned, it would have been most material, but he could not find anything of the kind. Mr. COLE admitted that this was the case, and addressing the jury, said it had appeared that in drawing up the indictment the most material part of the record had been omitted, and therefore, he felt that he should not be justified in occupying their time further with the case. The JUDGE said that he did not think there was any blame to be attached to the professional gentleman who conducted this prosecution by direction of the magistrates; but there had been a most material omission from the indictment, and the learned gentleman who had conducted the case had withdrawn it. The jury then, on his lordship's direction, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. BURGLARY AT ANTONY. JOHN SINCLAIR, 28, was charged with breaking into the shop of Thomas Leatherby, at Antony, on the 6th or 7th December, 1861, and stealing six pairs of boots, value £4, the property of the said Thomas Leatherby. He was found GUILTY, and sentenced to FOUR YEARS' PENAL SERVITUDE. JOHN CARTHEW, who had been out on bail, was charged with stealing three fowls, the property of Stephen Pascoe, at Menheniot. Mr. Cole prosecuted, Mr. Carter defended the prisoner. The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY, and the prisoner was sentenced to TWO MONTHS' HARD LABOUR. This concluded the business in this court, and Mr. Justice Keating dismissed the jury and left. CROWN COURT, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6. Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS. THOMAS SEARLE, WILLIAM HENRY SNELL, and HENRY BENNALLACK, who were yesterday convicted of a common assault on Mary Ann Hill, at St. Clements, were now called up for judgment.—His lordship said to them:—Prisoners at the Bar, you were tried for rape, but the jury took a merciful view of your case and you were acquitted of that crime. You were afterwards convicted of assault, on your own confession; and it remains for me to pass the sentence of the Court on you for that offence. What were the real circumstances of this disgraceful and barbarous transaction I am unable to say; but this I know—that they were most disgraceful and most barbarous. The sentence of the Court is that you be, each of you, IMPRISONED AND KEPT TO HARD LABOUR FOR ONE YEAR. THE LANGORE MURDER. JOHN DOIDGE, a labourer, aged 28 years, reported in the calendar to be able to read and write imperfectly, was then placed at the bar, charged with the wilful murder of Roger Drewe, at the parish of St. Stephens by Launceston, on the 7th of June last. He was also similarly charged on the coroner's inquisition. Mr. Stock and Mr. Gurney conducted the prosecution; Mr. Kempson, of the firm of Gurney, Cowlard, and Kempson, being the attorney. Mr. Bowen was the counsel to whom the duty of defending the prisoner was assigned. The following gentlemen were sworn on the petty jury:—

Mr. Henry Deecker, of Liskeard, foreman; —Peter Biddick. —John Giles. —Thomas Glanville. —John Dennis Cayser. —Edmund Baker. —William Geach. —Sampson Gourd. —Richard Julyan. —Joseph Jewell. —Robert Clemo. —Orlando Allen. The prisoner presented the appearance of a hale, strong young man, of about middle stature, and of tolerably thick-set figure. When arraigned, he pleaded "not guilty," in a very firm and unusually loud voice. Mr. STOCK thus stated the case for the prosecution:—May it please your lordship; Gentlemen of the Jury; the prisoner, John Doidge is, as you have just heard, charged with the wilful murder of a man named Roger Drewe, on Saturday, the 7th of June last. The prisoner stands before you, charged with the highest crime known to the English law; and that being so, it is quite unnecessary for me to call on you to give to this case your most careful and anxious attention—the more so, because the case will be proved, if proved at all, by what is called circumstantial evidence. I shall not be able to call before you any person, who was an actual witness of the commission of the murder; nor shall I be able to show you that the prisoner has at any time confessed that he committed it. What I have to do is to lay before you a great number of facts and circumstances which, on the part of the prosecution, I submit bring home the charge to the prisoner at the bar. Several of these facts and circumstances, if taken singly, would be of small—some of them of extremely small, weight. But you will have to consider them altogether; and when you have heard the case, you will have to say whether, taking all those facts and circumstances together as they are proved, they do not satisfy your minds that the prisoner is guilty of the crime charged against him. I will not make any preliminary observations, except to remind you of this one duty. I know this case has excited a great deal of talk and a great deal of interest in this County; and therefore I remind you that you ought altogether to discharge from your minds any thing you may have heard on the subject previous to your entering this court, and be guided entirely by the evidence as it will come out before you. And now, I will l state, shortly as I can, the particulars of the case.—Roger Drewe, the murdered man, lived at a place called Langore, about two miles distant from Launceston, on the road leading to the village of North Petherwin. He was a man of about 57 years of age. Though he had a wife, that wife lived in service; and he consequently, having no other relation and no servant, lived alone. He occupied a small tenement consisting of a kitchen on the ground floor, with a shop adjoining; the kitchen being the place in which he lived and in which he carried on a small trade in groceries; the shop was a larger tenement, and in that he carried on his regular business, which was that of a carpenter. There were three doors to the kitchen, namely, a door to the high road, a back door opening into a yard, and a side door opening to a landing at the bottom of the stairs,— and that side door communicated with his shop. To go from the shop to the landing at the foot of the stairs, and on the other side of the landing, there is another door; and between these two doors opening on the landing, runs up a staircase to a room over the kitchen, in which he slept. The carpenter's shop had, besides the door leading into it by the stair case, another door opening on the public road. Adjoining, and under the same roof with the deceased, lived a man named Cory; his premises, though under the same roof with Drewe's, being separated from them by a cob-wall. Cory occupied a room on the ground-floor, and a room over, in which he slept; and on his ground floor he had a door opening into the same yard as the back door of Drewe's kitchen opened into, and at distance of about 10 feet from it. I shall prove to you that the partition between Cory's dwelling and the dwelling of the deceased, was so thin that ordinary noises taking place in the house of Drewe could be heard in the house of Cory. For instance, the Cory's, whether in their upper or lower room, were in the habit of hearing the clock strike in Drewe's kitchen, and they could also hear Drewe moving about. The deceased was a man of very quiet and temperate habits; he was an industrious man and a saving man; and although his circumstances were not clearly known to his neighbours, it would appear that he was reputed to be a man of good property and in the possession of money. He was in the habit of spending his evenings at a public-house called the Smiths' Arms, kept by a man named Bassett, and there taking a small quantity of ale; I believe he seldom or ever exceeded a pint; he smoked his pipe there, and usually passed two or three hours at Bassett's in that way. Bassett's house was on the opposite side of the road from Drewe's, and distant from it only about 150 feet. On the evening of Saturday the 7th of June, Drewe passed his evening, as usual, at Bassett's house; there he took his ale and smoked his pipe, and remained there till about half past ten when he left for home. Nobody, after his leaving Bassett's house, saw him again alive; at least, no one that I shall be able to call before you. That the prisoner saw him will be one of the questions in this case. On the morning of Sunday, the 8th of June, a woman named Mary Martin went to Drewe's house with the intention of making a small purchase there; she went there about half-past 9 in the morning; she found the shutter of the window not put up, and that the outer door of the kitchen, leading to the road, was locked. She looked through the window, and near the window just inside, she saw the body of Drewe lying on its face in a pool of blood. She was, of course, very much alarmed, and she gave immediate information of what she had seen, at the nearest house—the public-house kept by Bassett; and Bassett, Cory, and one or two others went down to the house of Drewe. They will tell you what was the state of things they found there. The body was lying on its face, with one arm under it, and the other lying down by its side; there was a great quantity of blood on the floor, and splashes of blood on the wall and even spots of blood on the ceiling, shewing the great violence with which the blows must have been struck that destroyed the life of Drewe. Also on the shutter that had not been closed, there were spots of blood. The injuries which Drewe had sustained were on and about the back of the head; you will hear from the surgeon that they were injuries of a most frightful description, and that any one of several of them was sufficient to have caused death. There was this peculiarity about the person of the deceased; he was in the habit of putting on slippers before going up to bed; and when his dead body was found, he had one shoe off and the other partly unlaced, as if he had been in the act of taking it off; and the wounds being on the back of the head, and the body lying on its face, the inference reasonably to be drawn is that he was killed by one or more blows inflicted on him from behind whilst he was in the act of changing his shoes to go to bed. He was probably stunned by the first blow, so that he fell down on his face, and then the other blows were inflicted. As he fell, there in all probability he lay. There is another fact in the case that I ought to mention with regard to the appearance of Drewe's body. On the back of the jacket which he wore was a great smear of blood,—not such as would be produced by a blow— followed by the spurting out of blood, but as if the murderous weapon had been wiped on his back. There was blood on the table, and in a drawer in which the deceased kept several of his things. The drawer appeared to have been opened, and out of it had been taken a match-box in which he ordinarily kept his silver, and which had been placed on the counter; it was empty; whether there was any silver in it the night before we do not know. In the drawer was another small box—a little percussion cap box—and in it were found 5 sovereigns when the examination of the premises took place. It would appear, therefore, that this murder was inflicted for the purpose of plunder, but that the percussion cap box was overlooked. It would further appear that after the murder was committed, the murderer must have gone up-stairs; heavy foot- steps were heard going up-stairs; but Drewe's foot steps going up-stairs were not ordinarily heard, as he wore slippers and went to bed very quietly. There was also a sound heard in the room. On the stairs were marks of blood as if from the boot of a person going up; and there were also smearing marks as if from the trousers of a person going up and down having brushed against the side. In the bed-room were foot-prints of blood, by the side of the bed in a direction towards a box that stood near the bed; and that box appeared to have been opened; its contents did not appear to have been disturbed, or, if they had been disturbed, they had been replaced, and we are totally unable, on the part of the prosecution, to show whether or not that box had contained money or any other articles of value. So far as this portion of the evidence goes, I think it will satisfy your minds that the deceased was certainly murdered by some one,— that the murder did not follow on any quarrel or struggle between Drewe and his murderer,—that he was taken by surprise and struck down from behind as he was in the act of dressing himself,—and that in all human probability, the object of the murderer was to plunder the house.—And now, the more important question remains for your consideration. He was murdered by some one. Who was the murderer? I propose to prove, on the part of the prosecution, that the murderer was the prisoner at the bar. The prisoner was a labourer, working about in the neighbourhood and lodging at the house of a man named Sutton, on the opposite side of the road from Drewe's, like the Smiths' Arms, but a little farther up the road,—the distance between the public-house and Sutton's being about 90 feet. I may tell you at this stage of the case that there is another house about 120 feet further up on the same side, occupied by a a (sic) person named Hunkin, the father-in-law of Sutton. The prisoner had worked formerly, pretty regularly, at some Tileries in the neighbourhood; but latterly he had been out of regular work, and his principal occupation was a job of work now and then as a woodman. He was exceedingly poor and distressed in circumstance,—so much so as to be almost starving; and the Suttons, in consequence of his failing to pay his way, had not only threatened to turn him out but had ceased to supply him with food, as they had previously done, for his maintenance. The prisoner was well acquainted with the deceased Drewe; he was in the habit of frequenting the same public-house, and I shall show him to have been at Bassett's on the Saturday evening; he and Drewe conversed together, although they did not drink together—they were at opposite sides of the room; and they were on perfectly good terms. The prisoner left about a quarter to 10; and Drewe left about half-past 10. Just before 11 o'clock, Cory had occasion to go out at his back door for a few minutes, and while there he heard Drewe and the prisoner in Drewe's kitchen, conversing together— not at all in dispute, but in quiet, friendly conversation; the exact words they used he could not hear, but he could hear the manner in which they conversed; he was very familiar with the voice of Doidge, as he had often talked with him; and he will tell you that he had no doubt as to the two voices which he heard— the back doors of his house and of Drewe's being only 10 feet apart. I shall not be able to show you whether the back door at Drewe's was closed or open; but you can well understand how Cory was satisfied as to the voice of Drewe. Cory's wife will also confirm this evidence, she also having heard Drewe's voice. Cory and his wife went to bed about 12 o'clock; Cory fell asleep and was awakened by a loud noise that seemed to come from Drewe's kitchen; it was a noise similar to that which would be likely to be produced by a blow or a heavy fall. He made a remark to his wife, and then fell asleep again. His wife did not go to sleep, and shortly after, she heard what she believed to be the steps of a man going upstairs from Drewe's kitchen to his bed-room. Now, although I cannot prove who the man was who then went up-stairs, I shall prove that the prisoner was in company with the deceased, in his own kitchen between 11 and 12 o'clock on that Saturday night.—Now, let me call your attention to the prisoner's own account of what took place that night after he left the public-house. He has stated over and over again to various witnesses that after he left the public-house he went to his own lodgings at Sutton's, and though the hour was early he found the door closed and the people gone to bed,—that he stayed in the doorway of that house—a sort of porch, and there slept for an hour and half or more,—that when he woke he went to the house of Hunkin and asked for and obtained a drink of water. He further stated that, having obtained a drink of water, (it being then past one o'clock in the morning), he returned to Sutton's house and called them up, and that Sutton came to the window and threw out the key of the door, and he then went in and went to bed. Now I shall prove beyond all question that the first part of that statement—about his going early to Sutton's, and falling asleep and remaining asleep in the porch, is utterly false. I shall prove that the Suttons did not go to bed till 12 o'clock—that their outer door was not fastened till 12 o'clock—that many persons visited them, and that they were constantly in and out of that door at the time in question, and up to the time when they went to bed. The other part of the prisoner's statement I shall prove to be true; he did go to Hunkin's about one o'clock and beg for something to drink. Hunkin himself had been to Launceston fair, and did not return home till a few minutes before one o'clock; his wife sat up for him, and shortly after Hunkin's return, the prisoner came to the door and asked for some water. She gave him water. The prisoner, it appears, did not see the husband there at first; and when he did see him, he became very much agitated and very different from his ordinary state. Mrs. Hunkin told the prisoner that she did not want him there and she desired him to go away. The husband did not speak. Having left their house, the prisoner went to his own lodgings, called the man Sutton up, and got into the house in the way he states. The next morning—Sunday—the prisoner got up about 6 o'clock and went out. It is a small fact but still worthy of some consideration, that he got up thus early, for though he had lodged at Sutton's upwards of two years, on no former occasion was he known to leave his bed on a Sunday morning, earlier than 8 or 9 o'clock. He has made other statements respecting the circumstances of this Saturday night, of less importance, but still all of them to be taken into consideration. I will not mention them now; you will hear them better from the witnesses.—I will now mention the corroborative circumstances that, I say, go to make out that the prisoner was the person who committed the murder. I will take the smallest first. Cory, the man who lived under the same roof with the deceased, rented a small orchard at the back of Sutton's house; and in that orchard, in the afternoon of Sunday the 8th of June, was found a small parcel of tobacco—partly, I believe, concealed; and there were also some pence found in the orchard. I shall show you that the tobacco so found corresponded in all respects with tobacco which Drewe was in the habit of selling. Sutton and Bassett also sold tobacco; but they made up their tobacco in a different way from Drewe, and the tobacco sold by one of them was of a different sort from Drewes. They will tell you that the tobacco found in the orchard was of the same kind that Drewe used to sell, and was made up in the same way as his, and differently from theirs. On Saturday night, at the public-house, the prisoner appears to have had no tobacco, and on his expressing a great wish to have some, Basset gave him some. There is nothing in the fact of this parcel of tobacco in the orchard having belonged, if it had belonged, to Drewe. But the way in which it is important is this:—did the prisoner go into Drewe's house for the purpose of obtaining tobacco, and did he make that an excuse for his going there? However that may be, it it (sic) certain that the person who placed that tobacco in the orchard did so for the purpose of concealing and getting rid of it. It is suggested that if it was the prisoner who did that, he did so naturally because the possession of it would lead to the inference that he had been at Drewe's that night—which it became all important for him to deny, and which he has in fact denied. As to the pence found in the orchard, I say nothing; the only conclusion I can come to is that whatever person placed them there, did so because he wished to get rid of them.—Now I come to a very much more important matter. I told you that the prisoner was in the habit of working occasionally as a woodman, cutting trees; this he did with his own bill-hook; and at the public- house, on the Saturday evening, he had that bill-hook with him. When he was not using it, it was ordinarily kept in Sutton's back-house near the meal-tub. No one saw that bill-hook at Drewe's, nor in its usual place at Sutton's; but on the Sunday, Mrs. Sutton saw the prisoner come in to the house, in a direction from the orchard, with this bill-book in his hand. On this bill-hook I shall prove that, though it appeared to have been partly cleaned, there were marks of blood. I shall prove further that the wounds inflicted on the deceased were such in every respect as would be likely to have been produced by a weapon of the size, weight, and shape of that bill-hook. Further than this, I shall prove the state of the prisoner's dress. Almost every person who saw him on the morning of the Sunday noticed, or believed they noticed, spots of blood on various parts of his dress. I shall prove that the clothes he wore on the Sunday—velveteen jacket, fustian trowsers, boots, neck-tie, and hat, were all the same that he wore on the Saturday; and on almost all of these there were appearances which in the opinion of the witnesses who saw them were marks of blood. But I need not tell you that, to an unscientific person there are few things more difficult than to be able to distinguish stains of blood from other stains of similar colour. Where there is a large quantity of blood, an ordinary observer may speak to it; the quantity on the floor of Drewe's house left no doubt in the minds of all who saw it that it was blood. But when you come to small spots or marks of blood, it becomes matter of difficulty; and I must freely admit that in this case the marks of blood on the bill-hook and on the prisoner's dress were small—some of them very small indeed; they were very numerous, but were not large. Accordingly, it has been thought right in this case to call in the aid of science to ascertain if they were blood spots or not. I shall produce before you Dr. Taylor, who I may venture to state is perhaps the best judge of a question of this sort to be found in the country; he is Professor of Medical jurisprudence in Guy's Hospital, and has devoted a great portion of his life to inquiries of this sort; and in the present case he has called to his aid what has been very aptly termed the "eye of science"; he does not speak so much from observations with the naked eye, as from observations with the microscope; he has employed that means of testing and examining these marks, and the result is that he has been enabled with certainty to detect blood on the bill-hook, on the fustian trousers, the boots, the velveteen jacket of the prisoner, and also on his shirt. The quantity in any case is very small; but the conclusion he has come to is very certain. Besides the blood on those various articles, Dr. Taylor is able to speak to an additional fact—that these stains and marks were produced recently; and I shall show you that the articles on which blood was found were submitted to Dr. Taylor's examination within a few days after the murder. He will tell you—not that this was the blood of man, because scientific men have come to the conclusion that there is not that distinction between the blood of man and that of other mammalia which would enable them to say with certainty whether it is human blood or not;—but he will tell you that these marks and stains correspond in all respects with human blood. Further than that, he will tell you that blood on the shirt of the deceased and the blood on the dress and weapon of the prisoner appear to have been deposited about the same period of time—they bore the appearance of being of equally recent origin. I shall ask you to add this testimony to the other circumstances in the case, and say whether, as reasonable men, you are not satisfied that the man thus found on the Sunday morning with those marks presenting the appearance of human blood, and whose bill-hook was spotted in the same way, was guilty of the murder charged against him. The prisoner at the bar is defended by my learned friend, Mr. Bowen, who, although his experience in Courts of Justice is short, will I am sure do every thing possible to elicit all that is in favour of the prisoner. You will hear the evidence; and after having heard my learned friend, and, still more, having heard what his lordship may say, if the evidence brings home the charge to the prisoner, you will, notwithstanding the fearful consequences which that charge involves, say he is guilty. If, on the other hand, you believe there is such doubt that you cannot safely convict, no one in this Court will be more satisfied than I shall be by your returning a verdict of acquittal. The learned Council then proceeded to call witnesses. Thomas Shearm, a land-surveyor living at Launceston, produced a plan of a portion of the village of Langore near Launceston, representing the premises in which the murder was committed and the neighbouring premises. John Bassett, examined by Mr. Stock:—I keep the Smith's Arms at Langore in St. Stephens by Launceston, and about 2¼ miles from Launceston. My house is on the road leading from Launceston to North Petherwin village. I knew the deceased Roger Drewe many years. He lived nearly opposite me, a little farther down the road. I had known him about 20 years. He went away to Portsmouth 7 or 8 years, and then came back to Langore about 2 years ago, and has lived there ever since in the same house. He lived alone; he had a wife who lived in service with Squire Fuller away from Langore. Deceased was a carpenter; he was a small man of short stature; I should think he was about 50. He bore a very good character, and was very quiet and industrious; he appeared to be very well off; he had property and houses; as a carpenter he had a carpenter's shop, and in his kitchen he carried on a little shop; he sold groceries; among other things he sold tobacco. I know Cory who lived under the same roof with deceased; the whole house belonged to Drewe. He was in the habit of coming to my house in the evenings; when he came there he would smoke a pipe of tobacco and drink a glass, and sometimes a pint of beer; he was a very temperate man, and very seldom exceeded his pint; he would stop to about half-past 10 or 11, just as we went to bed; I was at Launceston Market on Saturday the 7th of June; I got back about half-past 7; Drewe was not there then, but he came there afterwards, l think about halt-past 9; he had his beer and pipe as usual. I know the prisoner; he also was in the habit of coming to my house; he was there that night; I found him there when I came home, and he remained there until Drewe came in and afterwards, prisoner was dressed that night in velvet jacket and fustian trousers; I did not hear any conversation between Drewe and prisoner, they were sitting opposite each other with a little table between them; several guests were in and out during the evening. Prisoner and Drewe were acquainted with each other and in the habit of talking. Prisoner had three pints of beer during the evening and a pennyworth of biscuits; he smoked a pipe; he had not any tobacco of his own I reckon; he asked me for a pipefull; I did not see him that night with any tobacco; he used to have tobacco of his own and I saw him with some a day or two before. He used to have a tobacco box, but I have not seen it with it (sic) for some time. I gave him a pipe of tobacco; he paid for two pints of beer and the biscuits and he left the third pint unpaid; I had a score against him; about 10 shillings; I asked him to pay for two or three pints that he had left back a week or two before; this was part of his score; he said he could not—he wanted to pay his lodgings. The prisoner that night left before Drewe. I had changed a sovereign for him the Friday evening—the day before; I gave him 19s. and kept back a shilling; it was on that Friday evening that he said he wanted to pay his lodgings and therefore I kept back only one shilling. Drewe left the house about half past 10, Prisoner had left about a quarter of an hour before that. When the prisoner left my house about ¼ past 10 he appeared to be sober.—I know a woman called Mary Martin; she came to my house on the Sunday morning.—about half past 9; in consequence of what she told me I went to Drewe's house with some other men; among them Cory; I tried the front door; it was locked: we could not get it open; we found the door of the carpenter's shop unbarred; we went into the shop; there is a door leading from the shop to the stair-foot; that door was open; there is another door leading from the stair-foot into the kitchen; that door was partly open—it could not be opened altogether because of Drewe's body; a person could just push himself in; I went into the kitchen, and saw Drewe lying in a gore of blood on the ground; the body was lying on the right arm, the other arm by his side, with his face downwards, a little on the right side; he was dead; there was not a great deal of blood on his body; there was a mark on his jacket as if something had been wiped there; that mark was just on the left loin; I observed a wound on his head, near the back, on its left side; on the counter I saw a match-box in which he used to keep his silver money; he usually kept that match-box in the drawer under the counter; there was only one drawer; in that drawer he used to keep his pence in a little boarded place; and beside that, he kept his gold in a percussion-cap box, and his silver in the match-box—gold, silver, and copper all in the same drawer; he has latterly kept that drawer locked; he did not used to, but about half a year ago I advised him to put a lock to the drawer, and I was there when he put a lock to it; I used to go to his shop for things, and I used to see him turn the key of this drawer and unlock it. When I went in and found him dead, the drawer was home (closed), but not locked; the matchbox was on the counter; I did not see the percussion-cap box; I drew open the drawer but did not see any box or money; and I did not put my hand in the drawer; I did not examine or move anything; I looked into the drawer; there were no pence in the compartment where he used to keep them. The floor of this room was of deal; the walls were of cob, plastered; I noticed Drewe's feet; he had one shoe off and one slipper on; the other slipper was lying close by his feet; the shoe which he had on was partly unlaced; there was a chair just behind the body, about three feet of space between the body and the chair. There were spots of blood on the walls—splashed up; and also some spots of blood on the ceiling. I then went to the stair-case, and was the first to go upstairs; I saw blood upon the stairs—not on every stair—it appeared as if from one foot; I saw this in several places on the stairs; I did not see any other marks of blood besides these, that I supposed came from a foot; the blood looked fresh. The bed-room door was all abroad; the bed had not been slept in; I saw a box between the window and the head of the bed; the box was unlocked; I looked inside and did not see any money; I saw blood round the foot of the bed on the floor and in towards the box; the marks of the blood in the bed-room looked like parts of foot-marks; I could not distinguish a real foot-mark in more than one place; the other marks appeared like parts of footmarks. I was afterwards shown a piece of floor by Superintendent Brice; that appeared to have the same foot-mark that I had observed. I went down stairs afterwards and into the carpenter's shop; I found the prisoner there; he was dressed the same as he was the Saturday night; there were a good many other people there; I had already sent for a policeman before I went up; after I came down stairs I saw a key in a purse, and showing a little out of the purse, lying on a flour-hutch in the kitchen. I went home, and afterwards, in about an hour, went down to the premises again; I then saw the prisoner standing in the road, outside the house; there were a great many other people there in the road; I noticed what appeared to be spots of blood on the left leg of the prisoner's trousers. Drewe used to sell tobacco, and I also sell tobacco.—(The Constable Rickard was here called, and produced a parcel of tobacco, which he handed to the witness Bassett). I cannot say if this tobacco is of the same sort as Drewe sold; it is dried up, and altered in colour; I was shown some tobacco by Rickard a day or two after the Sunday; that tobacco was a good deal like what Drewe used to sell; it was then done up in the same way that Drewe used to do up his. I did not do up mine in the same way; I used to screw up mine, and generally used a newspaper. Cross-examined:—The deceased used to lend money sometimes; it was known that he lent money. When I went into my house I saw prisoner, sitting there; I can’t say if he was smoking; it is nothing unusual in a man asking another man for a pinch of tobacco. I used newspaper mostly for wrapping up my tobacco; we don’t get much paper besides newspaper. When I went into Drewe's kitchen, I did not notice if the back door was open or closed. The match-box was open—the cover off; nothing in the box, and the cover lying by its side, on the counter. The door did not open freely because part of the body was lying against it; the corner of the door was against the back of Drewe. I mean the door leading from the kitchen to the stairs.—l saw what appeared to be spots of blood on the ceiling— looking quite fresh.—Re-examined:—The door was against the shoulder—against the back, but nearest the left shoulder, and a little below it.—By Mr. Bowen—The head was pointing towards the front door—away from the carpenter’s shop.—By Mr. Stock.—The head was farther from the door than the shoulder was. William Cory:—l a blacksmith living at Langore; I lived under the same roof as Drewe, and rented my house of him; I have been his tenant nearly six years; I knew him very well; he came back from Portsmouth about two years ago to his house, and then fitted it up to live in; he put in a new floor and plastered the walls, and put up new stairs and floored the bed-room; he had a kitchen and bed-room over it—both being separated from my premises by a cob wall; my premises consist of a kitchen and bed-room over; when I was at home in my house I could hear sounds in his; I could hear any one walking about the room—in either of his rooms. He had a clock in his kitchen against the wall of my house; when the clock struck I could hear it quite distinct from either of my rooms; my house has a back door opening into the same yard as his did; the distance between my back door and the back door of his kitchen is about 8 or 10 feet. I was at Launceston market on Saturday the 7th; I got back about ½ past 9, and went to the Smith’s Arms; I found Drew (sic) there and also the prisoner; I stayed at Bassett's about 10 minutes; Drewe had a pipe before him and the prisoner was sitting opposite him; I did not notice if they had any conversation. I went home; I had friends with me that evening and they stopped till near 12 o’clock; after they left I had occasion to go to my back door; I opened it and went out into the yard; while there I heard Drewe and prisoner talking; the sound of the talking came from Drewe’s kitchen; I did not notice if Drewe's back door was open. I have known the prisoner between 4 and 5 years; I am well acquainted with his voice; I did not notice any thing unusual in the manner of talk between Drewe and the prisoner; they appeared to be conversing quietly and not at all quarrelling. Doidge is in the habit of coming to my smith’s shop; he used to come almost every day; that has been so during the last two or three years; sometimes he would remain some hours. I did not remain out in my yard more than a minute or so, and I heard the talking going on all that time; they were still talking when I went in and shut my door. I then went to bed; I fell asleep just directly, and was roused by a sudden noise something like a fall; that noise appeared to come from Drewe’s kitchen. My wife, at that time, had come to bed; she was awake when I was roused by this noise; I made a remark to her; I then went to sleep again and heard nothing more. Next morning I was up at Smith’s Arms when Mary Martin came and gave the alarm; I went down with Bassett to the house; I tried to open the front door; it was locked; I looked in at the window and saw Drewe lying in a pool of blood, on his right side with his right arm under him and his left arm down by his side; his face was downwards towards the floor, lying on its right side; I saw blood on the stairs, that appeared to be blood from a foot; I went into the bedroom and saw marks there leading through the room to the bottom of the bed and up by the side to the box. After the police got there, I saw the prisoner in the carpenter’s shop belonging to Drewe; that was the first time I saw him that morning; he was dressed in a velvet jacket and fustian trowsers,—his usual working dress. He had been working at different sorts of work; he was not in regular work—sometimes at one thing and sometimes another; at times he worked as a woodman; woodmen use a bill-hook in their work; I know that he had a bill-hook. I rent an orchard of Squire Coode, near my house—just at the back of Sutton's house; I get into my orchard from a field that I have on the side farthest from my house; to go to my orchard from my house I pass Sutton's and then turn into my field on the right; there is no other entrance to the orchard; the orchard adjoins Sutton's garden, separated from it by a hedge; there is no opening in it, but it is a bad fence about four feet high; there is wood growing on it; a person, if he tried, might get over this fence.—Cross-examined:—l went up to the public-house on the Sunday morning about half-past 9; I did not notice the prisoner as I went up; there were not many people in the road at that time; I did not see the prisoner at that time beyond the public-house, standing near his lodgings.—When I did see the prisoner, I did not speak to him; I saw nothing on his clothes at that time. The noise I heard when I was in bed was like a sudden knock—a sudden rumble—a heavy fall; it was like something heavy falling, the noise coming from Drewe's kitchen, I did not hear that when I was asleep; it was a noise that woke me up.—Re-examined:—I was not sound asleep; I was just going off. I looked towards his trowsers that morning about 11 o'clock, after I had heard something, but I did not notice anything on the trousers. I don't know if the Police had come at that time.—By the Judge:—l was examined before the Coroner, and signed my depositions.—The Judge:—Are you certain it was the voices of Drewe and Doidge that you heard from your back yard, or was it merely an impression?—Answer:—l knew the voices well, and was quite certain then, and am quite certain now, that it was their voices. Grace Cory:—I am the wife of William Cory; I live at Langore and live under the same roof as Drewe lived; when in our house I could hear sounds in Drewe's house: I could hear such sounds when I was in my bed- room; Drewe used to keep a clock in his kitchen against the wall next to we (sic). On Saturday the 7th June I went to bed a little after 12; I heard a noise after I was in bed; it was like a heavy rattle; I had just got into bed, and had not been asleep; the noise appeared to come from Drewe's kitchen; my husband made some remark to me about it; I afterwards, in about two or three minutes, heard some one go up the stairs in Drewe's; I had never before heard persons go up those stairs; I don't remember that I ever heard Drewe go up to bed, and I never heard him walking about his room when he had got up stairs; I could hear Drewe in his bed-room, when he was moving about there; I have seen Drewe wear slippers many times, but I never saw him go to bed.—Cross-examined:—It was a little after 12 when my husband went to bed; he went to sleep first soon after he got into bed.—By the Judge;—I remember my husband going out into the yard, and his coming in again; from the time he came in until he fell asleep was about a quarter of an hour. William Cory, recalled by the Court.—By Mr. Stock:—I came in from the yard and went to bed just directly; I cannot tell how long it was from the time I came in till I went to sleep. I undressed as soon as I came in; that took me three or four minutes; I went into bed immediately, and in about 10 minutes fell asleep.—By Mr. Bowen:—(The plan being put into witness's hands). I see my house on this plan; at the back of the yard there are some steps that go up to the garden, but there is no building there; the garden path leads to the water-closet, at the head of the garden. I did not go there when I went out. David Thompson:—I am a surgeon practising at Launceston: I have been engaged in that business there between 7 and 8 years. I went to the house of Drewe on Sunday morning the 8th of June. I had known him before. I got to his house about 11 in the morning; I went into the house through the carpenter's shop; I found some other persons there in the kitchen; I went into the kitchen, and there found the body of the deceased; the body was lying on its chest slightly inclined towards the right side; the head resting on the right side, the right arm beneath the body; the left arm parallel with the body; with the hand inclined towards the body; the body was lying parallel with the side of the room that was against the carpenter's shop; the head was towards the front of the kitchen against the road; on the left of the head there was a window opening on the road; the head was about six feet from the window; the feet were towards the back side of the kitchen, and the head towards the front; the body was about a foot and a half from the door leading to the staircase; I believe it to be correct that the door could not be thoroughly opened, because of the body, but I did not measure it; the door would have encountered the shoulder. I found a considerable number of wounds on the scalp; one on the left upper check about two inches in length; a bruise around each eye, more considerable on the right side; a slight bruise on the left shoulder, at the point of the shoulder; on examining the wounds on the scalp, I found that some of the wounds perforated the scalp and the skull; through those wounds which perforated both the scalp and the skull, portions of the brain protruded; there were altogether 10 wounds on the left side of the head; the skull was fractured into a great many pieces on that side; a superficial examination showed the temporal, parietal, and occipital bones, very much fractured; and from all were portions of the fractured bone, projecting through four of the wounds on the scalp. I made a post mortem examination in the afternoon of the same day. I then found that a number of pieces of fractured skull were detached with the scalp, at once exposing the greater part of the left-hemisphere of the brain, from which the membranes were torn throughout its whole extent; these membranes were in shreds. I removed the brain, and found the base of the skull fractured; the fractures extended rather more than half way across the base. These injuries were sufficent (sic) to produce death, and I have no doubt they caused death. I examined the internal organs of the body and found them healthy; his age I think was about 55 to 60. The blackening of the eye might have been produced by a violent fall forward on the floor. The injuries on the head were not such as could be produced by a fall on the floor; either one of the lesser fractures might have been produced by a fall against a sharp substance; I don't think the amount of force acquired in falling would have been sufficient to produce the larger fractures; in my judgment these larger fractures were produced by a very severe blow; from the number of pieces into which the bones were broken, I should say the blow was made by a sharp pointed instrument; this observation applies generally to the larger fractures of the bone; in my judgment they were produced by a blow from a sharp heavy instrument; if it were a light instrument very considerable force must have been employed; I formed a judgment that the instrument with which these fractures were produced was a heavy one.—The Policeman produced a bill-hook). This bill-hook is such an instrument as would have produced the greater fractures which I observed. The greater fractures corresponded in width, where the instrument went both through the scalp and the skull, with such a wound as would be produced by the point of the hook now produced; the depth of the wounds, within the brain, was rather more than two inches; some small pieces of bone were driven in before the instrument into the substance of the brain. Assuming that those blows were inflicted with such an instrument, I judge that the length of the surface of each wound that was deeply inflicted, would correspond with the width of this bill-hook at two inches from its point; but I did not measure the hook.—There was one large portion of the skull that appeared to have been broken in; that, very possibly, might have been inflicted with a blunt instrument; that was on the side of the head—a portion of the parietal bone; it was such an injury as might have been produced with the back of this hook. From the appearances I observed, I should say he was stunned by the first blow; I am led to that inference by the position in which he lay on the floor, and the position in which he lay as regarded his shoes and the chair on which apparently he had been sitting; I found one shoe and one slipper rather more than a foot from the chair and very near his feet; he had on one shoe and one slipper; I noticed that he had unlaced one turn of the lace of the shoe which he had on, and had partly unlaced another turn. I think Bassett was there when I came.—Bassett recalled.—I was there when Mr. Thompson was in Drewe’s kitchen; the body was then in the same position as that in which I first found it; I don't know if the shoes and slippers were in the same position as when I first saw them. Thompson’s examination continued:—I believe Drewe was stunned by a first blow, and not in a struggle; the shoe and slipper were not displaced or disarranged from nearness to the feet.—I observed an immense quantity of blood beneath the deceased’s head; and it had flowed towards the front door: I noticed some small spots of blood as though sprinkled on the wall, and on the shutter; and on a towel hanging behind the door leading from the carpenter's shop into the kitchen, I also noticed appearances as of some blood having been wiped on it. I did not notice any marks of blood at that time, on the ceiling; but afterwards, I think in the evening of that day, some spots on the ceiling were pointed out to me; they had the same character of sprinkling. Looking at the wounds inflicted, I should expect to find that the blood emitted would be of that sprinkled character; because the arteries involved in the wounds were small; no very large blood-vessel was involved in any of the wounds. There would be a sudden rush of blood from the wounds actually made,—a steady bleeding, but not in a large stream. The blood would ooze more slowly from the wounds made than if larger vessels had been involved. The sprinklings of blood in those various places were such as might be produced by such wounds as existed there, if they had been inflicted by such an instrument as this hook. The body was quite cold when I got there; I should say the man had been dead for some hours; but I could not say precisely; I should say from 6 to 8 hours; I should think the man must have died almost instantaneously, after receiving such injuries.—In my judgment death was caused by the injury to the brain, combined with the bleeding. The injury to the brain itself I think was sufficient in itself to cause death; and if death was not so caused, it would be caused by subsequent bleeding; but I believe his death was instantaneous. I cannot form an exact judgment as to the time in which death would ensue from bleeding; I should say not many minutes. The body might have been dead much longer than 8 hours; I put that on supposition. Inspector Wood showed me this bill-hook in the afternoon of the 8th; I examined it, to ascertain whether or not there was blood on it; I found a spot which I believed to be blood at the junction of the hook with the handle; and an appearance on the blade of the hook as though blood had been wiped from it. The inspector also showed me a jacket, a shirt, a waistcoat and trousers, and I examined them to see if there was blood on them; that was in the afternoon of the Sunday; the shirt had the appearance on the left sleeve of something having been recently washed from it; on the velveteen jacket I noticed two or three spots, apparently of blood, on the sleeve; I don't remember that I saw any spots on any other part of the jacket; on the trousers I noticed a number of spots, apparently of blood, on the legs; they were small spots and had the same appearance of sprinkling as the marks I had seen on the wall; I also noticed that the trowsers had the appearance at the bottom of having been recently wet and dried again; there were one or two spots on one boot; there was a mark as of blood on the toe of one boot; and an appearance of blood on the heel-plate of one boot, but I cannot say whether it was the same boot that had the mark on the toe. I examined two of the spots of blood on the back of the trowsers. I dissolved the spots; and then placed them under a microscope and examined them with a microscope; those two spots were blood; I am satisfied of that, beyond doubt.—Cross-examined: I believe it was on the afternoon of the Sunday that the hook was brought to me for examination; before that I heard of the general details of the murder. I have seen Dr. Taylor’s Report. Mr. Thompson then underwent a rather long, and ingenious cross examination by Mr. Bowen, as to spots, or “sprinklings” of blood on the wall and ceiling of Drewe’s kitchen, and as to the marks on the bill-hook—the object being to show that the wounds might have been inflicted with some other weapon than a bill-hook; but the substantial effect of Mr. Thomson’s evidence in chief was not materially shaken. Lydia Sandercock:—I am the wife of Sampson Sandercock; I live at Menhenack, near Langore; I am the niece of Roger Drewe; on the evening of the 7th June I went to the Smith's Arms, between 9 and 10; I found my uncle there; I called him out, and went to his house; my husband was with me; I stayed there about three parts of an hour; I left the house and went again to the public house for some beer; I saw Doidge there; he spoke to me and said " I must get away to sleep somewhere; I said "what, don't you sleep to Betsy Sutton's"? He said "not always." I then went away with the beer, and took it back to my uncle's; and I and my husband drank the beer.—a quart. I and my husband then went home; it was nearly 11 o'clock by our clock when we got home; our house is about a quarter of a mile from uncle’s. Neither I nor my husband left home again that night. Elizabeth Hunkin:—l live at Langore with my husband; he was at Launceston Market on Saturday the 7th of June; it was near one o'clock when he came home; I was sitting up for him for him. Mrs. Sutton is my daughter; I live a little further up the road from Drewe's than the Suttons do; shortly after my husband came, John Doidge came in—in about five or six minutes; I heard some one coming, and I went and opened the door and saw the prisoner, dressed in his working-day dress; he said to me "give me some water;" and I gave him some; he drank part of it and put down the rest on the table. I said to him “Go on, I don't want you here." My husband never spoke to him. Doidge went outside and said "I know you don't want me here." He looked stupid fashion, and agitated much in mind; he spoke in a quivering manner—all in a quiver. My husband superintends the Tilery works about a mile off, the prisoner used to work there some years since; but was discharged about old Christmas Day; since that, he has been jobbing about, sometimes with work and sometimes with none. He has been lodging at my daughter’s, Elizabeth Sutton, about 2½ years. Next morning about 8 o'clock, I saw him at my daughter's, Mrs. Sutton's; my daughter was there at the time; they were chaffing about the money he owed her; she said she would not let him have any more meat, till he had paid up the money; he was rough to her; he did not pay her any money as far as I saw.— Cross-examined: Q. Did the prisoner make a complaint to the Rev. Mr. Simcoe about you and your husband, and at which you were not very well pleased.—Answer. Doidge complained of something about my husband; but I can't give any account of how Doidge was turned off from the Tilery, and I suppose he was not very well pleased. John Hunkin:—I live at Langore, and superintend the Tilery Works; I was at Launceston market on Saturday the 7th of June; when I came home it wanted about five minutes to one, by our time; that’s about a ¼ of an hour faster than church time; when I came home I went direct into the house; the prisoner came while I was there, some few minutes after I had come home; I know the prisoner; I did not see him till he was in the room; I was sitting in the window-seat, hidden from the door by the projection of the wall; he brought in a pint that he had water in and put it on the end of the table and made a bit of a stand; my wife said to him "go on, you bain't wanted;” then he went out at the door and said "I know that;" when he put down the pint, he saw me; he appeared to me to be in a very agitated state; I don't know that I ever saw the man in such a state before, though I had been acquainted with him many years; he appeared to be in a quivering agitated state; he appeared like a man running in a race, and appeared to be unwinded, and out of breath, and like that. He had not been in my house for nearly a twelve month, since he left my work last August.—Cross-examined:—It was very good light that night. I was never an ill friend of the prisoner's. I never thought very much of him. He complained to Mr. Simcoe that I had taken some things from Mr. Simcoe that I did’nt (sic) ought—Re-examined:—I had occasion to discharge him last August; it was before he complained to Mr Simcoe. Elizabeth Sutton, of Langore, with whom prisoner had lodged for three years past, deposed, that she had altercations with him about money. He owed her £4 15s. for lodging and board, and she refused to provide food for him any longer. On the Monday morning of the 7th, he went to his work in the morning in his only working dress, velvet jacket, and fustian trowsers. The trowsers had been washed and brought home in the middle of the week. On the Saturday night she locked the door at a quarter before twelve, and had been at the gate looking for Doidge at half past eleven. Many customers continued coming to her shop till eleven. Doidge was not at the door. A man named John Downe was at witness's door about 11 o'clock, and witness talked with him at the door. On Sunday forenoon she heard of the murder. Returning to her house she saw Doidge standing in the kitchen, and observed spots of blood on his trowsers and boots. Cory's orchard is behind witness's garden. Prisoner came in from the garden in the middle of the day with a bill-hook in his hand. The hook (produced) is his. He carried it to the backhouse where he usually kept it. When he was taken into custody witness gave the hook to the police, and then observed blood between the handle and the blade, and in one of the letters. The hook looked as if it had been rubbed or wiped. The police took possession of a shirt which he wore on the Saturday; the left sleeve had been washed, or rubbed. Prisoner brought in the bill-hook from the garden openly. There were no marks on the bedclothes where he slept that night. Francis Sutton, husband of the last witness, deposed that prisoner could not have been at his door on the night in question without his seeing him. Prisoner called at his window about half-past one, and witness handed out the key of the front door. Witness heard him get up and go out of the room as the clock struck six on Sunday morning. Never knew him to rise so early on Sunday morning before; his usual time on Sundays was 8 or 9. Witness identified the bill hook. Prisoner had a right to go through witness's garden to Cory's orchard but nobody else. By the Judge—Prisoner came here at all times. He had been a soldier, but witness never knew him sleep standing. John Downe was at Sutton's door that night about 11 o'clock and did not see the prisoner, which he must have done if he had been there. Mary Martin, of Langore, went to Drewe's house on Sunday morning for some sweets, and saw the body on the floor covered with blood, and gave the alarm. Saw Doidge previously, who said he had a drop at Bennett's, left at ¼ past 10, went to his lodgings, and found them gone to bed; stood at the door and slept for an hour to an hour and a half, and then went to Hunkin’s and got some water. He said he could sleep standing, for when he was a soldier he used to sleep in the sentry box. From Hunkin’s he went home to bed. She had repaired his trowsers, and washed them on the Wednesday before the murder. They were quite clean when she gave them to him, but on the Tuesday following they were shown her by the police, and she saw marks on them something like blood. Prisoner said on Sunday morning that he rose between five and six to go to his potato field, but it came to rain and he did not go. John Oke, tailor, was shown a pair of fustian trowsers and saw spots of blood on the right knee, and portions of the bottom of the leg were recently cut away; the edge was not fringed. The new pieces of the fustian appeared to have been recently washed, or wiped with a wet cloth. John Hutchins, farmer of Langore. Prisoner had occasionally worked for him, usually cutting wood. He used his own bill-hook. Witness was at Bennett's public house on the Saturday night. Prisoner was there, and had then the hook in his side pocket. William Shepheard lives near Langore, had employed prisoner nearly three parts of his time. He also identified the hook as prisoner’s. On the 5th and 6th of June had a conversation with prisoner, who offered himself as waggoner, saying he wanted to get a little money, and should then leave the country. Joseph Creeper, labourer, of Langore, married Drewe’s sister. Helped P.C. Rickard to search on the evening of the 9th. Found some pence in the hedge between Sutton’s garden and Corry’s orchard, and a paper of tobacco hidden in a large bunch of nettles near. John Berry Wood, inspector of police, went to Drewe’s house at noon on Sunday. Saw the body lying as described by Mr. Thompson. Observed a smear of blood on Drewe's jacket which could not have flowed from him, but was as if something had been wiped on it. Spots of blood were sprinkled on the walls and window shutter, and spurts of blood on the door and wall leading to the stairs, and on the ceiling over Drewe’s head. On the front of the till there was a smear of blood as if a bloody thumb had been placed against the drawer. There were stains of blood on every other stair as if from the heel of a boot, and on most of the other stairs, smears of blood as from bloody trowsers. In the bedroom, two feet within the door, there were stains of blood as at the toe and heel of a footmark. Other blood marks less distinct led round the foot of the bed to a box, close to which was a large blood stain on the sheet, as if from the bloody left arm of the person who opened the box. Arrested prisoner at Mr. Sutton’s, and took possession of the clothes he wore. Noticed blood-like spots on the boots, on the front of the legs of his trowsers, on the cuff, sleeve, and right flap of the coat. The left sleeve of the shirt was stained as if it had been bloody and washed, and the cuff was stiff as if it had been washed and dried. On the wristband of the shirt, and front brim of the hat, were several spots of blood exactly resembling those on the floor, walls and ceiling; and varying in size from a pin’s head to an eighth of an inch. Prisoner was present, and as witness examined each article, he said there is blood on this to which prisoner made no reply. On the handle of the bill-hook, in the crevice between the blade and the handle, and in several of the letters, was blood. Any conversation in Drewe’s back kitchen can be heard in Cory’s back door. At a quarter past 7 the Court adjourned, and the Jury were locked up for the night at the Queen's Head Inn. C R O W N C O U R T. THURSDAY, AUGUST 7. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS took his seat on the bench this morning at nine o clock, when the trial of JOHN DOIDGE tor the murder of Roger Drewe, at Langore, was resumed. One or two of the witnesses examined on the previous day were re-called, but they added nothing material to their previous evidence. P.C. Rickard corroborated the evidence of Inspector Wood, and produced five sovereigns which he found in a little box in a table drawer, and also the tobacco which he found in Cory’s orchard. Superintendent Brice produced a piece of the board of the flooring which he cut out of the chamber floor of Drewe’s house on Monday, the 9th June. There were marks on it, as of the tip and heel. Dr. Taylor said he had examined the stains with the view of ascertaining if they were blood, and deposed to finding blood on the bill-book, and also on the prisoner’s boot and trowsers. The blood on the clothes of the prisoner and on Drewe’s jacket, judging by the coagulation, were exactly similar. They were equally fresh, and had the same character under the microscope. Ha also found blood on the right wristband of the prisoner's shirt. The stains were from the outside, and had not gone through the wristband, thus showing that the stains could not have come from the skin. He also found similar stains on prisoner’s hat and jacket. He however admitted that there is no certain distinction between human blood and that of animals after it has once dried on clothing, and therefore this blood might have been that of domestic animals. This concluded the case for the prosecution. The Judge then told Mr. Bowen that if he wished for a delay of ten minutes before commencing his address to the jury for the defence, it should be granted. On returning, Mr. Bowen addressed the Jury for the prisoner at considerable length. He contrasted his friendless position with the advantages possessed by the prosecution, affirmed of the case that it was only circumstantial suspicion and the great part of the evidence did not inculpate the prisoner. He rejected the assumption that the prisoner committed the murder from destitution, since 18s. was found on him when arrested. It was probable that deceased’s house had been robbed, and the fact that none of the property was found on the prisoner was a strong presumption of innocence. He ridiculed the idea of the prisoner after committing such a murder stealing a little tobacco. He contended that the blood on the prisoner’s bill hook and clothes might be animal blood, or if from the deceased, that it was after the murder, when prisoner was in the house searching for the weapon. The case might be one of grave suspicion, but it had not been proved; he concluded with an appeal to the feelings of the jury. The Jury retired at 3.30; and at 4.50 returned into Court with a verdict of GUILTY.—Sentence of death passed. IGNORED BILLS.—Susannah Strong concealing the birth of her child at Calstock.—John George Hosking, obtaining goods by false pretences, from Jeremiah Westaway at Endellion.—Nicholas Rowe, stealing 10s. from Peter Wadge, at Liskeard. THURSDAY, AUGUST 7. Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS. THE LANGORE MURDER. The trial of John Doidge, charged with the wilful murder of Roger Drewe, at Langore, near Launceston, having occupied the whole of yesterday, was resumed this morning; and, as we reported in our last number, it resulted in the conviction of the accused, and in his being sentenced to Death, without hope of pardon. We now lay before our readers a fuller report of the proceedings on Thursday than we were able to find room in our last number. John Bassett, recalled, stated that Roger Drewe was called away from the public-house to his shop about half-past 9, and he returned about 10, and finished drinking the beer which he had left in his pint. It was between his leaving and his returning that Lydia Sandercock, his niece, came and fetched a quart of beer. The time when Drewe left the public-house finally was half-past ten exactly; witness looked at the clock. Inspector Wood, recalled, stated that the experiment which he had made, to prove that conversation in Drewe's back kitchen could be heard at Cory's back door, was made with Drewe's back-door shut. Witness considered that Cory, when he heard the conversation on the Saturday night, was standing at his back- door; the backyard and the door he considered meant the same place. Thomas Rickard:—l am a police constable; I went to Drewe's house on Sunday morning about eleven o'clock and saw the body; I went up-stairs afterwards and noticed what appeared to be footmarks of blood on the stairs and in the bed-room; after that I came down stairs and examined the drawer in the kitchen; I found in that drawer £5 in gold in this little box (produced the little box and gold); I went to the workshop to look for a weapon; the prisoner was there; I found nothing, and did not see any blood in the work shop; prisoner and I were standing in the workshop; I saw some blood on his clothes—a big spot just under the right knee, and several other spots on his trousers and velveteen coat. I made a communication to the Inspector and he was apprehended; I was present when he was taken. I heard Francis Sutton say in prisoner's presence that he was not in till 2 or nearly 2; prisoner replied that he had been in the habit of sleeping in a sentry box when he was a soldier and he had slept outside the door, as they were gone to bed. I searched Sutton's premises next day; I went into the garden and found some halfpence in the hedge between the garden and the orchard; Joseph Crebor found some tobacco in the orchard in a bunch of nettles; I have it here; it was shag tobacco and was tucked in at each end; it was not screwed up like this that I got from Sutton's. I have some tobacco here that Hunkin got from Drewe's. (Hunkin recalled:—l got from Drewe's house all the tobacco that he left made up; there was a sale about a week after his death. I let the witness Rickard have two of the parcels).—This packet produced is one of the two that Hunkin let me have; it is tucked in at each end; the tobacco found in the orchard was tucked in like that; it was the same sort of tobacco and in the same kind of paper. I examined the tobacco in use at Sutton's; it was bird's eye.—Cross-examined: It was a warm night on the 7th of June.—By Mr. Stock: It was good moonlight. Henry Brice: I am superintendent of police at Camelford: I went to Drewe's house on Monday the 9th June; I produce a board which I had cut out by a carpenter in my presence from the bed-room floor; this was between 9 and 10 in the morning; I noticed marks on it and compared prisoner's right boot with it; it corresponded in length from tip to heel; there are only the marks of tip and heel. (The witness exhibited boot and board to the judge).—I examined the sheet in Drewe's bed room, and I produce it; I noticed it had the appearance of blood on it; it has not been washed since. (Witness exhibited the sheet, and the smear which he referred to). Richard Brooks, Police Constable: I had charge of the prisoner on the Sunday when he was apprehended; he was in my custody on the Wednesday; he asked me for the money that was taken from him; he said he wanted to make use of it. 18s. and 6d. was taken from him. He also said that by what he could see they were going to give it against him d—d tight, and that he might as well spend it. Alfred Swaine Taylor:—l am a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and Fellow of the Royal Society; I am also Professor of Medical Jurisprudence and Chemistry at Guy's Hospital; I have devoted a great part of my time for 30 years to the study of medical jurisprudence; I have particularly studied the appearance of blood stains for the purpose of detecting blood. Inspector Wood delivered to me a variety of articles produced here, on Thursday the 19th of June; I examined the various articles he produced to me in his presence; I removed several portions of different articles of dress for the purpose of subjecting them to microscopical observation. There was also a bill-hook delivered to me; I subjected it also to microscopical observation. I first observed on the handle of the bill-hook, near the blade, several spots having all the appearance of blood; I cut out two of the largest of these spots and submitted them to examination; I found that they consisted of blood in a coagulated state; this examination was made on the 20th of June. I then examined the blade, and I found that the letters of the maker's name were partly filled with a substance looking like small spots of blood; on a microscopical examination of them they proved to be blood; I examined the cutting surface or rather the cutting edge of the bill-hook—as well as the surface or flat part of the blade; the surface was clean, but in the scratches of the surface of the flat part there were yellowish-red stains—a yellowish-red substance filling up the scratches, visible only with the microscope; I detected no blood there, but there was the appearance of rust. I also examined the boots; on the right boot, on the instep, there were several shining red spots which I found to be coagulated blood; they were on dried mud, so that they had dried on the surface of the mud. (The right boot was handed to witness; and Dr. Taylor pointed out to the Jury a part where he said there was a part still visible with his lens). That was all the appearance of blood I observed on the right boot.—On the left boot I found no blood; I made an examination of a reddish-looking stain at the tip, but I could not detect any blood in it.—l found attached to the left boot a human hair—a single hair; I was enabled by the microscope to ascertain it was a human hair; it was lodged in one of the nails.—(The fustian trousers were now produced). I found on the trousers numerous small red spots which proved to be blood, on a microscopical examination; they were chiefly on the right leg in front; I may make an observation here that I see the spots are much altered since I examined them; they were much more red when I examined them than they are now; they look more like dirt now; by efflux of time blood-spots become of a dark-brown; I give it as my decided opinion that these spots are blood; they are most numerous on the lower part, but extend, more or less, over all the right leg in front; I speak with certainty to the fact of these spots being blood. The surface of some of the spots appeared to have been rubbed; and there was a stiffening of the fustian stuff of the troupers at the upper part of the right leg, as if it had been wetted and dried again. The left leg was not so much spotted as the right and there were marks of the splashing of blood at the lower part—a large streak unlike, in form, the other spots; but both spots and splashes were conclusively blood; I am certain of it; they had all the properties of blood; in the splashes the blood was in larger quantities, and therefore the properties were more distinctly apparent. In all cases of the clothing I examined, I cut out portions in order to submit them to microscopic examination. I examined the deceased’s jacket; there was blood upon it in large quantities (the jacket was produced). The blood appeared to be of the same date as that on the other portions of prisoner's clothing and the bill-hook, judging from the coagulum; the blood appeared to be equally fresh, and they had the same character under the microscope. There is a smear of blood in the jacket of deceased, which I observed. (The prisoner's shirt produced). On the front of the collar of the shirt, and just below it, there were several red spots which proved to be blood on examination; and there were some spots on the right wristband, but more on the left; these spots were on the outside, and had not penetrated through; they were not from any bleeding of the skin of the wearer; I examined the left sleeve at the elbow, that was supposed to have had a stain and been washed; but I could not detect in it any indication of blood; but the appearance was like would be produced by the washing of diluted blood; blood may be so diluted by washing as to have all its characters destroyed. The prisoner's hat was shown me; there were three or four small spots of blood in the curved part that turns up—the brim—on the under surface. The hat being a loose one, it was impossible to say if this was front or back. There were three or four spots of coagulated blood; they appear to have coagulated at once in falling upon the felt. (The prisoner’s dinner-bag produced, as found in prisoner's pocket). There was in this bag one small spot which I submitted to microscopical examinations and ascertained it to be blood. I also examined the velveteen jacket; on the right cuff were numerous spots which proved to be coagulated blood; they were in groups, eight or ten together, but very small; they presented all the appearance of freshly coagulated blood, and I found them to be blood; on the outside of the left pocket there was one stain which had soaked into the fibre of the stuff; there was no blood on the left sleeve that I could detect; near the one stain near the left pocket which I ascertained to be blood, there were two other stains which also proved to be blood. The right side, both of trousers and jacket, were more spotted than the left throughout; the spots on the jacket were all small. The appearance of all the spots I examined indicated that they had been recently effused. It was consistent with the appearances that all the blood on the various spots was shed at the same time; I could perceive no difference. The appearances under the microscope were all of them consistent with the blood being human blood. There is no certain distinction between the blood of men, and of certain other animals, after it is once dried on clothing or weapons. I might add here that I am very frequently in the habit of examining human blood microscopically, and these presented all such appearances as I am accustomed to see. Some scientific persons have pretended to distinguish, by microscopic measurement, between human blood, and the blood of certain other animals, such as a pig, a dog, or a rabbit; but I believe there is now one now, in this or any other country, who will venture to distinguish them. All I can say is that this blood presented all the appearances of human blood.—Cross-examined. The blood might have been that of domestic animals. I sent a report of the results of my examination to the counsel for the prosecution. (In this report it was stated that no blood was found on the handle of the bill-hook). What I meant by the “handle” presenting no appearance of blood was that there was none on the part which is usually grasped by a person holding; there is blood perfectly visible even now, just where the wooden handle joins the metal. The characters of blood can be detected only with a microscope. My examination was chiefly microscopical; but one or two of the large spots I also examined chemically; my evidence, however is based on microscopical examination.—Re-examined. All the spots were examined microscopically; that is the surest means of examining them when they are small; I would never trust to the chemical examination without the microscopical; but the microscopical may be trusted without the chemical. In the chemical test which I applied the result confirmed the microscopical observation. I have had an experience of 20 years in questions of this kind, and I never felt more certain about spots of blood than in this case. The JUDGE:—You have seen this piece of board produced; supposing a man to have had sufficient blood on his boot to have made such marks as are there, could he have got rid of the blood from his boots?— Witness: The only suggestion is that if he trod on damp soil or in water, the remaining traces of blood on the sole might have been removed. The JUDGE:—You say a part of the shirt sleeve, at the elbow, was cut out?—Witness: Yes.—The JUDGE:— It was supposed by the police that there was blood there; but you could find none?—Witness: I could detect no blood there; the texture of the jacket would not be likely to let blood pass through the shirt. The view I take is that that stain on the elbow of the shirt was an old stain. Mr. STOCK, addressing his lordship, said:—I proposed yesterday after the evidence of the policeman, to show to the jury the different articles of clothing; but after the evidence of Dr. Taylor I don’t think it necessary to do so. Of course my learned friend may, if he desires it, have the articles produced. Mr. BOWEN did not think it necessary to do so. Mr. STOCK stated that this closed the case for the prosecution. The learned Judge considerately offered Mr. Bowen a delay of ten minutes before commencing his address for the defence: and Mr. BOWEN thankfully accepted the offer.—The Jury were accordingly permitted to retire in charge of a bailiff; and before their return Mr. BOWEN intimated to his lordship that he was ready to proceed.—But on the return of the jury, about 11 o’clock, Mr. STOCK said there was a question which he has omitted to put to Dr. Taylor, and which he would thank his lordship to put.—The learned JUDGE, however, permitted Mr. Stock to put it himself. Mr. STOCK then said: Dr. Taylor, have you, among your scientific inquiries, studied the question as to the time it takes for a body after death, to become cold and rigid?—Dr. Taylor: I have.—Mr. STOCK:—Having heard the evidence of Mr. Thompson, and taking into consideration the fact that the body of the deceased was clothed and that the month was June, what is your conclusion as to the time Drewe had been dead? Mr. BOWEN:—Does your lordship think that question is proper—Dr. Taylor not having seen the body, and probably not having heard the whole of Mr. Thompson’s evidence? The JUDGE: I think it may be asked of Dr. Taylor as a matter of science, what is his opinion? Mr. BOWEN: I would suggest that the supposition should be stated in detail. Mr. STOCK:—I have put three conditions—the hearing of Mr. Thompson’s evidence, the time of year, and the body being clothed. I think that is quite legitimate. The JUDGE: In a case of this kind I don’t think it is quite safe merely to refer to the evidence of the surgeon. Mr. STOCK:—I will then ask Dr. Taylor merely: having made this matter a subject of scientific inquiry, and taking into consideration that the month was June and the body clothed, what time do you think it would take for a body to become cold and rigid? It is proved to have been a warm night. Dr. Taylor:—Assuming the body to be entirely cold and rigid— Mr. BOWEN.—But you must not assume that. We will refer to evidence. The JUDGE:—I have an opinion that Mr. Thompson said the body was cold.—Mr. STOCK said his recollection was that he said the body was cold and stiff. Mr. THOMPSON now stated the body was cold and stiff—quite cold. The JUDGE:—You may ask how long it would take for the body to become cold and stiff. Mr. STOCK:—Taking into consideration that it was a warm night and that the body was clothed. Dr. TAYLOR:—And the body that of an adult. It would take, at least, in my judgment from 8 to 10 hours. It might take more; I have known it take more. Mr. BOWEN then rose to address the jury for the defence. He said he believed it had seldom happened to the jury, and never to himself, to have been called upon to perform such a solemn duty as that which lay before them. The case for the prosecution had closed, and although he confessed that it had been conducted with great fairness, yet certain portions of the evidence which his learned friends had called before them had come out in a way which placed him at a slight disadvantage. He entreated the jury to bear in mind that they, as yet, had heard but one side of this very painful case; they had yet to hear the defence of the prisoner at the bar, as presented through his counsel, and in a case involving such a solemn result he was sure they would not form a preconceived opinion. Important as this was in other cases, it was especially so in the present instance. In this case a mass of evidence had been brought before them, and a great deal of that evidence affected neither the guilt nor the innocence of the prisoner. The production of the various articles of blood-stained dress, and of the formidable weapon, the bill-hook, was decidedly calculated to affect the minds of those who had seen them; and it could not be denied that the production of them had certainly produced an impression unfavourable to the prisoner. The witnesses which he should call were not like those for the prosecution, a number of living witnesses; they would consist of a number of facts scattered throughout the evidence, which he hoped to blend into a complete form and present them to the jury in favour of the prisoner. He had to contend not only with a mass of prejudice, but he contended also against great disadvantages. In ordinary cases of trial for murder the defence came before them prepared by a legal gentleman, one who had been engaged week after week in sifting evidence to rebut that which he was sure would be brought forward by the prosecution, and in which he was assisted by the friends and relatives of the man charged with such a dreadful crime. It was not so in the present instance. The prisoner had been assigned a counsel only through the wise humanity of the law. He (the learned counsel) had not had the benefit of receiving instructions from a legal gentleman, and there had been no one to prepare any evidence for the defence. When the task of defending the prisoner from a capital charge was entrusted to him, he made diligent inquiries throughout that assize town with a view of ascertaining whether he could receive any assistance from some one who had known the prisoner, and who could throw any light upon this awful transaction. The answer he invariably received to his inquires was that the prisoner had no friends. The learned counsel continued: I think it is right I should tell you that I believe he is a man who, from his birth has suffered from the sin and folly of his parents. He was an illegitimate child, and has been, from his earliest years, thrown upon the world. At this present moment, I am the only friend of the prisoner; except so far as the sympathies of all in this court are ever in favour of human life. The responsibility I feel is somewhat removed from me by the fact that I shall be succeeded by the great judge who presides upon this occasion; and he, in his turn, will be succeeded by twelve jurymen, who, I trust, in this case, as in others of this kind, will in their turn assume the position of counsel for the prisoner. The question is one of circumstantial evidence, as it has been called. These questions are dangerous and difficult. A murder is committed. No human eye has seen the intruder—no eye except the eye of God. It is impossible to bring forward those who have seen the fatal blow struck. The prosecution, as it is their bounden duty to do, come before you culling from all around every circumstance they think can throw light upon the case. They have placed before you everything that could bear upon the charge. It is sometimes said, gentlemen, by those who are learned and experienced in the law, that circumstantial evidence is strong evidence, because it is the evidence of silent witnesses that cannot lie. This, gentlemen, is true, but only true in part. When the facts are placed before you yourselves, so that you, without any intermediate interpreter, can draw your own conclusions, the facts are witnesses that cannot lie. But when the facts are reported to you, and related to you by third persons who put their own conclusions upon what they have seen—innocent conclusions, no doubt, but conclusions which may not be accurate, you can hardly say that the facts come before you in their integrity. I think it particularly important to remind you of this because I cannot help remarking, and I have remarked with much pain and grief, that while the witnesses on the whole have given their evidence respectably and honestly, and I thoroughly believe sincerely, at the same time in the minds of most of them there appeared to be a foregone conclusion. It is evident the murder has created some stir in the county. It is probable that it has been talked over in every village round; and this you will probably know still more certainly than I can. In the village where the unfortunate and horrible catastrophe took place, of all places in the world, has it been most talked of. The witnesses come before you honest, but still prejudiced. I firmly believe that these witnesses, I think I may say almost all of them, have come before you with the full determination to tell the truth; but have they come with their minds in the condition in which they would be likely to tell you the simple, pure, unaffected truth? This is not the case of circumstantial evidence; but it is a case of circumstantial suspicion, and that is an extremely different thing. The facts before you are none of them clearly proved; probably in no case of murder ever tried in an English court have the so-called circumstantial facts been less proved. There is a suspicion that they may be true; there is no proof that they are. It is not the evidence of silent witnesses, but it is conjecture as to what may be circumstantial evidence. I beg you to bear this in mind, and to bear patiently with me, for I need hardly remind you again of the terrible interests which are at stake, while I go as briefly as I can through the evidence. I shall grapple, I hope, or at least I shall attempt to grapple, with all the evidence set before you, and shall attempt to rebut the theory of the prosecution as far as it can be rebutted. Let me remind you in the beginning that the question for you is not so much whether it is probable the prisoner is guilty, as whether it is impossible that he should be innocent, whether no reasonable doubt can be left upon your minds. If you will bear patiently with me, I will try as fairly as I can—I hope you will trust me to do so—to grapple with every portion of the evidence in detail. First, I would again remind you that a large portion of the evidence does not affect the prisoner. To that class I would refer the whole of the evidence of what took place in the murdered man’s room. You have had evidence put before you at considerable and perhaps necessary length about the struggle, the position of the body, the blood on the floor, the smear upon the jacket, none of which evidence directly affects the innocence or guilt of the prisoner. That a murder was committed there can be no doubt, and these marks would have been left whoever was the murderer. It cannot be said that because there was a smear on the jacket, one hand wiped the bloody weapon upon the jacket more certainly than any other hand. Let us come to the real question, which is this, whose was the hand that committed the murder, and who was the murderer? Was it beyond all doubt the prisoner at the bar; or is it not possible that some one else was the murderer? This is the issue you have to try. Is it not possible that the hand which committed the murder has not yet been discovered and that the real criminal is yet unpunished, and yet likely to go unpunished, as far as human justice is concerned. The prosecution opened the case by showing that there was an antecedent probability that the prisoner committed the murder. It is a fair question to consider, and I shall submit to you, with confidence, that the evidence which they have brought most completely failed. So far from his being injured by that evidence, it seems to me he is benefited by it; and that a certain portion of the cloud has been removed which rested upon his head from the beginning. The learned counsel proceeded to say that the evidence showed the night of the murder to have been a night when many people were abroad at a late hour, that the murdered man’s money table was close to his window, that the shutters were not closed, and a light was probably burning in the room when he was undressing, and that nothing was more probable than that the attention of a passing vagrant had been attracted to the opportunity of plundering the place. It was unreasonable to suppose any human being would be so depraved and ferocious as to commit the crime of murder without an adequate motive; and the obvious suggestion of the evidence presented by the prosecution was, that the prisoner murdered the man for the sake of securing money. He submitted to the jury that, if the prisoner had wanted Drewe’s money, there were many ways in which he might have obtained it, without committing this crime; for Drewe lived alone, and frequently left the house unguarded, and one of the witnesses had said that he had warned Drew of the unguarded condition of his money. The suggestion that the prisoner had done it to obtain tobacco was still weaker. It was true that he had asked for tobacco at the public house, but it was no proof that he had none at home; and even if he had none, tobacco was sold at the house where he lodged, and he might have helped himself, without going abroad and murdering Drewe. He contended, further, that the evidence did not shew the prisoner to have been in absolute want of money at the time of the murder; for, although he owed money both to his landlady and to Bassett at the Smith’s Arms, he had 19s. upon him on the day before, and he still had 18s. 6d. on Sunday—the day after the murder. But while it was clear that the prisoner was not in immediate need of money, it was also clear that the murder was committed for the sake of plunder. There could be little doubt that the house had been plundered by the murderer; but none of the plunder had been found or traced to the prisoner. As to the tobacco and pence found in the orchard, it was not proved that the tobacco certainly came from Drewe's; it was not proved that it had ever been in the possession of the prisoner; the pence were not proved to have belonged to either of them; and the prisoner must have been insane, if, being guilty, he had put such proofs of guilt in such a place; whereas the witnesses all testified that, so far from being insane, he was not even embarrassed, on the morning after the murder. Much had been said about the bill-book. But it was not remarkable that the prisoner should have a bill-hook or that his bill-hook was spotted with blood. It was admitted that it might have been blood of other animals; the prisoner was just such a man as would be likely to be a poacher, and so to have blood upon his weapon—while even if he were such a man, that ought not to tell against him now; besides. blood was so common that it might have come from any where. There were many tools used by a carpenter with which such wounds as Drewe received might have been inflicted; but the tools in Drewe's shop had not been submitted to the examination of the jury. The policeman, it was said, had seen no blood upon those tools; but it was proved that the weapon with which the murder was committed had been afterwards wiped upon the dead man's jacket, and upon the towel behind the door. The prisoner must have known on the Sunday that these marks were on the billhook, and yet he carried it about openly on his shoulder and in his hand, and put it away in its usual place with those marks upon it. With regard to some of the clothes, there was no evidence to prove that the blood had not been on the clothes for months before; and with regard to those which Dr. Taylor thought were fresh, the jury would remember that no one saw any blood upon the prisoner until after he had been, with other persons, a considerable time in the house where the dead body was lying, and where there was a great deal of blood upon the floor, the ceiling, the walls, the shutter, the towel, and many other places. The piece of wood from the chamber floor, upon which was a stain of blood, which, it was suggested, corresponded with the prisoner's boot, had not been cut out of the floor until the Monday, after very many people had walked about the lower room, where the blood of the dead man was upon the floor, and from that room to the chamber. In all these particulars, the evidence did not establish facts, but, at the most, suspicions. The prisoner's conduct throughout had been such as was consistent with his innocence and inconsistent with his guilt. His account of the way in which he spent the night after he had left the public- house was not one which a guilty man would have been likely to give. If he had said he slept in the orchard, who could have contradicted him? But he said that he slept "against the door," a statement which he must have known could be contradicted if it were not true. There was no evidence to show that the door had never been locked during the evening till a quarter to 12, when it was finally locked; the word "against" was not always used in the sense of "close to," but might have meant any place in the garden; and that was, after all, a probable and straightforward story. But even if he had told a lie about where he slept, that would not prove his guilt; for he need not tell the jury that men had often very powerful reasons why they should not tell the truth as to where they slept at night—painful as it was that such should be the case. For these reasons he submitted that the facts given in the evidence did not prove the prisoner's guilt, and that they had presumption instead of proof, throughout; and he reminded me jury that it was a maxim of the English law that guilt must be brought home to the accused before he is convicted. The learned counsel concluded his speech, which occupied nearly three hours in delivery, in the following words: Gentlemen, my task is done. The responsibility is passing from me into the hands of his lordship, and it will pass from him to you. I have only, lastly, to thank you for the patience with which you have heard me. Something, it is possible, I might have added to touch your feelings. I might have said something of the awful fate, the terrible spectacle, the agony which—so sadly for all of us, and so terribly to the prisoner—must result from your finding a verdict against him. But, gentlemen, it is better as it is. I shall only put this case to you as a case which is not proved—as a case in which there is great suspicion, but no proof. And one more reason I have for not attempting to influence your feelings; it is this—that words would fail me. I have no words to paint a situation like that which the prisoner occupies. His last defence—the most moving eloquence upon the subject which can touch you—is his friendlessness and defencelessness this day. He is not in the position of ordinary prisoners. There is something in that more moving and touching than any words I could address to you, even had I a tongue of fire. You have been patient: I thank you. It is not for me to compliment the jury. It has been a weary trial. When the trial began it was yesterday morning, early. Another day has broken, it is now the afternoon of the second day. You will not regret, perhaps, gentlemen, the length to which this melancholy trial has dragged itself; because the question is—how many more suns, how many more days, shall break upon the unhappy man whose fate depends upon your clearance of him. Lastly, gentlemen, I have not wished to appeal to your feelings, because your feelings in this instance are not what I wish you to bring to bear upon the case. I wish you to bring, most of all, to bear upon the case clear reasoning. I know the duties, the difficulties, the dangers of the case. It is a case of suspicion. But at the very word "suspicion," it seems to me a ray of light and hope breaks upon the clouds which environ this unhappy man. It is this, that it is the proud motto of the English law that every man is innocent until he is found guilty. The learned counsel concluded by an earnest appeal to the jury to weigh well the evidence before they returned a verdict of guilty against the unfortunate man at the bar. The learned counsel concluded his address at twenty minutes to two, and the judge suggested that as the summing up would occupy some time, the court and jury should retire for refreshment. His lordship added that the jury would oblige him if whilst absent they would refrain from talking over this case, as it was important they should reserve their opinion until after they had the whole of the case before them. His LORDSHIP said it was difficult, nay, it was impossible, to suppose a more anxious and sacred duty than that which would in the course of a short time devolve upon the jury. It was an anxious duty because if they found the prisoner guilty, their verdict would involve capital punishment; it was a sacred duty because they were sitting there under the most solemn obligations to do public justice, and they had taken an oath to give their verdict faithfully, honestly, manfully, and fearlessly. If they believed the evidence sufficient to convict the prisoner, they were bound to return their verdict without regard for consequences, for which not they, but the laws of their country, would be responsible. Bearing in mind that this was a capital charge they would not find the prisoner guilty unless, after the most careful consideration, they believed his guilt completely brought against him. As to the consequences of their verdict, he could not help adverting to some observations which had been made by the counsel for the prisoner in the course of his able and ingenious address. He dwelt on the terrible results which would follow a conviction for a capital crime and indirectly took a course which was often taken by counsel defending prisoners from such charges. It was right to ask what was the object of counsel in taking this course? The object was obviously to scare the jury. He (the learned judge), however, believed that they would do their duty manfully, painful as it might be, and he would not suppose that they would suffer themselves to be influenced or deterred from it. Let them not think for one moment that he was attempting to dictate to them, or anticipating their verdict: he only wished to put them in a proper frame of mind for the discharge of their duty. The dreadful charge which had been the subject of this solemn inquiry was supported only by circumstantial evidence; there was no witness who saw the prisoner, or anyone else, commit the crime—that was to say, there was no direct evidence; the only testimony brought forward was that by which they could infer the guilt of the prisoner. Before he took them through the evidence, he thought it right to point out to them the proper rule applicable to cases of circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances were such that they felt a certainty—not an absolute certainty, for that was impossible—but if they felt reasonably certain that the murder was committed by the prisoner at the bar, they would be bound to say he was guilty; if they were not reasonably assured of his guilt they would acquit him. His lordship having recapitulated the principal portions of the evidence and commented upon them, placed before them the points which the counsel for the prisoner had suggested as being in his favour. His lordship then told the jury that if, after having fully and carefully considered the whole of the evidence, they could conscientiously say that they entertained a reasonable doubt—not a mere idle or a timid doubt, but such a doubt as a man of firm and constant mind might reasonably entertain as to the guilt of the prisoner at the bar—it would be their duty, as he was sure it would be their pleasure, to acquit him. If, on the contrary, there was no such doubt, if there was a reasonable certainty that the prisoner was guilty, they would find him so, unless they wished to desert their duty and violate their oaths. The JUDGE concluded his charge at half-past four, and the CLERK OF ARRAIGNS, turning to the jury, told them to consider their verdict. THE FOREMAN expressed the wish of the jury to retire, and this was at once acceded to by his lordship. A few minutes after the retirement of the jury, they sent into Court for the clothes on which blood stains had been discovered, and the clothes were sent in to them. The prisoner was removed from the dock to the cells beneath the hall when the jury retired. In about twenty minutes an officer of the Court announced that the jury had agreed in their verdict. The prisoner was then re-placed in the dock, and the CLERK OF ARRAIGNS called over the names of the jurymen. The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS: Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your verdict? The FOREMAN: We have agreed. The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS: Do you find the prisoner, John Doidge, guilty or not guilty? The FOREMAN: GUILTY. The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS:—That is your verdict, and so say you all? The FOREMAN: So we say all. The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS (to the prisoner): John Doidge. PRISONER, rising from his seat : Yes, sir. The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS: You have been convicted of the crime of wilful murder. Have you anything to say why judgment should not be awarded against you, to suffer death according to law? The prisoner did not reply. The Crier of the Court then made the usual proclamation for silence whilst sentence of death was being passed. The learned JUDGE having assumed the black cap, passed the awful sentence of death in a most impressive manner. Addressing the prisoner, his lordship said: After a lengthened investigation of this dreadful charge, the jury have thought it right to find you guilty of murder, and I am bound to say that I quite concur in their verdict. It is neither my duty nor my inclination to aggravate the horrors of your present condition by dwelling on the enormity of your guilt; I only mention it in order that you may be duly sensible that there are no hopes of mercy for you on this side of the grave. It only remains for me to pass upon you the sentence of the law. The sentence of the court upon you is, that you be taken hence to the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, and that you be there hanged by the neck till you be dead, and that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall have been last confined; and may God have mercy on your soul! As his Lordship proceeded with his sentence the prisoner recovered that calmness which he momentarily lost just before the delivery of the verdict, and he walked firmly out of the dock.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 17, 24 and 31 October 1862

6. Michaelmas Sessions. —These Sessions wore opened at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following Magistrates: Chairmen: Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., presiding. J. J. Rogers, Esq. C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq. The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe. Edwin Ley, Esq. Lord Vivian. J. T. H. Peter, Esq. Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend R. Spry, Esq. Boscawen. E. C. Roberts, Esq. Sir S. T. Spry. W. D. Horndon, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. James Trevenen, Esq. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. E. Beauchamp Tucker, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. Nevil Norway, Esq. E. Collins, Esq. W. Pascoe, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. R. B. Kingdon, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. W. S. Rosevear, Esq. E. Coode, junr., Esq. W. R. C. Potter, Esq. D. P. Le Grice, Esq. John Haye, Esq. S. Borlase, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. C. A. Reynolds, Esq. Rev. Prebendary Tatham. R. Gully Bennett, Esq. Rev. R. B. Kinsman. R. G. Lakes, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. F. M. Williams, Esq. Rev. Uriah Tonkin. Thomas Hext, Esq. Rev. T. Symons. W. Michell, Esq. Rev. J. J. Wilkinson. Henry Reginald Trelawny, Rev. E. J. Treffry. Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. Augustus Coryton, Esq. —The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. William Hancock, St. Austell, foreman. — David Wise, Bain, Portreath. — George Crocker, Liskeard. — Robert Bath Cleave, Egloshayle. — Mark Clemow, St. Merryn. — John Cooper Furniss, St. Austell. — Richard Grose, St. Kew. — Richard Wesley, Grose, Egloshayle. — Walter Giles, St. Austell. — John Gaved, St. Mewan. — William Geach, Budock. — William Hellyar, St. Merryn. — Thomas Lang, Liskeard. — Robert Glasson Michell, Marazion. — John Bennett Old, St. Merryn. — Joseph Penlerick, Budock. — Charles Elden Sargent, Lanivet. — John Venning, Liskeard. — William Valler, Falmouth. —After the reading of the Queen's Proclamation by the Deputy Clerk of the Peace, the CHAIRMAN delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY:— Gentlemen of the Grand Inquest, I regret as the Chairman of this Court that I cannot on the present occasion congratulate you as I have done formerly, on the full attendance of Grand Jurors. I find that there are only 19 present; and considering the period of the year—that the harvest is concluded—the Court did hope to see on this occasion, as they do on most occasions in this Court, a full attendance of gentlemen of the County to perform those duties which the constitution has imposed on them. I trust that this will not occur again, because the court would be very unwilling to have recourse to the power vested in them of inflicting penalties for non-attendance. I am sorry to say that the calendar which will now be submitted to you is one that will occupy a considerable amount of your time. It contains the names of a large number of prisoners, and some of these prisoners are charged with some of the highest offences that this Court has power to take cognizance of. There are charges against some of the prisoners of a very serious description; but generally the cases are not of a character to call for any remarks from me. The whole number of prisoners for trial is 35, and at the Michaelmas Sessions of 1861 they were 41, showing a slight decrease; but I do not think that this decrease is such as would justify me saying that any material improvement has taken place in the conduct generally of the people of the county. The number committed under the Criminal Justice Act is 14; and at the Michaelmas Sessions, 1861, the number was 21, showing a decrease of seven. Of juvenile offenders there have been none on the present occasion, while there were three in 1861. The total commitments for the quarter ending Michaelmas 1862, was 49, while in the corresponding quarter of 1861 they were 65, thus undoubtedly showing a slight decrease in number. There are only two or three cases to which I think it necessary to direct your attention. Number 10 in the calendar is the case of a man named Nathaniel Martin who is charged with stealing a watch; and you will find from the evidence if it is put before you as it is laid down in the depositions as I have read them that the circumstances are of a somewhat unusual character. The prisoner took away with him a watch for the purpose of repairing it and setting it right, and he afterwards did not return it, but appropriated it to his own use, and he was then apprehended on the charge of stealing it. Now, if you should be of opinion that at the time he received the watch he intended to appropriate it to his own use, that would amount to felony. The next case to which I allude is number 24 in the calendar, a man named Joseph Freeman, who is charged with an offence, which I really believe, never in my experience, has before been tried in this court, and I do not know in what form the indictment will come before you. I will, however, shortly refer to the law on the case. The prisoner is charged with carnally knowing a young girl, above 10 and under 12 years of age, and I should tell you that this is a misdemeanour under the Act of Parliament; and an assault with intent to commit a rape is also a misdemeanour. It appears to me that it is very doubtful whether the girl was not a consenting party, but the law says that under the age of 12 she could not be a consenting party. It will be necessary for you to ascertain whether she was above 10 and under 12—between the ages of 10 and 12—and if so then the offence is made a misdemeanour under the Act of Parliament, and the case comes under the jurisdiction of this court. As I said before there are several cases of a very serious character—cases of housebreaking, stealing a horse, stealing a donkey, and an unusual number of cases of indecent assault. One of the latter is a very bad case. It is a case against a man called Thomas Willey, who is charged not only with assaulting a woman with intent to commit a rape, but he appears to have treated her in the most brutal and shameful manner, if the depositions are true. I will not occupy your time any further with remarks upon the calendar. With regard to the finances of the County, a rate of ¾d. in the pound will he required for general purposes, which is the same amount as at the corresponding period of last year. The rate required for the police is also ¾d. in the pound. At the Michaelmas Sessions, 1861, the police rate was only ½d. in the pound. I found on going through the accounts yesterday, when they were audited by the Finance Committee, that there is a balance of £794 in favour of the County, but out of that there will have to be paid £600 on account of the gaol, and the expenses of these sessions will also have to be deducted from it. On the building fund there is a balance in favour of the County of £2486, and I take this opportunity of saying that had it not been for the unexpected illness of Mr. Porter, the architect, we should have been in a condition to have placed before the County the total expense incurred in the erection of the gaol. I may state, however, that I do not believe the further payment of more than about £500, on the building account of the gaol will be required; so that there will be a balance of more than £2000 in favour of the County. The gaol expenses for the last quarter were £897 19s. 4d.,while in the corresponding quarter of last year they were £933. showing a decrease; and the Hall expenses were £8 13s. 3d., also showing a considerable decrease as compared with the same period. At these sessions it is usual for the Court to mention all the Acts of Parliament which have come into force during the last session of parliament, and I know of no Sessions in which a greater number of acts relating to the internal economy of the country have been passed. Chapter 10, is an act for continuing until January 1st 1867 the Industrial Schools Act of 1861, giving power to magistrates to make orders for imprisoning offenders up to the former period, and which power had expired. Chapter 18, is an act to amend the law relating to the whipping of juvenile and other offenders. Section 1 provides that where whipping is awarded by summary conviction, the sentence must specify the number of strokes, and the instrument to be used. The Act also provides that no offender is to be whipped more than once for the same offence. Chapter 38, is an act to amend the laws relating to the sale of spirits. It repeals the 12th and 24th sections of Geo. 2,c. 40, enacting that no action should be brought to recover any debt for spirituous liquors in less contracts at one time to the amount of 20s., so far as relates to spirituous liquors sold to be consumed elsewhere than on the premises, when sold in quantities not less at any one time than a quart. Chapter 43 is an act to provide for the education and maintenance of pauper children in certain schools and institutions. It gives power to guardians to send children, orphans, children deserted, or by consent of parents, to certain schools certified by the Poor Law Board, and gives directions as to the charge of expenses, &c. Chapter 44 is an act to amend the law relating to the giving of aid to discharged prisoners. It appears that certain societies have been established called "Prisoners' Aid Societies," and this act gives power to justices to direct money to be paid over to such societies to be paid by it to prisoners after their discharge. Chapter 61 is an act for the better management of highways in England; and section 5 enacts that any five justices in a county may in writing give notice that a proposal will be made to the Court of Quarter Sessions that a proposal will be made to divide a county or a part of it into a highway district. I see that notices have been given by the justices of two such districts in this County, that they intend to ask the Court to place the parishes named in their notices under the provisions of the act in question; and I think it necessary to throw it out as a suggestion to my brother magistrates, whether it would be desirable to place one part of the County under the operation of the act, and not the whole. I think that if we commence by dividing certain portions of the county into districts, we shall shut out others, and it would be difficult afterwards to arrange the districts satisfactorily. I would, therefore, suggest that a committee should be appointed to consider how the parishes throughout the county may be best arranged into districts, and to take the act into consideration, and to report thereon at the next sessions. I consider this is too important an act to be dealt with in the way proposed. Chapter 65 is entitled the Jurisdiction in Homicides Act, and it has been passed in consequence of the number of homicides taking place in the Army, and it provides that such persons may be tried sooner than could be done before the passing of the act. It gives power to the Queen's Bench or judges to order certain prisoners subject to the Mutiny Act, for murder or manslaughter, to be tried as soon after the offence as may be convenient; and such prisoners shall be removed to Newgate Gaol to be tried in London. Sentence may be carried out within the county where the offence was committed, or within the jurisdiction of the court. Chapter 82, is an act for the more economical recovery of poor rates, and other local rates and taxes, and this is an act of some importance to parishes. Section 18 enacts that any number of local rates and taxes, whether of the same or different kinds, due from the same person, may be included in the same information, complaint, summons, order, warrant or other document required by law to be heard before or issued by justices; and every such document as respects each rate so comprised in it shall be construed as a separate document, and its validity as respects one rate shall not affect its validity as respects another. Then in order to take care in such cases that no other documents are issued for the purpose of increasing expenses, no costs will be allowed for more than one document. Chapter 86, is entitled the Lunacy Regulation Act, and it makes some important alterations in the law relative to commissions in lunacy and the disposal of property of lunatics &c. Chapter 88, is an act to amend the law relating to the fraudulent marking of merchandise. It enacts that the forging or falsely applying to any article, or the case or wrapper of any trade mark a fraudulent trade mark is a misdemeanour; and any person selling any article with such wrapper, is liable, to a penalty equal in value to the article sold and £5. This act will come into operation after 31st December, 1863. After that date any person marking a false quantity on goods and exposing them for sale, will be liable to a penalty of £5. And there are other clauses of great importance for the protection of the public. Chapter 103 is an act to amend the law relating to parochial assessment. This is an act which has excited considerable attention in the county. It gives power of appointment of Assessment Committees by Boards of Guardians, and points out the mode of proceeding by such committees, gives them various powers, and defines how the expenses of valuations are to be paid, &c. It is a very important act, and will require great care in its administration. Chapter 107, is an act to give greater facilities for summoning persons to serve on juries, and for other purposes relating thereto. It provides that all provisions of former acts as to high constables are repealed, and their duties shall henceforward cease; that the Clerk of the Peace shall issue precepts to parish officers, instead of the high constables attending the sessions to receive them. Jurors may in future be summoned by post. Chapter III. is an act to amend the law relating to lunatics. It makes provision for the erection of buildings, purchase of lands, burial grounds, and other matters; also regulates the attendance of officers in asylums, and gives power to visitors to grant superannuation allowances to officers in such institutions. For instance, the committee of visitors may now grant a superannuation allowance to an officer of the county lunatic asylum after 15 years service, instead of 20 years as formerly, but it also gives power to the magistrates at quarter sessions to refuse to sanction such pension, if they think it right to do so. Section 19 makes it imperative on the overseer or relieving officer to give notice to a justice of any pauper that is, or is deemed to be a lunatic, the words "proper person to be sent to an asylum" being omitted. By section 20, no person who is a lunatic is to be detained in a workhouse more than 16 days unless a written certificate be given by the medical officer. Section 32, enacts that the commissioners in lunacy may order the renewal of a lunatic to the asylum from the workhouse. By the 33rd section, the superintendents of asylums are required to send to each Board of Guardians a statement of condition of every pauper lunatic chargeable to such union. By section 37, the visiting overseers of the workhouse of each union are required to enter observations in a book as to the dietry, &c., of lunatics once at least in each quarter, which is to be laid by the master of the workhouse before the commissioners. Chapter 113 is an act to amend the law relating to the removal of poor persons from England to Scotland or Scotland to England. Chapter 114, is called an act for the prevention of poaching, and it gives power to all constables to search persons on highways by night or day whom they may suspect to have been poaching or in illegal possession of game. These are all the acts to which I think it necessary to call your attention, and I will only again add that I do not recollect any sessions of Parliament in which a greater number of important acts have been passed relating to the internal economy of the country than was passed in the late one. The Chairman then dismissed the Grand Jury to their duties. —The CHAIRMAN stated that the Treasurer's Account, audited yesterday, showed a balance of £794 1s. 11½d due to the County.—It was ordered that this balance be carried to the credit of the County in the next account. On the Gaol Building Account which had been examined and allowed by the Committee; the CHAIRMAN stated that there was an apparent balance of £2486 in favour of the County, but as there was a sum of about £500 due on account of the Gaol, the real credit balance would be about £2000. —On the Police Account examined by the Police Committee, there was a balance of £446 due to the Treasurer.—Mr. E. COODE jun., was understood to remark that there was a balance against the County on the General Police Account, and a balance in favour of the County on the building account. —The CHAIRMAN next mentioned that on the Police Superannuation Account, a balance of £171 12s. 6d. had accrued to be invested in 3 per cent Consols, in addition to former investments; and Mr. E. COODE, jun., said the whole account so invested was about £2000.—The CHAIRMAN.—Somewhere about £2390 stock. On the Constabulary Building Fund the CHAIRMAN stated that there was a balance in hand, of £562 5s. 6d. —For Bridges, there was due to the Surveyor for the Western Division £183 10s. 2d.; and to the Surveyor for the Eastern Division, £702 17s. 9d.—this heavy amount being in consequence of some of the bridge roads being in a very bad state of repair. The several bills and accounts given above were passed sub silentio. The CHAIRMAN said the next business in due course would be to receive a Report from the Finance Committee; but he believed there was no Finance Committee in existence, and consequently no report.—It would now be the duty of the Court to appoint a Finance Committee for the ensuing year. Mr. ROGERS suggested that the Court should at once proceed in compliance with the standing order No. 3 under the head of finance, to appoint a Finance Committee, to consist of not less than 7 justices, exclusive of the Chairman; and it occurred to him as very desirable that it would be satisfactory to the County if, as Chairman of such Committee, some person other than one of the three Chairmen of Quarter Sessions were appointed; and he suggested that Mr. Carew should be requested to accept this responsible office.—Lord VIVIAN warmly concurred in the propriety of this suggestion; but Mr. CAREW expressed his desire to decline the office, and suggested that it was desirable to appoint some magistrate living nearer Bodmin.—Mr. GULLY BENNETT, while of opinion that no better chairman than Mr. Carew could be appointed, thought It would be the better plan to allow the Committee to name their own Chairman.—This suggestion was adopted; and, on the motion of Mr. ROGERS seconded by Mr. SAWLE, the following gentlemen were appointed the Finance Committee:—Mr. Carew, Mr. Foster, Mr. Tremayne, Mr. F. M. Williams, Mr. Neville Norway, Mr. Collins, Mr. Lakes, and the three Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. —On the motion of the CHAIRMAN, a rate of three farthings in the £, amounting to £2835, was granted for the general purposes of the County; and a rate also of three-farthings in the £, for the County Police. —For Bridges, a levy of two-eighths of a farthing in the £ amounting to £236 5s. 8d., was granted for the Eastern Division; and one-eighth of a farthing in the £, amounting to £118 2s. 10d., for the Western Division. ELECTION OF TREASURER The CHAIRMAN stated that the next item on the Agenda paper was: —"To receive and consider the names of candidates for the office of Treasurer, received by the Deputy Clerk of the Peace, with the names of their sureties, and then proceed to elect (in the manner required by the Standing Orders), a Treasurer, vice Edward Coode, Esq., who intends to resign the office at these Sessions."—The CHAIRMAN then read the only application which had been received; it was from Mr. John Coode, who named as his sureties, his father Mr. Edward Coode, of Moor Cottage, and Mr. Shilson of St. Austell; and in reply to a question from Mr. Carew, the CHAIRMAN said Mr. Coode, the late Treasurer, formally resigned the office at the last Sessions. Mr. SAWLE:—Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to propose that Mr. John Coode, of St. Austell be the Treasurer for the county, in place of his father, the late Treasurer. I have known Mr. John Coode many years; and I know him to be a man of strict habits of business, and I believe he will make an extremely good and efficient Treasurer. He has had considerable experience under his father, who, I extremely regret, has, because of age and infirmity, resigned the treasurership. I believe if the county elect Mr. John Coode, he will discharge the duties of his office most efficiently; and I have much pleasure in proposing his election. Rev. S. SYMONDS seconded the proposition. Mr. TREMAYNE:—I can speak in as high terms of Mr. John Coode, as a man of business as any man in the county; and I know of no man more fit to fill the office of Treasurer. But at the same time I must call to the attention of the Court, what passed before the committee appointed, some time since, to define the duties of the Treasurer, and to advise as to salary to be paid by him. It was understood and agreed by all present in that committee, that it was most unadvisable that the office of Treasurer should be held by the same person as the Clerk of the Peace. Indeed, I believe the view of the Committee was that it would be most beneficial to the County if these two offices should be kept as distinct and separate as possible; and also, that the Treasurer should act as an assistant to the Chairman of the Finance Committee, and should check all accounts sent in by the Clerk of the Peace for payment. Although Mr. Coode has resigned the office of treasurer, he has not resigned that of Clerk of the Peace, but still acts in this office, by deputy. And if his son should now obtain the office of treasurer, I cannot think there will be that separation of the two offices which is desirable for the County. Therefore, although I have the highest possible respect for Mr. John Coode, I think it my duty to oppose his election to the office of treasurer. I do not move any amendment; but simply a negative to the proposition. Lord VIVIAN:—I feel the difficulty in which we are placed by the fact that Mr. John Coode's name is the only one before us. Having presided over the Committee appointed to consider the proposed appointment of a treasurer, I think it right to state that it was the unanimous opinion of that Committee that the Treasurership and Clerkship of the Peace ought not to go together. I cannot see any reason why we should change that opinion; on the contrary, I perceive very great objections to the appointment of Treasurer and Clerk of the Peace being held in the same office. I am certain, from opinions I have heard expressed of Mr. John Coode by every one who has known him, that he would be in the highest degree eligible but for the fact that the Clerkship of the Peace is still retained in the same office in which he acts. Under these circumstances, I would ask if it is not possible to obtain some other person competent to fill the office of Treasurer. I know that in the great majority of other Counties, the Treasurership is held with a very small stipend, by Bankers; their advantage being derived from the balances in their hands. The financial state of this County has just been made known to us; and it shows that during the last few months there has been an accruing balance in the hands of our treasurer, now amounting; to £3356; and that sum would be a great advantage to a banker-treasurer. Therefore, I had hoped that some county banker would have tendered for the office; and I would take leave to ask a gentleman now in Court whether it would not be possible for his firm to undertake the office. He has urged to me what he considers to be difficulties, but which I cannot think to be really difficulties; and I showed him just now that Bankers frequently hold such accounts. I would again ask Mr. Foster whether the East Cornwall Bank would undertake to appoint one of its body to act as Treasurer for the County, and thus enable us to meet the difficulty which has come upon us. Mr. CAREW asked if it was necessary to decide now.—Lord VIVIAN replied that this Court had pledged itself in measure to relieve Mr. Coode from the Treasurership at these Sessions. The CHAIRMAN said it appeared to him that under the notice which had been issued, the Court was not competent to appoint any gentleman whose name had not already been submitted to them as a candidate. Rev. E. J. TREFFRY thought that, having advertized for candidates, the Court had no alternative but to elect the person applying. The CHAIRMAN, on the contrary, considered it was open to the Court to say they would not elect to day; but, under the notice, he did not think they could deal with any other name than that of the candidate offering.—Mr. SAWLE, in confirmation of this view, read the notice. Rev. T. PHILLPOTTS asked whether there was any Report of the Committee which recommended that the same party should not hold the two offices.—Lord VIVIAN replied.—Certainly not. Rev. URIAH TONKIN asked if it was too late now for any person to send in his name as a candidate?—The CHAIRMAN replied that, according to notice, all applications were to be sent in by the 1st of September. In reply to questions from Mr. PETER, the CHAIRMAN said the salary recommended by the committee for the new treasurer was £20; but of course that recommendation did not bind this court; and it was with a knowledge of that salary that Mr. John Coode had sent in his offer. Mr. PETER: Then what will be gained by shewing that he is not a fit man?—The CHAIRMAN:— That I cannot answer. Lord VIVIAN, after remarking that it would appear that some gentleman considered an unusually small salary had been named, stated that last year he took the trouble to send a circular to every county treasurer in England and Wales, and from almost every one he obtained a reply reporting the amount of salary paid to the treasurer. From these replies his lordship selected those which referred to counties having about the same amount of property to levy on as Cornwall, and about the same balances in hand. His lordship quoted from these returns in detail, for the purpose, he said of showing that Cornwall was not more stingy than other countries. The reason why the committee named £20 was that they thought some country banker would undertake the treasurership, and that the average balances in hand would enable him to pay a clerk for the management of the account. In reply to an observation by Mr. BENNET, and a question from the Rev. J. J. WILKINSON, the CHAIRMAN said the £20 was to be for the management of the Police Account as well as the County Account. Mr. SAWLE, in reply to the argument that, it would be advantageous to have a banker as Treasurer, said it required a person well versed in law, to know what accounts were legally payable or not. Many accounts passed into the Treasurer's hands without going into the Clerk of the Peace's hands at all; and much expense had been saved to this County by the late Treasurer's legal knowledge. Mr. LE GRICE asked if it was quite clear that Mr. John Coode offered himself under the idea that he was to have only £20 a year; and suggested that he should be asked the question. The CHAIRMAN, addressing Mr. John Coode, said:—I believe you understand from the advertisement, that your salary is to be £20 a year.— Mr. JOHN COODE:— Perfectly. The CHAIRMAN: And with this understanding you offer yourself as a candidate?—Mr. JOHN COODE: Yes, sir. Lord VIVIAN, referring to the terms of the advertisement, argued that it was not compulsory on candidates to send in their applications by the 1st of September; and he could not see any reason why any gentleman should be debarred now from offering himself as a candidate. Mr. TREMAYNE begged to be allowed to say that in proposing his amendment he had no idea of proposing any other person; he had no other person in view. He proposed his amendment, only because he thought that by electing Mr. John Coode the Court would be acting in direct opposition to the recommendations of the committee. The CHAIRMAN then put the motion and amendment; and, after taking votes by name, declared as the result, that Mr. John Coode was elected by a majority of 28 against 11. Mr. JOHN COODE expressed his thanks for the honour conferred on him, and promised to do his utmost to keep the accounts in a manner satisfactory to the county. CORONERS' BILLS. The following Bills were allowed:— £. s. d. Mr. Carlyon, for 31 inquests … … … … 104 6 4 Mr. Hamley, 15 “ … … … … 67 10 10 Mr. Hichens, 21 “ … … … … 80 19 3 Mr. Good, 11 “ … … … … 43 1 6 Mr. Jago, 18 “ … … … … 55 19 9 96 351 17 8 For the corresponding quarter last year, the Bills were:— £. s. d. Mr. Carlyon, for 13 inquests … … … … 84 10 0 Mr. Hamley, 15 “ … … … … 61 8 0 Mr. Hichens, 34 “ … … … … 99 10 9 Mr. Good, 15 “ … … … … 47 17 0 Mr. Jago, 12 “ … … … … 47 16 9 94 341 2 6 When the Coroners were about to be sworn, the Testament was thrown a distance of nearly half the width of the Hall, and caught like a cricket-ball.—On this, Mr. Collins asked if that was a usual or proper way of passing the book; to him it appeared most disgraceful to toss about the Testament in that way.— Mr. LE GRICE quite concurred, and he was very glad that Mr. Collins had remarked upon the act of throwing the Testament about in that way (hear, hear). REPORT OF THE COUNTY GAOL COMMITTEE. The CHAIRMAN read the following Report:— The county gaol committee are happy to report favourably on the condition of the gaol and bridewell. The committee beg to recommend the adoption of the dietary hereto annexed, which has been approved by the Secretary of State, and has been in use since October 1st. The committee recommend Mr. Haden's plan for the warming and ventilating of the two courts and the detaining cells, and for putting doors to the outer courts, and apply for the sum of £180 for the same. The committee, not being able to trace any contract for maintenance of prisoners with the different boroughs that do not pay any county rates, recommended 1s. 9d. per day be charged in lieu of the sum of 1s. which has been charged heretofore. The Committee ask that a sum of £450 be granted for the current expenses of the quarter; and that the committee tor the ensuing quarter consist of N. Kendall, Esq., Sir Colman Rashleigh, C. B.G. Sawle, Esq., E. Coode, jun., Esq., R. Foster, Esq., N. .Norway, Esq. W. Coulson, Esq , F. M. Williams, Esq., Colonel Cocks, W . R. C. Potter, Esq., Rev. V. F. Vyvyan, and E. ?----, Esq. Concerning the dietary, the CHAIRMAN said it was considerably reduced from that previously in use; and he believed that it would be worked more cheaply here than in Devon. In reply to a question from Mr. LE GRICE, the CHAIRMAN said it had not been possible as yet to ascertain the amount of reduction; but no doubt it would be very considerable. GOVERNOR’S REPORT. Capt. Colvill, the Governor of the County Gaol, reported as follows:— At this period of the year it is required to furnish a comparative statement, shewing the increase or decrease of criminals &c. committed to the county gaol during the past year, as viewed with that preceding it; and I regret that on the present occasion (as was the case last year also) I have to record an increase of male, (but a decrease of female) criminals, and a larger increase of committals of both sexes as regards debtors, viz.—Number of prisoners committed during the year ending 29th of September 1861:—Criminals —Males, 513 ; females, 231; total, 744. Debtors.—Males, 101; females, 27; total, 128. Number of prisoners committed during the year ending 29th of September, 1862:—Criminals.—Males, 517; females, 211; total, 728. Debtors.—Males, 127; females, 55; total, 182. Thus shewing on the whole an increase of 38 committals, including criminals and debtors, for the past year, as compared with the preceding year. The number of persons re-committed during the past year is somewhat less than in the year ending Michaelmas 1861, being, for males one in every 3.45; females one in every 5.48, in 1862; against one in 3.06 and 4.97 in 1861. The conduct of the prisoners generally has been good and orderly. The Governor certified that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with; and that the buildings of the prison are in good order. [GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE PAST QUARTER. —not transcribed.] The annual reports from the chaplain and surgeon of the gaol were read. They are lengthy documents, and we postpone their publication till next week. Mr. FOSTER said that Mr. Goodyear, the contractor for building the new gaol, had made application, on the architect’s certificate, for payment to him of the final sum of £250— the last portion of the sum which had been retained as security, by the county; and he presumed there would be no objection to the Visiting Committee paying that account.—If Mr. Foster's application appeared to be agreed to. Mr. E. COODE, jun., should like to know how much more there was to pay on the new gaol.—The CHAIRMAN replied—Not more than £500.—Mr. E. COODE, jun., said he understood his father to say that there was a considerable balance in hand on the building fund account.—The CHAIRMAN—Yes, £2186: of which about £2000 would be available for other purposes.—Mr. E. COODE, jun. suggested that it should speedily be considered what should be done with that money.—Lord VIVIAN said the actual cost of the gaol had exceeded the first estimate; and he could not imagine how it was that the accounts had been kept so loosely as to necessitate the borrowing of so much money.—The CHAIRMAN said if it had not been for Mr. Peter’s illness, no doubt the committee would have made a report showing how they came to have so large a balance in hand.—Mr. ROGERS asked if it might not be applied to the building of police stations.— Mr. E. COODE, jun., thought as it was borrowed for the gaol, it could not be so applied.—The CHAIRMAN said no doubt there would be a report next sessions.—Lord VIVIAN observed that £2000 represented £100 a year—a very considerable item—and he hoped the Gaol Building Committee would make such a report as would relieve themselves of the grave charge of having borrowed so much larger a sum of money than was necessary.—Mr. SAWLE thought, as the money was raised on t he credit of the county rate, any surplus might be paid over to the general rate; and, in reply to a question from Mr. CAREW, Mr. SAWLE stated that there was no debt on the general account except £259 for Looe Bridge; and probably that debt might now be paid out of the £2000 balance. BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION. Mr. Jenkin, the bridge surveyor for this division reported as follows:—Plisha Bridge.— A part of the parapet wall on this bridge has been repaired at a cost of £125. Tavistock New Bridge —My attention having been again called to the slate of repair of about 30 yards in length of the roadway over this bridge which is, as I believe, one of my jurisdiction, I have prepared a plan for your information showing the position of the piece of neglected road. I have been in communication with the surveyor of the county of Devon on the subject. Lostwithiel Bridge.—In accordance with the instructions received at the last sessions, I have gone through the quantities and prices of work proposed to be done to this bridge by Mr. Carveth, as stated in his report dated April 7th, 1862 and I have to report that I consider his estimate to be sufficient in these respects. Mr. Carveth has prepared detailed drawings and specifications for submission to you at this lime, which he has kindly allowed me to see. On the motion of Mr. SAWLE, seconded by Mr. PASCOE, it was resolved that the consideration of so much of Mr. Jenkin's report, as refers to Tavistock New Bridge, be referred to the magistrates of the Middle Division of East, to report on it at the next sessions. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. THOMAS HICKES, Surveyor of Bridges for the Western Division of the County, reported as follows:—My Lords and Gentlemen, in laying before you this report, I beg to state the work ordered the last sessions has been completed except that at Godolphin, which, however, is in doing. Ponsanooth.—There are some repairs required to the stone fence at the side of the road, also a little pointing to one the guard walls. I estimate the cost at 12s. Bissoe.—The road will require metalling, which I consider will cost about £2 10s. Higher Carnon.—The road at this bridge requires metalling and other repairs, which I estimate at £3 10s. Gwithian.—The road on the eastern side of the bridge requires metalling, which will cost about £1 10s. There are five county bridges on the Truro trust which have been, and are still, kept in repair at the cost of the turnpike. I beg to be allowed to pay over to the treasurer of the trust the sum of £12 10s. towards the cost of keeping such roads in repair. LOSTWITHIEL BRIDGE.—Mr. CARVETH presented his plans and specifications for the repair of Lostwithiel Bridge; and, after some discussion, further consideration of the subject was adjourned till the next Epiphany Sessions. REPORT OF COUNTY POLICE COMMITTEE. The CHAIRMAN read the following report:— A meeting of the committee was held yesterday, at the Chief Constable's office, at which the following members were present:—The Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, W. H. P. Carew, Esq., R. Foster, Esq., F. Howell, Esq., D. P. Le Grice, Esq., C. B. Kingdon, Esq.,; E. Coode, jun., Esq., in the chair. The expenses of the past quarter were examined and approved, and the expenses allowed for the previous quarter compared with the vouchers and found correct. St. Columb Station.—The purchase of the site of this station has been finally completed, and the committee hope to be able shortly to arrange for commencing the building of a station. Stratton Station.—The purchase of the site offered by Lord John Thynne has been settled, and it will be desirable that an order of the Court be entered, authorising the Clerk of the Peace to execute the conveyance on behalf of the quarter sessions. Bodmin Station.— It was reported to the committee that the late occupier of the premises has improperly removed certain fixtures belonging to the same, and the committee have instructed Mr. Shilson (subject to the approval of the court) to inquire into the matter, in conjunction with the Chief Constable, with a view to taking legal proceedings thereon, if necessary. Pool Station.—Mr. Eva, the contractor for this station, applied for the settlement of his final balance. Mr. Porter, the architect, certifies this balance to amount to £140 3s., subject, however, to a penalty of £90 for delay in completing the work. The committee having considered this matter, and being informed that the work is well executed, recommend the remission of the said penalty, with the exception of £30, to be retained to cover expenses incurred by the county in consequence of the delay, leaving a balance paid to Messrs. Eva of £110 3s. Mr. Porter reports that this station has been completed for £9 16s. 4d. less than the contract. Fees and Allowances.—The committee have requested the Chief Constable to forward to the Clerk of Petty Sessions, a form for returning to the County Treasurer the fees and allowances paid to the county constables. Some cases of small pox having occurred among the police constables, the committee recommend that all police constables be in future required to be vaccinated, unless they satisfy the Chief Constable that it is unnecessary for them to do so. The following sums should be charged to the county rate, and carried to the credit of the police rate—conveyance of prisoners, £177 9s. 11d.; coroners' allowances, £42 11s. 6d.; weights and measures, £17 14s. 4d., total, £237 12s. 9d. The sum of £171 12s. 0d. has accrued to the superannuation fund, and should be invested as heretofore. The committee recommend a police rate of ¾d. in the £ for the present quarter. EDWARD COODE, Chairman. In accordance with a recommendation in the above report, it was resolved, the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., seconded by Mr. SAWLE, that an order be made authorising the Clerk of the Peace to execute, on the part of the county, the conveyance of the site offered by Lord John Thynne, for a police-station at Stratton. Mr. E. COODE, jun., was sorry to report that a vacancy had occurred in the Police Committee, owing to the retirement of Mr. Rogers; and he understood it was the wish of the magistrates of West Kirrier that Mr. James Trevenen should be appointed.—Mr. ROGERS explained that his sole reason for retiring was that, as chairman, he was ex officio member of the finance committee, and it would not be possible for him to act on both committees.—Mr. James Trevenen was then elected a member of the police committee. On the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., seconded by Mr. SAWLE, it was resolved that the subject of raising a loan for police purposes, adjourned to these sessions, be further postponed, as it was probable the money would not be wanted at present. CHIEF CONSTABLE'S REPORT. The Chairman read the following report from Colonel Gilbert:— Chief Constable's Office, Bodmin, 14th Oct., 1862. My Lords and Gentlemen,—In compliance with the 2 and 3 Victoria, chapter 93, I have the honour to lay before you the annual returns of crime committed this county far as is known to the county constabulary; also a return showing the number and distribution of the force. Since the last sessions the station at St. Austell has been occupied by the police, and the old locks-up which were rented by the county given up to the parish authorities. I have merely to add that the general conduct of the force continues very satisfactory.—I have the honour to be, my lords and gentlemen, your obedient servant, W. R. GILBERT, Lieutenant-Colonel and Chief Constable of Cornwall. STANDING ORDERS. Lord Vivian then, in accordance with notice, moved that in the Standing Orders, page 12, clause 3, after the word "subsequently," the court should add "taking notice of any excess of expenditure under any head over that of preceding quarter, with a view of calling notice of finance committee thereto." He explained that his object was to enable the treasurer to go over certain accounts prior to the quarter sessions, and thus to aid the finance committee in checking errors or improper charges. Mr. CAREW saw no objection to the words in question, but he thought they should avoid as much as possible the overburdening of their rules. Mr. LE GRICE seconded the motion, which was agreed to. Mr. Carew presented the following report:—The Standing Order Committee report that they have revised the table of fees to be taken by Magistrates' Clerks, and that they will be prepared to submit the amended tables for the consideration of magistrates before the next sessions.—W. H. POLE CAREW, Chairman. MR. HADEN’S REPORT. The Chairman read this report as follows:— To the Visiting Justices—Gentlemen,—In accordance with your order, received through Captain Colvill, we have thoroughly examined these courts, with reference to the means of warming and ventilating them, and respectfully submit the following remarks thereon, and tender for the works suggested:—1st.—As to the warming apparatus. We examined that now in, and we are of opinion that to do anything to endeavour to make it efficient would be lost labour, as it is an old kind of apparatus, and will be always liable to get out of order if done the best with. We should recommend a proper apparatus put in its stead, which can be erected in the same place and made quite efficient for warming the courts to 60 degrees of heat at all times. We should use the existing channels to some extent, and enlarge the supply to the courts; that now provided being totally inadequate. Cells.—There is at present no means of warming these lock-up boxes in the basement, and they are very cold in the winter; they can be warmed by hot water pipes in connection with the same fire. We have annexed the cost of these works separately, so that you can adopt what you think desirable. 2nd.—With respect to the ventilation. We recommend some additional means of supply of fresh air under command from the exterior, and the two angles of the court suggest themselves suitable spots for these openings; also that the openings in the ceiling where the flowers are, now very contracted in their apertures, be made to open entirely for crowded court days; and it would materially improve the ventilation if these were connected to a turret in each case, and supplied with a gas cone to rarify the air. One such turret only exists now in the crown court. The ventilation of the basement cells is a highly important point; as 30 men and 12 women are there for a long time frequently, and the small openings that exist are of little if any service ; the consequence is that the effluvia from the basement finds its way to the courts above every time the dock-steps door is opened. We recommend that a connection be made to the exterior under the windows for fresh air, and that provision to carry off the fetid air be continued from the headway of the two rooms to a vertical pipe that can readily be erected in the angles formed at the back of the building, some ten inches in diameter. We particularly noticed the arrangement of the main entrance and waiting hall, that it only has open gates, and no means of closing from the weather, be it what it may. This renders all the doors to the respective courts and rooms the same as though they were open to the exterior direct, and it is a fertile source of draught whenever the doors are opened; and between the sessions and assizes the damp weather so prevalent then will be driven into the buildings, to their injury. Doors could readily be put there, and fan-lights over them, at no great expense, and be a material improvement. We beg to say that we took sufficient dimensions of the buildings to get the apparatus prepared, and respectfully wait your commands.—We are, yours most obediently, G. HADEN and SON, per G. Haden. ESTIMATED COST OF THE VARIOUS WORKS.—Warming.—An improved warm-air apparatus for efficiently warming both courts; delivered and erected, including the buildings complete—£78 10s. Boiler in connection with same fire, and hot water pipes to heat the cells for males and females in the basement, and the buildings in connection also, £38 18s. Ventilation.—Fresh air supply flues to the courts themselves, altering the ceiling openings to lift entirely, to roofs as at present, about £40. If extra turret and connections to the openings, and means for gas jets, &c., provided for rarifying the air, &c., about £45 to £55. The builders work, pipes, &c., for ventilating basement cells, about £25. Entrance doors and lights, about £35. On the motion of Mr. ROGERS, seconded by Mr. LE GRICE, that portion of the report recommending the placing of gates at the main entrances to the hall was rejected, after some discussion, and the remainder of the report relating to the warming and ventilation of the courts was adopted, and a sum not exceeding £150 granted for the purpose. Mr. E. COODE, jun., gave notice of his intention to move at the next sessions, that the expense of the warming and ventilation of the hall be charged to the gaol building fund. ACCOMMODATION OF MAGISTRATES AT PETTY SESSIONS. Mr. EDWARD COLLINS presented the following report, relative to the accommodation of magistrates at petty sessions:— The Committee appointed at the Midsummer Sessions to enquire into the present state of accommodation provided for the magistrates sitting in petty sessions, have agreed to the following report:—It appears that in the majority of cases the magistrates are accommodated with convenient rooms, by the liberality of the corporation or of individuals in the different boroughs or towns in which their sessions are held. But it is found that in some few instances such accommodation may not be provided in such cases, by adding a room to the police station. [Editor’s Note: The wording of the West Briton report is “But it is found that in some few instances such accommodation cannot easily be procured. The committee, therefore, suggest that the Police Committee be requested to consider whether some accommodation may not be provided in such cases, by adding room to the police station.“] Signed EDWARD COLLINS, Chairman. After some discussion, in which Mr. Collins, Mr. Carew, Major Reginald Trelawny, Mr. Sawle, Lord Vivian, and Mr. E. Coode took part, the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe suggested that the best course would be to refer it to the Police Committee to report as to what would be the expense of adding a room for the magistrates to hold their petty sessions in, in those police stations not yet erected, and that they should report on the subject to the court. This suggestion was put as a substantive motion and agreed to. COUNTY RATE. The CHAIRMAN read the following report:— At a meeting of the County Rate Committee appointed at the Epiphany Sessions, and revived at the Midsummer Sessions, 1862, held at the Town Hall, in the parish of St. Austell, on the 15th day of July, 1862, present E. Coode, the younger, Esq., chairman, D.P. Le Grice, Esq., Francis Howell, Esq., and the Rev. Thomas Phillpotts, clerk, it is resolved that Mr. Shilson, deputy Clerk of the Peace, be elected clerk to the said committee.—Parish of Illogan v. Justices of Cornwall.—Mr. Cornish having been heard on behalf of the overseers of the parish of Illogan, and having produced the rate books of the parish with other evidence, the committee are opinion that there no sufficient evidence before them to induce them to recommend any alteration in the present county rate bases. Mr. SHILSON, Deputy Clerk of the Peace, reported that Mr. Cornish, on the part of the parish of Illogan, had given notice that they intended to abandon their appeal. HIGHWAYS (25 and 26 VICTORIA, CAP 61). The next item on the agenda paper was:—To consider a proposal "to constitute the parishes of Southhill, Linkinhorne, Stokeclimsland, Callington, St. Ive, Quethiock, Pillaton, St. Mellion, St. Dominick, Calstock, Botusfleming, Landulph, Landrake, and St. Erney, St. Stephens-by-Saltash, and Menheniot, a highway district," pursuant to notice given by the Clerk of the Peace, on the requisition of A. Coryton, H. R. Trelawny, W. D. Horndon, Esquires, H. M. Rice, and G. Coryton, Clerks. The CHAIRMAN read the advertised notice of application, and various petitions for and against the proposed formation OF a district; after which, Col. CORYTON (seconded Mr. H. R. TRELAWNY), moved that the named parishes be constituted a highway district. Mr. CAREW (seconded by the Rev. T. PASCOE) moved, as an amendment, that a committee be appointed to consider and report on the general provisions of the Highway Act, and to recommend the districts into which the county should be divided; such committee to consist of one magistrate from each Petty Sessional Division. After a considerable discussion, Col. Coryton's motion was carried by a majority of 16 against 11. The CHAIRMAN said that there was another proposal "to constitute the parishes of Advent, St. Cleather, Davidstow, Forrabury, St. Gennis, St. Juliot, Lanteglos by Camelford, Lesnewth, Michaelstow, Minster, Otterham, St. Teath, Tintagel, Trevalga, Treneglos, and Warbstow a highway district," pursuant to notice given by the Clerk of the Peace, on the requisition of William Sloggatt, Edwin Ley, W. S. Rosevear, Esqrs.; John J. Wilkinson, R. B. Kinsman, and Henry Farwell Roe, clerks. The CHAIRMAN also read the advertised notice given in this case, and a petition from most of the parishes mentioned above, which had been adopted at a general meeting held at Camelford. The Rev. R. B. KINSMAN said that, notwithstanding this petition and the objections that had been urged by Mr. Carew and other gentlemen against the adoption of the previous proposal, he should move the adoption of the notice, because, unless this was done now, the whole question would be postponed for a year. He was sorry to say that the highways in the district in which he resided were in a deplorable condition, and he therefore moved the adoption of the proposal. The Rev. J. J. WILKINSON had great pleasure in seconding the motion, which, after a few words from Mr. E. Coode, jun., and Mr. Gully Bennet, was agreed to. This concluded the county business. Mr. COLLINS obtained a grant of £8 10s. for fuel for the Militia stores; and gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move for an annual grant of £15 for the same purpose. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. ROBERT SMITH, aged 21, a brass founder, and THOS. FOWLER, an iron moulder, aged 26, severally pleaded GUILTY of breaking into the dwelling house of Simon Williams, at Stithians on the 22nd of September, and stealing a pair of boots and a handkerchief, the property of the said Simon Williams.— Robert Smith also pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of trousers, the property of Frank Chellew, at Gwinear, on the 25th of September. (Sentences: each six months h.l.) MARGARET PENBERTHY, aged 17, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of stockings, a pair of muslin sleeves, an apron, and a piece of hessian, the property her master, Verrant James, of St. Hilary, on the 2nd of August. (Sentence: Two months h.l.) MARY TREVAYLER pleaded GUILTY of stealing three geese, the property of William Daniell, at Paul, on the 20th of September. On another charge of stealing two geese from Richard Nicholas, at Paul, she pleaded NOT GUILTY; but this indictment was not prosecuted. (Sentence: Three months h.l.) JOSEPH TINNEY, a labourer, aged 30, pleaded guilty of stealing a fowl, the property of his master, James Hall, at Truro, on the 4th of October. (Sentence: Three months h.l.) THOMAS WILLIAMS, on bail, was charged with stealing 12 gallons of pease and 12 gallons of wheat, the property of John Gatley, at Truro, on the 5th and 6th of September.—When arraigned, he pleaded that he was guilty of neglect, but not of stealing.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—William Hichens, foreman in the employ of Mr. Gatley, merchant, carrying on business at Truro and Tresillian, deposed that on the 5th and 6th September, the prisoner was employed in barging up two cargoes of wheat and peas from a vessel lying off Woodberry, in the Truro River to Tresillian. On the 8th of September he was employed to barge up a cargo of Indian corn to Truro—to Mr. Gatley's stores. On the morning of the 9th of September, witness went on board the barge and found that all the Indian corn was out clear; but looking into the fore-cabin he saw there a quantity of empty sacks which did not belong Mr. Gatley, and also a bag of wheat and a bag of peas, each containing about 12gallons. Shortly afterwards, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning, Williams came to the warehouse and went on board the barge. Witness asked him if he had anything on board belonging to Mr. Gatley, and he said no. Witness then demanded of him the pease and wheat on board; and prisoner went into the barge and handed it up to witness, stating that it was sweepings. Witness placed the pease and wheat in the warehouse in Mr. Gat!ey’s sacks, and handed back the other sacks to the prisoner; and afterwards delivered the pease and wheat to Police Constable Gay.—P. C. Gay deposed that on his apprehension of the prisoner on the 10th of September, he said he did not steal either peas or wheat, but that some had run through the bulk-head, and he had not carried it away from the boat. Witness then went to Mr. Gatley's yard, and with the last witness went into the barge and found in the cabin 3 gallons of wheat covered over with empty bags, and also some other wheat in a basin. The wheat which he found on the floor looked as if it had run through the bulk-head; but the other was clean corn. The slide of the bulk-head could not be moved except by force.—Samples of the wheat and peas were then produced and evidence of identification was given; after which the prisoner, who had cross-examined the witnesses, addressed the Jury, contending that he was innocent of the charge, and that the peas had fallen through the bulk-head.—The Jury, after long consultation, found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: Four months h.l.) JANE TRELEASE, aged 22, was charged with stealing 30 lbs. of lead, the property of John Gibson, of Truro, on the 14th of July.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—The prosecutor is a cabinet-maker, living at Truro, and on the 14th of July the prisoner, accompanied by a man whom, at the time Mr. Gibson believed to be her husband, took lodgings at his house, and they remained there until the 21st August. On that day, Mr. Gibson went into the bed-room which had been occupied by the prisoner and her paramour, to look for a plane; and then discovered that some lead which he had left there on the 14th of July was missing.—Caroline Pearce, wife of Nicholas Pearce, marine store-dealer, proved that on the 31st of July, the prisoner brought the 11 lbs. of pipe-lead, which witness bought at a penny per lb.; the prisoner gave her name as Jane Harfoot, and said she lived at Highertown, and that her brother had sent her with the lead.—Wm. Joseph Nash, superintendent of police, apprehended the prisoner on the 22nd August; she said she had sold the two pieces of lead to the marine store-dealer, and that she would not suffer for others—that two other persons, whose names she gave, were implicated with her, and she wished to see them at the Police Station; they were a young woman called Osborne, and a man called Hawke, with whom she cohabited—both well known to Mr. Nash. After having seen these persons, the prisoner said Mr. Gibson had given her the lead to sell.—Mr. Gibson, recalled, contradicted this statement, and identified as his property the lead produced by Mr. Nash procured from the marine store-dealer.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: One month h.l.) The Court then rose. SECOND COURT, TUESDAY. (Before C. B. Graves Sawle, Esq.) WARRICK BISHOP, 34, labourer, was charged with stealing a donkey, the property of Henry Budge, at St. Breock, on the 16th of September last. Mr. Collins prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor is a quarryman, living at Edmonton, St. Breock, and on the 14th of September the donkey was safe in a field, but two days later it was gone. He made inquiries about it in the neighbourhood without success, and then offered a reward of 10s. for it. After he had done so, he ascertained that the prisoner had been seen with a donkey which was described as very like the one he had lost, and he went to his residence, at Porthgavern, about six or seven miles from where he lived, and found his donkey at the blacksmith's shop, where it had been left by the prisoner to be shod. P.C. Philp, of the county constabulary, proved that when he called on the prisoner he denied having the donkey, but after being told what one of his daughters had said respecting it, he produced it, and stated that he had bought it from a woman near St. Columb. The jury found the prisoner NOT GUILTY, considering that there was a doubt respecting the identity of the donkey by the prosecutor. The court then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, OCT. 15. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) JOHN BURRELL, 16, a miner, was charged with stealing, at Liskeard, on the 3rd of October, a concertina, value 3s., the property of James Smith. Mr. Childs prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. On the 2nd of October, the wife of the prosecutor, who lives at Plymouth, attended Liskeard fair, and had a stall there on which there were, among other things exposed for sale, a number of musical instruments, including the concertina in question. She saw the latter on her stall at nine o'clock in the evening of the following day, the 3rd, at which time the prisoner came to her stall, and passed from the front to the side of it, near to where the concertinas were placed. While he was there, she had occasion to stoop to take up a box, and when she rose, both the prisoner and the concertina were gone. The prisoner was seen to leave the stall hurriedly with a concertina in his hand, and when he had gone a short distance, he started off and ran down the street. The same evening he sold the concertina for 2s. to James Merryn, to whom he stated that he had won it in a raffle. When charged before the magistrates with the offence, he stated that he bought it for 1s. of a young man he met in the street. The concertina was identified by Mrs. Smith, and the jury at once found the prisoner GUILTY. He was also found guilty of a previous conviction for felony, at the March Assizes last, for which he suffered six months' imprisonment. (Sentence: Three Years’ Penal Servitude) ISAAC HOPKINS, 34, labourer, was charged with having stolen a cloth coat, the property of James Collins, of Duloe. Mr. Commins prosecuted, the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor is a boy living at Duloe, and on Sunday, the 5th of October, he left a coat at his master's stable at Bodbrane. The next morning it was gone. The same morning the prisoner was seen walking in a direction from Bodbrane carrying a bag, and on being apprehended in the afternoon of that day, the coat was found in his bag, but torn into rags. The jury at once found the prisoner GUILTY; and a previous conviction for felony in the present year was then proved against him. (Sentence: 9 months h.l.) NATHANIEL MARTIN, 49, watchmaker, was charged with having on the 25th August last, at Talland, stolen a silver watch and chain, the property of Joseph Sergeant. Mr. Commins prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor is a sailor living at West Looe, and in the early part of the month of August, his wife let the prisoner have her husband's silver watch to be cleaned and repaired. The prisoner brought it back again in about a week, and said that he had done what was necessary to it, for which he charged a shilling. On the 25th he called on her again, and asked how the watch went. She told him that it lost an hour in two days, and he then asked to look at it. She handed him the watch and chain, and he said that he was going to Polperro, and would see if it lost any time, and return it in the evening. She allowed him to take both watch and chain away, but did not return them as promised, and she saw nothing of them till the 11th of September, when she saw the watch in the possession of the police at Lostwithiel. On the 9th of September, the prisoner borrowed 7s. 6d. from Mr. Broad, of Lostwithiel, to enable him to go to Exeter, on security of the watch, and it appeared that had also borrowed 2s. 6d. on the chain, of Mr. Michell of St. Austell. On being apprehended by Sergeant Opie, of the County Constabulary, on the 11th of September, he confessed that he had disposed of the watch and chain in the manner stated, and they were found at Mr. Michell's and Mr. Broad's by that officer. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY, giving the prisoner the benefit of the doubt as to whether at the time he received the watch, he had any intention to feloniously appropriate them. ALFRINA STODDERN, a young woman with a stone-blind infant in her arms, was charged with having, on the 11th of October, at Zelah, feloniously stolen about £3, the monies of John Hosken. Mr. Marrack prosecuted. The prosecutor lives at Zelah Lane, in the parish of St. Enoder, where he keeps a grocer's shop, which is managed by his wife. Mrs. Hosken keeps her money in the till in the counter, and on Friday evening the 10th of October, she had £13 in gold in a purse, and about 29s. in the drawer. About nine o'clock on the morning of Saturday last, she unlocked her shop door, and shortly after she went into a neighbour's house, where she remained for about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. While she was there the prisoner was seen to go into the shop, where she remained six or seven minutes. As Mrs. Hosken was returning, she met the prisoner, who said that she wanted to purchase some things, and she then came back with her to the shop, and was supplied with bread and other articles to the amount of 1s. 8d. In paying for these the prisoner tendered a shilling which Mrs. Hosken at once recognised as a shilling she had received on the Thursday previous. It was marked in a peculiar manner, and suspecting, on its being tendered to her by a customer, that it was a bad one, she had shown it to a girl who happened to be in the shop at the time. That shilling was among the silver in her drawer on the previous evening when she closed the shop. She asked the prisoner where she had got the shilling, and she replied from her father, who had received it as wages from John Dawe. She asked how John Dawe got it, and the prisoner said that it was good enough, and immediately left the shop. Mrs. Hosken then examined her drawer, and found that 20s. in silver and £2 in gold had been stolen. She gave information to the police, and the prisoner was apprehended, when she stated that she had not been in the shop before she went in with Mrs. Hosken. The shilling was produced, and identified by Mrs. Hosken, but the jury ACQUITTED the prisoner. HENRY SOTTOW, 17, a Prussian seaman, was charged with stealing a pair of boots of the value of 3s., the property of John Harris, butcher, at Truro, on the 1st of October. Mr. CHILDS prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended. The facts of this case were fully reported in the Cornwall Gazette recently, and it will be only necessary to state that prosecutor lodges at the house of William Barnes, in Pydar-street, Truro, and on the evening of the 30th of September the prisoner took lodgings there for the night. Prosecutor, on going to bed that night, left his boots, as usual, down stairs in the kitchen. The prisoner left shortly after seven o'clock next morning, and on the prosecutor coming down stairs and looking for his boots, he found that they were gone, and an old pair belonging to the prisoner left in their place. Information was obtained that the prisoner had been seen walking in the direction of Falmouth, and he was followed to that town by Barnes, where he was apprehended the same day by P.C. Byers, wearing the boots, which he said he had bought two months before in Germany. Mr. Harris identified the boots as his property. The prisoner, in defence, asserted that the boots were his, and he denied having stopped a night in Truro, saying that he and a young man passed directly through the town. The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY. A conviction for felony, for which he was tried AND sentenced to three mouths' hard labour, was then proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: Six months h.l.) REUBEN DAVIS, 24, labourer, was indicted for stealing, on the 27th September, at Rame, six pounds of pork, the property of Thomas Cauniford. Mr. Nepean prosecuted, the prisoner was not defended. The prosecutor is a butcher, residing at Millbrook, and on the 27th September he attended at Kingston and Cawsand with his cart containing meat. On the evening of that day, one of the county police saw the prisoner loitering about the cart in a suspicious manner while at Cawsand, and after some time, take out a piece of pork which he thrust under his smock-frock, and walked hurriedly away. He followed him and took him into custody, with the meat under his frock. The meat was now identified by the prosecutor, and jury found the prisoner GUILTY. (Sentence: Four months h.l.) MARY SABINA STEPHENS, 19, pleaded guilty to stealing at Kenwyn, on the 12th August last, one pair of boots, a shawl, a piece of cotton dress, and some clothes, value 9s. 6d., the property of John Chigwidden. She also pleaded guilty to a previous conviction for felony. (Sentence: 9 months h.l.) SUSAN HANCOCK, pleaded guilty to having on the 9th of October, at St. Austell, stolen seven pairs of kid gloves, 24 yards of velvet, 10 yards of ribbon, an album, three crinolines, and a variety of other articles, the property of Messrs. Andrews and Sons, in whose service she was a domestic servant. Her sister, Lydia Hancock, had been committed as a receiver of the stolen property, but the grand jury ignored the bill against her. (Sentence: Six months h.l.) WILLIAM CLARKE, 18, mason, was charged with having on or about the 27th of August, the 3lst of August, and the 4th of September, broken into the warehouse and shop of Samuel Rundle Cater, at Truro, and stolen 7 carpenter's rules, 31 dessert forks, 9 dessert spoons, 6 table spoons, 3 table forks, and 6 teaspoons, a razor-case, a pair of gloves, an electro-plated flower vase, 17 razors, 24 pocket knives, and 3 pocket combs. Mr. CHILDS prosecuted, and Mr. HENRY SHILSON defended the prisoner. Mr. CHILDS, in stating the case, said that under a recent statute, the prisoner was charged in one indictment with breaking and entering the warehouse and shop of Mr. Cater, and stealing therefrom a great variety of articles, on three separate dates, each one which would have previously formed the subject of a distinct indictment. Mr. Cater deposed that he is an ironmonger at Truro, and has a shop and warehouse in Victoria Place. He knew the prisoner, who is a mason at Truro. Did not reside at his shop and warehouse, but attended to his business there daily, and it was his invariable practice to go over the shop and warehouse every night after the premises were closed to see that all was safe. Had done so on the evenings of the 27th and 31st of August, and 4th of Sept., and saw that the premises were safely locked up and secured. At the higher part of his warehouse there was a small window in the roof, about a foot wide and 2½ feet long, and it is fastened in the roof and does not open. About the 27th of August he missed some rules and other articles from the warehouse. Never sold any carpenters' rules to the prisoner. In the early part of August had looked over the whole of his stock of silver plated goods, which he then repacked and replaced in the drawers in which they were kept in the shop; and on the 29th September he looked at the plated articles again, when he found that a great number were gone—comprising dessert forks, spoons, table forks, and tea spoons, numbering altogether about 40 or 50 articles. He also missed some razors and other articles. On the 4th of September he missed some pocket knives and other things. There are three stories in the warehouse—the ground floor, upper floor, and attic. His attention was not drawn to the attic window until the Monday previous to going before the committing magistrates; he then looked at the window, and he saw that it had evidently been prized out, as there were marks of a chisel or similar instrument round the sides. It was fastened down by nail, which could be easily removed. The prisoner was employed on a new building adjoining the shop of Mr. Dixon, grocer, for Mr. Symonds, of Falmouth. Benjamin Allen, apprentice to Mr. Cater, deposed to having missed carpenters' rules and a great number of articles from the shop, some of the former he had marked with the trade mark himself. On the 4th of September he noticed that the plated articles had been greatly disturbed, and had been put away in a manner that no one in the shop would have done. Some combs and pocket knives had been taken from a glass show-case in the shop. There was a small electro-plated vase or stand in the case, a flower from which had been broken off, and this was also gone. Had never sold any of the goods he thus missed to the prisoner. Robert Dixon deposed that he resided with his father, George Dixon, grocer, St. Nicholas-street, Truro, which is three or four doors from Mr. Caters. He knew the prisoner by name and sight. At half-past two o'clock on Sunday the 31st of August, he saw the prisoner in the new building on which he was employed about six o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and he afterwards gave information of what he had seen to the police. [Editor’s Note: The West Briton Report states: “At half-past two o'clock on Sunday the 31st of August, he saw the prisoner on the roof of his father's house passing over towards Mr. Cater's premises. He saw the prisoner in the new building on which he was employed about six o’clock in the afternoon of the same day …..”] In cross-examination—he stated that when he first saw the prisoner this day he had on a white jacket, but on the second occasion he was dressed in black. John Higgins, foreman Mr. Julian, builder, deposed that his master was employed in erecting a house opposite to Mr. Dixon's, in St. Nicholas-street, and shortly before six o'clock on the morning of the 1st or 2nd September, while he was in this new building, he saw the prisoner cross the roofs of the houses opposite in a direction from Mr. Cater's warehouse to Mr. Symond’s new building. He entered the latter with a bundle in his hand. In consequence of something which he had heard, he told Mr. Cater of what he had seen the latter part of the same week. George Rowe, carpenter, deposed that was employed on Mr. Symond’s new house, adjoining Mr. Dixon's. On the evening of Friday the 5th September, he found some new carpenters' rules under the garret stairs of the new building. On the following day, he saw the prisoner at the new house, and had some conversation with him about the rules. The prisoner came and demanded them, saying that they were his, and he gave 2d. each for them. Witness told him that if he was not careful, and this came to the ears of the police, he would be taken hold of. The prisoner said that he would put them out of tight, and the police should not see them. He took the rules away with him. They were quite new, and one was marked 4s. 6d., and another 2s. Jonathan Moon, beer-housekeeper, deposed that on (sic) the early part of September the prisoner came to his house and offered a pocket-knife for sale, which witness bought for 6d. and a pint of beer. His little boy also obtained one from him. Both of them had been delivered to the police. James Hugo, a labourer, deposed to having bought a razor and case from the prisoner, for 6d. and share of two quarts of beer, in the early part of September, which he had afterwards delivered to the police. Sergeant Woolcock, of the Truro police, deposed that on the 8th of September, the prisoner was apprehended by Superintendent Nash, and brought to him at the station house. He searched him there, and found a silver plated flower and a pocket comb, which he produced. Afterwards he went to the house of prisoner's father, with whom the former resided, and there found a razor on a shelf in the kitchen. He next examined Mr. Cater's warehouse. He passed from the roof of Mr. Symond’s new building to the roof of Mr. Cater's premises, and he saw marks of a chisel or some similar instrument, which had been used to prise open the attic window. He also observed some mud which had collected near to the gutter between the two roofs, in which there were foot prints; and they corresponded exactly with the prisoner’s boots.— On the Tuesday, before the prisoner was taken before the magistrates, he appeared to be unwell, and witness and Superintendent Nash went to the cell in which he was confined. The prisoner said that he wanted to see Mr. Chappel or Mr. Cater; and he was told that they would mention his wish to Mr. Chappel, but they did not think that he would be allowed to see Mr. Cater. He said that he wanted to see them in order that Mr. Cater might have his things back again, and that he might tell him where they were. He said that he found the things in a bag on the top of the house, and he took them to his father's, and placed the bag in the kitchen. He took some of the things out of the bag and hid them away in a cow house in a field near the Back-lane. With respect to the remainder, he had not seen any of the things since, and his father and mother must know where they were now. Witness and Mr. Nash went to the prisoner's father's, and asked for the things which the prisoner had stated he had left there, but they could not obtain anything. They then went into the cow house in the Back-lane, and in the roof they found several carpenters' rules, 21 pocket knives, harvesting gloves, combs, razors, silver plated forks, table spoons and a number of tea spoons, and other things which were now produced. On the Thursday following, the prisoner wished witness to go to his father's house again about the goods; on his refusal, he asked for a sheet of paper, which he supplied to him, telling him to bear in mind that what he wrote would be used in evidence against him. The prisoner then wrote a letter, and witness took a copy of it, which he delivered to Mr. Nash, and the original was delivered to his parents. The copy of the letter produced was not the one which witness had made, but a copy of it made by Mr. Nash. Mr. SHILSON objected that this copy of a copy was inadmissible, and the court decided that it could not be received. Superintendent Nash deposed to apprehending the prisoner by warrant, on the 8th of September, and he corroborated generally the evidence of Sergeant Woolcock. The prisoner's deposition before the magistrates on his committal was put in and read. It was as follows:—I have nothing to say. I am sorry for what I have done. I know I am guilty. Mr. H. SHILSON, for the defence, said that before the charges could be considered as proved, the jury must be satisfied by the evidence that was laid before them that the prisoner not only stole the goods and had them in his possession, but that he also broke and entered the warehouse, for the breaking and entering was in reality the gist of the charge. As to the prisoner being seen going across Mr. Dixon's house on Sunday, the 31st of August, he should produce evidence which would show that the prisoner was in his own house until five o'clock in the afternoon of that day, and therefore could not have been there at the time stated. He should also prove that the prisoner had not got a white jacket, that he never wore one, and if he did this, the fair inference was that he was not the person whom young Mr. Dixon had seen on the afternoon of the 31st August. As regarded the statement of Mr. Higgins, that he saw the prisoner coming away from the direction of the prosecutor's roof about six o'clock in the morning, the probability was that he was as much mistaken as had been young Dixon. The prisoner's statement before the magistrates on his committal was certainly rather against him, but he was a young man, and, not knowing the law, had made this statement without being aware of what he was saying, or the harm it would do him. He urged that there had been nothing said throughout the case which was inconsistent with the statement that had been made by the prisoner as to his finding the bag on the roof. He called William Clarke, who deposed that he was the father of the prisoner, and also a mason. Both he and the prisoner had been employed on the new building of Mr. Simmons. On Sunday, the 31st of August, he was unwell, and he was not out of the house during the day. The prisoner was also unwell, and did not get until between three and four o'clock in the afternoon, and did not leave the house till between five and six. The prisoner wore dark clothes on Sundays, and never had a white jacket belonging to him. Other persons employed on the building had access to the prosecutor's roof. Mr. CHILDS having addressed the jury in support of the prosecution, the CHAIRMAN summed up the evidence at great length. The jury after deliberating for a short time, returned a verdict of GUILTY against the prisoner on each of the three counts. (Sentence: 12 months h.l.) STEPHEN ALLEN, 50, labourer, was charged with unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, a pair of boots, value 8s., from Mr. Wm. Mills, at Gwennap, on the 2nd of June, with intent to cheat and defraud him of the same. Mr. STOKES prosecuted and the prisoner was undefended The prosecutor is a shoemaker living at St. Day, and on the 2d of June the prisoner came to his shop, bringing a note purporting to come from Mr. Alexander Chigwin, directing prosecutor to let him have a pair of boots. On the faith of this note he let the prisoner have a pair of boots of the value of 8s., but afterwards learnt that Mr. Chigwin had not written the note or authorized any one to do so for him. Mr. Chigwin now deposed that the prisoner was formerly in his service, but he left in May, and he then paid him every farthing due to him. Since then the prisoner had not worked for him, and he had never given him directions or authority to obtain the boots from Mr. Mills. The Prisoner, in defence denied that had ever had any intention of fraudulently obtaining the boots—and asserted that the note to Mr. Mills had been given him by Mr. Chigwin’s son; that he had had boots before under similar circumstances, and Mr. Chigwin had written to Mr. Mills to let him have them. A witness named Harris, for whom the prisoner had worked after leaving Mr. Chigwin's employ, deposed to a conversation that had taken place between the latter and him at Redruth market lately, in which he (Mr. Chigwin) stated in reply to some remarks of Mr. Harris, that he could not be answerable for anything his son had done, nor could he avoid giving evidence against the prisoner, as he was bound over to do so. The jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. WILLIAM SLEEMAN, 18, labourer, pleaded guilty to stealing a mare and colt, the property of Joseph Creeper, at Davidstow, on the 5th of August last. (Sentence: 9 months h.l.) LOVEDAY JANE NANKERVIS, 16, pleaded guilty to stealing, on the 12th of August, at Ludgvan, a cotton dress, the property of Eliza Johns. (Sentence: One month h.l.) ROBERT EDWARDS, the younger, 17, was indicted for assaulting Constance Bennetts, the younger, a young woman, with intent to ravish her. A second count charged him with a common assault. Mr. CHILDS prosecuted. The attack on the prosecutrix was made by the prisoner as she was returning to her mother's house, near ten o'clock in the evening. The prisoner, in defence, denied that he was the person who committed the offence, and said that he was at home shortly after nine o'clock on the night in question, and did not go out again. The jury found the prisoner NOT GUILTY on the first count, but GUILTY of a common assault. (Sentence: Twelve months h.l.) IGNORED BILLS. Joseph Sincock, miner, stealing £2 1s. 6d. from the person of Francis Houghton, at Truro, on the 13th of Sept. Eliza West, keeping a disorderly house at Camborne. Wm. Clarke, for breaking into the warehouse and shop of Samuel Richards, at Truro, in July last, and stealing therefrom a piece of kip leather of the value of 10s. The grand jury disposed of all the bills this afternoon and were discharged, the Chairman thanking them on behalf of the county for their services. SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, OCT. 15. (Before C. B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq.) WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER was charged with stealing four fowls, the property of Mr. Christopher Cardell, farmer of St. Erth, on the 3rd of October.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution Mr. Stokes the defence. Mr. Cardell is a farmer residing at Bosence, in St. Erth, and occupying another farm at Traunack, to which Mrs. Cardell was in the habit of going daily. There were kept there some fowls of peculiar breed and with unusual marks. Going to Trannack on the 3rd of October, Mrs. Cardell saw the fowls safe, but few days afterwards discovered that four fowls were missing; and going to the prisoner's house with a policeman on Saturday morning, the 4th, there were found four fowls in a back room—one of them being picked. About one o'clock on Friday night or Saturday morning, the prisoner was seen by policeman, at Relubbus, a village between Trannack and the prisoner's house, and not far from Trannack farm. When apprehended, the prisoner said he found the fowls on the roadway dead in a handkerchief, and he took them home; and that statement he repeated before the committing magistrates. In support of the prosecution, evidence was given by Mrs. Cardell and her son, and by policemen Pengelly and Pascoe.—For the defence, Mr. Stokes contended there was no proof that the prisoner stole the fowls, nor that the fowls had been fastened up on the night in question; there was also no proof that he had been on Trannack farm, nor that his statement that he had found the fowls on the roadway was untrue. It was also corroborative of his assertion of innocence, that he had made no attempt to abscond, or to secrete or disguise the fowls. There was also no proof of felonious receiving.—The CHAIRMAN directed the jury as to the law concerning stolen property found shortly after its loss in the possession of any person; and, after short consultation, the jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: Four months h.l.) JAMES OPPY, a miner, aged 24, was charged with stealing a duck, the property of Ann Allen, at Illogan, on the 4th of October.—Mr. Cornish conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—The case was entirely one of minutely circumstantial evidence and it resulted in a verdict of GUILTY; but not until after long consultation by the jury. (Sentence: Three months h.l.) JAMES LETMORE, a labourer, aged 35, was charged with stealing a duck and a drake, the property of William Timmins at Penryn, on the 6th September.—Mr. Commins conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—The prosecutor is an innkeeper, keeping the Dolphin inn, in St. Gluvias-street, Penryn; and the robbery was alleged to have been effected from a closed brewhouse in Mr. Timmins’s yard, about ten o'clock in the evening, after the prisoner had been drinking in the inn with other men; and the question was mainly as to the prisoner's identity. The evidence in the case was given by the prosecutor, by his servant Grace Johnson, his son Alfred James Timmins, and police constable White.—Verdict, GUILTY.—A previous conviction was proved against the prisoner; in April 1860 at the Bodmin Sessions he was convicted and sentenced to four months hard labour for stealing a silver watch and metal guard chain from Richard Clements, at Sheviock; he was then convicted under the name of James Williams. (Sentence: 8 months h.l.) THOMAS WILLEY, a sawyer, aged 23, was indicted for wilfully and indecently assaulting Eliza Coad, wife of Richard Coad, of Kenwyn, on the 5th of August. There were three counts in the indictment; the first charged indecent assault; the second, aggravated assault; and the third a common assault.—-Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Marrack the defence.—The prosecutrix, a feeble looking little woman, more than 50 years of age, lived with her husband at Newbridge in the district of Baldhu, about two miles from Truro; and the prisoner was a near neighbour whom she had known for some years, and who was in the habit of coming to her house very frequently, courting her daughter.—According to her evidence, on Tuesday, the 5th of August she was at Truro on business, and went to the Western Inn in the afternoon with a niece, and had a pennyworth of beer; Willey was there when they went in. She left to go home, about four o'clock, accompanied by her niece as far as Higher Town, and by the prisoner, who offered to go with her, calling her mother. When they got to Higher Town, she met her daughter who had come to meet her and who began to scold her for having stopped so long. The prosecutrix then went down Higher Town lane, by which she might go to her home, and the prisoner went on with her. They went on comfortably for about a quarter of a mile; and then the prisoner said, what's your hurry, Mrs. Coad? Why don't you sit down a bit? She refused, and said she would go home, or her daughter would be home before her. He then put his arm around her waist and pulled her down; and both in Higher Town Lane, and afterwards in Deadman Lane, he struck her down violently with his fist, repeatedly, on her refusing to comply with his desires; and at length struck her senseless, after she had screamed murder and cried for help. This occurred mostly in Deadman Lane. When she came to her senses, her husband and little boy had arrived ; the prisoner being in the act of striking her again, when he was prevented by her husband. It appeared that the prisoner was very drunk, and that the prosecutrix was at least worse for liquor; which she accounted for by stating that the little beer she had taken was on a leary stomach; but, on cross-examination, she admitted she had taken a little spirit at Higher Town.—Much of the evidence is of course unsuitable for publication.—Evidence corroborative of that given by the prosecutrix, as to the circumstances in the lanes, was given by two lads named John Ferrell and James Dunstan, and by William Hunt, a miner working in Sparnon Tunnel; (the prisoner also working on the railway), and by Richard Coad, husband of the prosecutrix.— P.C. William Green, who went to the house of the prosecutrix on the 6th of August, bore testimony to her having evidently been very ill-used, and produced her shawl and dress, with marks of blood on both. —Superintendent Complin, on the 6th of August, went with Richard Coad, to Deadman Lane, and there saw a pool of blood 9 inches by 6 inches; and after that went to Coad's house, and there received from the prosecutrix the bonnet which she had worn the previous day, and which he now produced with mud and blood on it,—the position of the blood corresponding with a wound on her head. Mr. MARRACK ably addressed the jury for the defence, admitting that the prisoner had been guilty of an assault, but not of indecent or aggravated assault. The CHAIRMAN summed up with his usual care; and the jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned a verdict, Guilty of an Aggravated Assault. —The same prisoner was indicted for assaulting Richard Coad, the husband of the prosecutrix in the last case. Under the advice of Mr. Marrack, he withdrew his plea of not guilty, and pleaded Guilty of a Common Assault. (Sentence: 3 months and then 15 months h.l.) THOMAS ROBERTS, a miner, aged 17, was charged with assaulting Susan Ham, with intent to ravish her, at St. Ive.—Mr. Jenkin, of Penryn, conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes defended the prisoner.—The prosecutrix, about 16 years old, lived with her father at Bodmin-land, in the parish of St. lve, and about 8 o'clock in the evening of the 6th of October she was sent by her mother to a shop; on her return through a lane to her house she saw the prisoner sitting against a hedge; he came towards her and after speaking to her, committed (according to the girl's evidence) the offence alleged. Subsequently, when charged by the Police Constable he denied having seen her during the evening; and afterwards offered something to the father of the prosecutrix to make it up.—Evidence corroborative of statements by prosecutrix was given by residents at Bodmin-land—William Browning, Catherine West, wife of Philip West, and Elizabeth Jane Symons; and evidence of the prisoner's attempt to get the matter compromised, was given by Police Constable Coppin.—For the defence Mr. Stokes admitted the common assault, but urged that there was no sufficient proof of the more serious charge.—Verdict, Guilty of Common Assault. (Sentence: Six months h.l.) A ST. AGNES CASE.—CALEB JAMES, a cutler, aged 26, and SIMON ESLICK, also a cutler, aged 37, were charged with unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, the sum of one shilling from Mary Ann Blight, at St. Agnes, on the 27th of August, with to cheat and defraud her of the same. Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cornish the defence.—The case was a very peculiar one, as will be seen from the following evidence.—Mary Ann Blight:—I keep shop St. Agnes. In August last, the two prisoners came together to my shop; James came inside, and the other stood outside the door. James asked me if I had anything to do in their way; I told them nothing. James then asked me if would let them see my scale and beams; I told them no, for [ believed they were all right. James said, open the door at once and let me see them at once. Eslick was within hearing; he called out to me and said I had better open the door, for this man was sent out by Mr. Nash to inspect my beams and scales. I then looked out upon Eslick and said if that is the case you shall go in; I let James into the shop, and the other gentleman (laughter) stood outside the shop-hatch. Eslick called out to me that I had better deal favourably with his master, for he had power to fine me very heavily—£2 17s. at the least. James then took a paper out of his pocket and said "there's £2 17s. for you to pay at the least." James said he was sent out by the Head Inspector at Truro, Mr. Nash; he then just looked at the beams and scales, and said to me "I'll take a shilling from you, as my servant says he has known you many years." I had never seen either of the men before that time. I said to James "I should like to know your name"; and he said my name is John Wilson; and he also said "I am almost ashamed for the inspector to see the small sum I take from you;” and he desired me to put down 2s. 6d. on the paper. I said I did not believe they had any right to come; but Eslick said they came in disguise for the purpose of catching shopkeepers. I gave the shilling to James. Eslick called to me several times that I must mind and deal favourably with the gentleman, for he was a devil of a fellow—(laughter) and would fine me very heavily.—Cross-Examined. I thought they were policemen; the police come about in such strange ways (laughter). I paid the shilling, because I was overtaken by surprise. They had not looked over my weights, but James just looked at my beams and scales and said £2 17s. was the least I should be fined; I thought they were going to bring me to Court, and wished them not to do so; I told them I had been there 21 years and had never had anything wrong in my shop or business; but as I am a widow with a family, cannot well leave my house, and therefore I did not wish to be taken before a magistrate.—Mr. Cornish:—What did you pay the shilling shilling (sic) for?—Witness—For nothing; James said he did not think there was anything the matter, and as I was a widow he would let me off upon a shilling, and I thought they came with such authority that I must give them a shilling. Mine is a grocery and drapery shop.—Mary Blight, daughter of last witness, generally corroborated her evidence, and added that she asked Eslick how the officer came dressed so mean; and he said “Oh he is come out in disguise to frighten the shop-keepers and had better clothes at home. When my mother asked him his name he said it was John Wilson, and he wrote his name on a piece of paper, with the day of the month. The witness read from a piece of paper:— “John Wilson tried my beam and scales; price 2s. 6d.” (laughter). Eslick said he could not do anything himself, but was paid £1 a week for going with that gentleman (James).—Joseph Bowden, Sergeant of County Police, at St. Agnes:—I apprehended the prisoners on Wednesday the 27th August, and charged them with receiving money under false pretences. Eslick said he did not receive any money, and that he was bound to do as he was ordered. The other prisoner made no answer. I searched them, and found on Eslick a shilling, and on James 1s. 3d. and a copy of his discharge from the 7th Fusiliers.—Henry James Complin: I am the only Inspector of Weights and Measures in the St. Agnes district; and never authorised the prisoners, or either of them, to go to Mrs. Blight’s shop.—Cross-examined: I have inspected Mrs. Blight’s weights and measures at her shop; but I believe I have been there twice. If I had found anything wrong there, I should not have charged her there, but should have summoned her.—William Joseph Nash (designated by Mr. Stokes “the terror of Truro”) deposed that he was inspector of police at Truro; he knew the prisoners, but never authorised either of them, or any other individual, to act as Inspector of weights and measures at St. Agnes. Witness had no authority out of Truro. Mr. CORNISH to the Jury argued that according to the Indictment the false pretence alleged was that Caleb James was authorised by Mr. Nash, the head Inspector at Truro, to inspect Mrs. Blight’s beams and scales; and it was by means of such false pretence alone, according to the indictment, that James and Eslick obtained from Mrs. Blight the sum of 1s. But, according to Mrs. Blight’s evidence, she paid the 1s., not because of this statement about Mr. Nash, but because she believed that she should thus escape being summoned before the magistrates. Mrs. Blight could not, in fact, have been misled by any such statement about Mr. Nash, because she well knew that Mr. Complin was the proper officer to inspect the weights and measures. Mr. Cornish urged therefore that on the present indictment, the Jury could not find the prisoners guilty.—The learned CHAIRMAN, in summing up, directed the Jury that if they believed Mrs. Blight parted with her money because these persons came and represented to her that they were police officers sent by Mr. Nash of Truro, it would be sufficient to satisfy the indictment, as to the alleged fals pretence.—The Jury returned a verdict Both Guilty. CALEB JAMES was again indicted for unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, the sum of 1s 2d. from Jane Tyzzer, the property of her master, William Tremewan, at St. Agnes, on the 27th of August, with intent cheat and defraud them of the same.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was not defended.—Jane Tyzzer deposed:—I am an assistant with Mr. Tremewan, grocer and draper, at St. Agnes. In August last, I saw the prisoner James at the shop; he came in and said he was sent by Mr. Nash of Truro, to inspect the beams and scales, and he ordered me to take out the weights that he might see if they were all right. He inquired for my master, and I said he was not at home. He then asked me my name, and I told him, and asked him his name. He turned round and swore, and said “pass me your book.” I did so. I said “what is your name?” and he replied Caleb James. I gave him pen and ink, and he pretended to write his name. I said “this is strange writing.” He said “Oh, that’s Caleb James in short hand” (laughter).—(The scrap of paper was exhibited and it contained an unintelligible scrawl. He then said “I shall fine Mr. Tremewan £2 5s. 0d.” I asked him his authority; and he produced a paper from his pocket, but would not let me have it; I should know it if I were to see it again.—(Mr. STOKES here handed a paper to witness, which she identified as the one shown her; it proved to be a copy of a discharge from the 7th Fusiliers, underneath which was written a petition for aid in procuring a hawker’s license). He said he was going all through Cornwall, authorized by Mr. Nash of Truro; and that he was at Mount Hawke the day before and obtained 10s. from a woman, who also took him round the neck and kissed him (laughter). I said “I shall not do that, at any rate (laughter). I asked him “where is your uniform? The police generally wear uniform.” He said “Oh, I am come out in disguise.” He said to me “if you let me have 5s., I will let you off.”—I said “that’s too hard.” He then said he would take 2s. 6d.., and on my refusing that, he said he would take 1s. 6d. I still refused; but at last, to get rid of him, I gave him 1s. 2d., and said “there, go along about your business;” and he took it up and went away. I then sent for the Police.—After he had got outside he swore to me; and the other man came along and asked him if he had been in there; and James replied: Yes, tis all right.”—The CHAIRMAN to witness:—What made you part with the money?”—Witness:—“I gave it to get rid of him.”—The CHAIRMAN:—“Then you did not give it because he said he came from Mr. Nash?”—Witness:—“No, I certainly did not.” The CHAIRMAN on this remarked that on this evidence the prisoner could not be found guilty on this indictment, and he directed a Verdict of Acquittal.—During the trial, the CHAIRMAN remarked that this and the preceding case did not prove much for the intelligence of St. Agnes (laughter). (Sentences: Each six weeks h.l.) JOSEPH FREEMAN, a labourer, aged 21, was charged with carnally knowing and abusing Elizabeth Jane Hooper, she being a girl above the age of ten years and under the age of 12 years, to wit, of the age of ten years and about 4 months, at Tregantle in the parish of Antony, on the3 1st of August. Mr. Commins conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—The details of this painful case are wholly unfit for publication.—The jury found a verdict: Guilty of wilfully and Carnally Knowing.” (Sentence: 18 months h.l.) The Court then rose. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16TH. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) APPEALS. EDWARD CHIKGWIN, appellant; advocate—Mr. Stokes The MAYOR and JUSTICES of PENZANCE, respondents ; advocate—Mr. Cornish. This was an appeal against the refusal of the Mayor and Justices of the borough Penzance, to grant the appellant a license as a licensed victualler. Mr. Stokes said that the notice of appeal and the notice the appellant's intention to apply to the Justices were, he believed, admitted. Mr. CORNISH said that he admitted the service of the latter document as endorsed, but he did not admit the notice itself. Mr. STOKES believed that the notice was perfectly correct, but even supposing that this was not the case, he submitted that a notice was perfectly superfluous in this case. He should prove that the notice was properly served on the persons whose names were endorsed on it, and under these circumstances, he should like his friend to state what his objection to the notice really was. Mr. CORNISH said that he did not think he could do so until the facts came out. His opinion was that the notice would prove to be bad on the facts. Mr. STOKES said:—That being so, he should at once go into the case. He called Edward Chirgwin, the appellant, who stated that his signature was attached to the notice. He now resided at the Seven Stars Inn, in Penzance, the house for which he had applied for a license, and had done so for 14 weeks. In answer to Mr. Cornish, the appellant stated that prior to these 14 weeks, he was a fish broker and merchant, and he had never occupied a public house or inn before he took the Seven Stars. By Mr. Stokes—I took the house from the landlord, but the business of a licensed victualler was carried on in it after I took it. Mr. CORNISH said his objection was that before any person could apply for a licence for a public house, or the transfer of a license to himself, he was bound to serve notice of his intention on the justices six days before the licensing day, and the form of such notice was specified by the Act of Parliament. Among other things it required that he should set forth his trade or calling for six months previous to the date of the notice; and the court would see that it was important this should be complied with, in order that the justices might be afforded an opportunity of inquiring into the applicant's character, and of ascertaining if he was a proper person to be entrusted with a license. In the notice to the justices the appellant described himself as a publican, whereas according to his evidence which they had just heard, he was a fish broker until 14 weeks ago, and that he never carried on a public-house until he took the Seven Stars. He submitted, therefore, that the notice was bad on the face of it, and that the appellant had no locus standi in that court. Mr. STOKES did not know exactly for whom his friend, Mr. Cornish, appeared, but whoever they were, he certainly thought that this was not an objection that ought to have been taken. He submitted that the notice in question was entirely unnecessary in the present instance—that it was only required to be given in a case where an application was to be made for a license for a new house, but the Act of Parliament expressly exempted houses that had been licensed. The Seven Stars had been an inn for many years and the appellant succeeded the previous occupier, and this notice was perfectly supererogatory, and it had only been given as a matter of extreme caution. Mr. CORNISH said the fact was that the house had been licensed for many years, but the tenant neglected to apply for a renewal of the license at the annual licensing day, and of course he forfeited his licence. The application afterwards by the appellant might in fact be considered as a new application, and he was bound to give the six days' notice. The CHAIRMAN said that he differed from Mr. Cornish, as it appeared to him that the words of the Act relating to this preliminary notice applied to houses which had not been previously licensed. Mr. STOKES, in stating the reasons why a license should be granted to the Seven Stars, said that the borough of Penzance now contained about 10,00 inhabitants, and there could be no doubt that, from the returns of the Market Quay dues, it was a place of considerable commercial importance, and that its trade and commerce was rapidly increasing; for it appeared from the corporation returns that these dues had within the last few days let for more than £1000 above the sum previously given for them. At this port, with its rapidly increasing trade, there were only 25 licensed houses, whereas in Truro, which was not much larger, there were no less than 40 licensed houses. He mentioned this fact to show the need there was in Penzance for such a house as this. Mr. CORNISH wished it to be understood that he did not object to the house being licensed, as he thought it was a very proper house for an inn; but he objected to Mr. Chirgwin being entrusted with a licence, as he did not consider him the man to keep such an inn. Mr. STOKES said that some time ago, the appellant certainly got into difficulties and became a bankrupt, but he was unopposed by any creditor, and obtained his discharge, and it was rather an ungracious thing to say that because a man had been unfortunate in business, he was not a fit person to be entrusted with a licence. He was, however, now well off in the world as to be able to take the house in question at £55 a year, and he thought the fact of the landlord feeling no doubt about his rent afforded satisfactory evidence that he was in a respectable position. His father and father-in-law were both very respectable inhabitants of Penzance, and he should call several respectable witnesses who would satisfy the court as to the appellant's respectability and fitness. He called Edward Chirgwin, who deposed—l live in Penzance; and for some years I carried on the business of a broker in fish there. I was not successful last year, and was obliged to through the bankruptcy court in June last, but I was unopposed. My father is a market gardener, as large as any one in the neighbourhood. It is one of the most important businesses in Penzance. My father-in-law is a superannuated coast guard. I took the Seven Stars from Mr. Polkinghorne, the brewer, in June last, at the rent of £55 a-year. It contains 15 rooms, and it has been an inn ever since I knew it, having been occupied by persons of great respectability. I am a native of Penzance, am married, and have a family. With the aid of my friends, I have the means of carrying on the house, supposing I obtain the license. I have, with the aid of my father and father-in-law, purchased furniture for the house, for which £173 3s. been paid. Cross-examined—I went into the house on the 14th July, and in about a fortnight after I applied to the magistrates for a license, which they refused to grant me at present. Mr. Mathews, Mr. Boase, and Mr. Higgs were the magistrates on the bench at the time; and on my second application, the magistrates were Mr. Mathews, Mr. Boase, and Mr. Batten. Neither my father nor father-in-law have become responsible for the rent, but my father has given a bond to Mr. Polkinghorne for £100, as security for the spirits, &c., I may want in the house. I am bound to take my beer and spirits from Mr. Polkinghorne. I passed the bankruptcy court in June. I cannot say whether my estate has paid any dividend; I was told two months ago that it would pay something. I cannot say what dividend there will be. I gave up everything to the Official Assignee, but I cannot tell what. I gave up my horses and cart, and all the money I had, three sovereigns, for my creditors. For some time before my bankruptcy I was in pecuniary difficulties. Four years ago I was convicted before one of the western bench of magistrates, and had to pay a penalty, but the information in that case was laid for the purpose of extorting the penalty. It was for taking shingle from the foreshore. I was in a good position until I went to Yorkshire last year, and trusted some parties there, who failed to pay me what they owed me. I was never before the magistrates for an assault. Re-examined—The taking of shingle from the beach has been going on till the present day. Gentlemen's servants are taking it for their masters’ gardens. The information was laid against me by an informer that he might get half the penalty. My failure was entirely owing to the failure of some parties in the North, who owed me money for fish. Mr. Robert Bilkey deposed that he lived in the parish of Ludgvan, and was a farmer. He knew the Seven Stars, and also Mr. Chirgwin, and had done so for the last 25 years. He carried on an extensive business as a fish broker for several years, and was now carrying on that business. In his judgment Mr. Chirgwin was a fit person to be entrusted with a license for the house in question. Had had extensive dealings with him, and always found him an honourable and respectable man. His father and father-in-law were both highly respectable men. Mr. CORNISH said he admitted that they were both highly respectable. Mr. Wm. Tonkin, of Newlyn, deposed that though he was not now engaged in any business, he was still interested in seining. Had known the appellant since he was a child. He had carried on an extensive business in fish, and had on several occasions had fish from witness for which he had always paid him. Knew the Seven Stars, and believed that Mr. Chirgwin was a fit person to carry on an extensive hotel. His wife was fit to go into any hotel in the kingdom. Mr. William Charles Albert Wildman, reporter and editor of the Cornish Telegraph, deposed that he had known the Seven Stars during the time he had resided in Penzance (12 years) and it had always borne the character of a well-conducted and respectable house. He knew Mr. Chirgwin, and he believed him to be a person well qualified to conduct such a house. Mr. CORNISH then addressed the court for the respondents. In reference to the remark of Mr. Stokes that he did not know for whom he appeared, he begged to state that he appeared for the magistrates of Penzance, and them only. He wished also to explain that by a clause in the charter granted to Penzance, the county justices were excluded from any interference with the business of that borough; and all appeals from the decisions of the borough justices were to the Recorder; but by the accident of that gentleman being prohibited by the 1st section of Geo. R, chap. 61, which gave power to the justices of a county to grant licenses to such persons as they might think fit, the present appeal came to the Quarter Sessions. He called upon the court to recollect that this was an appeal from the Justices of Penzance, who were charged with the peace of the borough, and most deeply interested in its well-being and prosperity, to those magistrates who could have no interest in the matter beyond that which they felt for the general welfare of the county. It was taking the case out of the hands of the magistrates who lived on the spot, who knew the house in question and Mr. Chirgwin, and asking the court to say, by their decision, that they had exercised improperly the power which was entrusted to them. The Act of Parliament gave the justices power to grant a license to any one applying to them, after certain things had been done, whom they should in their discretion, deem to be a fit and proper person; and his whole argument in support of their decision rested on the words " in their discretion." The respondents did not say that the house was not a proper one to be licensed, but they said that they had in the exercise of that discretion which the Act of Parliament gave to them, refused a license to Mr. Chirgwin, and he now said that that the exercise had not been such as to call on the court to interfere and reverse their decision. In order to show that this discretion had been always recognised by the judges, he referred to several cases The first was that of the "King v. the Justices of Reading,” in which it was decided that there was no appeal from the decision of the justices, even though, in the exercise of their discretion, they had made a mistake. The second case was that of the "King v. the Licensing Justices of Farringdon," in which it was decided that the discretion of the justices could not be interfered with, if reasonably exercised. The third case was that of the "Queen v. Sylvester," Law Journal reports, in which it was laid down that although, under the 9th Geo. 4, c. 61, Justices have a discretion as to whether they will grant licenses to persons occupying or about to occupy inns and victualling houses, &c., that discretion must be exercised in a reasonable manner.; and Justices could, by a general resolution, determine not to renew the licenses of all such persons who shall not consent to take out an extra(?) license for the sale of spirits, in addition to the license for the sale of beer. The appellant had applied twice to the magistrates, and been refused on both occasions, the gentlemen thus refusing comprising four out of the five magistrates who attended on the borough bench. Mr. STOKES—I think you will find that they were divided in opinion, and that two of the borough magistrates were in favour of granting the license. Mr. CORNISH denied that this was so. The fact was unquestioned that the magistrates refused the license; and that being so, the only question was whether they had done so unreasonably. Mr. Chirgwin had proved that a short time ago he was in difficulties, that became a bankrupt and had not paid a dividend to his creditors, that his father had become security for the payment of the spirits he might require, and that, having no means himself, his father and father-in-law had paid for the furniture in the house; all that his witnesses had done was to state that, in their opinion, he was a fit person to keep this house; but the bench of magistrates, all of whom were resident in the town, had twice decided, after mature deliberation, that he was not such a person as ought to have a license to conduct a public-house, and their opinion was entitled to greater weight than that of the witnesses who had been called. There was nothing to show that the magistrates had exercised their power unreasonably, and he submitted that the case was not one which called on the court to comply with the application of the appellant to reverse the decision to which they had twice deliberately come in the discharge of their proper and legitimate duties. The CHAIRMAN and the other magistrates on the bench then retired for a short time, and on their return, the Chairman said the court was of opinion that the license should be granted. APPEAL AGAINST THE COUNTY RATE. EAST LOOE, appellants; advocate, Mr. Childs. THE JUSTICES OF CORNWALL, respondents; advocate, Mr. Henry Shilson. Mr. CHILDS said that this was an appeal of the borough of East Looe against the assessment to the county rate; and the case had been brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, which had decided that the borough was exempt from the payment of all county rates. That being so, the question was whether the court would amend the rate, or strike East Looe out of it altogether? Mr. SAWLE thought the best way would be for the court to amend the rate, just in the same way as if the case had been heard before them, and they had decided in favour of the appellants. Mr. CHILDS said that the appeal was against the rateability of East Looe to the county rate, but the Deputy Clerk of the Peace was of opinion that the decision did not affect the police rate. Mr. SAWLE said that there were two distinct rates—the county rate for general purposes, from which the borough of East Looe, by the decision of the Queen's Bench, was exempt, and the police rate; and as that borough enjoyed the benefit of the police, the latter rate was a very different affair. There was the case of Saltash, which was exactly similar. Mr. CHILDS said that he mentioned the matter, because he understood the police had been acting in the borough, and he considered that as a matter of fairness and good faith, they should pay the police rate up to the present time. It was a question for East Looe to determine whether they would in future refuse to pay the police rate, but if they did, they would have to revert to their local police. Mr. HENRY SHILSON thought there was a case which showed that the decision of the superior court, exempting a borough from payment of the county rate, did not exempt the inhabitants from the police rate. Mr. COMMINS moved that the appeals of the Cornwall Railway Company against the poor rate assessments for the parishes of St. Germans, Landrake and St. Erney, Menheniot, and Liskeard, which have been adjourned for several sessions, be still further adjourned till the next quarter sessions. Mr. CHILDS said that after what had passed between Mr. Smith and himself on this subject, he should not oppose the motion, upon the understanding that the cases were to be decided before the next sessions. The CHAIRMAN—Then the appeals are adjourned with the distinct understanding that they will be disposed of between this and the Epiphany Sessions. DISPUTED SETTLEMENT. ST. MARTIN in MENEAGE, appellants; advocate—Mr. Stokes. GWINEAR, respondents; advocates—Mr. Childs and Mr. Cornish. This was an appeal against the order of C.A. Reynolds, Esq., and John Haye, Esq. two of the county magistrates, for the removal of a pauper named Mary Trewin and her three children from the parish of Gwinear to that of St. Martin in Meneage. It appeared that the husband of the pauper had been confined in the county gaol, and during this period she became chargeable to the parish of Gwinear, in which they had been residing. The only question was as to the birth settlement of the husband—whether he was born in St. Martin or not. Evidence was then given by the respondents, showing that the father of Thomas Trewin, the husband, lived from shortly after his marriage till his death, in St. Martin's, that all his children were born in that parish, and the baptismal registers of five of them were produced showing that they had been baptized at the parish church. With respect, however, to Thomas Trewin, no such register could found, but this was accounted for by the fact that the register at one period was very imperfectly kept by the parish clerk. Mr. STOKES, at the conclusion of the respondent's case, said that could not contradict the evidence which had been given, and all he should say was that his clients had been misled by finding that there was no evidence of the baptism of Thos. Trewin in the parish register. Order of removal confirmed, the court allowing the respondents £15 costs. ANOTHER LICENSING APPEAL. ROBERT GRANVILLE, appellant; advocates— Mr. Childs and Mr. Rundle. THE JUSTICES OF SALTASH, respondents ;—advocates—Mr. Stokes and Mr. Cleverton. This was an appeal against the decision of the justices of Saltash refusing at their last licensing meeting to grant a license to a house belonging to the appellant, in that borough. After the case had been opened, Mr. Stokes asked for the production of the preliminary notice of the intended application for the license, and this not being forthcoming, the Court held that the case could not be proceeded with in the absence of that document, but in order that the appeal might not be a technical objection, they adjourned the case till next sessions, subject to the payment of the costs of the day. SECOND COURT. (Before C. B. G. Sawle, Esq.) JOHN WARRICK, WILLIAM BRAY, WILLIAM GRAY, and WALTER BATE, four strong-looking young men, were charged with assaulting John Bishop Cole, a police constable, while on duty at Calstock. Mr. Commins prosecuted, and Mr. Childs defended. The prosecutor stated that on the 16th of August, about half-past 12 o’clock at night, he saw the prisoners at Calstock. They were using bad language, and he went up and put his hand gently upon Warrick's shoulder, and said it was time for them to go home. Warrick turned round and struck him, and on his going to repeat the blow, he (prosecutor) drew his staff and struck him with it. He struck him several times in all, and attempted to draw him into the Commercial Inn, which was close by. The other prisoners interfered, and liberated Warrick, and some one threw a pail of dirty water —which was in the neighbourhood—over the policeman, to his great discomfort and annoyance. They lay in ambush for him, and on his coming out threw a volley of stones at him, one of them saying that he would murder the b—. He managed at last to get home safe, but his hat was knocked off in the struggle; and when he found it again it was anything but improved in appearance.—Mary Beazeley, servant at the Commercial Hotel, swore she saw the prosecutor go up to Warrick with his staff in his hand behind his back, and hit Warrick several times in what she thought a very cowardly manner.—The jury, after a very long deliberation, returned a verdict of not guilty. This concluded the business of the sessions, and the court rose. ______CORNWALL COUNTY GAOL. The following Reports were presented at the Cornwall Michaelmas Sessions:— CHAPLAIN'S ANNUAL REPORT. To the Worshipful the Chairman and other Magistrates in Quarter Session assembled. My Lords and Gentlemen, l have the honour to lay before you my usual annual Report of the moral and religious condition and instruction of the prisoners. The class prisoners admitted to your jail during the past twelvemonths differs, with but few exceptions, in so slight a degree from that of former years, as to be undeserving of any special notice. The great majority have had more or less of elementary instruction, but nothing worthy the name of education, secular, or religious. In almost all cases, however, the radical defect has been the want of good home teaching and example. Every day's experience increases my conviction that no deficiency in mere educational acquirements, is sufficient of itself to account for the commission of crime. A careful investigation of the subject rather, I think, tends to show that as a general rule, crime the result a wrong moral habit in the criminal dating back to the period of his bringing up. Circumstances of great temptation may sometimes overpower good principles, and lead to crime, but I find that such cases are the very rare exceptions. On this account the task of reclaiming adult criminals, is one of extreme difficulty—and this difficulty is increased a thousandfold by the prevalence of intemperance among the lower orders, and the facilities which are everywhere afforded them of procuring intoxicating drinks. The discharged prisoner is, for obvious reasons, peculiarly exposed to this ensnaring and demoralizing vice—and the consequence is, that the benefits accruing to him from the improved system of discipline introduced into your jail, are in danger being neutralized and lost. The recommitments tell their own painful tale, and force the subject of the prisoner's temptations after his discharge strongly on our attention. It is true the recommitments this year show a slight decrease as compared with those of last year. But they are still so numerous, that doubts would naturally suggest themselves respecting the superiority of the present system over that which it has replaced, were it not that the good effects of the present system are, I think, unquestionable, as evinced by the marked decrease of punishments, and improved behaviour of the prisoners. What, my Lords and gentlemen, seems to me to be our great desideratum, is, some means of lessening the enormous evil without, to which I have alluded. Could this be done to any real extent, you might, I confidently believe, speedily look for a considerable diminution of every species of crime, and a less serious catalogue of recommitments. The case of juvenile offenders must always be one of considerable anxiety to the Chaplains of a jail. And I trust the Court will permit me to express my sentiments upon it without reserve. Some 30 or 40 have been committed during the year, and though every pains has been taken with a view to their improvement, the result, to my mind, has not been satisfactory. Indeed it becomes more and more evident to me, that there is only one case in which imprisonment in gaol, as a reformatory punishment, is likely to be of the least service to the young offender. When he has been tolerably well brought up, and the offence a first one, and not the manifest result of habits of vice, then a short imprisonment may possibly be of use; but when the parentage is bad, the child's bringing up vicious, and crime the result of its ill-nurture, the case can only, I believe, be dealt with by a Reformatory with any hopes of success. The great value of those institutions is, that they go to the root of the evil, giving the child a kind of second home training, corrective of the first. Combining in some sort the prison, the school, and the home, they seek to undo the evil of a vicious education, and recast the child in a better mould. Hence the practice of not sending children to Reformatories for first offences, irrespective of their parentage, bringing up, and habits of life, is, I would respectfully submit to the Court, a very serious mistake. Besides, the Court will see that it does not at all follow that because a child has been committed to gaol for the first time it is, therefore, his first offence. On the contrary, the court will perhaps agree with me in thinking, that the natural reluctance which may be presumed to exist to sending children to gaol at all, rather suggests that when this extreme measure is resorted to, it is as a last resource, and because the child is addicted to criminal practices; and if this be so, I would venture to recommend that such children should sent to a reformatory rather than to jail, as being more likely to promote their Reformation. My own ministrations within the gaol, as well as the business of the school, have been conducted much as heretofore, and I trust not without some little benefit to the prisoners. The better disposed among them have thankfully availed themselves of the opportunity of receiving religious and secular instruction; and some have made satisfactory progress in the latter, thanks to the unremitting attention of the schoolmaster to his duties. The publicity which was given at the time to all that related to the unhappy man who was lately executed for murder, renders it unnecessary for me to say much in this report. It will perhaps be sufficient, if I state, that a sadder instance of moral and religious deadness as the effect of a friendless and neglected youth, it is scarcely possible to conceive—yet he confessed at last the entire justice of his sentence, and expressed in a spirit, I would hope of something like penitence, his willingness to lay down his life for that which he had taken. Since the opening of the House of Mercy several female prisoners have sought its shelter; and while some have fallen back, others I am thankful to say continue steadfast, and seem likely to do well. One young woman who after having been seven times in gaol, was sent to a Penitentiary and afterwards lived in respectable service, has since died of consumption, and, I am assured, a true penitent. I have the honour to be, my Lords and Gentlemen, Your faithful servant, W. F. EVEREST. Bodmin, Oct. 14, 1862. ______SURGEON'S ANNUAL REPORT. To the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Sir, In making the usual report of the number of cases of sickness in the Cornwall County Gaol, during the year ending September 29th, 1862, it affords me much satisfaction to be enabled to state that they are less in number than in the preceding year by twenty four. During the whole of this period, the sanitary condition of the gaol has been highly satisfactory, and I am happy to add that it still continues to be so. The appended statement will show that one insane man has been transferred to the Lunatic Asylum; and no death has occurred. I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, JOHN WARD, Surgeon, Cornwall County Gaol. Gaol, October 13, 1862. ______

Cases of Sickness for the Year ending 29th September, 1862. Greatest No. Infirmary Slight Total No. of sick at one Deaths. Insanity. cases. indisposition Of cases. time. Both Sexes. M. F. M. F. M. F. M. F. M. F. 0 0 0 1 0 74 23 1 0 76 23

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